DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 112, to amend the Department of Immigration and Colonization Act.
He said:	This is a very short bill. The
amendment is necessary as a result of the courts of British Columbia deciding that section 4 of the Immigration and Colonization Act had the effect of transferring to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization the power conferred on the Minister of Justice by section 43 of the Immigration Act.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What is the
effect of the amendment?
Questions


Mr. ROBB:: Heretofore if a man was
placed in gaol the Minister of Justice could sign for his release, but apparently that power was vested by section 4 in the Minister of Immigration and Colonization. It is by this amendment transferred1 (back to the Minister of Justice.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Is the government aware that Canadian manufacturers (grinders) of loaf cheese make use of New Zealand cheese in the manufacture of their product?
2. Do these manufacturers (grinders) export the product so manufactured labelled as a Canadian product?
3. Are these manufacturers (grinders) entitled to a rebate of duty paid on imported cheese used in the manufacture of their product when such products are exported ?
4	What is the amount of rebate of duty, if any, allowed in such cases?
5	When Canadian cheese is used in the manufacture of such products, what grade of such cheese is used?
6.	Have any regulations been adopted relating to the manufacture, branding, grade of Canadian cheese to be used, or sale of this class of cheese?
7.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to make regulations relating to the manufacture, branding, sale and export of this class of cheese?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	and 4. Under regulations established by order in council under the provisions of the Customs Act a drawback is allowed of 99 per cent of the duties paid on imported materials used, wrought into, or attached to goods manufactured or produced in Canada, and exported.
First grade.
6.	No.
7.	The matter is under consideration.


TEMISCOUATA PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. POUI.IOT:
1.	What public buildings belonging (a) to the Dominion government; (b) to the Canadian National Railways, in the county of Temiscouata, are insured against fire?
2.	For what amount are each of said buildings in sured?
3 What is the amount of the yearly premium ir each of the above cases?
4_ What are the names of the insurance companies in which the said buildings have been insured?
5.	What are (a) the names and (b) the addresf of of the insurance agents who insured the above buildings?
6.	What is the date of payment for each of the above insurances ?
Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	(a) There are no public buildings insured against fire in the county of Temiscouata.
Location

Description of Property
(b) Riviere du Loup-Station, freight house, contents (freight), baggage express house, water tank, water tank, ice house, sand house, roundhouse (30 stalls), machine shop, power house, storehouse, contents (stores), car repair shop, contents (stores), bunk house (engineer's), casting shed, contents (stores), coal shed, shop B and B department, scale house and scales, yard office and switchman's shanty, tool and lunch room, stores in iron shed.
Cacouna, Que.-Station.
St. Arsene, Que.-Station.
Isle Verte, Que.-Station, water tank.
St. Eloi, Que.-Station, freight house.
Tobin, Que.-Station, freight house.
Trois Pistoles, Que.-Station, freight house, water tank, dwelling (agents), coal house (agents).
2.-Location-Description of Property
Riviere du Loup, Que.-
	Insurance		on
	Building	Contents	
Station			..$ 10,000	$	2,000
Freight house		.. 14,000		
Contents (freight) .. ..			8,000
Baggage express house .	.. 3,000		
W ater tank		.. 3,000		
Water tank	
.	.. 1.500	Ice house	.. 7.000	1,000Sand house	.. 1,000	100Roundhouse (30 stalls)	. 50,000	5,000Machine shop	,. 75,000	50,000Power house	.. 12,000	15,000Storehouse	.. 15,000	Contents (stores)	55,000Car repair shop	,. 25,000	5,000Contents (stores) .. .	1,800Bunk house (engineer's).	.. 2,500	300Casting shed	,. 2,000	Contents (stores)	8,000Coal shed	. 600	500Shop B&B Department.	. 1,200	500Scale house and scales.	. 500	Yard office and switch	_	man's shanty	. 500	100Tool and lunch room .	. 500	200Stores in iron shed .. .	1,200Cacouna, Que.-	Station	. 6,000	St. Arsene, Que.-	Station	. 5,000	Isle Verte, Que.-	Station	. 5,000	Water tank	. 1,500	
Questions
Insurance on Building Contents
St. Eloi, Que.-
Station	 2,000
Freight house	 2,500
Tobin, Que.-
Station	 2,000
Freight house	 700
Trois Pistoles, Que.-
Station	 5,000
Freight house	 5,000
Water tank	 1,500
Dwelling (agent's)	..	..	2,000Coal house (agent's)	...	400

3.-Location-Description of Property
Riviere du Loup, Que.-
Annual
Premium
Station	$ 60 00
Freight house	
70	00Contents (freight)	
40	00Baggage express house	
15	00Water tank	
15	00Water tank	
7	50Ice house	
40	00Sand house	
5	50Roundhouse (30 stalls)	
275	00Machine shop	
625	00Power house	
135	00Storehouse	
75	00Contents (stores)	
275	00Car repair shop	
150	00Contents (stores)	
9	00Bunk house (engineer's)	
14	00Casting shed	
10	00Contents (stores)	
40	00Coal shed	
5	50Shop B&B department	
8	50Scale house and scales	
2	50Y'ard office and switchman's shanty 3	00Tool and lunch room	
3	50Stores in iron shed	
6	00
Cacouna, Que.-
Station	 30	00
St. Arsene, Que.-
Station	 25	00
Isle Verte, Que.-
Station	
25	00Water tank	
7	50
St. Eloi, Que.-
Station	
10	00Freight house	
12	50
Tobin, Que.-
Station	
10	00Freight house	
3	50
Annual
Premium
Trois Pistoles, Que.-
Station	
25	00Freight House	
25	00Water tank	
7	50Dwelling (agent's)	
10	00Coal house (agent's)	
2	00

4.	All buildings in question are insured in the Company's fund.
5 and 6. Answered by No. 4.


EMIGRATION TO UNITED STATES
Mr. RQSS (Kingston):: 1.	Has the government any notice that United States will put in force a regulation regarding any quota against emigration of Canadian born to United States?
2.	Will such regulation come into force during year 1925?
3.	Has the government been in consultation with the government of United States on this question?
4.	If so, what are the results of the consultation?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


COLONEL H. A. C. MACHIN
Mr. CARRUTHERS:: 1.	Was Col. H. A. C. Mach in employed by the government of the day, during or after the late war, or assigned to perform other duties than those attaching to his military rank? If so, what was the nature of such ?
2.	Did he receive any remuneration for such services, other than his regular military pay and allowances? If so, at what rate per diem was he paid?
3.	Was he also paid in addition anything for travelling or other expenses? If so, what amount?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	This officer was on the strength of the Canadian Expeditionary Force from October, 1915 to 31st May, 1919. He returned to Canada on leave in July, 1917, and was struck off strength of the overseas military forces of Canada 1st October, 1917, on being retained in Canada for special duty as a member of the Military Service Council and subsequently as Director of the Military Service branch.
2.	This officer was paid the regimental rates authorized for the rank of lieutenant-colonel to February 19, 1918, and from February 19, 1918, to date struck off strength of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, a consolidated rate of pay and allowance of $6,000 per annum.
3.	He was allowed 815 per diem to cover living allowance and his actual moving expenses. In 1917-18, living allowance, $2,790; travelling expenses, $39.07; total $2,829.07. In
Questions

1918-19, living allowance and travelling expenses, $1,074.75.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SALARIES
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	How many officials or officers of the Canadian National system receive salaries or remuneration amounting to $15,000 per year or over?
2.	What was the total amount paid by the Canadian National system for salaries or other remuneration amounting in each case to $15,000 per year or more in the year 1924?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Mr. Speaker, this
is a peculiar question in that it seeks to have the Canadian National Railways give to the public information which no other railway company gives. It really is asking the railway owned by the government to do something that no other railway company in Canada is asked to do, or does, or, possibly, would do. I may say this, however. The management of the Canadian National Railways are very much averse to giving this information, for the reasons I have suggested. I have urged them to give it in this case, particularly as it relates only to the higher paid officials and does not include the employees in general. With that understanding-that it is not opening the door to a series of questions that will be handing the entire information as to salaries over to the public for use by other companies, information which if given would also give rise to endless jealousies in the staff itself-I am prepared to answer the question. The answer being confined within the limits I have stated, I do not think it will do any appreciable harm.
The answer is as follows:
1.	17.
2.	$350,083.33.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EQUIPMENT
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What amount of equipment was purchased by or for the Canadian National system in each of the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?
2.	What was the total amount charged for equipment in the system's boobs at the close of the year 1924?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.
1922		 $	28,737 50
1923			29,959,452 28
1924		 14,487,162 27
(Including sales tax totalling $1,686,885.22.) 2. $346,896,425.29.


ST. LEONARD SUB-COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Mr. DOUCET:: 1. When did the position of sub-collector of Customs and Excise at St. Leonard's Madawaska county, New Brunswick, become vacant?
[Mr. Copp.J
2.	When were applications called by the Civil Service Commission for the filling of this vacancy?
3.	How many applications were received?
4.	What are the names of the successful applicants?
5.	Was an order issued by the commission to one Joseph Desjardines to report for duty and on what date?
6.	Was that order withdrawn? If so, on what date and why?
7.	When does the Department of Customs and Excise propose appointing a permanent official to that position ?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	August 31, 1924, through the death of the sub-collector.
2.	September 10, 1924.
3.	One.
4.	Mr. E. J. Roy.
5.	Not to this position.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	E. J. Roy permanently appointed from December 1, 1924.


WAR REPARATIONS
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What action is being taken to settle claims for reparations ?
2.	When is it expected that these claims will be paid?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	The appointment of a successor to the late Hon. William Pugsley, the commissioner appointed to consider the report upon claims for reparation, is under consideration.
2.	Oni the completion of the report of the Reparation Commissioner the subject will be dealt with.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROSS (Simcoe):: 1.	What was the total revenue of Canada for the years ending 31st March, 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925, respectively, from the following sources, import duty, excise duties, excise taxes, income war tax, business profits war tax, any other sources?
2.	What per cent of the amount received was the cost of collection in each case?


GRAIN ELEVATORS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	How many grain elevators are owned or operated (a) by Dominion government; (b) haibour commissioners under control of the minister of marine; (c) by the Canadian National Railways; (d) or sublet from any of the above?
2.	Where is eadh elevator located, -what is the type of construction, and what is the storage capacity of each?
3.	What	was the	cost of	each,	exclusive	of site?4.	What	was the	cost of	each,	including	site?5.	What	is the	number	and	kind of	separator,
cleaner and dryer in each?

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
6.	What is the capacity and kind of conveyor system in each elevator, including the number of legs?
7.	By what kind of power is each operated, showing maximum demand and connected load of each plant ?
8.	What amount of grain did each handle during each of the crop years, ending 1922, 1923, 1924 inwards and outwards?
9.	Which of the above elevators are operated under the Canada Grain Act, and under what authority are others operated?
10.	Which are licensed and bonded by the Board of Grain Commissioners?
11.	What is the insurance rate on each (a) building; (b) contents?
12.	What are the charges in each and in case of conveyor charges, at what rate in each case?
13.	What are the number of receiving pits in each elevator and number of car loading spouts?
14.	In which of the above elevators are "car dumps" used, or automatic power, or shovels, and if car dumps are used, what make?
15.	Are any of the above elevators in process of construction, or if incomplete, how much still remains to complete?
16.	What was the operating revenue and operating expenses, exclusive of interest and sinking fund, on each of the above elevators?
17.	In cases where elevators are leased (a) what are the rentals; (b) to whom leased; (c) terms of lease?
18.	What are the number of scales in each elevator, showing receiving, shipping, bagging capacity of each?



RAILWAY GRADES

Mr. MORIN:: What are the maximum grades between engine runs from (a) Calgary to	Vancouver	on	the	CanadianPacific Railway; (b) Edmonton to Vancouver on the Canadian National Railways; (c) Fort William to North Bay on the Canadian Pacific Railway; (d) Superior Junction to	Cochrane	on	the	CanadianNational Railways; (e) North Bay to Montreal on the Canadian Pacific	Railway;	(if) Cochrane toQuebec on the Canadian National Railways; (g) Famha/m to McAdam	Junction	on	the	Canadian
Pacific Railway; and Oh) Levis to McGivney Junction, New Brunswick, on the Canadian National Railways?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
No. 1 ELEVATOR, VANCOUVER
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a return showing statement made out by Messrs. Wilson and Wilson, in October, 1924, as auditors for Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, covering the operation of No. 1 elevator, for crop year ending July 31, 1924.



QUEBEC RIOTS, 1917

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Doucet:
For a copy of the report of Colonel Machin to the Governor in Council respecting the Quebec riots of 1917.
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: My attention has just
been called to-day to this motion. I would like my hon. friend to let the motion stand, as I desire to look into the matter.
Motion stands.



WRANGEL ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Manion (for Hon. Mr. Baxter):
For a copy of all reports, memoranda, documents and other papers, in relation to Wrangel island, which are in possession of the Department of External Affairs, and a copy of all correspondence of Canada, and (a) Vilhaljmur Stefannson; (b) the British government and (c) the government of the United States.
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	It is just possible that
the British government or the government of the United States may regard some of the correspondence asked for as confidential, in which event it will have to be so regarded. I think everything else can be brought down.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Carried, subject to the limitations mentioned by the Prime Minister.



DOMINION NOTES

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Brown (for Mr. Good1):
For a return showing: 1. The amount of Dominion Notes advanced under the War Finance Act of 1914 (with amendments), and outstanding at the end of March, June, September and December of each year from 1914 until the present year.
2.	The amounts of securities accepted as a basis for the foregoing issues of Dominion notes, given for the same periods.
3.	The different classes of securities and the various amounts of each accepted for rediscounting for the same periods.
4.	The different institutions (banks) which took advantage of the rediscounting privileges, and to what extent, for the above mentioned periods.
James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, the department offers
no objection to giving the information, but in the absence of the mover of the motion (Mr. Good), I think it might stand. I might point out to the House that to furnish this information will require considerable clerical help and involve a good deal of expense, without, so far as I can see, serving any good purpose. I should like to discuss it with my hon. friend, who is strong for economy, before allowing it to pass.
Motion stands.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: May I ask the government, in view of the insistent requests from British Columbia, whether they have taken any further steps in connection with the Australian treaty?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: There is nothing further to report at this time. The matter is still the subject of negotiation,.
Canada Grain Act


Leon Johnson Ladner: Do I understand the Prime Minister to intimate that the negotiations are still open, notwithstanding the intimation, of the Prime Minister of Australia that they had been closed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend had been in his seat the other day he would have heard my reply to the intimation which he has just made. I do not view the remarks of the Prime Minister of Australia in the same way that my hon. friend does.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Is it correct that Mr. Ross, who was to go back to recontinue the negotiations, has not yet gone?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think he is expected to leave this week.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- INJURY TO EMPLOYEE ON DUTY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, may I direct the
attention of the House to the fact that owing to the coolness and presence of mind of a trainman and the engineer on an Intercolonial train the other day a very serious accident was averted and the lives of several people saved? But the engineer was very seriously hurt, and I do not think he will be able to work in that capacity in future. Is it the intention of the government to award anything to this man so that he may be able to maintain himself and his family? His name is Mr. Gagnon.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	This matter has not
been called to the attention of the government before, but I can assure my hon. friend that it will be given every consideration. I might point out tlhat these matters now always emanate from the Canadian National board in a report, on which the government acts or declines to act.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: It is now about a week
and a half since the termination of the budget debate, but the bills representing the government policy as respects important matters are still unintroduced. May I ask particularly with respect to the railway rates question-when may we expect a statement of the government's policy or a bill representing it?

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	It is now under consideration. It is a very important bill. Mistakes have been made before, I am told, even in the drafting of legislation, and the government wants to be sure that no mistakes are made this time. The bill will be introduced in plenty of time this session to give hon. members opportunity for full discussion.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend and consolidate The Canada Grain Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1912, and amending Acts, and to make further provisions in respect to the handling and marketing of grain, or incident to the buying, selling and transportation of grain; the grading and weighing of grain; the handling of grain in and out by country elevators and at country points and inspection of such elevators; the operation, management and control of terminal, public and private elevators; the storing, cleaning and binning of grain; the mixing of grain and the disposition of screenings.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, this is
a most remarkable resolution to precede a bill. The purpose of a resolution which is to precede a bill is to embody the principles of the bill and virtually all the terms, or, if not all the terms of the bill, certainly all the important terms; otherwise the resolution does not serve its purpose at all: it is valueless; it is a waste of time. The rules of the House call for an introductory resolution, but you do not meet the rule by a simple resolution declaring that a certain act should be amended, which is all that this resolution does. It says, "Resolved that it is expedient to amend and consolidate The Canada Grain Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1912, and amending acts, and to make further provisions in respect to the handling and marketing of grain." Well, what provisions? I presume it is expedient to do it if the provisions are an improvement, but what is the sense of tJhe House resolving that it is in the public interest to make an amendment of the provisions as to the handling of grain when we do not know what the provisions are? I submit to you as a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that this resolution as not a compliance with the rules of the House.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the right hoe. gentleman will allow me to quote Bourinot, I find on page 496:

Canada Grain Act
Rule 50 of the House of Commons provides:
"No bill relating to trade or to the alteration of the laws concerning trade, is to be brought into the House, until the proposition shall have been first considered in a committee of the Whole House and agreed unto by the House"
It is quite allowable, however, to introduce bills relating to trade in the Senate, without previously considering the subject in a committee of the Whole.
Then follows the paragraph which I think is pertinent here:
The rule, as generally understood in the Canadian House-and English practice bears it out-simply requires the House to go into committee to consider a general proposition, setting forth the expediency of bringing in a measure on a particular question affecting trade. The object of the rule is to give another stage for consideration of a measure involving commercial interests.
The decisions of the Canadian Speakers are referred to at the bottom of page 496. With all due deference, therefore, to the right hon. gentleman's objection, it would seem to me at least that as long as the proposition is indicated in a general way, disclosing what the intention of the government is, without detailing particulars, that the resolution would fall within that provision.


Arthur Meighen: I quite agree-as long as the purpose is outlined in a general way disclosing what is intended to be done. But can any human being tell what is intended to be done by this resolution even in the most general possible way? You are proposing to amend the act in respect to the handling of grain. Well, amend it how? To provide for what cMnge? You do not need to give the exact terms of the proposed amendments, the details, but this does not tell how you are going to amend the act. It does not give the government's position at all; it may be 'backwards or forwards, right or left; it may be to strike the whole thing out. The House is given no inkling whatever as to what the nature of the proposed change is, and I submit it is only trifling with the rules of parliament to submit this premonitory resolution an-teceding the bill.


Mr. LOW:: I can only say in reply to my
hon. friend that I submitted the bill to the Law Clerk of the House, and asked him if he would prepare a resolution covering what would be required preceding the introduction of the bill.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the law clerk
now?


Thomas Andrew Low: Mr. Troop. I am not an authority on these matters myself, and I must confess that I relied upon the Law Clerk of the House.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister look at Nos. 20 and 21 on the order paper? He will see there what is intended by such a resolution. Those are quite proper.


Thomas Andrew Low: In this case, Mr. Chairman, I
must stand by the resolution as drawn by the law clerk, unless the House decides otherwise. Mr. Chairman, perhaps there has been no legislation brought before this House this session that is of greater importance-


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I must
ask for a ruling on the point, after argument.
I think it is a very serious matter. If this is to be taken as compliance with the rules -simply a resolution saying that it is advisable to amend a certain act,-it does away with all purpose of the rule entirely. It does not serve the object which you, Sir, read just now as an additional precaution before legislation. If we pass this, the House has not taken the slightest precaution by way of a premonitory step anteceding legislation, not the slightest, because we have not the remotest idea what the legislation is. It does not state its principle even in the most vague or general terms; it does not give the House the faintest intimation. The bill that is to follow could be anything on earth and still *be in compliance with this resolution if this ruling is to be sustained, and in future there will be no need whatever of having a resolution anteceding a bill, not the slightest; we may just as well abolish the rule, because your ruling, Mr. Chairman, abolishes it, when you rule this to he in order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: May I point out?-the present resolution does conform to the general principle that the preliminary resolution, which must always be submitted to the House before any money bill or any measure relating to trade and commerce is considered, should contain an intimation of the nature of the measure which is proposed. My right hon. friend contends that the wording of the resolution is altogether too general; but what is done here is to ask for a declaration:
That it is expedient to amend and consolidate the Canada Grain Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1912, and amending acts-
So the committee quite apprehends what the purpose of this bill will be when it is introduced. The language of the resolution although general is apt, and the committee could not expect that more definite language could be employed when dealing with the consolidation not only of one act but of a

Canada Grain Act

whole series of acts relating to an important matter. The resolution proceeds:
-and to make further provisions in respect to the handling and marketing of grain, or incident to the buying, selling and transportation of grain; the grading and weighing of grain; the handling of grain in and out by the country elevators and at country points and inspection of such elevators; the operation, management and control of terminal, public and private elevators; -
And so on. This resolution intimates that further provisions, in addition to those which now exist, are to be made in regard to ali these subjects. The object in drafting the preliminary resolution in a certain way is merely for the purpose of informing the House as to the purpose of the subject which it will be asked to consider later on when the bill itself is introduced, supplemented in this as in every case by the explanations of the minister who is responsible for the measure. It does seem to me therefore that the resolution comes within the ruling and the precedents cited by the chairman of the committee from Bourinot, and that the committee ought not to regard the objections of my right hon. friend as being substantial.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems to me that this matter is capable of very simple determination, and the real manner in which it ought to be determined is as pointed out by you, Mr. Chairman. You have read, and rightly read, from the authority governing such cases, that in connection with matters having to do with trade and commerce and the like opportunity is to be given the House to understand what is proposed to be done. The idea, of course, is perfectly plain. When it is proposed to change the law, before we take the initial step the House is to be informed as to what the nature of the change will be. It is not necessary to submit then the exact sections that have been drafted, but it is necessary-if we are to try and apply the rule as quoted by you, Sir,-that we should at least know in what direction the changes tend. We should at least know, for example, whether grading is to be made easier or stiSer; whether one thing is to be stopped and another thing is to be allowed; we should know in which direction the government seek to go. As to what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) has said, he is quite right in his statement in so far as the mere consolidation of statutes is concerned; but he is infinitely wrong in connection with the only part of his remark that has anything to do with the point at issue. He is correct in what he says about the consolidation of statutes, because it is a very easy thing to know by reference to the statutes 
what we are doing when we are consolidating. The House, in that case, would have a right to understand that the consolidation to be undertaken was to be fair, just, and honest consolidation of existing provisions. But my hon. friend after making that point clear sought to deal with an entirely different subject in an absolutely different way.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let us see what you have to say as to the reason why we have the preliminary resolution. We have a resolution such as this in order that the House may get an idea as to the direction in which legislation is contemplated and so will have an opportunity of giving or withholding its assent. Now let us take the first thing which is proposed here. We have to make further provision in respect to the handling and marketing of grain.	Well, we
all know something about the handling and marketing of grain, how that is done; but we do not know what is here proposed to be done in either of these directions. We do not know whether the handling or marketing of grain is to be made easier or more confined; whether new channels are to be sought or not in looking after this very important business. In the name of common sense is there anything in the resolution which tells the House what it is to be asked to do in that connection? We are next told that the buying, selling and transportation of grain is to be provided for. The same remarks apply in absolutely the same way to these questions. We know how .grain is transported, there is no question about that, but the government proposes that something shall be done to change that transportation, some further provision is to be made in that connection. What is the nature of the provision? Is it a provision which will throw a further burden-[DOT]


Mr. FORKE:: We will take it by aeroplane afterwards.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Possibly-I
really would not be surprised at any suggestion the Minister of Trade and Commerce might make in that regard and therefore I say "possibly" but I do not think at the moment that I should say "probably." At any rate the matter of transportation of grain is to be dealt with and a change is to be made. What change is to be made? Who is to be helped? Are the railway companies to be helped by a diminution of their liability, for example, in connection with losses? Is there to be aid granted to the producer. Or is there to be a further warranty in grain transactions? Is there to be a change made in connection with the rates? What is to be done? Again I

Canada Grain Act
ask, in the name o*f common sense, what is there for the House to pass upon? Then we have this further question; "The grading and weighing of grain." Now, if there is anything in the world we would want to get advanced information on before we pass legislation concerning it, it is the grading and weighting of grain', because it is a most delicate and vexed question. The House and the country should know, in general terms, what is intended to be done, before any legislation is passed; it ought to get the fullest opportunity of knowing what the government's ideas are. That is the purpose of the rule as read by you, Mr. Chairman, and yet that opportunity has not been afforded us. I could go through the whole list of matters proposed to be dealt with, and we are left in absolutely the same position, without the slightest indication as to what is to be done. If the rule has any significance, if we are to have any regard for it, all right; blit if the rule js to be treated in the way proposed by the Minister of National Defence let us strike it out altogether because it means absolutely nothing.


Robert Forke: I am almost afraid to venture into this discussion when I find so many lawyers who differ in their views. But I am going to use a little common sense in looking at this matter and see what I can make out of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: I meant no insinuation whatever. There may be a very good reason for a rule of this kind and I can well understand the arguments of the right hon. leader of the opposition. At the same time it seems to me that the resolution deals with so many different phases of the subject, there is so much ground covered, there are so many different incidents which have to be considered in drafting the necessary legislation, that it would be impossible to give any definite information on the subject until the whole bill is brought down; and therefore it seems to me we are simply wasting time in this discussion. I think all of us have a pretty general idea as to the intent of this proposed legislation and my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will get the information he seeks if he is just a little patient.


Mr. BAXTER:: I can quite appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon (Mf. Forke), but he must remember that the position he occupies gives him peculiar facilities for knowing in advance the purposes of the government, which are not possessed by
193i	-
members of the group to which I belong. If, of course, we were disposed to accept everything proposed by the other side of the House in the same gentle way that the hon. leader of the Progressives accepts it, we might expect, perhaps, to have sudden and violent division in our own ranks, with a departure of some gentlemen from positions of importance.
Referring to the point of order, my own view is that the rule is rather a burden upon public business; as far as I am concerned, I would rather the rule did not exist. There are some legislatures in Canada that do not resort to it at all. But there ought to be-not for the information of the House, but for the information of the country-distinct notice in advance, so as to permit the country to be apprised of important changes in legislation on any subject that interests a considerable number of the people. That, I take it, was the original object of the rule, and while we have the rule it surely ought to be observed. For my part, I would gladly vote for the repeal of the rule and the substitution of a system which would provide that a bill should be introduced and remain on the table for a certain number of days before any discussion could take place. I think that would save the time of the House and dispense with a lot of unnecessary printing. But the position we are in to-day is that we are a^ked to pass a resolution which conveys absolutely no meaning. It is not within the spirit of the rule. at all events. We are asked to pass that resolution because a minister of the crown has handed over to some other gentleman-and quite properly-the duty of preparing the resolution, though that gentleman has prepared a resolution that is utterly inadequate and out of line with the spirit of the rules. If every time a blunder is made we are asked to accept it we will soon have an end of ail rules; and I do not see how the members of this House can very long be expected to conform with alacrity either with the spirit or the letter of the remaining rules of the House, if any one of them is to be put out of service in this somewhat summary fashion, My hon. friend the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke), with his easy channel of communication-which reminds one of the subway from the Central station to the Chateau Laurier, an easy and convenient mode of communication-knows, of course, what the words "transportation of grain" in this resolution refer to. I have not that advantage, not having the same intimate relations with members of the government to
Canada Grain Act

enable me to get the information in this way. If I were a Progressive-


Mr. GOULD:: You will never be.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: No, thank God! I hope I never will be quite such a spineless political animal; but I hope to be progressive in a real sense, and not progressing along, drawn by a string after a wagon driven by somebody else; that is not my idea of progress or pro-gressive'ness. If my hon. friend had not his intimate means of knowledge, and happened to see the phrase "transportation of grain," it might possibly occur to him that under those words there could be concealed an attack upon that charter of liberty so dear to him, the Crowsnest pass agreement. I do not suppose it is being attacked by this [DOT]bill; but under that language, after a resolution of this charter had been accepted, it would be perfectly proper for the government to deal with the transportation of grain as affected by that particular agreement. Of course my hon. friends know they are in no such danger. If they thought they were, the chief support of the government would be withdrawn at once. They know they are safe, but a day may come when the Tories, whom they do not trust, will be in power in this House,-the day is not so far distant-and I would venture to say that their attitude towards language of this character would Immediately assume a degree of suspicion that is entirely absent to-day. We would have none of this complacency.
You have given your ruling, Mr. Chairman, in good faith, but I appeal to you to consider that the important matter involved in that ruling is the utter destruction of anything that the rules stand for.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The bill which is preceded by this resolution will contain from 275 to 300 clauses.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not new sections?


Ernest Lapointe: No, not new sections,
but the bill has to be preceded by the resolution just the same for the old sections as well as for the new ones. Nobody claims or will claim that a resolution preceding such a bill should recite what is contained in those 300 sections.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody said so.


Ernest Lapointe: No, nobody said so, but it is the spirit of the objection which has been raised. What is the rule? The rule simply requires the House to go into committee to consider a general proposition setting forth the expediency of bringing in a measure on

a particular question. The resolution sets forth the general proposition that it is expedient to consolidate and amend the Grain Act, and states that amendments will be moved purporting to deal with certain phrases which are all mentioned in the resolution, I have been in this House for a great number of years and I venture to say that this resolution is practically the same as all resolutions preceding such bills, and the Law Clerk of the House, who has drafted this resolution has done so according to the practice as he has drafted all other resolutions of such a nature. Surely my hon. friends are ill-advised in singling out the Canada Grain Act for the purpose of setting forth such an objection as they have made.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what 'the hon. minister is talking about when he makes such an assertion.


Ernest Lapointe: What assertion?


Arthur Meighen: That the law clerk has
drafted this resolution in the same form as all others.


Ernest Lapointe: When dealing with bills of this nature.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Ernest Lapointe: I can find many of
them.


Arthur Meighen: I will find some of them right now on the order paper.


Ernest Lapointe: You will find others in the same position.


Arthur Meighen: Let the minister look
at resolution No. 14, and every resolution that is on the order paper. I never saw one like this, and if there were one it should have been bbjected to. Look at No. 15, No. 6 and No. 7. I have read them all.


Mr. VIEN:: They do not refer to a consolidation.


Arthur Meighen: No certainly not, but
what difference does that make? Look at No. 23.


Thomas Vien: It makes all the difference in the world.


Arthur Meighen: The consolidating is all right. So far as consolidation is concerned nobody is complaining. It is the amendments. I say that sufficient should be stated as to the purpose of the changes to put the House on its guard as to what those changes are to be. If the minister would look at No, 20, or No. 21, or No. 14, he would not say

Canada Grain Aci
to me, man to man, for 'a minute, that all the changes that are to be made, and the purpose of the whole of them, could not be summarized in language one-half the length of resolution No. 17. He could do it himself; fifty members of this House could do it. He does not need to insert all the changes. The statement in regard to consolidation does not need elaborating. He does not need to repeat any of the old sections. What is to be the effect of these changes? There are to be amendments along certain lines. Let the minister name the lines, name the character of the amendments. That may embrace ten or eleven different clauses and the House is then put into possession of the great purpose of these changes. That is all we ask. The resolution as it stands is just making a farce of the rule, and it is a serious responsibility for this House to declare that the rule is complied with. It is all right for my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Forke)-and I know how lightly some hon. members look upon these things-to say: I know what is going to be done; let us get at it. If that sort of thing is to be done, let us do it in an honest way and get rid of the rule. If the rule is to be disregarded, after this all we need to do is to bring in a resolution saying that we intend to amend section' so-and-so of chapter so-and-so of such-and-such a year, and if somebody wants to know the nature of the amendments, the minister in charge will say: We will come to that when we bring in the bill. There is a way in which to improve a rule or to get rid of it. If it should be improved let us improve it, or if got rid of, let us get rid of it; but do not let us make a farce of the rules of parliament. I do not quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) to my right that this rule should be got rid of. Its application might possibly be restricted, but once we adopt this ruling we are done, as regards all cases, with a precaution which parliament has historically adopted and which parliament, if it does not intend to get rid of it, should not get rid of by defying it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am really at a loss to understand the state of alarm into which my right hon. friend has worked himself with regard to this question.


Arthur Meighen: It is not alarm; it is
common sense.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have
both been in this House for a number of years, and it might be interesting for the House to ascertain the exact nature of a resolution introduced by my right hon. friend
in 1912 when the act which we propose now to amend and consolidate was being dealt with, in order that my right hon. friend may see that the constitution of this country and the usages of parliament have not altogether gone to rack and ruin in the meantime. I would ask the attention of the committee while I read the resolution. When I have read it, I think the committee will agree with me that the resolution as drafted for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) to-day goes further than this resolution did in 1912:	This was the 1912 preliminary resolution.


Robert Forke: Introducing the Grain Act?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Introducing the Manitoba Grain Act:
Resolved, that it is expedient to consolidate and revise the Manitoba Grain Act, chapter 83 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and part II of the Inspection and Sale Act, chapter 85 of the Revised Statutes, 1906.
That is what we say here. Then it goes on:
To establish a Board of Commissioners to administer the grain trade of Canada, and to provide for expenses in connection therewith, and to charge the board with the operation and management of such terminal elevators as may be constructed, leased or acquired by the government of Canada.
That is the whole of the preliminary resolution of 1912. We have gone on and given in a general way, which, as the rule says, is all we are expected to do, the various numerous subjects dealt with, in such a way that every hon. member knows exactly, so far as general language is concerned, the subjects that are to be dealt with by the amendment. I submit that the precedent of 1912, the resolution introduced by that distinguished public man, Hon. Robert Rogers, on this question, paving the way for the act of 1912, might relieve my right hon. friend's mind of any fear of danger of the rule being disregarded in connection with the present resolution.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend was rather unfortunate in the example he chose, but he was wise in reading it in a low tone of voice so that very few hon. members understood the full purport of it. Make a resolution of that sort and I am satisfied. There was a Grain Act in existence. The purpose of the new act was to establish a Board of Grain Commissioners and to provide for their duties and support. That was exactly set out in the resolution which the hon. member read. If the minister does the same in this case, I shall be satisfied.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Was that
all?
Canada Grain Act


Arthur Meighen: No, but that was the main purpose of the amendments made. The substance of all that was done was in that resolution.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the terminal elevators?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That resolution was six lines long and ours is eight.


Arthur Meighen: The elevators were provided for before. There was a grain act before the act of 1912 was passed. In this case no purpose is given.


George Newcombe Gordon: A point of order has been raised, that this resolution is not in order because it infringes rule 50 which i3 as follows:
No bill reflating to trade, or the alteration of the laws concerning trade, is to be brought into this House, until the proposition shall have been first considered in a committee of the whole House, and agreed unto by the House.
Bourinot's reference to that is briefly this:
The rule, as generally understood in the Canadian House-and English practice bears it out-simply requires the House to go into committee to consider a general proposition, setting forth the expediency of bringing in a measure on a particular question affecting trade.
The first authority cited by Bourinot is in Hansard of March 24, 1882, when Mr. Mac-Lelan moved that the House resolve itself into committee of the Whole to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient further to amend and consolidate as amended the act 31 Victoria, chapter 65, and the acts amending it, respecting the inspection of steamboats, and for the greater safety of passengers by them.
Mr. Alexander Mackenzie raised the objection at that time, stating:
The rules require that, on any bill relating to trade or to alter the laws concerning trade, being brought into the House, the proposition must first be submitted in committee of the Whole. This is a simple notice of the minister's intention to bring in some amendments, and I object to it as being entirely out of order.
To this Sir John A. Macdonald said in reply:
The House can pass a resolution, no matter how vague in its terms, declaring that it is expedient to amend the act. The House can ask for a most specific statement unless it is fully satisfied with that made.
Sir John A. Macdonald further states:
That it is expedient to amend and consolidate the acts. A clearer or more specific statement could not be made.
The Speaker thereupon gave a ruling upon the question. He decided:
That the rule, as generally understood and interpreted by late English practice, simply required the House to go into committee to consider a general proposition setting forth the expediency of bringing in a measure

on a particular question; and that consequently in his opinion the proposed motion came sufficiently within the meaning of the rule.
That is the first precedent which appears to have been followed according to Bourinot page 496, and while this notice of motion, I must say, is peculiarly brief and limited, I do not think it is beyond the precedent which has already been given in Bourinot and which I have cited to the House, because the intention is to discuss more the expediency of the proposed amendment and not to give the question the close and intimate examination that the committee of the Whole gives to the bill when it is taken up in committee of the Wliole. While I do so with some hesitation,
I rule that this motion is in order.


Ernest Lapointe: In support of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, may I quote a precedent? On the 11th March, 1914, a resolution was moved reading as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to consolidate and amend the Canada Shipping Act and the acts in amendment thereof and various laws relating to merchant shipping.
That was under the government of which my right hon. friend was a specially distinguished member.


Thomas Andrew Low: The lawyers of the House having had their innings, I shall proceed to make a few explanatory remarks in connection with the resolution before the committee. Perhaps there is no measure before parliament at the present time that is of greater interest to the agriculturists of this country than the Canada Grain Act. The Canada Grain Act was passed in 1912. It was framed to meet the needs of that particular day and it has been amended from time to time to meet -changing conditions. In 1912 there were 2,037 elevators in this country with a capacity of
108.000.	000 bushels, and in 1924 there were 4,169 elevators with a capacity of 251,000,000 bushels. In the crop year of 1913-14 the wheat and oat crop amounted to 474,000,000 bushels, and in the year 1923 the oat and wheat crop was 1,040.000,000 bushels. In the fiscal year 1914 the Canada Grain Board was called upon to inspect 264,000,000 bushels of grain and in the year 1923 it was called upon to inspect
462.000.	000 bushels.
As I said before, the old act served its purpose and it will be repealed; the bill I shall introduce following the resolution is a revamping of that act, and enacts also a number of recommendations made by the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission. A number of the old sections have been dropped, some have been changed, and some new ones have

Canada Grain Act
been added. It is intended to deal in extenso with several important matters including the mixing of grain. The House is aware that there is a great difference of opinion in regard to that question; there are those who hold the view that mixing should be prohibited altogether, while others believe that the commercial practice of mixing is economically sound. That subject has been dealt with by the commission and a section has been added to the bill which will give force to their recommendation.
The bill also provides for the cleaning and the disposition of screenings under government supervision. This will involve, if adopted, a very heavy expenditure, and when the bill is referred to the committee on Agriculture it will be for that
4 ip.m. * committee to decide just what action they will recommend to the government in this regard. The bill does away with the Grain Survey Board in the western grain inspection division as at present constituted; it provides for another method of appeal. Certain new grades have been established to cover the new varieties of wheat now grown in the western provinces.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are those new grades?


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend had been
patient he would have had the names in a moment. They are, Amber Durum, Red Durum, and Canadian Western Kota. Provision has been made to cover these new grades. In 1914 an order in council was passed bringing under the Canada Grain Board all eastern port elevators, but that order in council was never rendered effective. The act is now being amended in order to bring under the board the control of weighing in all the eastern port elevators. Another amendment purposes to make the fees now charged uniform with the fees charged by regulation. Formerly the board required dealers to take out a license; now the onus is to be placed on the dealer to apply for that license. An extremely important change is the bringing of all country elevators, for inspection purposes, under the Canada Grain Board. This implements a far-reaching recommendation made by the commission.
The new bill makes it clear that in all cases the owner of the grain shall decide as to the terminal elevator to which the grain is to be shipped. A minor change, but one which is nevertheless of importance to shippers of grain in the west, is the extension of the time for loading a car, during the months of September, October and November, from 24 to 48 hours. The bill provides also that
the Board of Grain Commissioners, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may fix the maximum rate that may be charged by the commission merchant.
In view of the judgment that has just been rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, it has been thought well to embody in the act a declaration to the effect that all elevators shall be considered works for the general advantage of Canada.
The Turgeon report is possibly the most exhaustive analysis of the grain marketing system that has ever been made in Canadh. That commission visited every province as well as a number of the grain centres of the United States; and one member of the commission visited the Old Country to make a special study of the grain trade over there.
These are perhaps some of the major changes that will be effected in the present system by the new bill. But, realizing the tremendous importance of the bill, and the fact that probably never before in the history of parliament were there so many members in the House who are technically qualified to deal with such proposals as those that are now to be considered, I am going to suggest to the House that the bill after it has passed its second reading be referred to the committee on Agriculture. The government, in dealing with this question, requested Mr. Justice Turgeon to prepare the bill and they have thought it well to submit to this committee in its entirety the draft as prepared by him. We shall be glad to have any suggestions that occur to hon. members; in fact, if the committee consider that any changes are necessary in the interests of all concerned in the marketing of grain we shall be pleased to have recommendations along any lines suggested. So far as it is possible, it is the intention of the government to act upon any reasonable suggestion that has for its object the improvement of present conditions in the whole grain trade. What we want is a grain act which, as far as is humanly possible, will give a fair and profitable return to the agriculturists of this country for their toil. The bill will come before the committee of the House and ample opportunity will be given to all hon. members to discuss it. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything further at this stage.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is it proposed by the
government to establish a system of grading of grain according to the milling value?


Thomas Andrew Low: That matter is under consideration. My hon. friend will have an opportunity of presenting his views on the subject to the committee.
Canada Grain Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: This bill is one of the most important measures before the Parliament of Canada and it deserves our closest study and the most impartial consideration. It applies not only to the producer of grain but to the system of elevators, which really are, in a sense, common carriers; also to the buying, selling and milling of grain. It affects all these interests, and particularly it affects the producer. A revision of the act is due, as I think all will agree. The act as it stands no doubt served a very good purpose, but conditions in Canada with respect to the marketing of grain have outgrown, during the last few years, the provisions of the present law.
While you have ruled, Mr. Chairman, that the introduction of this legislation by resolution comes within the rules of parliament, the method employed does handicap us in discussing the matter at this stage-and I am not saying this in any spirit of criticism. I approach this bill after years of study of the problem, with an open mind and a desire to co-operate with other hon. members in the enactment of legislation that will meet the growing needs of this vast business known as the grain trade. But I say we are handicapped in discussing the matter at this stage. Indeed, I would be willing to let the resolution pass and say not a word except for this: that the bill will go immediately to a committee of which I am not a member-of which, indeed, only a limited number of hon. gentlemen are members; consequently we cannot have much opportunity to discuss the bill until it comes back from that committee. That is one reason why I had hoped that we should have an opportunity at this stage to discuss the general provisions of the legislation. For instance, if the minister had stated that he wa3 going to treat the question of screenings along some general line we could have had a very useful discussion on that phase of it. Then, there is the question of grading. If it were revealed to us at this stage what the government intended to do, a useful discussion might follow which would guide hon. members who are fortunate enough to be on the committee. I would therefore at this stage crave the indulgence of the committee for a few minutes while I very briefly discuss one or two phases of the question. I want the minister and the government to understand that I am not attacking anything, because there is nothing before us to attack. What I say now I offer merely because I shall have no other opportunity of doing so until the bill comes back from the Agriculture committee.

Take the question of screenings. For the last seven years at least in this House I have contended with all t'he vigour of which I am capable that the producer of the graint is entitled to the full value of the screenings that are taken out of his grain when it passes through the elevator. With very few exceptions the producer and owner of the grain has not received anything like the full value of his screenings. In other words-and I do not like to use the word " rob " carelessly, but I can find no other to meet the case-he has been systematically robbed of his screenings. I told hon. members of the House in 1919 when we were discussing the Grain Act, at the time the House was sitting in1 the Museum -and the famous Price, Waterhouse audit of that time disclosed 'beyond any possibility of cavil that the case was as I 'stated it- that the farmer was not getting the value of his screenings at all; in fact, in most eases he was not even getting a Map accounting for any of it. It is possible-and I ask the Agriculture committee to consider this, because I shall not have the privilege of being on that committee-to give to the farmer or producer the full value of his screenings. That was demonstrated for one year-and only for oner year, I am very sorry to say- in the government elevator at Vancouver. For some unknown reason they have abandoned the system and this year have adopted the method followed in other places, that of reoleaning the screenings. Now, suppose a car of grain is brought to a terminal elevator and is put through the cleaning machine. Out of that grain is taken certain refuse, cracked and broken grain, dirt, and so on; or, if it is wheat, there is removed from it oats or other grain seeds. These screenings are the property of the vendor and he ought to get the full benefit of them. The practice is to run the first screenings through the "money making machines," as they are called; extract from them all the valuable feed seeds, and then say to the farmer or the shipper: "Here is a certificate; you can have the remainder,"-which is nothing 'but refuse screenings and in most cases worthless. In fact, hundreds of thousands of tons of this material have been dumped into the lake or burned up or sold for next to nothing. The original screenings, on the other hand, is a very valuable product. So I say that in this revision of the act steps should be taken to provide that the shipper of the grain shall receive the full value of his screenings.
Then, there is the question of overages. I venture to say that it will foe shown by the annual report of the grain commission

Canada Grain Act
for any year during the last ten or twelve years that without a single exception the overages in all the terminal elevators occur in the top grades, No. 1 and No. 2. Now, how is it done? It is well known to a great many I think who have given it study; it is a simple process. In the fixing of the contract grades of grain, there is a margin between the maximum and the minimum of those grades. For instance, we will take No. 1 grade. It is possible to take say two carloads, one near the maximum of No. 1 grade and the other simply No. 2 grade, and to mix those two carloads and still produce at the elevator two carloads of No. 1 grade. That is constantly done; there is no question about it whatever, and the elevator at the end of the year will find itself short of the lower grades, because it will always grade up, and it will find itself over on the upper grades. An examination of the annual weigh-up and of the annual returns of the grain commission upon any terminal elevator will show the correctness of what I am stating. It is almost as regular as the sunrise that the overage will occur in the higher grades, and if there are any Shortages, they will foe in the lower grades.


Mr. SALES:: Does the hon. member include public terminals, as well as private, in that statement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, certainly. I am
treading on dangerous ground, I know, in the eyes of some, but I want to say this: I think a public terminal elevator-we will use the term " terminal elevator ", an elevator that is used for the handling of other people's goods; I am not talking now of the private elevator belonging to a flour mill or something of that kind-I think as a matter of right a terminal elevator should not be allowed to make any overages at all. I argued this in 1919, and I want to say to my hon. friends to my left that had it not been for their representatives who were then in the House-


Mr. KELLNER:: We did not have any then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Here is one (Mr. Knox) staring me right in the face. You had about nine or ten representatives including your late leader, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) who though, well, somewhat regularly absent is an honoured member of this chamber, also Mr. J. F. Reid, formerly the member for Mackenzie, also Mr. Maharg, Mr. Levi Thomson, and one or two others. I am not saying this in any spirit of recrimination
at all; I am merely citing a fact. I took the stand then that there should not be allowed any overages, but these gentlemen took the stand1 that an overage should be allowed, and the result was that the present act was amended in 1919. Mr. A. K. Maclean, now Mr. Justice Maclean of the Exchequer Court, was Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce at the time, and he accepted the advice of the hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred, and the act was accordingly framed to permit terminal elevators to create an overage of one-quarter of one per cent. That may seem a very small amount, but if a railway company, for instance, were allowed to extract from the cars that pass along its lines one-quarter of one per cent of the grain it hauls, it would have a mighty nice revenue at the end of the year. My argument is this, and I submit it in all earnestness and seriousness, that a terminal elevator is a common carrier, just like a railway; it acts the same as a common carrier; it is the liaison between the railway and the water, and passes the grain from the railway into the ship; it is really a part of the carrying system of grain;
I look upon a terminal elevator as a common carrier, with no more right to exact from its earnings a portion of the commodity it handles than has a railway or a steamship.


Thomas Sales: Or to mix it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will come to mixing in a minute. I say they have no right whatever to extract any portion of the goods they are handling in trust for other people.


Mr. KNOX:: Is the hon. member not
somewhat confused in his references to overages and mixing?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all; I think I understand this. I do not want to be dogmatic.


Andrew Knox: I admit the hon. member
knows a good deal of the grain trade for a man not interested in the raising of grain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a nice little touch, but I am interested in the raising of grain as a matter of fact.


Mr. MORRISON:: What would the hon.
member recommend doing when the elevator has a shortage? One-quarter of one per cent is a pretty small overage, and if you can find sufficient weighmen throughout the country to weigh as closely as that, you would be a pretty able man.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will come to that; it is part of the argument. But I want to establish this first: As a matter of right no elevator
Canada Grain Act

has a right to take a portion of the goods it handles, any more than the railway has. Let us lay that down as a principle. Now I come to the point my hon. friend raises. The point he raises is this-and this is the only defence the elevator can offer. The elevator argues: But we sometimes make a shortage. Now I checked up these shortages-I took the Price-Waterhouse report which was put in the possession of the House some years ago,-and I have checked up dozens of others since, and I find that the percentage of shortage is infinitesimal compared with the overage; it is a mere atom, as it were. I say: Give to the elevator a fair rate of remuneration for the service it renders. I think that rate is pretty good now; as a matter of fact, if I recollect correctly, the average earnings of the elevators at the head of the lakes, without overages, was something like thirteen per cent per annum over a period of years, and if you take away the advantages from screenings it was in the neighbourhood of nine per cent, showing that they were making a fair earning without these extra advantages; and some of them made an earning of one hundred per cent on the capital invested when overages were included in their revenue. I say this: Let the elevator have a fair return for the service it renders, for elevating, storing, handling, insuring, and so forth, the grain. But the moment you say to an elevator or to any common carrier that in order to provide against loss it is permissible for them to take a portion of their cargo or their storage, and that is exactly what the elevators have been doing the last two or three years, and we have been encouraging them so to weigh the grain-I will come to the weighmaster's part of this transaction in a moment-that there would be an overage at the end of the year -it was revealed, it is all on record before this House, that some of the elevators actually paid their superintendents a salary plus a percentage of th% overage that they created, thus putting a premium upon extracting in some way or other a portion of the grain that did not belong to them-


Robert Forke: Was that actually demonstrated?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, it was actually
demonstrated; it is part of the records of this House.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What records?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Price-Waterhouse
report to which I have referred. There is no question of it whatever. I have mentioned it time and again in the House, not in the

last couple of years, because this subject has been sub judice during that period.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: I do not think that is correct, that the Price-Waterhouse report was laid on the table.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was laid on the table of the House in 1919. I handled it myself, and worked on it myself, a nice leather-bound report of about 125 sheets of foolscap, comprising the most complete report I have ever seen.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Was it
available to the public?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just the same as any other document is available to the public. For instance, any member or the newspapers could see it; anyone who wanted to could see it.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I think it never was printed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was not printed because it was a very voluminous report, and nobody asked for it to be printed. On the occasion referred ho H -cited these points regarding overages, and I think that in the contemplated revision of the Grain Act care should be taken that this system of encouraging the creation of overages shall be definitely stopped.
Now, there is the question of the country elevator-


Mr. HOEY:: Before the hon. member
departs from that point, in view of the inevitability of overages would he consider that the fees derived therefrom should be confiscated?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would have them turned over to the government-at least I would have them made use of to reduce the cost of handling this trade. That is what I would do with them. I m'oved a motion, in the House six or seven years ago that $15,000,-000-which according to a calculation made that year, prior to the passing of the amendment to which I referred1, was illegally extracted from the 'grain growers of this country-Should be returned to the treasury of Canada.


Oliver Robert Gould: Was not such a provision
incorporated in the law and disallowed by judgment of the Exchequer court?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I do not think it
ever was. As a matter of fact I think the only change in the law made in regard to it was that we legalized the creating of an overage of a quarter of one per cent, and any

Canada Grain Act
amount above that went to the government elevators.


Thomas Sales: Does my hon. friend intend
to deal with the question of the weigh-masters?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but the point I was referring to in connection with the particular matter under discussion was this:	The
elevators encouraged their superintendents in this practice by paying a premium on the amount of overages they created; and it has been indicated in the report to which I have referred that there is a question whether or not weighmasters have not been tampered with. I am not in a position to make any charge against the weighmasters that they have been tampered with, but the thing was cited in the report and reference was made to it.


Charles A. Stewart: An amendment to the law has cured that practice pretty well, has it not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The condition has probably been ameliorated. As a matter of fact I am informed on very good authority-and I think I am pretty well within the realm of accuracy when I say this, because I recall one case in particular-that a new practice was adopted. That was to fill a car with grain, and put about three or four inches of screenings on top and ship it away from a particular elevator as screenings. One car in particular that I recall was misdirected and discovered in that condition, showing that the elevator had more than the quarter of one per cent allowed and was getting rid of it by collusion with another party. However, I am not desirous of emphasizing that point. The point I want to make in the case of both the screenings and the overages is, that in any amendments to the act the right of the original vendor of the goods ought to receive the most care and consideration, and that the elevator should be treated on principle as a common carrier the same as the railways or the steamship companies.


Mr. McTAGGART:: I should like to know what the hon. member would suggest with regard to shrinkage. Would he allow the elevator a certain percentage of shrinkage on grain going into store?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I would say to the
elevator just as I would say to anybody else who handles goods in trust:	It is up to you
to handle the goods so that there will be as little shrinkage as possible. As a matter of fact, from experience, the amount of shrinkage is small, and the elevators should cover
it just as a railway company covers its shrinkage claims right along.


Thomas Sales: There are thousands of
dollars owing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then there is an undoubted right of claim.


Thomas Sales: They never pay them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would not like to say
that; I simply say that the duty of preserving the condition of the goods rests upon the elevator, and there are very few cases where there is any great shortage. It is not the business of parliament to provide against shortage. If you did that you might just as well give an unlimited range of overage; it would be just the same only at the other end of the business. I would give them a fair fee for handling the goods and I would hold them responsible.
Now let me refer to the country elevators. One of the weaknesses in the old act is that it makes very little provision for properly controlling country elevators, and I hope that in the new act that point will be suitably provided for. As to the question of inspection and survey board: it is well known that there is a desire on the part of some, and I think it should ibe given favourable consideration, that when samples are taken for inspection there should also be a sample taken when the car is unloaded for the purpose of checking up when a survey is called for later on, if it should be called for. For instance, many cars are now loaded so close to the roof that it is impossible to get a proper sample from them-it is impracticable, I will put it that way. This condition is a matter of comment and complaint. It is alleged that in the case of many of the cars-in fact the percentage is put as high as forty per cent -it is impossible to get a proper sample for inspection purposes; and in any case there is a good deal of carelessness in this form of inspection. If it was made obligatory to take a sample of the grain as the car was being unloaded-for the purpose of checking in case of an appeal or in case of a reinspection-it would be a good plan. Furthermore there are those who suggest this as well-that there should be a preliminary inspection say at Winnipeg, or at Calgary or Edmonton if the cars are going to the Pacific, as well as a final inspection; a preliminary or interim certificate should be given and then there should be a final inspection at the point of unloading at Fort William or Vancouver.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: When the hon. member advocates treating terminal elevators as com-
Canada Grain Act

ffion carriers would he advocate treating country elevators in the same way?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I a.m not prepared to say. However, I do think that a careful study should) be given to that point. I want it clearly understood that I am not now seeking to >lay down in dogmatic fashion any definite proposals. I am merely citing problems that I think ought to be carefully studied.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: There is no doubt that the committee on Agriculture will take a great deal of interest in what the hon. gentleman is saying, and my reason for asking the question is to see whether he could advance some definite proposition.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course the trouble is this: There are so many country elevators- some belonging to flour mills, some belonging to privately owned terminal elevators, and so on. The terminal elevator is supposed to be entirely separate from the country elevator, I say that advisedly, so it would be difficult to fix definitely upon a principle of that kind with regard to country elevators.


Mr. WARNER:: Is it not a delicate matter on account of these elevators also buying and shipping grain for other parties and having different kinds of grain in their possession?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is exactly what I mean. It is a delicate matter; I do not think the principle could be applied arbitrarily to the country elevator.
Another point in connection with grading and inspection is this. A considerable difference has been noticed in the fixing of the grades by different inspectors. Some method ought to be devised if possible, or the present method so revamped, as to bring about a more uniform system of inspection, of grading, throughout the country. That, I think, is very necessary; I have received recently some very serious complaints regarding this inspection on the westward route in comparison with the eastward. In fact I think it was the mayor of Edmonton who made very serious charges in that line. This act should be of a character that would make impossible, as far as it is humanly possible to do so, any difference in that way.


Thomas Sales: Would the hon. member explain how he would amend the grading to accomplish what he has just described?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I do not claim to be competent to do that. I do claim some knowledge of the Grain Act, and I claim that one can study this business and probably get an intelligent grasp of it; but when it comes 
down to the technique of actually fixing a grade of wheat, I do not for a moment claim to be qualified to do it, and indeed, I think it is a qualification that perhaps is not held very generally.


Mr. BROWN:: Does the hon. member not think that if there had been that difference in inspection as between the two different places, that might almost naturally result from the human element that almost always enters into the matter of the grading of grain, and that no matter what regulations we might make we would be up against that proposition?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said that as far as
humanly possible we might amend the regulations to be applied as I have suggested; and you cannot go further than that, so long as we are on this terrestrial globe. Then there is the question of marketing, a very wide and important subject. The amendments are supposed to deal with that matter, and it is rather unfortunate that we have not before us some intimation of the general direction that this act is intended to take upon these major subjects. I offer these observations entirely in the dark as to what the act itself contains, but hoping that when the act is brought back to this House these major subjects, and others arising in connection with them shall receive the consideration they merit.


Andrew Knox: I should like to have the
hon. gentleman go a little further. I am sure we are very much interested in his remarks. An observation was made by the minister a few moments ago in regard to cars which had been consigned by producers going through to the elevator to which they are consigned. I should like to have the hoc member deal with that a little further, because it looks to me as if that may have the effect of overcoming the difficulty that is brought about by millers having the right to select and switch cars to other places than those to which they were consigned. I ask the hon. gentleman this question because he is not a member of the committee on Agriculture and we want to have his assistance in this matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) has invited a little further discussion of this subject, rather than an answer to a definite question. Personally I do not wish to offer any dogmatic opinion, but I do hold very strongly to this principle-and I think if the hon. member will keep a few of the main principles in mind it

Canada Grain Art
will greatly assist; at least I find it does assist in studying this and similar problems-that the owner of the wheat, the man who ships it, in most cases the producer, is the one who should determine the course that that shipment shall follow. If he desires that wheat specifically consigned to a certain elevator, undoubtedly it should find its way to that destination.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is provided for in the bill.
!Mr. STEVENS:	If the minister had been
in the House a little while ago he would recall that I said that whatever observations I made were offered in good faith and in entire ignorance of what was to be enacted by the bill. It should be kept in mind in all this legislation that the two objects of parliament should be first to safeguard the right of the owner of the commodity to the direction of that commodity until he parts with the ownership; and second, that back to the owner shall come the full return for his commodity less the exact cost of handling, such as freight, elevation, insurance and storage.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How would the hon. member work it out in the case of mixing? I do not think he dealt with that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad my hon. friend referred to it. Under the present system you give a man a warehouse receipt which gives him, not the ownership of a specific carload of grain, but the ownership of a certificate of a No. 1 grade or No. 2 grade-a contract grade. I hold, and have held for seven or eight years, that it would be distinctly to the advantage of the grower if he would make a sample market a practical issue in this country instead of what it is now, something that is shelved; so that a grower could sell his wheat on sample. For instance last year my friends from Alberta shipped hundreds of carloads of wheat to the coast-I think I am safe in saying that-weighing sixty-six pounds to the bushel. They did not get the advantage of the excess weight or the extra grade. They may have got some slight advantage in some cases, but in the main they did not get the advantage. If they had been able to sell that wheat in Vancouver on a sample market they would have got the full advantage, or at least the full advantage less the ordinary shrinkage. But here is what happened. A man sells ^ carload of wheat weighing sixty-six pounds to the bushel. It goes in and is mixed with probably some carloads of No. 2 grade. That raises the No. 2 grade to No. 1, and the dealer, not the farmer, gets the advantage. For the shipper to get the full advantage of
his high grade, there is only one way that I know of, and that is by selling on sample market. I recall a case in Minneapolis, last winter or a year ago last winter, where a certain. producer sold three carloads of wheat. The wheat came into the Minneapolis yards and he called up one or two dealers. One dealer offered him nine cents, I think it was, above the quoted contract price. It was extra fine No. 1, and he thought he should get more. He telephoned to a dealer just outside of Minneapolis, who came in and examined the wheat and gave him nineteen cents premium on it. He got that additional price because he sold on sample. Had he sold that on a contract grade he would have got No. 1 and he would have got what was quoted in the Minneapolis market for it.


John Livingstone Brown: Do you think an efficient
sample market would be possible, apart from either a milling proposition or such a terminal at Vancouver? For instance, as applied to Vancouver?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I presume what my hon.
friend means is this: Is the sample market possible without recognizing the principle of mixing?


John Livingstone Brown: That will enter into it to
a degree; but apart from a large milling proposition such for instance, as they have at Minneapolis.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think undoubtedly the stimulation of milling in Canada would bring an immense return to the producer in Canada. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I will not say a sample market would do it, but I recognize that it would help. I know I am not voicing the opinion of any large number of the producers of wheat on the prairies to-day, as far as I have been able to learn-and I have watched them closely for some years-they have rather resisted it. But I do believe the establishment of a sample market-and the law at present permits of it-would be of distinct advantage to the producer of wheat, and I think perhaps a concentration upon the establishment of such a market would bring a larger reward than any other single redress or reform in the grain movement.


Mr. EVANS:: Does the hon. gentleman
think this is applicable, if you take into consideration the transfers the grain has to go through before it reaches the seaboard?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the case of the establishment of a sample market, naturally it would have to be established at Fort William
Canada Grain Act

or Winnipeg. With Fort William as one shipping terminal and the Pacific on the other side, you could not preserve samples perhaps of small quantities and ship through the various transfers; my hon. friend is quite right in that. That, however, does not affect the small dealer or producer, the one- or two-car lot man, because then the grain passes into the hands of the big dealer with shipments from Fort William in cargo lots.


Mr. COOTE:: I am very much interested in this question of sample markets. I would ask the hon. member how we could possibly have a sample market in our shipments to Vancouver? At the present time the farmer cannot ship his individual car there. He is under the permit system.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is quite right. I think the permit system ought to have been abolished this year absolutely. I understand it is not officially in existence, but it is in practice. The only way in which you can establish a sample market at the coast is to establish a cash market. That, however, does not alter the desirability of it and the necessity of establishing it. The. restrictions regarding shipments to the Pacific coast were brought about by the congestion last year owing to lack of facilities. That does not apply this year because facilities have been added and there is ample elevator capacity there now.


Mr. BALDWIN:: The hon. member for
Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) touched a point with which I am very conversant. It is a great mistake either to dump screenings or to burn them. Last autumn I bought screenings at 828 per ton. When they arrived I noticed that the feed was heavier than com and I made a remark that it must have got in it a considerable quantity of sand or other commodity such as is put into phosphate and other things. I purchased some young pigs, and knowing that this feed was too heavy without mixing it with shorts, I mixed it. Those pigs were sold last Monday by myself when I was home for 12i cents per pound live weight, the buyer taking delivery from my hog housies-so that the House may understand that I know what I am talking about, I was brought up on a farm by a very public-spirited father who had a large number of hogs, sheep, cattle, horses and poultry. Moreover, I was a miller by trade, the only trade that I ever learned. I was a young boy at the time and I kept at that trade until I was twenty-five years old-when the cheque was sent me, I found that the pigs 
weighed considerably over 200 pounds each. My hog house has a cement floor and cement walls, and the frost never enters it. That screenings should be burned or dumped into the water is a most deplorable mistake and a tremendous loss to this country. Com costs about 83 per hundred pounds. I notice the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) smiling. I do not doubt that he should. Let me tell the committee that after feeding a ton or two of these screenings-and I have bought and sold a good many tons-if corn had been brought from ten miles away and I had been asked to exchange the screenings for the corn, I should not have made the exchange. This feed was not mixed1 with milk. It was thinned down with water principally and no vegetables were boiled to go with it; it was simply a mixture of screenings and shorts. I am speaking only in regard to the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that these screenings were useless and were being dumped into the water or burned. When I was a miller, people used to bring screenings to me, and the unfortunate thing about them was that they were brought in wet and it was hard to grind them down so as to kill the weed seeds. The screenings that I fed to these hogs were very dry and ground fine so that I am sure no foul seeds will be brought into our part of the country by buying these screenings. On the whole, I made a profit of over thirty per cent by feeding these screenings to pigs six weeks old that were bought at $5 a pair. The committee can see the great advantage of keeping those hogs and the enrichment to the soil this spring, with three or four feet of very rich dressing in the hog house to be spread on the land. When I think of boys standing on street corners, smoking cigarettes, looking for a job, with the rich fertile land we have everywhere in this country, these boys could buy these screenings from the west and feed hogs or sheep and make money on the farm. I may say that these screenings seem to act as a tonic and tihe hogs were kept in a healthy condition. The screenings were much better than corn, because you cannot give corn to small pigs as it is too heavy. The farmers in the west should see to it that no screenings are allowed to be burned or dumped into lakes. Let them ship them east and I will buy a good many carloads and pay a good price. A few years ago I heard an hon. member say in this House that ser^nings were exported to the United States. It is no wonder agriculturists there can grow hogs and ship them into this country. We should use our own screenings in Canada and fertilize the soil. I was induced to speak because of

Canada Temperance Act
the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I presumed my knowledge of digging and scratching the soil and of the milling trade was better than that of my hon. friend because he did not seem to think that it was any great waste to burn or to dump these screenings into the lake.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Low thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 113, respecting grain.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Temperance Act to provide that if toy the laws of the province intoxicating liquor can lawfully be sold only by or under the authority of the province or the government thereof, said prohibition shall nevertheless remain in force as to all intoxicating liquor not belonging to, nor imported, nor sold by or under the authority of, the province of the government thereof.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: In 1919 this parliament
enacted an addition to the Canada Temperance Act, constituting part 4 of that statute. Under that enactment it is provided that when the legislative assembly of any province in which there is in force a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor passes a resolution asking the Governor in Council to issue a proclamation for the holding of a plebiscite on the question whether the people of that province desire to have the importation of liquor into its territory prohibited, the Secretary of State shall take the necessary steps for the holding of that plebiscite. It is further provided that if the people of the province vote in favour of prohibiting the importation of liquor into such province, then an order in council shall be passed giving effect to that expression of the popular will. Thereafter no person shall import liquor into that province. There was however a proviso that this provision should not apply to intoxicating liquors imported for sacramental, medicinal, manufacturing or commercial purposes; nor was it to apply to any intoxicating liquor which, under the laws of the province or territory in which prohibition might be in force, might be lawfully sold therein.
Many provinces took advantage of that law, among them Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the three Maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
Prince Edward Island. Everything went all right until the three prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba amended their law and adopted the principle of government control of the sale of intoxicating liquor under the authority of the province alone. But there was some doubt; certain people claimed that inasmuch as the sale of certain liquors was lawful in those provinces the prohibition of importation could not continue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was not the
situation the same in Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: No; Quebec and British Columbia never came under part 4 of the Canada Temperance Act. The case was debated before the courts in Alberta, the province claiming that apart from the liquor imported by the government for
5 p.m. purposes of sale by the province under the law that had been adopted, all other importation of liquor was still prohibited. Private parties however maintained that the change in the law of the province had the effect of withdrawing the province from the provisions of part 4 of the Canada Temperance Act. The question went as far as the appeal court of Alberta and the majority of the court, three judges against two, held that part 4 of the act still applied to all liquors except those imported direct by the province for sale under the provincial act.
Now the three provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in order that there shall be no doubt about the matter and that the whole question may be cleared up, have applied for legislation declaring that, notwithstanding that under the laws of the province intoxicating liquor may lawfully be sold, by or under the authority of the province or the government thereof, the prohibition shall nevertheless remain in force as to intoxicating liquors not belonging to nor imported, nor sold by the province. In other words, what is required is merely a confirmation of the majority decision of the Alberta court. It is in order to remove any doubt in the matter that this legislation is being presented to the House; the object is not to change the law but merely to clarify it.
It has been the policy of this parliament during the last few years to give effect to the will of the provinces in this matter, and the three provinces in question are a unit as to the desirability of this legislation. That is the reason for the present resolution.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does this affect either
British Columbia or Quebec?
Canada Temperance Act


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose that there is a distinction in the case of British Columbia and Quebec in that, as the minister has pointed out, those provinces did not take complete advantage of part 4 of the act, inasmuch as they were never temperance or "dry" areas in the sense that part 4 implies.


Ernest Lapointe: They were dry areas to a certain extent but they never availed themselves of the amendment of 1919 which gives the provinces the liberty of asking for a plebiscite to decide the question of prohibiting imports.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that as the resolution stands there is no Dominion prohibition of imports into either Quebec or British Columbia.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think there is; but so far as Quebec is concerned, certain provincial authorities think that under their own law they can prevent importation. I have grave doubts however that this would be held as valid by the courts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not mean to raise that point; I simply wanted the situation understood so far as we are concerned. My hon. friend's position, which I think is absolutely right, is that there is no Dominion prohibition against importation into either Quebec or British Columbia. Once upon a time, I may remind the hon. gentleman, he would not have agreed to this legislation; I remember when the previous government was putting similar legislation through the House, certain gentlemen particularly from his own fair province considered it a terrible outrage that we should subordinate the functions of the Dominion to those of the provincial legislatures.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon, friend has a vicious memory.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Unfortunately, a true memory.


Mr. B ELAND:: Treacherous.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, accurate
this time. But I want to congratulate the minister (Mr. Lapointe) on his growth in liberal thought-thought for the wishes and the will of the people, and the desire to give them expression. He is treading in good steps in following the policy of the past government.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope my hon. friend will follow me in that respect.
[Mr. Ladner.)


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have much
pleasure in supporting the resolution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have here the minister's answer to the question of my hon. friend (Mr. Ladner), but unless this resolution is the opposite of the one which we have been considering in regard to the Grain Act, so far as its intention is concerned1, then I think the minister is in error. He may not intend it to ajpply to British Columbia, but as I read it, it means that it shall be illegal to import into any province the laws of which provide that the government shall have control of the sale of liquor. In other words, it is doing what I think the Attorney General of British Columbia asked the minister to do two years ago, in a slightly different way. I aim not now expressing an opinion one way or the other as to the advisability of it, but I would like to be assured of the accuracy of my analysis.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will see
from the bill that it cannot apply to British Columbia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister assures us
definitely that it does not apply to that province?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it does not apply.


Mr. TOLMIE:: And that will be made
clear in the bill?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. Section 154 of the Canada Temperance Act, which is amended by this legislation, is the section under part 4, which has never applied to British Columbia or Quebec.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Has the government not
had a request from the Attorney General of British Columbia in this connection?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, that is under consideration, but it is not dealt with in this bill.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister stated that
certain provinces, Saskatchewan included, had availed themselves of the provisions of part 4 of the act. Does the department in that event issue licenses to individuals living in the province to manufacture beer?


Ernest Lapointe: That does not come
under the head of this legislation.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister admits that
licenses to manufacture beer may be granted to individuals living in provinces which have availed themselves of the provisions of part 4 of the act?

Mounted Police Act


Ernest Lapointe: I would not like to
answer that immediately. I have not gone into the matter at all, because it is not dealt with or referred to in this legislation.


Oliver Robert Gould: I have before me statements made by one of the police in a certain western province that such licenses are granted, and the people are questioning whether it should be done when the province has placed itself on record as being opposed to it.


Ernest Lapointe: The Canada Temperance Act did not prohibit the manufacture of liquor. It prohibits the import and sale of it wit'hin the province.


Oliver Robert Gould: That is the .point I am trying to bring out. If each individual in the province received a license for the (manufacture of beer, any provincial measure would be of very little use.


Ernest Lapointe: That is quite another
question. I think I am doing as much as I can to remedy what ,my hon. friend has in mind. He will have to apply to somebody else if he wants more.


John Livingstone Brown: British Columbia and Quebec would come under the provisions of this act if they at this or any other time took the same action as has been taken in the prairie provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. They would have to hold a plebiscite.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 114, to amend the Canada Temperance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act by providing that pensions to officers, their widows, and constables granted prior to the seventh day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, may be readjusted in accordance with the rates of pay for officers and constables provided by the said act as amended prior to and on the seventh day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, but no such readjustment shall authorize the increase of any payments for pensions that accrued before the passing of the proposed legislation.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: For many years there 'has been in tihis parliament a demand for the redress of what was stated to be a very great injustice to old, retired members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, these men were the pioneers in this work in the Northwest Territories, and their pension upon retirement was very low and not commensurate with their needs, especially when compared with the present scale of pensions given to officers and constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Two years ago, and especially last year, I was urged very strongly by almost all members of the House to make this matter a special one and to grant relief to these old men. The present resolution is for that purpose. We propose to (give to the old, retired memfoens of the police force an increase of pension equal to that to which they would have been entitled had they retired in 1919 About 90 or 95 men will be affected, and the additional expenditure, which will, of course, decrease as the men disappear, will be $28,220.12. The .present total amount of pension under the old scale is $31,387.18, and the total under the new scale will be $59,607.30. As I said, this is to give effect to the wish of the House.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the hon. minister is to be congratulated on having brought in this bill. There is no body of men to whom Canada owes more than the old members of the North West Mounted Police. I do not think we always appreciate the work they did in preserving the good name of Canada. We like to remember that lynch law has never been known in Canada, and perhaps these men of the Royal North West Mounted Police did more than any other body of men to preserve us from the lawlessness which sometimes tends to bring about lynch law. There is none of us who have lived on the prairies for the last forty years or more who have not been acquainted at some time or another with some of these men. I remember speaking with Major Walsh on this matter. He said that such a body of men as he took out in the early days were hard to gather together, a body of men to whom Canada owes a great deal. It is perhaps tardy justice that we are rendering them now, and I for one would like to congratulate the minister on having yielded to the pressure, although I am sure it did not require much pressure, for his sympathies were with the men, and having brought in this measure.


John Evans: I am very glad the government has at last seen fit to do justice by these old mounted policemen. There are not many

Mounted Police Act

of them left now, and I do know some of them are in very poor circumstances. When some of them get sick I know that others have to support them in the hospitals, and in many cases their comrades have had to put up their funeral expenses. Speaking as one who went out on the prairies some thirty-five years ago, I can testify to the worth of this body of men. Even yet I do not think that justice is being done to them under this bill. I do know that when the rebellion broke out in 1885 these men were placed under Militia orders and served as militia men during the whole of that time. The others who took part in that rebellion were granted, I think, some 240 acres of land each as scrip. I do not suppose the government purposes giving these men that allowance at this time, but I am very glad to see that at all events they are placing them beyond the pale of what must be for many of them real want. I am personally acquainted with many of them, and I have sometimes wondered how they have lived, some of them on less than fifty cents a day. I think the minister is to be commended for at least giving them this justice at this time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am simply going to voice what has already been said as to the desirability of this legislation, and to say that the minister is undoubtedly to be commended for bringing in this legislation at this time.
My hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) has just referred to a matter which is distinct from this particular measure; that is the recognition of the claim of these old members of the force to scrip. What they are asking is not only recognition in the form of granting them scrip, not so much that, but it was obvious some blunder or oversight took place immediately following the rebellion which they feel left a certain reflection upon the force, that they had not been serving within the military forces, whereas all the records I think indicated that they certainly had. They have asked for that scrip for the purpose of definitely settling their due, their right. However, that is a matter that does not come up under this legislation. This legislation is going to do a measure of justice at least to some of the most deserving citizens of Canada, and I personally am very grateful to the minister that he has brought it in during this session, and that we shall now be rendering at 'least a measure of justice to these very deserving veterans.
The other subject perhaps is one which the minister will bear in his memory and give some further consideration, and perhaps when this section of the grievance, if I might

so term it, has been removed, it will allow a purer and a whiter light to play upon their other modest demand, and I hope that at a future day it will result in the same measure of justice being done.


Andrew Knox: I wish to add my word of
congratulation to the minister for at last having brought this legislation before the House. A number of us have been pressing for something of this kind both in the last parliament and in the present one, and it is very, very satisfactory to us to find that this legislation is at last being put through.
As regards the issue of scrip to the mounted police, we are not pressing it at the present time, but I would like to say, as the last speaker did, that we hope the minister will keep that in mind, because I would like to point this out: There are very many mounted policemen who are eligible for scrip to whom the pension will not apply, for the reason that a man has to be in the force for some twenty years before he is eligible for pension, and many of these men have been in a much shorter term that that. Many of them are not getting a pension, and yet they were discriminated against as regards the issue of scrip. I merely state that in passing. I rose to congratulate the minister for bringing down this measure.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I would like to ask
a question for information, and I need not say that in common with the other members of the House who have spoken, particularly those who have been on the prairies a good many years and have come in touch with this fine body of men, that I am glad to see this legislation brought in. I notice that the resolution provides for pensions to "officers, their widows, and constables." That means, I presume, that the widows of officers are pensionable, but not the widows of constables. Is that the interpretation?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, that is the old law.


Alfred Speakman: So I understood. I
just rose to inquire whether the wording expressed the exact intent of the act, or whether it was misleading.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 115 to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Pctlice Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Root Vegetables Act
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the bill was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Readjustment of pensions granted prior to July 7, 1919.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister consent to the word " may " being changed to the word "shall", and let all those who are entitled get the benefit of the provision?


Ernest Lapointe: The word "may" is
usually employed as my hon. friend knows.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under certain
circumstances but not always in connection with matters which involve a judicial interpretation.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection to making the change; it is a question of taste.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Root Vegetables Act, chapter 43 of the statutes of 1922, and to provide,
(a)	for a standard grade for onions of a uniform size, the abolition of the grade known as "sample quality" and the substitution of a grade to be known as "ungraded"; and for the definition of peeled onions;
(b)	for permitting potatoes, onions, artichokes, beets, carrots, parsnips and turnips to be offered for sale by measure in quantities of one bushel or less instead of by weight, but the weight of the contents thereof shall be proportionate to the weight of the contents of one bushel of such vegetables, as prescribed;
(c)	for making an inspection certificate signed by an official inspector prima facie evidence of the grade and condition of the vegetables or packages to which the certificate refers; and
(d)	for exempting from the operation of the act certified seed potatoes only, as defined in the regulations under The Destructive Insect and Pest Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On paragraph (a):
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The vegetable
growers of Ontario and of British Columbia have got together on this question of a grade for onions. It is not a matter that affects very many members of the House, but it is very important to the people concerned. They have come to a compromise on the subject, and have made the suggestion that 194i
this be a fourth grade. This quality does not belong to the top grades; the top grades remain as they are. This will be an onion of lower quality and instead of it being known as a sample quality of Canadian onion -which is a mistaken name when there are so many Canadian onions of better grades-those concerned have decided that it shall be known as " ungraded ". Then there is the matter of " peeled " onions. There is no grade called "peeled". Yet if an onion is treated in such a way as to cause a blemish, it is called a peeled onion and cannot go into the higher grades. We are providing for a more satisfactory definition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What has been the difficulty in regard to onions under the grade "sample quality"?


William Richard Motherwell: The difficulty was
this:	These onions were going forward to
Cuba, for example, under the grade of "sample quality" resulting in the impression that this was the highest quality of Canadian onion when there were three higher grades. In that way the reputation of Canadian onions was being injured. It was not the dealers but the producers that were making complaints. As far as British Columbia is concerned it was claimed' on behalf of one section that it was orientals who were wanting to regrade these onions and send them forward under the grade "sample quality"; in other parts of Canada there was a desire to maintain the grade. It was thought better that these particular onions should be ungraded rather than go forward as sample Canadian onions. I think that when the bill goes to the committee and representatives of the vegetable growers are heard there will be no difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. I saw a note in one of the newspapers indicating that we were going to have a grade called "peeled" onions, as if we were going to legalize such a grade, when, as a matter of fact, they are blemished onions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the
minister ought to object to the use of the term "blemished." A peeled onion ought not to be a term of reproach.


William Richard Motherwell: What does my hon. friend suggest?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think onions
with a blemish ought not to be classed as "peeled"; we all prefer onions peeled.


William Richard Motherwell: Out on the farm
we say "cleaned" onions. That is not quite as strong; of course we want to get away from these bucolic titles.
Root Vegetables Act


George Perry Graham: The constituency which
I represent is very much interested in the onion trade-I think, perhaps, more so than any county in the Dominion. There has been a difference of opinion there; but I think the whole organization in the county is in favour of removing this grade called "sample quality" for the reasons outlined by the minister. They have had several deputations here and I think as a result of a compromise it was decided to substitute "ungraded" for "sample quality."


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (b):'
William Richard Motherwell: The House will
probably recall that two years ago we introduced for the first time the principle of selling vegetables on the basis of weight rather than measure. A practice had prevailed for years of selling potatoes by the bag. But there is no standard sized bag in Canada and these bags would run all the way from seventy-five to ninety poundls; no one ever knew when he bought a bag exactly what he was going to get. I think in some places it would represent a bushel and a half, ninety pounds, whereas at other places it would only be eighty pounds, and in other places still only seventy-five pounds. We introduced the principle of selling these articles by weight, but it has created a certain amount of disturbance in the local markets, for example the market in Ottawa and elsewhere, where the practice has prevailed on the part of the growers of selling by the measure-that is by the peck or the gallon. Hence we are conceding to them the right to sell anything under a bushel by measure but the weight by measure must bear an exact relation to the weight if sold by the bushel. We will take the case of a peck of potatoes. It must contain fifteen pounds of potatoes when you come to weigh it. Now if the buyer challenges it, and asks "Is this a peck of potatoes?"-the seller says, "Yes, it is a peck of potatoes; it is a peck measure." Then the purchaser will say, "Are there fifteen pounds in it?" and the seller says, "Yes." Then the buyer feels sure he is getting a peck. On the other hand, if there is no weight designation a peck measure might contain very much less than a peck. It depends on how full he packs the container, and how large the potatoes are. I think my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) understands this. In order to give the weight in a measure of vegetables it must be well rounded up, and that of course depends on who is rounding it.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I will admit I do not
understand this clause. First the minister says they may sell by measure, and then he says the measure must weigh so much. I do not see the force of that. I think if he said "Sixty pounds shall be a bushel of potatoes," or "A bushel of potatoes shall weigh sixty pounds," it would be sufficient. If the section provided that they should not sell by measure at all, but that they should stick to the old principle of selling by weight, we would 'be on safe ground. In some cases a person will buy a gallon of potatoes, a four-quart measure; if you get one big potato in it and another potato crossways over it, you have got it rounded up with potatoes, but you have not ten pounds. I am sorry to see the minister departing from the principle established two years ago. I agreed with the former bill, and I thought it was right, but under this measure I think a chance is given to the retailers to evade the law when they are permitted to sell by measure. I believe the minister is affording opportunity for a good deal of trouble, because there is no doubt in a great many cases when the potatoes are measured out it will be found that a peck does not weigh fifteen pounds. It depends on the size of the potatoes. If they are medium size there will be fifteen pounds in a peck measure, but if they are large size there will not be fifteen pounds in the measure. If they are small size there may possibly be more than fifteen pounds.


William Richard Motherwell: I agree with my
hon. friend, as I did on the previous occasion, that the weight is the proper standard for selling. There is no recognized size of bag; but in the open market the practice of selling by measure has been established; and while it is easy to establish what we call a principle, when you come to administer that among people who are accustomed to something else and do not see the sense of introducing this weight business, or dispensing with the peck or gallon measure, they do not favour it, because they find it more convenient to bring in a load in bags and measure it out by gallons. However I can see no harm in it. As a matter of fact we allow them to sell potatoes by the peck. They can sell potatoes by the peck, but they must have fifteen pounds of potatoes in the measure.


Mr. CAHILL:: Does that apply to peanuts?


William Richard Motherwell: No, they are not
classified as vegetables. They do not grow the same way.

Root Vegetables Act


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the minister say
that peanuts do not grow the same way as potatoes? I would like to correct him on that. I am surprised to find one vegetable that the minister does not know about. The law permits them to sell by measure to weigh so much. I think the minister is confusing the matter by allowing both measure and weight. I do not think the clause has any force. I think if he sticks to sixty pounds to the bushel he is on safe ground. If a grower or dealer sells any part of a bushel the proportionate weight should be maintained; a quarter of a bushel must weigh fifteen pounds. I am not objecting to this clause, but I think there will be confusion.


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. member is not objecting, then let it go through.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the confusion pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton is very plain and the bill is wrongly entitled. What really we are doing here in this bill is to say that fifteen pounds can be called a peck. We are saying that you can sell fifteen pounds of potatoes in a peck measure so long as the potatoes are packed so as to weigh fifteen pounds. If the resolution were given effect to in the way the minister introduces it, there would be no change in the law, except that we are calling fifteen pounds a peck. But as a matter of fact that will never happen at all. You might as well strike out the provision as to weight and say potatoes can be sold by measure. It is idle to say that anyone buying by measure is going to bother about weighing the goods afterwards.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I remember when the
Root and Vegetable Act was passed in 1923, I think it was, we abolished the weight of the bag and the weight of the barrel. Did we also abolish the weight of the bushel?


William Richard Motherwell: Oh, no.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is my impression
that we did.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a standard bushel but not a standard bag.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was a standard bag at one time.


William Richard Motherwell: Not for potatoes
that I know of-not all over Canada.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If the private conversation going on in the chamber is over, I should like to repeat my question. Was the standard bushel abolished in 1923?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If the standard bushel
was not abolished I cannot see much force in the clause. I think we are making for confusion. If we stick to sixty pounds to the bushel we will work it out all right. If tne purchaser gets a gallon he gets seven and a half pounds, and if he gets a bushel he gets sixty pounds.


William Richard Motherwell: We are just confirming what we are doing in practice at the present time. The present statutes do not quite confirm the interpretation which we have been putting on the act, and this is to confirm it. I think where an old-established practice has been built up of using a measure, so long as the customer gets what he believes he is buying, it is all right. If you sell by measure without regard to pounds, believe me there is no Irishman in this room who does not know that you can pack the goods in such a way that there will not be a quarter of a bushel in it. There will not be over thirteen pounds in the measure, and that is what we want to avoid.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph (c):
Henry Herbert Stevens: Are the inspectors under
this act a separate group of inspectors for the purpose of administering it?


William Richard Motherwell: This is the Root
and Vegetables Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the minister's department he has roots and vegetables, and also eggs. Would it be the same .inspector for the eggs, for instance?


William Richard Motherwell: This is called the
Root and Vegetable Act, but the same inspector performs both functions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But it does not include
eggs?


William Richard Motherwell: Not in the one
branch.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think paragraph (c) is worded exactly like an amendment I moved last year that got its first and1 second reading and never became law.


William Richard Motherwell: I think it covers that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is absolutely necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph (d) agreed to.
Fruit Act Amendment
[Stage Direction]
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell, thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bi'lil No. 116 to amend the Root Vegetables Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Fruit Act, chapter 15 of the statutes of 1923, by providing,-
(a)	For the abolition of combination grades of apples, crabapples and pears;
(b)	That the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may prescribe additional grades for individual kinds of fruit, and prescribe the kinds of fruit to which such grades shall apply; and make such regulations as may be necessary to make effective the proposed provisions, from the date of their publication in the Canada Gazette;
(c)	That every person who, by himself or through the agency of another person, packs fruit in closed or open packages intended for sale, or who offers for sale or seflls fruit, and quotes or represents such fruit to be of any grade specified in section 3 of the act as amended or regulations made thereunder, shall cause to be shown on the package or on an approved label attached thereto, the grade and other marks required under the act, and in the event of such fruit not complying with the grade mark thus designated, such person shall be guilty of an offence under the provisions of the act.
Motion agreed to and t)he House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in tlhe chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What does this combination grade mean?


Mr. STIRLING:: The combination grade. I think, was init.rodu.cedi some years ago at the request of the fruit growers, they 'believing that it would aid the sale of fruit in the market. It was very soon discovered) that it did not have that effect. There was very little demand in the markets for combination grades and the Canadian Horticultural Council therefore asked the minister if he would be good enough to amend the aict so as to remove the combination grade.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Motherwell thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 117 to amend the Fruit Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time.



MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 73, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
C-Mr. Caldwell.]
Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I asked the minister this question the other day and I am going to ask it again to make sure. Does this include canned Salmon? The minister was not very certain the other day?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not made any further inquiries. I am .practically sure that it d'oes not include 'canned salmon, because that does not come under my department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If it is found that it does, I hope the Fisheries committee, which is very much interested in this, will be notified.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 75, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
Arthur Meighen: Has the minister given
an explanation?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. We discussed this matter pretty fully the other day and there was only one clause, relating to the rescission of the school land contracts, that caused any difficulty. I think we can. discuss the subject more fully in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-'Conditions of entry for lands in Saskatchewan and Alberta south of south boundary of township 16.
Arthur Meighen: 
Charles A. Stewart: That is not right.


Arthur Meighen: Where is there any provision to protect him?


Charles A. Stewart: The provision is not in the bill, 'but the regulation deals with the matter. An examination has first to be made of the homestead.


Arthur Meighen: There is to be an examination before any one is allowed to homestead that land?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Where is the provision
to that effect?


Charles A. Stewart: It will be in the regulations.


Arthur Meighen: I should think that would be important enough to be embodied in the act.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend understands that it is not well to clutter up the act with regulations.


Arthur Meighen: Not with minor regulations, no; but this is important. In fact, it is far more important to select the land than to decide upon the individual on the basis of relationship.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend is partly right. The hon. member for Maple Creek stated the other day-and I agreed with him

that the whole of the territory south of township 16 in Alberta and Saskatchewan is not a dry area. From the eastern boundary of Saskatchewan over at least to the town of Assiniboia, which is a considerable distance westward in southern Saskatchewan, there is as good a piece of territory as can be found in the west. In the immediate vicinity of Maple Creek and to the southward there is a very bad strip, and then along the boundary there are some areas of fairly good land. But I do not think we should change the conditions in respect of the taking up by homesteaders of dry, sandy lands with failure a certain result. In the constituency of Medicine Hat there is a piece of territory along the boundary between Montana and Alberta where farming has been carried on with great success, and there has been a considerable demand to increase the homestead area in that vicinity. But there are not many homesteads even in those districts that our homestead inspectors would recommend as suitable for agricultural purposes. In that area, however, there are ranchers who are desirous that their sons shall succeed them in the ranching occupation, and to that end they would like them to be able to get a homestead within nine miles of the parents' residence. It was in order to meet that demand that I consented to recommend the homesteading of a few parcels of land in this limited area. It will be under the supervision of homestead inspectors who will report here to Ottawa before the claim of any applicant is granted. But to make it general would defeat the object that we are now trying to attain, because if a newcomer, unacquainted with the climatic conditions, went in there to engage in agriculture, he would be practically doomed to failure. He cannot make a living in that area on one quarter section in any case. For the reasons I have outlined, therefore, we have decided to try
Dominion Lands Act

this out and see if we can satisfy the demand that has been made.
Mr. MEIGII'EN: He cannot make a living on the one quarter section, but neither can the other fellow's son.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, he can, because he is not dependent entirely on the quarter section. Nine times out of ten they have a ranch, a leasehold and a considerable number of cattle; and there is no doubt that the ownership of a quarter section is a good influence upon the younger generation; it makes them feel they have a real stake in the country. I fancy that this will work out all right, but I would not want to extend it to any large area. You would find it difficult to discriminate, as we are doing here, if it were made of general application.


Arthur Meighen: Suppose a man and his family are ranching in a purely ranching country, the father having taken a homestead there because he wanted to have a central point round which his family would gather. Within nine miles there is no homestead [DOT] available; it is all ranch land, but twenty miles away there is. Now, another fellow is ranching within nine miles of that place twenty miles distant, and the first man's sons cannot get that other homestead. It is not fair.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the general limitation in the act with respect to the son of a farmer.


Arthur Meighen: I thought there was
something under which a man within nine miles had some advantage over the rest, but I cannot just recall what it is.


Charles A. Stewart: He did not need, for example, to build a home upon his land.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly; that is reasonable, but that does not justify this. I knew there was a case in point, and I am now reminded of it: A man has a family of boys, and if one of them homesteads within nine miles he is not obliged to build a house, because he can live at home. But then he is not given a preference in the matter of selection of a homestead, over the family of another fellow who is only a few miles away. The one man gets a homestead in a purely ranching country. That is what he ought to do; that is where he ought to go to ranch; but because he went there his family is debarred from going into another district and taking a homestead of good land, while the farmers' sons who happen to be in that 
district get it. I think the minister will find he will be in hot water over it.


Charles A. Stewart: They are not debarred from going out and getting a homestead anywhere, but for this particular purpose they are.


Arthur Meighen: They are in this particular.


John Evans: This land was pretty well settled at one time. When the people went away did they leave the land unpatented, or is it not very largely held by private parties now?


Charles A. Stewart: A great deal of it that has been abandoned has never been proved up. I can quite appreciate the suggestion that men who are in there ranching or farming might want a privilege of this kind for their children in order to keep them in the district. A family can run a ranch at much less expense if they do not have to employ hired help. Of course it is as well to have the son in the vicinity, because he does not have to carry out all the improvements that are required to prove up if he goes out on his own account and leaves the locality in which the family reside. In many cases there may not be desirable land within nine miles of the ranch, and it is only where there happens to be land that will pass inspection that this provision will apply. I do not encourage the taking out of such land as homesteads; as a matter of fact, I think it would have been well if that country had been retained purely for the purposes of ranching and had not been given to homesteading at all. I am now speaking of areas that do not lend themselves to agricultural purposes.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Does the minister think a quarter of that land would be worth taking if the applicant had other lands, say seven or eight miles distant? Would one quarter of it be of any use to him?


Charles A. Stewart: I think in
the cases we will recommend it will be, because they will possibly start the nucleus of a new ranch, possibly on a. smaller basis. It will permit the working of the area by the family themselves. I think the men who are in the locality and know the situation fairly well believe that this is worth while trying out, and I have myself given it some considerable thought. I want to say frankly that I was very prejudiced about this at first, because I have been doing my level best in these particular areas to get them back into ranching as fast as possible, believing that that is the only occupation to follow in some

Dominion Lands Act
of these areas in both provinces; but right within a few townships you will find men who have made a splendid success of farming operations. Though it is patchy, they have been successful and have done as well perhaps as any settlers ini the country, but there are other areas, sandy, and of a light nature, where it is a mistake entirely ever to break up the sod, and those are the areas where we are trying to have ranching done, and where inspectional work will be carried on very carefully, with a view to having those unsuitable areas that have been homesteaded turned back into ranching. It is not intended that any very light sandy soil will be permitted to be homesteaded by anybody.


Alfred Speakman: I think the principle embodied in this bill is rather a good one, and I cam quite see the reason for the nine-mile limitation. That is the limitation that is placed fn the case of residential duties for the sons of farmers or of other men who own property, because in a ranching country a boy taking a homestead within nine miles of his father's homestead can do ranching work conjointly with his parents, and that is just about the outside distance at which that can be done. As far as I have seeen, going through that country, and I am thankful to say that there is very little of that kind of land in my constituency, the minister is right in assuming that there are scattered homesteads that it would be well worth while taking up when the main occupation to be followed is ranching, and while it would be utterly useless to allow an outsider to come in and expect to make his whole living on that quarter section, it does provide an additional steading for the boy or brother or any relative of the family who is engaged in ranching with his father or brother or other relative. I have had many requests made of me that I should support anything of this nature. I am not supporting it because of the requests, but because I see there is good, sound sense underlying those requests, and with the safeguard that no entry will be permitted on manifestly unsuitable homesteads, I think the provision is a wise one and will be of value in trying to hold the boys of that district in the district, in the occupation which they are used to, and within reach of their father's home.


John Morrison: I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Red Reer has just said. In my constituency there are quite a number of farmers who have sons to whom this provision will be quite a benefit. Requests have also been made of me from time to time to
try and get a provision such as this put through whereby they can have access to those lands. I agree that lots of these lands are not of a quality to warrant a man taking them up and making his home there, but as the father is already farming in that part of the country and well established there, this provision will be a good help in maintaining the family and keeping them working together. While it is not for the benefit of outsiders, it is going to be of real help to many residents in that country.


John Evans: I believe thoroughly in the
principle of the bill, but instead of limiting it to the boundary of township 16, I think the minister would have done well to extend this privilege over the whole of the old dry area as mapped out in the bill of 1906. I think this privilege might well be extended over the whole of that area, because the conditions that are spoken of in reference to this particular area prevail over other large parts of the province, and while there are a number of homesteads that I know of myself, which would never be worth while taking up as homesteads, they might be very useful for grazing purposes to those who are farming within say nine males. I think this privilege should be extended to cover the whole of that dry area.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope my
hon. friend will not raise that upon this occasion, because there is a good deal to *be said with respect to the point raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition. It is a very difiieult thing to administer special privileges, and this undoubtedly is a special privilege. I make no other claim for it, because we are shutting out outside competition, and that is a rather delicate thing to do. When we get into this thing we may have a controversy over a homestead, for instance. I want to try it out in this particular area first and see how I get along with it, and I would be just a little bit afraid of extending a special privilege of this kind over too wide an area to start with.


Neil Haman McTaggart: I desire to endorse the principle of the bill. I think I made that clear the other evening. Permit me to say that I do not ask that this privilege be extended beyond the limit set here in the bill, but I would like to ask the minister if in regard to such parcels of land as come under this act, it will be necessary for these lands to pass inspection by officers of his department.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Dominion Lands Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 2-Sale of sdhool lands for right of way, etc.
Mr. SPENCER:: It seems to me this is an excellent clause, and one that will make it possible for certain parts of school lands to be
sold which were not possible heretofore. I notice that part of clause 2 says, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act, the minister may sell school lands required as right of way for any project or for reservoir, church, cemetery or hospital sites," and so forth. Would that cover such buildings as community halls which are being built, as the minister knows, in various rural communities?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, that
is one of the purposes for which we have this clause. It is difficult to enumerate all the various purposes for which small plots of school lands might be required from time to time. I think the saving clause is that the consent of the provincial government is required; we did not have that in last year. While I am on my feet, I might explain that last year, as the committee will remember, we struck out the provision enabling the minister to sell right of way. We need that provision rather badly, because there are a number of cases in which railways have crossed school lands, and we are unable to give title. I have them here and could enumerate them; most of them are in Manitoba. I thought it well this year in order to create confidence in the minds of members of the committee, that before we did any of these things we should first secure the consent of the provincial government. I think we have provided enough safeguards to enable us to do all that we wish to do for this purpose. Of course in regard to general sales of school lands the provisions of the law will remain just as they are at present.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It will be possible for the department to sell a portion, say an acre or two acres, of school lands for a community hall and similar purposes mentioned by the minister?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is there any possibility of this provision being abused? Is there any possibility of private individuals other than those intended getting hold of portions of land under this section without proper safeguards?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Re-adjustment of school lands sales made prior to 1st January, 1923, and provisions as to application of moneys.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister should really give us a pretty full explanation of what he is going to do under this section. As I read the section it will enable the minister to switch credits practically as he will. It will enable a man who has got a whole lot of lands for speculation to have all his payments put upon one small portion of the property, if the speculation looks bad. It will enable him in other words to tie up a whole lot of land without risk to himself. Then if the speculation is a good one he will get all the benefit, and if it is a bad one the country will carry the burden for him. That is what it amounts to. If it were a case where the man was a bona-fide farmer it would be a different thing, but the section as drawn, as I see it, is in the interest of the land owner and not of the land worker. It is drawn in the interest of the speculator. It means that if a man goes in and buys four sections, for example, having use only for one, and makes a failure in his payments he can turn around and apply the payments made on all four in ease of one, and get his land free from loss; and as if the speculation were successful he would have the entire benefit. In other words we are now promoting real estate speculation.


John Livingstone Brown: Does this not refer to deals already entered into and not to future deals?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not care
whether the deals are entered into or whether they are not. The whole northwest is full of deals that have been entered into for speculative purposes. We know that land speculation there is one of the worst things we have had to contend with, and whether the deals be old or whether they be new I do not see why-the speculation having failed-the country should take the full burden of the failure, enabling the man who has failed in his speculation to get paid in respect of portions of land that he was unable to carry.


Charles A. Stewart: I may say
that we never give any consideration to an individual who is holding school lands in a speculative way. There have been one or two cases in which some remission has been made and some of the lands cancelled; but this request comes for the purpose of trying to save the investment of a hard working farmer who has bought a section or half section of land and finds himself in the position where he cannot complete his payments. There are hundreds of cases throughout the three prairie provinces in which we find that after making very considerable payments the purchaser owes more money than the original purchase rep-

Dominion Lands Act
resented, perhaps, having made probably a payment of only one-third or one-half of the principal in the meantime. Naturally this leads to discouragement and when we are spending a good deal of money to get new settlers into the country such a situation merits attention. I discussed this very fully with the provincial governments, and asked their opinion about the advisability of a departure of this kind, because I look upon the school lands fund as more in the nature of a trust fund, if that could be said, than any other fund in connection with our natural resources. Therefore in every case where we are dealing with the school lands trust fund or with the school lands trust, I have always consulted the provincial government concerned. They are of the opinion that it is a wise provision, that it will tend to encourage and preserve the investment of hard working people; that it will encourage them to go and pay upon the acreage of land that they can work satisfactorily, and thus save the investment they have made in perhaps a larger area when they felt they were in better circumstances. That is all this provision is intended to do.
Coming to the question my hon. friend has raised, namely, that it will encourage speculation, I do not agree with him. Most of the farmers and the land owners in western Canada are looking more for a way to get out of their speculations than to get into any more ventures of the kind at the moment. I have no particular objection to confining this arrangement to only bona-fide farmers living on the land although it will add to the difficulty of administration. I can assure the committee my sympathy does not go out at all to the individual speculator. No matter how sick he may be to-day of his investment he bought that land for speculative purposes; he did not buy the land for farming purposes, but intended to make a profit out of somebody else who would carry on farming. But however, in most cases the speculator has disappeared, and we have cancelled his holdings and confiscated his money. There are, however, a very large number of people whom this arrangement will help very greatly indeed. I have in mind probably a hundred cases at the moment of persons who have made applications that seem to be of a bona fide character. It will be a material advantage to those people to be able to cancel a portion of their purchase and apply the payments they have made on what they propose to retain. I give the committee an assurance that if we carry this out with the consent of the provincial government there cannot be very
much chance of illegitimate advantage being taken of it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I suppose any lands relinquished under this act will be sold by public auction?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, yes,
under the act they have to be resold by public auction.


Oliver Robert Gould: I think the legislation contemplated by the section is really good and necessary. I am sure the settlers in western Canada are not now, and never have been, desirous of having speculators in their midst; and any speculation that has taken place in the past in the purchase of school lands I am afraid has caused the settler to pay more in the case of the initial price than was necessary. That is one reason why individuals living upon the land find it more difficult to meet their obligations than they would had the speculator never entered the locality. Legislation of this character is in the interest of the farmer having boys of ten, twelve, fifteen or seventeen years of age. Naturally he is very desirous of increasing his holdings so that his boys may settle in his immediate locality. It is a perfectly legitimate thing for a farmer to go out and purchase land upon which he contemplates settling his sons in the future; but sometimes, owing to circumstances over which he has no control, he is unable to meet the obligations he assumed when he first purchased the lands. The proposed legislation will enable farmers, if they wish, to reduce their holdings, and provide their sons with land in the same area where no homesteads may be available. Consequently we know what is going to become of the boys. I am speaking now of my own experience, because I have myself indulged in a speculation in land to provide for my boys growing up. If I had not succeeded in establishing a little area around my own home, possibly my boys would be gone. As it happens, they are all there now, every one Canadian-born, and they intend to stay there. Bu1- they depended upon the old man to make the first start in establishing them in western Canada.


John Livingstone Brown: I am one of the very last men in the House to plead the interests of the speculators, but I can see where this or similar legislation is very necessary. I am quite satisfied there are many cases in which men purchased larger amounts of land than they are now able to pay for, and did it in perfect good faith, the result of a failure to pass such legislation as this would inevitably be that these
Dominion Lands Act

men would not be able to continue in the position they are in and they would have to leave altogether. While it is quite possible in the active operation of the law there might be an individual here and there who would reap a benefit he should not reap, yet, weighing one consideration against the other, it seems to me there is a greater danger in failing to pass some such legislation than there is in passing it. I think this legislation is very wise and very necessary in spite of the objection the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has raised.
Mr. MicTAGGART: Under section 1 would it be necessary for an entrant on land to comply with the homestead regulations in regard to cultivation duties?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, the
same regulations will apply which apply under the general provisions of the act. He can perform his duties at home, but he will have to perform the cultivation duties.


Neil Haman McTaggart: And as to the three years?


Charles A. Stewart: He will have to perform these duties during the three years, but he does not require to live on the homestead.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What would be the use in making him plough up forty acres of sand that is not worth farming at all? Why not allow him to prove it up in some other way?


Charles A. Stewart: I think it would be a mistake for him to get land he could not plough. Every rancher must have land of some sort. Every rancher is cultivating some land sometimes, to carry him through the winter, and it will be a mistake to let anyone have sandy land for the purpose of breaking it up. I would be very much opposed to that. There are lands all over the country that are very acceptable and they can be found in almost every locality. They may be limited in area but they are there.


Arthur Meighen: Referring to section 3, I have discussed this matter with the minister. Ever since it was proposed it has given me some trouble. I regard it as a most important and very dangerous step. I admit its merits. I know there are cases where without it considerable hardship would result, but let us see where we are going, to land if this section passes. If a man buys land or buys anything else he is liable on his purchase. If a man buys grain and pays a small margin, ten per cent just as he does on land, it would be a grand thing for him if, having bought a 
hundred thousand bushels, he afterwards could narrow it down to ten thousand bushels and apply what he had paid to the ten thousand, and pay it up. Speculation then would have no terrors for anybody. He would risk virtually nothing and his chances of profits would be immense. In other words his chances of profit would be ten times his chances of loss. It is exactly the same with school lands, and it is the very same for the actual farmer as for the speculator. If men are to be allowed to buy school lands and afterwards to narrow down their purchase to a quarter section, and apply what they have paid to the quarter section, the element of risk is virtually gone. Take the case of the farmer purchasing. He buys a half section. His neighbour, or many neighbours, bid against him. This man was a little more venturesome than the others and he outbid them. He was taking the risk and he had a perfect right to any profit he might make; but now the minister comes along and relieves that man of his risk-relieves him of his loss. What is going to be the result in the future if this provision becomes law? Why a man making purchase will very readily outbid his neighbours. The speculator, in a word, will have a big advantage over the actual farmer, because the speculator knows that his chances of winning are ten to one over the chances of his losing, or whatever proportion the purchase bore to the quarter section of land, and the chances of the farmer are exactly the same. It seems to me it is a dangerous precedent. If you do it in this case, why not carry it further? Why not carry it into the soldier settlement scheme? Here is a soldier settler; why not relieve him of part of his obligation as well, and apply everything he has paid on a small part of it? He is just as much entitled to it as the school land purchaser. They have only got quarters, it is true, but it is a case of degree. If it is a case of degree, many of them would like to bring it down to forty acres, and have the payment applied on a small part; but if we begin this, where are we going, to end? In a word, it	is a case of one
party to a bargain relieving the other party of his obligation.	I know it
is the provinces who are mostly concerned. They are the beneficiaries of the school land fund but I do think that they have not very fully considered this matter before giving their consent to the legislation. I know that when I was minister of the department-and in those days the applications would not be anything like the number they are now, in the very much more difficult farming times-

Dominion Lands Act
the applications in many instances came from men who found they had got on the wrong side of the the bargain and wanted the government to assume the load instead of themselves. They came almost daily instead of weekly, but we had no power to grant any of their applications and we did not. The minister suggested he had the power. I do not know under what power he could do it. I know there are cases of hardship, but it is sometimes better to stand by a sane and sensible rule than to vary it under special circumstances, creating a precedent that is going to be very serious.
M(r. MORRISON: The conditions in which those farmers largely find themselves are due to a reaction from war conditions. When war was declared the cry went out, " Produce, produce, produce ", and the farmers got busy and assumed extra contracts, bought more land, and more equipment, dug right in, and produced beyond their means. Now no readjustment was made in their favour to enable them to successfully and permanently carry on. On the contrary, adjustments were made with the railways. The Crowsnest pass rates were set aside and they were allowed to raise the rates against the farmers who were urged to produce in the national interest. The banks had the laws adjusted to give them greater advantages, in the national interest, presumably, but it was in the banks' interest really. The Riordon people had a readjustment of their affairs, and they settled their tax account by the note route, which was an absolutely new process. Was that not readjustment in the interest of the individual or the company? As regards the manufacturers of Canada, the tariff was raised on farm implements by just seven per cent as a war measure, against those farmers who were urged to produce in the national interest. While we were producing, the other fellow was getting a good slice of it.	.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member
talking by the book in that? If he will look back over the law, he will find that a special exception was made in the case of the farmer and that there was no increase on farm implements at all.


John Morrison: There was no increase
in the tariff on farm implements? Well, there was an increased duty on a number of commodities in the interest of the manufacturers. Many of us, as individuals, found ourselves in this position, that we were obliged in our mutual interest to compromise. It was no use putting a man down and out, when his trouble
was largely through no fault of his own, and he had assumed too heavy obligations. There are a number of members in this comer of the House who, I know, compromised with others, rather than put them down and out. This is a very proper step for the government to take. It is not giving any favours:	It is a
readjustment of conditions that were brought about largely from the reaction after the war, and I heartily commend the government for the step they are taking.


Oliver Robert Gould: The speculator is not as
great a factor in western Canada to-day as he was some years ago. First of all, agriculture is not profitable enough for him to look upon the purchase of land as an investment. Second, provincial legislation has taken hold of the speculator and practically eliminated him from his activities in the west simply because he was a nuisance in the early days and an imposition upon those who were trying to settle on the land. I speak now of our own province. With our wild lands tax the imposition of the telephone tax, and various other forms of good legislation, we have largely eliminated this individual, and I do not think the day is going to come when he will again be a big factor in the purchase of raw lands in western Canada. Consequently, if we are going to look after the few people we have left in that western country at the present time, legislation such as this is necessary. I say the few we have, because they have been diminished in numbers in the last few years largely because of the speculative activities of the past. Personally, I know of thousands and thousands of acres that were abandoned by speculators who came in from the United States, simply because they would not keep up the payments. That is, agriculture was not profitable enough that people resident in certain areas could purchase these lands at the enhanced price, and this fact, together with the taxes that were being levied, such as the telephone tax, wild lands tax and various other taxes of the provincial government, practically obliged those men either to cultivate the land or to abandon it altogether. We approved the legislation in those days because the speculator came in, and I think we would approve it again to-day if we had to review the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like to meet the views of hon. gentlemen to my left, except the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Morrison), because he approaches the question from an entirely different angle, an angle which has nothing to do with the case. I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been
Dominion Lands Act

said by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). He agrees as to the menace of the speculator. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) speaks about thousands of acres which have been held by speculators and which have been abandoned. I think I would be voicing his views if I were to say that under this legislation it would be a great mistake if those speculators could again come in and get a portion of their abandoned land. That would be all wrong. I am entirely in sympathy with what has been said as to the actual settler farmer. This is a clause which already has provisoes. Under this clause one can do exactly what my hon. friend wants and give protection where they think there should be protection. I would add to the clause words similar to these. Hon. gentlemen will observe that the provision winds up:
Provided that there shall be no refund of any moneys.
In order to meet the case advanced, I would add there words:
And provided that no action shall be taken save and in respect of bona fide settlers, and that the said money shall only be applied on lands actually being worked by such settlers.
And I would give them the relief every time.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
objection, but I would not care to accept the amendment of my hon. friend without giving it some consideration. I would much rather ask the committee to rise and report progress in order to give me time to see whether it was going to interfere with the general provision of the clause, because I have learned by some years of experience that hastily thought out amendments sometimes cause a great deal of difficulty in administration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree with my hon. friend.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
desire to protect the speculator, but many remedial measures have been 9 p.m. undertaken in order to try to get us out of the difficulty we got into in western Canada by overpurchasing lands. To-day they are moving settlers from southern Alberta to northern Alberta and we are spending money right and left. After having given this matter very careful consideration, I am strongly of opinion that we shall keep a great number of people in the country and preserve their investment who otherwise would lose their investment and, perhaps, leave the country altogether.


Arthur Meighen: What about the case of a farmer who bought, say, a half section or

a section, who was not able to pay, who had his land cancelled on him and who is gone? Will he be allowed to come in again?


Charles A. Stewart: We could
not revive a cancellation. The land has passed to the position of having been sold by public auction?


Arthur Meighen: Supposing his sale was
made at the same time as that of another man who has carried on and who will be allowed to come in, does the minister not think there will be very serious and well founded complaints?


Charles A. Stewart: Undoubtedly there will, but the provision of this clause i3 that we are to give consideration to each case. We are to deal only with sales that have taken place prior to January, 1923.
iMr. MEIGHEN:	But the minister cannot consider a case where it has already been cancelled.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite admit that, but in all cases of this sort you are bound to have difficulties of one kind or another. In thousands of cases in western Canada, like that cited by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Morrison), private individuals, banks and mortgage companies have made all sorts of arrangements in order to keep the settler with a portion of his holdings. This is practically the only case in which we were not authorized in any way to make any arrangement with him, and we are doing this in order to meet that situation. I think my right hon. friend will agree with me that the man who has stuck there, in spite of his difficulties and in spite of discouragement, is worthy of consideration rather than the man who wrote in a couple of years ago stating that he was through, that we could confiscate his payments and that he wanted to relinquish his land. Of course, there is another case that we must not forget, the case where we cancelled the sale on our own account, but that was done very largely because we could get no response and, in many cases, the land had been abandoned for a year or so before we took that action, so that I do not think anyone would suffer any injury.


Milton Neil Campbell: I quite agree with the principle of the amendment as explained by the minister and I am heartily in sympathy with the amendment but I want to point out that that is liable to be abused. What is a bona fide farmer? A man might go back on raw land, on which, perhaps, he had not resided at all, live on it for one night, and in

Supply-Trade, and Commerce
that way change himself into a bona fide settler. I think that ought to be very carefully considered; there should be some definite understanding as to what a bona fide farmer
is.


Charles A. Stewart: I am simply accepting the general trend of the amendment; I am not committing myself to it because I want time to consider it. The idea of the committee, I take it, is that they only want us to deal with the man who is in possession of the land and is actually farming it, having made an honest attempt to cultivate
it,	and not any individual who, never having put plough to the land, holds the place in speculation.


Henry Elvins Spencer: With regard to the payment for school lands, we shall hope that most purchasers will do their very best to make their settlements. But there are a few people who, after they have made one or two payments and taken off a few crops, will try to evade paying the balance. How long will such people be given before cancellation takes place?


Charles A. Stewart: They are of course liable to cancellation on the first default, but if a man is making an honest attempt to cultivate the land and can give good reasons for not being able to meet his payments, we accept interest and part of the principal. Although there are some cases of shirking responsibility, we do not find very many attempts made to deliberately evade payment. If there is any fault to be found with us, it is rather that we write too many threatening letters. Certainly we make a serious endeavour to collect the money, but where there is likely to be hardship as a result of forced collections we seldom if ever take action. Of course, we are apt to be taken advantage of once in a while.


Arthur Meighen: The section will be better with the amendment submitted or with some amendment along that line. I was surprised at the comment of the hon. member (Mr. Morrison); nothing of what he has in mind animates anyone that I know of. Nobody is refusing to do for the farmer what is done for any other person. This money does not belong to the country; all of it belongs to western Canada. The only wish of the committee is therefore to avoid adopting any principle which in its application might operate to the detriment of that fund on which the whole support of the school system in the west depends.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has prefaced some remarks I should like to make with regard to this fund. I know for a fact that parcels of land are sold to individuals and payments made to the department, but the taxes are allowed to accumulate on those lands for probably eight, ten or twelve years. If the contract is cancelled and the money is still in the hands of the department, what is the attitude of the minister towards the local improvement district, including the schools, the rural telephone companies and other local governing bodies that are short of money and find it difficult to finance? If the department should have on hand money which, as the leader of the opposition says, belongs to western Canada, is it not reasonable that any taxes in arrears should be paid to the local municipalities?


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member would lead me into dangerous channels if I attempted to discuss that question. Inasmuch as this is a trust fund we would have no authority to pay any of it to any individual or municipality. We must, in carrying out the trust, apply the money in payment to the trust fund itself. Nothing of the kind suggested could therefore be given consideration.
Progress reported.



TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Trade and Commerce-operation and management of elevators, (for salaries, wages, power, fuel, insurance on grain at Port Arthur, registration, inspection and weighing fees, stationer}', office rent, travelling auditors' fees, and miscellaneous expenses), $475,000.
Thomas Andrew Low: The increase of $55,000 in this
item is due to the fact that there is another elevator at Edmonton, while one is being erected at Prince Rupert. There is also one in course of erection at Halifax. These three will consume the extra amount requested, in operating costs and salaries of staff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question has been
under consideration for a considerable time, and the minister might now answer it, whe-there the title has actually passed to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners of elevator No. 1 at Vancouver.


Thomas Andrew Low: The title has passed.


John Evans: Will the elevator at Halifax
be ready for the handling of g^ain this com-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ing season? And how much grain has passed through that port during the last two years?


Thomas Andrew Low: We expect to have the elevator completed in time to handle the fall grain passing through the port. I have not before me the information regarding the quantity of grain that has passed through the port during the last two years, but certainly it could not have been very much, seeing that the old elevator was not in repair. We have no figures in connection with that matter, because the elevator was uftder the management of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the new elevator
be under the control of the Canadian National Railways as well?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, but as regards inspection
and weighing it will be under the supervision of the Canada Grain Board.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Was the matter of inspection and weighing, in the case of the old elevator, under the Railways or under the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Thomas Andrew Low: It was under the Canada Grain Board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am a little confused
by the minister's answer. Item 360 provides $475,000 for the operation and management of elevators. The minister says that includes the Halifax elevator. Then there is item 362, $575,000, towards the construction of the Halifax elevator. The minister tells us that the new elevator is to be under the control of the National Railways. If these elevators, either old or new, are under the control of the National Railways, wihy are they included in these votes, and further, why should not the capital cost be included in the accounts of the National Railways? .


Thomas Andrew Low: I had the impression that the
Halifax elevator when completed wouild be under the management of the Canadian National Railways, but that is not so; it will be under the management of the Canada Grain Board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How about the present
elevator at Halifax, which the minister said a moment ago was included in vote 360?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have nothing to do with
that. I understand it is under the control of the National Railways.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then it is not included
in this vote?


Thomas Andrew Low: The old elevator? No.


Oliver Robert Gould: How many elevators are
included in it?


Thomas Andrew Low: Seven in all.


Mr. FINN:: It had been my hope and
desire, and I think it is the hope and desire of the commercial interests of the city of Halifax, that the Halifax elevator, when completed, shall be placed under the management of the railway so far as operation is concerned. I would ask the minister not to tie himself to any policy in that respect until representations are later made to him as to whether it would be more advisable, in the interests of shipments through the port of Halifax, to have the elevator operated under the Canadian National system instead of under the Grain Board.


Mr. CHURCH:: What has the minister
done since last session in reference to the extension of this elevator policy so far as Ontario is concerned? During the last three sessions this matter has been before the House. Four years ago my hon. friend's predecessor promised a large and influential delegation representing the farmers of central Ontario, the United Farmers of Ontario, the Board of Trade of Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Board and others, that this matter would be given consideration. It was shown that Ontario was being sidetracked in the matter of elevator policy for the benefit of the west; and it is obvious that with the completion of the Welland canal in 1929, as is projected, we Shall be millions of bushels behind in elevator capacity. As I said the other night in this House, there are twenty-eight elevators in Buffalo harbour to-day, all thriving, as you will see it stated in literature coming from Buffalo itself, as a result of the foolish policy of the government of Canada in not having an embargo on hard wheat.
If Canada had a proper grain policy, those twenty-eight elevators at Buffalo would have to move to Port Colborne and other points along the lakes. My hon. friend's predecessor promised that a survey of the need in central Ontario of a government terminal elevator would be made and that reports would be secured from the grain commission. The grain commission did find on the evidence that central Ontario was badly in need of elevator facilities to take care of the feed products of that province. My hon,. friends of the Progressive party who come from Ontario Should better themselves in this matter. The hon. member for Brant, who helped form a Ginger group in this House for the needs

Supply-Trade and Commerce
y-bi the west and other Progressives from central Ontario, should see that something is done. Ontario is suffering to-day through lack of elevator capacity. Most of the railway stations have no facilities nor have the flag stations, and the farmer has no place to take his crop in course of shipment. According to a return made to the House, these terminal elevators are very largely located in the west. I have no objection to that; I hope they will get more of them to take care of the grain crop, but there is need of a large central terminal elevator in western and central Ontario to take care of the small farmer and' his products. In the memorandum which was presented by the United Farmers of Ontario backed up by boards of trade from Toronto, Hamilton, the Niagara district and other parts of Ontario as well as by representatives of the Ontario government itself, these matters were fully set out and the deputation were promised some action. Sir Thomas White, who was then Minister of Finance, said that ia strong case had been made out, and that had it not been for the war the government wouildi grant immediately the request of the deputation. Last year, Mr. Chairman, there was a vote for an elevator at Halifax and another at Edmonton, and the minister said he would visit the Ontario district and1 look into the strong case for such an elevator in Toronto. We are always glad to see him there. I notice he attended a Liberal meeting in the Toronto district recently, and I am sure if he would consult with the farmers of the district he would find that we are badly in need of an elevator in central Ontario. Some years ago there were seven or eight private elevators in Toronto harbour, but to-day there is not one. The deputation proposed that this elevator should be built in the logical situation, in the city of Toronto. I am not prepared1 to say where it should be built, but I do say that the government should build) this elevator for central and western Ontario on economic grounds. The Farmers' government were not in office in Toronto one month before they were down here taking up this question. Hon. Mr. Manning Doherty, Minister of Agriculture in the Farmers' government in Ontario, representing Premier Drury, and many others were on the deputation. This matter has been before the House for three or four sessions, and I would like to see something better than promises now. True, an elevator has been built at Port Colborne, but that is more for grain east and west. There is need for an elevator in central Ontario to take care of the different classes of products of central! and western Ontario. A case has been 195
made out, reports have been made by the grain commission, and I would like the minister to state what the intention of the government is regarding the building of this elevator. Ontario has been overlooked. We have been taxed to .construct elevators in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, and at Halifax and Prince Rupert, and Ontario has been neglected. The other day we had a continuous wall about the Hudson Bay railway. The government of the province of Ontario has itself had to build a railway similar to the purely provincial Hudson Bay road.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is the hon. gentleman aware that Ontario is building this railway through its own land? If the western provinces owned their resources, it mi^ht be a different question. Ontario in building through its own land is appreciating the value of the land.


Thomas Langton Church: A poor argument. I
come back to what I said. The government of the province of Ontario had a policy to build a railway to James bay with federal assistance, but got none. A deputation waited on the Conservative government and applied in vain for a federal subsidy, and they were told, it was purely a provincial railway. So also is the Hudson Bay railway. I am not objecting to the western provinces getting a liberal elevator policy, for they may deserve it, and Ontario should support them in that respect, but what I do ask for is equality of treatment, and that the farmers of Ontario be treated commensurate with their needs. The facts are all set out in the memorandum in Hansard which I have read before on two or three occasions, and I shall not read it again to-night. I am pleading for what was promised last session. Ontario is to-day being taxed to build elevators in other parts of the country and gets nothing in return. I want to see equality of treatment in this matter. I would ask the minister what has been done since last session to meet the representations of the deputation and to come to the relief of the long suffering farmers of central and western Ontario who are taxed today for building elevators all over the country, and who can get no relief from the present anomalous condition of affairs.


Thomas Andrew Low: This is not a new proposal at
all. It was made to my predecessors, and Sir George Foster turned it down. I have no doubt the day will come when Toronto will have an elevator, but my hon. friend will have to wait until the revenues are more buoyant than they are to-day. He made some



Supply-Trade and Commerce
reference to the great capacity of the elevators at Buffalo. I might point out that the capacity of the elevators at the head of the lakes in the province of Ontario, at Port Arthur and Fort William, is very much greater than the capacity of the elevators at Buffalo. No doubt there are many places that would like to have elevators and where we would like to build them. My hon. friend from Lethbridge would like to have an elevator, but unfortunately the revenues are falling and we have to wait until they are more buoyant than they are to-day.


John Evans: The minister has already
stated that part of this vote will go towards the operation of the new elevator at Halifax. As far as I know, no grain passes through Halifax, and has not for some years, with the exception of some little that the Canadian National have hauled down there, when it was convenient, to ballast some of their boats. Can we get any information as to the amount that passes through that port?


Thomas Andrew Low: This vote includes the cost of the operation of the elevator at Halifax. I have not the figures at the moment as to the quantity of grain passing through that port. As I stated before, the old elevator was not in good condition, but we are hopeful that with the construction of the new elevator a greater quantity of grain will pass through Halifax.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Where are the various elevators that come under this item located?


Thomas Andrew Low: At Calgary, Edmonton, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Port Arthur, and the new elevators at Halifax and Prince Rupert.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What about
Port Colborne?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is under Railways and
Canals.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How does the minister
account for the increase of $55,000? There cannot be any increased cost in wages, rates and so forth.


Thomas Andrew Low: The Edmonton elevator would take up almost the entire increase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance and necessary equipment of elevators (including repairs and renewals to plant, machinery, equipment and trackage; and the installation of Carter disc machines and flax cleaning machines, etc.), $60,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Was all of this item
spent last year, and how does the minister base the needs for the coming year?


Thomas Andrew Low: Perhaps I could not do better^
than read the estimate as presented to the department by the board:
Canadian Government Elevators Estimated financial requirements: Fiscal year 1925-20: Maintenance and necessary equipment of elevators:
Repairs and renewals to present plant.. ..	$15,000
Repairs and renewals to existing machinery
and equipment	 S.000
Supplies and loose equipment	 3,000
Repairs to trackage, Port Arthur ($15,000 renewal of last year's appropriation not expended)	 35,000
Upkeep of elevator trackage	 7,000
Eavestroughing track sheds and cupola, Moose
Jaw and Saskatoon (revote)	 1,500
Painting signs, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon
(revote)	 1,000
Painting signs, Edmonton	 1,000
Purchase and installation of Carter disc machines and necessary motors, Saskatoon
and Moose Jaw	  9,000
Purchase and installation of additional flax cleaning machines and necessary motors,
Port Arthur (revote $4,000)	 5,000
Purchase and installation of grinding equipment and necessary motors, Edmonton.. ..	4.500
Construction of fireproof building at Moose Jaw to house inspection staff, millwright, power house repair shop, and possibly elevator office (renewal of 1924-25 appropriation) 10,000

This is an amount much in excess of the vote asked for, but when the estimate was presented to the department we, in a desire for the most rigid economy, reduced it to $60,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These two items total
$535,000 covering the operation and maintenance of the government elevators. Am I right in regarding that as the total expenditure?


Thomas Andrew Low: You are adding together items 360 and 361?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Thomas Andrew Low: You are right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can the minister give U3
what the earnings of the government elevators were last year, so that the committee may be able to form an idea of the value of the business to the country?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have the figures in detail.
The statement is quite lengthy, and perhaps I had better hand it to the reporter so that it may appear on Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to hear the
totals for each elevator?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: I will give them. They are as
follows:
Port Arthur-
Revenue for 1923-24	
$398,402	07Expenditure for 1923-24	
151,852	65
Moose Jaw-
Revenue for 1923-24	
24,210	55Expenditure for 1923-24	
57,228	28
Saskatoon-
Revenue for 1923-24	
41,422	95Expenditure for 1923-24	
62,462	86
Edmonton, up to Jan. 31, 1925-
Revenue	
9.108	04Expenditure	
19,804	96
Calgary-
Revenue for 1923-24	
98,605	58Expenditure for 1923-24	
71,590	33


John Livingstone Brown: Will the minister give the
figures totalled in the case of revenue and expenditure?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sorry I have not the totalled figures at hand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask the minister
how he harmonizes the expenditure which he gives us here with the enormous amount shown in the estimates? The amount shown here is not as large as that shown in the estimates.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is very true but we cannot pay the expenditures out of the revenue; the revenue goes into the consolidated fund.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so, I understand
that, but the minister is asking in the estimates for much more than he shows is required.


Thomas Andrew Low: Of course we merely make an
estimate. We cannot tell what the size of the crop may be, and we may require to put in new cleaning machines and provide for unforeseen expenditures. The larger the crop the larger the expenditure will 'be and, of course, the greater the revenue also.


Thomas Sales: I think what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is trying to get is the total receipts and expenditures from these various elevators. I took the figures down as the minister gave them and I find that the revenue amounted to $571,749.19 and the expenditure to $362,939.08, leaving a balance of revenue over expenditure of $208,810.11. Now, Mr. Chairman, the only thing I have to find fault with in connection with this matter is that there is not a proper idea of the actual financial transactions conveyed to the people either in this estimate or in the report of the Auditor General. It appears here as though the operation of these elevators for the farmers and the grain trade was costing Canada three or four 'hundred thousand dollars, whereas, as a matter of fact, the services are not only paying for themselves
195i
but yielding a handsome profit in addition so that the weighing and inspection fees should be reduced. That is what we have asked for time and time again. We do not mind paying for these services, but we do not see why we should contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the consolidated revenue year after year, and yet have the idea presented to the House that all these services are being given to the farmer.


Thomas Andrew Low: In each year's return as I have told the hon. member there is no charge for capital expenditure. All the people pay for the elevators that are built from time to time, consequently if there were a Charge-an interest charge or a depreciation charge-in this calculation the surplus doubtless would be much smaller. Then in the past crop year, the revenue will likely be much smaller than it was for the previous twelve months when there was such a large crop. Nevertheless the same staff must be maintained and the overhead continues at the same level. We may drop a stenographer hei'e and an inspector there, but on the whole the reductions are not nearly as great as one would imagine. This year we have to be prepared for a possibly larger crop.


Thomas Sales: May I make the appeal that in the Auditor General's report a concise statement should be given showing the expenditures on one side and the revenue on the other, so that we could really understand the actual situation. I have to look in one part of the Auditor General's report for the revenue and in another place for the expenditure, and it is very hard for the members of this House to understand exactly whether this business is paying or not, and much harder for the men in the country. If we could have a statement of that kind, putting the two things together in the Auditor General's report, I think it would be very advantageous.


Milton Neil Campbell: I understood the minister to say that if there were a charge for capital account the surplus would be much smaller. Surely he does not mean to say that there would still be a surplus; that instead of the government paying for the elevators, the farmers pay for them all and in addition provide a surplus.


Thomas Andrew Low: That would be a matter to be worked out. There is a very large amount invested in the elevators of this country, and the interest on the capital expenditure would probably eat up any surplus that the grain

Supply-Trade and Commerce
trade produces. As a matter of fact it is only during the last four or five years there has been any surplus. For a number of years there was not a surplus but a deficit.


Milton Neil Campbell: These new elevators at Halifax and Prince Rupert are really built by the farmers. The money is paid by the government but -charged up to the farmers. I doubt whether very much grain will pass through these elevators, yet the overhead cost must be borne by the farmers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had no intention of
raising the question of what Canada was doing for the fanners, and my hon. friend from Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) rather took me up a little rapidly there. I was not speaking with any ulterior motive at all, 'but now that he has precipitated a discussion, we might as well examine it. The facts are that Moose Jaw in 1923-24 had a revenue of $24,000 and an expenditure of $57,000, a very heavy deficit on bare operation, without any charge for overhead at all; that is for interest on capital. I do not know just what the Moose Jaw elevator cost the country, but it was certainly a very large sum. Then we have Saskatoon with a revenue of $41,000 and an expenditure of $62,000. There again is a very heavy deficit being borne by the consolidated fund, and no charge for interest on the capital expenditure. Edmonton is not a fair comparison because it was the first year in operation, and only a portion of the year is disclosed; there we have a similar case, .but we cannot judge by it. In Calgary there is a revenue of $98,000 as against an expenditure of $71,000. In this case we see an indication that it is an investment which is capable of bringing in a fair return. When I say a fair return, I mean paying a part of the interest on the capital charge. When we come to Port Arthur we find that undoubtedly the earning3 of the elevator will carry the capital charges- that is the interest on the capital. But that is the only case which gives any evidence of doing so. I am not, nor did I intend until my hon. friend became a little piqued regarding the situation-


Thomas Sales: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not intend to criticize this system or policy of placing large terminal elevators, or what we call interior elevators, for the promotion and assisting in the handling of the grain of Canada. I think it is quite proper for parliament to do it, but it is just as well for parliament and my hon. friends to my left to realize that parliament is doing the job, and doing it in a 
very generous manner I think; and the point which I think the minister or the Board of Grain Commissioners might take into consideration is whether these two great elevators at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon cannot be used to greater capacity, so as to show a smaller loss at least than that which is disclosed in these figures.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Has my hon. friend the
figures for Port Arthur?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. The earnings at
Port Arthur were $398,000 and the disbursements $151,000, showing an earning sufficient to pay a moderate interest on the capital investment. That I think is a very creditable showing.
As to the question of fees, I am very strong in regard to keeping the charges for the handling, not only in these elevators, but in all elevators, as low as it is possible to keep them. Let the charges be kept at the very lowest point. I desire to say to the minister just here-it does not come properly under his department, although it did a short time ago-that at Vancouver this year the harbour commissioners have insured the elevator and other works, entailing an expenditure of over $36,000 in insurance premiums. That must mean an increase in the charges of the port and I deprecate it very much. I think it is wholly unnecessary, because the government does not insure all of these elevators. So that in the case of these elevators which we have before us, and the elevator at Vancouver, which is constructed of reinforced concrete, and fireproof just the same as the others, there is no more need of insurance now than when it was' under the Board of Grain Commissioners.


Thomas Andrew Low: Are all the elevators at Vancouver fireproof?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, all except one, that
unfortunate so-called Woodward elevator No. 3, which is being frightfully distorted by some new expensive works that are being added to it at present in a hopeless fashion I believe. Outside of that they are all fireproof and of up-to-date construction. But what I am coming to is this: every effor.' Should be -made to keep the charges and fees at the lowest possible point, and I would like the minister to direct the Board of Grain Commissioners to give consideration to the rates charged in Vancouver. They raised them, I think, half a cent during the past year, or perhaps a little more than a year ago. I do not see any need for that increase in the Vancouver elevator fees. The insurance

Supply-Trade and Commerce
is an unnecessary expense. It is just simply distributing a little patronage to a long list of hungry insurance agents and nothing else -absolutely no other reason for it-and $30,000 is added to the expenditure of that port and is paid by those who use the port, who ship their cargo out or bring their cargo in. That cargo bears a part of that cost, and $30,000 added last year is an unwarranted and unnecessary extravagance and should not be permitted. I ask the minister to bring this to the attention of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and I suggest that the Board of Grain Commissioners, in fixing the fees, and in approving the rates in that elevator, should disregard that unnecessary extravagance in the port. If the Board of Harbour Commissioners in Vancouver choose to go off on a rampage of extravagance, I suggest that the Board of Grain Commissioners who fix the fees disregard their claim for revenue commensurate with their extravagant expenditure. I bring that point to the attention of the minister. The same principle applies wherever the elevators are run.


Robert Gardiner: I would like to ask
the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) whether he is quite sure that the charges in the Vancouver elevator come under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand so. The
minister can tell us. .


Thomas Andrew Low: The Canada Grain Board have nothing to do with it. It comes under the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I understand the minister to say that the rates charged in the Vancouver elevator are not submitted to the Board of Grain Commissioners and meet with their approval or disapproval the same as rates in other elevators?


Thomas Andrew Low: They do not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then the sooner they are
brought under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners, the better. Does the minister mean to say that they were not under the Board of Grain Commissioners prior to last year?


Thomas Andrew Low: No. They are subject to the
Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister may be getting confused, and I do not want to take an advantage of him. I know very well that the Board of Harbour Commissioners, which is under the Marine department, must get the
approval of the Marine department for its various acts, but is the charging of elevator fees not submitted to the Board of Grain Commissioners?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They were fixed by the
Board of Grain Commissioners prior to a year and a half ago.
Mr. LOW7:	When the elevator passed to
the harbour board, we ceasc-d to have any control.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I think the minister did something that was wholly wrong-


Thomas Andrew Low: I am not the minister who did it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -in permitting the control of elevator fees to pass out of the direction of the Board of Grain Commissioners.
I do not object particularly to his transferring the elevator to the harbour board; but the Board of Grain Commissioners should have retained control of fixing the fees. Furthermore, I do not care where the elevator is operated, whether it is at Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal or Fort William, the general laws or regulations determining the operation of that elevator ought to be under the Canada Grain Act and the direction of the Board of Grain Commissioners. Whiat is the sense of having a vital part of this tremendous business of handling grain at the very mouth of the funnel controlled by a Board1 of Harbour Commissioners or private individuate or anyone else, and another part controlled by the Board of Grain Commissioners? When this law is amended-and it is in the minister's hands-he ought to settle definitely the question of handling this grain so that it should come under the control and direction of the llaw known as the Canada Gralin Act and the Board of Grain Commissioners. I ask the minister now, in view of his answer, if he would be good enough to bring this matter to the attention of his colleague, because, after all, we cannot escape responsibility in this parliament for an increase in charges on the handling of grain or any other important matter. There has been an increase in charges in the handling of grain through Vancouver this year. There has been in Vancouver this year an unnecessary, added, expenditure to which I have referred, and I have referred to only one outstanding case. I call the government's attention to this. I do not care whether it is the Minister of Trade and

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Commerce or the Minister of the Interior, tihat has to do with the matter, the Board of Harbour Commissioners at Vancouver should be directed at once to reverse that policy and position.


Thomas Sales: I am very thankful to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) for supporting the proposition I made to this House last year, in pointing out the revenue that was obtained by the port of Montreal and expressing the wish that at some time all these elevators would come under the control of the grain commission. As I understand the matter, they have no control even at Georgian bay ports. Is that so?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have control over privately owned elevators, not government elevators.


Thomas Sales: At what point?


Thomas Andrew Low: Port McNicoll, Goderich and Tiffin.


Thomas Sales: It has allways seemed ridiculous to me that we should have a Board of Grain Commissioners with such stringent powers- at least we tried to make them stringent, but many fooip-hales have been found-at the head of the lakes, and then When our grain leaves there, it passes out of their control entirely. They have no say as to what the charges Shall be and no inspection at the port of Montreal or the port of Vancouver at the present time.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) referred this afternoon to the operation of a sample market. My opinion is that no man in his senses will come to Port Arthur or Fort William and buy a cargo of grain which has to go through Port McNicoll or some of these other ports, be transferred to a car or a smaller boat in order to go through the Welland canal, and then go through Montreal. He knows what he puts in, but he will not have the slightest idea as to what he is going to get out. Under such conditions a sample market is absolutely impossible. At Vancouver there is a different situation altogether. It is quite possible for a British grain buyer or miller to buy his wheat at Vancouver, load it on his ship and keep it under his finger until it reaches Liverpool, or Bristol, or wherever it is going. That situation does not and cannot exist as regards grain going through the head of the lakes.
As regards the elevators at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon-and if I do not make a mistake in my judgment, Edmonton will show itself pretty much in the same class as time goes on-all the grain that passes through Moose Jaw and Saskatoon must eventually find its way through Port Arthur or at any 
rate through the terminals at the head of the lakes. Grain going through Edmonton will have to go through Vancouver after it has passed through Edmonton. The situation is simply this. It is only in a time of congestion that these houses are used, 10 p.m. or in a season when we have a great deal of rain and much tough grain that needs to be dried, these houses are used to put it into condition and the grain is forwarded. But no farmer, if he has a chance to ship his grain direct to Vancouver, will ship it into Edmonton. If he has a chance to ship it direct to Fort William or Port Arthur, he will not put it into the elevator at Moose Jaw or Saskatoon at an added cost. I do not know that the government were altogether justified in putting up houses as large as those at Saskatoon and Moose Jaw. They are useful in some years, but as long as there are sufficient cars available to ship, I can assure the committee that no farmer will use these, what are called interior terminal elevators. Therefore the comparison between Port Arthur and Moose Jaw or Saskatoon does not prove anything.


Oliver Robert Gould: They have served a good
purpose.
Mr. SA-LES: Yes they have, and they will serve a good purpose again when it is a wet year and there is a great deal of tough grain, but it is only under these exceptional circumstances that those houses will be used.


Mr. DUNCAN:: There seems to be a lot
of talk about these elevators, but if the government would make these people build their own elevators, they would keep out of trouble. In the little city of Owen Sound we are building a million dollar elevator ourselves *without asking the government to do anything. I think that is the rule the government should go by-make them build their own elevators.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halifax elevator, towards construction of, $575,000.
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: Why and on what principle does this item come under the head of Trade and Commerce? It would appear to me as if it were a part of the railway. The railway, in having an elevator, is simply completing its facilities for carrying on its legitimate business.


Thomas Andrew Low: The government is simply continuing the policy that has been followed in regard to elevators at ports like Halifax, Prince Rupert and Vancouver.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Oliver Robert Gould: What is the estimated capacity of this elevator that is being erected at Halifax?


Thomas Andrew Low: One million bushels.


Oliver Robert Gould: And what is the estimated cost?


Thomas Andrew Low: It will be $622,500.


William Anderson Black: Is the present
elevator at Halifax under the control of the department?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


William Anderson Black: It is a small one, capable of handling grain, and I believe it is part of the railway equipment.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When this elevator passes into the control of the railways, will the department or the minister see that the control of fees is retained in the Board of Grain Commissioners? Will the railways take over the capital charge, as the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners did?


Thomas Andrew Low: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me; I did not intimate that the elevator at Halifax would pass into the control of the railways.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will remain under the control of the department?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is the intention.


Oliver Robert Gould: Was a specification submitted and were tenders called for?


Thomas Andrew Low: Tenders were called for and the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer.


Alfred Speakman: How much was spent of last year's $200,000?


Thomas Andrew Low: The amount expended was


Thomas Sales: Who is the engineer for the Halifax elevator?


Thomas Andrew Low: The engineers are J. S. Metcalf & Company of Montreal.


Thomas Sales: Again I feel I must protest against the cost of these elevators. One was built some time ago at Vancouver at a cost of ninety cents per bushel capacity at the same time that elevators were being built at the head of the lakes at a cost of twenty-three cents. Now we have in the case of this million bushel elevator a cost of 62i cents per bushel capacity. I do not understand why there should be this discrepancy; I do not see why an elevator should cost so much more at Vancouver than one at the head of the lakes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the hon. member
refer to No. 1?


Thomas Sales: The one we dealt with in this House two years ago; it was an addition and cost something like ninety cents per bushel.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Twice as much as the orginal one.


Thomas Sales: Yes; I am pleased to be supported by the hon. member again. I protested at that time and informed the government that elevators were being built then at. a cost of twenty-three cents per bushel capacity. In the case of that expensive elevator Metcalf & Company were the engineers. I pointed out to the government on that occasion that a certain gentleman was constructing practically all the elevators in the western country at the head of the lakes and had been employed by the government formerly; and that gentleman I understand was the engineer for the Edmonton elevator. I should like to know what was the cost of the Edmonton elevator per bushel capacity, for the purpose of comparing the figures of one firm with those of the other. There seems to be some extravagance here.


Thomas Andrew Low: The capital cost of the Edmonton elevator is $1,462,601.17 and the capacity is 2,500,000 bushels.


Oliver Robert Gould: Was there a tender in that case?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes; the contract was awarded
to the lowest tenderer.


Robert Gardiner: What possibility is
there of grain passing through the elevator at Halifax, and have any arrangements been made to give a freight rate that will induce the shipment of grain through that elevator?


Thomas Andrew Low: The fixing of rates by rail is of course a matter for the Canadian National Railways, but I have no doubt, so far as water is concerned, that the elevator will be taken advantage of, as vessels are always glad to get wheat as ballast.


Robert Gardiner: Personally I have no objection to the building of an elevator at Halifax provided business will go that way, but I think it is a very stupid policy to build an elevator there unless we are assured that grain will go through that port. I think we should have that assurance before passing this item; otherwise the minister should take up the whole question with the railway officials to find out just where he stands
Sup-ply-Trade and Commerce


Robert Emmett Finn: The matter of building the new elevator at Halifax has been gone into very carefully by Sir Henry Thornton and his technical officers in connection with the movement of grain through eastern Canadian national ports in winter. I may say for the information of the hon. member that by the removal of the differential of one cent over St. John, Portland, New York, Philadelphia, New London and Boston, Halifax will in future enjoy the same grain rate as all other Atlantic ports both in the United States and in Canada. The rail haul is somewhat greater, but that absorption must be taken care of by the country as one of the national necessities. There is no man in this country, nor is there an hon. gentleman in this House, who will not admit that we in the Maritime provinces are entitled to have our national ports developed. We do not intend to permit the ports of the United States to be used by our western Canadians when the ports of eastern Canada can be developed and utilized. When the four eastern provinces entered confederation they gave to this country, in their ports, a great national asset which is of advantage to the whole Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Are we to be told by the newcomers to the west that we are not to share in the grain traffic by its shipment through our national ports in winter, but that of necessity it must go via Buffalo, New York or Portland? Our western friends must remember that we have some rights. I do not believe the solution of our difficulties will be found in separation, whether of a fiscal character or by absolute secession. These words are not in my vocabulary; they are not part of my programme. But I would direct the attention of hon. members to the resolutions that have been passed unanimously by the Nova Scotia legislature and to the platform adopted by the Conservative party in Nova Scotia in connection with the provincial election which is to take place within the next two months. The Conservative party in Nova Scotia state that we must take charge of our fiscal policy, of our fisheries and of our Intercolonial railway, and that if we cannot get a recognition of our rights from the federal authorities, the only alternative is an appeal to the British parliament, which means the withdrawal of Nova Scotia from the federation. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) has said that the only trouble with Canada is that we are not one hundred per cent Canadian. What we want in this country is one hundred per cent Canadians. Last year I ventured the statement in this House that

if there was a refusal to send grain through our Canadian ports in winter the government should consider the advisability of imposing an export duty on grain shipped through foreign ports, and in the report of the grain commission I find that very solution recommended to the consideration of the government. An examination of the figures with respect to the business done through the port of Halifax from last November until the end of April will show that there has been an increase of over 100 per cent. More than 165,000 tons of shipping went through in one week, and eight or ten of the biggest liners were landing passengers and freight at Halifax and going on their way. I am told on responsible authority that 'if we have a terminal elevator at Halifax and if these shipping concerns, such as the Cunard, the White Star-Dominion, and the Donaldson lines, could be assured of basic cargoes of grain at Halifax, they would make that port their western terminus. They would load and unload freight there and save a day going to Portland or New York and a day on the way back, which would enable them to make two more	trips during the six months' sailings from the Old Country to Canada. Our Canadian west to-day is practically gridironed with railways which have cost the country two billion dollars, of which the Maritime provinces have paid their proportion. We have only one line of railway in Nova Scotia. We are not enjoying the fruits of the Transcontinental. A short line has been built, the Long Lac section, connecting the Canadian Northern up with the Transcontinental and providing easy grades through to Quebec and one to Moncton, and thence to St. John and Halifax. If that road is utilized there will be no difficulty in sending through the port of Halifax in winter sufficient grain not only to keep this elevator going but to require the services of another as well, or perhaps an enlargement of the elevator, now under construction in accordance with plans drawn under instructions of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. The hon. junior member for Halifax a few moments ago made reference to the old elevator at Halifax. That elevator is a thing of the past. It is a wooden structure and the insurance rate is so high as to make its use by shippers out of the question. The new elevator is situated at the new terminal and is part of the national terminal system inaugurated by the then Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Robert Laird Borden, in connection with the great scheme of ocean port development at Halifax. The elevator is now being constructed. I

Supply-Trade and Commerce
do not know whether or not my hon. friends opposite read of what is going on in the east.
I had always thought that the wise men came from the east, and after some remarks I have heard to-night I am more confirmed than ever in that opinion. The contract for the Halifax elevator has been let to the Cape Construction Company. The excavation is finished; one hundred and fifty men are at work setting up the forms. The elevator will be completed by October 1, and by November 1, grain shipments will be going through it. Sir Henry Thornton was asked in Halifax by Mr. George S. Campbell, ex-president of the board of trade, and president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, Whether or not the elevator would be utilized when completed. I was rather surprised at that question, because when Mr. Campbell was president of the board of trade he was always wanting an elevator built at Halifax, but when it was going to be built then some people did not seem to want it. But the answer of Sir Henry Thornton was that he could give the assurance that when the elevator was built it would be utilized. He said grain would be put through it, and that with the development of the port of Halifax perhaps more than one elevator would be required. Some hon. gentlemen opposite took a trip last year to that city by the sea. I regret that owing to personal reasons I was unable to be with them; my heart was with them anyway. I think they left Halifax feeling that they had been well looked after, well fed and in good spirits. Listening to the remarks of some hon. gentlemen to-night I have come to the conclusion that they are no longer hungry and that the spirit is not moving them, because they said some things in Halifax that made us believe that their efforts in this House would be in the direction of making Halifax a great national port. I would ask hon. members to turn their minds back to the period between 1914 and 1918, and to picture the inner harbour of Halifax, known as Bedford basin, with 135 Ships carrying troops, ranging from the size of the Olympic, 46,000 tons, down to ships of 5,000 and 6,000 tons, to say nothing of the utilization of that port as a naval base. And now we are told that we are no longer to participate in the great national port development of this country, and we are to be questioned as a child as to whether or not grain is going to go through an elevator there. We are told the expenditure is useless. Mr. Chairman, if they are not doing anything to widen the breach, they are not doing anything to help better the situation in connection with the development of Canada and her greater nationalization.
My hon. friends talk about the Hudson Bay railway. I have nothing to say about it except this, that the ships will have to go in there through icebergs, and it will then !be a question as to what Lloyd's will have to say as to the insurance rates, but if the government of this country, and the late government have obligated themselves to building that road, then I say they are morally bound to continue that effort when the finances of this country will permit. But we are not so situate on the eastern seaboard of this great Dominion, and my only reason for speaking to-night, Mr. Chairman, is that it makes me feel sick at heart when I hear hon. gentlemen opposite speak as they do in reference to port development at the city of Halifax, and when I look across the floor and see my colleague, the hon. junior member for Halifax, who from the very inception of this grain elevator at Halifax, has helped it by damning it with faint praise, I say he has not stood up for the interests of Halifax. He can make a speech in reference to secession while failing to look after the interests of the port, but I would like to say to him that this afternoon I received a postal card, which I have in my pocket-


Mr. McMASTER:: An economical correspondent.


Robert Emmett Finn: Economical people come from
the east, not from Brome. The card is headed Halifax Ocean Terminals. On the left is marked "Grand Desert," which is a very strong Liberal section as the junior member for Halifax knows. Next comes Chezzetcook; my hon. friend has been there, or if not his emissaries have. Further along is Musquodo-boit, and then I see in pencil Finn's elevator, and across the way is Finn's Dartmouth pier, and then there is a steamer going down the harbour, and it is labelled "Bill Black's Canadian (Norwegian) ships (tubs)."
When my hon. friends opposite speak of bringing back Nova Scotians to our land, of bringing back our hardy fishermen to our three-mile limit seas, of bringing back our sailor lads to go on our own ships, I wonder if my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax has any ships under his management flying the English flag or having on board a Nova Scotian as a sailor. Actions speak louder than words, and when I hear hon. gentlemen in this House, and particularly the junior member for Halifax, with his seniority of years, making such statements it too makes me sick at heart, and almost makes me feel that any humble effort on my part in this House is in vain, but it will not be if I can help it.

Sup-ply-Trade and Commerce


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the eloquence of the senior member for Halifax, I am convinced of one thing, that while all wise men come from the east, all men who come from the east are not necessarily wise. The suggestion thrown' out by the hon. gentleman that because same members in this comer of the House question the building of this elevator, they are therefore opposed to the use of tihe port of Halifax, is an erroneous presumption.


Robert Emmett Finn: How can you use it if it is not equipped?


Alfred Speakman: The question, as has been stated by my colleague from Medicine Hat, is one of transportation. We have made the statement, and I will repeat it, that unless proper transportation adjustments can be made so that grain can be carried to Halifax, the elevator is no good. If these adjustments can be made and the port be profitably used, I think I can speak for all of us in this comer of the House when I say that we are glad to see Canadian ports used. But first and foremost, and all the time, it is a question of transportation.


Mr. COPP:: What adjustments does my
hon. friend think necessary to be made?


Alfred Speakman: I will come to that in a moment. When our friend from Halifax points his finger at us and says it is our cooperation that is necessary, he is showing that he is not fully conversant with the conditions governing the transport of grain. In the first place, the men we represent have not the routing of the grain.


Robert Emmett Finn: I meant your co-operation in the House. We will look after the people in the country.


Alfred Speakman: Precisely. In the second place, as it is a question of transportation, and therefore a matter of governmental policy, it would! be mulch more to the point if the senior member for Halifax would direct his attention to the front benches on his own side of the House, who atone in this House have the right to inaugurate such governmental! policy.
I might just say one word more about transportation. It has been a rather remarkable thing to me since I came into this House to hear the members from the Maritime provinces, on the one hand, and on the one subject, stretching forth the hand of co-operation to the shippers and asking them to ship if possible their grain through Maritime ports, and on the other hand, condemning the only agreement we have that would make it possible to ship the great part of the grain eastward at 
all, because if it were not for the provisions of the Crowsnest pass agreement, which gave us lower rates to the head of the lakes, winter haulage to the eastern ports would be almost impossible, and the great bulk of that grain would be obliged to go over the short haul westward. I have sometimes wondered why they did not have a broader concept of national statesmanship, and a realization that co-operation in transportation matters, which is the crux of the whole situation, must come from both ends. Out low rate on grain east has been the subject of adverse comments in many parts of this House, and particularly by members from the Maritime provinces, and yet were it not for those rates which they condemn as 'being a special privilege given to the west at the expense of the east, very little of the grain which they anticipate going through the elevator at Halifax would ever go eastward at all during the winter season. We have to keep these things in mind from both ends, and I can aissure my hon. friend that if proper arrangements can be made,-and in reply to the Secretary of State, let me say that I am not the man to suggest these arrangements; that js for the government-I am willing to support any reasonable readjustment of transportation costs which will enable us to ship our goods profitably through our own ports. I am willing to support any arrangement to that end, and the Crowsnest pass agreement comes under that head, and If our friends from the Maritime provinces will co-operate with us, and allow us to co-operate with them, to secure the minimum rates both ways to utilize our own ports, we are with them.


Robert Emmett Finn: In reply to my hon. friend's
statement regarding the Crowsnest pass agreement, reading the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, and reading the judgment of the Chief Railway Commissioner, I gather that the Crowsnest pass rates would be equitable if they applied eastward beyond a point in the province of Quebec, but there they halted, and the Maritime provinces do not enjoy those through rates. It was contended on the part of the Maritimes before the railway commission and before the Supreme Court of Canada that the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in arbitrarily cutting off those rates prevented the Maritime provinces from enjoying the through Crowsnest pass rate eastward the same as westward.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is it not a fact that from Goderich to Halifax there is a very much lower rate in existence to-day than the Crowsnest pass rate?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Robert Emmett Finn: On what commodity?


Milton Neil Campbell: On wheat or any grain.


Robert Emmett Finn: It is impossible to have a
cheaper rate from Goderich to Halifax because my hon. friends opposite are contending that no grain is or should be going through the latter port.


Milton Neil Campbell: No hon. gentleman in this section of the House made that contention. The hon. member is reading into the speeches of some hon. members here words that they never uttered.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I must ask this question: If the rate on grain from Goderich to Halifax is cheaper than the Crowsnest pass rate, why is it that grain has not been going through to St. John and Halifax for shipment abroad?


Milton Neil Campbell: If grain is not going there that is not the fault of hon. gentlemen in this section of the House. That is the very question the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) asked the minister. Surely that is a proper question. I see nothing sectional in it at all. The hon. member is not in a position to lecture us for being sectional when he, and most of his colleagues from the Maritime provinces, introduces the question of the Hudson Bay railway and damns it not with faint praise but in the most emphatic manner.


Robert Emmett Finn: All I do say is that from the time this question of building an elevator at Halifax was first mooted by myself two years ago, in the dying hours of the session when the morning light was coming through the prism glass, hon. gentlemen opposite-and they were not confined to the Progressive group; some of my hon. friends in the Conservative party who have since seen the light did the same-were taking exception to the building of an elevator at Halifax. They told us that it was impossible to put grain through the port of Halifax, that it was impossible to do anything for that port. We are not sectional in the east.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Robert Emmett Finn: No we are not. We can only
prosper in the east if the west develops. But the central parts of Canada must also develop. If my hon. friends opposite feel that the panacea for all the ills of Canada is free trade, or something approaching it, I do not agree with them. I agree that we must have a national policy, a policy that will take care of the great industrial centres of Canada; but it must be a moderate protection with the
object of protecting the market of the manufacturer as against outside competition but not to be added by him to the selling price of the goods manufactured. That is the policy 1 believe in, and I believe it is the one that will build up this country. I have never objected to the Crowsnest pass agreement.
I have always contended that it was a statutory agreement, and such being the case there was a moral obligation on the part of the government, and on the part of the courts and the railway commission, to carry it out. Now that the situation has been cleared up the duty devolves upon parliament to find out what is the best in the interests of the whole of Canada in regard to the equalization of freight rates. I say that the Crowsnest pass agreement is to western Canada what the assurances were, inferentially, and morally to the Maritime provinces when the Intercolonial railway was built, I think we may not be very far apart when the question comes up for discussion and decision. But I would not want any hon. gentleman opposite to think that I have any sectional feeling against the west, because on its great development and on its future the future of Canada as a great nation also depends. But it cannot be a great nation without its eastern and its western gateways; and if you close the eastern gateway and depend upon American ports there may come a time when they may not be open to you and then where will you be? You will be nowhere. I think that is a fair statement to make. I think that was the idea in the minds of the Fathers of Confederation in the building of the Intercolonial railway, the Canadian Pacific, and later in the mind of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he had the vision in the building of the Transcontinental railway, in order to connect the Maritime provinces with central Canada, the middle west and far away British Columbia. I should like to say before I sit down that I have no idea of being sectional; and any measure that will bring relief and development, and more contentment, happiness and population to our great western prairies will have my hearty support so long as I have the honour of a seat in this House.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am glad to have the assurance of the hon. member that there will be no sectional attitude adopted by himself, and I presume the same remark applies to his colleagues, towards some of the great problems awaiting solution in western Canada to-day. There may have been some sectionalism displayed in this quarter of the House, I do not deny it-

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Milton Neil Campbell: -but certainly it is in no way comparable to what we have heard from hon. members from the Maritime provinces. With regard to the Hudson Bay railway, which is vital to us in the west, the project was opposed not only in this chamber but we understand in the Liberal caucus. These things leak out and I have heard that statement. I have heard that we have been assailed in the Liberal caucus-*


George Perry Graham: Things that happen in caucus do leak out.


Milton Neil Campbell: In fact we were told that a year ago the minister had great difficulty in getting a small vote through the caucus. Now the hon. member (Mr. Finn) stated that in his part of the country they had to pay their share of an expenditure of two billions of dollars for constructing railways in the west. We are also paying our part of the loss incurred in operating the Intercolonial railway, but I am not complaining about it.


Robert Emmett Finn: Is that loss in any way comparable with the deficit in the western section of the Canadian National Railway system?


Milton Neil Campbell: The Intercolonial railway was built for strategical and military purposes; it was never intended to pay, and in all probability never will pay. Under the circumstances I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. friends from the Maritime provinces when they demand that that system should be taken from the control of the Canadian National Railways and operated directly by the Department of Railways and Canals.


Mr. LOVETT:: Digressing just for a
moment will the hon. member tell us something about the Progressive caucus?


Milton Neil Campbell: I think perhaps my
hon. friends over there know just about as much as I do about the Progressive caucus, and perhaps a little bit more. There has been some very close contact between the two. Dealing with the problem of the Intercolonial railway we in the west all recognize that a pledge was given in connection with the construction of that line, and there will be no sectionalism displayed in this quarter if the government ever attempts to redeem that pledge. Now, the question raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) was a perfectly proper one. We have a right to know what provision is being made for transportation when a large capital investment for the handling of our grain takes 
place at Halifax. I would have the hon. member remember this, and I think the minister pretty well bore it out to-night-that most of the interest on this capital investment is paid by the farmers of Canada. It is true that some of the interior elevators are not paying, and I do not think they were ever intended to pay. Interior elevators in the prairie provinces were built primarily to relieve the railway companies through a congested period, they were mot built particularly for the farmers at all, and if they are operating at a loss to-day I do not think the farmers should be blamed. Now, let me allude 'to another question and show why we raise this issue. Canada went to tremendous expense to build a railway from Winnipeg to the city of Quebec. That railway cost an enormous amount of money, and everybody says to-day its construction was a terrible blunder. Well, if the construction of the Transcontinental railway by the Laurier government was a blunder then I say it was a crime not to use it when it was built. That is one of our complaints in the west to-day. And why is that railway not being used? Because the rate over it is prohibitory; it is impossible for us to use that railway at all. And in addition we have expensive elevators and equipment at Quebec that are not being used. Instead of that we are sending 100 million, 150 million or 176 million bushels of grain out through American ports. From the remarks of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) one would think that the farmers of the west were responsible for that condition. But the fact of this immense volume of grain going out through American channels is one of the things we have been consistently complaining of every year since we have been sitting in this House. We want to see every bushel of it going through, Canadian channels, and I look with hope and pleasure to the day when a large volume of it will go through Halifax, We want to see Halifax and the Maritime provinces develop, and I was glad to hear the hon. member admit that the future of the Maritirnes, the future of central Canada and of the west, were bound up together. We believe to-day that one of the reasons that the eastern industries are not prospering and that so many thousands are out of work is largely because our farmers in the prairies are not able to purchase; and yet we see in eastern papers, and very often in Maritime papers, the suggestion that if cheap money is loaned to the farmers of the west the eastern people will have to pay for it. We see sectionalism in every comer. If we get money

Supply-Trade and Commerce
we expect to put up the securities that will enable us to pay for it.


Mr. POULIOT:: Does the hon. gentleman
think that if the Hudson Bay railway were completed it would be of very great use for military purposes?


Milton Neil Campbell: Did the hon. member
say for military purposes? If we thought it would be used for those purposes, we would not be pressing for it. We want it for commercial and not for military purposes. We are not looking for war with other countries.
I think the question of freight rates is a very vital one when an elevator is to be built, and I desire to urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce to try and induce his colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals to get a rate over the Transcontinental to Quebec, to enable the elevators and the equipment at that point to be utilized.


William Anderson Black: I am sure the
committee are quite thankful to the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) for the entertainment which he afforded us this evening. I look upon the elevator at Halifax as a move in the right direction, inasmuch as it indicates a willingness on the part of the management of the railway and the government to create a trade through a Canadian port. For many years Halifax has been clamouring for that through Canadian trade. In the early days, when the board of trade of Halifax worked towards that end, we were cut off by the Grand Trunk system at St. Rosalie; and whilst the Grand Trunk system did provide some grain, which they did not want for their own rails, and gave it to the Intercolonial at St. Rosalie, to be shipped to Halifax, still there was nothing but the grain and heavy traffic that could be obtained from the Grand Trunk, the remainder of the traffic being sent to American ports. Perhaps our western friends are not aware of the fact that grain passing through Winnipeg has to be transported less than two hundred miles greater distance to reach Halifax than to reach the American seaboard.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does the hon. gentleman mean the grain that passes through the city of Quebec over the Transcontinental by rail to Halifax?


William Anderson Black: Yes, the direct
line to the seaboard is less than two hundred miles greater to Halifax than to the American seaboard; and that is not a very serious obstacle in the transportation of grain. Furthermore, if the management of the railway take into consideration this traffic to and fro,
I see no reason why the products of the west cannot be taken to the Canadian seaboard, and the products of the east taken badk by those same trains. It would be aD interchange of traffic which I believe would be not only beneficial to the Maritime provinces but very beneficial to the whole of Canada.
I weis very glad indeed to hear my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Finn) express himself in regard to industry. We on this side of the House believe in protecting our industries, but not by high and unreasonable protection. I protest just now against the protection given to automobiles. It is beyond all reason that you can go across the line and buy a machine for half of what it costs when you have to buy it in Canada. That protection is not as it should be.
I believe firmly in a moderate protection. I think that in some cases the manufacturers have taken advantage of protection, and I suggest in such cases a commission or organization of some kind should be established to control that sort of thing, in order to give us the products of our factories at a reasonable price. But if we threw this country open to free trade we would become depopulated and would be nothing. It would almost mean going over to our friends to the south of us. WTe must have population, and we want to be a thriving people. We must have a prosperous people to feed1 and clothe, if we would improve our country. We can only get the people by giving work to workmen and establishing factories in every corner of Canada, thus keeping our people at home. I am quite in accord with the remarks of my hon. colleague from Halifax in that respect. That is the policy which I understand is accepted by my friends in this comer of the House.


Oliver Robert Gould: Could the hon. member tell the committee the ratio of the outgoing and incoming shipping tonnage at the port of Halifax at the present time?


William Anderson Black: I cannot give the exact tonnage, but I can confirm what my colleague stated, that the increase has been very large. The ships, with the exception of a few of the very large liners such as the Mauretania and the Olympic have been calling at Halifax, largely because of the immigration regulations in the United States. The tonnage of ships calling there has been very large, and it- has been of very great advantage to the port. Some of the vessels land cargoes and others simply land passengers. The increase of cargo landed at Halifax has been considerable. It was brought out, I think, at the time the delegation was

Supply-Trade and Commerce
in Ottawa that nearly one hundred per cent of the imports into Canada were coming in under the preference given to Canadian ports. This of course applies to Montreal and Quebec in summer and to St. John and Halifax in winter.


Oliver Robert Gould: The reason I asked the question was that if grain were to find its way down to the port of Halifax in larger amount than at the present time, it would naturally make the ratio of outgoing freight greater than the amount coming back. I think some hon. member in this chamber a few days ago commented on the fact that about eighty per cent of the cargo space was taken on boats leaving the port of Montreal going out, and about forty per cent of the space coming back. It was out of all proportion. If we are going to establish a condition like that at Halifax, for instance, outgoing boats there will have to carry the burden of transportation to the ultimate port. The incoming boats will not. Therefore, since the hon. member mentions the matter of tariffs-and I do not think Cobdenism should have been discussed under this particular item to-night
he will not mind if I make the comment that moderate tariffs have killed the industries in the Maritime provinces. On the other hand, if we increase the British preference, the return cargoes into the port of Halifax will help to pay the cost of transportation.


Robert Gardiner: I must apologize to the House for being responsible for the introduction of a second budget debate. I had thought, after twenty-four days of the budget, we would probably all be willing to forget it. I should like to say a word with regard to some of the remarks that the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) made regarding the question which I put to the minister. Personally, I should be very glad to see the day when most, if not all of our grain, would be going through Canadian ports, but, as has been stated before, the question is one of transportation. I put the question to the minister in order to try to ascertain if there was any possibility of getting our grain through the port of Halifax. If so, I am quite sure I would be only too willing to support such a move. The senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) read us quite a lecture. In fact I fel-t that I had been properly spanked. Under the circumstances, however,
I do not feel that I hold any grudge against him, but we must come down to the question of transportation rates, and that is the problem I should like the minister to explain to

the House before this vote passes. What is going to be done in the way of transportation rates that will in some measure give grain from western Canada an opportunity of going through the port of Halifax?


George Perry Graham: The only answer I have to make is that it can be routed through Halifax now and it will not cost a farthing more than it does to send it to Portland.


Alfred Speakman: Will it not cost the National Railways a farthing more?


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Alfred Speakman: I understood the National Railways and Canada were synonymous terms.


George Perry Graham: Yes, but the hon. member who asked the question knew all about that. He was not talking about the National Railways. In fact, there is a kind of penchant to put everything on the Canadian National Railways when you cannot find anything else to put it on. I agree with my hon. friend; he was right there, but nevertheless the rate to Halifax for a bushel of grain from Winnipeg is just as cheap as to Portland, and if hon. members will route it to Halifax, it will be carried.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister give any reason why it is not going that way?


George Perry Graham: One reason is, I suppose, that there has not been an elevator.


John Evans: I have listened to the two members for Halifax and I am not convinced yet as to the need for an elevator at that port, that is for the grain trade of the west. If the port of Halifax needs a grain elevator, the people there should build one, just as the people of Owen Sound are doing. Moreover,
I have information that the cost per bushel capacity of the transfer elevator at Owen Sound will not be much over one-fifth of what it is at Halifax. I should like to know from the Minister of Trade and Commerce why it costs so much more at one port than another.
Regarding the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals that it will not cost any more to carry a bushel of grain to Halifax than it does to Portland, the senior member for Halifax practically gave the case away when he said that he had some promise of the differential being abolished.


Robert Emmett Finn: It is abolished. This is no promise. We have it.


John Evans: Then the deficit on the Canadian National Railways will be that much greater?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Robert Emmett Finn: What about the Crowsnest
pass agreement?


John Evans: We are already hauling the coal of Nova Scotia into Ontario under a subsidy, and now the grain trade is to be saddled with a subsidy to haul our wheat to Halifax. We are overburdening an already overburdened industry when we are placing any extra cost of this kind that is not needed on the grain trade of western Canada.


Milton Neil Campbell: Following up the question asked by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), I should like to know how it is that the rail rate to Quebec is just about the same as the rail rate to Halifax. Why can we not get our grain to Halifax at the same mileage rate or something reasonably near it? Perhaps the Minister of Railways and Canals can explain that.


George Perry Graham: That is one of the things that I have been trying to find out for some weeks.


Milton Neil Campbell: Not years?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Rupert elevator, towards construction of, 1500,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the cost of this elevator?


Thomas Andrew Low: The contract has not been
awarded for the superstructure and we do not know what the exact cost will be. The contract has been awarded for the foundation and excavation at $222,000. Tenders have been called for the superstructure and they are due a week from to-day, the 11th May.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely the minister can give us an estimate of the cost.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is the practice of the department not to make public the estimate until after the contract has been awarded.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can we look with any assurance upon the estimate here? I do not know whether it is the practice to mislead in these estimates or not. I do not suppose it is. We have here an estimate for $500,000. Is that the whole amount?
Mr. LOW": No, there will be a further amount in the supplementary estimates. We never like to place in the main estimates, when the contract has not been awarded, anything more than we think will be necessary. As a rule we usually place a smaller amount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would think the committee had a right to get some idea of the expenditure we are being committed to. The
minister does not state what the expenditure is. The committee has a right to know the estimated cost of this work 'before it commences. What is the estimated cost?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have given the hon. member
my reason for withholding that until the contract has been awarded. The tenders will be opened a week from to-day. I have no objection to allowing the item to stand over, if my hon. friend so desires, and the tenders will have been opened when the estimate comes up again.
Item stands.
Commercial Intelligence service (including the salaries, travelling expenses, contingencies, and other expenditure of trade commissioners, assistant trade commissioners, junior trade commissioners and commercial agents: the travelling expenses of officials at Ottawa; the salaries of the temporary clerks at Ottawa: and miscellaneous expenses in connection with the development and extension of Canadian trade), $341,750.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister, under this item which is a very important one dealing with the whole question of commercial intelligence, be good enough to give to the committee the usual report or explanation of the items dealing with the general condition of trade, the progress being made in the expansion of Canadian trade through the agency of commissioners, and so on? I should like the minister particularly to give us some definite information regarding any progress made in the Fijian trade as well as expansion in our trade with Mexico. The minister will recall that an officer of the department, Mr. Waild, now resident in Mexico city as an officer of the Customs department, made in the autumn of 1921 a very careful investigation of trade conditions between Canada and Mexico. An excellent report was filed with the department and hopes were entertained of taking advantage of the good feeling existing in Mexico towards Canada in trade relations. I have for some years been hopeful that this trade would expand. Then there is the very interesting trip that was undertaken by my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Logan) to the West Indies, the government having had a laudable ambition to extend our trade in that part of the world. These are some specific items. There was also an opening for the expansion of trade to South American points, to the west coast as well as to other sections of that continent. I am sure it would be most interesting and informative to the House if the minister would give some idea of the results accruing during the last year from the services of the commercial intelligence branch.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: The annual trade returns speak louder than any comment I might make and they show a marked increase in export trade. The hon. member has referred to Fiji; we have no representative there. As regards the expansion of our trade in Mexico and South America, the results are all shown in fair detail in the monthly trade returns of the department. I am sorry I have not a copy with me to-night. With many hon. gentlemen, I agree that there are great possibilities in the West Indies and countries bordering on the Caribbean sea. It is a matter of dollars and cents entirely. We should like to spend more money in the expansion of our service, but unfortunately in these days of economy we cannot spend all that we should like. In reference to the work performed by our trade commissioners, we have received many letters in the department expressing appreciation of the services rendered. I am of the opinion that the money of the country is well spent in these services and I hope the day is not far distant when we shall be able to supplement the vote by a considerable amount. The vote is slightly larger than the amount asked for last year but not as large as I should like it to have been. However, it is as much as our financial condition will permit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The committee will appreciate the minister's response to my questions but it has not been fruitful of very much valuable information. I shall have to be more specific and put my questions one by one. First, has the minister any information regarding the extensive negotiations carried on between the government of Canada and the government of Fiji with reference to the development of trade to the Pacific ports of this country? Is there any definite and up to date information on that subject?


Thomas Andrew Low: Some months ago a representative from Fiji visited Ottawa in an endeavour to promote the banana trade, but for some reason he felt he was unable to compete with the United Fruit Company of the United States. The last I heard from him was that he was going over to New York to meet the representatives of that concern. That is the only information we have had in connection with the trade with the island of Fiji.
Mr. STEVENS >
That virtually means that nothing has been done. I recall the incident referred to by the minister; the representative of the island was discouraged by his reception in Canada and he then appealed to the United Fruit Company and a representative of the company went to Fiji. That I 
contend is an evidence of failure on the part of Canada. Now we do not want to get entangled particularly with the United Fruit Company. What the Fijians want is some steamship service between their island and Canada which will enable them to get their products into this country; and they are prepared in return to purchase generously from Canadian manufacturers of the goods they use there. I had a talk with Mr. Holds-worth, of the Canadian-Australian steamship line only a few months ago, when I happened to meet him casually in London, and I discussed the possibility of his line furnishing that service.


Thomas Andrew Low: His ships call at Fiji.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. The Fijian government suggested that a contract be entered into with the Furness-Withy Company to put on three or four-I think three-ships with suitable cold storage facilities to ply between Fiji and Vancouver. That matter remained in abeyance-I am not criticizing but merely stating facts-through the action of the government, in conjunction with the Canadian National Railways, the idea being that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine might undertake the service. The matter has drifted now for fully a year under these circumstances. I want to impress upon the minister the belief that Canada is losing very valuable trade. Australia has developed a banana and pineapple production, having heretofore obtained their supplies of these commodities from Fiji. So that Fiji is now left without its market for these things and [DOT] she is now looking to Canada for one. It would be to Canada's advantage to develop that trade and get our tropical fruits, bananas, pineapples and so on, as well as cane sugar and other products, from that island. It would be better to d'o that than to buy them through' the United1 Fruit Company of the United1 States. I had hqped, in the interests not only of the Pacific ports but of Canada at large; in the interests of the sale of our manufactured goods, that this trade wouldl be fostered and developed. I do not think it would require very much co-operation on the part of the -government of Canada to bring about a decided improvement in these conditions. If a year ago the Canadian Government Merchant Marine had decided not to touch it and Furness-Withy could have been given a free hand, they would have put their ships on and developed that trade. It is deplorable that this trade, not tremendous in extent but certainly very valuable, has been allowed to slip away from us; because that is

Supply-Trade and Commerce
virtually whait it means if what the minister states now is the case. The situation in Mexico is very much the same. Mexico was very much chagrined in connection with American traders and American trade, and was anxious to extend a good diea'll of that trade to Canada;, it was so stated to our representatives who were sent down there by the government of Canada. Yet nothing has been done to foster that trade. I am sorry the minister has not been able to give us some encouragement in this direction. If, as he states, these are the facts, and nothing has been done, then it does not speak very well for the expansion of Canadian trade. The minister refers to the excess of exports over imports last year. That is alii right, but it is not reaching out into those new markets which are close to Canada and which are likely to increase year by year if we foster them and take care of them. The excess of exports referred to by the minister was governed for the most part by the exceptionally large grain crop of 1923.


Thomas Andrew Low: I did not speak of the imports; I referred only to exports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was the increase of exports, and that was largely attributable to the abnormally heavy grain crop of 1923; in fact, the export ran into the midsummer of 1924. All that is very true, but I do deplore the failure to take advantage of this new business which was offered to us. In addition to that, there is the Australian business. Has the minister any information to give us with regard to Australian trade?


Thomas Andrew Low: As to the Australian agreement, that question has been answered almost every day of the last week by the Prime Minister. I have nothing further to add in that respect. With regard to trade with Fiji, it was the opinion of Sir Henry Thornton upon investigation that the business would not warrant the weekly service that was requested.


Arthur Meighen: If I remember correctly,
last year the minister passed some strictures on the Civil Service Commission for having a regulation that only university graduates could be appointed trade commissioners. Is the minister of the same view still-that this regulation is wrong?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am of exactly the same
opinion as I was at that time-that many good men who are not university graduates would make splendid' trade commissioners. But the regulation still stands.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say he has not himself approved of that regulation since?


Thomas Andrew Low: The regulation still remains.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a regulation at
all. The minister himself submits to the Civil Service Commission the qualifications he requires in an applicant. The reason the matter came up was that one of the many civil service advertisements that go out calling for applications for new positions reached my office, and I read the following:
Wanted, four junior trade commissioners, male, Department of Trade and Commerce. Salary $1,500 per annum if without business experience. Candidates who have had at least three years' business experience will receive a salary of $1,800 per annum. Qualifications required, graduation from a university of recognized standing on or before the date of examination. . .
There are other qualifications, but this is one essential-and this advertisement is dated March 23 of this year. How does the minister explain having these qualifications insisted on by his own department this year when last year he censured the Civil Service Commission because it had insisted on them?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am simply continuing the rule that was in force when I took over the department. I have not yet decided to change it.


Arthur Meighen: But the minister condemned the rule, and if he condemns it now why does he stay with it? He condemned the rule and condemned the commission; indeed he held them up to ridicule in this House. When I saw this advertisement I made inquiries to find out what was the matter. I knew the minister had endeavoured to make capital against the commission in this parliament for putting up what he called an absurd rule-that nobody but a university graduate could be a trade commissioner; and the information I got was that the minister's own department and his own deputy and the minister himself, had insisted on it. The minister cannot deny that right now.


Thomas Andrew Low: The Civil Service Commission drew that regulation in the first instance; I suppose my right hon. friend knows that.


Arthur Meighen: That has nothing to do
with it. I inquired because I recognized that this was wholly at variance with what the 'minister had said and my information was that it was submitted to the minister's department, and the minister's department themselves insisted on this qualification being inserted. Has the minister not an apology to make to the commission?



Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: It is not a question of insisting; it is a question simply of allowing it to remain.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the minister allow it to remain? The minister knows that all he has to do is to recommend an alteration and it goes into effect; he does not need to initial1 any qualification at all. This is his qualification. Now, if he has changed his mind and finds the commission right, is he not prepared to apologize for what he said a year ago?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no apology to make to
the commission. I am of the same opinion as I was last year, and I shall use practically the same words to express it again: I am of the opinion that many good men who are not university graduates would make splendid trade commissioners. But that regulation was there when I took over the department, and to date, I have not changed it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister cannot put
it that way. It is not a matter of simply not changing it; the minister has ratified it himself. The minister has ratified it in his department; so has his deputy. This matter was drawn to my attention by a man who came to ray office and complained that because of the war he had not been able to finish his university course, and he wanted to know if this was an ironclad regulation which would prevent his trying the examination. I made inquiry because I had heard the minister say he had no use for this regulation at all-for this qualification. It is not a regulation; it is a qualification.


Thomas Andrew Low: The right hon. gentleman says
I have no use for the regulation. I quite agree that a man with some business experience, although he is forty years of age would perhaps make a much better representative than the younger man with the university training.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point.
The qualifications demand a university education, and that is demanded at the instance of the minister. I had occasion to inquire because this man called upon me, and here is the minister himself insisting upon this qualification that last year he ridiculed in order to strike at the commission. That is the position the minister is in now. And not only this qualification but another one, where it was insisted the man should be thirty-five years of age. This was also held up to scorn, and now I see the minister insists upon it himself. What I cannot understand is why the minister does not stand up and say, these are proper

qualifications, because these qualifications are his own. What is here in this advertisement is with his own authority, for I had occasion to find out.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose my hon. friend knows that the age limit of thirty-five is laid down in the Civil Service Act.


Arthur Meighen: I do not like to dispute
a thing too positively until I know, but I do not think it is. Certainly the other qualification is not; that is the minister's own.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is right.


Mr. LOGAN:: I am not going to make
any extended remarks on this vote to-night, because there will be a vote in the sup-plementaries, I presume, which we can discuss at greater length. I desire to urge upon the minister that if he has the power to change that regulation in reference to a man being a university graduate and being under the age of thirty-two, I think it is, not thirty-five as the right hon. leader of the opposition stated-


Arthur Meighen: My own impression is
the act does not say anything about the age. It is thirty-five in the advertisement.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think it was thirty-two prior
to this year.


Arthur Meighen: When was the act
changed?


Thomas Andrew Low: The act was not changed at
all.


Arthur Meighen: The minister said it was in the act; I thought he was wrong.


Hance James Logan: I am glad three years have
been added on in the last year. I look upon the regulation that a man shall be a university graduate and not over thirty-five years of age to be a trade commissioner as the height of nonsense. I would rather have a man with experience in business whether he was fifty-five years of age


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member said he was glad the three years- had been added. That makes it worse according to his view. He must be thirty-five now.


George Perry Graham: He cannot be over thirty-five now.


Hance James Logan: I think that is the age limit. He cannot be over thirty-five. That is better than thirty-two. I think we had better have this matter cleared up before we take up the supplementary estimates, because the right hon. leader of the opposition says one thing

Supply-Trade and Commerce
and there is a statement to the contrary by the minister, and no one seems to be exactly sure about this matter. If the act required the age to be only thirty-two last year, it requires it to be the same age this year, because the act has not been changed since.


Arthur Meighen: I think even the minister will see he is wrong. There is nothing in the act at all of that kind; it is in his own advertisement. I will read it:
Qualifications: Graduation from a university of recognized standing on or before the date of examination; general familiarity with the resources and industries of the Dominion; preferably three years of business experience ; prepossessing personality; ability to exercise independent judgment, tact. Candidates must have been residents of Canada for at least fifteen years prior to the date of examination, and preference will be given to those who are not more than thirty-five years of age.
That surely disposes of the contention that there is anything in the act compelling them to be over or under thirty-five years.


George Perry Graham: The act says thirty-five years.


Arthur Meighen: That cannot be. This says' preference only will be given.


George Perry Graham: Then we have all been wrong for years past, because I have been telling every applicant that he could not get a position in the civil service if he was over thirty-five.


Arthur Meighen: I fancy that does not apply to this class of position.


Thomas Andrew Low: I must admit the leader of the opposition is usually right but on this occasion he happens to be mistaken. My deputy informs me that the age of thirty-five is the limit placed in the Civil Service Act.


Arthur Meighen: Does that apply to this
class of position?


Thomas Andrew Low: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: Then this advertisement is foolishness. It says.preference will be given to those who are under thirtydive, intimating clearly that those over thirty-five may be appointed.


Thomas Andrew Low: The commission drew the advertisement.


Arthur Meighen: They know the act all
right.


Hance James Logan: If I may continue my remarks, Mr. Chairman, it occurred to me when I heard the leader of the opposition reading that advertisement that a man must be a university graduate and have had three years
experience in business, and have a knowledge of Canada, and so forth, he was going to receive a wonderful income for all those qualifications-$1,500 a year. I believe the minister's desires are to get away from that restrictive qualification. The minister himself is a business man, and he knows there are many men in this country forty-five and fifty-five years of age who never saw the inside of a university who would make a much better trade commissioner than any callow youth with all the college medals on the earth pinned on him.


George Perry Graham: Extend the age a little
further.


Hance James Logan: It requires a man of personality, intelligence, with a knowledge, of business, and a knowledge of Canada, not a knowledge of higher mathematics or of the classics.
However as I said before, this matter will be discussed on the supplementary estimates, when I hoipe it will not be so near midnight as it is now, and when it is discussed I would like to make a few remarks and urge that many changes be made.
I only say to the minister now that I believe if the government will introduce a bill to take the trade commissioners of this country out of the Civil Service Act entirely, the same as is done with the officers of the Taxation department, this House and this country will be behind them. I believe this is one part of the government service where the commission should not make the appointments, because it is more a matter of personality, tact, and business experience than a knowledge of academic subjects that is required. In the trip which I made around the Caribbean sea, I found two trade commissioners, and in looking up the records I find that the total amount paid for all our Commercial Intelligence service to the West Indies and all the land surrounding that sea comes to $4,000 less than the amount paid for the same service at Milan, Italy. It is about the same as is paid in Calcutta. I think, therefore, we must come to the conclusion that we are not overpaying the men who are down in the West Indies. However, these matters can Ibe discussed at greater length on another occasion. I only rise now to state to the minister that I believe if he increased the vote for Commercial Intelligence manyfold this country would be behind him. When you travel throughout all these countries to the south and find in every town and almost every village, ia representative of the great American nation that is out for

Supply-Trade and Commerce
trade, whereas you can only find two Canadian trade commissioners in that vast territory you may make up your mind that we do not deserve to get very much of the business originating there. To my mind the matter of our export tirade is the great question before Canada to-day, particularly eastern Canada. They talk down in the Maritime provinces about building up industries by protection. Why, we have tried it for fifty years and we have failed. If you do not believe me, ask Mr. McCurdy. If you do not believe that gentleman, ask the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) after the speech he has made here to-night. Prosperity in eastern Canada depends upon export trade. However, I am getting drawn into another wide subject and I will not further continue along that line. Let me urge upon the minister that when he brings down his supplementary estimates he will increase the vote for this service, because it is of the most supreme importance. I am afraid the policy we are now carrying on is a good deal of a cheese-paring policy. Economy is a great thing, but a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy is not good for the export trade of this or any other country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers Civil Re-Establishment-salaries, $21,500.
Arthur Meighen: How late does the minister want to keep the House to-night? He got a lot of business through to-day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this the first vote to
this department?
Mr. RE'LAND: It is, yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We should get started
it seems.


Leonard Thomas Bland: This is a very small item.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the vote carry.


Arthur Meighen: This is something that
has been objected to always, this sliding from the estimates of one department into those of another. The intention of the act is that each department shall foe gone into separately so that if necessary a motion referring to it may foe made before the estimates are taken up. That cannot be done if the minister slides into his estimates in this way. In saying that I do not intend any special reflection as respecting hiis department. I think the government ought to be satisfied with the very large amount of business put through to-day, especially in view of the eleven o'clock adjournment.


Leonard Thomas Bland: My right hon. friend is aware, that this has been done before.


Arthur Meighen: Always under protest.


Leonard Thomas Bland: In one case an item was considered in the evening for the fin t time some weeks ago, and we have now i cached a much later period of the session. Of course I do not insist at all; if my right hon friend says that we cannot get this vote to-night we shall have to go into committee some other day.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall I report progress on this resolution?


Arthur Meighen: No, on the previous
resolution.


George Newcombe Gordon: This item, No. 36,
stands.


Arthur Meighen: Not called.
Department of Trade and Commerce-culling timber, annuity for one superannuated culler, $200.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder what
the idea is in calling this item to-night at this hour? Perhaps it is because the minister thinks that nothing more can be said on his estimates? I do not know whether he is going to make any plea for economy under this item. The minister has been talking about economy, and1 before closing for the night I am going to give him one or two facts arising out of his estimates. Instead of bringing about economy these estimates represent a substantial increase over the estimates of 1921-22, over the estimates that the government delights in pointing out were such high estimates, such tremendous estimates, estimates representing such tremendous extravagance as to justify the Prime Minister making the remarks that he did. The estimates for this department for 1921-22 amounted to $3,727,333. Now the estimates this year, and we are told there are going to be supplementaries, involve an increase of $214,472. The estimates for 1921-22, included an increase for the purposes of the Dominion census, which amounted to $1,620,000, so that we have in the exercise of this wonderful economy this year in connection with this one department an increase of $1,834,472 over the estimates of 1921-22 which this government have described as extravagant. I would suggest that during the adjournment my hon. friend consider these figures, that he read with some profit and turn to some use the speech of his right hon. leader in connection with the former government, and see if he cannot get down to the level of the former

Supply-Trade and Commerce
government's extravagance instead of exceeding it by $1,800,000 odd dollars.
Mr. .LOW: My hon. friend suggests that I carry these figures away with me over night. It is cjilite unnecessary for me to take any time inf doing that or in answering him. My hon. fnend says that (the expenditure in 1921-22 was a million dollars less than in 192324. Was that his contention?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I did not
say that at all.


Thomas Andrew Low: Well a million dollars less than some year.


Arthur Meighen: Than this year.


Thomas Andrew Low: All right, than this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was $1,800,-
000 odd having regard to the vote for the census.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes but not having regard to
the building of an elevator at a cost of about a million and a half of dollars. That amount is included in the estimates of last year and this year. Included also are amounts for the Halifax and Prince Rupert elevators.


Arthur Meighen: But the census is called
for by the constitution; the Halifax and Prince Rupert elevators are not.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, but the elevators are a
necessity as my right hon. friend has said.


Arthur Meighen: A necessity for the government.


Thomas Andrew Low: So I think that if my hon.
friend will carry these figures away with him he will come to a different conclusion. If he considers the amounts that have been placed in the estimates this year for the Halifax and Prince Rupert elevators he will find that
they exceed the amount placed in the estimates of 1921-22 for the census by from two hundred to three hundred thousand dollars. Last year also there was a vote for an elevator at Edmonton, but no provision was made for elevators in the years my hon. friend speaks of.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When I asked
my hon. friend to take these figures away I meant it. He is wrong-absolutely entirely and, I am afraid, incurably wrong. He tells us that the expenditure on elevators, one at Halifax and one at Prince Rupert, is greater than the whole amount of the increase in connection with the census-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am sure my hon.
friend will excuse me if I rise to a point of order, but item 365 has been called, which provides $200 for an annuity for one superannuated culler. Now as I understand the rules of the House the discussion must be directed to the item under consideration and these general remarks about the whole of the items are not, I respectfully and almost affectionately submit, in order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I agree with the hon.
member for Brome.


Arthur Meighen: I think that when the
hon. member for Brome becomes so anxious to get away from the economy issue we ought to yield if possible. I would be willing to let the minister have this $200 and give $200 to the member for Brome rather than sit here all night.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Low the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.