REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills-Mr. Raymond.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twelfth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills the additional fee levied and paid under Rule 89, subsections 3 (c) and 8, on Bill No. 216 for the relief of Edna Fox, be refunded.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: Once more before the end of the session I shall have to direct the attention of the House to this continual practice of the remission of fees. We meet here, give these applicants legislation and legal advice, take up the t:me of the House, and end up by remitting the fees. 1 think some day we will have to determine how soon it is going to stop.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: The sooner divorce proceedings are taken away from this House the better for Canada. It is a scandal and a reflection on the House that the time of the parliament of Canada should be taken up with divorce cases, at a great expense to the country, when that business Should be transferred to another place and be handled in a better way than before parliament.
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): Nobody's time ought to be taken up with it.
Motion agreed to on division.

Refunding of Additional Charges


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twelfth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills the additional fees levied and paid under Rule 89, subsections 3 (c) -and 8, on Bills Nos. 212, and 228 be refunded.


James Alexander Robb: The same objection. I direct your attention to the fact that the recommendations of the committee involve over a thousand dollars.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: If the government objects, why does it not give effect to its policy?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is quite right. I believe he would support me in this matter, but we must determine on some occasion at the beginning of the session and make it even for everybody.


Arthur Meighen: Why not start when we make the objection?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Perhaps when the rules are revised this will not happen.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): I will oppose the motion unless reason is given why the money should be refunded. This has been done more than once and I have never opposed it, but when an hon. member rises and asks that fees in certain cases be remitted, without any reason whatever, I think I should oppose it.


Hewitt Bostock: I might remind the hon. gentleman that the motion states that it is on the recommendation of the committee.


Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):: The matter came before the committee with reference to these bills and the committee recommended that fees should be refunded. It has been the custom and I think has been carried out without exception, to refund these fees. Without explaining the matter in detail, I think it is pretty generally understood that it is not owing to any fault of the parties that this procedure has been rendered necessary, but rather ' owing to the peculiar method of procedure that sometimes causes these fines to be exacted, that they have to put up money in order to get their case before parliament before prorogation. Certain dates are fixed for the presentation of such bills, and the expiry of the time rendered this motion necessary. I think petitions have to be presented by the 19th of March. I understand there has never been any exception made to the rule in regard to remitting fees, and therefore the committee made the recommendation to the House.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: These two reasons offered by the hon. member are very good reasons why we should not allow this practice to continue. He saj's the committee has recommended it and also states that it has been customary in the past. Both are very poor reasons. If they are reasons at all they are reasons for putting a stop to this money being expended.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the eleventh report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the additional charge levied and paid under rule 89 subsections 3 (c) and 8, on Bill No. 231 for the relief of Grace Wilhelniina Harrison, be refunded.
He said: I know the facts in connection with this case. These are overcharges for which she was not responsible and she wishes them to be refunded. She is a woman without any money whatever.


James Alexander Robb: Overcharges?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes, extra charges. The ordinary fees have been paid.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twelfth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the additional charges levied and paid under rule 89 subsections 3 (c) and 8, on Bill No. 235, for the relief of James Deverell, and Bill No. 226 for the relief of Mary Ann Tattersall, be both refunded.


James Alexander Robb: Same objection.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: How are these
different from the others? Why should these charges be remitted? There may be some good reasons, and if so I will be glad to support the motion.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should be very glad to have the influential support of my hon. friend, and I think I shall get it before this motion is put. These are fines simply because the petitions are not presented within the time specified under the rule; and, following the usual recommendation, as has been done in all these other cases, it is asked that these be refunded.


Jean-Joseph Denis: This is a penalty that, is asked to be remitted?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. D. J. SINCLAIR (North Oxford) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twelfth report of the select standing
German Security Pact

committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the additional charge levied and paid under rule 89 subsections 3 (c) and 8 on Bill No. 236, for the relief of Anita Allcock, be refunded.


James Alexander Robb: Same objection.
Motion agreed to on division.



GERMAN SECURITY PACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) requested a day or two ago that the correspondence relating to the security pact should be laid on the table of the House. Before the request was made, I had communicated with the British government with respect to the correspondence, asking permission to lay on the table such of the correspondence as there might be no objection to disclosing in public. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has advised me that a white paper containing the correspondence on the security pact was published in Great Britain last week, and that it is being sent by mail and should reach Canada by the middle of next week. The British government is of the opinion that it wTould be of advantage if we could arrange to have the whole of this white paper republished in Canada on its arrival; that it would be better to publish leading documents verbatim in Canada rather than have published various telegrams sent during the last two weeks from which communications persons unfamiliar with the subject might find it difficult to gather the present position. The Secretary of State for the Colonies suggests that we might publish at once the original memorandum communicated by the German Ambassador at Paris to the President of the Council on the 9th February and the note from the British government to the German government on the 16th June, the text of both of those documents having been coded yesterday for transmission. I expect that the messages will arrive to-day and if received in time I shall lay them on the table of the House before the House adjourns. These documents are respectively the first and the last in the white paper, the intervening documents being concerned with communications between the French and British governments regarding the terms of the French reply, the gist of which we have had by telegram. I might say to my right hon. friend that I can appreciate the reasons why the British government would prefer to have copies of the same document laid on the table at Westminster and the table here rather than the telegraphic despatches which have passed to and fro, and which as this message, the contents of which

I have just indicated to the House, states, are but summaries and the gist of the main communications. Let me add, that I would be glad, if my right hon. friend or the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) should wish to see the entire file of the confidential correspondence, to place it at their disposal in the interval.



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Irvine: In view of the fact that the Senate has changed entirely the principle of the measure providing for the reimbursement of Home Bank depositors and otherwise mutilated the bill, is it the intention of the government to bring in a supplementary estimate for an amount to carry out the expressed will of parliament?


James Alexander Robb: The matter will be considered when
we reach the item on the order paper.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The explanation is quite apparent. What has evidently happened has been that one department of the government, the Department of Trade and Commerce, has sent such information as it has had to the Department of the Secretary of State-which' department assembles all the information- and the remaining information has not as yet been sent in. It would appear that in order to get the return down as speedily as possible, it has been submitted in this imperfect form. I agree with my right hon. friend that the return is not complete; it might have been held until the full information was available.


Arthur Meighen: Between June 8 and June 27 there should be plenty of time to get all this information, which could have been secured in an hour. There is a long series of orders to which no return at all has been made, but I shall refer only to some moved for on this side of the House. There is still unanswered a motion of the 'hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) of March 2, referring to the duties paid by the American railway companies on American rolling stock used in Canada. Why it should be difficult to obtain the information in regard to this question I do not know; it would be all in the Customs department and no great delay would be necessary. There is another by the member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) on March 9 asking for the number of motor cars purchased by the government since January 1, 1912, make of same, total price paid for each, and so on; another by the horn, member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Doucet), on March 16-over two months ago-asking for correspondence between the Department of Marine and others regarding services rendered in saving lives by Tiburce Mallet of Ste. Marie, Shippigan Islands, New Brunswick; another by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre on March 30, for a copy of correspondence passing between the Department of National Defence or the Department of Justice and the Canadian Coal Sales Company, Limited; another by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black), for a copy of all correspondence, reports, documents and so forth, between the Department of Justice and any other departments relating to the appointment of an inspector of penitentiaries; another by the hon. member for Vancouver
Centre, on April 22, for a copy of all correspondence and documents between the governments of Roumania and Greece and the government of Canada, or the High Commissioner or any other person representing Canada, regarding the adjustment of outstanding debts; another by the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick, on May 6, asking for correspondence and so forth, relating to an alleged violation of law in regard to intoxicating liquors on the premises of the Franeo-Canadian Import Company; another by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), on May 11, for a copy of all reports with reference to Wrangel island; another by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie), on May 18, for correspondence with regard to storage alcohol in bonded warehouses; another by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black), on May 20, asking for a return showing rate per day paid to certain officers; another by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), on May 25, for correspondence between the government and Sir George Perley regarding Dr. Beland-I believe this last one has been referred to since but no correspondence has been brought down. There are many questions which have been made orders for returns. I believe there is one by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), on June 15; one by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie), on June 15; one by the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick, on June 15; and three by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) on June 17 and 18. These of course are rather recent. I would call attention particularly to those which date back to March, and especially to the first two which are important and in regard to which I can find no excuse at all for the delay in complying with the order of the House.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Among ithe numerous
papers referred to by my right hon. friend I notice that there is one concerning the coal investigation in Winnipeg. Those documents were tabled yesterday. And in order to satisfy the hon. gentleman's eagerness for information I may tel him that so far as the appointment of the inspector of penitentiaries is 'concerned I now have pleasure in laying the papers on the table.



PULPWOOD CONCESSION'S IN MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Can the Minister of the Interior inform the House whether any application has
Pulpwood Concessions

been made for a second pulp mill concession in Manitoba? And does clause 9 of the order in council prevent the establishment of another pulp mill?
lion. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior): We have an application from Mr. Setama.n, of Chicago; as to the second question, clause 9 does not prevent such establishment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is the meaning of clause 9?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: It simply
refers to lake Winnipeg. I shall be glad to discuss the matter with tlhe hon. gentleman on another occasion; it would take too long to go into the whole subject now. We are considering the application of Mr. Seaman at the moment.


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: I have a question similar to that which the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has asked. Does the J. D. McArthur contract in any way tie up all the pulpwood .in Manitoba? If not ,wiffl the minister advise me as to what wood areas are still left open in the province for anyone wishing to establish a mill?


Charles A. Stewart: There is a reservation pending selection north to township 46, west, and west of lake Winnipeg. Apart from that, the Nelson river, the Saskatchewan valley, and the territory north of my hon. friend's constituency is all open for applications from all comers.
EXPORT OF POWER-TAX On the Orders of the Day:


Henry Lumley Drayton: What .progress is the Minister of Trade and Commerce making with reference to the question of municipalities in relation to the tax on (the export of electricity? -Is this inordinate delay for the purpose of working up a defence to what appears to be an absolutely prosper application? If it is, that defence should now be submitted and the matter debated before parliament .prorogues.


Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have nothing more to add to the answer I gave last week. When the session is over we shall be glad to (take up a number Of pressing matters and the one referred to by ,my hon. friend will 'be dealt with then.
CANADA-WEST INDIES CONFERENCE REPRESENTATION OF NEWFOUNDLAND On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Did the government of Newfoundland ask the 
courtesy of representation on the Canada-West Indies Conference, and was that courtesy granted? If not, why, in view of the fact that Newfoundland has such intimate relations with both Canada and the West Indies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A communication was received asking whether it would be convenient for Newfoundland delegates to participate in the conference. For reasons that must be perfectly obvious the government felt that as the conference was between the West Indies and Canada and not between Newfoundland and Canada or Newfoundland and the West Indies it was desirable in every way to restrict the conference to the representatives of the two countries immediately concerned. The government informed the Newfoundland authorities that if in any way we could facilitate any conference between themselves and the West Indies which they might wish to have we should be only too happy to do so. But we intimated that it was doubtful whether it would facilitate the business with which we were immediately concerned i)f a third party were introduced into the conference. There was no discourtesy of any kind. On the contrary, there was every indication of a desire to co-qpenate with our friends of Newfoundland.



CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVE AT WASHINGTON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: A few weeks ago I put some questions on the order paper respecting the proposed appointment of a Canadian envoy to Washington. The Prime Minister asked that the questions should be dropped stating that the matter would be taken up when the estimates were before the House. Unfortunately when these estimates did come before the House I was not here, and I gather that the Prime Minister did not then vouchsafe any information on the question. Might I now ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention during the recess to make the appointment to Washington, or is it intended that it should go over until after the general election?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think it
is unfortunate for my hon. friend that he has to confess he was not here when the matter ,was discussed. It was dealt with very fully when the estimates were taken up, and I intimated to the House at the time that the government had every intention of making this appointment. Some opposition was raised to the proposal, but the House seemed

Canada Grain Act
to approve of the appointment being made, and I hope that shortly after prorogation this may be done.
BANK OF COMMERCE: BANK OF HAMILTON
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: May I ask the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) when we may expect the return ordered on June 9, 1924, of the correspondence that passed between the government and the Bank of Commerce and the Bank of Hamilton regarding the amalgamation of] these two banks?
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of
Finance): I recall that this was passed upon a few days ago and sent over to the department that transmits returns to the House.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 22 consideration in committee of Bill No. 113 respecting grain, as amended-Hon. Mr. Low-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Sections 141 and 142 agreed to.
On section 143-Elevator used exclusively for seed grain. License to operate. Statements.
Arthur Meighen: Why is 143 all underlined? Is it a case of another rejection of a recommendation by the Turgeon commission?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is simply a change suggested by the Department of Agriculture to take care of seed grain.


Arthur Meighen: There was one before.


Mr. CRERAR:: That is subsection 1. Subsection 2 is new.


Arthur Meighen: I guess we have all the
information the government has.


Thomas Andrew Low: Mr. Chairman, there is a typographical error in subsection 1, and I would ask that the word " primarily " in the second line be changed to read " exclusively ". Subsection 2 is simply to allow the pools to operate country elevators for the use of their own members.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Under certain conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 144-Owners and lessees to be licensed. Application for license. Expiry and effect of license. Inspection, Etc.
Arthur Meighen: Was there no provision
for the board to inspect country elevators under the old act?


Thomas Andrew Low: There was no general provision.


Arthur Meighen: What provision was there of any kind?


Thomas Andrew Low: Chief Justice Turgeon thought it was well to insert a clause specifically providing for the inspection of these elevators by the grain board. Heretofore they have been inspected by the board, but without any specific authority.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 145 to 147, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 148-Duties of warehouseman.
Thomas Andrew Low: In subsection (e) at line forty-six there is a slight error. It should read, " inspector's grade and dockage ".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 149 agreed to.
On section 150-Warehouse receipt.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2-Contents of receipt.
Mr. GOULD:: I have an amendment to
submit, as follows:
That subsection 2 of section 150 be amended by striking out all the words in the second paragraph thereof after the word "weights" in line ten up to and including the word "provides" in the twelfth line, and substituting therefor the following words:
"Only when such grain is shipped to a point at which there is no official grading and no official weighing."
The clause as drafted presumes that all grain leaving a country elevator will go to a terminal point or some place where there are official scales and weighing facilities, but such is not the case. A large trade is carried on in the transfer of grain from one point to another, as in the case of feed, seed and various other things of that nature. The clause as drafted makes no provision for that, and I think the amendment would cover it.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sorry that we cannot accept that amendment. The clause has been given a good deal of thought by the committee and should, I think, be adopted. It safeguards the interests of all.


Mr. FORKE:: I want to understand this
paragraph. It says:
Where delivery is made into cars on track at the country elevator the bill of lading: (if issued) and an affidavit of weight shall upon request be delivered by
Canada Grain Act

the country elevator to the owner and thereupon the country elevator shall be relieved from further liability for grades and weights.
Then it says:
Except in so far as the " subject to grade and dockage " ticket otherwise provides.
If the grade and the dockage is stated on the ticket, would the country elevator be liable, and if it is not mentioned on the ticket would all liability cease?


Thomas Andrew Low: The country elevator fills up
a car of wheat as requested by the owner. He is given a grade and he has the right to accept that or reject it. If he wishes to name the elevator to which it shall be shipped he has to assume the responsibility. He may say, "I want that car shipped to Vancouver," but if the country elevator is to be responsible for the grain we feel that it should have some voice as to the elevator in which it is to be placed.


Robert Forke: The country elevator may
ship a car of wheat and give an affidavit that it contains so many hundred bushels, but how does the owner know what sort of wheat is being shipped? What protection has he got?


Thomas Andrew Low: Surely no elevator company
would make an incorrect declaration as to weight. When a miller in eastern Ontario buys a car of grain he accepts the weight of the shipper; it is unloaded at his mill and if he finds a shortage, he files a claim against the railway company. As to grade, under the present system the shipper or the owner of the car has the right to examine the shipment. If he thinks the grade stated by the country elevator is not correct, then he can give instructions that the car be shipped on, but it will have to be shipped on the responsibility of the country elevator; it will be inspected and it will receive the grade that is. declared at the other end.


Mr. LOVIE:: Will the railway company
accept an affidavit from the elevator operator that there are so many bushels in a car and guarantee to settle for that many bushels at the end of the journey?


Thomas Andrew Low: I might cite the experience of
the eastern Ontario millers. When a car comes in with a shortage we file a declaration with the railway company, and when we establish our claim we receive a refund for the amount.


Mr. GARDINER:: How do you establish your claim?


Thomas Andrew Low: Every claim has to be supported by declaration of the person making the claim.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any official
weighmaster who weighs the wheat into the car?


Thomas Andrew Low: The eastern Ontario miller
simply weighs it in himslf, and the man weighing it in makes the declaration for the company.


George Gibson Coote: Is there an official weighmaster who weighs it into the car?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.
Mr, GARDINER: Where do the Ontario millers usually get their wheat from,-the public terminal?


Thomas Andrew Low: From any elevator, from Fort William when it comes by rail, or when lake and rail, from Georgian bay ports.


Robert Gardiner: In that case there would be an official weighmaster who would weigh the wheat into the car?


Thomas Andrew Low: At the head of the lakes only, not at the bay ports such as Goderich and Port McNicoll.


Robert Gardiner: There would be quite a difference between getting wheat from the head of the lakes, and a car of wheat shipped out of a country elevator. You would have the official weighmaster weigh the grain at the head of the lakes, whereas in the case of the country elevator the operator would simply give an affidavit. There would be quite a difference between accepting that affidavit by the railway companies, and the certificate of the official weighmaster at the head of the lakes.


Thomas Andrew Low: A country elevator that made false declarations in regard to weight could not remain in the business. If it were found that anything like this happened once or twice, we would become suspicious, and the Canada Grain Board would investigate the matter at once. I do not think there is the slightest chance of any responsible country elevator making a false declaration as to weight.


George Gibson Coote: What is the present practice under the old act? Does not the elevator company guarantee your weight?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, but it has control of the car right to its destination.


George Gibson Coote: Under the old act. does not the farmer have the right to bill his wheat to any terminal he desires?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I do not pretend to understand all this business the way it is drafted in the act. I do recollect, however.

Canada Grain Act
that the mixers were in the saddle the day this was put in, and because of that I feel like shying away from this a little bit. There is a direct premium here to ship to a mixing elevator, because the weights and grades are guaranteed to anyone who will ship to a mixing elevator. That is a tremendous inducement to ship to a mixing elevator. But there is a proviso just before that, to the effect that weights and grades shall net be guaranteed under certain conditions. I wish somebody would explain this to me. I do not pretend to understand it, but it looks bad to me the way it is.


Mr. BROWN:: They have always been
guaranteed by the public terminal
Mr. MOTHER'WELL: It says:
Should a country elevator on the order of the owner deliver the grain at a private terminal elevator approved by the country elevator, the country elevator shall guarantee the grade and weight.
There is an inducement to any man to ship to these mixing elevators, because he can have his grades and weights guaranteed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is the same if it goes to a public terminal.


Arthur Meighen: Has the m mister turned against mixing since it carried safely last night?


William Richard Motherwell: I have never been in favour of mixing but as I cannot have all my own way in this concern, I try to get as much as I can.


Arthur Meighen: The time to raise a row was last night, not now.


William Richard Motherwell: I ihink mixing will kill itself in time, but in the meantime I want to get as many restrictions thrown around it as possible.


Mr. HOEY:: Are the weights and grades guaranteed if the shipper ships to a public terminal?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes.


Mr. LEADER:: Suppose a farmer unloads 1,100 bushels of grain at the elevator, and asks that it be put on the track as soon as possible The elevator man puts it in a car on the track and says to the farmer, "What are you doing with it?" "I want this sent to the Mutual Elevator, Fort William," the farmer replies. The elevator operator-it may be the Grain Growers'-may say, "We do not countenance
that elevator. If you ship there, it will be at your own risk as to grade and
12 noon weight." The elevator man assumes no responsibility for the shipment. It is true he will sign an affidavit, but he is not liable. He can load 1,000 bushels into that car, and, of course, it will weigh 1,000 bushels when it gets to its destination. The farmer will say, "I have tickets for 1,100 bushels. The car you shipped out is 100 bushels short." Then the elevator man may say, "I told you you sent it to that terminal at, vour own risk," and the farmer is out tha' 100 bushels. He cannot collect on it from the elevator.


Thomas Andrew Low: How long would that elevator
continue to remain in business if it did that? It would be impossible for it to stay in business.


Harry Leader: I submit they should not
be given the power to do it at all. We should reserve the right to the farmer to designate where his grain should go.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the point my hon friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) is making will be evident to the committee, but his statement hardly covers all the facts in connection with it. There are four methods by which a farmer may dispose of his grain:
First, he may sell it by the wagon load to the elevator buyer, in which case his grade and price is established at once. He gets cash tickets and the transaction is closed.
In the next case, he may special bm his grain, that is, secure a bin in the elevator, put his own grain into it, and the identity of that grain is maintained. In order that there may be no juggling with the grain by the elevator operator, provision is made in the law whereby a sample may be taken from each load delivered and placed in a tin receptacle, and the farmer delivering the grain has the key and padlock to that receptacle. He has a right to it if he wants to use it.
The next method is this: The farmer may bring in his grain. Perhaps he cannot get a special bin. He and the elevator operator may agree on the grade of the grain, and a graded storage ticket is issued to him for the weight and grade mutually agreed upon between them. That grain is then binned with grain of a similar grade by the elevator operator.
Another method is open to the farmer when he brings his grain to the elevator. He and the elevator operator may not be able to agree on the grade, so he gets a ticket that is called a "subject to grade" ticket. Provision is made for securing samples of the grain, and the samples are forwarded

Canada Grain Act
to the inspector. The inspector gives an official grading on the sample, and that grading governs the "subject to grade" ticket.


Robert Forke: The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has mentioned the case where the seller and the buyer cannot agree as to the grade, and he says that samples of that grain are taken and sent to the inspector. I want to know what they do in the meantime with those loads of grain that are waiting for inspection. It must be mixed with other wheat, and put somewhere else. That provision is not very much use.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think my hon.
friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) has fully considered the matter. If he had, he would have seen the position. In the case where the grade is not agreed upon and a "subject to grade" ticket is issued, the elevator operator takes the grain in and puts it with other grain that he thinks corresponds with it in grade, and he accepts the responsibility. But the actual grade is determined by the sample that is sent to the inspector, and it is the inspector's grading that governs, so far as the price to the fanner is concerned.


Mr. McMASTER:: In the case of the farmer who brings his wheat to the elevator, and who is not able to agree with the elevator man as to the grade, and takes a "subject to grade" ticket, does he have anything to say as to the quality of the grain with which his grain is mixed?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, and he does not need
to have that, because the grading given by the official inspector will govern. Consequently he gets the grade that the inspector puts upon his grain.


Robert Alexander Hoey: He can dfemand reinspection.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: These are the different
methods by which a fanner may dispose of his grain when he brings it to a country elevator. Now we come to the clause we are considering. When the grain is loaded out on track, the elevator company, under the law, is responsible for delivery at a terminal point, if the farmer so chooses, of the amount of grain and the quality of grain that his tickets call for. The elevator has no option in the matter. If the farmer comes to the elevator and says, "I want my grain-quantity, quality and grade as called for by the ticket you issued to me-delivered at Fort William, then they must deliver that to him at a terminal elevator. The point urged by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie is this: If the farmer wishes, he should have the right to get that grain at a country point; in other words 
he could say to me, "You put my grain in a car at an elevator, the amount that my tickets call for, and the quality, and give it to me and you are done with it." But 1 reply, "I am not done with it at that point-, because I have an interest in it to see tha: it is graded and weighed, in order that my interest in the obligation to you may be protected"; consequently the clause provides that I have a right to say where the grain shall go that I may protect my interest, and that is a fair and just proposal. If the farmer says, " I am going to Send the grain out of the country, to Timbuctoo, or Hong Kong"; I say, "All right, if you are going to do that I will give you an affidavit as to the weight and grade but you relieve me of any further responsibility." Is that not perfectly fair? If the grain legislation did not provide that the country elevator operator had to deliver the grade and weight at the terminal, then the argument of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie would be perfectly legitimate; but it is not legitimate, under the circumstances, because I have certainly an interest in the grain in protecting the grade or the dockage that my operator may have given in the country. For instance, it is put into a bin. The elevator operator at a country point who takes in the grain of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie puts four per cent dockage; it comes down to the inspector, and he says, "That is six per cent dockage." Have I not a direct interest in checking that up with the inspector and seeing that my interest is protected by showing that he has put on too much dockage?


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: Should there be any difference, so long as a car goes to a point where there is efficient weighing and inspection? Should not the inspection at one point be equal to the inspection at another point, and the same with the weighing?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not necessarily.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I think you are making a grave charge against our inspection and weighing department.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. Why do the United
Grain Growers and practically every other company maintain their own inspection office? It is to check the work of the inspection department, so far as their grading is concerned. There is not a day when changes are not made in the grades. When inspection is going through at the rate of twenty-five hundred cars a day there is a possibility of errors, and if I am deprived of

Canada Grain Act
my right to protect my interest in the grade it is an injustice to me. The clause recognizes that I have an interest in the grain and may follow it and protect my interest in it until I deliver it to the owner at the terminal elevator.


Harry Leader: I agree with the hon.
member for Mhrquette (Mr. Crerar), that the elevator certainly has a great interest in this, and would like to see that it goes to the terminal where they would receive proper we:ghts and have proper inspection also; but I submit humbly that the farmers also have a reasonable interest in this, as they have produced it. The hon. member for Marquette is speaking in the interests of the elevators, which is his undeniable right, and I am speaking in the interests of those who grow the grain. I maintain they are both interested. By this clause you are taking away the right of the farmer who produces the wheat to say where it should go and the terminal elevator it should be put into, and you are giving to the elevator man the right to dictate that this grain must be unloaded and reloaded at a certain place.


Mr. HALBERT:: Would my hon. friend
be satisfied to release the elevator from obligation?	.


Harry Leader: I would not. I have had
0	little experience in running elevators and I want to say, in answer to the Minister of
1	rade and Commerce, that the elevator man may be thoroughly honest, but he may be careless; he may imagine he has all the farmer's grain in the elevator and he may not have it. He may have forgotten to turn the spout, and there may be half a load of grain which has not been taken in. He does not know how much was taken in. Then he may dilute the grain, he may be taking in barley or may be taking in No. 3 and may have forgotten to change the spout. He may have taken No. 1 northern, and there may have been half a load of No. 3 dumped into the bin; it goes out and possibly it is graded at No. 2.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That does not affect the
farmer.


Harry Leader: No. If the farmer's ticket calls for No. 1 he will be paid for No. 1. If through the carelesseness of the loading elevator he has mixed in with it some poor quality of wheat, I do not think the farmer should stand the loss. In other words, if you
delete (his clause the elevator company is responsible for the weight and the grade, if you leave it in he is relieved from responsibility, and the farmer has to take his medicine.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is mistaken. I am only relieved when the grain is shipped to any point where I have no control over it to protect my interest in it. If the country elevator issues No. 1 northern storage tickets to my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie, they have to deliver No. 1 northern wheat to him in the terminal elevator. There is not any objection to that. The law specifically provides for it, and consequently his interest is entirely protected. I repeat that the fundamental thing is this:	When a country
elevator issue tickets for No. 1 northern, 1,200 bushels, to a farmer, they have to deliver 1,200 bushels of No. 1 northern wheat in the terminal elevator to him, and he can do what he. likes with it when it is there.


Harry Leader: If the grain in the country elevator does not come up to the grade, the elevator is held responsible.	*


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is right, and that is
why the elevator requires the protection. If I issue a ticket for No. 1 northern I want to be able to follow it and see that my interest is protected.


Robert Alexander Hoey: What protection has the farmer with respect to grade when he loads his grain over a loading platform?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He has no protection at all.


Arthur Meighen: I can explain everything about this section except the explanation. I understand the argument of the hon. member for Marquette quite well,-the argument going to show that if the elevator owner is to be responsible for the grade and the quantity of wheat which he gives out he has to have some control in order to protect his own warranty. But I cannot see where he has it under the clause. Certainly if the explanation is right he has not got it. Subsection 2 says:
-the grain is deliverable to the person on whose account it has been taken into store, or to his order, from the country elevator where it was received for storage, or, in quantities not less than carload lots on track at a public terminal elevator (unless otherwise mutual!}' agreid) at such terminal point in the Western Inspection Division as the owner may specify. ,
Canada Grain Act

There is nothin'? here to give the elevator man any right of specification at all. The subsection continues:
-(or on track at such proper terminal elevator at or adjacent to Duluth as the owner may specify) so soon as the transportation company delivers the grain at such elevator and the certificates of grade and weight are returned.
What I want to point out is that the owner seems to have his hand on the grain all the time; I do not see where the elevator man keeps control at all. The next is the same:
Where delivery is made into cars on track at the country elevator the bill of lading (if issued) and an affidavit of weight shall upon request be delivered by the country elevator to the owner and thereupon the country elevator shall be relieved from furthr liability for grades and weights-
That is very true. He is relieved right there at the spot if he gives an affidavit and certificate of weight, but that does not say that if he does not dispose of the grain in that way he has any control of it beyond the elevator. Apparently, the owner has full charge.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read some more.


Arthur Meighen: I shall read the whole of it:
Should a country elevator on the order of the owner deliver the grain at a private elevator approved by the country elevator, the country elevator shall guarantee the grade and weight.
That is another matter:
Nothing herein shall prevent the owner of such grain from, at any time before it is shipped to terminals, requiring it to be shipped to any other terminal than as hereinbefore provided.
The owner all through! Where, is the part of clause 150 which gives the elevator man the protection which the hon. member for Marquette says that he is entitled to?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think it lies in this.
As the elevator operator I ship the grain, after ascertaining from the owner which terminal point he wishes it sent to, that is, whether it is Vancouver or Fort William. I ship the grain to that point to the elevator where I think my interests can be protected. If the owner of the grain comes along and says: No, I want delivery of the grain at the shipping point, the country point, I say:	I will
give it to you on complying with certain conditions.


Thomas Andrew Low: If my right hen. friend will
refer to page 54, he will find the answer in the second clause from the top of the page where it states:
Where delivery is made into cars on track at the countfy elevator the bill of lading (if issued) and an

affidavit of weight shall upon request be delivered by the country elevator to the owner and thereupon the country elevator shall be relieved from further liability for grades and weights, except in so far as the " subject to grade and dockage " ticket otherwise provides.


Arthur Meighen: That does not affect
the matter at all. I think the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) may have me on the right track now. Does he mean to argue that all the control the owner has is to say what terminal point the grain shall go to?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: But if he chooses the
terminal point at Duluth, then he can state the very elevator it goes into. If he does not say Duluth, if he says Fort William or Vancouver, he has no choice of elevator, he has only a choice of the point to which the grain is to be shipped?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Has the shipper the choice
of the elevator?


Arthur Meighen: Apparently, he has if
the grain goes to Duluth. The clause reads:
Or on track at such proper terminal elevator at or adjacent to Duluth as the owner may specify.
He may choose the elevator if the grain is shipped to Duluth, but if it is Fort William or the Pacific coast, all the owner can say is whether it shall go east of west.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is all.


Arthur Meighen: The next thing that requires explanation is the explanation itself, for it is utter nonsense. It reads:
The first change is made to what was the ninth line of subsection 2, where the words " if either party" in the old section are changed to read " if he."
I defy the minister to go through the whole of subclause 2 and find "if he" in it.


Thomas Andrew Low: The committee did not change the explanatory note. They should have changed the note when they changed the clause.


Arthur Meighen: The note explains something that is not here now at all?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Mr. SALES:: I do not believe all hon.
members understand this question yet.


Arthur Meighen: I have a good idea of
it now.


Thomas Sales: The whole crux of the question is this. Has the farmer the right to say to what elevator his grain shall go? He takes

Canada Grain Act
it to a country elevator and receives a ticket for the weight-. They agree on the grade. At Fort William and Port Arthur there are a number of elevators, all licensed under this board, with official graders at Winnipeg and official weighers at every one of those elevators. Here is one elevator belonging to the United Grain Growers, another belonging to the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company and so on. All these have official weighmasters. The farmer says: I want my grain to go to this elevator-an elevator operated by the pools. The pools and. the members of the pools, who have joined together to try to market their grain co-operatively, want to operate their own terminal elevators and to direct- their grain to this terminal elevator. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) says, the mixing gentlemen were in the saddle on the day when this clause was altered, and it was made to read the way it is now. Why should this country elevator which gives me a receipt for so many bushels on such a date be relieved from guaranteeing that weight when it is going to an elevator at. which we have a government weighmaster?


Mr. MALCOLM:: On the other hand, why should the farmer object to the elevator at the country point shipping to any one of those elevators if they are all equal?


Robert Forke: They are not all equal.


James Malcolm: Then the hon. gentleman's contention is wrong, because he said that they were all equal.


Thomas Sales: No; I said that they are
equal in this respect, that they have a government weighmaster.


James Malcolm: What would be the
ulterior motive of a farmer objecting to shipment to a government elevator?


Thomas Sales: Because these -men owning
fifty per cent of the wheat in western Canada have joined themselves together in order to evolve a new method of marketing grain, called the "pool" method. They have rented their own elevators and they want to market their own grain so far as they can. This gives them the right to say where their grain shall go. We do not ask that if a farmer sends his grain to Timbuctoo, as the hon. member for Marquette said, the elevator shall guarantee grade or weight. But when the grain goes to a place at which a government weighmaster is in charge of the situation, and the grain i3 graded as going through Winnipeg, I do not see why it should not be accepted.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Supposing the country elevator gives the farmer an affidavit as to grade and weight, what risk would the farmer be running if he shipped it then to any particular terminal that he wanted to ship it to?


Thomas Sales: I would be satisfied if he
would give me something that I could collect on. I do not think I can collect on an affidavit. I do not think it would be worth the paper it would be written on.


Robert Alexander Hoey: What loss is likely to occur?


Thomas Sales: The loss is this. That grain
goes into a bin with somebody else's grain. I have received from this man a certificate for No. 2, and he may put this into No. 3 or No, 4. But he is the man who loads it out, not I. He loads it out and he asks to be relieved of the grade.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Cannot he put it in a special bin?
. Mr. SALES: Yes, but I do not know what he puts out. I cannot put my grain into a bin and live there day and night in order to be sure that he loads my grain out of my bin. But in this grade and storage business he does not pretend to special bin it. He .puts it with the other grain and he guarantees me my wheat on the ticket. I say: Why should he be relieved from that?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I do not think a man would
last three weeks if he did that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The longer this debate continues, the more apparent it is to everybody that this is not the proper forum for a discussion of a technical matter of this sort. It should be discussed by a small committee which should try to bring in a report.


Thomas Andrew Low: It has been discussed by the
committee on Agriculture.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am quite aware of
that fact, but my protest now is that the result has not been sufficiently clear or unanimous to give some guide to this committee. We are having to-day a discussion which would be proper before a standing committee of the House but which certainly is out of place in this chamber. Is it right and reasonable that men who have no technical knowledge of these matters shoull be asked to spend their time at this stage of the session listening to a lengthy technical debate? If is not right, and it seems to me that the more paternalistic legislation we put on the statute books the more we shall be impelled or asked to enact.
Canada Grain Act


Mr. CANNON:: Does the hon. member contend that when a report of a committee is not unanimous the House should return it to the committee for further consideration?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not at all; but I think the hon. member will agree that this is not the proper forum for the discussion of a technical matter of this kind.


Arthur Meighen: It is not technical.


Lucien Cannon: We had experts before
the committee.


Arthur Meighen: The matter is of very great consequence, but it is not really technical although some of the terms used may be slightly so. I could get to the heart of it if I could question the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales). There is one point I am not clear on in his argument. When the country elevator gives a man a certificate, a sample of the grain is taken out and preserved and the owner has control of it. It is not on that sample that the ultimate determination of the grade depends?


Thomas Andrew Low: If there is a disagreement.


Arthur Meighen: If they do not give as
good grain as the sample, has not the farmer the protection of that sample?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Surely.


Thomas Sales: If the man says he wants the grain to go to the terminal elevator at Fort William the country elevator is relieved of further liability for the grades and weights. That is the point.


Arthur Meighen: That is not my point.
We hear a lot of talk about the farmer having no control over the turning of the chute, and so on. Does it matter one whit whether he has or not, so long as he has the sample? He can compare the sample with anything that is taken out and if that shipment is not as good as the sample the sample governs, because that is his protection. If that is the case, how can he be beaten on nis grades by any connivance or dishonesty on the part of the elevator man? And if that is correct, you can say to the elevator man, "We hold you to this grade and this weight." As I understand the argument, it is this, that if the man has no control of the destiny of the grain he cannot be heard by the inspector at all; the inspector can tell him to get out the door. The argument of the hon. member for Saltcoats would be sound if the elevator man, once he gave the weight and the grade, were relieved of all responsibility. In that case the owner would have no right to in-

terfere any more. But if the elevator man is held to the weight and grade then the owner must have the right, just the same as any litigant, to pursue the matter further and press his guarantee. If that is not done you are only putting on the man an injustice which you cannot defend, with the practical result that you make all country elevators mere feeders for the pool.


Thomas Andrew Low: A farmer delivers a load of
grain to the elevator. A sample is drawn from that load and placed under lock and key. When the farmer concludes delivery of his grain the elevator states that it is of a certain grade. If the farmer is not satisfied with that ruling then the sample that has been drawn from each load may be sent to the chief inspector at Winnipeg who finally determines the grade.


Arthur Meighen: I know that; I have
shipped thousands of bushels.


John Livingstone Brown: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) calls attention to what is really the weak point in the bill. I felt when this matter was going through the committee that the amendment introduced in the committee to the original bill was a clumsy attempt to meet a situation which was very unsatisfactory to those operating elevators. It was a clumsy attempt that failed of its purpose. Why, for instance, should we relieve the country elevator from liability for grades and weights "except in so far as the 'subject to grade and dockage' certificate otherwise provides"? In that provision we simply declare that they shall be relieved and that they shall not be relieved, and we cannot under the law relieve them. I think it is a mistake to waste the time of the committee discussing the question of relieving the elevator operator from grades, because throughout the whole act the grade is distinctly guaranteed to the owner of the grain. It is guaranteed him in the special bins because he is permitted to take a sample. That sample is set aside for the farmer if he wishes to avail himself of his privilege; and we cannot protect the farmers who do not want to be protected. The farmers are absolutely protected in regard to special bin grain, so far as grade is concerned. We must consider grade and weight separately; they cannot be taken together. And, as I say, the farmer is absolutely protected as regards the grade in the special bins. So far as grain in storage subject to inspector's grading is concerned, he is also protected when he puts grain into the elevator; and if he avails himself of his privilege he has the same

Canada Grain Act
protection when he stores his grain in the elevator as the man who special bins his grain. As it is at present, and as the law has been operating, he has that guarantee; and that will hold under this clause "except in so far as the subject to grade and dockage ticket otherwise provides". That proviso simply wipes out anything that has been achieved in the few preceding sentences which provide that the elevator operator shall be relieved of grades, because you cannot give him that relief under any curcumstances in view of this additional clause. I say therefore that the introduction of this provision into the section was a clumsy attempt to meet a situation that was not acceptable to the elevator operators, and it has only tended to confuse the whole issue.


Mr. McTAGGART:: When the farmer accepts the storage ticket does not that close the transaction so far as the grading is concerned?


John Livingstone Brown: Subject to the "grade and
dockage" ticket.


Neil Haman McTaggart: When the farmer
takes out the graded storage ticket that closes the transaction in regard to dockage on that grade.


John Livingstone Brown: It would in that case, but I fancy that under these circumstances he would avail himself of the right he has to appeal to the inspector, and in that case he would have just as much protection as if he were special binning. The question of weight is an entirely different matter. When a man special bins grain the operator guarantees his weight on the ticket. The law does not require that the farmer shall get everything that has been put into the bin, neither more nor less. That would be fair on the face of it, but it would not be practicable; and so the law guarantees that the holder of the ticket shall receive exactly the weight described thereon. Therefore, in regard to the grain that is stored he is given certain tickets with certain weights and the elevator is bound to give him the quantity of grain so indicated.
Now the point comes up, and after all this is what is objected to, shall the owner of the grain be permitted to send it to any elevator that he designates. On the face of it that is an absolutely fair proposition, and one that I think the owner has a right to make. But along with that he must accept certain responsibilities. I do not see how it is possible to relieve the elevator operator from the obligation of furnishing the grade and the weight of the grain that he takes in. It is an 302
obligation that seems to me to be fundamental but at the same time I can see that the exercise of that right is going to create many complications that I am quite satisfied a great many who are urging it now do not foresee. The situation is simply this, that those running country elevators want to send their grain to the terminal that they are directly connected with. That is only natural. If that were urged openly we would get a clearer view of the situation, for after all the fact of the matter is that the objection to this clause is because those operating country elevators do not want the grain turned away from the terminals with which they are connected. That is the crux of the whole matter, and I think if it were definitely stated it would clarify the situation. We can readily understand them taking that position. They have decided on a certain line of doing business, and on the face of it it is fair. We are up against that situation. 'Shall we grant that right or not? I am prepared to accept the position taken by those advocating the pool interests, that the individual farmer should have the right to designate the point, if he chooses to exercise that right. But if farmers generally avail themselves of it I see what it is going to mean: the country elevator will not be able to operate on the profit of a cent and three-quarters, for that wii not run an elevator, and it will possibly mean that the men running country elevators will have to increase their charges to the maximum of two and a half cents thac is now permitted. If the exercise of this right is general, it is going to mean for a time very great confusion in the handling of grain, and I think that perhaps this particular point is not foreseen by many advocating the change.


James Alexander Robb: May it not also mean that the country elevator man will shut down his elevator and the community will have no elevator service?


John Livingstone Brown: It may possibly mean that. I admit it, Mr. Chairman, because I have had the privilege of being able to look at this matter from both sides. I am a farmer and have raised and shipped grain, and I know the farmer's side of the question. But, unfortunately for myself, I was charged as a director with the responsibility of running a farmers' elevator, and to my cost I know something about that particular side of the question; I do know that grain cannot be handled in a country elevator for a cent and three quarters a bushel, unless you have about two hundred thousand bushels of a turnover.


Thomas Sales: Why do they do it?

Canada Grain Act


John Livingstone Brown: As a matter of fact they do not do it; under the present system they have other methods of making up the loss which they incur.


Harry Leader: Do you not think that they can perhaps recoup themselves for the loss sustained by the profits derived from their mixing elevator?


John Livingstone Brown: We need not introduce the
question of mixing in this discussion. While I accept the pooling system and am wiling to commit myself to all that is involved in it, I am taking occasion at this time to warn some people that in making this rearrangement they are going possibly to involve some communities in difficulties that perhaps they do not now foresee.


James Malcolm: Mr. Chairman, I am
neither a grower of grain nor the owner of an elevator. I have listened to ail the arguments advanced, and I thank the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) for clarifying the situation by putting the cards face up. There are certain interests in the west operating country elevators and terminal elevators. Operated together, these elevators yield a certain profit and make it possible for grain to be handled at country elevators at a low rate. But a steamship company which takes merchandise and delivers a receipt for it, at a certain point maintains the right to deliver that merchandise at its wharf. That is simply the right of any transportation company. If I as a shipper hand merchandise to a steamship company, what right have I to ask that it be delivered at some other wharf over which the company has no control? That is the way I view this question as a business man.


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Chairman, the owner of the merchandise has the right to designate to what port it shall go.


James Malcolm: But not to which wharf at that port. The elevator company has a terminal elevator anid subsidiaries feeding that terminal and working jointly with it, just like the head office of a bank works with its branches, and in this way the bank is able to give certain services at lower rates than if operating as a country bank without any connection. Now, the shippers of grain .maintain that all these terminal elevators are government-inspected and well run and give equal service. I have never heard that denied. But the pool members are interested in the development of a certain elevator at the terminal point to the detriment of the elevator that has country connections, and if this section were passed as amended, there is only one ultimate oonclu-

sion to be reached, and that is that the elevators favoured by the hundred thousand pool members would grow and the other elevators would gradually be put out of business, unless, as the hon. member for Lisgar has said, they charged higher rates at their country elevators ito enable them to live. I am viewing this thing as a business man. I have listened disinterestedly to all the arguments put forward in the committe on Agriculture. I hold no brief either for the shipper or for the elevator man, but there 'have been established in the west certain lines of elevators which have built up that country by the handling of its grain and have an inherent right to be protected in their business so long as it is properly handled by them, and if they are not granted this .protection those who have built the elevators and developed the business are going to be put out of commission and their property will be purchasable at 25 cents on the dollar.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Chairman. I forgot to mention one point. The contention of the hon member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) that the elevator should have the right of keeping control over the inspection of the weight on the outturns did not seem to me to be lessened by the amendment that has been introduced. I do not see why he could not retain this oversight to protect his interests under any circumstances, if be thinks they are likely to be in danger. I do not think he can help the matter of grade, anyway-of course, he could secure reinspection; but I do not think he could protect his right any better under the present system than under the new one proposed.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) is labouring under a misapprehension. The elevators that were established in western Canada and that he is so solicitous about were established under a law which allowed the shipper to choose the terminal elevator that he would ship his grain to. I asked the minister early in the debate on this section whether the old law did not allow that right to the shipper. We have always understood that we had that privilege. If that is so, the elevators in, the west were built under that law and their owners knew what they were doing. Now, the question to ibe decided on this section is Whether the members of this committee want to assist the wheat growers of the west in the co-operative wheat selling movement which they have started. We have heard lots of compliments and lots of .good wishes for the success of the movement, but if you say to the .pool man, "You cannot have your wheat

Canada Grain Act
shipped to a terminal controlled by tlhe pool unless you are willing to relieve the country elevators of their responsibility for the amount of grain which they put in the oar-"


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And the grade.


George Gibson Coote: I am going to leave out the question of grade, because I think the member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) said it should not really be brought into this discussion. Let us stick to the weight. At each of the terminals to which the country elevators can be asked to bill the wheat we have Canadian government inspectors. What are they there for if not to give correct weights? Why does the country elevator want to bill to certain terminals in preference to others? Simply because they own or control the major part of the investment in certain terminals, or they have a private terminal where they carry on mixing and they want the wheat to go there You see the position they are putting the pool men in. If they are at a point wheri the pool has no elevator, under this section as drafted they can not bill their grain to the pool's own terminal unless they say to the country elevator: We relieve you of all liability with regard to the amount of wheat in this car as long as you furnish us with an affidavit. So far as protection to the shipper goes, the affidavit is not worth the papcrut is written on. The hon. member for Brorne (Mr. McMaster) said something about not being able to protect those farmers who w.mld not protect themselves, and that is quite true. But what we are trying to do here is to protect the farmers who are trying to protect themselves. We are simply asking that those men who have formed themselves into a co-operative pool should have the privilege of saying: I want my wheat to be shipped to the pool's terminal; then if the pool want to keep the grades up to a high standard and not deteiiorate it through mixing, they can so do that under this section. That is, they can take the pool members' own wheat, keep it in the pool terminals, and deliver it from the pool terminals to the Ontario millers. Now, the secretary of the Ontario Millers' Association tells me that under this law when they buy grain even from a public terminal they do not know whether that grain has beeu put in a public terminal from a private terminal, and they are at a disadvantage as compared with the big mills in the west.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Who is the secretary?


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Watts. If the pool
members in the country were allowed to bill their wheat to a pool terminal the pool terminal could preserve the identity of the 302i
country grades, sell the wheat to the Ontario millers and give them the same average grade as the pool farmer in the country is getting. But if you will not accept this amendment; if you persist in passing this section as it stands, you take away that protection from the pool members. I would like to ask again, in whose interest is this act being passed? If it is in the interest of the grain elevator men or of the grain trade, we had better throw the act intc the discard.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Do these i ountry elevators belong to the pool?


George Gibson Coote: No.
Mr. McMASTER.: Is it the hon. member's idea that legislation should be passed to say to this elevator company: Ycu have got to receive my grain and you must send it to the elevator which I designate, even if you do not want to?


George Gibson Coote: May I again point out to the hon. member that we pay the government weighmen to weigh this grain and see that the country elevator man gets the correct weight, but the farmer when he goes to the country elevator has no such protection. The grain in the country elevator is weighed by the employee of the elevator company.


James Malcolm: How many farmers in
the west have no scales?


George Gibson Coote: Ninety-nine per cent of them.


James Malcolm: They are very cheap to buy, and it would help the scale manufacturers too.


John Livingstone Brown: It is not practicable.


George Gibson Coote: We are no', asking for anything that is not in the old act; we are simply asking that you leave the act alone so far as this practice is concerned. If the committee refuses to leave it alone, then I would like to know in whose interest this act is being put through this House.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) has put his finger on the crux of this s'tuation. For the last twenty-five years, ever since there was a grain act, the farmers have enjoyed the right to ship their grain to any commission house and any terminal elevator they like. Now, after these twenty-five years you are going to take that away from them. Why? That is the point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


William Richard Motherwell: That is what I want to know. I told the committee at the outset that I did not understand th:s drafting. There

Canada Grain Act
is a nigger in the woodpile somewhere. Something is being taken away from the farmer that he has enjoyed for a quarter of a century. I do not know why, and it is up to somebody to say why.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is quite fair in the statement he makes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friends behind me laugh. I have never been able to understand, so far as the guidance of my own course is concerned, how it can be held that any real object can be accomplished by perpetrating what is an injustice. What the Minister of Agriculture says might be true, but in the actual working out, in ninety-eight, per cent of the cases the elevator companies handling this grain in the country had the opportunity of sending it to the terminal elevator they chose.


William Richard Motherwell: Does the hon.
member not admit that the farmers have enjoyed the right of selecting their own commission house and their own terminals? And it was an advantage to my hon. friend's company at one time to do that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They have never been denied the right to select their own commission house. But I revert to the point made by the hon. member (Mr. Coote); because while I may differ from him, I am sure he wants to be fair. He says that the matter of grading is of no consequence. I do not agree with him.


George Gibson Coote: I did not say that the matter of grading was of no consequence. I was referring to the question of weight.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But when my hon. friend evades the matter of grade he is evading a very important point.


Mr. EVANS:: He wants to know he gets the weight.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, but I am speaking of the matter of grade. I will put it to my hon. friends in this way: I am operating an elevator. The hon. member for Macleod brings in to me a thousand bushels of wheat and it is graded as No. 2 northern with a four per cent dockage. I issue to the hon. member tickets from that elevator giving him the right to a thousand bushels of No. 2 northern wheat with a four per cent dockage. He proposes to put that grain on the track and say to me: You have no further interest in 
this grain. I submit that I, have an interest in it so far as the grade is concerned, because when the hon. member ships that grain to a terminal point I have to deliver at that terminal point a thousand bushels of No. 2 northern wheat with a four per cent dockage. The grain law expressly places that obligation upon me.


Mr. HUGHES:: What is the penalty if
you do not deliver?
Mr. CRERAR': Why, I have to deliver it. I could be sued; he could make his appeal to the Chairman .of the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners could issue instructions to me to pay him, and I would have to pay. The point is that I have the responsibility as to the grade of that grain and I should have the opportunity of checking the grade and following it through and protecting my interests. The same applies so far as the weight is concerned at the terminal elevator to which it may go. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) mentioned another aspect of this question which is undoubtedly a vital part of it. After all, only fifty or sixty per cent of the farmers of western Canada to-day are in the pools, and any law that you pass for the pools applies to every individual farmer who is outside the pools.


George Gibson Coote: Are we asking for any change in this law? And does it not apply to those who are not pool members who may wish to bill their grain to a certain terminal? Would not my hon. friend have the same opportunity of protecting the grade regardless of the terminal the grain went to?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not at all. The grain
passes out of my control when I deliver it at the country shipping point. I put it on the track, and my hon. friend comes along and says, Here is If cents a bushel for handling the grain, and he gets his grain,and then goes to the agent and bills it to Timbuctoo or Hong Kong for all I know; I do not know where he is sending it. All I know is that three or four weeks later I may get a letter from my hon. friend from Macleod saying, " The grain you delivered to me in that car only graded No. 3 northern, and I want you to make up the difference in price between No. 2 and No. 3 northern," and I have to make it up.


George Gibson Coote: Is it not the practice for
the farmer to instruct the elevator operator to bill his car to a certain place?

Canada Grain Act


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, he may instruct me
to bill that grain to the order of the pool at such a point, but that does not give me any interest in it.


George Gibson Coote: You have the opportunity of going to the Inspection department and seeing you get the proper grade.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Am I going to go to the
trouble of searching all the records and finding out where a particular car is? I would need a whole checking staff to do that.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: You keep
a checking staff, on your own statement yesterday.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think I can satisfy my
hon. friend's intelligence, which is a pretty acute one, as to just what happens. We are advised when all those cars are inspected. Every morning a list is put in our hands, and consequently we know the cars inspected and can check the grade. But in this other case, we would have to search the railway records and find out where the cars were.


Mr. SPENCER:: Does not the farmer only ask the right to ship his grain to the point where there is a government inspector?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, but government inspectors are not infallible. If they were, the pools and the farmers' companies would not be maintaining their own inspection staffs to check the grades of the cars as they pass Winnipeg and Calgary, which they do to-day Every company has found it necessary to do that. A government inspection staff inspecting 2,500 or 3,000 cars a day are liable to make mistakes. We want to have those mistakes corrected if they occur.
My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) threw out an important point. Country elevator operation and terminal elevator operation are to-day linked, and if you deprive the country elevator operation of a part of the revenue that it gets from the terminal, putting it on that basis alone, one result will be that the charge of handling grain through the country elevators will have to advance because they could not otherwise possibly live. That means an injustice to all the farmers outside the pool.


George Gibson Coote: Has the board not given
country elevators the right to raise their charge? If it costs them more than If cents to handle this grain, should they not put the charge where it would cover the cost of handling.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Oliver Robert Gould: My remarks will be very
brief, because we want to get along with the business. I thought perhaps by presenting this matter from a slightly different angle from the way it has been presented it might make it a little more clear. I wanted to point out to the committee that the reason why we asked for this amendment, or the justification for asking to retain the right to send our grain to whatever terminal we wish, can be based upon this assumption; the elevator companies are licensed under the act and for a certain tariff they agree to handle grain. On special bin grain up to the present time they have charged If cents a bushel for handling, but the act provides they may charge 2J cents. Up to the present time the majority of the elevator companies have not accepted that opportunity afforded them in the act, and have not charged the high rate, simply because they wished to send it down to their own elevators at the head of the lakes, manipulate the grain and thereby exact an undue toll. Now the individual who owns the grain, say a thousand bushels, value one thousand dollars, has $1,000 investment in it. The elevator operator at the initial point has If cents per bushel or 2| cents-$17.50 or $25.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Has he not got the
investment in the elevator?


Oliver Robert Gould: No, he is paying for the
elevator on the basis of If or 2J cents a 'bushel. He agrees to do certain things, and these tolls pay for his investment. He has an investment of $17.50 or $25 in a car of grain, and does anybody argue that his equity in that is as much as the investment of the man who owns it? Should not the man who has $1,000 invested have the right to determine absolutely where he shall send that grain? There is the comparison. The hon. member for Marquette has suggested that the individual who has the $25 investment in a carload of grain should have the right absolutely to send that grain down to his own terminal. I argue that these men charge a tariff and a rate for the services they perform that will make the business venture proper and right. Why not? They are afforded that privilege under the act. But they do not avail themselves of it, because they wish to send that grain down to their own terminals where it is manipulated and an undue profit made. I would refer the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MicMaster) to report 23, presented to this House by the committee of
Canada Grain Act

which he was chairman. It is the information contained in that report, that is the cause of our objections, and the explanation of our desire for this amendment. It is not desirable that any condition should again arise in Canada, whereby a report similar to report No. 23 should be presented to the House. That is what has raised the storm. The hon. member for Brome recognizes that and is aware of it. We have cause to protest against it.
Mr. CR.ER.AR: My hon. friend stated that 'the grain is sent down to their own elevator and manipulated. Will he explain how it is manipulated?


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes, in the mixing.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend must bear
in mind that the grain goes to the public terminal elevator.


Oliver Robert Gould: Some of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: All of it, except with the
consent of the owner.


Oliver Robert Gould: Fifty per cent of the wheat handled in Canada is bought on the street. Private companies have fifty per cent of it, and if you have three hundred million bushels of wheat, private companies have half of it. That was established by the Turgeon report. And the companies paid the highest price that is paid. Consequently this one hundred and fifty million bushels of wheat is what we are debating.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: You are wrong.


Oliver Robert Gould: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Fifty per cent goes to the pool, and a large portion of that is bought for the pools on the street at spreads between grades which are fixed by the pools.


Oliver Robert Gould: At the time the Turgeon
report was made the pools were not in the position they are in to-day. We all know there are many individuals who purchase the wheat; but in no case is street wheat put up, whatever proportion it is, and it is included in this amendment asked for.


John Livingstone Brown: How does street wheat come into the controversy at all?


Oliver Robert Gould: I am trying to segregate
that. These people have the street wheat all in their own hands and can send it where they like, and surely the owners of the balance of the grain should have the right, when they have huge investment and the elevators have a small investment, to determine through what channel the wheat should be taken.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Suppose there was no
grain act at all; suppose this dealing with the Shippers of grain was done on a purely contract basis. I, let us say, am the owner of an elevator, and my' hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) comes forward with a load of wheat which he wants me to take charge of-to look after the transportation for him. I make a contract with him. I say to him, "If you will consign this wheat to me I will charge you so much and I will send it down to my associates at the head of the lakes." If he wishes to accept that proposition he can do so, and I will take the wheat and send it down to the head of the lakes. But, as I understand it, under the license system which now obtains under the Grain Act, the elevator man is not free to refuse the grain. He has got to take it. If he has got to take it, surely there must be some fair arrangement whereby the wheat will be transhipped by the elevator people to take it on terms which are as just to the elevator man as to the grower of the wheat. The elevator man has his investment in the elevator, and as long as it belongs to him surely he has something to say as to how it should operate


Oliver Robert Gould: No one disputes that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -just as the farmer has the right to say how he wishes his grain to be transhipped. It does not seem right that you should say to a man who owns a piece of private property, "You have got to take my property, you have got to charge a certain amount on it, and you have got to send it just as I widh you to." Surely there must be some room for the preservation of the rights of the elevator owner as well as the rights of the farmer.


James Joseph Hughes: Has the grain commission
the power to fix the price the elevator man shall charge?


Oliver Robert Gould: It is established by law.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think probably it has.


James Joseph Hughes: Would he get a price under those conditions that would pay him for his services?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask my hon.
friend from Brome how about the case of the railway company, the steamship company, or any other common carrier? Would they have the right to say to what destination goods consigned to them had to be sent? Is their task not simply to transmit the goods?

Canada Grain Act


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, to transmit the
goods down to a station on their own lines?


Mr. SHAW:: May I ask my hon. friend
from Brome a question?


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for
Assiniboia has the floor.


Oliver Robert Gould: Will the hon. member for
Brome visualize this feature: The elevator company at the initial point have built their elevator with the object of handling and transferring a commodity which is offered them, and a tariff is laid down in the act to pay them completely for those services. They are absolutely and entirely paid for the services they perform by the tariff the farmer agrees to pay. What right have they in the commodity? What ownership have they in the property, if they have been paid all the charges for the services they have performed?


Andrew Ross McMaster: If they have put their
money into the enterprise and taken the risk of it being destroyed by the fire, they have the rights that are inherent in private property. There are no people in the world who are more likely in the long run to suffer than farmers of the country by interference with the rights of private property.


Oliver Robert Gould: The insurance and all other risks are covered by the agreement. When a man comes to w-ork on my farm am I obliged to hand over everything to him? I pay him for the services he performs and he has no right to walk off with my team and wagon. He is paid completely for his services and he is through when he receives his fees-and the elevator in this case has received its fees. I want to say again that if the tariff has not been large enough to make this venture profitable for the elevator campanies, they have not taken advantage of the full amount the tariff permits them to charge, and they can yet take full advantage of it. We are prepared to pay that price. This is not a threat, but I honestly believe if this amendment is not allowed to go through, the country elevators throughout the whole of western Canada will suffer loss amounting to scores of thousands of dollars. The people will go to the loading platform; they will load their grain on the tracks, and they will send their grain away. The elevators are not going to have an opportunity of handling that grain except as the owners of the grain require.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Will the hon. gentleman tell
us whether there is any justification for allowing discrimination as against the producer of
wheat, the one who seeks to send his grain through a private elevator to a terminal elevator or the one who seeks to consign it through the private elevator to the pool? Is there any justification for the discrimination which used to exist under this clause?


Oliver Robert Gould: In the past the owner of the grain had the right to ship it where he wanted.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Without discrimination.


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes. There is discrimination at the present time. It is not asked for by the producers of grain. They are prepared to accept what was granted to them in the past in this respect. We have the big interests here trying to persuade the committee-at least that is the effect by the insertion of this clause as it stands-to give them a privilege which is not their right. They have a $17.50 investment in a $1,000 policy and they want to dictate the policy because they have that investment.


James Joseph Hughes: What injustice would be
done to the country elevators by allowing the farmer to route the grain wherever he chooses?


Oliver Robert Gould: There would be no injustice done to the country elevator. The country elevator has received the tariff, the charge, which covers all expenses for performing that service.


James Joseph Hughes: If the grain was degraded
and the man was obliged to furnish a different grade of grain or pay the difference, would that not be an injustice?


Oliver Robert Gould: That is the business of the inspector and the government, the Board of Grain Commissioners.


James Joseph Hughes: How can he be saved from that risk?


Oliver Robert Gould: I think the hon. member is involved in his question. He does not understand the initial elevator proposition. This is a grade, storage ticket or special bin ticket that we are referring to, not what is called street grain. Street grain is the absolute property of the individual who has purchased it. He can send it to a private elevator as he wishes. He can mix it. But we argue that, as regards the grade, storage ticket over which the inspector has jurisdiction and the weighmaster at the other end has jurisdiction, the man who owns that grain should have the right to determine where it goes. It is his big investment. That is all we ask for.
Canada Grain Act


James Joseph Hughes: But does the country
elevator man not take a risk?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I submit that the issue before us to-day is not whether or not the farmer shall have the right to say where he will have his grain consigned, because in the past the farmer could have his grain shipped wherever he liked. The grain companies, all these years, so long as there has been a Grain Act and so long as there has been grain in western Canada to be shipped, have accepted this condition and they have made no complaint about it. Why the necessity of all this clamour to-day? It is simply this, that within the last year a new factor has been introduced into the grain marketing business of western Canada, that is the grain pool. The grain interests were sufficiently influential in the committee on Agriculture to slip a joker into this legislation, a club with which they hoped to be able to smash these pools. That is the issue. If there were no pools, this issue would not have arisen at all. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is president of a grain company. He has never complained of this in the past. He has used some strong language in this chamber to-day intimating that a very grievous injustice would be done to the elevator companies if this amendment were allowed to go through. Why did he not complain of that before? He has been a member of this House for eight years. In those eight years he has not, I will maintain, made one complaint nor suggested that there should be a change in the legislation. This reveals clearly the issue at stake, and that is the existence of the grain pools. That is the issue which we have to face to-day. The hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) made an observation this morning that, I think, is worthy of some attention. He stated that if we got this amendment, the farmers would boycott the local elevators and eventually force them to sell out at twenty-five cents on the dollar.


James Malcolm: I did not make that
statement at all.


Milton Neil Campbell: At least that was the way I understood it. The situation is precisely the opposite. If the clause goes through as it is incorporated in the bill today, it means that the farmer cannot use the elevator for the pool except under serious disabilities. Then he will be forced to boycott the elevator, and the elevator will be left high and dry without any business at all. It is a great deal better to leave the farmer the right to use the elevator for his pool, to 
ship the grain to his pool, and in that case the elevator system will be allowed to live and will be perpetuated. There will be a close, harmonious co-operation between the pool and the elevator. There need be no antagonism between them at all.


James Malcolm: On the line of my hon. friend's argument, supposing the farmers asked that the grain be shipped through the country elevator to the terminal at Fort William, and the terminal that belonged to the country elevator did not get enough business to operate, what is going to be the result to the terminal elevator?


Milton Neil Campbell: I was just coming to
that question. The point is this, whether or not there is a pool, we must have the country elevator and the terminals elevator. Just as soon as the wheat pool takes over most of the grain in a district, it will mean if the farmer wants the elevator and he is not allowed to use it, he will either build another elevator or buy out the one that is there. As long as the elevator companies are prepared to concede to the farmer the right to which he is entitled, to handle his grain through the pool, that elevator can exist. The issue of the tolls, has been raised to-day and it has been pointed out that the elevator companies cannot operate under the present tolls. That is their business. They have been ready in the past to accept the 'grain and to handle it for less than it cost them. Why? Because they were determined to induce the farmers to ship through the elevator rather than load it over the platform, and they were prepared to handle it at less than cost in order to induce the farmers to do that. The farmer has not complained of this except in so far as his interests were prejudiced because, when they got the grain, they were able to mix it and make more out of it somewhere else. This is like the freight rate issue. If the farmer has his gTain handled through the elevator for less than the cost of handling, the elevator company must get something out of it in some other way. This is what the farmer has complained of in the past. If the elevators find they cannot operate under the present, charges, the farmer will be the first one to suggest that they raise the charges. I believe the largest elevator company in western Canada, the Saskatchewan Co-operative Company, is charging a higher toll to-day. The farmers are not complaining. They appreciate the fact that this elevator company is prepared to put its country elevators on a paying basis and does not expect to make up the difference

Canada Grain Act
at the terminal. The issue before us to-day is not whether or not a farmer can ship his grain through the elevator where he likes. The point is whether this pool is to continue to exist or not; and what was sufficient for the elevators in the past ought to be sufficient for them to-day. Where do our hon. friends from Ontario and from British Columbia stand to-day? I want to point out to those representing rural constituencies in Ontario and British Columbia that this is a live issue in which they should 'be vitally interested. The farmers of Ontario for years have been trying to build up a co-operative enterprise.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Quebec.


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes, and British Columbia. The wheat pool of western Canada is the greatest attempt that the farmers of any country in the world have ever made to build up a co-operative enterprise. So far it has been most successful, and the whole issue of co-operation is at stake to-day. If our hon. friends representing rural constituencies in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia are prepared to oppose us on this vote and strike a. blow at, or drive a nail in the coffin of, co-operation, they are digging a grave for their own efforts, for the efforts of their farmers in their own districts. They have to see this in the way we see it, because the whole issue of co-operation is at stake. This other little petty question, whether or not the farmer can ship his grain wherever he likes, is only an incident. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) read some of us a lecture here three years ago when we tried to get a wheat board. He was opposed to paternalistic legislation. He believes in individualism rather than in the sort of thing we are looking for at the present time. If the hon. member is consistent he will assist us in this to-day. He opposed the wheat board-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I opposed a compulsory wheat board and I told you you would do better with the voluntary wheat pool. And you have done better.


Milton Neil Campbell: Well, we took the hon. gentleman at his word and adopted his suggestion, and now we are trying to make a success of it. Is he going to turn us down?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No one talks more about
even-handed justice than does the hon. member (Mr. Campbell), and no one understands less the principles of justice. He states that the whole existence of the pool depends upon this legislation.


Milton Neil Campbell: I did not say that the whole existence of the pool depended upon it, but I did say that the matter was of vital importance.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will not take back the
statement I made. The hon. member said that the existence of the pools depended upon this legislation. Now, if that is so I have a simple question to ask my hon. friend: If the existence of the pools depends upon this legislation, why did not the pools ask it of the Turgeon grain inquiry? The hon. gentleman may search the evidence given before that inquiry from beginning to end-


Edward Joseph Garland: But they
had the right under the old act.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, they had not. Hon.
gentleman may search the evidence given before the inquiry from cover to cover, they may read every particle of it, and they will fail to find anywhere any request from the pools, or anyone representing the pools, for this legislation. My hon. friend from Assini-boia (Mr. Gould) states that the farmer has $1,000 of an investment in the grain while the elevator company has only $17.50. That is not correct. If the shipper of grain will take the grain at the country point, well and good. But they do not do that. The law expressly provides that if the owner of the grain so wishes, the elevator operator must deliver that grain at the terminal point and give him not only the weight his ticket calls for but the grade that is on the ticket. But it is unfair to say that the elevator operator has no interest in the grain otherwise. It would perpetrate a rank injustice on any person handling grain through the elevators if any such suggestion as this were adopted. I have always opposed injustice, as I have had the light to see it, and I will continue to do so. I will not support the proposal simply because my hon. friend from Mackenzie or the hon. member for Assiniboia wishes to take a course which in my judgment is not right.


William Irvine: Is the hon. membeT perfectly sure that the farmers had not the privilege before of shipping the grain in this way?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As a matter of fact, I
think there was a doubt under the old act as to whether the farmer had the right or not.


Mr. GOOD:: What was the practice?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The grain almost invariably went to the terminal elevator, chosen by the country elevator.
Canada Grain Act


Mr. WARNER:: Was any pool grain
handled at that time?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. Now, some reference was made to street grain. A very large percentage of the grain handled by all country elevators in the arrangement which is made with the pools, is street grain. The farmer may sell his grain that way if he wishes, but the pool manager establishes the spreads between the different grades at which the grain will be bought; and I, operating a country elevator, taking in grain for the pool, have to buy on these spreads. If the grain goes down and my buyer in the country makes an error in judgment and the grain grades less, I have to make good the grade to the pool. That being the case, I come back to the point that I have the right to a say in the destination of the grain and the inspection of it. As to the other question, of the desire of the pools to ship grain to their own terminal elevators, they are acquiring elevators in the prairie provinces at the present time, and they may send wherever they want to, any grain that goes through these elevators. They are entitled to that right in their own interests. Now, if you create a condition of affairs whereby you impose such handicaps upon the country elevator operator that he has to raise his charges in the handling of the grain through the elevators, who will suffer? It is true that the members of the pool may not suffer, but what about the fifty per cent of the farmers, who are outside the pools who may not wish to enter it? You put an injustice on them inasmuch as you increase the cost of handling the commodity. I cannot see the reason or the justice of the amendment proposed and I shall oppose it.
Mr. M.cTAGGART: The point raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) is fully covered in subsection (3), which provides:
Nothing herein shall prevent the owner of such grain from, at any time before it is shipped to terminals, requiring it to be shipped to any other terminal than as hereinbefore provided.
In other words, notwithstanding anything in this section, the shipper oif grain may, at any time before the grain is shipped from the elevator, direct the terminal to which lit Shall go. I should like to have the minister's opinion on .that point, because if it is as I suggest it fully cavers what my hon. friend has in mind. The hon. member (Mr. Campbell) suggests, if I understand him correctly, that pool wheat taken in a-t the country elevator other than a pool elevator cannot be consigned to the pool

terminal. This would seem to be covered by subsection (3).


Milton Neil Campbell: What I have .pointed out is that the working out of the act as it stands would give the elevators a c'lulb to hold over the head of the farmer and force him to ship through the terminal or to use some other means of shipping the grain.
Mr. M.ciM,ASTER:	If this discussion is
valuable we should all have the right to hear it.
M,r. McTAGGART: I should like the minister to answer the question I have asked him.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am instructed by the chairman of the board, who is a lawyer by profession, that the clause is very .general. It has been said by a number of gentlemen on the other side thaft under the old act certain rights were provided which are now being taken away; but .the intention of the bill is to dear up a situation that was indefinite under the legislation we have had. Under the old act the farmer could not direct, for example, that his grain should go to Vancouver. Subsection 2 of section 159 of the old aat covers the .point. It provides that:
-the grain is deliverable to the person on whose account it has been taken into store, or to his order, from the country elevator where it was received for storage, or, if either party so desires, in quantities not less than carload lots,-
And so on. The trouble was that the fanner might wish to go to a certain terminal elevator, and the country elevator owner might wish to go to another, and it was to clear up this difficulty that the amendment was introduced. Under the old conditions before the wheat pool the farmers had not the same interest in the terminal elevator as they have today. But the crux of the situation is this, that, as has been stated to-day, the country elevators receive a revenue of If cents a bushel, and therefore their responsibility should be taken over by the farmers if they wish to ship their wheat to any particular terminal elevator.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is it not a fact that in the past the working out of the act has been such that it did not prevent the farmer from having his grain sent wherever he wished? I am not arguing the legal point, but that is how it has worked out. That, I may say, is the reason why the pools did not raise the question.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is in order to clear up that
doubtful point that this section is so drafted in the new act.

Canada Gram Act


Milton Neil Campbell: The minister will admit that they have cleared it up to the disadvantage of the farmer.


Thomas Andrew Low: I hardly think so. It has been argued that the certificate issued by the country elevator might be a hundred bushels short, but I do not think any country elevator would get away with that type of business for any length of time.


Milton Neil Campbell: If this is put purely on a moral basis, why have the Grain Act at all? Why not put the whole handling of grain on the same basis if you can trust the honesty of the elevator operator in this case?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have to have a certain
amount of trust in one another in this world. If the country elevators are to be held responsible for the grain, they should have the right to determine the terminal elevator to which they deliver it. But, if the farmer wishes to assume full responsibility, he has the right to ship his car to any elevator he may designate.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Mr. Chairman, this
seems to be the first clash in this House between the co-operative method of handling grain and the competitive. There are a great many of us in this part of the House who are not lawyers, and I share their view that the new clause will discriminate against the pool, and that that is the purpose of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Possibly not, but one
may well wonder why it is inserted in the act, for it was not there before. The pools are a new factor in the marketing of wheat, and as a representative of farmers who are striving after co-operation as their only method of emancipating themeslves from economic oppression, I feel it my duty-and I want to say so in words as well as by vote-to support the western farmer in his effort to get himself out of the grasp of the grain and elevator companies.


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Chairman, I have
hesitated very much about taking part in the discussion because there seems to be a tendency amoilg some of my hon. friends to rather take it for granted that everyone with a viewpoint on this question not absolutely in agreement with the majority has some ulterior motive to serve.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert James Manion: I do not say that in any
offensive spirit, but I rather drew the conclusion from the remarks of some hon. members. I assuredly have no motive to serve
in this discussion because I am not interested in the grain business in any way. Of course, I am interested generally in the handling of grain at the head of the lakes, because it will come there whether from the pool or from the private elevators. There is a side to this question that has been touched upon by the member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and one or two others, but I wish to look at it from another aspect. Most of the country elevators were built by the people who own the private elevators at the head of the lakes as feeders for the latter.


George Gibson Coote: Is it not a fact that the
biggest and probably the first terminals to be built at Port Arthur and Fort William were built by railway companies that did not own a single country elevator?


Robert James Manion: That is quite correct, but many of those elevators are in the hands of the railway companies no longer. The fact, however, remains, according to my understanding-and I think it is correct that most of these country elevators were built by companies owning elevators at the head of the lakes to take in the gram from the prairie provinces and pass it on to their terminal elevators. That being the case, they have some rights. It seems to me that if you force the country elevator to take in your wheat and then to send it to the terminal elevator of another company, you are doing very much as if you went to the Canadian Pacific, for example, and said, "Here, I want you to load this car for me, but I insist that you hand it over to the Canadian National Railways." There is that side to the question. In other words, if you force the country elevator out of its natural channel in that it was built as a feeder to its terminal elevator, you put it more or less out of business, and you force the owners to do something which they do not wish to do. It would seem to me that the cure for the situation would be that if those interested in the pools are not satisfied to use the country elevator as the elevator which is to ship their grain to its own terminal, then they should build their own country elevators. I say that with the best of intentions and without any desire to get into an argument with the conflicting interests here represented. It would appear to me that those who own the country elevators and the terminal elevators also have some rights as well as the grain growers of the west, and while the bill should be dealt with having the best interests of the grain growers in view, the whole question of private ownership of property should not be ignored.

Canada Grain Act


John Evans: Does not the farmer pay the full price for the service he gets in the country elevator?


Robert James Manion: And the country elevator
would probably be able to run in that way, but those who built the country elevator intended it as a feeder for their terminal elevator, and if it is not so used their terminal elevator will go out of business.


George Gibson Coote: Is it not a fact that the
elevators at Fort William are practically filled almost to capacity almost every year?


Robert James Manion: I think probably that is
true.


George Gibson Coote: And they will be used to
that capacity regardless of what change we may make in this act.


Robert James Manion: That may be so. At the same time I cannot change my view that those who built the country elevators as feeders to their terminal elevators have just as good claims to be considered by the committee as have the grain growers. I say that with all due deference to my hon. friends.


Mr. SPENCE:: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) both intimated that under the old act the farmer had not the right to send his grain to a terminal elevator that was not used in connection with the elevator into which he loads his grain.


Thomas Andrew Low: I said that this was hot clear
in the act, and that as a result the destination was usually determined by the country elevator.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister's words are all the better for my argument. As a grain man I have consistently for many years sold my grain and sent it to the United Grain Growers' Company. At my point they have one house and that house is sometimes filled to the top; I have therefore been forced to load through other elevators. But I have had no difficulty in sending my grain, after it has been unloaded from those elevators, to the United Grain Growers' Company, and no objection has been raised by the elevator companies in question. If I have been able to do that in the past and it has been accepted by the various elevator companies, why should we change the act now? If we have been accustomed to giving certain directions in regard to our grain, why the alteration now?


Robert Alexander Hoey: There seems to be some uncertainty whether the producer of grain under the old act had the right to ship to any partic-

ular terminal. How did this actually work out in practice? Was the experience of the hon. member (Mr. Spencer) a peculiar experience, or was it widespread or universal?


Thomas Andrew Low: Until a year or two ago the farmer was not deeply interested in the terminal elevator; it is only since the pools have been formed that that question has come up. But as a matter of fact it was not quite clear whether the country elevator or the farmer had the right to designate the terminal elevator.


William Charles Good: What was the general practice?


Thomas Andrew Low: The practice wT.as that the country elevator designated the point ninety-five times out of a hundred.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is it not correct to say that unless this right is specifically taken away the farmers will have it? I asked whether the Grain Act did take it away.
Mr, MEIGHEN:	The old act read as
follows:
Such receipt shall also state upon its face that the grain mentioned therein has been received into 6tore, and that upon the return of such receipt, and upon payment or tender of payment of ad lawful charges for receiving, storing, insuring, delivering or otherwise handling such grain, which may accrue up to the time of the return of the receipt, the grain is deliverable to the person on whose account it has been taken into store, or to his order, from the country elevator where it was received for storage, or, if either party so desires, in quantities not less than carload lots, on track at any terminal elevator in the western inspection division, on the line of railway upon which the receiving country elevator is situate, or any line connecting therewith, s>
soon as the transportation company delivers the same at such terminal.
That is to say, the right was given to either party to ship out to such terminal point and to such elevators, in my opinion, at that terminal point, as either party first chose. So that the right under the old act was mutual and the party first exercising it insisted on his will being carried through. I would think- in fact, I know from my own experience-the practice was for the elevator man to ship out pretty nearly at once and the other fellow never got a chance to say what he wanted; the elevator man was naturally anxious to keep his elevator ready for more business. I would presume that in the case of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) he directed his grain to be shipped out to the Grain Growers' own terminal. That would meet with the approval of the Grain Growers' country elevator anyway.


Henry Elvins Spencer: This was a case where I had loaded into another elevator, a foreign, elevator.

Canada Grain Act


Arthur Meighen: Then he must have done so before the Grain Growers' Company themselves had elected. They had the right to elect and choose the terminal. I do not mean to say they had the right to be ahead of him, but if they were ahead of him, then they could choose the terminal. That apparently is the way the old act stood.


Daniel Webster Warner: Is the old act not more nearly fair to both parties than the new?


Arthur Meighen: I was going to make a short reference to that in a moment. I am very deeply grieved indeed, my heart is pained, to see the violent clash of opinion between hon. members to my left on this subject.


Mr. VIEN:: My right hon. friend has said that under the old act the shipper had the right to choose the terminal elevator. Is it not more correct to say he had the right to choose the terminal, but not the terminal elevator?


Arthur Meighen: No; it says here:
Or, if either party so desires, in quantities not less than carload lots, on track at any terminal elevator in "the western inspection division
So that if he chose first he would have the right to select not only the terminal but the elevator itself.


James Joseph Hughes: And .does this bill as it *stands take that right away from the farmer?


Arthur Meighen: This bill gives him the absolute right to choose the terminal, which he did not have before. The elevator company before could have chosen both the terminal and the elevator if it made its election first; now the farmer has the absolute Tight to choose the terminal, 'but if he selects T)uluth he has the right to choose the elevator too. He has not the right to choose the elevator at the terminal if he has selected either Vancouver or Fort William, unless he takes over the whole responsibility from the elevator company as to weight and grade.


James Joseph Hughes: That is the bill as it now stands?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: In many cases when the farmer takes his first load to the elevator he agrees with the elevator operator as to where this car of grain shall be shipped and to whose order. The agreement is made before the car of wheat is really in the [DOT]elevator.


Arthur Meighen: I think there would be
cases of that very kind, and there would probably be no dispute, for the reason that the pool had never risen. I think hon. gentlemen must have lamented many a time and oft that they did not accept the offer of a government voluntary wheat pool in 1921. We would never have had this squabble then. The difficulties could have been supervised without the least chance of error or injustice.


Neil Haman McTaggart: We have not a
voluntary pool.


Arthur Meighen: No, the hon. gentleman
unfortunately voted otherwise. That was the real solution. I have certainly no antipathy t-o the wheat pool. In fact, the whole wheat pool patent I look upon as a free gift; I have a parental solicitude in it; I hope it succeeds, but I really cannot get mv mind past this one point. If I could see any way of acceding to the farmer's demand that he direct the destiny of his own grain absolutely, consistently with relieving the elevator company of any responsibility in respect of the identity between the inspector's certificate and his own certificate, I would gladly do it. It is the natural right of any owner of property to direct its course, but it is also the natural right of any custodian of property to be relieved of responsibility for it once it passes out of his custody. Now, what the farmer is really asking is this: "I want to hold all mv natural rights intact, but I insist that the elevator company that gave a certificate that if- wheat was No. 2 northern, two per cent dockage, and weighed so many pounds-I insist that that elevator company guarantee me, after the wheat is out of its control, that the government inspector will give just the same certificate and just the same weight."


Milton Neil Campbell: Might I ask if the
elevators have not been quite satisfied to do that in the past under the pool?


Arthur Meighen: I have not been in the
elevator business, but I have been in the business of shipping grain, and if I have any sympathy it is with the man who ships the groin; I would like to get back at a few of these elevators. It is true they have been satisfied in the past because there has never been anv contest, there has been no wheat pool. The thing worked all right because there was no ground of conflict, but once ground of conflict arises, you can see where the man feels he may be subjected to very grave injustice.
Canada Grain Act


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: If the grain is shipped
to a terminal where there is a government weigh and inspection, it is all done by the government, and what can happen to that grain from the time it leaves that elevator until it reaches the terminal?


Arthur Meighen: Suppose the elevator
man felt it was a No. 2 northern wheat and gave a certificate accordingly, and the government man says: "No, it is No. 3"-the elevator man has no right of appeal. His interest has been cancelled. His right of approach to the inspector has gone. If he goes to the inspector and says: "Here, I object to that," the inspector says, "What have you got to do with it? There is the door." And where is the elevator man?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The grain would be
subject to grade, and would he not get relief from the fact that the grain was taken subject to grade?


Arthur Meighen: I am not very clear on
that phase. Perhaps he could. I do not know enough about it to say if that would relieve him.


George Gibson Coote: I tried to follow very closely the argument of the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I agree practically with what he says. But if there is a difficulty facing the elevator companies in the handling of this wheat to a designated terminal, 4 p.m. is not the proper method of protecting the grain company through our methods of weighing and inspection? It seems to me that is where the difficulty facing the grain company must be overcome.


Arthur Meighen: The grain company has
to comply with the method established by this act, and if they have to, you have to give them some way of doing it.


George Gibson Coote: If necessary, we could put
something else in the act.


Mr. JELLIFF:: Seeing that the leader of
the opposition has read subsection 2 of the old act, will he also read to the committee subsection 4 of section 159, and tell us whether the intention of the law was not to place the direction of the shipment in the hands of the owner of the grain? It seems that way to me.


Arthur Meighen: Section 4 reads this way:
Nothing herein shall prevent the owner of such grain from at any time before it is shipped to terminals, requiring it to be shipped to any other terminal than as hereinbefore provided.
Certainly not, but once the grain is started on its shipment, it is shipped, and he never

could then re-elect when the elevator man had exercised his right and shipped out the grain to a certain terminal at Fort William. The owner could not have diverted it on the way under that section.


Edward Joseph Garland: Here is a
practical illustration; I would like to put to the leader of the opposition, and see if he can work out a solution for me. I am hauling my grain into one olf our local country devators I am. storing that grain to grade. In the .meantime some of my neighbours are hauling their grain into that same elevator, and much of it is stored in. tlhe same bin with mine, grain that may be of a .quality not as good as my own. The elevator .man grades mine as No. 2. He takes a chance on my neighbour's grain, grades it No. 2 and slaims it into the same bin with mine. Mv car is loaded on track, and I say I want it shipped .to a certain terminal elevator. Under the new provision of the act, the elevator operator is not under the responsibility for grade, weight or dockage when the car gets to the other end. That may be entirely due to .the fact that the local elevator agent has been, guilty of an error in judgment in mixing a low grade, which was really No. 3. with my No. 2. I lose my grade and I have no comeback under this. Moreover, I may be short in imy weight. The elevator agent may noit even .have allowed me full weight on the-car.


Arthur Meighen: Could the hon. .member not protect himself on his grade by taking his sample and keep control of his sample from the first. Then he is absolutely safe.


Edward Joseph Garland: What use
is it to keep samples? You could keep samples till you were black in the face, but it would not do you any good, for the operator of that elevator is released from all respo.nsibil.ity under this act. The moment the owner of the grain demands that the car be Shipped to a certain terminal elevator, that unfortunate owner has to take all responsibility for whatever mistakes the local country elevator imay have made.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, if the man directs where it is going to go, and takes it out of the control of the elevator?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.
iMr. MEIGHEN: Well, why should he not? He does not have to do that. If he is going to make that .man responsible for losses in weight en mute, and make him responsible for grade, he has to give him some way of discharging that responsibility. If the hon. member will suggest some way in which the

Canada Grain Act
elevator man can discharge the responsibility imposed upon 'him' under this act, I will certainly recognize the full right of the farmer to follow his grain right through to wherever he wants it .to go.


Mr. GARLAND (Row River):: I think this government and the leader of the opposition will have some difficulty in convincing the ordinary western farmer of the justice of this provision.
With regard to what the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) says, that the terminails at Font William decided they had to have feeders and so placed country elevators all over the country- surely these people have some rights, he said: they have invested their money in these elevators. I tell him and 'those like him who have spoken against this amendment, that they are doing a greater injury ,to these terminal and country elevators than any member in this part of the House, fo.r .the reason that if this clause goes through, there will be such an increased swelling of demand amongst the poor grain .men of western Canada for ownership of their own country elevators and terminals, that very soon my hon. friend and his friends will find themselves facing such competition that they will be put out of business.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has a habit of saying "my hon. friend and his friends." I hope my hon. friends down here are just as much my friends as the terminal elevator people. I have no interest in those people. Most of them live in Winnipeg, where my hon. friend wanted to send the Board of Grain Commissioners.


Edward Joseph Garland: They have been our friends and still are, and we hope they will continue to be our friends; but if this thing goes through they unfortunately put themselves in a position apart from the pool altogether and that will start a feeling of bitterness which will never die. I would rather we should continue in the closest possible co-operation. We can work out a solution together. It will be as much in the interest of the grain trade and the elevator people to see that the pool is satisfied and meets with reasonable co-operation from them as it has from us. We do not want to go into this tremendous enterprise with the small capital at our disposal, but if they force us, we will go into it and we are going to win.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: It seems to me that the
provision of the old act was better than the corresponding new provision. I am going to
suggest to the minister that he accept the provision of the old act and substitute section 159 of that act, in place of 150 in the present act.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sure the government will be glad to meet the wishes of the House and we are anxious to have this bill sent over to the Senate. If the Senate takes as long to discuss it as we have in this chamber, the session may be prolonged indefinitely. A number of members on the other side of the House have stated that they were satisfied with the old section. My hon. friend has suggested that the old section be substituted for section 150 in the bill submitted to the House. If that will settle the matter we are willing to accept that suggestion.


Robert Forke: I have listened to the discussion and I cannot add anything that' will throw any more light on the subject. There is no denying the fact that a new condition has arisen that did not exist at any previous time in the history of our grain trade. The coming into operation of the pool has created new conditions that perhaps require different treatment from that which was required formerly. I find myself in rather a difficulty, and I might almost say, painful position. I have been receiving numerous telegrams asking for this very thing that my hon. friends behind me are fighting for here this afternoon. Od the other hand, I have to try to get some idea as to what is the proper and right thing to do under the circumstances. I have been interested in the United- Grain Growers' Grain Company almost, I think, ever since its inception. It will not do any harm to tell the House that I own quite a number of debentures of that company. I am also a shareholder in the company. It took a great many years to build up that great company and I am just as much interested in the United Gra;n Growers' Grain Company as I am in the pool. I am a shareholder in the pool and I shipped all my grain to the pool last year, *but I think we should keep in view the interests of both companies, and it is going to be disastrous if we allow the spirit of animosity and fighting to exist between the pool and the farmers' grain company that now operates in the west. I have heard a great many parallel cases cited, but no case has been cited which is exactly a parallel to the circumstances that now exist in regard to the shipping of grain. I think the right hon. leader of the opposition has stated the case plainly and fairly as I see it. I know that in making that statement I am running contrary to all my friends who sit behind me.
Canada Gram Act

It has cost me some effort to make the statement, but I cannot view it in any other way. If you put responsibilities upon the local elevator you must give that elevator also some privileges to protect its own interest. The farmer has always a right to ship his grain to any terminal elevator he may choose, but if he does so he ought to take some responsibility. I know very well that in making that statement I am not making any friends, but I am doing what I believe to be in the interest of justice in voting as I propose to do oh the measure.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff) has moved that section 159 of the Grain Act be substituted for section 150 of the present bill.


William Charles Good: I have been trying to get to the heart of the controversy that has become somewhat acute, and I am very fearful of the consequences of a too hasty decision on this point. No doubt in the world, from what we have heard, there is a fairly strong feeling, and if the clause as at present drafted and recommended by the minister is carried I am very much afraid of a further serious inflaming of western opinion.


Thomas Andrew Low: Not. recommended by the minister, but by the committee.


William Charles Good: Yes, that is the clause at present under consideration to which an amendment has been moved. In spite of the fact that it is late in the session and we all desire to get business cleaned up, would it not be better to take a little time to see whether these points of view cannot be reconciled? It seems to be admitted that in practice, if not in theory, the old act worked fairly well, in that it permitted the farmer to elect as to where he should ship his grain.


Robert Forke: But a new condition has
arisen.


William Charles Good: Under the new conditions that prevail, is it not possible that a provision such as that contained in the old act would allow the farmer in a collective way to elect as to where his grain should be shipped, and in that way afford the farmers the liberty which they claim is their right at the present time. I do not think there is any desire on the part of the wheat pool generally to inflict any disability on the elevator companies. It is argued that they must be in a position to discharge their responsibility. Is it not possible to find some way of getting out of the present deadlock, by which the elevator companies could be given a square deal, and at the same
fMr. Forke.l
time permit the farmers to designate the terminal elevators to which they wish their grain to be shipped. A threat has been thrown out to-day which everybody has heard. If this clause is put through, and if the right which they now have or claim to have to designate the terminal elevator to which the grain shall be shipped is taken away from the farmers, particularly under the new conditions that prevail, I am very much afraid of the consequences. It may be that this threat will be given effect to, and it will be very much worse for the elevator and the elevator companies than it is at the present time. 1 suggest that some little forebearance should be exercised and that an effort be made to find a solution of this problem.


Thomas Andrew Low: In order to make progress with the business of the House, the government is ready to meet the suggestion made by an hon. member from across the floor who I know, is deeply interested in the grain trade. But if it is not the wish of the committee to accept the suggestion made by that hon. member, there is only one thing for us to do, and that is to proceed with the bill a3 recommended by the committee on Agriculture.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I registered a vow with
myself half an hour ago that I was not going to speak again in this debate, but I do not think the suggestion of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff) should be accepted. After all, we want to get a fair, workable provision. Under the old clause there was a doubt whether a farmer in Alberta for instance, could have his grain sent to Vancouver or Fort William. This new amendment was designed for the purpose of overcoming that. It went a good deal further than it should have gone; but if you revert to the old clause today, you place yourself in that position of doubt whether a farmer in Alberta can send his grain to Fort William or Vancouver. He should have the choice of these terminals. I do not think we' shall get any more light if we speak on this subject tor fourteen hours more. Let us vote on the question and get rid of it.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I am not insisting upon my suggestion being carried out Perhaps there is something in what was pointed out by the hon. member for Marque:te. I am perfectly willing to withdraw my suggestion if that is agreeable.


George Gibson Coote: Is the minister ready to accept the draft bill prepared by Chief Justice Turgeon after the commission had spent, I think, $175,000 in getting a new Grain Act?

Canada Grain Act
Clause 151 was brought down covering this whole point. I think, as the Minister of Agriculture said, the mixers or somebody had a field day in the committee and they got this changed. The government. should be willing to accept what Chief Justice Turgeon recommended covering this very point. It is in the first draft of the Grain Act, Bill No. 113, and is on every member's file. I do not see why it should not be accented. Subclause (2) reads:
(2)	Such receipt shall also state upon its face that the grain mentioned therein has been received into stoie, and that upon the return of such receipt, and upon payment or tender of payment of all lawful charges for receiving, storing, insuring, delivering or otherwise handling such grain, which may accrue up to the time of the return of the receipt, the grain is deliverable to the person on whose account it has been taken into store, or to his order, from the country elevator where it was received for storage, or, if he so desires, in quantities not less than carload lots, on track at any terminal elevator in the western inspection division or at a proper terminal elevator at or adjacent to Duluth, so soon as the transportation company delivers the same at such terminal, and the certificate of grade and weight is returned.
(3)	Nothing herein shall prevent the owner of such grain from, at any time before it is shipped to terminals, requiring it to be shipped to any other terminal than as hereinbefore provided.
Will the minister not accept the clause as drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon, the chairman of his own commission?


Thomas Andrew Low: Chief Justice Turgeon was asked to prepare a bill He prepared a bill and it was submitted to the committee on Agriculture composed of about one hundred members of this House. Can the government afford to ignore the recommendations of that committee and merely reply:	We will take
the bill as drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon? WTe feel it our duty to listen to the recommendations of any committee when a bill has been referred to it.


Arthur Meighen: It goes without saying that the government has no opinion of its own.


Robert Alexander Hoey: At whose instigation was the change made? The committee should have that information.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not wish to introduce a motion to disqualify any hon. member of this House from voting, but before the vote is taken I should like to have your ruling, Sir, with regard to the applicability of rule 22 which reads:
No member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he ha.s a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed.


Lucien Cannon: On the suggestion made
by the hon. member, should you decide accord-303
ing to rule 22, that some of the members are disqualified, they will have to withdraw. If you decide accordingly, I think that will shorten the debate considerably.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is before the
committee no evidence that I am aware of that any member has a pecuniary interest.
Amendment (Mr. Gould) negatived: Yeas, 47; Nays, 68.


Arthur Meighen: Is this a government
measure? No answer.


William James Lovie: That subsection (2) of section 150 be struck out and the. following be substituted therefor:
"Such receipt shall also state upon its face that the grain mentioned therein has been received into store, and that upon the return of such receipt, and upon payment or tender of payment of all lawful charges for receiving, storing, insuring, delivering or otherwise handling such grain, which may accrue up to the time of the return of the receipt, the grain is deliverable to the person on whose account it has been taken into store, or to his order, from the country elevator where it was received for storage, or, if he so desires, in quantities not less than carload lots, on track at any terminal elevator in the Western Inspection Division or at a proper terminal elevator at or adjacent to Duluth, so soon as the transportation company delivers the same at such terminal, and the certificate of grade and weight is returned."
He said:	This is the original section as
proposed by Mr. Justice Turgeon in his framing of the Grain Act, and although it was defeated in the agricultural committee those of us who have stood for the rights of the farmer were very much apposed to the clause providing that the operator of a country elevator should be relieved from all responsibility as regards weight. The passage of this clause relieving the country operator of all responsibility in this matter would lead to one thing only; the elevators would be discarded absolutely. The farmers have been jealous of their right to ship their grain to any terminal they may designate. If you go back twenty years you will find what hardships they suffered in connection with the shipping of grain. I can look back to the time when no one was allowed to place a car at the elevator in order to load grain if he had ordered a car for the platform. I have seen that done, and the fight which we have had during these years to obtain the privileges that we have enjoyed now for some time is going to be rendered futile; all that has been achieved will be wiped out if this clause is allowed to stand as it is. For that reason I move the amendment.


John Evans: The controversy now going
on in the House is a continuation of the old fight which has been waged for about thirty years between the fanner and the different

Canada Grain Act

public utilities for the right of the farmer to do his own business. It is not so long ago since we had to do battle with the Canadian Pacific Railway for the right to 'have a car loaded on the siding. They had given a monopoly of all cars to the elevator companies who would construct on their lands houses of 25,000 bushels capacity, so that the farmer could not load his own car. Later on we had to fight a combination of the interests comprising the grain trade backed by the railways and by the banks of this country. And now that the farmers have been driven into co-operative movements there is a desire on the part of certain interests throughout the country to kill that endeavour in its infancy. It is not a case of not using the elevators; all the elevators will be needed any time there is an average crop in western Canada, if they will make themselves available. The member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) says that it has been the practice for the farmer using the country elevator to accept the amount named by the country elevator company. It is not so. I have been shipping grain for the last thirty years and I have exercised my right to direct my car to any terminal elevator I might choose; and that right has never been questioned. Mr. Justice Turgeon in his report makes it very plain that in his opinion that right was never challenged. He says:
In this respect, however, care should be taken to see that nothing is done which will prevent the wheat pools' selling agents from taking into their private elevators the grain forwarded by the members of the pools, or by the organizations on behalf of the members. According to the agreement entered into by each producer who joins the pool, the grain remains his own property until solid by the selling agency, and the producers arfj virtually doing their own mixing.
As I have said, I have always exercised this right and it has never been disputed in my case; and I intend in the future, if I cannot continue to assert the same right, to do what I can to persuade my people to load at the platform and leave both the country elevator and the terminal idle. There is no injustice done the country elevator company. The weighmaster at the terminal is the link between the shipper and the elevator company, and it is a link of justice in which both hitherto participated. There has never been any doubt about this and I cannot see where any injustice is done by holding the country elevator company responsible for the amount until the certificate of weight is given at the terminal elevator. In one case where one of my cars went 40 bushels short the difference was collected afterwards on an affidavit given by the country elevator to the railway com-
pany to the effect that the wheat had gone into that car, so that it was collected from the railway company. So far as I can see there is no injustice whatever to fear from this amendment. I appeal to the committee to let it go through on behalf of the producers of western Canada who need all the encouragement they can get. I think it would be unfair to a large portion of the Dominion if the amendment were rejected.
Amendment (Mr. Lovie) negatived: Yeas, 40; Nays, 62.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 151 to 182 inclusive agreed to.
On section 183-Applicant to declare his intention and ability to load, etc.
Mr. McTAG'GART: Mr. Chairman, I desire to move the following amendment to this section:
That all the words between the word "agent" in line twenty-one and the word "shall" in line twenty-three be struck out, and the following substituted therefor, "shall be informed by the railway agent of the allotment to him of a car in good order and condition and"
As amended the section will read:
Each such applicant or agent shall be informed by the railway agent of the allotment to him of a car in good order and condition, and shall within three hours declare his intention and ability to load the said car within the time hereinafter prescribed.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to make it sure that the applicant for a car shall be informed by the station agent when his name appears on the list as entitled to a car. Under the present law there is absolutely no assurance that the applicant will be informed at all. I think, Mr. Chairman, this section is even more important than the section to which we have given so much time this afternoon. I believe that the farmers of western Canada would be millions of dollars ahead if they took more advantage of the loading platform, and it is my opinion that if the grain. pool in western Canada proves to be the success which we hope, the car loading platform will come back into its own once again. I have been loading my grain over the platform for many years, and have found that when the loading platform was used very extensively the farmers encountered this difficulty: about the time the name of a prospective shipper was getting near the top of the list as entitled to a car, he practically had to remain in the town or near the station agent in order to insure getting the car when it was allotted to him, because if he did not happen to be in the vicinity the law did not require the station agent to notify him.

Canada Grain Act
Mr. GRAHAM:: Would this amendment mean that a man after being notified could go about his business while another man waiting for a car would have to stand around indefinitely?


Neil Haman McTaggart: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: (Bow River) He has only three hours after notification within which to declare his intentino of accepting the car.


Neil Haman McTaggart: I have no idea of imposing an obligation on the railway company which would be impracticable for them to carry out. Take the case of a farmer living twelve or fifteen miles from town; possibly he cannot be at the station the day the car is allotted to him, but he may appoint an agent-say the storekeeper-and if the amended section passes, the station agent would be obligated to notify the agent of the farmer, whereupon it would be up to the latter to get in touch with the farmer at once and advise him of the allotment of the car, and he would have to declare within three hours afterwards his intention to proceed with the loading, otherwise he would forfeit his allotment.


George Perry Graham: I do not see anything
wrong with it from the railway standpoint. Of course if the farmer named an agent the burden would be on him to have the station master know who the agent was.


Thomas Sales: This amendment was considered very carefully by the committee, and the very point raised by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) was considered there. Where a man was living twenty-five miles out in the country the railway agent could not possibly notify him and he should appoint some agent in town whom the railway agent could notify.
Amendment (Mr. McTaggart) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 184 to 190 inclusive agreed to.
On section 191

48 hours for loading. Exception.
Mr. LU'CAS:	I move that section 191 be
amended by striking out all the words after the word "hours" in line 14.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am afraid that woul,d impose a further hardship on our struggling railways.


Mr. LUCAS:: The coal companies use these ears in their coal yards in the very season of the year when we are shipping our grain and they are allowed forty-eight hours within 303i
which to load. This amendment simply places the farmer on the same basis. The provision was incorporated in the Grain Act some years ago with the idea of speeding up the loading of cars at the busy season of the year, biU I do not think it has worked out that way. During the threshing season the whole country is busy; the individual farmer cannot load a car in one day without getting assistance from his neighbours, and the result is that he simply has to pay this demurrage. In the week of the 14th of January last 388,000 bushels of grain were loaded over platforms, or something over 300 cars, and that means a considerable sum to the farmers when spread over the year. It does not result in speeding up the loading of the cars. I would ask the committee to allow this amendment to pass.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I support the hon. member (Mr. Lucas) in his amendment. The number of people in western Canada who live more than twelve miles from the railway is greater than those who live within twelve miles of it, and no farmer is going to dilly-dally in loading his car; it is in his interest to load it as soon as possible. The present system simply means that the farmer has to pay demurrage, and if we allow him the extra time it will not mean that the cars will be held any longer. It will simply be that much relief for the farmer.


Harry Leader: I support the amendment.
It is true that the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission recommended this section, but they also had this statement in their report:
The twenty-four hour rule does not cause hardship for shipments from elevators. It strikes at the farmer who uses the loading platform. It was contended that it was unfair that a rule should be enforced that singled out for discriminatory treatment one class of shippers, particularly as the grain shipped over the platform in most instances had to be hauled some distance to the loading point.
I am sure the farmers are just as anxious to get their grain to market as the railway companies are to get the cars loaded. Whether they have forty-eight hours, or twenty-four hours, or a week, to do it, they are under a big expense, and they are going to expedite the work as much as possible. It would not cause any hardship to the railways to have this forty-eight hour clause apply to every day in the year. There is a new system growing up in western Canada in regard to the threshing of grain. In former years we used to have the big threshing outfits with a crew of twenty men, capable of threshing from 1,500 to 2,000 bushels of grain a day. There is now coming into vogue a smaller machine capable of threshing from 400 to 800 bushels a day, so it
Canada Grain Act

is utterly impossible to load a car of a capacity of 1.000 bushels, to say nothing of a 1,500 bushel car, in twenty-four hours. It is true they say in this report that there has not been much demurrage paid, and I believe that is the case. It will not affect my district because most of our threshing is done in August, but further west where the seasons are later it may make a difference to the farmers if they are competed to pay demurrage on cars that are held over twenty-four hours. They cannot be loaded with the smaller machines in that time.


George Gibson Coote: Is it not the case that the
farmers sometimes have to wait more than twenty-four hours to get the cars to load grain into?


Harry Leader: Yes, indeed. The situation is a great deal better now than it was a few years ago. While the farmer had to pay demurrage on a car held beyond the stipulated time, the railway companies would leave cars loaded at the platform for a week and there was no redress, although the market would be going down and the farmer would be anxious to get his grain to the lake front. It seems to me the demurrage charge should. be reciprocal if it is to be enacted at all.


Charles A. Stewart: In my experience, when we had no elevators in my town we loaded over the platform and sometimes a car was held up for forty-eight hours by a neighbour and we were thus kept that much longer getting our turn. So that it works both vrays in the very busy season; do not forget that. In these days, when they are moving grain much more rapidly than they did then, and with better facilities for moving the grain, it seems to me you are treading on dangerous ground when you suggest that the loading platform should be used for a longer time than has been allowed in the past. Everyone knows that loading at an elevator is only a matter of hours, but when you are hauling grain from your farm and loading it from the platform, the quicker you get the cars away from the platform the quicker you get to market, and the better it is for all concerned. I have very grave doubts if you would help very much by cutting out the twenty-four hour provision during the busy season.


Harry Leader: May I ask, why was the car delayed beyond twenty-four hours? Was it through any fault of the farmer?


Charles A. Stewart: He did not get it loaded within the twenty-four hours, but he could load it in that time. My experience is that you cannot load these cars, outside a radius of six miles with the speed-


Oliver Robert Gould: Oh yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I have
loaded a good many, and I know how long it takes. Now with cars having a capacity ol 1,500 bushels, it takes longer to load. Whal I want to point out is that to extend the time would simply cause delay and a slowing up it the whole movement of grain in the very busy season, when there is a great shortage of cars, and when you want to get your grain on the market as quickly as you can.


Harry Leader: Will not the minister
admit that these small machines are incapable of loading a car of wheat in twenty-four hours?


Charles A. Stewart: The experience in my locality is that part of the grain is in the granary, ready to haul out. It is obviously impossible with a small machine threshing about 500 bushels a day to load 1.000 bushels onto a car in twenty-four hours- unless you have some facilities for storing, but almost invariably the farmer has some grain in his granary ready to haul out.


Harry Leader: If the minister will come
to my locality, I will show him hundreds of small machines all loading their cars from the loading platform, and it takes two days to load each car.


George Perry Graham: I know the railways are
very much opposed to this. Millions and millions of dollars are spent in getting cars ready to move the grain crop, cars that lie idle for a good part of the year outside of that. This proposal means doubling the time for loading, and practically doubling the number of cars you will have to have to meet the demand. That will be added to the rate on your grain. There is no other way of getting at it. I think hon. gentlemen ought to be satisfied with this bill. We have gone on and not pressed all these things because they might raise opposition in quarters where we do not want to have it raised, but to endeavour to get the railways to double the time in which a car should be loaded is only hampering the whole grain movement, and I think would be of no benefit at all to the farmers themselves.


Oliver Robert Gould: I agree with the two ministers. I live and market my grain eight and one-half miles from a loading platform, and

Canada Grain Act
with my neighbours' assistance I succeed in loading my car of grain on time, sometimes not within the twenty-four hours, but the railway companies are very generous and they have not been inclined to impose this dollar a day demurrage. Even if they did so, I argue that the farmers is receiving a service at away below cost when he can hold a car another twenty-four hours at the loading platform for one dollar.
In regard to the argument about small machines, if the farmer chooses to use a machine that will thresh only from 400 to 800 bushels a day, why should the railway companies or the neighbours be penalized for that? If the amendment carries, we shall have succeeded in providing for three cars at the loading platform placed side by side or endways, allowing three farmers to load at one time. That has been found necessary because of late years, since the old act was drafted, the cars have increased in size, and we have found that three men could not load at one time. But this new provision regarding the loading platform is going to be the greatest factor in shipping grain from western points in future, and so far as I am concerned I am not going to press for anything further than the act gives us at the present time.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was speaking a few
minutes ago for the man who lives a distance from the railway. I would suggest to the Minister of Railways that if he is in favour of keeping the farmer down to loading within twenty-four hours, why not keep the man who loads coal down to a twenty-four hour basis too?


George Perry Graham: Sometimes it is a physical
impossibility.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The same with grain.


Thomas Sales: I load my grain over the
platform, and the provisions of this act as it is now I think are in the best interest of the farmer. If we change this provision, we are going to slow up the whole movement of grain. Like my hon. friend (Mr. Gould) I have never found the railway trouble me very much about demurrage. That is my experience. As for the man who lives far away, he will be hauling grain at the very time when he will be able to get forty-eight hours for loading. I am going to support the clause as it stands.


Mr. DAVIES:: I opposed this amendment
in the committee, and I am going to oppose it now. I am one of those who happen to be eight or ten miles from the railway, and I think this act makes generous provision, because for practically nine months in the year
we have forty-eight hours in which to load a car. To adopt the amendment would mean slowing up the whole movement of grain in the three busy months of the year, and that would react upon the farmers themselves; there is not the slightest shadow of doubt in my mind about that. After passing section 150 this afternoon, the farmers are going
5 p.m. to use the platforms to the very fullest extent, and we want nothing to slow up that movement. It will take the farmer two days, if he is eight or nine miles away, to load a car, but my hon. friends have not told this House that during the threshing season the farmers in the west form bees where neighbours get together, and with eight or nine or ten teams load a car in a day without any trouble. This has been my experience for the last ten years, and we have had absolutely no complaint of the twenty-four hours during the whole time. Therefore, why should we pass this amendment?


Mr. MILLAR:: A complaint came to me a short time ago bearing on this point, and I will try to give the words as near as I can of the farmers who made the complaint. They said:	We live seven miles from the station.
A car is spotted at perhaps two o'clock in the afternoon, when the teams of the farmers are scattered around the farm, and some of them may not even be on the farm. The agent in the town notifies the farmers that the car is spotted, and it takes him hours to gather the teams together and load the grain. It is practically impossible for him to get in more than one load with each team before the twenty-four hours is up. At two o'clock the next day the twenty-four hours has expired.
What the minister has said is true, that this would to a certain extent tie up the transportation system, but I think the Minister of Railways exaggerated somewhat; he does not often exaggerate, but I think he did when he referred to the great increase in rolling stock that would be required. We have to consider	the	greatest	good of	thegreatest number, but it does seem a little hardship to the man	who is	charged	onedollar demurrage,	and	that is	increased tothree dollars the	second day,	and to	six
dollars or more I believe the third day. I do not see why they should not be allowed the Same time as the men who are unloading lumber or coal. They are given forty-eight hours. Why the difference? The man unloading coal has his agent right nearby and lives in the town, and has all his help nearby, and has a better chance to unload a carload
Canada Grain Act

of coal in twenty-four hours that a farmer who lives seven or eight miles out in the country. I do not think it would be any great hardship if those words were struck out.
Amendment (Mr. Lucas) negatived.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 192 to 236, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules A, A1 and B carried.
On schedule B1:


George Newcombe Gordon: There seems to be an error in this schedule. The words '''special grain ticket" should read "special bin ticket."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, that is right.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Schedules C, D, E, F and G agreed to.
Thomas Andrew Low: There is a schedule of elevators attached, No. 2.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, with amendments.
Amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Thomas Andrew Low: I was not in the House last night when section 140, clause (b), was amended. I am informed by the chief inspector and by the chairman of the board that it will be impossible to carry out the clause as amended, and I suggest that the words "general average" be struck out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Will the minister tell us how
the amended section will read?
(Mr. LOW: It will read thus:
All grain inspected out of a private elevator shall be required in order to receive a grade to be equal to the quality of the grain of a similar grade passing inspection at the initial inspection point, and shall be properly cleaned.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise to a point of order. An amendment of this character is not in order at this stage.


Hewitt Bostock: If it were a material
amendment, the point would be well taken, but if the hon. gentleman will refer to Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, section 553 he will find the following:
No amendment not merely verbal shall be made to any bill on the third reading. British House Standing Orders, No. 42, passed 21st July, 1856. When material

amendments are desirable, the order for the third reading may be discharged, and the bill recommitted to introduce the amendments in committee. In such cases it has been customary to consider the bill as amended, and to read it the third time, immediately. As a fact the Canadian Commons never amend the bill at this stage.
Except for verbal 'amendments of an unimportant nature.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I point out to Your Honour that this amendment is a most important one and will! 'largely spoil any gain we have made?


Thomas Andrew Low: I will withdraw imy amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Robert James Manion: I have a telegram that I received just a few minutes ago and that I wish to put on record for consideration of members of the Senate. This is from the secretary of the Fort William and Port Arthur Grain Exchange, Mr. David Lemuy, sent to myself:
At a meeting of the Fort William and Port Arthur Grain Exchange held to-day I have been instructed to forward to you the following protest. Paragraph D section 141 amended in committee to read as follows: "All grain inspected out of a private elevator shall be required in order to receive a grade to be equal in quality to a similar grade passing inspection from the general bins of a public terminal elevator." This amendment passed committee of Agriculture and we understand that House has now reinserted the following: "All grain inspected out of a private elevator or out of a special bin as aforesaid shall be required in order to receive a grade to be equal to the general average quality of the grade of a similar grade"-
I presume it is "a similar grade".
* "passing inspection at the initial official inspection point and shall be properly cleaned." Section as passed provides for two standards of inspection out at the head- of the lakes one for private elevators and the other for public elevators. This in itself is wrong and unfair and the higher standard required of a private house is practically imppossible. Private elevators should not be required to put out a higher grade than the public elevators. This is most important to the private elevators in Fort William and Port Arthur. Please do all you can to get clause changed back to the same as that adopted by the Agricultural committee.


Hewitt Bostock: There is nothing before the Chair, the amendment being withdrawn. When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.
Mr. LOW moved the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move that this bill be not now read a third time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Too late.


Hewitt Bostock: It has been read a third time.

Canada Grain Act


George Gibson Coote: I 'may be too late, but I was on my feet and said your name.


Hewitt Bostock: I must acceipt the bon. gentleman's word.


George Gibson Coote: I move:
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the Whole with instructions that they have power to amend the bill by striking out subsection (2) of section 150 and substituting therefor the following:
Such receipt shall also state upon its face that tho grain mentioned therein has been received into store, and that upon the return of such receipt, and upon payment or tender of payment of all lawful charges for receiving, storing, insuring, delivering or otherwise handling such grain, which may accrue up to the time of the return of the receipt, the grain is deliverable to the person on whose account it has been taken into store, or to his order, from the country elevator where it was received for storage, or, if he so desires, in quantities not less than carload lots, on track at any terminal elevator in the western inspection division or at a proper terminal elevator at or adjacent to Duluth, so soon as the transportation company delivers the same at such terminal, and the certificate of grade and weight is returned.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I was paired with the
minister without portfolio (Mr. McGiverin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



HOME BANK BILL

[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED PAYMENT OF DEPOSITORS TO THE AMOUNT OF *5,450,000

James Alexander Robb: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House disagrees to their amendments to Bill No. 182 (An Act for the relief of the
depositors of the Home Bank of Canada), for the
following reasons:
1. Because the said amendments, which consist :n changing the title and adding a preamble as well as now clauses, are foreign to the bill passed by the House of Commons on the 10th of June, 1925, the said preamble setting out that certain representations haye been made to the Governor in Council and that the government's moral responsibility to the Home Bank depositors is not admitted, and also defining the principle on which pecuniary aid may be afforded to a limited number of creditors-thereby giving expression to recitals on behalf of the cabinet and the House of Commons which have not been authorized either by the government or by the House of Commons.
Home Dank


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried1.
Right Hon, ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):	Mr. Speaker, what an
extraordinary state of affaire! The government. has read out from the Chair a long series of resolutions involving its view of constitutional doctrine, and the application of that doctrine in respect of a variety of amendments made by the Senate to a bill, and the House is invited to vote upon it without the slightest exposition of the principles, without any explanation even of the Senate amendments, with no discussion as to the relation of the principles to the amendments-indeed, without a word from the government at all. In the first place, I do not think the government should ask the House to even discuss the matter now-


James Alexander Robb: We are not.


Arthur Meighen: -without adequate preparation. But to suggest, as I observed hon. members did, that the House vote upon it without discussion, is to me an affront to parliament.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the government whether, in regard to the unfortunate few that are now permited under the Senate amendments to receive relief, we are by this motion depriving them of that relief?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Probably.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is this action of the government simply assisting the Senate to destroy the last vestige of hope for the depositors?


James Alexander Robb: No, this is an intimation to the Senate that the Commons will be prepared to have a conference with the Senate with a view to arriving at a proper basis in the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, it is not
that at all.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Arthur Meighen: Is this matter to be put to a vote of this House in a manner such as this? It is unheard of. Does nobody on the government side know anything about it? Are we to have no explanation or exposition at all? I suggest that we have an exposition and that the matter be postponed until hon. members have had an opportunity to review any merits there may be in it. But we should have an exposition now from the government.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not understand the attitude taken by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen). He claims that the government should define what its policy is in regard to this matter. Well, the very words of the resolution enunciate the principles on which the government base its refusal to accept the amendments of the Senate. If my right hon. friend objects to that declaration of principle, he is at liberty to discuss it as long as he likes. I do not see what affront is being made to parliament by this resolution. So far as the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) are concerned, I may say that this is going to the Senate and the Senate will have to declare whether or not they insist on their amendments. If they insist on their amendments they will send a message to this House stating so, and this

Home Bank
House will then be at liberty to ask for a conference with the Senate with a view to coming to some understanding. Then it will be time to decide what the ultimate course will be and whether the bill is to be accepted as amended or altogether destroyed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems to me that we can never get away from what appears to be a rather melancholy position in connection with the Home Bank case. We are familiar with the start. We are familiar with how the investigation started. The first order in council, we know, was a purely political affair, so much so that it could not stand and was amended. Then again we had a political discussion in connection with something which should not have been a political discussion. We should be able to assume that the House was in earnest and wanted to do something for the depositors. We had a matter brought up in connection with a letter read by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) from Senator Robertson. We had in the first instance the case of a Conservative ex-Minister of Finance. We have in the next instance the suggestion-yes, more than a suggestion- that unless the amount provided for in the bill was placed in the estimates there would be a danger of the Senate doing exactly what it has done. The House could be assumed to be earnest and serious in its legislation: it could be assumed to mean what it said when last year it declared that irrespective of what happened not a cent of contribution could be made in eases of this kind. We are always losing sight of what we ought to have before us in connection with this case, namely, the needs of many needy people. But to-day this is to be lost sight of because we have to make a declaration of independence of this House as against the Senate. This constitutional fight may interest the on-lookers but I do not know what is to become of the claims of the depositors in the meantime. They will get nothing, or they will have to wait until we reach the end of this constitutional struggle. This motion does not ask for a conference; it is a notification to the Senate that the Senate have acted outside of their powers and that the course they have taken is entirely nugatory. It is an extraordinary fact that government members in the Senate took part in these proceedings and supported the action taken; that a member of the administration in the Senate supported it.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: A Greek chorus. .


Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg my hon. friend's pardon?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not mean to interrupt, but I was commenting on the "hear, hears" from the leader of the opposition. It was just like a Greek chorus.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend may laugh, but this is a serious matter. A great many people are in a very difficult position as a result of the failure of the Home Bank. My view is just what it was when we were discussing the matter before, namely, that the necessitous cases should be looked after; that the measure was one not of indemnity but of relief where relief was needed and where relief was due. My position has been that I would like to see the really necessitous cases paid one hundred cents on the dollar, and that eleemosynary institutions, charitable organizations and things of that character should be treated in the same way. What really astonished me was the statement the Prime Minister made when he dealt with the Robertson letter. Why, it was necessary then, he said, that this matter should go to the Senate not tied to a Supply bill but in such a way that the Senate could deal with it and could function. The Prime Minister made a red hot attack upon Senator Robertson because, forsooth, he had suggested that the appropriation for reimbursement would be attached to the Supply bill, which, as everybody knows, does not raise any constitutional question. Everybody knows that the Commons and the Commons alone have power in the field of everything covered by the Supply bill.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Does my
hon. friend not agree that if the Senate can do what they have done in relation to the Home Bank bill, they could do it also with the Supply bill?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I certainly do
not. The authorities make a sharp distinction between grants in aid of His Majesty, grants of supply, votes for housekeeping expenses, and other matters. Why, Mr. Speaker, can the Senate amend a railway bill to which this government is the endorser? Can they amend the amount of the bonds which they seek to have issued for a branch line? Can they stop it? Can they alter it? Do they not do it every day? But no one as far as I have heard has ever suggested that they had any such right whatever in connection with Supply. There is a very great difference.
Home Bank

But I am not so much concerned to-day about these questions of legal right here and legal right there. If we are sincere in looking after the depositors who need the money, we are not going to do anything which is going to entirely prevent them from getting any relief whatever. In the first instance, was there any way-supposing, for example, the government were not sincere in this; I am not saying they were not, but supposing they were not sincere-was there any way in which the government could put themselves in this position the more readily than by what has been done, putting themselves in the position of saying to the depositors: "We are going to do everything for you,"1 thereby getting their support, and then making sure they would not have to find the money. Supposing the government had not been sincere, what would they have done? Well, they would have put through an act like they put through last year, which would say: Under no circumstances can depositors get a cent, and they would say: That act we put through last year will apply not only in a case like this, but in a case which is far, far more urgent, in a case where neglect is far more outrageous, in a case where we set up the machinery to see these banks are run properly, in a case where negligence can be charged and brought home, but nevertheless under no circumstances can any payment be made at all.
Then again, if they had wanted to make sure it would be thrown out, could they have done better than to keep it out of the Supply bill-on the very grounds urged by the right hon. the Prime Minister in this House, that he was keeping it out of the Supply bill so that the Senate could go fully into it, so that the whole matter could be handled not only by this House but also by the Senate.
Then again, could anything have been more calculated to bring about the result than the use of the letter?
Again, if the idea be that we are to have a fuss about this and no one is to get any money, could that end be better brought about than by now engaging in the dying days of the session in a long discussion. It must be long-hon. gentlemen have heard the grounds read over; they are long enough, and if there is anything in them they are grave enough to merit some discussion. If you want to defeat everything, can you do better at the present stage than to enter upon the discussion which the government now invite the House to enter upon? Is there any surer way of ensuring that the depositors get nothing?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my
hon. friend not know that this is the ordinary procedure that has been followed in every case where there has been a disagreement between the two Houses? There is nothing new about it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend is wrong there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will find that when we really want to get something done, the way is not to decorate our coats with quite as many chips as this, but to ask in the first instance for a conference, and see if the matter cannot be arranged.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is the ordinary procedure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen say no. Well, if they had put their protest not on the ground of all these various rights, which may or may not be correct, but on the ground of the necessities of indigent depositors that would be a very different thing indeed.


William Irvine: Seeing that the government has not explained the resolution as presented to the House, will the hon. member state what will be the next step, after we have passed this, in order to get money for the Home Bank depositors?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, after we have passed on this, if the Senate agree that their action is wrong-in connection with the law and the constitution, which, of course, the government are very confident they will do, but if they should do that, why then, we would have a conference on the merits.


James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says, "hear, hear." I wonder why he says "hear, hear." I think I know why; it is because he would have to find no money this year for the depositors.


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. member know
that we are now being requested by the Senate to concur in the amendments they have made to the act, and that the answer that is being given is that we cannot concur for the reasons enumerated. When that message is communicated to the Senate, their honours will then advise as to what is the next step to be taken. That is the constitutional practice.

Calgary and Femie Railway


Henry Lumley Drayton: It depends so
much upon your object and which way you are travelling. It is perfectly proper to raise the issue on the merits if you have any doubt about the merits, but it is another thing to raise it on a technical thing like this when hon. gentlemen know nothing may come of it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is it not within the power and right of the government to put this amount in the supplementary estimates and carry it through that way?


Thomas Vien: We might do that later.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS ESSEX TERMINAL RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill 120, respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company-Mr. Healy-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Section 2-Limitation of times for commencement and completion.
Edward Joseph Garland: Can we
have some explanation of this section by the hon. member in charge. We asked for an explanation when the bill was in committee the other day.


Mr. HEALY:: This is a bill asking for an
extension of time to build a seven mile spur from the Essex Terminal railway which is already built and in operation, which connects the Canadian National railway, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Wabash, the Pere Marquette, .the Michigan Central and the Hydroelectric line railway Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg, and the Windsor, Essex and Lake Shore railway. It is a belt line which also makes direct connection, or indirect connection, over the lines I have mentioned, with some two hundred manufacturing plants in the border cities. The reason this extension has not been built is that it will not be required until the plant now being built and owned by the Canadian Steel Corporation is put in operation. It will then be required in order to make it unnecessary to send the output of the plant through the manufacturing district, but
will enable the steel corporation to make the direct connection with the Canadian Pacific railway and the Michigan and Central railways at Pelton. The railroad is in operation and has been for some years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 184, respecting the Calgary and Femie Railway Company.-Mr. Hudson.-Mr. Gordon in the chair.	.
On section 1.-Extension of time for construction.
George Newcombe Gordon: There was some objection to this bill at the last sitting of the committee.


Mr. HUDSON:: At the last sitting objection was taken to this bill going through, and since that time I have had some conversation with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) and we have arrived at an understanding with regard to an amendment which I think wiil meet the situation. Notice was given of a proposed amendment by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner), the notice appearing in the Votes and Proceedings of Saturday. I have communicated with the promoters of the bill, and they are willing to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member if he will change the date mentioned in his notice from the 1st September, 1925, to the 1st January, 1926.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the clause be considered as carried and that this proposed amendment be put in
as section 2 (a).


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 2 (a) will be
the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, and reads as follows:
The Calgary and Fernie Railway Company shall, not *later than the first day of January, 1926, execute and deliver to the Minister of Railways and Canals a good and sufficient bond in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars to be approved of by said minister, made in favour of the king in the right of the government of Canada and conditioned to secure the complete construction of ten miles of the said railway within two years of the passing of this act; provided that if the company fails to carry out the requirements of this section the powers of construction granted to it by this act shall cease and be null and void.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Private Bills
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is it not a fact that the concurrence of the Senate must be secured to this bill?


Hewitt Bostock: It is not necessary.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 187, respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Hopkins.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Matthew Wilson Lazenby.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Evelyn Laura Herlehy.-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
Bill No. 178, for the relief, of Lois Kathleen Purdy.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 185, for the relief of George William Quibell.

Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Frederick Ethelbert Shibley.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Alfred Percival Selby.

Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Charles Thomas Bolton.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Ada Durward. -Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Edward James Hogan.-Mr. Hanna.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Roger Alexander McGill.-Mr. Bowen.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of John Perron. -Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of William Albert Everingham.-Mr. Bowen.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Mary Ella Mackey.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Melvin Grant Cowie.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Ella May Stacey.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Jessie Harriett MacKey.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Edna Fox.- Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of James Jack-son.-Mr. Church.
Bill	No.	218,	for	the relief of William
Frederick Hamilton Strangway.-Mr. Duff.
Bill	No.	11,	to	incorporate Dominion
Chartered Customs House Brokers Association.

Mr. McMaster.
Bill -No. 219, respecting certain patents of Accounting	and	Tabulating Machine Corporation.-Mr. Jacobs.Bill	No.	222,	for	the relief of Walter
Roderick Lewis.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Irene Muriel Corelli.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Wilfred Clarence Byron.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
[The Chairman.]
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Jessie Irene Yates.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Walter Lewis Haivkins.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Lucy Eileen Johnston.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Susan Ellen Taunton Love.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Caroline Watters.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Grace Wil-helmina Harrison.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Ethel Foster. -Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Mary Ann Tattersall.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Euphemia Tudor Slade.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Marion Roberts Edmiston.-Mr. MacLaren.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of William Morgan Floyd.-Mr. Hanna.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Harry Iven Jones.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Edith Smith. -Mr. Duff.	.
Bill No. 202, for the relief Mary Helen Wallace.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Wilbert Newell Hurdman.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Maude Crawford Ross.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Bertha Matilda Quinn.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 213, for the relief of William Garfield Reed.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of James Deverell. -Mr. Tolmie.	,
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Anita Allcock. -Mr. Rankin.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, respecting a patent owned by the Concrete Surfacing Machinery Company. -Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 38, to incorporate Knights of North America.-Mr. Maybee.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Elizabeth Ethel McSherry.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 220, respecting a patent owned by The John E. Russell Company.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 221, respecting a patent owned by The John E. Russell Company.-Mr. Chevrier.

Home Bank

[Stage Direction]
riiOPOSED PAYMENT OF DEPOSITORS TO THE AMOUNT OF $5,450,000

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for non-concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 182 for the relief of the depositors of the Home Bank of Canada.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker,
when the House rose for adjournment I had been discussing one or two phases of this question, and among others the attitude taken by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister when he was defending the course adopted by his government in introducing a bill instead of a vote in Supply for the relief of the Home Bank depositors. At that time there was no doubt at all in the mind of the right hon. gentleman that there was of necessity a very great difference between Supply and a bill in relation to the Senate jurisdiction and right to affect our legislation. As reported at page 4219 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
With regard to a measure of this kind which affects all classes in this country, it is of the utmost importance that it should be presented in the form of a bill. Indeed, if this government had denied the Senate the right of discussing this measure, what stronger weapon against any Senate reform would :t have been possible to have placed in the hands of those who would like to see the Senate in its powers remain as it is?
I pause at that point to wonder whether the move now made is to form item No. 1 of the agenda of next year's conference on the powers of the Senate. Apparently the right hon. gentleman thinks the Senate has the right to look after matters of this kind, but if it has not, if it is innocuous, if it is without power, he goes on:
What stronger weapon against any Senate reform would it have been possible to have placed in the hands of those who would like to see the Senate m its powers remain as it is? The people as a whole have certain rights which should be conserved, not only in this House but in the Senate as well. It is only when the Senate by its action repeated over and ovei again obviously defeats what is the will of parliament, that the Senate's action in any essential particular should be controlled. Once again I wish to say that the government has brought in this measure in the form that it has so that there would be no room for criticism on the part of hon. members opposite, either as to the method of bringing about this relief, or as to the fairness of the method by which the government has proceeded-
There was no secret as to what was the right way to bring it about, and in so far at any rate as one of the leading members of the Senate was concerned, he had pointed out that the proper procedure was to put in
our Supply bill a vote to cover the amount of relief to be granted to the depositors. So I can hardly think my right hon. friend was serious in making those remarks. But the government thep recognized the difference in the procedure, and recognized the right of the Senate to amend this bill.
Now, I am not going to argue whether the Senate is right or wrong I am concerned to see that the question of relief to the Home Bank depositors is not held over for this conference or because of the constitutional fight in connection with the matter. I am only going to assure hon. gentlemen that this is nothing new. Of course, so far as the matter of practice is concerned we know a good deal about it. We know, for example, that lean bills in connection with the railways have been considered, and have been changed by the Senate. We know that with regard, not to one but many railway bills the recommendation of this House has been entirely changed by the Senate. But in all those cases no protest was made at all by the government. It may be that what the Senate did was without right. We have a rule of the House which proclaims very definitely the position of this House, we have also the position taken by the Senate, and, further, we have the provisions of the British North America Act.
Now, so that hon. gentlemen will understand the magnitude of the controversy which is provoked, and in the maze of which I am afraid the Home Bank depositors are going to be lost altogether, I refer them to the Minutes and Proceedings of the Senate of May 15, 1919. They will find at page 422 a carefully prepared memorandum on the rights of the Senate in matters of financial legislation. They will also find that the memorandum-which is lengthy, and which I am not going to trouble the House by going over in detail-was submitted to constitutional lawyers. They will find the considered opinion of Mr. Lafleur, in which he is joined by Mr. Geoffrion, at page 429. The opinion is carefully drawn, and reasons are given. It winds up by saying:
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Senate of Canada may amend-


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, according to rule 16, paragraph 203 of , Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, allusions to debates in the other House are out of order. It says further:
There are few orders more important than this for the conduct of debate and for observing courtesy between Houses.
Home Bank

Sir HENR.Y DRAYTON: May I point out to my hon. friend that as yet Mr. Eugene Lafleur and Mr. Aime Geoffrion are not senators. What I am reading from is a considered opinion given by these gentlemen, I am reading, it is true, from a record, but I am not reading part of a debate.


Lucien Cannon: I will call the attention
of Mr. Speaker to rule 16, paragraph 202 of Beauchesne, which says:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the House and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not even
within radio broadcasting distance of that point, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon
member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) is citing two legal authorities on the respective powers or jurisdictions of the Senate and the House of Commons as regards money bills. I happen to have read the opinion in question. It is not part of a debate which took place in the Senate. It is a document contained in the report of a special committee of the Senate. Any constitutional authority can be quoted in the House, whether the name is Lafleur or Geoffrion, whether it is May or Bourinot, or anybody else. As regards the first objection made by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) it would be an objection to be considered if the hon. member for West York were commenting on views held by senators. But the very question now before the House is the issue which has been raised as between the Senate and the House of Commons with regard to the power to amend money bills. Therefore, the remarks of the hon. member for West York are pertinent and I do not think that the hon. member should insist on his objection.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I
am not going to give the whole of this opinion. It would be helpful to do so, but I do not want to delay the House. I will simply point out the conclusion. It says:
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Senate of Canada may amend a money bill originating in the House of Commons as fully as the House of Commons can do. Of course the powers of the Senate are limited to the same extent as those of the House of Commons by the fact that money bills must be recommended by a message of the Governor General.
But the opinion is not all on one side, Mr. Speaker. I am only pointing out the difficulty that is ahead of us if we are really going to tackle the question this session, before we can do anything about the Home

Bank depositors. There is another opinion given, that of Mr. John S. Ewart. He does not state it quite so categorically, but the gist of his conclusion is that the Senate is without that power.


Thomas Vien: Where is it to be found?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is to be found at page 431 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Senate, of date May 15, 1918. The memorandum draws a clear distinction between a money bill of this character-that is, a money bill -which is not for the granting of supply to His Majesty, but for an entirely different purpose-and a bill which has to do with the requirements of the public service. The memorandum recognizes the absolute right of the Commons to secure its supply.


Lucien Cannon: Has that opinion been
laid on the table of the House of Commons?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid I
cannot tell my hon. friend whether it has or not.


Lucien Cannon: Well, if it has not, I rise to another point of order. Rule 19 refers to the discussion of messages or reports which are not regularly before the House. That document is not before the House. How can we follow the hon. gentleman's argument when he quotes from a document which is not before us?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not necessary to say anything in answer to that. If that principle were followed, it would be impossible to quote from a statute without first laying it before the House. It would be impossible to quote from anything without first laying it before the House.


Lucien Cannon: The statutes are public.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
gets a little mixed as between a report in connection with the business of the House, on which this House has to act, and the statements of outside authorities, to which we certainly can refer. Anyway, the hon. member is a little bit late in starting. I had finished with the opinions; there they are.


Lucien Cannon: I would like to have a
decision from the Speaker first.


Hewitt Bostock: I thought I had given a
ruling. In my humble judgment there is no point of order. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) is simply citing the opinion of two legal gentlemen on the respective powers of the Senate and the House of Commons as regards money bills. The point would be well taken if he were citing

Home Bank
from a document emanating from the Senate which had not been laid on the table of the House of Commons. Bourinot, of course, has never been tabled, May has never been tabled. They are authorities on parliamentary usuage and customs and procedure. The hon. member for West York is quoting the opinions of two legal gentlemen regarding the question at issue.


Lucien Cannon: Without discussing your
decision, Mr. Speaker, with your permission may I say that a distinction should be made between the law and private commentaries on the law. Laws are public, and documents which are private have to be laid before the House before they can be discussed. Otherwise other members have absolutely no power to control what the members quoting these documents may say.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
West York is not quoting from a document emanating from the other House. He is citing the opinions of two legal luminaries as regards the question at issue. Whether they give their opinion to members of the upper chamber, or to members of the lower chamber, matters not. Their opinion is simply cited to add weight to an argument.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been
absolutely fair in giving opinions both ways, so some of them at any rate must be worth something. At all events they constitute a valuable contribution to anything that may be said upon this subject, if hon. gentlemen want to look the subject up, frankly L do not want anybody to. have to look the question up. I want to see some action one way or the other on its merits, if the government so desires, in connection with the Senate legislation. There is no question on the merits of these points at all. These points are entirely legal. I simply again point out that if we are to go into a legal fight in connection with this matter, if we are to consider the preparation of ammunition for a campaign against the Senate, the rights of the depositors of the bank most assuredly are going to suffer.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General):: The hon. gentleman who has just
resumed his seat (Sir Henry Drayton) has stated that he wants action. May I point out to him and to the House that the only way in which action can be taken at this stage, consistent with what the House has already done, is precisely the way in which the House is asked to proceed by the motion which has been placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker. In no other way at the present stage can 'action be taken.
A brief recital of the facts may help to clarify the situation, and at the same time make plain to the hon. members 9 p.m. of this House that the government is acting strictly in accordance with the procedure that is applicable to cases of this kind, and that there is nothing irregular or unusual about what has been done, or about what is proposed to be done. Let us look at what has happened.
On the 10th of June this House passed a bill, No. 182, An Act for the relief of the depositors of the Home Bank of Canada. As so passed, that bill was then sent to the Senate. The Senate in the exercise of its wisdom not only amended that bill, but, in effect, drafted an entirely new bill. So that there may not be any doubt on that subject let me quote an authority which will be accepted not only by hon. members of this House, but also by members of the other branch of this parliament.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the authority been tabled?


Charles Murphy: It is in the reading room of the Commons. The editor of the Montreal Gazette is also a respected member of the Senate, and in his paper of the 22nd of June there is an editorial, part of which is as follows:
The new or revised Home Bank bill as sent to the House of Commons by the Senate is a notable example of skilful legislating. In the first place, the dangerous principle of compensation and the poor pretence of a moral obligation is rejected, the bill being thereby purged of its essentially vicious feature.
A little later on the editorial says:
There is virtually a new bill which provides for a distribution upon an entirely different basis and to a more limited extent, and even the title of the measure has been changed.
Still later on in the same editorial in the Montreal Gazette, the owner of which, as I have stated, is a respected member of the Senate, there is this statement:
The "moral responsibility" basis is formally repudiated in the legislation.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a very apt description of what took place in the Senate. After that had been done, the Senate sent the bill back to this House. The situation then was that this House had either to concur in the amendments that had been made, or rather accept this entirely mew bill drafted by the Senate, or disagree to the amendments. The government proposes that this House will not concur in these amendments, or accept this new bill, and the government has stated its reasons for taking that attitude in the motion which has been placed in your hands,
Home Bank

Mr. Speaker. That, Sir, is entirely in accordance with the regular procedure in such cases.
Now what is the further procedure that is to be taken? My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) briefly stated that further procedure this afternoon. Allow me to briefly re-state it.
As I have said, the reasons for the action proposed by the government are fully set forth in the motion before us. Now under the rules and procedure and the precedents recognized in this House, the further steps to be taken may be briefly summarized as follows: Assuming that the motion in your hands, Mr. Speaker, would pass, then a message would be sent to the Senate. That is the usual course. The message in all these cases is such as you have read to the House, or one similar to it applicable to the circumstances of each case. Having received that message, the Senate then agrees to the position taken by the Commons, or disagrees. If the Senate agrees, then the matter under discussion is easily adjusted. If, on the other hand, the Senate disagrees or insists upon its amendments, it sends back a message to the Commons to that effect. Having received that message, this House then asks for a free conference with the Senate. If the Senate agrees to a free conference, this House names its representatives, or, as they are called under parliamentary procedure, the managers, who will represent it at the conference. The Senate names its managers, and1 the conference takes place. Now it is only when that conference has taken place that the. ultimate fate of this bill can be determined, and it is only when that conference has taken place that an answer can be given to the question that was asked this afternoon by my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland), and I think by another hon. member of the House. Therefore the motion that has been placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker, is the first step towards the action which my hon. friend the member for West York desires should be taken.
As I have said the reasons for the government's position are fully set out in the motion in your hands, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon there was some intimation given that this action was not supported by authority. With that statement I join issue, and in support of the position taken by the government I quote Bourinot. At page 444 he says:
The House of Commons alone has the constitutional right to initiate measures for the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of public money.
Section 53 of the British North America
Act says:

Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
And further, in the speech with which the Governor General opens and closes every session of parliament, he recognizes the constitutional privileges of the House of Commons with respect to the estimates and supply, for he addresses its members only with respect to these matters. Thus is the position of the government supported by Bourinot. I desire to quote Todd on the same point at page 476 That author in comparing New Zealand and Canadian legislation, proceeds to speak thus:
But neither the New Zealand nor the Canadian laws can be so construed as to warrant a claim by the upper chambers of either parliament to equal rights in matters of aid and supply to those which are enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom; for such a claim, if insisted upon, would, to a like extent, derogate from and diminish the constitutional rights of the representative chamber.
And he proceeds further:
The Victorian Constitution Act, 1865. section 56. and the British North America Act, 1867, section 53, severally declare that bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue-
Not merely Supply bills, but bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the House of Assembly or the House of Commons.
No further definition of the relative powers of the two houses is ordinarily made by any statute. But constitutional practice goes much farther than this. It justifies the claim of the imperial House of Commons (and by parity of reasoning, of all representative chambers framed after the model of that House), to a general control over public revenue and expenditure, a control -which has been authoritatively defined in the following words: All aids and supplies, and aids to His Majesty in parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons, and it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit and appoint in such bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.
And that last statement is recognized as a great parliamentary principle, and it has been
adopted practically in all self-governing British parliaments, and it forms part of the standing rules of this House. Rule 78 says:
All aids and supplies granted to His Majesty by the parliament of Canada, are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, wheb are not alterable by the Senate.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I cite further the authority of Redlich. That author at page 119 says:
All taxes, duties and grants of money, and all measures imposing financial burdens on the people are matters within the sole jurisdiction of the House of Commons;

Home Bank
He further says:
Closely connected with the first of the Commons' rights in money matters is a second, inseparable from it and equally fundamental. They are entitled to order and dispose how the national revenue, whether permanent or annually granted, is to be spent, and to do so in the greatest detail.
Then at page 120 the same author says:
Both income and expenditure are therefore completely and exclusively in the hands of the House of Commons.
At page 122 there is a further declaration:
The crown alone, or to speak more accurately the government alone, has the right to ask for public money for definite purposes or to propose to the House the expenditure in a definite way of moneys already granted.
Some question has arisen as to the character of this measure, and doubt might therefore have been raised in some minds as to whether or not it is a money bill in the proper acceptation of that term. I find in May's Parliamentary Practice, page 574, a definition of a money bill taken from a resolution of the British House of Commons, and as we know this parliament follows British parliamentary practice, I submit that resolution applies with equal force to money bills of this parliament. At page 574, May says:
For the purpose of this resolution a bill shall be considered a money bill if, in the opinion of the Speaker, it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the consolidated fund or the provision of money by parliament; supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof: or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them.
So that the definition thus supplied by the resolution of the British House of Commons applies, I submit, to the bill now before the House and further establishes the sole jurisdiction of this House in the matter, and that, Mt. Chairman, I further submit, is an answer to the contention that the sole authority of this House is 'limited to what are called Supply bills.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say the Senate has no right to reject the bill?


Charles Murphy: No, I did not say that..


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon. minister mean by 'sole jurisdiction" if the right of rejection rests with anybody?


Charles Murphy: To initiate measures for the expenditure of money. Any time this House has accepted an amendment to a money bill, it has always been done under a. protest in the name of the Finance Minister of the day. When my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) was Minister of Finance, he did the same thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the last two years we have had no such thing.


Charles Murphy: We have had a great many of those cases'. My hon. friend referred to opinions given by Messrs. Lafleur and Geof-frion regarding the powers of the Senate in relation to such matters as the one we are discussing. He also very fairly stated that there was another opinion given at the same time by an equally eminent gentleman, Mr. John S. Ewart. It occurs to me that Mr. Ewart's opinion is so much in point that the House would like to hear it, inasmuch as while Mr. Ewart was consulted by the Senate at the same time as Messrs. Geoffrion and Lafleur, he differs entirely from these two gentlemen who are both, as the House knows, very eminent legal authorities but who can scarcely be said to be such close students of constitutional affairs as is Mr. Ewart. Mr. Ewart's opinion is contained in these paragraphs :
From the very earliest time, the colonial assemblies have successfully contended for the same privilege with reference to financial bills as that enjoyed by the British House of Commons. The oases in which contention arose are very numerous, but I do not know of any in which the quarrel between the two Houses has resulted in substantial victory for the Council-as, in the earlier constitutions, the second chamber was styled.
A glance at the histories, furnishes me with two instances which may be taken as containing typical assertion of the privilege of the assemblies. The first, of these is noted in Dickerson's American Colonial Government, 1696-1765: The author says (page 160 that, in the time of Governor Cornbury, of New York:-
"The Council sought to amend the revenue bill so as to remove this objection, but it was met by the point blank assertion that the Assembly would permit no amendment of money bills."
The second instance I take from Dr. Kingsford's book, the History of Canada, volume 9, page 217. On that occasion (181S) the Council and Assembly were brought into sharp conflict with the result, as the author says, that:-
"The Council did not conceive an amendment to the money bill as a breach of privilege; but as it was so asserted, the Council would hereafter forebear from all amendment and simply reject any bill submitted to it, should occasion suggest."
Mr. Ewart concludes:
There can be no doubt that the difference between the British House of Lords and the Canadian Senate referred to in the memorandum are of substantial character, but, after all, the two Houses, with reference to the subject under consideration occupy the same position. For the members of neither House are elected by the people, and the privilege of the Assembly with regard to money bills has always been based upon the fact that the House was composed of [DOT]populariy elected members.
So, I sum up in conclusion that the government in this case has followed the practice that has always been followed in this House; that it has taken the first step by placing the motion that is in your hands be-

Home Bank

fore the House; that that is directly in accordance with parliamentary procedure and practice; that the other steps to which I have alluded will follow automatically, almost as a matter of course if that motion be adopted, and that the conference referred to must take place before it can be known what measure of relief the Home Bank depositors can receive; and finally, that the position taken by the government is! fortified by all the recognized parliamentary authorities.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it would be presumption on my part to attempt to express an opinion upon the constitutionality of the action taken by the Senate in amending the bill or in creating a new bill in regard to the Home Bank depositors. The House has listened with attention to the remarks made by the Postmaster General, (Mr. Murphy), defining exactly what steps have to be taken in connection with further action that may be undertaken in regard to this matter. I rose only to express this hope that, no matter what takes place, after all the proceedings that have been outlined have been gone on with, should there be any difficulty in getting this bill in its original form or in a form in which this House would accept it without derogating in any way from its dignity, the Home Bank depositors shall not be disappointed. It seems to me that, after what has taken place, it would be not only unjust, but almost cruel, that the thing should fall down now because there is a dispute between the two Houses. Parliament has within its power the means to see to it that what has been promised shall be carried through, and I hope the government will see its way clear before the close of this session, to ensure that, no matter what takes place, the Home Bank depositors shall not be disappointed in the promises that have been made to them.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I feel indebted myself and I think all of us do to the Postmaster General for his calm and scholarly treatment of the government's position. It was some such statement as that which I asked for from the administration when this resolution was suddenly moved at half past five o'clock this afternoon. A resolution some three pages in length involving six by no means brief pronouncements of constitutional doctrine was moved without any notice by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and the government wanted it to go to a vote without any statement from themselves, any pronouncement of any kind or any ex-

position of the grounds on which the resolution rested. When I asked for it, I was told in a word: Here is this flung at you >'n a second; now get up and vote on it, or if you are not ready to vote, get up and discuss it. This was the consideration which the government felt that the rest of the House were entitled to.
The Senate has amended an important measure of the administration and I admit that the amendments are substantial. I am not criticising the amendments in the main. As the House will recall, when the government's bill was before this chamber, I urged that the principle which appeared to underlie it, if indeed any did, was that of compensation based upon either moral or legal responsibility. I urged that moral responsibility as against a government was equally binding with legal responsibility, but that in my view neither of those existed, and consequently that the principle followed in the bill could not be upheld as a matter of right. I urged, though, that in view of the widespread loss and suffering caused by this financial collapse, a measure of relief dictated by compassion would receive at the hands of this House, in my judgment, a hospitable welcome. Some such view appears to have been taken of the whole transaction by the upper house. It is not within our power to comment upon anything which took place there, to quote any speeches, or in any way to criticize. But it is within my power to call attention to this fact, that the Senate in this matter was unanimous, that the action taken passed with the support of all members of that body.
The bill comes to parliament thus amended, and the government takes the ground that this being a money bill-and I am not disputing that it is a money bill-it is not subject to amendment in any way at all, and that the upper house cannot lay unholy hands upon it; that it must either accept or reject it. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has shown how utterly inconsistent this is with the reason alleged by the administration for placing this vote in a separate bill in the first place. It was in order that the Senate might enjoy full rights of discussion; that the matter might come before the upper house as before this. These reasons do not amount to very much if the Senate has no power save that of rejection. The whole groundwork collapses; it is smashed by the conduct of the government now.
Now, to the authorities cited by the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) I do not take any exception. Nobody disputes that in this parliament all money bills must originate in

Home Bank
the Commons. The Postmaster General upon my question went a little further but he refused to go beyond this sentence, that not only must the origination be here but the direction as well. I do not know to what that direction has reference.


Charles Murphy: The money.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, the destination of it.


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: In other words, this
House alone can decide the destination of it. If I apprehend the Postmaster General's position aright it is this, that the origination of a money bill must be in this House; and with that I agree. And the destination of the money must also be determined here; and therefore the Senate in this particular can make no amendments. The Senate cannot change the destination of the money; that is the contention. Have I correctly stated the hon. member's position?


Charles Murphy: The distribution of it.


Arthur Meighen: That is implied in its
destination. The Postmaster General, then, in his statement does not deny to the upper house every power of amendment. I thought that was his position and I am pleased to find that I am correct. But he does deny to the Senate any power of amendment which affects the distribution of the money itself. Well, if such is the position of the hon. gentlemen I am afraid he will have to vote against this motion of his government, because the government in its six resolutions challenges not only the right of the Senate to put its finger upon the bill and alter in the least the destination of the money, but it challenges the right of the Senate to alter even the wording of the bill. It challenges the Senate to alter the bill in any regard whatever. It recites in its first paragraph the fact that the Senate has altered the preamble.


Charles Murphy: That is not quite correct; the Senate has inserted a preamble where there was none before.


Arthur Meighen: That is right; it has inserted a preamble. The first paragraph of the Senate bill recites the fact that a petition has been presented to the government and the further fact that there is no moral responsibility; and it defines the principle of the bill to be the principle of relief. And the government's resolution declares that because the Senate has done these things this House should vote that the Senate is wrong. Now, the House will take more than a moment to observe 304*
that not one of these things affects the destination of the money; not one of them diverts a dollar or a copper; not one of them in any way at all alters the distribution of the money, according to the Postmaster General's exposition of the law, which I am not disputing. The government therefore has no right to ask the House to pronounce in favour of resolution No. 1.
Now I pass to another of these resolutions, No. 3. But before I do so let me make a general reference to the authorities quoted by the Postmaster General; and as I do so I may be permitted to emphasize that I am in complete accord with him as to the jurisdiction of this House and this House alone to originate money bills and to name the destination. Nor will I fall away from the assertion of power contained in rule 78. But let us take up the history of this matter. This house of parliament, is not necessarily in the position of the houses referred to in Redlich, as quoted by the hon. gentleman. It may be and it may not be. It is not necessarily in the position of the British House. It may or it may not be. Certainly it is true that neither our Senate nor the Senate of Australia has the powers of the British House of Commons; but it at least is subject to very serious dispute whether the whole power rests in this Commons or iD the British House of Commons. Very eminen authorities have differed on this point and I do not feel myself competent to express an opinion upon it. Certainly the reasoning of Messrs. Geoffrion and Lafleur seems more convincing than the reasoning of Mr. Ewart. Mr. Ewart has left out of account the difference in Canada's status from the fact that it if established by the British North America Act and that alone. The British North America Act is our charter and upon that rock rests not only the Commons but the Senate as well. And here in this Dominion, in view of the fact that confederation is a compact which all the provinces came into, the Senate may quite naturally exercise, indeed was given, powers beyond the powers exercised by the Lords of England, because the Senate was looked upon as destined to be the repository of minority rights. The dictum of the Postmaster General is certainly by no means accepted as true, that if you can establish some sole jurisdiction in the Commons of England it follows that such jurisdiction is in the Commons of Canada. I would ask the hon. gentleman to read the opinion which Mr. Geoffrion and Mr. Lafleur expressed in this regard, and I fancy they will at least agree with me that there is room for grave doubt and argument on this point. The British North America Act refers to the matter
Home Bank

in two clauses and two clauses alone. In section 53 quoted in the resolution it is provided:
Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or* impost, shall originate m the House of Commons.
Therefore on this the Postmaster General is right; no one can. dispute that. And section 54 reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, rOF cf any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the session in which such wcte, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.
These are the clauses in the British North America Act relating to this question and to them we must appeal. I think it follows from the first, not only that the origination must be here but that, inasmuch as the destiny of the .money is itself one of the inherent circumstances of the origination, the Senate may not change the destiny. That would be originating a new vote. The Postmaster General is therefore well advised in restricting his final statement of the law in the manner he has stated iit. No on.e could go any further, and so I state again that this resolution cannot be supported on the statement of law to which the Postmaster General confines himself and rightly confines himself. 'Let us look at clause 3, which is a most remarkable one.
Because clause (a) added to the bill provides for the appointment of a commissioner and the organization of a lengthy and costly procedure, thereby entailing a large expenditure which the Senate has no right to make a charge upon the public revenues, and which could only be authorized if it had first been recommended by the Governor General in Council and voted by the House of Commons, under sections 53 and 54 of the British North America Act.
This is indeed remarkable. But what does clause (a) declare? Clause (a) of the Senate bill simply provides that the president of the Exchequer Court of Canada shall, on such evidence as seems to him sufficient, dispose of this money, first, to all who have deposits of $500 or under, and secondly, to such others as the necessities of relief demand that they should receive something.


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. member think that an investigation 'by an Exchequer court judge into 47,000 cases will entail no expenditure of money?


Arthur Meighen: Forty-seven thousand
cases? After the five hundred dollar cases there are only a few to be dealt with. There is nothing whatever in the act that would prevent the Exchequer court judge, sitting right in his office here in Ottawa, having everyone come to him and testify, or receiving by affidavit all the evidence he would need

to act upon. I do not say that that is what he -would do; he would probably go around -there would likely be expense; that is quite true; but you cannot assume it, and you must be forced to assume it before this clause 3 can stand. In a word, there is nothing in the bill itself which makes absolutely compulsory the expenditure of a single dollar.


Charles Murphy: My right hon. friend will
observe that the president of the Exchequer court is to act personally, and not as a judge of that court.


Arthur Meighen: Very good; that does
not affect my point.


Charles Murphy: As to expense?


Arthur Meighen: He cannot under the
law get any money.


Lucien Cannon: What about additional
expense?


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing in this
about additional expense.


Lucien Cannon: How can he do the work
otherwise?


Arthur Meighen: I am not arguing that
he will not do it, but there must be something in the law which compels him to do it before this objection can lie. There is nothing whatever in the statute.


Thomas Vien: Is it not a necessary incident?


Arthur Meighen: No; he can do the whole thing for charity.


Lucien Cannon: My right hon. friend's
other argument was much stronger than the last.


Arthur Meighen: The other argument was impregnable, and this is impregnable too. If the hon. gentleman feels I am wrong in this, there are precedents he can follow.


Lucien Cannon: I should not like to say
my right hon. friend is wrong, but he certainly is not right.


Arthur Meighen: Well, in my eventful
life I have always been content with that degree of rectitude which keeps me always not wrong. I can refer my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) to authorities on this very point, authorities for whom he has the highest regard himself, who agree with every word I say. The bill must necessarily impose a charge before this objection can lie.

Home Bank
Now, what are these other exceptions th$t have struck the conscience of the government so badly? It says:
Because it is provided by clause 7 of the said bill as passed by the House of Commons that "the Governor in Council may raise by way of loan, temporary or otherwise, upon such form of security and upon such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, such sum or sums of money as are required for the purpose of making the payment authorized by this act, and any sum so raised shall form part of the consolidated revenue fund," and the raising of anj' loan as a charge upon the consolidated revenue fund is the undoubted and sole privilege of the Commons.
Well, will hon. gentlemen believe that this clause to which the government takes such violent objections is in its own bill untouched, unchallenged in any particular? The Senate has not dotted an I or crossed a T. Apparently it is the opinion of the government that before the Senate could come with virtuous hands, it should have deleted the government's own clause! Can the government ask the House to vote for a resolution such as this? How scrupulous, how virtuous it has become all of a sudden! Hon. gentlemen will remember bill after bill-money bills in exactly the same sense that this is a money bill-altered by the Senate, substantially altered in vital clauses, but with never a word of protest, no resolution thrust upon the House without a second's notice, no resolution at all; in a word, the government accepted those alterations. Strange indeed that when we come to the Home Bank measure it should be selected as the ground upon which a great constitutional battle is going to be fought before the government will venture another step in the path of relief of the depositors.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, since coming
into the chamber this evening there has been handed to me a letter which in itself is of considerable importance as indicating the point of view which those most interested in this measure are likely to take. It is also of special value as illustrating wherein the course which the government is now proposing, of conferring with the Senate on this matter, is the course which the public generally, and more particularly those who are especially interested in the enactment of some measure of relief, will expect the government to take. It also, I think, serves to illustrate wherein the government from the outset has adopted the correct procedure in dealing with this matter. The letter bears the letterhead of the president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. It is date! Ottawa, June 23, 1923, and is signed by Tom Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress
of Canada, L. L. Peltier, legislative, representative of the Order of Railway Conductors, Byron Baker, legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, W. L. Best, legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers and T. J. Coughlin, legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. The letter is addressed to myself, and is as follows:
Dear Sir,-
We, the undersigned, desire to bring to your notice the dissatisfaction with which the Senate bill dealing with the affairs of the Home Bank has been received by the members of the organizations which we represent. By its amendments, the Senate has completely changed the purpose and amount of relief to be granted to depositors, as contained in Bill No. 182 passed by the House of Commons, and which measure met with general approval.
Under the bill, as now amended, the preamble is so a'tered as to make any payment an act of charity on the part of the government rather than an act of justice to those who were misled into leaving their deposits in the Heme Bank, through their belief in the efficiency of the protection offered by government supervision of chartered banks.
Further, the need of a person for relief is arbitrarily fixed by the amount of the deposit in the setting of $500 as the sum on which 35 per cent of such deposit shall be paid merely upon application. Others in actual need will find it necessary, if the Senate bill is accepted, to disclose all of their private affairs in order to obtain simple justice and finding it necessary to engage legal aid will, we fear, in many cases, have very little of their savings in their own hands at the finish.
Then again, municipal councils, fraternal societies, churches and labour unions are debarred from participation even though these deposits actually represent, :n most cases, the mutual investment of people without wealth. Presumably this is also based upon the premise that relief to the depositors is an act of charity.
All of this we respectfully submit is wrong and without entering, at this time, into lengthy arguments in support of this statement, desire to point out that it is corroborated by the findings of the commissioners appointed to investigate this whole matter and on whose report the bill passed by the House of Commons was based.
We. therefore, earnestly urge your government o maintain the principle of equal compensation to all depositors (irrespective of the amount or character of the deposit) and the payment of such compensation as an act of justice and not as an act of charity.
If this is impossible of accomplishment in harmony with the Senate, then we would suggest that the will of the peoples' elected representatives be given effect by placing the sum of $5,450,000 in the supplementary estimates to be distributed in accordance with the terms embodied in Bill No. 182, as passed by the House of Commons on June 10, 1925.
With respect to the suggestion that an amount should be placed in the estimates, may I point out to the House that so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned the depositors of the Home Bank would be in exactly the same position as they will be under this bill as amended by the Senate. The bill in its amended form, as this letter from the president of the Trades and Labour Congress and other labour representatives indicates,
Howe Bank

takes away relief entirely on the ground of moral right, and substitutes relief solely on compassionate grounds, which is the ground being urged by hon. gentlemen opposite. Now, that ground is just as applicable whether the money is paid out under an estimate passed by this House, or paid out under the provisions of a bill which has been approved by both houses of parliament. In each case exactly the same arguments apply. If depositors who are entitled to more than $500 can be paid under the bill as originally introduced by the government, and not under the bill as amended, neither will it be possible to pay them, according to the point of view of hon. gentlemen opposite, from any estimate that may be brought into this House. Were an estimate brought in for the amount of $5,450,000, which is the amount named in the bill, the right hon. leader of the opposition would be obliged, in accordance with the position which he and his party have taken, to move that that estimate be cut down to the amount mentioned in the bill as it now comes t-o us from the Senate. He would be obliged to move that all consideration of municipal councils, fraternal societies, churches, labour unions, and so on, be struck out. He would be obliged to take the position, as I have already indicated, that any persons entitled to more than $500 in the way of relief should not be given that relief.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Try it that way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, "try it." I am presenting an argument to the House of Commons; I am presenting the reason for the position the government has taken from the outset.


Mr. BOYS:: I do not think the Prime
Minister is quite fair to this party. I only speak for myself, but he has no right to couple me with what he has said. Personally I am in favour of relief for the depositors of the Home Bank, and I have so expressed myself on many occasions. If this House wants to be in control of it, let the amount be put in the estimates, and we shall have no trouble with the Senate. I am prepared to support it. I rise to make these few remarks now, because unfortunately I was away on the previous occasion when the vote came on. There are a great many depositors of the Home Bank in my riding-not the riding as it will be under the redistribution, but the riding I at present represent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Alves Boys: Well, I am only going to be a moment. There are 2,900 of these depositors in my riding, representing deposits in three branches of the bank and covering an aggregate amount, I understand, of over $600,-
000.	Many of these are very needy cases. It is my keen desire to support any proposal for their relief, and if the government sincerely and honestly want to put through a measure of relief, let the bill with the Senate amendments go by the board, bring in an estimate, and put it through the House, and so far as I am concerned I will vote for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can only
say it is unfortunate that my hon. friend (Mr. Boys) was not here to differ from those of his own party when the matter was discussed before. The position taken by the right hon. leader of the opposition to-night in this debate-


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman might be a little fairer. I stated distinctly when I spoke on this measure before that I favoured relief on the basis of compensation and that in that I was sorry I could not represent the party as a party, that I spoke for myself. I made that very plain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A good many
of my hon. friends opposite spoke at the same time, including the hon. member for West York, the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) who took precisely the same line that my right hon. friend took at the time and which he has taken again to-night. That is the position taken by his friends in the other House.


William Alves Boys: Many of our members supported the bill.


Arthur Meighen: And by the right hen.
gentleman's friends in the other House, too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Order, please. My right hon. friend has had his opportunity to speak.


Arthur Meighen: Well, be correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to repeat that the government in this matter acted in accordance, first of all, with the finding of the royal commission; in the second place, it, acted in accordance with the recommendation of the Banking and Commerce committee, and in the third place it acted in accordance with the unanimous report of this House of Commons, which hon. gentlemen opposite, along with other hon. members of this House approved and which declared that there was a moral claim, a claim in equity,

Home Bank
in respect to those who had lost their deposits as the result of the Home Bank disaster. It was solely on that basis that the bill was brought in. I contend that if a bill had been brought in on any other basis hon. gentlemen opposite would have had ample ground to criticize the administration for having appointed a commission, for having referred the commission's report to a committee of the House, for having taken a vote of the House on the report of the committee, with the result that it was endorsed by the House, and having then failed to act on this authority, which was constitutional in every particular.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the right
hon. gentleman allow me a question? Does the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) admit that there was a moral claim?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, the Acting Minister of Finance was in his seat, I think, at the time the resolution passed this House, and voted for it. At any rate, the government speaks as one; the position of the government is that there is a moral claim and a bill has been brought in on that basis.
I venture to say that the Acting Minister of Finance does take the same position; so far as I am aware, he has never differed in any particular from any of his colleagues on this matter. Certainly it would be extraordinary if the government brought in a bill, through one of its members, for which the government as a whole was not prepared to take the full responsibility.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would not be extraordinary for this government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not an extraordinary remark from my hon. friend. With regard to the action which the House is called upon to take at the moment, may I say that all the House is being asked by the motion is to express either its concurrence or its non-concurrence in the amendments which the Senate has proposed to the bill. The course which the government has taken in that regard, as has been explained two or three times to-day, is the proper constitutional course of proceeding. On two or three occasions this session bills have come to this House from the Senate, amended in a manner not satisfactory to the House. In such cases the minister in charge has outlined in the form of a written statement the reasons why the amendments as presented were not satisfactory to the government. Hon. gentlemen opposite will recall that only a few evenings ago a measure of that character relating to some phase of agriculture came to this House.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) was not in his seat at that time, and in order that time might be saved, that this House might discover without delay whether or not the Senate was prepared to alter its decision in virtue of the reasons advanced, I read to the House myself the reasons which the Minister of Agriculture had outlined in the statement to be presented to their honours of the Senate. These reasons went to the Senate without discussion, the members of the Senate examined them and accepted the advice or suggestions of the Commons, so that the further step of a conference was not necessary. The government in this matter has proceeded in precisely the same way. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has no reason to say that there was any discourtesy to him or to any member of the House when the Acting Minister of Finance presented a carefully drafted statement intended for their honours in the Senate, and which set out fully the reasons why the government could not concur in the amendments which were made. It is true that the Acting Minister of Finance did not himself read the reasons; he left it to his honour the Speaker to read them. But as I interpreted his action at the time, it was simply to save the time that would be involved in reading the reasons over twice in succession. That was the sole reason why the Acting Minister of Finance did not read them himself, but the procedure in every particular is precisely that which is adopted when the Commons is unable to agree to amendments proposed by the Senate. As I have said, the purpose of the government in sending these reasons to the other chamber is that members of that House may have an opportunity to consider carefully the point of view of the Commons in this matter. Having had that opportunity the Senate will intimate to us what their action is likely to be. My hope would be that the Senate would find it possible to make a change in the amendments which they have proposed. Some they may not wish to change; others they may find good reason to change. At any rate, it is not for this House to say what the further step shall be until we receive word back from the Senate as to whether they agree with our reasons here.


William Charles Good: Can the Prime Minister give us any idea when we shall likely have word back from the Senate in regard to this matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, the
Senate is moving with a good deal of rapidity these days. Hon. members of the Senate
Home Bank

seem to be getting through a greal deal of work, and I have every reason to believe they will wish to meet the desires of all concerned by acting in this matter promptly. I see no reason why we should not get back word from the Senate within a very few hours after they have had had an opportunity of studying this matter.
Let me make one thing perfectly plain: There is no desire on the part of the government in any way to have this matter shelved. Let me make it clear that the government intends to stay here and see that as much as possible is secured to the Home Bank depositors as it is possible to obtain in a constitutional way, and if the Senate is slow in	returning an answer, we
will be here awaiting that answer until it comes. There is no effort on the part of the administration to have this matter delayed. The references which have been made to a constitutional conference, are all beside the mark. It is important the government should place its position clearly on record. It may well be that the conference that will take place between members of this House and members of the Senate, should such a conference be held in further discussion of the reasons alleged here for not accepting the amendments, will not enter into a full discussion of the constitutional relations of the two Houses, but it may nevertheless be sufficient to decide what is the answer with respect to this measure. It is important, however, that the government's position should be clearly stated and of record for all time in the future.


William Alves Boys: Assuming the motion carries
and a conference results with representatives of the Senate, which conference proves abortive, will the Prime Minister favour the inclusion in further supplementary estimates of the item of $5,400,000?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is trying to rush matters unduly. This present motion is not for a conference. It is for the purpose of asking their honours of the Senate to consider the reasoned arguments of this House as to why the amendments which they have proposed should not be inserted in the bill. I submit it would be a discourtesy to the Senate, to say nothing else, for this House to assume for one moment that their honours of the Senate will not accept this reasoned statement in the spirit in which it is being sent to them. At any rate, I do not propose to pass judgment on the Senate's attitude in this matter until the proper time comes for so doing.


William Alves Boys: I asked the Prime Minister
to indicate his own view, if he would.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am indicating the view of the government with regard to this matter and that, I think, should be sufficient, for my hon. friend.
I just wished to make one further reference which I unfortunately omitted the other day to make. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Dray,ton) intimated that the leader of the government in the Senate, so I understood him to say, accepted the Senate's point of view in regard to this matter.


William Alves Boys: He moved the third reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: H there is any impression of that kind, I would ask hon.
members to refer themselves to the debates in the Senate, which I am precluded from referring to here, and they will find that the leader of the government in the Senate distinctly stated-


Mr.   M ETC HEN@: I rise to a point of order. This is distinctly out of order. It is all right to refer hon. members to the Senate records;
I am not objecting to that, but reading from the Senate records is so distinctly out of order that I am surprised the Prime Minister would think of doing it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend was particularly careful not to correct hiis colleague when he reflected on the leader of the government in the Senate. I am quite prepared to leave to the House 'his omission to correct his colleague for the reflection he made on the leader of the government in the Senate, and the present attitude of the right hon. gentleman in not permitting me to state the position of the government accurately, as it should be stated.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Might I be permitted to say a word before the debate closes? I have listened to it with very deep interest, and I have come to the conclusion that there is not a very great difference of opinion between the view taken by the government in regard to this matter and the view which is taken on this side of the House. The trouble, I think, has arisen largely from the manner in which the government has brought the .matter before the House. Certainly an important question such as the present one should not be brought in without a moment's notice, and with an. insistence upon the part of tine Acting {Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that the matter must go on without time for consideration or re-

Home Bank
flection, that we .must either accept or reject the motion as it is presented to us.
One has only to read this resolution to conclude that it is a serious declaration of constitutional right on the part of this House by the government of the day, and I think I am quite within the mark when I say that there are questions raised in this resolution which call for the most careful consideration by the ablest 'lawyers in the House before a satisfactory conclusion could be reached as to the propriety of the resolution.
10 p.m. The .objection taken by my right hon. leader to the resolution is that it goes too far as a declaration of constitutional right.
There are three specific allegations in this resolution to which my right hon. leader takes exception, and I think he is on solid ground in the exception which he takes. On the real issue before .us there seems to be no difference of opinion. The real question is, has the Senate power either to originate or amend a money bill of this House by changing the destiny of the appropriation? I think it is clear beyond question that the Senate has not that power. So we are agreed on the main point. Therefore, why hamper the resolution by dragging in three very doubtful assertions of right?
First, it is said that the Senate has no power to amend the preamble or, to insert a preamble. I do not know upon what ground that claim is asserted. There is nothing in section 53 of the British North America Act bo say the Senate has no such power. There is nothing in rule 78 of this House to say the Senate has no such power, and our whole authority in this matter is derived from section 53 of the British North America Act and rule 78 of this House. That is the first objection: We are asserting a right, and a very doubtful right, to say the least.


Lucien Cannon: But the Senate by adding a preamble to the bill may include a new principle altogether.
.Mr. GUTHRIE: There may be something in that argument, but the preamble of the billl is not the enacting clause of the bill. It may be an explanatory clause of the bill, I agree, but there .is nothing in the rules of this House and nothing in the British North America Act to say the Senate may not amend the preamble of a bill. It may not change the destination of a grant, nor can it originate the grant.
'Mr. VIEN: Yet it did in this bill.


Hugh Guthrie: In so far as it did, I say its action is beyond its power, and my right hon. leader agrees with me in that.


Charles Murphy: Will my hon. friend allow me to draw his attention to the fact that the resolution.-I have not a copy of it before me and I am speaking from recollection- does not take exception to the insertion of the preamble, but rather to what the preamble recites, purporting to speak both on behalf of the government and on behalf of the House of Commons.


Hugh Guthrie: It certainly raises the
question whether the Senate is right in doing what it has done. I think it is a point which may well be argued in favour of the Senate, but it is unnecessary, in order to obtain our purpose, to make any assertion of that right at the present time.
In the second place, it is said that because the Senate has directed a commission to enquire-


Charles A. Stewart: Might I
ask my hon. friend a question on a point as to which I am not quite clear? He argues that the Senate cannot affect the destiny of a money vote. Is it not a fact that by its amendments the Senate has cut off some of the beneficiaries under the legislation as it passed this House, and therefore has affected the destiny of the grant?


Hugh Guthrie: I agree that that is a
rejection of part of the vote of this House, and the Senate has gone beyond its power in so doing.
On the second point, my right hon. leader says that the provision in the Senate's amendment for the payment of a commission to distribute the money is not necessarily a charge upon the exchequer of this country, and does not create a tax or impost. In that I think he is technically right. Then why seek to assert, as this resolution does, that the Senate has done wrong in that? I want to make myself clear on that. There is never a public bill brought into this House that does not entail some expense in carrying it out. During my time in the. House again and again, it has been said by Mr. Speaker that where the bill is not one to impose a tax, or create a loan, or expend money, the mere consequential expenditure in the administration of the bill does not necessitate its going before His Excellency for consent before being introduced to this House. This at most could be but a consequential expense. It is not a tax or impost. Why assert it as a right?
Home Bank

Why the unnecessary assertion of it in this resolution? The first objection is that the resolution says that section 7 of the Senate bill has authorized something which it has no right to authorize; but section 7 of the Senate bill and section 6 of the House of Commons bill are identical, word for word. The Senate cannot have transgressed its right in that respect. My suggestion is that these three unnecessary or improper assertions of right should be withdrawn from the resolution. We are agreed on the main point; we agree that the Senate has gone beyond its power in regard to the amendment of a money bill. On the vital question there is no dispute. Why not let our representation be unanimous and withdraw


Mr. POWER:: Is my hon. friend speaking
for all the members on his side of the House?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I cannot speak for
anyone except myself. I do not think in the riding which I have the honour to represent there is a single depositor or slockholder in the Home Bank, but I am heartily in favour of the bill and want to see it passed. I was not here when it was brought into the House originally, but I desire that the bill as passed in this House become law, and why not let us agree on the method of procedure by dropping what is not essential and is doubtful?


Charles Gavan Power: Will my hon. friend's leader agree to what he says? He had better canvass his own leader before canvassing us.


Hugh Guthrie: If the three matters raised by my right hon. friend were deleted from the motion, I think he would accept the balance, as he stated in his speech a few minutes ago, and that is the course which I ask the government to pursue.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The question I
asked the Prime Minister was based on statements which I found in Hansard of June 8, at pave 3961, as follows:
Sir Henry Drayton: No, the wealthy man and the
poor man.
Mr. Robb: The wealthy man and the poor man- if it is a moral claim, how are we going to differentiate between those two?
Mr. Meighen: Does the minister himself think there is a moral claim against the country?
Mr. Robb: I am dealing now with the report of the Banking and Commerce committee, which was unanimously concurred in by this House.
Mr. Meighen: We will discuss that later. But will the minister answer me directly: does he himself consider there is a moral claim against this country?
Mr. Robb: I am not debating that question. I was a member of the Banking and Commerce committee. In this country majorities are supposed to rule. We are carrying out in this respect the views of parliament.

So that if the Acting Finance Minister was in favour of tlhe depositors, or recognized a moral claim by them, he was very careful to conceal it in the answer he gave.


William Irvine: The Senate in amending the bill for the relief of the Home Bank depositors has altered the principle of the bill. The government has declared its policy in the resolution before the House in respect to the amendment which the Senate has made. We have been treated to a discussion on some very fine points of constitutional law, and I am sure the House has been both instructed and interested. We are very much indebted to the hon. gentlemen who have enlightened us in this matter, but after all the most important point before us is not one of constitutional law. The most important matter is the Home Bank depositors. To be or not to be is the real question, and the point that I want very briefly to place before the government is this:	What will foe the outcome of the
present policy of the government so far as the reimbursement of the Home Bank depositors is concerned? Let us follow it up. What could possibly come from the course which is being pursued? Suppose for instance that the Senate refuses to budge from the position it has taken? In that case, it appears to me that it would be difficult for the government to accept the bill in its present form, in view of its declared policy in the resolution which is before us. Indeed, I do not see how the government could accept the amendment of the Senate. I think the government has a decidedly clear issue, and has a right to make a protest, but what is going to be the result so far as the Home Bank depositors are concerned? Let us take the next alternative. Suppose the Senate apologize to parliament for having altered the principle of the bill, ask us to put the bill back again in its original form and agree to consider it. Suppose they consider it and then throw it out. Still we have nothing for the Home Bank depositors. So that I cannot see anything but disaster in the course that is being followed. I agree of course that it is constitutional, and I agree that it is the proper practice, but the proper practice is not bringing any money to the Home Bank depositors. The proper practice will not buy shoes for the babies of Home Bank depositors, and that is the issue that is before us.
I want to press further on the government the suggestion which has been made by one or two hon. members who have preceded me

Home Bank
in this discussion, that the government will give some assurance to parliament that, regardless of the outcome of their negotiations with the Senate, they will see to it that the will of parliament is carried out, and I suppose the only way that can be done is for the government to assure ua that if the Senate refuses to pass the bill in the form in which it was presented to them by this House the government will include the amount required in the supplementary estimates. So far the government has not made its position *clear in regard to that point, and that is the point I am interested in. I believe that the 'Senate did alter the principle of the bill. It *changed it from moral rights to compassionate grounds, but I think also the government invited that action on the part of the Senate because, while the government based the *claim upon moral grounds, the bill in that it provided only partial reimbursement virtually indicated that parliament could only be moral to a certain percentage. If there was a moral claim it should have been sustained one hundred per cent. As it was the Senate, taking their cue from that weakness in the bill, proceeded on compassionate grounds and prescribed the disbursement of the funds provided for accordingly.
I would urge once more that the Prime Minister tell parliament first ii it is within the power of the government to put this amount in the supplementary estimates, providing that the Senate refuse to pass the bill, and if it is proper for them to do that, whether the government will take that action. I urge the Prime Minister to give us an answer to that question.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a question of
privilege. It refers to one statement of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I said that the Senate had not any right to change the destiny of a money vote. To that I adhere. I did not go so far as to say that in any money bill, not a finance bill, the Senate had not the right to reject a part directed to a special destination. On that point I expressed no opinion.


William Irvine: I should like to get an
answer from the Prime Minister


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already intimated the position of the government on this matter.


Mr. H. C. McKILLOP (West Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his address this evening referred to the members of the opposition as all being against the reimbursement of the Home Bank depositors.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never made any statement, nor any suggestion of that kind.


Hugh Cummings McKillop: I understood the Prime Minister to make that statement including all the members of the opposition. What I really rose to do was to say that on the evening of May 13, 1924, I made this statement in the House concerning the Home Bank depositors and I wish to put in on record:
I think the depositors should be reimbursed to the full extent of their losses, and I for one will support any measure brought forward in this House with that end in view.
Those are the words which I uttered that evening and I am still ready to maintain that position. It is the only satisfactory way in which settlement can be made with the depositors of the Home Bank.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say on this question is that, inasmuch as I have already voted in this House in favour of some compensation being paid to the depositors in the Home Bank, I must vote for the motion now before the House in order to preserve a consistent position. I can criticize the action of the government from many angles; but in a case of urgency at the present time, I am bound to stand by what I said in this House by my previous vote. I am in favour of compensation, compassionate, if you like to call it that, to the depositors in the Home Bank. Therefore, I am compelled and it is my duty, in view of what I did before, to vote in favour of the motion now before the House, no matter what the consequences may be, and if the consequences are to the injury of the government or of the depositors, the government must take the responsibility.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, coming from the city of Toronto where there is so much suffering because of the wreck of this bank, I have been a most consistent supporter all along of the case of the depositors and I have never faltered. I wish to dissociate myself from what the Prime Minister has said about the attitude of members of the opposition in this House. I will support the government in getting the depositors immediate relief, and if the steps which we are about to take in regard to the action of the Senate in this matter do not succeed, if the government will put the sum in a supplementary estimate, they will have my hearty support and active co-operation, and I believe also the active support of the other members from the city of Toronto.
Home Bank


William Charles Good: May I ask the Prime Minister. if it would not be worth while to amend the resolution as the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has suggested, so as to secure the unanimous approval of the House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think it would be worth while. As a matter of fact, one argument may appeal to hon. gentlemen of the other house and another argument may not. Because the government cites four, five or six reasons, it does not necesarily follow that hon. gentlemen of the Senate will have to agree to all of them. We are allowed to cite as many reasons as we wish in the hope that out of five or six, the Senate will see the wisdom or justice of two or three.


Arthur Meighen: It follows that everyone who votes for this resolution must agree with all of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. All the House is asked to do is to say that it does not concur in the Senate amendments. Those who concur in the amendments vote against the motion, those who do not concur in them, vote for it.


Arthur Edward Ross: I was paired with
the hon. member for Pictou (ME Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I was paired with the
Minister without Portfolio (Mr. McGiverin) Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.
Mr. BRISTOL; As I am a depositor and therefore an interested person I did not consider that I should vote.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from June 22, consideration in committee of the resolution respecting trade relations with Australia

Hon. Mr. Robb-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Robert James Manion: I listened to the previous debate on this resolution for four hours or thereabouts, and I was as I still, am. of the impression that it is very regrettable that such an important measure as this should be introduced at this -late date, when one feels that

Australian Treaty
lie is imposing on the'good nature of the House in attempting to discuss the subject. Yet this is a resolution that should be thoroughly considered from every angle if we desire to do it justice. I regret also that the government in bringing down the resolution found it necessary to change its original proposition in which the understanding was that in compensation for reductions in the tariff on agricultural products :from Australia we were to have some increase in the tariff on agricultural products from other countries, particularly from the United [DOT] States. It is apparent that in this regard we are adding to the burden of competition which the farmers at present have to bear. It must be remembered that in the past year we imported into this country $150,000,000 worth of agricultural products which could have been produced on the farms of Canada. I made that statement on another occasion some time ago and it was criticized by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), who said that I was including such articles as pineapples, bananas and things of that sort. I wish to correct the hon. gentleman now, without going further out of my way. This $150,000,000 represents imports of produce which could have been grown on the farms of Canada.
As I believe in protection all round for all classes of our producers, I naturally believe in protection for the farmer as well as for the manufacturer; and that being the case I am entirely in sympathy with my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) who expressed the views of the farmers of his constituency in Ontario as well as with the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), who gave us the opinion of the farmers of British Columbia on this subject.
I cannot however help remembering that the pulp and paper business is one of the great industries of this Dominion. 'Last year this industry exported the vast sum of $142,000,000 worth of products, and of the total production only ten per cent was consumed in the domestic market. I would point out that this export of $142,000,000 compares favourably with the export of any other class of goods from this country. For example, a few minutes ago I looked up the exports of wheat, which perhaps is the largest individual export from Canada, and I find that in 1924 we shipped out $267,000,000 worth of this commodity, or a little over $100,000,000 more than we did of pulp and paper. This past year however the exports of wheat had fallen to $235,000,000. I mention these figures merely for the purpose of indicating the importance of this immense industry, which calls for as much attention a3 any other line of endeavour in Canada. And I cattnot forget that I come from a section
of the Dominion, northern Ontario, which constitutes an empire in itself. Its area is greater than that of any of the three western provinces; at least it is equal to any one of them. Indeed, so extensive is its area that its width from east to west is nearly equal to the width of any two of the prairie provinces together Unfortunately however it forms a large gap between the east and the west and this is a handicap in many directions of our national life. One of our railway difficulties in Canada is due to this very fact that we have 700 miles of territory in width, covering some three and a half million square miles in area, with a population of only 150,000 or so. This forms a very serious gap between east ffnd west not only to the disadvantage of the railways but to the disadvantage of our national life as well. In that northern section of Ontario the pulp and paper industry to-day is probably the most important of our activities. The industry supplies the railways of that section of the country with a large proportion of their business. I think, too, of the great development of our hydro-electric energy in northern Ontario which is used to a considerable extent by the pulp and paper industry. The pulp and paper industry being of so much importance to that part of the country, which is still more or less undeveloped, I feel it my duty, in loyalty to that section of northern Ontario, to support this proposition.
I should like to point out a few other reasons which I think are worthy of consideration. In the next parliament, if I were handling the affairs of the country, and if I had put into force a treaty such as this with the Commonwealth of Australia, it would be my endeavour to protect the farmers of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and the Maritime provinces by raising the tariffs against the United States and all other countries, but leaving the Australian treaty in force. By doing that I would accomplish two things, I would not only bring about a species of assistance to the farmers mentioned by putting out the competition of foreign countries, but I would enhance to Australia the value of her treaty with us. So I wish to submit to my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance that if by any piece of good fortune or good luck it happens that next session he is still looking after the finances of the country-


James Alexander Robb: You think it will be good
luck?


Robert James Manion: I certainly think it will
be good luck for him if he should happen to be Minister of Finance at this time next year. But should he be serving the Dominion in
Australian Treaty

that capacity, I submit to him that in justice to the fanners of the sections I have mentioned particularly-and of course, I also include those farmers who produce dairy products in the prairie provinces-'he should, when he brings in his budget give to our farmers that type of protection which some of the other lines of production in this country already enjoy.
There is another reason why I feel there is no particular danger to be feared from this agreement. As set out in the orders of the day I find clause 5 provides:
That the Governor in Council may make such orders and regulations as are deemed necessary to carry out the provisions and intent, of this resolution and of the said agreement and may, upon giving six months' notice to the government of the Commonwealth of Australia of his intention so to do, order and direct that the tariff concessions extended to Australia by this resolution, shall cease and determine, whereupon they shall cease and determine accordingly;
An agreement which can be cancelled on six months' notice is to my mind not of such a character, in view of the other advantages it gives to this country, as to cause me to vote against it.
There is a further reason that makes the agreement appeal to me-Australia is one of the dominions of the empire. I do not believe that as a rule it is good practice to introduce sentiment into trade arrangements, and usually countries deal with each other on an absolutely business basis, which, generally speaking, is the only basis. At the same time we cannot forget that during the war Australians fought side by side with their brothers from this dominion, and certainly there is a feeling of affection in our hearts for the Australian people, a feeling which is reciprocated by them. Therefore I say that is another reason why we should give favourable consideration to this treaty. I think the minister said that we sell to Australia eighteen or nineteen times as much as they sell to us. Am I correct?


James Alexander Robb: Two yeans ago we exported
twenty million dollars worth of goods to Australia and imported three million dollars worth; last year the figures were about twelve million and two million dollars respectively.


Robert James Manion: Well, even at six to one
it indicates that Australia has been one of our good customers, and I am not opposed to giving some slight concessions to her; at any rate, no trade treaty can be made without concessions on both sides. Having briefly taken into account the advantages and disadvantages of this treaty, I find I am forced to support it. At the same time I must

repeat, that I believe whatever government is handling the affairs of this country in the next parliament should in its budget adhere to that policy of protection under which alone to my mind this country can prosper, that is, the policy of raising our tariffs against other countries on agricultural products.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Mr. Chairman, I regret more than I can easily express in words the failure of the Acting Minister of Finance to enter into negotiations looking towards the final ratification of this treaty without increasing to the extent that he has increased the duty on dried fruits, that is, from one-third of a cent to three cents a pound. This increase of' duty is sure to bear heavily upon the consumers, particularly in those sections of the Dominion where fresh fruits cannot be easily obtained. I would ask the minister, even at this comparatively late date, if he will not seriously consider the desirability, if at all possible, of modifying that particular schedule-
The more I study tariff schedules the more perplexed and amazed do I become. The whole treaty, to my mind, is perplexing in view of the fact that it is being negotiated by a government that has expressed a desire and a willingness to enter into closer trade relationships with the United States-reciprocity. Australia is giving us certain concessions, it is true not the concessions that the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) thinks, because he must know that pulp is already on the free list.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Robert Alexander Hoey: With respect to Australia.


Thomas Vien: Not at all.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Pulp is on the free list, and
has been for many years.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is mistaken.
Newsprint is free under this treaty.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Yes, but pulp enters Australia free. I have the schedules in front of me.


Mr. PARENT:: It is too heavy to go down there.	.


Robert Alexander Hoey: My hon. friend (Mr. Manion) referred to pulp. I am just reminding him that pulp enters Australia free.


Robert James Manion: I referred to the pulp and
paper industry. I was speaking really of paper exports to Australia.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The treaty will enable us to
ship newsprint; that is, they will not impose any duty on it. They are also giving us other concessions; the free list will amount to four commodities in all, and we are giving them certain advantages by increasing the

Australian Treaty
duty on currants and dried fruits as against the United States. It is interesting to observe some of the duties against our products entering the United States. The United States permit coal to enter that country from Canada free provided that we extend the same privilege to them. The United States permit bricks of all kinds to enter free provided we extend the same treatment to them. The same applies also to cement; leather gloves manufactured from cattle hides; binder twine; boots and shoes; hides of cattle; standard newspaper print; agricultural implements; ploughs, tooth or disc harrows; headers, harvesters, reapers, agricultural drills and planters; mowers, horse-rakes, cultivators; threshing machines, wagons and carts; cream separators, harness, saddles and saddlery, barbed wire, plain or galvanized; linotype, typesetting machines and typewriters; oil spreading machines for construction and maintenance of roads. These are just a few that I selected this afternoon from a very extended list, and it is puzzling to me that we should go out of our way to increase the duty on certain commodities entering this country from the United States in view of the wide free list that they have extended to us-unless, as the hon. member (Mr. Manion) suggested-though he did not support the idea-we allow sentiment to govern us in these considerations. But I am particularly interested in the increase in the duty on raisins and dried fruits, an increase which will mean anywhere from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 a year to the consuming public. I would like to have an expression of opinion from the Acting Minister of Finance as to the desirability of modifying that particular feature of the treaty even at this date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will remember that two years ago, I think it was the session of 1923, the matter of Australian trade treaty was before parliament for consideration. At that time the Minister of Finance pointed out that it w'ould be impossible to begin negotiations with Australia unless the government were given power to act as is now proposed with respect to the duty on raisins and currants. The explanation of that is this:	Our trade witlh Australia is
very many times greater than Australia's trade with Canada. We exported two years ago something like $20,000,000 worth of products to Australia while Australia was 11 p.m. sending some $3,000,000 worth of products to Canada. The government of Australia, in seeking to enter into an agreement with Canada, was immediately confronted with that large favourable balance
of trade on Canada's side, and the Australian government made it clear to our government that unless some concession was given with respect to some commodities of which Australia had exportable quantities it would be useless to attempt any kind of reciprocal arrangement. That is one factor to take into account in considering the possible effect of a duty on raisins against other countries and the removal of the duty as against Australia and other countries of the British Empire. To-day under the British preference there is. a duty of a half cent on raisins; that will be removed under this agreement, and so far as British countries to which we give a preference are concerned raisins will come in free. They will come in free, therefore, not only from Australia but from many parts of the British Empire. Australia is not the only part of the British Empire that produces raisins. South Africa, I understand, produces raisins and currants in quantities. At the Imperial Economic Conference which was attended by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and myself two years ago in London, the then Prime Minister of South Africa, Mr. Smuts, gave us to understand that the balance of trade as between Canada and South Africa was so much in favour of Canada that unless Canada would make concessions to South Africa in respect to some commodities, the South African government w'ould be obliged to change its fiscal relations toward this Dominion. He spoke particularly at that time of South Africa's ability to send currants and raisins to this country if they got a favourable opportunity.


Arthur Edward Ross: What part of
South Africa produces raisins and currants?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not an expert on the geography of South Africa. I am telling my hon. friend what was represented to the Minister of Railways and myself, when we were at the Imperial Economic Conference, by the then Prime Minister of South Africa, which representations I think have been confirmed by' further correspondence which has taken place between the Minister of Finance and the government ar South Africa. As I say, there are other parts of the British Empire which grow raisins and currants, and under the arrangement that is now being made the preferential duty, which is now half a cent, will be removed, so that currants and raisins will come in free from other parts of the British Empire. Any suggested increase in the price of raisins and currants by reason of the tariff against raisins from other countries may conceivably be offset by
Australian Treaty

the fact that they will be admitted free from all parts of the British Empire with which we have reciprocal treaties. More than that, it is hardly probable that the country to the south is going to sacrifice this market which is right at its door. To-day the United States has more or less of a monopoly of our market in the matter of currants and raisins, and a little competition will probably result in keeping the price of raisins and currants just about where it is. The disadvantage of ar-.guing a matter of this kind is that whatever is presented here as favourable to our point of view may be quoted to-morrow as an argument against this agreement by those in Australia who are interested in preventing its going through. That is the reason I do not try to stress other points. I would ask the committee to regard this treaty as one of the measures designed to promote an inter imperial point of view. Surely there is something to be said for seeking to develop trade between the different parts of the empire. For twenty years this country has been seeking to make an arrangement with Australia. We have made a beginning, it is only a beginning. If it does not work out satisfactorily, if it works to the injury of any interest concerned, two courses are possible. In the first ' place, the government may at a subsequent session alter the tariff. There is nothing that binds uS to keep the tariff items at the figure at which they are fixed under this treaty. What Australia is interested in is the spread that is given between the rate of duty at which her commodities will enter Canada and the rates at which those from other countries enter. As long as that spread is maintained the arrangement with Australia will continue without any injury to the Australian government or to our relations with Australia in regard to the treaty.
There is the further step, the more/drastic step, we are at liberty to cancel this treaty at any time on six months' notice. Surely, where that security is provided, it is worth while to take advantage of the present opportunity and make the most of it. If we find at the end of six months, or when another session of parliament is being held and six months have elapsed, that something unforeseen and prejudicial to Canadian interests has come out of this treaty, parliament will be free to act, and to give notice to Australia, if she so desires, of her intention to end the treaty. I question if any industry in this country could be appreciably affected in that brief space of time.
There is this further point, and it is of very great significance to the whole of Canada.
fMr. Mackenzie King.[
Australia has made her changes in her tariff. She will have to make further slight modifications if this agreement goes through in the form in which it has been presented to our parliament. The Prime Minister of Australia has cabled me that he will be prepared the minute this treaty passes, to introduce into the Australian ipa.rlia.ment, and he expects to carry through parliament, the slight changes that will be necessary, and he suggests that the agreement should come into force by proclamation immediately after its passing both parliaments.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Would that mean further reductions in our favour?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is just the reductions before 'this House, the difference between the agreement as originally drafted, and the present agreement. Our government has been led to believe that if this agreement does not pass, the course which the Australian government is likely to take is to repeal entirely the preferences given to Canada under the agreement as it stands at the present time. If the list of preferences is repealed, this country may lose for years to come, if not for generations, the opportunity of getting another beginning of trade with Australia along preferential lines. Now that is a serious situation.
Further than that, may I point out to hon. members that it is questionable whether we would have been .able to make the arrangement we have made with Australia on the terms we have secured except for conditions being just what they were at the time the negotiations took place. Other countries are making overtures to Australia. The Mother Country herself has been making -changes in her tariff since the present administration came into office in Great Britain, changes that the Ramsay MacDonald administration were not prepared to make. The whole complexion in regard to Australian trade may change at any moment, and the chance we have now tmay be gone possibly for a long period of time, and w'e risk it for good, if we let this particular opportunity go by.
May I draw attention to this further circumstance? In dealing with Australia it is not as though we were negotiating with our neighbour immediately to our south, where competition is likely to make itself instantly and effectively felt. We are dealing with a country that is seven thousand miles from Vancouver by sea, a trip on a fast vessel of some three weeks, and a journey of some six weeks by the ordinary ships carrying the commodities that are likely to enter into competition. Those ships have to pass the

Australian Treaty
equator, which means that foodstuffs and the
like carried across the Pacific ocean will have to be brought in cold storage, or at all events extra precautions at additional cost will have to be taken against the effect of the great heat of the equatorial zone. Who can reasonably believe that coming that great distance, and more particularly after crossing the Rocky mountains to Montreal or other distributing point, a distance of some ten thousand miles, anything that Australia can do for years to come is going to affect in any appreciable way any industry that any hon. member of this House may be interested in? I would ask hon. members to overlook for the moment, if they can, purely local and occupational considerations, and think of the vast interests of this country as a whole.
Supposing 'the development is, as has been intimated from two or three sources, largely in the export of paper. We have tracts of land, as the hon. member for Font William and Rainy River pointed out a moment ago, large forest areas as yet practically undiscovered, which are capable of turning out quantities of newsprint paper for Shipment to other countries of the world. That .means the use of our water-powers, the development of an industry for the making of pulp and paper, and all that is implied in the transportation of these supplies by rail and by sea. Will not the development of one industry aid in the development of other industries? If the paper industry were the only one concerned, it is conceivable that the extra demand for the products of the farm and other commodities used by consumers generally that would come as a result of the increased development and the supply of labour in that one particular industry would be sufficient to more than counterbalance any possible loss there would be from competition in any other direction, I would ask hon. members to think of this treaty from that point of view.
Then there is the circumstance that, as regards the seasons, the Australians are at the opposite side of the world from ourselves. Our winter season is their summer season, our spring season is their fall season, and the possibility of competition in & way that is likely to injure any industry in this country is very, very remote indeed. Indeed, it would appear as if the two countries were the natural complement of each other, intended to be so by Nature herself.
I stress these points because I feel, and the government feels very strongly that this is an opportunity to begin a trade between a sister Dominion and our own nation which will grow and expand as the years go by. There is an old saying that trade begets trade, and 305
what is now needed is to stimulate this trade, and to get it started.
As I have said, parliament has it in its hands to remedy any defects that may appear in the agreement at subsequent sessions, or to cancel the agreement in its entirety if it should appear to be not in the interests of this country to continue it. Let us not forget that here, as I said at the outset, is not only an opportunity of furthering our own national interests, but that there is that larger con-sideratien which I think all parliaments of the British Empire do well to keep in mind, the development of a great trade within the empire itself. Let us remember, too, that this comes at a moment when this government is seeking to bring about closer trade relations between another group of British communities, the British West Indies, and ourselves, and it would, I think, be particularly unfortunate if for lack of the larger vision any step were taken at this moment which might prove prejudicial to this more important aim of furthering as much as we can our inter-imperial trade.


Mr. LADNER:: This Australian agreement is a matter of momentous importance to the province of British Columbia in some of its basic industries. The Prime Minister in his remarks has covered a number of the arguments that I had intended to take up. I propose for a few minutes to address my words particularly to my Progressive friends, and to urge upon them the wisdom of taking a broad conception of the merits and advantages of this agreement and approving of its adoption to-night.


Edward Joseph Garland: It would be much better, I think, for my hon. friend to direct his remarks to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence), who so bitterly attacked this treaty last night.


Leon Johnson Ladner: My hon. friend might have taken my remark as a compliment to himself, that he at all events, in my estimation, is still open to conviction. The public bodies of Vancouver such as the board of trade, with some 2,000 members, the press of Vancouver the Province, the Sun and other publications, and large business institutions have energetically and actively supported the idea of an Australian treaty, and until a few days ago I believe most of the members of the House, particularly in this quarter, were equally in favour of the Australian treaty.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Speak for yourself.


Edward Joseph Garland: Another
field for my hon. friend to canvass.

Australian Treaty


Leon Johnson Ladner: My hon. friend from South Oxford was never known to be vacillating or indifferent in his opinion. The mistake the government made on this question was this: They should have brought down the agreement or proposals in their original form, instead of eliminating from those proposals the protective principle; and if they had done so perhaps more hon. members would have been in favour of this treaty. My hon. friend from South Oxford might have had a more tempered view of the situation had that been done.
I have a statement giving a comparison of the two propsals, which are known as "Robb's undertaking" and "the new scheme." On the general tariff the underlying policy was to increase the duty by 25 per cent. In my judgment it was owing to the known attitude of the members of the Progressive party on tariff questions that the government reduced the duty in the new proposals instead of increasing it, but having made that bountiful concession to my hon. friends they refused at once to accept it or give the approval which no doubt the government had anticipated.


Milton Neil Campbell: Just what reduction is
my hon. friend referring to?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Take the question of
meats, item 7. Under the present tariff the general tariff is three cents, and under the original treaty proposal the general tariff was increased to four cents. That increase in the general tariff affected many countries. Under the new Australian proposal the general tariff has been reduced to three cents. In the matter of eggs, under the general tariff the duty is three cents and under the original Australian treaty proposals the duty was increased to four cents a dozen. Under the new proposals it is now reduced to three cents a dozen. Take the article of cheese, the general tariff was three cents. It was increased to four cents under the original treaty proposal. Under this new proposal it is back to three cents. In all the items you will find the increase of 33 per cent that was made in the general tariff has in this proposal been reduced to the original general tariff. That is what I mean by eliminating the protective element which was found in the original proposals.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does the hon. member
suggest that the reduction of the duty on eggs, butter, meat and all that sort of thing from Australia is a concession to the members in this section of the House?


Leon Johnson Ladner: 
Thomas Alexander Crerar: As one who has long
believed in removing or reducing the barriers to trade between countries, I must confess my keen satisfaction at the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Ladner) and the evidences of reformation that are apparent in his processes of thinking in respect of this whole question of tariffs. My hon. friend made, fo, a beginner, a very good free trade speech. I am not surprised, because I think it is as certain as anything can be that the section of the Dominion from which he comes ie going to change its views in respect of fiscal protection. You cannot have a great city like Vancouver situated on the Pacific ocean, where the great trade development of this century will take place, without the natural sentiment growing there in favour of extending its trade to the ends of the earth.
When we come to a consideration of the treaty, I confess that I do not magnify it to the position of importance that some hon. members have given it. The total volume of our trade with Australia last year, as we were informed this evening by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) approximates some $14,000,000 or $15,000,000. Taken with the total volume of Canadian trade for the past year, it is comparatively insignificant. The government, however, are to be commended for endeavouring to improve the interchange of goods with this distant continent of Australia. Personally, I would be much more pleased if the government endeavoured to direct some energy to improving our trade relations with our great neighbour to the south. Considerably more than one-half of Canadian trade is done with the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would submit that measures of this kind will help to bring about the very thing at which my hon. friend is aiming. When our neighbours to the south find that unless they trade with us, we are going to do more of our trade with othel parts of the world, they will come to time much more quickly than they otherwise would.
Australian Treaty


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe the Prime Minister is right. I would not quarrel with his assertion; but while we are endeavouring to promote trade with Australia, Latvia, Poland, France and Italy, we have done practically nothing-and we might be able to .do something if we tried-towards creating a better feeling with the United States in trade matters. We should have several good trade commissioners in the United States. We should have at Washington a good practical man who would tell United States senators and congressmen that Canada is a country worth while trading with. I believe in that respect this country could do a great deal to aid in promoting better trade relations with the United States, and no ^natter where we trade to the ends of the earth, I venture to predict that for decades to come the larger volume of Canadian trade, from the very nature of our geopraphical relations, will be done with the United States.
When we come to the treaty itself, there are one or two things that are open to criticism. I support the criticism expressed by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) and one or two others in this section of the House in voicing my regret that it was necessary to increase the duty on raisins and currants from the United States in order to get this arrangement. But notwithstanding that, I find, on examination of the treaty, that it tends to pTomote trade between Australia and Canada by reducing the barriers that have hitherto existed, and for that reason I am going to support it. I am not even in the most remote way impressed with the arguments advanced this evening by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) and some other hon. gentlemen to my right that we are in danger of putting the Canadian farmer out of business by introducing into Canada at these lower rates of duty similar produce from the continent of Australia. If we look at the treaty in that respect, we find that we are proposing to give Australia some preference in duty on eggs. Is that going to put the egg industry in Canada out of business?


Robert James Manion: I did not suggest that it
would put anything out of business. All I said was that there would be more competition.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think it will put the egg industry in Canada out of business. In fact, I believe there are cases where this may be of decided advantage to Canada. It

may stimulate our own hens to lay better eggs. The little province of Prince Edward Island is one of the great egg-producing sections of Canada.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The Acting Minister of
Finance suggested that if this treaty goes into effect, our breakfast table will be cheaper. That would refer to butter, eggs and so on.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If it makes the breakfast
table cheaper, that is not a bad thing for many Canadians.


James Dew Chaplin: Not so good for the hon.
member's constituency.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Prince Edward Island
produces a vast quantity of eggs. At certain seasons of the year the people of Vancouver may want to get eggs that are fairly fresh. I understand at the present time they are importing them on certain occasions from China, but they may prefer to get them from Australia a little cheaper than would be possible say, from Prince Edward Island.


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend not
think it would be better to use good Canadian eggs than either Australian or Chinese eggs?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, and notwithstanding
this treaty, that is -what is going to happen, because Australian eggs will not compete with good Canadian eggs. We export about 150,000,000 pounds of cheese a year. Is anyone going to argue that the little cheese we may bring in from Australia will damage the cheese industry of this country? The same may be said all down the line. I notice in the treaty there is a reduction on sugar coming into Canada I may say, in passing, that in a conversation I had with Dr. Page, treasurer of the Commonwealth government, when he was here a few months ago, he intimated the expectation of the Australian government that there was a great future for the sugar industry in that continent. If this proves true, our consumers in Canada who use sugar are going to get some benefit, and that in any case will be some compensation for the slightly additional price we have to pay for raisins and currants, if indeed we have to pray any more for these commodities. Then further, on the other side of the bargain, we are getting entry into the Australian market for certain important classes of manufactured goods from Canada. I have frequently before criticized the Canadian manufacturers because of their inability to get into the markets of the world and sell their goods there. If I can do anything to assist the Canadian manufacturer to get markets outside I am willing to do it. In fact, the greatest need of

Australian Treaty
Canada to-day is markets for the commodities she produces, and anything that will increase the opportunity of securing those markets,
I care not whether they be for the products of forest or farm, of mine or factory, is a good thing for Canada as a whole. I do not know that the treaty will produce the great results some of my hon. friends anticipate but I do think that it is a step in the right direction. It is a step whereby the barriers of trade between these two dominions are reduced, and for that reason in my judgment, and to the extent that it does that, it is a good thing, and I shall support it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I want to say just a few
words with regard to the matter of raisins. Some time ago there was an interesting article in the London Economist with reference to this suggested treaty with Australia and it referred to the subject of raisins. I shall for a few minutes make a comparison between Australian and Californian raisins. The Australian raisins will be up against certain expenses which the Californian product will not be charged with. There will be in the first place a loading charge and secondly, rail freight, and there will be also ocean freight and insurance. The Acting Minister of Finance may say that the California men will be up against the first two charges as well. That may be so, but the Australian will still have to bear the extra ocean charge and insurance. The next point is rather an important one. I understand that Australia does not seed any of its raisins while the raisins from California are seedless. This will make a considerable difference to the buyers. The California raisins are also ready I understand in October and November and they get here in time for the winter trade when people are going in more for cakes and pies and when they use the greatest supply of raisins. On . the other hand, the Australian raisins are ripe in March and April and they will not get here until about June when the fresh fruits are coming in. This would mean that a great deal of the crop would have to go into storage. The article in question goes on to say that the common way of storing raisins is to put them in oil, and this gives them a not very palatable taste to a number of people. If these are facts I should be glad if the acting minister would either verify or deny them. At any rate they would make a great deal of difference to the success or otherwise of the arrangement with Australia so far as raisins are concerned. The last point is this. Are the Australians prepared to sell their raisins at a price low enough to make it impossible for the California raisin growers to compete, or
will they, as many or most protected interests do, put up the price of their raisins so high that the California raisin growers will be able to climb over the tariff wall and make as much as they are making to-day?


Arthur Meighen: What has happened to
that 75 per cent clause which worried the minister so much a little while ago?


James Alexander Robb: I have a cablegram which I
have received from the commissioner and which I shall read for the information of my right hon. friend. It is dated from Melbourne, June 18:
Am assured by Minister of Trade and Customs that exactly the same treatment as extended to United Kingdom and other British possessions will be extended to Canada as basis for preference respecting application of labour and material and conditions imports from Canada. I am of opinion conditions are less arbitrary than regulations read.
Ross.


Arthur Meighen: Was it ever suggested
that Canada would be in any different position from England in respect to that clause?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Never in the world.


James Alexander Robb: That was our objection to it.


Arthur Meighen: I asked the government
what the objection was and they said that it was passed after the treaty had been made. But there was never any suggestion that it applied peculiarly to Canada.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is right in
that they made some reservation, respecting certain raw materials from the United Kingdom. They explained to us that when Dr. Page was here he said it was not directed against Canada particularly; it was directed against certain imports that were going down to Australia through the British channel of commerce. We replied to Dr. Page, "That will be all right, but why discriminate against *Canada?'' He promised to straighten the matter out but this was not done until Mr. Ross went there.


Arthur Meighen: But it is still 75 per
cent against Canada.


James Alexander Robb: But there is no discrimination.


Arthur Meighen: What was the discrimination before?


James Alexander Robb: I have not that detail here.


Arthur Meighen: The history of this matter is interesting as is the history of the whole treaty, and I may as well say a few words upon it now. The government started, I think, shortly after getting into office on a series of
Australian Treaty

negotiations and perambulations designed to end in a treaty with Australia. At length a treaty or an agreement or whatever else hon. gentlemen may care to call it was entered into about a year ago. This is a phase of the matter which seems to have escaped discussion up to now. Australia and Canada came to an arrangement almost a year ago; apparently the word of Canada was given for the word of Australia. If I am wrong I want to be corrected. The 'Canadian government agreed to submit to their parliament for ratification the terms of an arrangement with that dominion. At all events the Prime Minister of Australia so stated in the Australian parliament, and the terms of that arrangement he submitted to his parliament for approval. The Australian parliament accepted the advice of its government and approved, and all that was wanting then to the consummation of the contract was the approval of the Dominion of Canada through its parliament. Its government had approved. Parliament opened on February 5, reference was made to this, as to other treaties in the Address, as about to be submitted for ratification, but as the session proceeded nothing was introduced. Whereupon repeated inquiries were made as to the reason for the delay. The government gave one reason, and one only-that Australia had passed some clause, not annexed to this arrangement at all, but some general customs law under which goods that were to get the benefit of a preference into Australia must, subject to certain conditions, be manufactured 75 per cent in the country which got the preference. The government said they could not go on with the treaty and ask parliament to ratify it until this was rectified. This general customs law was passed after the arrangement was made. I submitted to the Acting Minister of Finance that Canada was not really affected by that law, that the goods we sold to Australia were 75 per cent manufactured here; but he persisted that this had to be taken care of and he could not go on with the treaty in the meantime. Consequently Canada was in new negotiations with Australia. Now the minister would never suggest to this House, never has suggested since the .treaty came down and the facts are revealed, that this 75 per cent law was the cause of the delay at all. What are the facts? The treaty which the minister had negotiated with Australia, which this government gave its word of honour to Australia it would submit to parliament for ratification, was a wholly different treaty from the one which comes before us now.
The treaty which they submitted to us for ratification appears in the records of the

Australian House. It provided, it is true, for virtually, if not exactly, the same concessions on the part of Australia, concessions to our newsprint manufacturers, to our canned soimon manufacturers, and a certain 2i per cent advantage to certain manufacturers of vehicle parts. Those were in the first treaty as in this. In the first treaty, as in this, agriculture was called upon to pay for those advantages. But agriculture got some compensation. The British preferential tariff against mixed farm products was reduced, and Australia given that reduced tariff. It was reduced substantially. But, on the other hand, the general tariff on these same products was raised, and the Canadian farmer in that respect got a quid pro quo for what he lost. I have before me the details of that treaty, and I do not think I could do better than to give some of them to the House, and I will hand to Hansard the comparative data which gives the present tariff,-British preferential and general ;-the first treaty which the government themselves actually consummated, subject to ratification by parliament; the British preferential and the general tariff there, and as well the British preferential and the general tariff under the present treaty. The columns of this table give it as to the whole twenty classes of articles, mainly farm products. For example, our present tariff on meats, British preferential, is two cents, three cents general. Under the treaty made first this was reduced, British preferential to one cent, but the general tariff was raised to four cents. In the present treaty the preferential tariff which Australia gets is reduced to half a cent; the general tariff is not reduced at all, it is just left where it is to-day. Indeed, right down the line all the Canadian farmer got by way of additional advantage in his home market in lieu of what he had to pay Australia for the newsprint manufacturers and others is wiped completely away-wiped away on meats, wiped away on canned meats, canned poultry and game, extracts of meats, fluid beef, soups and so forth, completly eliminated; on lard the same is done, and on tallow. Take, for example, lard, our present tariff is a cent and a half British preferential, two cents general; the first treaty half a cent British preferential, two and a half cents general. Now it is free to Australia and the two cent general tariff stays Eggs, cheese, beeswax, butter, tomatoes and other vegetables, including corn and baked beans in cans or other airtight packages, and so forth, the present tariff is one cent British preferential, one and a half cents general. The first treaty was to reduce the

Australian Treaty
one cent to three-quarters and give that to Australia, but to add to the general tariff making it one and three-quarter cents. Now, Australian vegetables come in here absolutely free, and the general tariff stays just where it was, a cent and a half. Apples, dried, desiccated or evaporated, ten per cent; pears and some other kinds of fruit, reduced from fifty cents per one hundred pounds to twenty-five cents; raisins and dried currants are similarly treated. Our farmers do not raise raisins and currants-they cannot be raised in Canada, so far as I know. The general tariff is raised on these to three cents. It does no good to the Canadian producer. It probably will do good to Canadian revenue, but I am discussing this treaty now from the point of view of the Canadian producer. I am not objecting to giving Australia a preference, and a big preference, on such articles as raisins and currants, and of raising the tariff to do so. We have to give something to get an advantage, and it is well to choose an article where it can be given at the expense of outsiders and not at the expense of the Canadian producer himself. On the
next article, fruits in airtight cans or other airtight packages, and so forth, the present British preferential tariff is a cent and three-quarters, the general tariff two and a half cents. That cent and three-quarters was, under the first treaty, to be reduced to a cent and a quarter, but the general tariff was to be raised from two and a half to three and a quarter cents. There would be something for the Canadian fruit producer to offset partly, if not wholly, the sacrifice he was asked to make. But the government went back to Australia and said, "We will let all your fruits, dried and all the rest of them, in a half a cent, and we will keep our general tariff just where it is, two and a half cents. Honey is treated similarly, other articles the same, until of the twenty articles nine of them now come in wholly free, and on not one of them produced in Canada is the producer given a particle more advantage against any country in the world than he had before the minister went to Australia.
The following is the statement of cam-para tive data:
Tariff
Item
Article
8
Meats, fresh, n.o.p., per lb	
Canned meats, canned poultry and game; extracts of meats and fluid beef not medicated, and soups of all kinds	
Lard, lard compound and similar substances, cottolene and animal stearine of all kinds, n.o.p., per lb	
15
17
18 86
97
99c & 99b 105
135
Tallow	 *
Beeswax	
Eggs, per doz	
Cheese, per lb	
Butter, per lb	;	
Tomatoes and other vegetables, including corn and baked beans, in cans or other airtight packages, n.o.p., the weight of the cans or other packages to be included in
the weight for duty	
Apples, dried, desiccated or evaporated, and other dried, desiccated or evaporated
fruits, n.o.p	
Pears, quinces, apricots and nectarines,
n.o.p., per 100 pounds	
Raisins and dried currants	
Fruits in air-tight cans, or other air-tight packages, n.o.p., the weight of the cans or other packages to be included in the
weight for duty, per lb	_ _[DOT]
Honey in the comb or otherwise, and imitations thereof, per lb	
Sugar above number sixteen Dutch Standard not exceeding 76 degrees of polarization per
100 lbs.. .
Over 98 degrees	
Glue, liquid, powdered or sheet and mucilage, gelatine, casein, adhesive paste and isinglass	
Present Tariff	Robb's Undertaking	New Scheme	B.P.	Gen.	First B.P.	>eat.y Gen.	Australian Preference	Gen.2c.	3c.	lc.	4c.	ic.	3c.171%	271%	15%	271%	15%	271%lie.	2c.	lc.	21c.	Free	2c.15%	20%	10%	20%	10%	20%5%	10%	Free	121%	Free	10%2c.	3c.	lc.	4c.	Free	3c.2c.	3c.	lc.	4c.	F'ee	3c.3c.	4c.	2c.	5c.	lc.	4c.lc.	lie.	lc.	lie..	free	lie.171c.	25%	121%	271%	10%	25%35c.	50c.	25c.	50c.	25c.	50c.lc.	lc.	Free	3c.	Free	(?)i|c.	21c.	lie.	31c.	|c.	21c.2c.	3c.	lie.	31c.	lc.	3c.35.00c.	81.08c.	35.00e.	81.08c.	35.00c.	81.08c.46.50	142.50	46.50	142.50	46.50	142.50171%	271%	15%	30%	121%	27%4786	COMMONS
Australian Treaty
Tariff Item	Article	Present Tariff	Robb's Undertaking	New Scheme	B.P.	Gen.	B.P.	Gen.	Australian Preference	Gen.264	Essential oils, n.o.p., including Bay Oil, otto	of limes and peppermint oils	5%	71%	5%	74%	74%781	Fruit pulp, not sweetened, when imported	by manufacturers of jam or preserves for	use only in their own factories in the manu-	facture of jams or preserves	171%	25%	174%	25%	Free	25%782	Eucalyptus oil	5%	71%	Free	15%	Free	74%
Now, may I ask why did the government retreat from its pledge with Australia and go back and1 ask for a new treaty? Why was the offer which they were so ready to make to reform the Petersen contract repeated in the case of a sister colony? Why was the advantage which the Canadian farmer was to get under the first treaty, partially in lieu of the sacrifice he had to make, absolutely wiped away? Will the minister explain? Has the minister, has the government attempted to explain why they retreated from the position which they took with Australia, and which they agreed with Australia they would submit to this parliament. Nine of the twenty articles now come in free. I can understand a man who adheres to the free trade doctrine -if such is left-feeling that this is all right, that the further you go in this direction the better. It is all right to get markets for our newsprint. Nobody objects to that. It is wise to do it, and it is wise to make a concession to do it; wise to get a market for our canned salmon, and wise to make a concession for it.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does the right hon. gentleman intimate that the members of the government are enunciating a free trade doctrine?


Arthur Meighen: No, except in such portions of the country as they think it is safe to do so, that is all. It is wise, I say, to make a concession to get these things, but by this treaty the government just calls on the mixed farm-er of Canada to be good enough to step up to the counter and pay the whole cost of the concessions that they have given Australia. Out of him and him alone comes the whole price, and in compensation they give him not one single concession. The minister says "Oh well, not many of these goods are coming into Canada now. We have not imported much meat or canned meat or poultry and game, so we do not need to fear the competition." Has the minister considered that though very little may come in over a three-cent tariff, very much more may come in over a half-cent tariff when applied t-o a single pound of meat?

An horn. MEMBER: From a country eight thousand miles away.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, from a country eight thousand miles away, when the freight to bring it here is less than the freight over half the length of Canada; and from that country it is coming to-day.
Australia has never been getting these goods in under the British preference tariff; she has been paying the general tariff rate. The tariff Australia paid previously on meats was three cents; now it is half a cent. On canned meats it was 27| per cent; now it is 15. The tariff on lard was 2 cents; now it is free; on tallow, 20, now 10; eggs 3, now free; cheese 3, now free; butter 4, now one cent. In a word, what was a fairly substantial tariff is now virtually wiped out. So that all this argument of the Minister that because little has come under the general tariff from Australia not very much will come when there is no tariff at all -that argument is just so much casuistry, just so much guess work. We are to-day importing butter, a considerable amount, as has been stated by the minister himself, from countries just as distant as Australia, over tariffs far higher than the minister now proposes to impose.


James Alexander Robb: We imported 198,341 pounds of butter last year, and we exported 24,000,000 pounds.


Arthur Meighen: I know, and we imported it over a substantial tariff, not over a tariff of a cent a pound. I would like to know upon what principle of equity he makes the Canadian farmer pay the whole of this. The minister knows what he should have done just as well as he knows he is sitting in his seat to-night. He did it in respect to raisins and currants, and he started to do it on other articles too, but he got frightened, and I think I can see in front of me now the people who frightened him. He was afraid of the votes of hon. gentlemen to my left. He did not *want to carry his measure with the support of the Conservative party; he wanted to maintain up to the day of the election what.

Australian Treaty
alliance he could with the Progressive party. Now, hon. members to my left are certainly under no humiliation from that talk, but I wonder what condition the government is in? That was its purpose and that alone. The fact that they negotiated and completed a treaty with Australia, subject to parliament, along the lines that we have repeatedly advised in this parliament, certainly shows that they know that is the right line, but they had not the courage to follow it through. Even the first treaty, while it certainly was not fair to the farmer of Canada, was infinitely better than this. Under the first treaty they made him pay, but at least they gave him something in return; they gave him an increased duty against other countries. The minister knowrs what he should have done, and this government knows what it should have done, namely, to have taken our tariff on farm products and given a tariff practically on a level with the American tariff against the world, and then said to Australia: " Come in under our British preferential tariff; we will thus give you an attractive preference in our markets. We can do that and be fair to the farmer of Canada." But the government did not have the courage to do so. The government was afraid of the Progressive votes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Afraid of the farmers.


Arthur Meighen: No, afraid of the Progressives, a very different thing. But it will be afraid of the farmers when it gets amongst the farmers of Ontario and Quebec, and faces them with these duties.


Thomas Vien: Do not be afraid.


Arthur Meighen: I can show the hon.
gentleman resolutions from very close to his own county against the tariff on farm products as it stands to-day; what will these farmers say when it stands where it is going to stand after this treaty passes How can a member representing a rural county go back to that county and say: "I am a supporter of protection for industry." I know the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) will say that, because I know he is. " I am a supporter," he will say, "of protection for the industries of Canada, but when it comes to you, I do not care a whit about you. I am in favour of half a cent a pound on the meats that you produce. I am in favour of fifteen per cent on your canned meats and canned poultry. I am in favour of lard, eggs and cheese coming in free. As for you, I have no concern at all; the protection I want is only for manufactured goods." Those who believe in free trade principles can uphold such a theory, but those who believe in protection will have
great difficulty in supporting any system which does not apply equitably to all portions and all classes of the producers of this country. I am not one of those who decry the benefits obtained by this treaty. I am as anxious as anybody to extend the market for Canadian produced paper, canned goods, or any other products of Canada. But we should have a tariff on a level where we could give concessions, and give them at the expense of outside competitors, not give a preference over the producers themselves of this country. Had we had such a tariff, the negotiations of a treaty with Australia would have been comparatively easy. We would then have had something to offer, something of an advantage over other countries competing with us who give us no concession. Now we have given something to Australia to the disadvantage of our own farm producers, in order that Australia may let some of our manufactured goods in at the same level at which she admits the same goods from other countries. As a matter of fact, the schedule which is the most unjust of the whole of the tariff schedules of Canada to-day is that relating to farm products. The first tariff schedule I would raise in this country is the farm product schedule; the one that I would raise most substantially of all is the tariff which applies to farm products. The farmer in this country to-day is competing with his fellow farmer in other countries under conditions of absolute unfairness. The goods which he produces are brought into this country over a relatively low tariff or none at all, while he is forbidden access to those other countries save over a tariff that he simply cannot scale.


Mr. BELAND:: My hon. friend says we
are precluded from exporting these products to foreign countries except on the payment of high duties. What about England?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly we are on a
level witlh other countries as to admission to England. We have no advantage over them, but they have a big advantage over us in admission to their own country as compared with their admission to us, and that is what I am complaining of. Speaking of England, any one who has watched the trend of events in recent months in tlhat country will find it hard to become elated over the results of the fiscal policy which they have been pursuing, and I do not think in that view I am differing very widely from the view of the minister (Mr. Beland) himself. No; it is not that I have any hostility toward trade treaties, especially with our Dominions. To them, in fact, I would extend a welcome; I would
Australian Treaty

make greater concessions to secure them than I would to secure treaties with those who are beyond the circle of empire,for the reason that they are likely to be more permanent, and I think as well that inasmuch as in many lines they produce differently from ourselves the basis for a trade treaty exists.
It is well to have these inter-dominion treaties, but we ought first to be in a position where we can make those treaties without being compelled to force our own producers to pay the whole price, instead of doing as other countries do, that is, have a tariff from which we can make concessions and be fair to our own producers at the same time. France has made a treaty with us, and a very favourable treaty for France, but France in making that treaty never for a moment sacrificed a single producer in France. We did in this country. The minister talks of the Frendh treaty being 75 per cent for the advantage of the Canadian farmer. The minister cannot name one article, not one single clause in the French treaty that is of benefit to the Canadian farmer.


Georges Parent: How can France make
such a treaty as the right hon. gentleman speaks of in favour of France without helping the French farmer?


Arthur Meighen: Without helping the
French farmer? It is helping the French farmer altogether, but I am looking after our own farmers. The Canadian farmer got nothing out of the French treaty. France has a very high tariff, and France simply said to Canada: You give us certain concessions in your country, or our highest tariff goes up against you, and Canada bent the knee and gave the concessions. In some such corresponding position Canada should be, and then we could treat with other nations without sacrificing our own producers.


Georges Parent: I thought the right hon. gentleman said that the French farmer had not been sacrificed at all.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what I said. The French farmer is not sacrificed in the French treaty, -but our farmer is. What about the condensed milk duties against us. They were multiplied fifty per cent over what they were before, and we were told we would have to take that or a higher tariff still would go on. We took it with the result that it killed our condensed milk export from this country to France. That is how this government helped the Canadian farmer in the French treaty.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not a fact that we are put on a parity with the United States in the matter of this French treaty?


Arthur Meighen: We were put on a parity for some little parts of farm implements, those manufacturers were the only people who got any 'benefit out of it. The United States gave nothing in return whatever, but we had to go and give all these concessions, and we are always going to be in that position, so long as this government pursues its present course.


Samuel William Jacobs: Without the negotiation of the French treaty, would not the United States have been at am advantage over us in the French market?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly they would
have in respect of those farm implements that some of our manufacturers were selling there. I do not say that it was not an advantage, but I ask the bon. gentleman how was it that America got that with no concessions at aM on her part, while we made very extensive concessions to get the same thing?


Samuel William Jacobs: We got cheaper champagne.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and we lost a million, nearly two million dollars in revenue. The French treaty was an unqualified disaster for this country, and a disaster just because of the policy of this government. Now we are making further concessions because of the very same state of affairs. As long as we have a government pursuing this course, we will have to continue to do so-either that or no treaty at all. As for me, when I stand for protection, I stand for consistent protection to all '.parts of our country, and to all classes of producers. I aim' not going to stand here, no matter how strong the importunity may be, no matter whence it comes, and vote for any treaty that does an injustice to a great proportion of the producers of this country, though it does bring benefit to others. Do justice to all. France was able to do justice to all, and make an advantageous treaty. Finland was able to do the same thing. The United States to-day could do the same. But this government cannot do so with any country on earth, and it could not reveal a more conspicuous example of failure than the treaty that is before us to-night.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not a fact that this
treaty is terminable at six months' notice? Does not the right hon. gentleman think it would be well to give it a trial? Probably all these troubles he foresees .may not actually occur.

Australian Treaty


Arthur Meighen: I admit the terminable clause is perhaps the best the treaty contains. I am not saying there are not advantages in the treaty; there are, but you cannot defend advantages by unfairness. This treaty is not fair to the Canadian farmer. It is utterly unjust and injurious to him.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not wise to give it a trial?


Arthur Meighen: 
Mr. HUBBS:: I desire to point out to
the Acting Minister of Finance the injustice this treaty does to the canning industry of the country. He no doubt is aware that one of the greatest industries in Ontario is the canning industry. The farmers all over Ontario, or at least the western and southern parts of Ontario, are dependent upon the canning factories to take the product of their farms. The tariff on canned goods, as the minister knows, is already too low. It is a cent and a half a pound. With reference to canned vegetables, why allow Australia to ship their canned vegetables into Canada free under this treaty? On canned fruits the
Australian Treaty

rate is half a cent a pound, while Australia puts up a tariff of eleven cents a pound. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, it is a very unreasonable and one-sided proposition. I was glad the Prime Minister stated that if he found [DOT]his treaty worked an injustice to any industry he would repeal it. My advice to him is to lock the door before the horse is stolen. What is the use of trying to save an industry after it has already gone into liquidation? I am satisfied that if this treaty is ratified a great injustice will be done to the canning industry of this country. If we allow Australia, with cheap water rates, to dump her canned fruit and canned vegetables into this country, untold damage will be done to our canning industry, and as I stated, the canning factory of Ontario is closely connected with the farmer and is of vital interest to him. If, as suggested by my right hon. leader, they had raised the duty equal to the duty going into the United States they could well afford to give Australia the preference of a cent and a half a pound which would not have worked an injustice to the canning industry of this country.


James Dew Chaplin: This treaty was made in September, and we tried, on more than one occasion after the opening of the House this session, to get information as to why it was not brought down, and we were told, as my leader said a few minutes ago, that the excuse of the acting minister for not bringing it down was that Australians wanted a provision that 75 per cent of all goods going there be made in Canada. I do not see anything in the treaty to bear out that information which he gave to the House. I think that when the leader of the opposition asked the minister a few minutes ago for an explanation in regard to this matter, the least he could have done was to have given some sort of explanation, but it has never been given. We have asked for information on many occasions as to the particulars of the treaty, and I find that on the 11th October in 'the government publication called the Commercial Intelligence Journal a resume was given of this Australian treaty. They were very particular in this journal to give all the advantages that Australia was giving to us. That was well advertised by the government. The government took great pains to make known all over Canada the advantages Canada was getting from this treaty. What was the reason for that? The minister told us the other day that the Manufacturers' Association and the paper people stated that the treaty suited them. Of course
fMr. Hubbs.]
they only knew one side of the treaty. They never knew the disadvantages that other industries and other businesses in this country had to suffer because of this treaty.


Lucien Cannon: How does it compare with our loan to Roumania?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Dorchester should not complain of that, because he stated that it was an asset worth par.


Lucien Cannon: Let the hon. member answer for himself.


James Dew Chaplin: In the Commercial Intelligence Journal the statement was made that Canada is to extend to Australia the full benefit of the British preferential tariff. That was the statement made in the government's own journal in October, and they go on to relate in this organ that they are going to give this concession on raisins which was passed last year.


Arthur Meighen: What is that document?


James Dew Chaplin: The Commercial Intelligence Journal, published under the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Hon. Thomas A. Low, M.P., under date of October 11. That is the treaty that was passed in the Australian House, and the Prime Minister told us a few moments ago that, as regards all these further concessions we are making, because these are concessions, Australia will be kind enough to accept them. They will not refuse them. At least they have promised to pass them in the House. It is very considerate, when we give them nothing but concessions,, they are willing to accept them without refusing. We were to give Australia the full British preference. What do we find now? Meats that were to have a duty of a cent a pound, have the duty reduced now to one-half cent a pound. But under this arrangement, under the proposition that was laid down in this journal at that time, these different products were to have an increase in duty. This was the proposition that was published and which the manufacturers of this country had heard about and passed judgment upon. They never passed judgment upon this treaty, nor sent their recommendations or acceptances of this treaty to this government with any knowledge -of the present treaty. The thing is entirely different. It is not the same treaty at all. The item of canned meats is apparently one of. the things that remain the same. There is; a difference of about 2J per cent. The duty

Australian Treaty
on lard is changed from one-half cent a pound in the former treaty to free. The duty on beeswax is the same. The duty on eggs has been reduced from one cent a dozen to free, and the duty on cheese from one cent a pound to free.


Arthur Meighen: Between the old treaty
and this?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, but not between the
British preferential and this. It looks to me as if they had three trials at a treaty, because in the first one they speak of the British preference. They have been negotiating right along, and they probably have had a dozen treaties but they do not tell us about them. We could not get the information at the time, but we were able to get it from an American journal. The Board of Commerce reports of [DOT]October 6, six or seven days prior to the publication of this journal in a round-about way- no doubt they did not get it from this government, but they got it from somewhere else-published full details of the treaty. It comes from Australia, and this treaty as published from there is not the same as any of the others. In this particular volume they give the Australian concessions to Canada and the Canadian concessions to Australia. Our publication six or seven days later took very good care to cover up the Canadian concessions to Australia. We did not hear anything about them. They were covered up, as I stated before in the paragraph that we were to have nothing but the plain British preference. For my part, I can find no objection to that portion of the treaty that gives a preference to the fish producers or to the pulp and paper industry. But I take very strong exception to making the producers of fruits and vegetables the goat to carry the proposition for the other fellow. I want to put on record some telegrams that I have received from my constituency. I represent a riding that has twenty-five canning factories in it, and I also have paper industries. I doubt very much if there is another single constituency in Canada that has a larger paper industry than we have, I mean in volume of industry or in the spread of it. There is made in my_ riding and in the nearby constituency, kraft tissue paper, newsprint, writing paper, coated paper, papers that are waxed for carrying lard, butter and stuff of that kind. Therefore, I have both industries in my riding. I doubt very much if the paper industry, or even the fish industry, if they thought another very substantial industry in this country was going to be injured because of the benefit they were going to receive, would be so eager for this treaty to be
brought into effect if they knew the whole story. The government took very good care, in any of their publications and as regards advising parliament; not to let the people know. The public do not know anything about the matter. In fact the farmers of the country did not know. This is a telegram which I received a day or so ago from a growers' cooperative association of Jordan:
Understand Australian treaty before parliament Friday reduced duty on canned fruit from Australia to one-ha-lf cent per pound canned vegetables free desire to protest strongly against this reduction as it will seriously affect our industry and the industry of fruit ra.sing in whicli many of your constituents are vitally interested. Trust you will use every effort to combat this.
Another one from a shipper who represents 300 growers and who ships for 300 growers:
Reported proposed reduction to half cent pound in duty on Australian canned fruits and vegetables free fruit and vegetable growers now in serious financial condition and if proposed legislation goes through will without doubt cause great hardship to many growers.
I also want to read a telegram from a cooperative cold storage outfit in my city.


Lucien Cannon: Before the hon. member
proceeds any further, rule 16, paragraph 202 states:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside of the House and referring to or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings in the House.
We are not interested in what the constituents of my hon. friend might think of this treaty. We are interested in his opinion. If an hon. member is to be allowed to read before this committee all the letters or expressions of opinions of his constituents concerning this piece of legislation, when will the debate end? The hon. member may give his opinion and we shall listen to it. He is welcome to speak, so far as he is concerned, as long as he wishes, but according to this rule he is out of order in reading the telegrams he is now reading.


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to have
an opportunity of listening to the hon. member a little further before giving a ruling.


James Dew Chaplin: I have heard many letters and telegrams read in this House respecting matters of a similar nature. If the hon. gentleman had not taken up as much time as he did. I would have been through. This last telegram is from the St. Catharines Cold Storage Com-nany who represent 500 shippers. They wire:
We desire enter emphatic protest against reported reduction duty on Australian fresh, canned and dried fruits as endangering the living of all Canadian fruit growers who are at present time suffering heavy losses
Australian Treaty

owing competition from United States. See car reports for arrival southern tomatoes which displace home grown hothouse tomatoes also American strawberries arriving this week Montreal and Toronto.
I do not object to the paper and the fish industries getting an advantage in the Australian market but 1 certainly object to the fruit growers and canning companies of this country having to pay for it. The acting minister (Mr. Rdbb) and the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) say that the importations will not amount to very much. Well, what did Australia make the treaty for? They are giving us some large concessions in pulp and paper and in fish. Are they doing that for nothing or do they expect some return? It is natural that they should expect something in return, and if they are to get it through shipping these canned goods in the quantities they no doubt expect to be able to send here it will do the people of this country a great deal of harm. The minister says that we are shippers of these goods ourselves. Do we not produce enough butter and eggs and other stuff of that kind in this country without giving an inducement to people outside to bring in more of it to add to competition here? Is there not competition enough in this class of -goods without encouraging more from outside? When presenting this subject the other day the minister said that the reductions he proposed to make would reduce the cost of the breakfast table without injuring any industry in Canada. Now, if he is going to make these reductions in the cost of the breakfast table in the way he proposes does he mean to tell us that the farmer will get more for his produce? If the breakfast table in Montreal and Toronto is cheapened in regard to butter and eggs will the farmer get more for these commodities which he has to sell? He may do so in Chateauguay-Huntingdon but I doubt it, and he will find this out before long. If the cost of the breakfast table is to be reduced the difference will come out of the farmer's pocket and no other.


Donald Sutherland: -In view of the statement made by the minister on March 16, I think the question put to him by the leader of the opposition and by another member deserves some attention. The leader of the opposition stated with regard to the delay in bringing on the treaty that the -government of Australia after having passed their legislation had passed an order in council changing the percentage that would apply to goods coming under their tariff. Hon. -gentlemen understand that under our tariff -goods twenty-five per cent manufactured in the British

Empire are allowed the preference; and that was Changed by Australia to seventy-five per cent, so that we are negotiating with them to have this matter more clearly defined. The minister on that occasion clearly misled the House, and he ought to make some explanation in regard to the situation to-day. He cannot afford to sit in his seat and allow challenges of this kind to be thrown across the floor, and expect parliament to adopt this treaty as it has been placed -before us to-day, an entirely different treat}' from the one made with Australia in the past summer as announced -by the parliament of that dominion. Why has the change been made -and Australia given better terms than they asked for when the first treaty was agreed upon? The statement of the -minister on March 16 has not been substantiated.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend was not in
his place a short While ago when I quoted the telegram which I have received from the commissioner to the effect that the same treatment extended to Great Britain and other British possessions will be accorded Canada.


Arthur Meighen: If this was the reason
for the delay during these six months why was it not stated in the new treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the couree
of his remarks my right hon. friend stated that there had been an intimation in the Speech from the Throne with regard to the Australian treaty.


Arthur Meighen: And other treaties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No mention
was made of the subject.


Arthur Meighen: It refers to certain
treaties.
Mr, MACKENZIE KING: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon; it has no reference to the Australian treaty. The reason was that at the time the Speech from the Throne was being written Mr. Ross, the Australian trade commissioner, was with Mr. Logan in the West Indies. The government at that time had before them considerations of which it has since taken account with respect to the final negotiations in relation to the Australian treaty, and were waiting for the return of Mr. Ross from the West Indies to send him to Australia to conclude the investigations there. We were not certain how the investigations might turn out and mention was not made of the treaty in the Speech from the Throne.

Australian Treaty


Arthur Meighen: I said that it referred to certain treaties, and I will read the exact
passage:
Your attention will also be invited, during the course of the session, to certain trade agreements, to legislation respecting the handling and marketing of Canadian grain and to other important matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend spoke of the Australian treaty specifically.


Arthur Meighen: I said the Australian treaty and others.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am explaining to the House now, in order that they may appreciate the reason for the delay, that the government was considering at the time certain matters which it thought necessary to take into account, and it was desirable that Mr. Ross should go to Australia to explain things in a verbal way which would have been impossible by cable. We therefore had to wait until his return from the West Indies.


Donald Sutherland: Was not the question, which it was necessary to explain, the intention of the present government to give Australia better terms than they would have-got under the former treaty? The minister certainly has not justified the delay in this matter. No evidence has been submitted to show that the government ever had any intimation that Australia was going to or had passed an order in council to that effect. So far he has made no reference to the order in council which he claimed had been passed by Australia. I have listened to the Prime Minister's explanation or his justification for making this treaty, in the course of which he dilated upon the "larger vision of imperial trade." Apparently this was the impelling motive in the minds of the government when negotiating this treaty. It has been pointed out. that the balance of trade is very largely in our favour. Surely this is nothing to be regretted. We ought to be able to find profitable business somewhere in the wrorld. There are a sufficient number of obstacles in our way without adding to them. The dairy industry is very materially affected by this treaty according to the statement published in the produce market report for June 10 issued by the Department of Agriculture. It shows that Canada has been exporting butter to twenty-two countries in an endeavour to find markets, and I notice also that in the Dairy and Cold Storage branch report for June 20, 1925, the following reference is made to the' cheese market in Canada.
The final report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics issued on the 20th inst. shows the stocks of cheese in all Canada on June 1, 1925, were 15,421,532 pounds,
as compared with a five year average on the same date of 5.805,099 poundsor three times the quantity which is usually held in cold storage at that time. But there is this rather significant comment:
The heavy increase in 'holdings is no doubt due to heavy stocks of cheese imported for the purpose of manufacturing "process" loaf cheese.
So that we are to-day importing large quantities of cheese, in fact one consignment alone of 29,452 boxes came into Montreal recently, and we have at the present time ten million pounds more cheese in cold storage in Canada than there has been on an average for the past five years. And we are asked not to be concerned about this treaty. "That it is an experiment, and if you do not like it after a while you can change it for something else, but it is the best we could do for you." It is not the best. The government had a better trade treaty with Australia six months ago, but they chose not to put it into effect. They are apparently deliberately sacrificing the primary industries of this country for some ulterior motive. So far they have not offered any justification for what they are attempting to do. But the Prime Minister states, "If you let this chance go by it may never come again." I never heard anything sound so much like a gold brick story. It is similar to what we heard when the transcontinental railway was being built. Then we were told that if we missed that, the greatest opportunity of our lives, we would forever regret it. And the Prime Minister now states, we are about to miss another opportunity if we do not allow this treaty to pass. If not, Australia may do something terrible to prevent us doing business with her. Evidently the impelling motive in the minds -of the government in pushing forward this treaty is the paper interests. The influence which has been brought to bear upon them has assuredly been from those interested in that industry. Why is it that Australia discriminates against Canada to the extent of three pounds per ton on paper? Have hon. gentleman ever asked themselves that question? Pulp and paper can be shipped from the United Kingdom into Australia free. Now the government are anxious to secure a reduction of the tariff against our puipwood, and to do so they are going to sacrifice our primary industries. The Minister of Trade and Commerce in Australia knew very well his country was getting the best of the bargain when he submitted the treaty to parliament. He realized the difficulty the Canadian government would have in convincing any sane person in this Dominion that the treaty was
Australian Treaty


James Malcolm: I must correct the hon.
gentleman's figures. I have here the official year book of the Commonwealth of Australia, giving the figures of exports of animals from Australia for the year 1922-23, and it shows that their total export of cattle in that year was 13,318.


Donald Sutherland: Then the return
published by the Australian government is not correct. The figures I have quoted are to be found in the Australian oversea trade returns. I copied them a few days ago and I am sure they are correct. The exports of sheep hides, without the wool,, amounted to 9,610,335, and of that number 139,973 were shipped into Canada in 1922-23. I am satisfied that the supporters of the government in this House do not realize the danger to which we are being subjected by a treaty of this kind. You are practically removing a very, very low tariff indeed in connection with meats, such as Australia can produce at little or no cost at all, where sheep graze all the year round, and it is simply a matter of rounding them up. The sole value of many of their flock of sheep is considered to be in the wool, and very little or no value is attached to the carcass. Now if they can find a market for their mutton and lamb in some other country, they will be only too glad to avail themselves of the opportunity.


James Alexander Robb: I fear my hon. friend has
unintentionally left a wrong impression on the committee. He was giving the exports of cattle and sheep from Australia, and he quoted figures running up into the hundreds 306
of thousands. The total importations from all countries of cattle into Canady in the year ending March 31, 1925, were 214 only, and they came from the United States.


Donald Sutherland: The year I gave
was 1923-24.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend also quoted figures up in the thousands for sheep. There were no sheep imported into Canada from any other country except the United States, from which we got 1,576.


Donald Sutherland: I can only reaffirm
that my figures were taken from the trade returns of the Commonwealth of Australia.


James Alexander Robb: I am giving you our figures.


Donald Sutherland: I was giving the
figures for the years that I mentioned. Of currants we imported 96,320 pounds in 192324 and 184,800 pounds in 1922-23.
The fact that we are asked to include in this treaty a clause which enables the government by simply passing an order in council to make similar trade arrangements with any other British country shows how far-reaching this proposal is. I have expressed my opinion regarding the treaty. I have expressed also my disappointment regarding the attitude of the government and their failure to give any reasonable explanation as to why such an agreement has been made. I am sure a great injury will be done to an industry that finds great difficulty in carrying on at the present time. Labour conditions in this country to-day are such that those engaged in agriculture are carrying on very largely short-handed, doing what little work they can, because the returns from the farm will not enable them to pay the wages which are determined by the scale that has been fixed by the government in the civil service of this country and on the railways in this country and elsewhere. The eight-hour day, and the six-hour day in many cases, is in effect, and agriculture has to compete. And now the government have signified their approval of a scheme for old age pensions in this country. We have reached the stage, Mr. Chairman, where something will have to be done. If we are going to carry on at all, labour of certain classes cannot continue to receive the consideration it has been receiving. Wages must come down in this country to a competitive basis if we have to compete with cheap production in foreign countries, speaking with regard to agriculture. People find it difficult to carry on as they could do in years gone by; this would not be possible except for improved machinery

Australian Treaty

which enables a man or a boy to do the work that it took three or four men to do a few years ago. The country has become overrun with noxious weeds.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friends
may laugh and "ha, ha." It is a great joke, I suppose, but you can travel this country from one end to the other, and wherever you go you will see this is the case. The farmers of this country are carrying a heavy load and the government are not attempting to relieve them in the slightest but are making it more difficult for them.


Albert Frederick Healy: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. My point is that a discussion of noxious weeds has nothing to do with this treaty.


George Newcombe Gordon: I think the hon. member mentioned that only incidentally.


Donald Sutherland: Anyone who has
knowledge of the rules of the House knows there was no justification for the hon. member rising to a point of order. Only one deduction can be drawn, and that is that he rose just for the purpose of interrupting.


Albert Frederick Healy: Not at all. I shall be glad
to apologize if the hon. gentleman can show me any connection between noxious weeds in Canada and the Australian treaty.


Donald Sutherland: I am saying it is
absolutely impossible for the farmers of this country to continue to carry the load they are carrying to-day. Their industry has been neglected, and as an evidence of that you can see noxious weeds flowering in this country everywhere.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Not in Quebec.


Donald Sutherland: The only hope for
agriculture in this country is to develop the live stock business and put it on a profitable basis. In many sections of the country lands that were neglected and practically ruined a few years ago by grain growing have been partially reclaimed by such a process, but the government are going to make it difficult if not impossible for this to go on.
I spoke on this question yesterday, but in view of the attitude of the government, in view of the absence of any reasonable justification offered by the Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Finance for this trade agreement, and realizing the seriousness of the situation, I have felt compelled to voice my protest against this most iniquitous measure which the government are now endeavouring to force on the country.

Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
On schedule 2:


George Newcombe Gordon: An amendment will be necessary to this schedule; after item 86 add "87a, Onions in their natural state, free".


James Alexander Robb: I ask the unanimous consent of the House to make this amendment, which is merely to correct a clerical error.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 238 respecting trade relations with Australia.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read
the second time?


James Alexander Robb: I move that the bill ibe nowread the second time. I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to the second reading now, as I wish to advance some other measures a stage.


James Alexander Robb: I wish to direct the attention
of the committee to a clerical error in this sentence. It reads the "Customs Tariff Act." 306}
The word "act" should be struck out, and it should read "Customs Tariff."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the Title.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We have the
government's undertaking that the bill is exactly the same as the resolution in all particulars, as regards not only the schedules but the different paragraphs?


James Alexander Robb: That is as I understand it,
with the amendment I made a few moments ago.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1.30 am.
Wednesday, June 24, 1925