1911-02-13

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ON PASSENGER VESSELS.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 116) to amend the Telegraphs Act. He said: The purpose of this amendment is to require that all passenger vessels shall be equipped with wireless telegraph apparatus. Every one knows of accidents which have happened, and which might have been avoided if the vessels had been so equipped. In this Bill we provide that all vessels carrying more than fifty passengers, except those plying between ports not more than 200 miles distant from each other, must have the wireless equipment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and-Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN STANFIELD (Colchester), moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 117) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last, when I moved the resolution on which this Bill is based, I explained the object of the measure. It is for the purpose of compelling millers and packers to stamp the weight on each bag containing flour or meal, the term meal including rye meal, oatmeal and cornmeal. The Act at present does not make provision for the sale of flour or meal by the bag.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 115) to incorporate The Guardian Accident and Guarantee Company.- Mr. Doherty.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 32) to incorporate the Security Trusts Corporation.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: I would ask that this Bill be allowed to stand in the absence of the hon. member for Regina. The only question between us is as to the name, upon which we have not decided yet.


Mr. FIELDING.: There was another clause the subject of some consideration, and the Minister of Public Works suggested an amendment which it was thought would deal more satisfactorily with the question of the relative rights of the province and the Dominion. The Minister of Justice decided that on the whole that amendment might safely be adopted. Otherwise the only question is as to the title of the Bill, and I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg that in the absence of the hon. member in charge of the Bill, it had better stand over.
Progress reported.



MONTREAL PARK AND ISLAND RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 45) respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.-Mr. Ecrement.
Mr. BELAND.: I would like this Bill to stand until to-morrow or Friday.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 69) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
On section 2, lines of railway authorized to be constructed,
Mr. SPROULE.: Are we to understand that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) is still determined not to make provision that a certain expenditure shall be made? He intimated in committee that that was his determination. Does he adhere to it?


Mr. GRAHAM.: I pointed out that this is the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, with a very large capital stock of which a good deal more than 15 per cent has been expended in various undertakings. and that the usual clause calling for the expenditure of 15 per cent of the capital stock within a given time does not really apply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose that means that they can run on as they like, and if, at the end of five years, they have not completed these branches they can come for a renewal of their franchise.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I would like to see this line run to Georgetown also, an important town in the county. The railway

is running to nearly everywhere else, and I do not see why Georgetown should be left out.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Geoffrion).: I understand that notice has to be given of such an amendment.


David Henderson: How could I give notice when I did not know what was in the Bill? This road is to pass through Acton and Brampton, and it might be said that it would necessarily pass through Georgetown, unless it veers too much to the north or to the south, but there is no harm in making it clear. As to irregularity, I think the whole thing is a little irregular. I move that ' Georgetown ' be added after ' Acton.'


The CHAIRMAN.: I think I shall have to rule that out.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: If the committee agree to it unanimously, can it not be done?


David Henderson: I think the committee is unanimous; nobody will ob.ieet.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I understand that this cannot be done in Committee of the Whole. In order to be regular notice must be given.


Mr. NESBITT.: I have no objection to the addition, but I do not wish to have the passage of the Bill endangered.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I would point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) that it would be absolutely irregular, in the case of a private Bill, to make an amendment of which notice has not been given. We may be unanimous on the subject here, but there may be parties outside whose interests would be affected and who would object. The hon. gentleman might move that the committee rise and report progress, and then notice could be given before the Bill comes up again.


David Henderson: I know that it would be irregular, but we sometimes do things that are irregular-


Wilfrid Laurier: Not in private Bills.


David Henderson: I do not wish to impede the progress of the Bill, or I would move that progress be reported. Perhaps, on the third reading, there might be opportunity to insert the word.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: May I ask the Minister of Railways to explain more definitely how this line is to run in *western Ontario? The Bill says:
From a point on its authorized line at or within ten miles east of Toronto westerly passing near or through Toronto, Hamilton and London to a point on the Detroit river Mr. HENDERSON
at or near Windsor, with a branch from London to St. Thomas and also from London to a point on the St. Clair river at or near Sarnia.
Is it contemplated that the line should run through Petrolia or north of the main line of the Grand Trunk?


George Perry Graham: I imagine, from the general direction, it would not touch Petrolia. I think the general direction would have to be shown in the plans of the company to be approved. Generally speaking, unless certain points are mentioned -which would allow the road to deviate, it would go in a pretty direct line. I think, taking these points described by my hon. friend, the line would not touch Petrolia.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As the main line of the Grand Trunk railway runs within about five miles of Petrolia, passing from Sarnia to London, possibly the branch line would touch Petrolia.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: More than likely.
On section 3,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This allows the company to raise on securities $40,000 a mile instead of $25,000, which it formerly had authority to raise.


George Perry Graham: This line passes through an old settled country, and the right of way through this country costs so much more than it would through a new country, where the right of way practically costs nothing, we thought it proper to allow them to raise $40,000 per mile.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The company shall not construct or operate its railway along any highway, street or other public place without first obtaining the consent expressed by by-law of the municipality having jurisdiction over said highway, street or other public place, and upon terms to he agreed upon with such municipality.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: I object to that amendment. I think the Canadian Northern railway should be placed under the same jurisdiction and under the same terms generally as the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway. These are the three great trunk lines of the country, and I think they should all be under the terms of the General Railway Act. The Canadian Pacific railway has its main charter and a great many branch lines charters; the Grand Trunk railway has its main charter and the Grand Trunk Pacific branch lines charter, and so has the Canadian Northern railway, all now under the General Railway Act, which provides that they should only go across or along a highway on obtaining the consent and approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is true that in the last three or four years we have inserted in

new -charters the clause which has been moved by my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), that is, that they -shall not go along or across a highway without the consent of the municipality, and upon terms to be agreed upon with the municipality. Now this is creating a discrimination against the Canadian Northern railway, if this term is imposed on this charter, and I think we would do well to leave it under the Railway Act where the other great railway corporations are. It might be that some municipality through which it passes would have power absolutely to block the road by refusing its consent. I think we can trust the matter in the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners, -and for that reason this amendment should not be added to the Bill. If it were a new charter and a new company, then this argument might apply. But this road was largely constructed before we ever placed this clause in Bills which apply to trunk lines.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have no objection, so far as I am concerned, to leaving it to the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is a clause we have usually inserted in all the Bills that now come before the committee. I think it is a perfectly legitimate clause. The fact that it is not in the Grand Trunk railway or the Canadian Northern railway charters does not make any difference to me. If they came up for a charter now, so far as I am concerned, 1 would advocate putting it in their charter, and on the same principle as I advocate this. This railway proposes to pass through all the older settled sections of Ontario, and I do not think that any railway should have a right, even with the consent of the Railway Board, to go along a road in a municipality without its consent. It is not crossing a highway, it is merely going along a highway. The clause inserted there does not say crossing a highway, it simply says going along a highway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that amendment should be withdrawn. We have been in the habit of putting it in all other Bills we have given of late years. Because the Canadian Northern Railway Company had its original charter before we commenced this practice is to me n-o strong reason why we should now treat it differently from the way we have treated others when giving them charters to build railways. It applies to a section of country where it is equally desirable that the municipal corporation should have some control, and something to say as to what shall be done with their highways, as it would with reference to a new corporation to which we give that power. Consequently there is just as strong a reason why it should be in this Bill as in any other Bill we give, and I see no reason why the Canadian Northern railway should be exempt from it any more than any other company
who are asking for incorporation. I think it is a very proper one. I would be inclined to control them in that way, but when they propose to go along the highways or public places, the municipality should have something to say as to where the railway shall go and upon what terms.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think the clause a bad one, but I think it ought to be in the Railway Act-, and not in particular charters. This is not a new charter, but application for the renewal of an old one, which did not contain any such clause. I think, therefore it would be a hardship to insert that in the old charter. When a charter was before us a few weeks ago for a Grand Trunk Pacific branch, we did not insert any such provision.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: There is another objection which I think is serious against this proposed amendment. Under the municipal Act of Ontario, I understand, a municipality can only give a railway company a franchise for a period of 20 or 25 years. This would consequently limit the right of this road to run over a municipal roadway for that short period of time. Bonds issued upon a railway, usually extend for 30 or 40 years. Anybody who knows anything of this question, will know that it is impossible for a railway company to issue bonds over a piece of road on which it has no right to run except during a period of 25 years. For that reason, since this is an old charter, it would be just as well to let it through; but, in any new charter, a clause such as this, might seem to be advisable.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think what my hon. friend refers to are corporations or railways, such as electric roads, which come under the Provincial, and not under the Dominion Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not aware that there was any such provision in the Ontario Municipal Act, and I am inclined to think that my hon. friend may not, be exactly correct. That would be a serious objection, but I have never understood the Ontario Act to apply in that way. I want to say a word with regard to a suggestion made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), that this is a clause which should be in the General Railway Act. That is an objection which comes to us whenever we propose to insert something new in the charter of any railway company seeking incorporation; but we have almost invariably decided that until these things are in some general Act, we should put them into the special Acts we enact. Parliament has deemed it wise to insert such provisions in special Acts and to continue doing so until such time as they are incorporated in a general Act. With re-

gard to this Bill, the hon. member says that if this were a new charter he would favour this amendment. I cannot appreciate the distinction. We are asked to give the company power to build these new branches, and are giving it new rights just as we would in the case of a new charter. We are not seeking to deprive the. company of any of the rights it possesses under its original charter; but when it asks the right to construct other lines, we are only doing our duty if we impose such conditions as we think ought to apply to the case of any new railway.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am perfectly willing to withdraw the amendment, if the committee thinks it is better that it should go into the general railway Act.
Amendment withdrawn, Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on (Bill 62) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
George Perry Graham: On Friday evening, I understand, a question was put as to the knowledge of those affected, concerning section 3. As a matter of fact, in the railway committee this question was asked, and the gentleman who represented this company assured the committee and myself that those who will be affected^have unanimously given their consent.


Hugh Guthrie: We have the authorized record there.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: It was I who asked the question, and I am entirely satisfied with the statement that my hon. colleague makes, in regard to the matter.
On section 3,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are all interests safeguarded by this provision?


George Perry Graham: Before this Bill came to the committee the gentlemen representing this company came to see me and convinced me that in this particular instance every interest was safeguarded. Those particularly affected agreed to this clause being inserted in the Act, and also before the committee, they submitted their record to show that the agreement had taken place. I considered it pretty fully, and I came to the conclusion that there was nothing at all in this to affect any persons but those who had given their consent to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the only question involved.
On section 4,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Morley Currie: Does not this clause give the right to issue bonds before the railway is constructed, or whenever it is under contract? I do not think that we usually do that.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARVELL moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 9) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act be read the second time and agreed to.
David Henderson: Would the hon. gentleman explain the amendments?


Mr. CARVELL.: It is only a difference in the phraseology of the clause. The clause as it passed this House, stated that:
When potatoes are sold or offered for sale by the barrel the barrel shall contain 160 pounds.
The Senate were afraid that this might penalize a farmer who sold a little less than 160 pounds by mistake. They therefore changed the clause to read:
When potatoes are sold or offered for sale by the barrel the barrel shall mean 160 pounds of potatoes.


Mr. FOSTER.: That is a funny meaning for a barrel. We might say that a barrel means 100 pounds of apples.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think it is, but I do not like the phraseology and yet it really accomplishes what I am after in the result.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think any judge would allow that at all. What do you think?


Morley Currie: Was this Bill introduced by resolution? I raise the point that it must be introduced by resolution as the whole matter deals with trade.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is a public Bill introduced in the ordinary way, was not introduced by resolution, and I do not think it is necessary.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I understand that, according to the custom of this House, it is too late to raise the point now. The Bill has been passed and sent to the Senate.


Morley Currie: The Bill has been referred to the Senate, amended by the Senate and comes back to this House. The House is asked to read these amendments the sjcond time. I hold that the Bill has not been finally committed to the House until the amendments get their second reading. If there had been no amendment made by the Senate it would be all right, but I raise the question now even on these amendments, and I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that the Bill is not before the House, that the only question before the House is that of the amendments made by the Senate.


Morley Currie: I raise the ques tion on the amendments.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The point cannot be taken on that question.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any citation that can be made as to the custom of the House in that respect?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: We can allow the ques tion to stand until to-morrow, if necessary.


George Eulas Foster: I think that would be better.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The motion for the second reading of the amendments will stand until to-morrow.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR.


Mr. WALLACE.: I beg to call the attention of the House to the following statement which I find on page 1 of the Toronto ' Daily Star ' of Saturday, February 11:
When the government's majority was reduced to 26 on Thursday, on Mr. Monk's amendment, regretting that time had not been given to consider the effect of reciprocity before the agreement had been reached, a large number of Liberal members were away from the House. Perhaps a few of these had not yet made up their minds as to the way they should vote on the general question, but others were away because no division was expected. Perhaps it may indicate Bourassa's influence, or it may be but a coincidence that of the 23 members who did not vote, nor were paired, 15 were from Quebec. Of the total, 18 happened to be Roman Catholics, and three were Conservatives-T. G. Wallace, M.P., Jos. Girard (Ind. Con.), and W. F. Maclean. Hon. Clifford Sifton was also absent. In spite of Mr. German's attitude toward reciprocity, as expressed at Niagara, he voted against Mr. Monk's motion. Had every member of the Commons voted, the result would probably have been 116 to 75, or a Liberal majority of 41.
List of Non-Voters.
Here is the list of those who did not vote:
A. M. Beauparlant, St. Hyacintlie, Que.
Albert Champagne, Battleford, Sask.
E. B. Devlin, Wright, Que.
J. A. Dubeau, Joliette, Que.
Jos Girard (Ind. Con.), Chicoutimi, Que.
J. E. O'Gladu, Yamaska, Que.
D.	A. Lafortune, Montcalm, Que.
Ernest Lapointe, Kamouraska, Que.
W. F. Maclean (Con.), Toronto, Ont.
D. H. McAllister, King's and Albert, N.B.
J. A. McMillan, Glengarry, Ont.
L. J. Papineau, Beauharnois, Que.
George Parent, Montmorency, Que.
L. A. A. Rivet, Hochelaga, Que.
D. C. Ross, W. Middlesex, Ont.
Ernest Roy, Dorchester, Que.
F. T. Savoie, Megantic, Que.
P. A. Seguin, L'Asomption, Que.
Hon. Clifford Sifton, Brandon, Man.
0.	E. Talbot, Bellechasse, Que.
E.	W. Tobin, Richmond and Wolfe, Que.
T. G. Wallace (Con.), York Centre, Ont.
C. A. Wilson, Laval, Que.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, with reference to this article, that I was present here at that vote on Thursday afternoon, and I voted for the amendment. I wish to bring that to your attention as I do not wash it to go to my constituents that I did not vote on that occasion when such is not the fact.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. ECREMENT :: Has the document intituled, ' Papers relating to commercial relations between Canada and foreign countries,' been translated into French? If so, has it been distributed?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a matter over which the House, and not the government has control.


SASKATCHEWAN SCHOOL LANDS.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. LAKE :
What decision has the government arrival at, and what action has it taken in response to the request of the Premier of Saskatchewan, that the full control of administration of the school lands in that province be given to the provincial authorities, under such restrictions as may be deemed necessary to perpetuate and safeguard the trust established by the Dominion Lands Act?
Wilfrid Laurier: No action has been taken by the government in this matter.


SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA LANDS.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. LAKE :
Has there been any correspondence between this government or any member thereof, and the provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, or either of them, or any of their members, in reference to securing control by such provincial governments of the lands, timber, water-powers, coal and other minerals, or any of the natural resources which exist within the respective boundaries of said provinces, other than school lands? If so, will the government cause copies to be laid upon the table of the House?
Wilfrid Laurier: I do not remember at the moment what correspondence there may be, but if the hon. gentleman will let. the notice stand as a motion for a return we will bring down what correspondence wTe have.


FRASER RIVER MAIL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster) :
1.	Has the Postmaster General received any application for or suggestion looking to the establishment of mail service to points south of the Fraser river by means of the recently established electric railway service?
2.	If so, have any reports been made by officers of the department, and to what effect?
Mr. LEMIEUX :: 1.	Yes, communications in the matter were received from the Boards of Trade at Chilliwack and Cloverdale, B.C.
2.	A report was made recommending the use for mail purposes of the British Columbia Electric railway between New Westminster and Chilliwack and intermediate points, and the petition was favourably considered and instructions issued by the department to put the service into effect. It is not customary to bring down a report unless a motion is made.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
Mr. ECREMENT :: 1.	Is the government aware that the Royal Commission on Industrial Training is now said to be pursuing its inquiry in the province of Quebec?
2.	Is it informed that the official stenographer attached to the commission is incapable of taking the depositions of witnesses in French ?
3.	Have serious complaints been made to the commissioner, Gaspard de Gerres, on this subject?
4.	If so, is it his intention to remedy this state of things?


Mr. KING :: When I saw the notice of this question I asked the deputy minister to communicate with Professor Robertson, chairman of the commission. The following telegram has been received from him.
Joliette, February 10, 1911.
F.	A. Aeland,
Deputy Minister Labour,
Ottawa.
Commission has had competent translators or interpreter. Satisfactory reports of all testimony are being made. Witnesses have always been given option of speaking French or English. Commission has competent French stenographer in attendance here. Commissioner DeGerres has received only one complaint on this subject; that occasion was in September when translator was late in attendance at one session.


JAS. W. ROBERTSON.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster) :
1.	Did Edwin Vincent Bellerose make application on June 21, 1906, for NI of S.E. I section 19, township 22, New Westminster district ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 2.	Did applicant make the statement that his father, George Bellerose, was willing to give up land above described?
3.	Was the willingness on the part of George Bellerose acknowledged in the reply to Edwin Vincent Bellerose?
4.	If so, did the acknowledgment imply knowledge on the part of the government or its official of application by George Bellerose for the land in question?
5.	What disposition has been made of the application by Edwin Vincent Bellerose, and if not yet disposed of, will it be dealt with before the regulations in force when it was made are abrogated?


Mr. MURPHY :: 1.	No application is on record here by Edwin Vincent Bellerose on the 21st June, 1806, or any other date for the north i of southeast i, section 19, township 22, New Westminster district. There may be information concerning this in the Dominion Land Agency at New Westminster.
2.	Not known here.
3 and 4. No reply was sent from department.
5.	It is understood according to information on file that Edwin Vincent Bellerose is claiming the north i of the south i 19 and also legal subdivisions 4 and 5 of section 20. It is further understood that Edwin Vincent Bellerose has a house worth about $150 on said legal subdivision 4 probably outside the line of the timber berth.
The greater part of the legal subdivisions 4 and 5 is in timber berth 55 and contains about 5,000 ft. of merchantable timber, board measure, to the acre. The department would not have the power to grant an entry for the Land claimed in the timber berth either under the old regulations or the new regulations.


TRANSFERS FROM CANADIAN REGISTER.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. CROSBY :
1.	How many vessels have been transferred from the Canadian register to Newfoundland within the last two years, and how many vessels have been transferred from Newfoundland to Canadian register, within the last two years, and what are the names of the vessels transferred from Newfoundland to Canada ?
Mr. BRODEUR :: Twenty-four vessels have been transferred from the Canadian register to Newfoundland within the last two years.
The following seven vessels have been transferred from Newfoundland to the Canadian register within the last two years:
' Olinda,' ' Muriel,' ' Mildred,' ' Dorothy Duff,' ' Nina L,' ' Falken,' ' Crissie C. Thomey.'
This information is for the calendar years 1909 and 1910.


Morley Currie: Are these foreign or British built vessels? That makes a difference in the collection of duties, and I

understand there is a gateway there where they can walk through the Customs Act. I thought that registry had been stopped.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no information as to that.


OWL'S HEAD HARBOUR.
Mr. CROSBY:: Has a petition from the people of Owl's Head, Halifax county, asking that a light be placed at the mouth of Owl's Head harbour been received by the honourable the Minister of Marine and Fisheries? If so, what is the intention of the Marine and Fisheries Department with regard to same and when may they expect to have a light placed there? '


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. The prayer of the petition was favourably considered by the Lighthouse Board at a meeting held November 10, 1910, and approved by order in council of December 22,	1910. Arrangements are
being made to erect this lighthouse during the coming season. [DOT]


FISHERY REGULATIONS-INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION.
*Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: 1.	With respect to the regulations to be framed by International Commissioners under the treaty of April 11, 1908, between Great Britain and the United States, did the two governments engage to put into operation and to enforce by legislation, these regulations with as little delay as possible?
2.	Did the commissioners agree or was it recommended by any commissioner, to either government, that the regulations should take effect on January 1, 1911?
< ii' ^ as '' agreed by the commissioners that no amendments shall be proposed at the present time, and that the system of regulations as presented on May 31, 1909, shall be allowed to take their course?
4. Have the regulations been put into effect, by legislation or otherwise, by Great Britain or by the United States?
6.	Have both governments observed the agreement noted in question 3? If not, which government has proposed amendments?
C. Has the delay been caused bv the hearing at Washington of interests affected by the provisions of the regulations? If so, has opportunity been given to Canadian interests to suggest or to influence changes in the regulations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The first paragraph of article 3 of the tieatv reads:	'The two governments
engaged to put into operation and to enforce by legislation and executive action with as little delay as possible, the provisions with appropriate penalties for all breaches thereof; and the date when they shall be put into operation shall be fixed by the concurrent proclamation of the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada
in Council and of the President of the United States.
2,	3, 5. The commissioners having made the regulations it is contended by the government that no changes can be made before the regulations have been put in force.
Reference to Sessional Paper No. 105, 9-10 Edward 'VII., which contains the regulations recommended by the commission, will show that the commissioners recommended that four regulations should become effective on January 1, 1911; but as to all the other regulations no date as to their coining into force was specified.
4, 6. Great Britain was not obliged by the treaty to pass any legislation" The United States authorities have not yet passed the necessary legislation.


BANKERS' ASSOCIATION.
Mr. LOW:: 1.	Is tlie government aware of any arrangement or agreement made or existing between banks composing the Bankers' Association whereby it is arranged they are not to compete or are to withdraw from competition for business in certain towns and are not to establish agencies or withdraw agencies when established, so as to avoid competition?
2.	If the government is not aware of this, will they take steps to ascertain the facts so as to deal with conditions before the Bank Act is discussed?


Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	The government have no information as to any such agreement.
2.	The Bankers' Association will no doubt be represented before the Committee on Banking and Commerce when the revision of the Bank Act is under consideration, and there will thus be an opportunity to inquire into the matter before the Act is passed.


TORONTO MAIL COLLECTORS.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Does the government collect the mails from the various boxes and branch offices in Toronto under contract for their collection, or by the services of collectors employed by and immediately under the government?
2.	Wliat number of hours per day do these collectors work, and do they work on Sundays and holidays?
3.	Wliat is the average wage paid to such collectors ?
4.	If this work is let by contract, is the fair wage clause inserted in such contract, and wliat supervision does the government exercise, if any, with regard to the hours of labour?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	This work is done partially under contract and partially by foot collectors employed by and immediately under the. control of the department.

2.	The collectors employed by the department are divided into two staffs, those who collect during the day and those who collect at night, 5 p.m. to 12 p.m. The former work eight hours per day and the latter seven.
These men do not work either on Sundays or on holidays.
3.	The wages paid to the men now employed in doing this work ranges from $2.25 per day to $2.75 per day, the average rate of wages paid being $2.60 per day.
4.	This service is at present being operated under a temporary agreement, but specifications are now in course of preparation and public tenders will be invited in the very near future for a new contract in which the interests of labour will be safeguarded.


GRAND TRUNK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar):: In a return brought down on 1st February, 1909, regarding the Grand Trunk Development Company, which states that there has been given, permission to buy from the homesteader thereof certain unpatented homestead lands, upon payment of $1 per acre to the government, in addition to the amount paid to the said homesteader, besides this sum of $1 per acre, does the government reserve any interests in the lands or profits out of the sale of such lands?


Mr. OLIVER.: No.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES SINCE CONFEDERATION.
Mr. GILBERT:: What is the total amount appropriated to railways since confederation ?


George Perry Graham: The total amount paid in cash subsidies to railways in Canada by the Department of Railways end Canals, from confederation to date, is $607,776,853.50.


MILITIA EXPENDITURES SINCE CONFEDERATION.
Arthur Gilbert: What is the total amount expended for the militia since confederation?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: The expenditure by the Militia Department totals $83,193,389.47.
This does not include the following expenditure :
Northwest rebellion, 1884-5 ....$1,697,851.52 Contributions to British government towards maintenance of garrison at Esquimalt, between the years 1889 and
1906	 1,237,208.00
South African war and Halifax provisional garrison, years
1899-1900 and 1901	 2,826,608.99


Mr. LEMIEUX.: 


ST. LAWRENCE POWER COMPANY.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	What have been the annual payments' to the St. Lawrence Power Company since the first year to the present time for supplying light and power respectively?
2.	What has been the amount of traffic annually through the old Cornwall canal since 1901?


George Perry Graham: Light. Energy.
1904	$17,337	15	$ 6,444	031905	
22,518	14	20,886	261906	
21,887	10	25,199	601907	
21,863	40	25,400	561908	
21,820	13	25,268	641909	
21,499	80	24,785	361910	
21,891	60	25,199	71


$148,817 32 $153,184 16 SUMMARY.
[Stage Direction]
Lighting	$148,817 32
Energy	 153,184 16
Total.. ..		$302,001 48
2. The traffic through old Cornwall canal has not been kept by the Department of Railways and Canals separate from the new canal. The department is unable to give the traffic separately.

Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: 1.	Did the Post Office Department receive during last year a petition nominating a postmaster and suggesting a location for the post office of Hall's Prairie, B.C., consequent on the resignation of Mr. Alcock, the former postmaster ?
2.	If so, how many signatures were attached to said petition, and what action was taken with respect to it?
3.	Were any representations made to the inspector for the district conflicting with the prayer of the petitioners? If so, by whom and to what effect?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Eighty-one signatures. Before the receipt of this petition, recommending that the office be given to a Mr. Bamford, the department had already appointed Mr. A. J. Peschke to the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Alcock. Inquiry was, however, made as to the suggestion of the petitioners, and the official investigation showed that the site proposed by the petitioners would bring the office within half a mile of the Hazelmere post office, whereas by locating the office at Mr. Peschke's the Hazelmere and Hall's Prairie offices are one mile and three-quarters apart. The post office inspector was, moreover, strongly of opinion that the location of the Hall's Prairie office at Mr. Peschke's residence, placed it in the most thickly populated portion of the neighbourhood.

3.	Yes; a communication was received by the inspector objecting strongly to the office being located at Mr. Bamford's on the ground that the location of the oflice at a point so close to the Hazelmere post office would operate inconveniently to some twenty families, who would be better accommodated by the office being placed at the residence of Mr. Peschke.


VANCOUVER DRY DOCK SUBSIDY.
Mr. RHODES:: 1.	What is the nature of the subsidy granted to the Vancouver Dry Dock Company?
2.	Is said subsidy in the nature of a guarantee of interest, or is it a grant of interest?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. A direct payment, after completion of the dock, of 31 per cent of the cost.


DRAINAGE OF GEORGETOWN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Has the government established sewerage from its public building, the post office and customs house, at Georgetown, P.E.I.?
2.	If so, what was the cost of this work?
3.	Have private parties been allowed to connect their drainage with the government sewer ?
4.	If so, from whom was authority obtained to allow this connection?
5.	What are the names of the parties thus allowed to make use of the government system ?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes; 6-inch tile to harbour.
2.	Included in contract for alteration to building.
3.	4 and 5. Not to the knowledge of the department, and no authority was given to do so.


RED POINT WHARF.
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	How much money was spent during the year 1910 on Red Point wharf in Queens county, P.E.I. ?
2.	To whom were the different amounts paid, and how much to each?
3.	Who supplied the material?
4.	Who worked with horses, and how much was paid to each of these parties?
5.	Who was the foreman or the inspector, how many days was he paid for, and what was his wages per day?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$913.00.
2,	3, 4 & 5:
Malcolm Macdonald, conductor, $2.50 per day ..	$123.75
Peter Cummiskey, carter	55.12
Chas. Cummiskey, "	11.25


Hon.  L. P.@: Beagon," labourer	14.25


Wm.   S.@: McEachern, "	11.25
" cartage, 8.10	19.35
J. H. Higgins, labourer	..	42.00Ernest	Trainor,	"	....	48.00James	Smith,	"	*_ 22.50David	Fraser,	"	....	22.50Patrick O'Halleran,	carter	31.50


Angus J.: Campbell,	labourer 	
15.00Stewart Higgins, carter	. .	12.37Wallace Campbell, labourer	12.00Wm. Macdonald, carter ..	24.75John Macdonald,	" . .	21.37Wm. Trainor, labourer	. .	20.25Peter Trainor, "	....	25.50	521.46
Materials:
D. J. MacDonald,	lumber	$116.25David McDonald, "	. .	90.46I., M. Poole & Co., hemlock	89.75Fennel & Chandler, hardware	
26.39	_Hamilton Higgins, smithwork	
1.00
Thomas McNally, towing
lumber	 7.00
John Quinn, services of pile
driver, &c	 30.00


Wm.   S.@: MacEachern, lumber	 30.69	391.54
Total to date	 $913.00


DUNNVILLE POSTAL AND CUSTOMS COLLECTIONS.
Mr. LALOR:: 1.	What is the postal revenue of the town of Dunnville, Ontario, for the year 1910?
2.	What is the money value of post office
orders for the town of Dunnville for the year 1910?	[DOT]
3.	What is the value of imports of the customs of the port of Dunnville for 1910?
4.	What is the amount of money collected for customs at the port of Dunnville for the year 1910?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	$6,918.54.
2.	$25,769.70.


Mr. PATERSON:: 3.	$316,157 for fiscal year ended 31st March, 1910.
4.	$38,577.48 for fiscal year ended 31st March, 1910.


IRON AND STEER BOUNTIES.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	What was the total amount paid last year in iron and steel bounties?
2.	What was the total amount repaid last year by the government, or rebated by the government, on duties pr id on materials imported by manufacturers, and subsequently exported by such manufacturers as part of that finished product?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	Bounties, $1,808,533.33.
2.	Drawback, $382,912.73.


IMPORTS OF FIRE BRICKS.
Mr. MADDIN:: 1.	What was the number of fire bricks imported into Nova Scotia during the years 1909 and 1910?
2.	What ports were they delivered at, and how many at each port?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1 and 2. The value of fire bricks imported into the province of Nova Scotia by ports, during the calendar years, 1909 and 1910, was as follows:
	1909.	1910.
	Value.	Value.
Amherst	. .. $ 1,351	$ 2,221Glace Bay	. .. .795	779Halifax	. .. 1,136	2,237Kentville	36Lunenburg 	. .. 144	60New Glasgow	. .. 2,296	2,345North Sydney.. .	. .. 10.658	22.330. .. 110	Sydney	. .. 78,120	162,763Truro	2,889Yarmouth	. .. 814	100Total	. .. $95,427	$195,760


WESTVILLE POST OFFICE.
Mr. MADDIN:: How many bricks were used in the erection of the post office at Westville, Pictou county, N.S.?


William Pugsley: The department does not know how many bricks were used.


SESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.
William Henry Sharpe: For a return showing the names and addresses of all sessional employees of the government in the House of Commons, beginning with the session immediately subsequent to the elections of 1896, and for each year succeeding to and including the present session, their duties in each case, their home addresses, their Salaries, their transfer's in each and every case to either other appointments of the sessional staff or to permanent employment in any department, the dates of each such appointment or transfer, upon whose recommendation each such appointment was made, their dismissals, if any, and the reasons therefor.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman's motion speaks of ' sessional employees of the government.' I may say that there are no sessional employees of the government, so that that term had better be struck out and sessional employees of the House substituted. This is no doubt what the hon. gentleman means, and if so, there is no objection to the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Paterson: 


TERMINAL AND TRANSFER ELEVATORS.
Mr. F. L. SCHAFFNER (Souris) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the present system of operating terminal and transfer elevators is detrimental to the interests of the Western grain producers, and that the government should take immediate steps to operate terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, and the transfer elevators between those terminals and the Atlantic seaboard.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in submitting this important motion to the House, I do not think I need make any apology. I know that when questions of this kind, affecting Western Canada, have been brought before this House, some hon. members from eastern Canada have been inclined to regard them as of no interest to themselves. But, Sir, if there is any one question that is of national importance to this country today, it is the question of elevators. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition the other clay referred to the splendid progress that is being made by Canada, as evidenced by the great growth in population and importance of the great cities of eastern Canada. If Montreal to-day has a population of over half a million and Toronto boasts of a population nearly as great, I think I can justly claim that 75 per cent of the advancement made by these large eastern cities is due to the progress and development of the three prairie provinces. I think it would surprise very many members of this House to have accurate statistics of the trade which has come to eastern Canada because of that development. That western country is overrun with commercial travellers representing all branches of trade and industry in this country, and I believe the great manufacturing concerns of the country admit that their trade and prosperity during the last ten years has been largely due to the development of the Northwest. If that is a fact, and I believe it is, why should not eastern Canada be deeply interested in the great question of elevators? It is true, my motion has reference especially to what are called terminal and transfer elevators; but to my mind there is a strong connecting link between all the elevators which are utilized in the handling of the grain from the time it leaves the farmer's wagon until it reaches its ultimate market. This subject has been debated before in this House. A few days ago the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) brought up a motion on the subject, and although it did not contain all that it should, liis speech did. I read the speech of the hon. gentleman, and I do not think he will take any exception to the statement that his general conclusion was that the only way in which we could properly control these terminal and transfer

elevators was by the system which I propose to-day, of government operation. I want to say that I do not approach this subject with any partisan motive. If there is any subject upon which the western members can agree, it is this one of elevators, which is closely allied to the great question of transportation.
Now, we have in this country what may be termed three classes of elevators. First, we have the line elevators which are scattered over the three prairie provinces wherever there is a line of railway. We have the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and in some places the Great Northern. I am of opinion that eastern Canada would be surprised to know the number of elevators scattered over these three provinces and the amount of capital that is invested in this elevator business. I repeat, there is no question of such vital importance to the national prosperity of this country today as the elevator question. I think I would not be far astray in saying that there are some 2,000 of these line elevators scattered over the three prairie provinces. The Canadian Pacific Railway has over 1,100, the Canadian Northern some 460, the Grand Trunk Pacific some 111, and the Great Northern some 24. This is only a rough estimate, but it is within the mark.
These line elevators are the links between the farmer's wagons and the railways. They are not absolutely necessary. We have what we call loading platforms, and it was somewhat of a surprise to me to find that during the last year some 15,000,000 bushels of wheat were loaded from these platforms. But I am still of th? opinion that the elevator is the most legitimiate and the most convenient method of handling our grain from the farmer's wagon to the railway. A great deal of the difficulty suffered in the western provinces during the early years has no doubt been remedied, and there is not to-day so much fault to find with these line elevators, yet there remains a problem in that connection which we have been striving for some time to solve. We had a very important meeting which was attended by the Prime Ministers of the three western provinces for the purpose of arriving at some solution but apparently they were not able to accomplish any result, and the great cry in western Canada a few years ago, at any rate, was for government ownership of these line elevators. The province of Manitoba adopted that principle. The farmers and producers of that province, whether Liberal or Tory, made up their minds that government ownership was the only way in which these line elevators could be operated satisfactorily. I had something to do with the last contest in Manitoba, and I make this statement, that I never on any platform heard any speaker,
no
whether Liberal or Conservative, take the stand that the government operation of line elevators was not in the best interests of the country. The only argument used by our Liberal friends was this, that the government 'was not sincere, and that on the night of the election all government building and operation in this connection would cease. That, however, has not been the case. I mention that fact simply to shew that both parties were then unanimously in favour of that system. As regards Saskatchewan, I am not as familiar with what that province has done as some of my hon. friends opposite, but, from what I have read in the press, it has not exactly adopted government operation of line elevators but appointed a commission to investigate, and that commission reported, as I understand, that a company shall be formed, the officers of which should be the executives of the Grain Growers' Association of the province of Saskatchewan, and that the government should guarantee the bonds to the extent of 85 per cent of the money required to build, the company furnishing the other 15 per cent, and the bonds to be redeemed in 20 years. I also understand that the government was to undertake the financing of the concern, but I do not know as to how that part of the money invested -was to be repaid.
This question was debated by the Farmers and Grain Growers' association of Saskatchewan last week, and although there was some diversity of opinion, and although some two or three years ago nothing would satisfy any of the farmers except government ownership, it seems that the Saskatchewan grain growers, in the proportion of about six to one, decided to accept the report of the commission, and no doubt that report will be ratified by the local legislature, and the system recommended by the commission will be the way in which the elevators in that province will be operated. I presume that would be called government co-operation.
As regards Alberta, I am not aware that any steps have been taken to establish any such system of elevators. Although there may be diversity of opinion as to how these line -elevators are to be operated, I do not think there is any diversity of opinion among the grain growers as to how the terminal elevators should be operated in the best interests of the producers. Other methods have been tried -but we have all come to the conclusion that the warehouse men must not have an interest in the grain. As to the ownership, I do not know that it makes very much difference who owns these elevators, but it does make a tremendous difference to the producers who shall operate them. I am not one of those who desire any cleavage between the east and the west. I believe

that the east needs the west, and that the west appreciates to a very great extent the east. I believe in our working together and in encouraging interprovincial trade as much as possible. Thereiore, as I have already said, this is not particularly a western question. There is, of course, a difference in the industrial development of the west and the east. The city of Winnipeg is becoming quite a manufacturing centre, but the three prairie provinces are essentially given to grain growing and cattle raising. In the east and in British Columbia you have your lumber, your fruit growing and manufactures, and a great many other industries from which you can receive a revenue, but that is not the case in the prairie provinces. Our industries being limited in these provinces as they are, it is the more necessary that we should find the means of deriving the very best financial results from the pursuit of the two great industries I have mentioned.
I may be asked: Why has the west so recently taken such a stand? There are different reasons. Conditions have changed somewhat in the west. The raising of wheat has become more expensive. One reason for this is that help, both indoors and outdoors, is more expensive. Another question that might be referred to in this connection, but which I shall not deal with to-day, is the transportation question-transportation has certainly become more expensive: freight rates, storage and loading. In fact, the business of the farmer to-day is to give close and intelligent attention to all parts of his industry that enter into the production and marketing of grain from the time he plants the seed until he receives his remuneration in the markets of the world. Until recently the farmers were willing to jog along in the old way, to be the victims, figuratively speaking, of the lightning rod exploiter and the shoddy-cloth peddler. But within the last two or three years a change has come over the farmer. What has brought it about? Nothing short of co-operation. The other branches of industry sought the aid of co-operation much earlier than the farmer did. The manufacturers of this country have found it advantageous-and I am not finding fault with them for it; there is nobody more pleased than I api that our manufacturers are making money. But, perhaps, some of them are making too much money. I know a manufacturer in the city of Toronto who lives in a palace that, I think, cost more than all the buildings in a whole township in my constituency. It is questionable whether that is exactly what we want. Millionaires may be good, but I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), who, if I understood him right, recently suggested that it is not particularly the business of Mr. SCHAFFNER.
this country to build up millionaires, but it is the business of this country to secure the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Our farmers are beginning to wake up; they are taking a leaf out of the book of the manufacturer and railways and are trying what co-operation will do. We have had for years, for instance, the Patrons of Industry and other societies for the benefit of the farming population, but the old excuse always came up, 'The farmers cannot stick together.' Thinking people reached a condition of mind in which they were unwilling to ally themselves with these associations, because of the want of stability and stick-to-it-iveness on the part of the farmer. But I thoroughly believe that that is all changed. We had a very good evidence of that here not long ago, when seven or eight hundred of these western farmers came down-and not with the money of Jira Hill either, but paying their own expenses-and this Chamber rang with the enthusiasm and earnestness of these people, as, I believe, it never rang before. These people are in earnest. Some will say-I have had it said to me: These tarmeTS want the earth; they want too much. Perhaps they are asking for a little too much; perhaps I am asking a little too much to-day. But did never the manufacturers come to this House and ask for too much? Did never the railways come to this hall and ask for too much? They certainly have. And I assure you the farmers to-day are ready and willing, although they may be asking a good deal, to accept what is in their best interest and in the interest of the country. And that is what I stand for here to-day. I say the farmers have begun to think for themselves. And my advice to the agriculturists of this country is not to listen to sophistical arguments based upon the idea that the farmers are the best off people in Canada. I wish they were; I would like to see everybody well off. But eastern Canada has not yet quite understood how much sacrifice and toil has been needed to put the people of the western provinces in the position in which they are to-day. A man going into the western provinces-whether be went a few years ago, or whether he goes now-unless' he has ample capital, or unless he enjoys unusual good fortune, will spend fifteen years of hard work before he achieves a comfortable position. Manitoba and the older parts of Saskatchewan have gone through that fifteen years, and I admit that the farmers there are in fairly good circumstances. But evert the man going to the west to-day will need fifteen years to succeed, as I have said.
Now. I named the three classes of elevators, the line, the terminal and the transfer elevators. As to the terminal elevators, I believe our principal duty to-day lies with the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort Wil

liam. Before I get through I will read a report brought down by the government, which, I think, does not exactly agree with the remarks made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) the other day as to the quantity of wheat heretofore shipped out. I was surprised when I saw the government's figures showing how little wheat has passed through to the markets of Ontario or the markets of the world except through the terminal elevators at Port Arthur or Fort William. I have already said that we had been trying to solve problems connected with the line elevators. But, even if we solved those problems in the most successful manner, of what advantage would it be to us if the terminal elevators are left in the hands of people who treat the producers unfairly, who, in fact, for the last number of years-and the term is none too strong-have been stealing their wheat? (There is absolutely no question about it, because it has been proved by government officers). Then, I say, it is exceedingly important that we do something to remedy conditions in connection with these terminal elevators. The principal marketable product of the western farmer is wheat. The quality of our climate and soil is such that we have gained a reputation for producing the finest wheat in the world, and in such quantities that western Canada has been called ' The granary of the world.' But our wheat, on its way to the markets of the world, almost all passes through Fort William and Port Arthur.
Our farmers have known for years that our wheat was being manipulated in these terminal elevators. Formerly all our troubles were in connection with the line elevators, but now they have been increased in connection with these terminal elevators. The government have tried ways and means, and it may surprise this House to know that to-day this government is employing 95 men at Port Arthur and Fort William- what for? To handle this wheat? No, Sir, just to watch the other fellows that are stealing the wheat. They are there for no other reason. There is an absolute duplication of the men, the men who own the elevators and the men who are operating, and this government is paying $61,000 in employing 95 men to watch these other men, and who pays this $61,000? It all comes out of the grain growers; the wheat must pay all these men, there is no question about that. Now has there been any manipulation of wheat in Port Arthur and Fort William? We believe that it has been going on for years. When I brought this question up before, an amendment was moved from the other side of the House for delay, on the ground that the government was going to appoint men to supervise this work, and they did make appointments. At the very time of the instance I gave this after-1104
noon, there were some 75 men watching the operation of this mixing. Nevertheless this mixing is going on. I do not think that I am giving away any confidence when I say that I believe from information that the Department of Trade and Commerce is just as fully convinced as I am that it is going on, and they know that the only possible way we can protect the producer is that the man who operates the warehouse shall have no financial interest in the grain, and I think that can only be be accomplished by government operation.


Mr. NEELY.: The hon. gentleman speaks of information. Has he information which would lead this House to believe that during the present or past years' operation the Department of Trade and Commerce have any reason to believe that there has been manipulation at Fort William or Port Arthur?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Certainly, lots of information, and I will give it before I get through. It was done last year, according to a statement by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) the other day. Now we may or we may not be in favour of government ownership and operation as a rule, I am not discussing that question to-day; but I do say that if there is any business in Canada to which the government operation is applicable, it is the handling of grain by these terminal elevators, and government operation can be applied to them with the least inconvenience of any industry I know of. Now, I will give my hon. friend the information for which he asks. I understand that to be in 1910.


David Bradley Neely: I was referring to handling the crop of 1910, not to any action that was taken by the department, or to something that had occurred previously.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The last report is that of 1910, and this work was going on under the government system of having 75 men to watch the men who were doing this work. At present the number is 95, and I think it has been increased since. The information was supplied by the inspection department of Fort William and Port Arthur. The chief inspector, Mr. Gibbs, reports:
There were serious discrepancies in the returns of the terminal elevator companies' reports, as compared with those of the Inspection Department covering the same period.
This was on the 22nd of April, 1910. Mr. Castles went to Port Arthur, interviewed Mr. Gibbs, and returned to Winnipeg, and he says now:	'
At my request Inspector Gibbs made a formal complaint in writing, under oath, to enable me to hold an investigation under the provisions of the Manitoba Grain Act.

Now it would be very interesting to the House if I were to give a number of clauses from the Manitoba Grain Act, but I will not take up time by doing so.
The charges made in this case (as in the -other two cases) was that the company had [DOT]sent in incorrect and untrue statements.
The companies involved were the Canadian Pacific railway, the Consolidated Railway Company, the United Empire Company and the Port Arthur Company. They employed a lawyer by the name of Phillipps. Now I want to say that the grain dealers in Port Arthur and Fort William put every obstacle they could-this is Mr. Castles' own report-in the way of this investigation, and nearly all their [DOT]obstacles were met. But when it came to asking these men to produce their books, *and to allow them to be audited by the government officials, what did they do? Did they give up their books? No, Sir, they acknowledged the corn. They refused to give up their books, and admitted the charge Inspector Gibbs had made about the practice of the warehouse. Mr. Castles was correct, and these men were fined. The Port Arthur Company was fined in 1910, tout not nearly as much as they should have been fined, only $3,000; and the Consolidated Company were fined $50. The Empire Company $2,500. In all $5,550. I want to say with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that nothing could be found wrong with their handling of the grain, all that was wrong I believe were some technical errors. Eastern millers tell us that wheat that passes through Canadian Pacific Railway elevators is worth more for milling purposes than wheat of the same grade passing through privately owned and operated elevators. Mr. Castles and the government officials were convinced that there was nothing wrong, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was not fined. Now what is the inference? The Canadian Pacific railway had no interest in mixing the grain, in docking the grain; they were merely common carriers, and their only interest was to receive the grain and give it out again to the steamers, to be transported to the markets of the world. Now I think it is rather significant, and *goes to prove exactly what we believe, that the elevators must be controlled by men who have no financial interest in the wheat.
One of the chief troubles that we have had has been with what is called mixing grain. This was done in 1910. Some years ago the same system that has been carried on at Port Arthur and Fort William was in operation at Duluth and some of the men who were engaged in it at Dultlth are, I believe, those who have been carrying it on at Fort William and Port Arthur. The operation of mixing grain is carried *on in this way:	They buy a certain


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: amount of No. 1 Northern, No. 2 Northern, No. 3 Northern, and No. 4 Northern. The Manitoba Grain Act distinctly states that grain of different grades shall be plaeod in separate bins, that No. 1 shall be in one bin, No. 2 in another and No. 3 in another. But strange to say the same grades that go into the elevator do not come out. I ask the attention of the House to these figures. The shipments out of an elevator at Port Arthur of No. 1 Northern exceeded the receipts by 437,884 bushels. That is 437,884 bushels of wheat bought from the farmer for No. 2 Northern, or No. 3, or No.
4 and at the No. 2, 3, or 4 price was placed in a bin with No. 1 Northern and went out as No. 1 Northern, the dealer getting the benefit of the difference in price which sometimes amounts to as much as four cents a bushel. That affects us in a number of ways. I not only have to accept a No. 2 price for my wheat when I should get No. 1 price and I am, therefore, losing in that way, but it works out in another way. The No. 1 wheat that goes into the bin would average up. Some of it would be splendid wheat, some of it not so good, but the inspector at Winnipeg, where most of this wheat is inspected, calls it No. I. This wheat is shipped to Liverpool, and if wheat that would grade No. 3 and 4 is mixed with No. I the No. 1 grade is brought down to where it will just get through by the skin of its teeth; the whole of it is averaged up to a point where it will just grade No. 1 Northern. That goes over to the old country and the quality produced by the mixing operation reflects back on the prige that we get for our wheat at home. Everybody believes to-day that the value of our wheat is largely maintained by the Liverpool price. One of the complaints that our farmers make is that although we are supposed to produce the best wheat in the world because of our soil and climate, the grades are so deteriorated before the wheat reaches its market that the value is reflected back and the result is that the farmers receive a lower price.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Is the wheat all graded at Winnipeg?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The wheat is mostly all graded at Winnipeg. Sometimes when there is a rush on and the railway yards are full, wheat is permitted to be sent on to Port Arthur and is graded there, but you can say that as a matter of fact nearly all the wheat is graded at Winnipeg. We used to have this mixing going on at Winnipeg, but it is not going on to any great extent now because the government has remedied that part of the trouble. There used to be a mixing elevator at Winnipeg. They would run the wheat into this elevator and after mixing take out a carload of wheat which Mr. Horn, or his officers, would in-

spect. If it did not quite come up to the grade of No. 1 or No. 2 Northern they would ask Mr. Horn to allow them to take it back to the mixing elevator, they would treat it a little more and bring it up gradually to where it would grade No. 1 or No. 2 or No. 3 Northern. But a change has been made in that regard. Wheat that has been transhipped in Winnipeg is not graded until the bill of lading has been made
1	ut or until the wheat is ready to go to Fort William or Port Arthur. Therefore, I think I might say, replying to the question of the hon. leader of the opposition, that the grain is almost all graded at Winnipeg, and that no mixing goes on until the wheat reaches the terminal elevators. The process by which wheat is graded at Winnipeg is an interesting one. A car of wheat comes into Winnipeg from any part of the western provinces. It is the duty of the railway company to notify the inspector of the arrival of a car, the number and where it is placed in the yard. The wheat is sealed when it comes into Winnipeg. The inspector and his officsrs break the seal and gain access to the car. They have a long tube which they thrust into the wheat in a number of different places. It is a good deal like the instrument that dairymen use for testing cheese, with the exception that it is filled with a lot of little holes so that when they thrust the tube down into the wheat they are able to secure samples from the top to the bottom of the car. The sample is taken out, the car is resealed by these officers, it is sent on to Fort William or Port Arthur and then the result of the inspection of the sample, the inspectors having the number of the car, is sent to Inspector Gibbs, or to other persons at Port Arthur. As I said, 437,884 bushels of No. 1 Northern were shipped out more than were taken in. Where did they get the difference? That is by actual measurement by Inspector Gibbs. He also found 389,159 bushels of No.
2	Northern less in the elevator than were shipped in. The greater quantity of No. 1 was shipped out while there was a less quantity of No. 2 in the elevator than had been shipped in. Of No. 3 Northern, deducting shipments from receipts, there should have been on hand in the bins 155,975 bushels but when they came to measure up they only had 5,502 bushels, showing a discrepancy or shortage of 150,473 bushels. Deducting shipments from the receipts, there should have been on hand of No. 4 Northern 47,879 bushels, while there were only, by actual measurement, 4,001 bushels, the discrepancy being 43,869 bushels. That was going on under the supervision of seventy or eighty men in the employ of this government, and I am strongly of the opinion that it will go on in spite of all the Bills that this government may possibly be able to bring into
this House until the financial interest of the warehouseman is taken out of these elevators. In the Empire elevator the discrepancy is not quite as large, but they had the same difficulty. The officers at these elevators raised all sorts of objections. At last, when they were asked to produce their books in order to have an independent audit of them, they admitted at once that they had been doing wrong and refused to show their books.
Deducting shipments from receipts in this elevator, there should have been on hand on the 12th of December, 291,742 bushels, while there was only 175,000 bushels, or a discrepancy of 116,000. In No. 3 northern, deducting shipments from receipts there should have been on hand 346,000 bushels, but the examination showed only 166,000, or a shortage of 180,000; and so on. I think that should be very good proof of the kind of work that was going on. The railway terminal elevators were found to be conducted properly in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway, because there is no inducement for manipulation, and the warehousemen have no financial interest in the grain going through the elevator. Mr. Castles' report shows that the Port Arthur Elevator Company shipped out 169,066 more of No. 1 northern than they received. In the Empire elevator, Mr. Castles' report showed that the amount of No. 1 shipped out exceeded the receipts by 437,884 bushels, and that there was also a discrepancy or shortage, in No. 2 and No. 3 northern. In view of this condition of things, I maintain that the farmers of the west should be protected to a greater extent in the transport of their grain than ever they have been protected in the past.
I have referred to another evil in the grading of our wheat, and I shall not say more on that further than to remark that the farmer loses in two ways, because he does not get paid for his grain as he should be, and the quality of the wheat is depreciated in the British market. A few years ago most farmers in Manitoba and in some parts of Saskatchewan were absolutely compelled to sell their wheat because they had implements to pay for and had incurred debts during the summer and when the fall rush of wheat was on it was said there was a glut in the market and grain dealers recommended that they should spread the sale of their wheat over the different seasons of the year. The farmers became sufficiently well off to be able to adopt that system but they lacked grain room, and wheat cannot be shipped at any time of the year, because, for example, this winter the snow is so deep and the climate so severe that it would be absolutely impossible to haul wheat. Some of the farmers thought they would send their wheat to Port Arthur and Fort Wil-

liam, put it in the elevators but still retain control of it, so as to sell it when they wanted to. However, although they thought they were not putting their wheat upon the market and they would eventually receive a better price by distributing its sale over different months of the year, they found their wheat was still going forward and that was one of the complaints against the Consolidated Elevator Company. The wheat that the farmers thought they were holding was being loaned and sent forward, and at the same time although they were doing this they were charging the farmer for the storage of this wheat all the time. These are facts that cannot be disputed. Another evil-and goodness knows I have already detailed enough to convince any government that one of the greatest Canadian industries should be better protected-another evil is that when the wheat is inspected at Winnipeg the inspector sends a certificate to Port Arthur that the wheat is of a certain grade with a certain percentage of dockage, which means that at Port Arthur and Fort William it should be cleaned of the 2, 3 or 5 per cent dockage, as the case may be, and then sent on. After the farmer had paid the freight on this dirty grain down to Port Arthur and Fort William, the elevators always had the privilege of using the dockage for their own purposes. But what did they do? If it was only about 2 per cent dockage, they allowed the wheat to go on without treating it at all, and when it arrived in the British market without being cleaned that reflected back again upon the quality of our wheat. The four principles for which the farmers of the west contend are: that there should not be mixing, that there should not be unfair dockage, that wheat should not be loaned, and that wheat should be cleaned at the terminal elevators, according to the certificate of the wheat inspector at Winnipeg. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of that western country are obliged to conform to the Grain Act to the letter, and if the farmers are compelled to keep to the strict letter of the law, my duty here to-day is to see that the grain dealer is dealt with in the same way. I am, however, of the opinion that no amount of supervision or inspection can eventually prevent manipulation in our terminals so long as they are owned and operated by private interests. In taking that stand I am reiterating the sentiment expressed by the hon. gentleman from Regina (Mr. Martin) when he spoke on this subject the other day. I am glad the hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin) spoke as he did on this matter; I am not dealing with this question from any political partisan point of view; I believe we have suffered tremendously in that western country for want of proper Mr. SCHAFFNER.
supervision and because our grain has been manipulated by the grain dealer, and I think Liberals and Conservatives alike should endeavour to seek a remedy. The House may remember that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin) moved an amendment to the motion, that I moved in this House, and with that I find no fault. A few years ago Mr. Martin's amendment was to the effect that the system adopted then by government should have a trial.
Mr. Martin now says:
The system has now been given a fair trial with the result that it has proved itself absolutely inadequate to meet the situation.
He also says on page 2445 of ' Hansard
I have gradually come to the conclusion that we will never be protected properly in the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur until we have these elevators owned and operated by the government.
There could not be anything more pronounced than that, and I am thoroughly in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. gentleman. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I have referred to to-day all took place under a system of supervision which the government supposed would solve the problem. At that time there were 70 men in the employ of the government inspecting the terminal elevators, but the manipulation continued under their very eyes and they were powerless to prevent it. I say that it is an absolute impossibility to exercise such supervision as will prevent the mixing of the grain, even if you have 500 men there. These elevator people have belts running from one elevator to another, and from one bin to another, and what is to prevent them going in there at night and transferring grain from one bin to another ? How is any supervision going to prevent that ? And this manipulation and stealing of wheat has been going on for years. I believe I am not out of the way when I say that the farmers of the west have lost at least ten millions of dollars in the value of the wheat that has been taken from them by the operation of these privately-owned elevators. The farmers were here a short time ago to bring several matters before the government of the day. There was the reduction of the tariff, the Hudson Bay railway, the chilled meat question; last, but by no means least, the terminal elevator question. This question is as important to the east as to the west, because the more money the farmers receive, the more money Montreal, Toronto and every eastern manufacturing interest is going to get. I said at the beginning that there might be some difference of opinion on this subject; but three years ago the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, stood almost to a man for government ownership of these

elevators. With regard to line elevators, they have to some extent, changed their opinion; but with regard to terminal elevators, I think I can fairly say that they are practically a unit to-day in favour of government ownership and operation. The trouble is not in the ownership of the elevators, but in their operation. This wheat question is becoming a big question, and we have only touched the fringe of it. It is estimated that there are in the three prairie provinces 171,000,000 acres that will produce wheat, and we have under cultivation to-day not more than 13,000,000 or 14,000,000 acres. The hon. member for Regina told us the other day that Saskatchewan alone produced last year 90,000,000 bushels. The other day I placed on the Order Paper some questions, which, with the answers to them, I think are worthy of a place in ' Hansard ' to give this House some idea of the magnitude of this subject. They were as follows-:
Statement showing Amount of Grain exported from Canada during 1908, 1909 and 1910.
Q. 1. How much wheat was exported from Canada for the crop years ending August 31, 1908, 1909 and 1910?
A. 1908, 39,591,383 bushels.
1909,	45,879,058 bushels.
1910,	53,298,643 bushels.
Q. 2. How much wheat was exported from Canada through United States ports during 1908. 1909 and 1910, naming said ports and amount exported from each port?
A.	1908.	1909.	1910.Bush. 88,432 7,687,745 4,333,115 2,473,284 5,186,129	Bush. 465,773 7,420,969 5,100,117 5,690,749 4,809,880	Bush. 1,801,294 8,012,258 5,911,085 4,995,553 6,409,286
19,786,705	23,487,488	27,129,471
			
Q. 3. How many terminal grain elevators are there at Port Arthur and Fort William,
and what is the name of each?
A. 3. At Fort William-
No.
Canadian Pacific Railway	3
Empire Elevator Company	 1
Consolidated Elevator Company	 1
Ogilvie Flour Mills, Ltd	 1
Western Terminal Elevator Company..	1
Grand Trunk Pacific Elevator Company	,	 1
Black & Muirhead	 1
Davidson & Smith	 1
Port Arthur-
No.
Port Arthur Elevator Company Ltd.. 2
David Horn & Co	 1
Thunder Bay Elevator Company.. ..	1
National Elevator Company	1
Total	 5
Grand total	15
Her? comes a rather interesting item. How much wheat was exported from Canada during each crop year 1908, 1909 and 1910 which did not pass through the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William? I was under the impression that the amount was very much greater -but the figures I -am about "to giv? show' that only a small amount passed through these two terminals. Thes? figures are :
2. How much grain was shipped through each elevator at Port Arthur and Fort William during each year 1908, 1909 and 1910, and what are the names of the elevators respectively?


A. CROP YEAR 1908.
[Stage Direction]
Name of Elevator-	Total Grain.
Bush.
Canadian Pacific Railway	 22,360,510
Empire Elevator Company.. .. 8,858,508
Consolidated Elevator Company. 6,769,568
Total, Fort William	 37,988,586
Port Arthur Elevator Co	 30,387,270
Jas.   G.@: King & Co	 2,990,826
Total, Port Arthur	 23,378,096
Grand total	 61,366,682
I will skip over 1909. -


CROP YEAR 1910.
[Stage Direction]
Name of elevator-	Total Grain.
Bush.
Canadian Pacific Railway	 2,079,118
Empire Elevator Co	12,019,973
Consolidated Elevator Co	 8,554,543
Ogilvie Flour Mills Co., Ltd. .. 7,873,114 Western Terminal Elevator Co.. 3,587,419 Black & Muirhead	 254,740
Total, Fort William	 61,368,907
Port Arthur Elevator Co	 29,354,966
Jas.   G.@: King & Co	 3,423,009
Thunder Bay Elevator Co	 6,212,614
Total, Port Arthur	 38,990,589
Grand Total	 100,359,496
Q. How much wheat was exported from Canada during each crop year 1908, 1909 and 1910, not passing through the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William?
A.	Bushels.
1908		 1,350,340
1909		 1,325,100
1910		 3,542.190
Total
6,217,630
3487.

Q. How many men axe employed by the government in connection with the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William, and what is the total salary paid the men per year?
A.	No. of
Employees. Salaries.
Fort William	 96	$50,714 45
Port Arthur	 10,566 50

Out of three years' crops, all the wlmat which did not pass through the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William amounted to but 5,200,000 bushels. This shows that the question as to the best way to operate and control these elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William is on; that might well engage our attention. I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet, and consequently may be wrong. The Bill which the government is going to bring down, no doubt, in the opinion of the government, meets ths demand, but I do not believe it. I believe that there is only one remedy, and that is to take the operation of these elevators out of the hands of the men who -have a financial interest in them. I .repeat, Mr. Speaker, no amount of supervision or inspection can effectually prevent manipulation in our terminals so long as they are owned and operated by private interests, which can be benefited thereby. Our farmers in the past have been divided, through lack of organization they have failed to accomplish much, but they have started organizing. They have followed the example of the railways, and the manufacturers, and by .means of organization intend to make their influence felt. To-day the ship of these farmers is afloat, it is controlled by competent officers and manned by able seamen, and the port to which it is making is the port of the greatest good to the greatest number.


Mr. ROBB.: Can the hon. gentleman inform the Housi to what extent the farmers of Manitoba have taken advantage of the government owned elevators during the past season?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: My hon. friend will understand that the government operation of these elevators in Manitoba is a very new thing; at least half the crop was shipped before the government took charge of the elevators either by purchase or building. Further, for years there has not been such a small quantity of wheat to ship from southern Manitoba as this year. But the commissioner, who was the chairman of the organization which met in this room, told me that he believed the new system was going to work out splendidly. Furthermore, the farmers of Manitoba must be coming to that opinion because 90 per cent of the points at which elevators are located have petitioned the government to either buy or Mr. SCHAFFNER,
build and operate the elevators at those points.


David Bradley Neely: As a similar resolution to the one before us was offered for our consideration a couple of weeks ago, I do not propose to discuss this matter at any length to-day. I only rise to say that, in view of the fact that the government have introduced into the Senate a Bill dealing with this whole subject, we might very well postpone discussion until we have this Bill before us. I am as strongly in earnest about getting a satisfactory solution of the grain difficulties in the west as my hon. friend can possibly be. I might say that, notwithstanding the very strong criticism he makes of the present method of government supervision and inspection, there are one or two points which he has overlooked, and to which I would call his attention.
In the first place, government supervision was carried on to a very limited extent-[DOT] that is, the staff was a very limited one until two years ago. And while it is true that certain terminal elevators, so far as the handling of the grain crop of 1909 is concerned, were brought to book last year, it is also true that they were brought to book by the very method of supervision which my hon. friend condemned. These offences would not have been discovered and those guilty of them would not have been penalized had it not been for the supervision that is being carried on by the officers of the government. I asked my hon. friend if he were aware of any similar transaction^, in handling the grain crop of 1910. He did not give me an answer to that question. If this government supervision is absolutely valueless, as my hon. friend alleges it is, he ought to explain how it comes that it was by this very supervision that these transgressors were brought to book. I might also point out that my hon. friend has not taken cognizance of the fact that since the crop of 1909 was handled, further steps have been taken to protect the interests of the farmer who ships his grain to Fort William or Port Arthur by the appointment of the registration bureau to which I referred some days ago. The trouble in the past has been that the penalties have not been sufficiently severe. If the operation of mixing were carried on to any very large extent, the elevator interest could afford to pay a very considerable fine and still be very largely the gainer. However, I said in opening that it is not my intention to deal with this question to any extent to-day; because, while I take the position that my hon. friend may be correct and that ultimately it may be necessary to establish government ownership and operation of the terminal and transfer elevators, yet I hold that that fact has not yet been absolutely de-

monstrated. And I reiterate the position I took the other day, that until this is absolutely demonstrated such action as is proposed by my hon. friend is premature and might be dangerous even to the grain trade itself.
And, in view of the fact that the government have a Bill which will presently be before this House, in which, I understand, provision is made of a final remedy for the very thing my hon. friend proposes to meet by means of government ownership and operation, a Bill which, I understand, provides for a commission such as I suggested when discussing this question a couple of weeks ago, and gives the commission the very widest powers possible in dealing with this trade, giving them the same control of the grain situation in Canada as the warehouse and grain commission has in the State of Minnesota, where, I believe, the grain laws are probably more satisfactory than in any other part of North America-I say, in view of these facts, it would be unwise for this House to lay down finally and absolutely the principle proposed in the motion of my hon. friend until we have had some opportunity of seeing for ourselves, of investigating, of thinking over and discussing this measure which the government proposes to bring before the House within the next few days.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) will permit me, I would like to ask a question. Does he believe, so far as he has information of the Bill, that it will provide for the government operation of these elevators? In other words, will it take the operation oi these elevatorj out of the hands of the grain dealers?


David Bradley Neely: I am free to say that, until to-day, I have been quite as much in the dark concerning the provisions of this Bill as my hon. friend. I had no opportunity to see the Bill and consider its- clauses. But, when this question came up to-day, I took the trouble to send to the distribution office and procure a copy of the Bill, and I believe my hon. friend could procure a copy in the same way. And I do find a provision which, if it is not out of order, I would like to read:
The Governor in Council may authorize the minister to construct, acquire, lease or expropriate for His Majesty any terminal elevator if parliament has granted the money for such purpose.
The Expropriation Act shall, in any case, apply to the leasing and acquisition of such terminal elevator and to the ascertaining of the compensation to he paid therefor.
That is as much information as I can give my hon. friend, because I have not had time even to look through the other provisions of the Bill except in a casual wav.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question if it would not be interrupting him too much. I understand him to say that government ownership might ultimately be necessary, but that this had not yet been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the House. Does he say that the case presented by the farmers' delegation from the west is not sufficient demonstration of this point to satisfy parliament that it was absolutely necessary?


David Bradley Neely: While it was demonstrated, not only by the farmers1, but by the prosecution made by the officers of the government that, so far as the handling of the crops of 1909 and preceding years is concerned, there probably was manipulation of the grain at Port Arthur and Fort William, and while the farmers demonstrated that a remedy was necessary, they only gave it as their opinion that the one method of reform was government ownership and operation. I can hardly go so far as to say that they did demonstrate the absolute necessity of government ownership and operation; they gave it as their opinion. But farmers' opinions change like other peoples. I notice that a large body of the Grain Growers of Saskatchewan, in convention assembled, have unanimously adopted a co-operative scheme in connection with the operation of interior elevators-line elevators-whereas, some years ago, as my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) has very truly said, the only remedy favoured by many of the farmers of Saskatchewan seemed to be government operation. The same change might occur in this case. But the point I am making is that, in any case, whether government operation be necessary as a final remedy or not, a commission must be appointed

that is, if the government so decide to take over these elevators, there must be a commission to operate them, some body in which shall be vested power to deal with the whole grain trade throughout the length and breadth of Canada. These must be men able to become thoroughly versed in the conditions of the grain trade-in fact the probability is that they will be men who are well versed in that business; they certainly should be men who know a good deal of the grain trade. If these gentlemen, after they have been in office for a reasonable length of time, come' to the conclusion that they cannot stop evils in any other way than by government operation, and if they make report to that effect, I am convinced that the government will not hesitate a single moment in putting into effect the recommendation of this commission. That is my answer to my hon. friend's question, and that is the position I take on this whole matter. Now, Sir, in view of the fact that I hold these sentiments, in view of the fact, as I have said, that the government

have this Bill introduced in the Senate, and that it is presently to be brought before this House, I beg to move :
That all words after ' that ' in this resolution be struck out, and the following be substituted-
Inasmuch as a Bill has been introduced by the government and is now pending in the Senate, dealing with the present system of operating the terminal elevators, it is not expedient to proceed with this question in advance of the consideration of the said Bill by this House.


Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Allow me, in the first place, to congratulate the hen. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) on the able and thorough way in which he has dealt with this important question, and also on the w'ay he has stuck to his point, a point that I think is endorsed by all the members from the northwest, and by all the men raising grain in that country, namely, the absolute necessity of government operation of the terminal elevators. I have already placed myself on record as saying that, in my opinion, nothing short of government operation will remove the evil under which the people of the northwest are suffering in regard to the handling of their grain at Fort William and Port Arthur. I have taken the position, which I think is a logical one, that once the government have assumed the responsibility of granting a certificate that grain is of a certain quality as No. 1 Northern, No. 2 Northern and No. 3 Northern, it should take such measures as will absolutely ensure that that grain reaches the consumer in the same condition in which it has passed from the hands of the grain growers, and that there should be no sort of tampering with it. Two years ago the members from the northwest, on the other side of the House, blocked a resolution which was introduced by my hon. friend from Souris, asking for government operation of terminal elevators. They proposed that an opportunity should be given for a fuller method of government inspection of those elevators. That system has been tried, and it has been found wanting. A few months ago the country was startled to learn that frauds had been perpetrated under the very noses of the inspectors. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Neely) has taken a good deal of credit for the government inspectors from the fact that it was they who called attention to the frauds. Now, it seems to me as rather singular that credit should be given to men who subsequently discovered a fraud which had actually taken place under their very noses, and which it was their special duty to prevent. The hon. gentleman went on to state that no charges of fraud could be substantiated at the present time in regard to -the handling of the grain crop of last year. I think, if my memory is right, Mr. NEELY.
that at the very time the grain growlers' deputation was being received at Ottawa, a statement was made that such charges would be again preferred in regard to the handling of the grain crop of last year. Any w'ay, let me point out that, although frauds took place at a very early .stage in the handling of the crop of 1909, it was not, I think until April, 1910, that the matter reached a point v/here a prosecution could he entered in connection with those frauds. This is the svstem of government inspection that has been proved a failure up to the present time. The government now' propose to introduce another experiment in the way of still further government control and inspection. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get hold of a copy of the Bill with which the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) seems to have been favoured. I went into the distribution office on Saturday afternoon, and they hnd not got the Bill at that time.


David Bradley Neely: 1 have a correction to make. The Minister of the Interior sent up to the distribution bureau a short time rgo for a copy of the Bill. I was under the impression that the Bills were in the distribution office, and I have just discovered that the copy he handed to me was his own private copy, and that he was not able to get one at the distribution office.


Richard Stuart Lake: I have just sent up a written request to the distribution office for a copy of the Bill, and they send me word that they have not got it yet. So members on the other side of the House have an opportunity of studying the details of this measure, which gentlemen on this side of the House have not. During the debate which took place a few weeks ago I noticed hon. gentlemen opposite referring to some _ details of this measure; so w7e were certainly at a disadvantage in discussing the course which w'e understood was to be pursued when this Bill was biought in. Now', with regard to fuller inspection at Fort William and Port Arthur, my hon. friend from Souris has stated that it is absolutely impossible to have thorough and complete control of the grain which passes through these elevators. I confess that I had begun to think there must be something wrong, when there was a body of 75 to 90 inspectors at w'ork there last year, and this year again, who had not been able to control the grain passing through those elevators; that seemed to me extraordinary. I w'as under the impression that the government were making appointments of men to act at those places as they were doing in other cases throughout the country, leaving the nomination in the hands of the Liberal committee at Fort William and Port Arthur, and W'ere making appointments of inspectors at these places from the recommendations of the Literal committee. If

that is the case, it only shows that the men thus appointed- were not able to carry on the work which was entrusted to them, end it is another instance of the mischievous nature of the patronage system to which this government has absolutely surrendered itself since it has been in power.
When the Grain Growers deputation were down here in December last they were quite definite as to what they wanted with respect to this matter. Not only were they definite but they had grain dealers and millers with them who also gave evidence to the effect that the government operation of terminal elevators was the only thing which would satisfactorily control the passage of wheat through these elevators, and prevent any fraud in connection with it. They made out a remarkably complete case and I have heard practically nothing said by any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House to show that the stand taken by the grain growers at that time is not an absolutely sound one. In addition to that let me put in the evidence of a resolution that was unanimously passed by the legislative assembly of the province of Saskatchewan at the last session of the House, to this effect:
Whereas, this House is of the opinion that under existing conditions, both interior and terminal elevators being private and identical interests operate to the disadvantage of the grain growers of Saskatchewan;
Therefore, be it resolved, that in the opinion of this House the government of Canada should own and operate the terminal elevators.
This resolution was unanimously passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan at the last session, affording an additional argument why, in the opinion of men well fitted to judge with regard to this matter, government operation alone will meet the exigencies of the case.
I might point out also to the Prime Minister and to the hon. gentlemen who sit on that side of the House, the additional necessity at the present time that grain, which is going by the Canadian route, and which receives a Canadian certificate, should be absolutely above suspicion, and that the certificate should be absolutely reliable. It lies in the reciprocity negotia-tiations which have been carried on during the last few weeks. If the certificate of our government can be absolutely relied upon by the consumers in Great Britain as giving the correct quality of the grain, I have no doubt in the world that our grain will once again command the very high value which it used to command on the Liverpool markets and which it has not been commanding of late years. The statement was made by gentlemen who were down here representing the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association just about a year ago, that for several months on the British market Manitoba wheat had been at a lower value than many other wheats upon that market. This is the statement which was [DOT]made by them in a letter which they addressed to the government at that time:
Due to its own high quality for making baker's flour, Manitoba No. 1 Northern usually brings a premium over all other wheats in Britain, yet from early in October to December, 1909, ' Manitoba ' was the lowest priced wheat in the Liverpool market excepting some United States wheat.
If that condition continues to exist then we shall see, if the reciprocity arrangement is carried out, our wheat going out through the United States, and not through the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William. That is a condition that I am sure we all most earnestly wish to avoid, and for that reason in itself I would urge that the government undertake the operation of these elevators and see, when they give a a certificate of quality, that that certificate is valid when the grain reaches the markets of the world. I only hope that in addition to the government undertaking the operation of the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur for the reasons I have stated they would hurry up the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. That will give us another and a far better route to the markets of the world than we have at the present time, and it will also assist in preventing our wheat from being carried to these markets by the American route.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. E. L. CASH (Mackenzie).: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has, on behalf of the government, introduced a Bill in the Senate, dealing with this matter, it will not be necessary for me to-night, speaking on this motion, to anticipate the discussion which will ensue in this House when that Bill comes before us. There is, of course, no doubt that a great many irregularities have occurred at the terminal elevators, and the only question of difference between us is, or should be, as to what is the best remedy to provide for the prevention of these irregularities. When the grain growers from the west were here in December last, there was a conference between them and members of the government as to the measures which should be taken to regulate the terminal elevators, and as I understand it, the proposals then made by the government were satisfactory to the delegates. When I was home during the Christmas holidays, I found the idea prevalent among the farmers, that

they would be satisfied with the government measure which they were led to believe would be introduced and which has since been presented to parliament. One of the provisions of that Bill is that there should be a commission appointed to oversee the business of the elevators, to get a perfect knowledge concerning the conduct of that business, and, if the business were not conducted in the interests of the grain growers that this commission should make recommendations to the government as to the taking over of these elevators and the provision of a parliamentary grant for that purpose. When that Bill comes before us, as I say, it will then be time enough for us to consider whether it is calculated to _ mitigate the evils which undoubtedly exist, and anything we may say to-night would be unnecessarily anticipatory of that discussion. Of course, we know that when a great many bushels of grain go through these elevators, a very small margin on each bushel would amount to a good many dollars in the pockets of the men operating the elevators, and so we must suppose that those guilty of manipulation, have very good reason for urging that conditions should remain as they are at present. However, I believe the legislation introduced by the government, will put an end to wrong-doing in that respect. As we all know, government ownership has not proved a huge success in this country. Our experience with the Intercolonial railway teaches us that, and our experience with that railway also teaches us that since it has been placed under a commission, its operation has been fairly satisfactory. In view of the fact that we will have to consider this question on the government Bill, I think it is only fair that the hon. member from Souris should withdraw his resolution, which at the present time I deem to be inexpedient. I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely).


William Henry Sharpe: The question of the terminal elevators is a most important one to the grain growers of western Canada, and I congratulate the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), that he has brought it to the attention of the House at the present time. I congratulate him also on his able presentation of the case for the western farmers, and upon the fact that he has been able to submit to us so many illuminating facts in connection with the question. This government has known for years that the grain growers of the west have been continuously robbed at the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. I well remember attending a meeting in the West Block during the session of 1908-9 when the grain grow-Mr. CASH.
ers and millers of eastern Canada and the grain growers of western Canada appeared before Sir Richard Cartwright and placed before him all the facts which would convince any reasonable man that the grain growers were being continually robbed and deprived of the just reward of their labours. It was shown to the Minister of Trade and Commerce then, that profits which were theirs were filched from them and handed over to whom ? Not to Canadians-because with the exception of the Canadian Pacific Railway elevators, the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William are controlled by American citizens-but to men who come from a foreign land. For years has the government known that this state of affairs existed, but in this case, as in a great many others, they refused to interfere, for the benefit of our own citizens, and allowed these people to continue robbing the hard working people of Canada. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), has dealt with this matter so fully, that it is unnecessary for me to do further than endorse the sentiments expressed by him. I trust, that even though the Bill presented by the government does not give us government ownership, it will to some extent remove the grievances which during the past few years we have suffered in western Canada.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer).: As a farmer, and as the representative of a farming constituency, it is most gratifying to me to find my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner), and his friends so anxious to meet demands of the western grain growers. Their attitude in this respect, makes me very- hopeful that we shall have an early collapse of the reciprocity debate, because, if the hon. member from Souris, and his friends will canvass the western farmers, I am sure they will find a large majority of them in favour of this particular method of getting larger markets for their produce. Having no desire to impugn the honest sincerity of my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner), and his friends in their express desire to find new markets for the farmers, and especially to meet their demands and wishes, I repeat that I am extremely hopeful they will see their way to support that great measure of reciprocity which has been presented by the government for our consideration.
Nothing could possibly give me greater amazement than to see the light-hearted manner in which it would appear that a party calling itself Conservative is prepared to take up a great scheme of state socialism. I am aware that so great a thinker as Sir William Harcourt in the field of politics once said: ' We are all socialists now,' and in a limited sense there is some truth in that statement. But Conservat-

ism, as I have always understood it, is in its very nature opposed to socialism. There seemed to be some glimmering of that thought in the mind of my hon. friend from Souris when he calmly informed this House that he had no desire to discuss the question of state ownership. But the question as he puts it is a question of state ownership, and in that sense it is nothing but rank, pure, simple unadulterated socialism. Socialism is defined by its leading advocates on both sides of the Atlantic as ' government ownership and operation of the means of producing and distributing wealth.' The elevators are a great means of the distribution of wealth, and our hon. friends opposite propose, before other expedients have been exhausted, light-heartedly to commit the government and the parliament and the people of Canada to this very large and serious instalment of state socialism. Well, I cannot understand their attitude upon that question. In debating this matter with socialists themselves, I have pointed out that in their criticisms of government they stand in the same position as all opposition parties in this country. They are continually saying in plain language what the opposition here is continually saying, and what Liberal oppositions in provincial legislatures in this country are continually saying, that they are none too sure of the uprightness with which governments today are handling public funds, public departments and public affairs generally. Now, where is the logic-I would like to put this to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), who had a good, old-fashioned education in his youth-where is the logic of continually basing opposition to governments as they exist upon their alleged incompetence to handle business matters, and asking this House to commit itself to an indefinite extension of the field of government operation? I cannot see the logic of. it; and, to be truthful, Sir, I am very frightened at such an extension of the field of government operation. I believe that as a rule a man will do better work for himself than he will get done by a partner; I believe an individual field of operation is better than a partnership; I believe a partnership is better than a company in handling business affairs; and I believe the worst thing in the world to handle business affairs is a government, and the more its operations are restricted to the proper functions of a government the better it will be for the country.
To put it plainly, what our hon. friends want to do is to put a stop to thieving. They allege that there is absolute thieving going on in connection with the handling of grain. They call it manipulation. Well, that term would be a very good periphrasis for an act of burglary, but I do not think the moral quality of manipulation in this
instance is very different from that of thieving. I have always thought that the proper way to deal with thieves was by the criminal law, and one of the reasons for delay in this particular instance is that in the measure of inspection which the government at present has in its hands you have a means which has proved to be so far efficient that some of the thieving has been detected, and punishment has been meted out to the culprits. I want to put it to my friends fairly: is it not likely that if we increase our vigilance, if we improve our machinery, we may still be able under the criminal law to put down this thing without committing ourselves to a great scheme of state socialism?
There are other reasons for hesitation in this matter which I would like to impress upon our hon. friends opposite. The very last debate in this House, followed by a division upon a farming question, so far as I remember, was just before the Christmas adjournment, on the question of establishing a government system of handling chilled meat; and our hon. friends opposite were at that time perfectly prepared to encourage the government of this country to embark upon a huge system of government interference in the chilled meat industry. But what do we find to-day?- and I draw the particular attention of my hon. friend from Souris to this point. We find that some of the very men who were making these demands, which he is so solicitous to meet in the exact way in which they were presented, are saying that so large a market will be obtained for the meat producers of the west under the proposed scheme of reciprocity that there will be no need for this chilled meat project.
I was very much impressed with the excellent speech of my hon. friend from Hum-bolt (Mr. Neely) on this question, in the debate on the resolution of my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin). One of the points that he made was that we are just at the beginning of our wheat production in tne west. I have mentioned in this House before the fact that we have in /the three prairie provinces 300,000,000 acres of splendid arable land. We have not to-day under cultivation 20,000,000 acres. If the government were to embark on such a course as has been suggested, no man could see the end of it. You would be indefinitely enlarging the field of government interference in a matter which is much better handled by private enterprise, with a strict and rigid enforcement of the criminal law.
In all these considerations there appears to me to be very good ground for giving pause to hon. gentlemen opposite, for taking time to consider this question, and especially to consider a measure which is to be almost immediately presented to the Senate for the more efficient handling of elevators under that scheme of individual-

ism which after all is the outstanding quality of the race which upholds this Empire, and which is the only quality the exercise of which can in the end build up a strong people and a strong nation. On these grounds I shall vote without hesitation against the motion of my hon. friend from Souris at this time, and shall wait with some degree of confidence for the production of the government measure on the subject.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. He has a very refreshing manner of dealing with things, and certainly a manner entirely his own. He is greatly concerned with the attitude of hon. gentlemen on this side, and would be exceedingly glad if he could recruit some supporters for the government on the question of reciprocity, which appears to he a kind of nightmare for him as it is for some members of the cabinet as well.
The hon. gentleman talks of socialism.
I do not know whether he speaks as an expert or not, but he is very much alarmed over the name of -state socialism. Let me say that I care .not what nam; you give this -proposition, if it is in the interests of the country and particularly of the farmers of the west, who more than any other class are making Canada great, I shall support it as a good measure. We are told that the government have introduced a Bill in the Senate under the sponsorship of Sir Richard Cartwright. Well, we have not yet seen that Bill, although this House has been in session three months and this question is one of the greatest importance to the most important class in the community. Is not this really an attempt to sidetrack the farmers when we know that this Bill of which the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) speaks does not touch the question before the House? The steps which the government have taken -so far, having proved utterly inefficient as the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) demonstrated the other day, the government should not put the farmers off with promises any longer but do something -practical. What is this measure, which has -been introduced in the Senate aft;r this long delay, going to do? It is simply going to give us a little more of what we have too much of already. It proposes to establish another court. The Lord knows we have quite enough courts in Canada as it is. It is not courts w? want -but justice. It is not a multiplication of officers, but efficient work that we require ; and to tell us that the government are going to establish another tribunal similar to the railway board, is simply to tell us that this wrong-doing is to get on just as before, and Mr. CLARK.
that when any offence is committed the offender may be brought before this court and punished. What we want, however, is not punishment but a remedy. A commission would b? all right but not such a commission as the government proposes. What is required is a commission to operate the elevators, to do justice in th.e first instance, and put a stop to the thieving, which my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) so much deplores. My hon. friend speaks of Conservatism as he understands it. Why, he never did understand _ it. In that respect he is not very much different from many hon. gentlemen on that side, they are so wedded to their idols, although often elected as- independents. I do not know whether my hon. friend got in as an independent but I would almost think he did, to judge by his intense partisanship, because I notice there is no man so utterly subservient as the so-called independent. I see my hon. friend dissents from this suggestion of independence. He is worried about our being light-hearted. Well, every man is light-hearted when he knows he is doing what is right, but when a man knows he has to come forward in response to the party whip to do the government's bidding, if he has any conscience at all-and a few of those gentleman have -he can not possibly be light-hearted, he is despondent as my hon. friend certainly is on this occasion.
My -hon. friend -asks where is the logic of constantly condemning the government, and then asking the government to undertake additional work. If they are inefficient and incompetent, why should we ask them to do more? My hon. friend does not understand the situation. Those -men opposite are not going to be at the head of affairs forever. What we want is to get good laws, and then a good government ; but I admit that if I thought those hon. gentlemen were going to be in power much longer, I would hesitate committing anything to them. I look, however, for a better era, I look for a bright day in the not far distant future when Canada will have a government which will respond to the wishes of the people, and particularly the wishes of the great farming class.
The hon. -gentleman says that the government are not doing so badly after all, because some offenders have been brought to punishment. Well, I leave the hon. gentleman to fight -that out with the hon. gentleman from Regina (Mr. Martin), who told us the other day most explicitly that the action of the government had been an utter and complete failure, and that he could see no remedy except by government operation, in which he agreed with my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner). Either government operation, directly under a department, or through the agency of a commission. This is what the farmers

demand. A hurry up call was sent to.the Senate and with little consideration-perhaps with none at all-a Bill is to be brought in towards the end of the session. That means putting off the farmers until another session, for I do not believe that any substantial benefit will be conferred on the farmers by reason of the proposed legislation. The farmers have studied this question, and I venture to think that they understand their wants. If the farmers who have been handling this grain do not know what they want, how are other people to decide what is good for them? Speaking as a farmer myself, I think they do know what they want, and you can depend on their judgment as much as on that of any class in the Dominion, .and they are the class who should above all others receive consideration from the government; for, upon the action of the Canadian farmer more than on anything else rests and depends the Dominion's prosperity. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), spoke this afternoon, as he spoke a few days ago ; and he has .made his position definite. He comes from the west, but, like my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) though he comes from the west, he speaks for the government. Rarely, if ever, does either of these gentlemen speak in the interest of the farmer. The hon. member for Humboldt takes it upon himself to say that he does not think the government has been doing so badly, in fact, their action is quite satisfactory to him- not very much surprised at that
and that he is altogether in favour of leaving this matter for six months or a year longer in the hope that it will be worked out under a Bill of which he practically knows nothing.
I shall have no hesitation in voting for the resolution of the hotn. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner). I have never thought myself a Socialist, but I am not concerned as to that. I believe the measure proposed by the hon. member for Souris is in the interest of the farming class. I believe that the hon. member himself has very carefully studied it out. I can see that his heart is in the movement. Persistently and at all times he has brought the matter forward. He has worked at it when it was less popular than it is to-day, and has created in this House a strong feeling in its favour. And, when the government is ultimately forced-as it will be-to adopt this method, to my hon. friend from Souris will be due the credit for what is accomplished.


Mr. GEO. E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon).: I think this House is indebted to the hon member for Regina (Mr. Martin) to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), and to the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) for the very interesting information
which they have given us with reference to terminal and transfer elevators. I hoped, when this discussion commenced, that it would proceed on the lines laid out by my hon. friend from Souris. But when the discussion got to my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) it developed into an appeal against the proposed Bill, which will come into this House from the Senate, and was practically a request to the House to vote for this resolution and throw' out the Bill. From the information which I have been able to gain, I have arrived at the conclusion that we are only taking up time in following any other method than government ownership of the terminal and transfer elevators. I could hope that some other means would be satisfactory, but there is this fact which makes the grain question different from other products-it is impossible to identify different consignments of grain after they have been placed in the elevator. And when frauds can be committed by the turning of a spout, it becomes very apparent that the conduct of these elevators, which are the clearing house of the grain of the west, should be taken out of the control of those who are interested in the grain, and should be placed in the hands of some authority which has absolutely no interest whatever in the grain itself. I think that the experience of the past has demonstrated this, and I must believe that the representations which were made by the farmers from the west should be followed out by this government, and that a Bill should be brought in which will in the end produce satisfactory conditions, and, if necessary, that public ownership should be undertaken by this government. I have not seen the Bill referred to by some hon. members, but I heard the clause read by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely). It appears to me that, whether that clause does all that some hon. members of this House,, perhaps myself included, would wish, or does not, it is an admission of the principle of government ownership. I think it will be well to postpone the discussion of this whole question until that Bill comes down. The discussion can then go on with the legislation actually before us.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is rather interesting and amusing to hear such arguments addressed to the House as those the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) has just used. He thinks this resolution is a request to the House to throw out the government Bill, and, therefore, it should be opposed. Why? Because the government Bill, presumably, will provide something that will suit the requirements of the farmers of the west, and this resolution, if carried, will not provide it. Is he aware that the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) read to the House

a clause of that Bill which provides that the government may do exactly what this resolution asks them to do-take over the elevators. Now, if that is provided by the Bill, and if this resolution only seeks to give the sense of the House on that question, how can the resolution be said to be antagonistic to the Bill? Why, it would strengthen the hands, of the government to have unmistakable evidence that the sense of the House was supporting that very portion of the Bill, and, therefore, that they might safely go on with it. So, the argument seems neither consistent with itself nor in harmony with what is demanded by the people of the west. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), in my judgment, is entitled to the grateful thanks of the people of the west and of this House as well, for the very clear and correct view he gave of the operations of those who control the elevators to the detriment of the farmers. The hon. gentleman gave valuable information, clear, and, in my judgment, convincing information. But I was rather amused and surprised to find that almost the first man who followed him amongst the government supporters in the west was the member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), who declared that ultimately it may be necessary to have government ownership, but that that fact has not been demonstrated either to the satisfaction of the House or to his satisfaction. The farmers who came here from the west on a deputation presented their views clearly and pointedly upon this question and gave the most unmistakable evidence that government ownership is the only possible means that can be adopted to remedy^ the wrongs which exist at the present time. I thought it was not very respectful to his own constituents from the west, and particularly to the great farmers' delegation, to say that all the information they presented to the government failed to convince either the member for Humboldt or the government that they really needed what they were demanding. I may say that the same tenor is evident throughout the remarks of every western member who has spoken as a government supporter on this question. It seems to me that they are treating their friends from the west with scant courtesy, indeed, when they pay so little heed to their declarations, and practically take the ground that they know better than the western farmers themselves what is good for them.


William Paterson: Did they convince the hon. gentleman himself?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, they convinced me that this was the only sure remedy that was available, they convinced me that even though we may not like the remedy, no other is likely to be effectual, and that it must be tried, even though it be what Mr. SPROULE.
the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) calls it, government socialism. Now, the hon. member for Humboldt said that our clear duty at this time was to oppose the resolution of my hon. friend from Souris, and to wait for the government's Bill. Therefore he disagrees with this statement of the resolution:
That in the opinion of this House the present system of operating terminal and transfer elevators is detrimental to the interests of the western grain producer

Do hon. gentlemen opposite disagree with that declaration? Is it correct or incorrect? If they vote against the resolution, they declare that it is incorrect.
-and that the government should take immediate steps to operate transfer elevators at Port William and Port Arthur, and transfer elevators between the terminals and the Atlantic sea-board.
So the hon. member for Humboldt disagrees with that entirely. Well, he is not very complimentary to his friends in the west, or to the government either, because the government have asked this House to wait for a Bill they have introduced, one clause of which, as read by the hon. member for Humboldt, provides that they be empowered to do, what this resolution asks them to do. This resolution only provides for getting the sense of the House upon that question, and the member for Humboldt, the member for Red Deer and the member for Saskatoon are all opposed to it. And the member for Red Deer is opposed to it because it is government socialism, as he says; he calls government ownership government socialism. Well, I do not see anything wrong in the resolution, or anything inconsistent with the Bill, and I should think the government would gladly welcome an expression of opinion from the House upon that very question.


Mr. R. BLAIN (Peel).: As an Ontario representative, I wish to offer my congratulation to my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) on his very clear presentation of the case from the western standpoint. He has given a gTeat deal of study to the matter, and has shown how important it is to the western farmers. I wish to remind my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) and my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), that whenever a proposition to assist the farmers in the west comes up for discussion in this House, if it is introduced from this side, these hon. gentlemen always oppose it. The hon. member for Red Deer was not on his feet one minute until he had launched out into a discussion, not of the resolution of the hon. member for Souris but of the proposed reciprocity arrangement, and asked us on this side of the House what we proposed to do about it.


Michael Clark: Will the hon. gentleman give me his definition of politics? I have always understood that it was the science of government.


Richard Blain: If I were to give a definition of politics, it would put my hon. friend where he rightly belongs, and show that he is not an independent member of this House, but a radical supporter of the government. I would expect better things from an hon. gentleman representing a western constituency. When the hon. member for Red Deer posed as a farmer from the west, I looked up his record to see what stand he took on a proposition introduced by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in respect to bettering the condition of western farmers with regard to the meat industry. My hon. friend must know that the farmers in the west are not well treated in respect to the meat industry, that the prices to the western consumer, as to the eastern consumer, are very high. The consumers in the city of Winnipeg and other large centres of Canada are paying at this moment high prices for meat; hut when we make an investigation, we find the farmers of western Canada are receiving very small prices for their meat.
^ My hon. friend frbm East Grey (Mr. *Sproule) introduces a resolution to better that condition. What does the hon. member for Red Deer do?-on his feet, as he always is, in opposition to it, and records his vote against that proposition in the interests of the farmers of the west. My hon. friend from Souris has made out a very clear case with respect to the large wheat industry of western Canada, pointing out that the farmers are engaged extensively in the production of wheat, producing the best wheat that is to be found in the world, that when they send that wheat on its road to the English market they are confronted with the mixing of grain, the resultT of which is the cheapening of their product, and the farmers are not getting a proper price for their grain as they otherwise would if the condition with regard to elevators were correct. When this proposition was introduced to correct it, to direct the government's attention to a better condition of things, asking the government, who are responsible for legislation - in the interest of the people, to turn their attention to this very important question the first man on his feet almost in the House is the hon. member for Red Deer, saying: Oh, no, and not declaring himself in tlie interest of the western farmers, but in opposition to the proposition of my hon. friend from Souris. Therefore, I think that the hon. gentleman had better have a little searching of himself rather than that he should be directing attention so much to this side of the House and on every question giving, a lecture to 111
this side as if the members of the opposition were not able to discuss these questions or to take any interest in the affairs of western Canada at all. I am not going to discuss it farther only to say that in future I hope hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will not bring politics into discussions of this kind. The people of western Canada will be very much surprised that when a proposition was put forth in the interest of the west, as this was by my hon. friend from Souris, these hon. gentlemen, instead of facing it as it is and discussing it on its merits, introduce party politics into the discussion and declare themselves to be the saviours of the western farmers. I am only going to make these few remarks. I shall not enter into, the discussion. The question has been very fully discussed by my hon. friend from Souris, and other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, representing western constituencies will discuss it more fully as the debate goes on. I only wish to express my sympathy with the western farmers as they have to face grievances, and as this dilatory government are not taking care of their interests, in order to show the government and to show the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his supporters, that whenever any proposition to help the people in the west to better their condition is presented to this House they_ can always rest assured that from this side of the House they will receive a ready and willing support.


Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up the time of the House. This question was be fore the House two years ago, and at that time I placed myself on record with regard to it. I want to congratulate my hon. friend the mover of this resolution (Mr. Schaffner), and to say that I think the House is indebted to him for the facts which he has placed before it. I am not surprised at the attitude of some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House-representing constituencies in the west. They took the same attitude two years ago practically saying that the policy of the government was the proper policy, and that it should at least be given a fair trial. That policy has been in operation for. two years, and while elevators have been operated under government supervision we find by the facts laid before the House by the hon. member for Souris to-day that' the owners or operators of these elevators have been caught practically robbing the farmers of the west. Some of these men have been punished, as the hon. member for Souris has pointed out, but not sufficiently. There is no punishment under the present Grain Act sufficiently severe to stop the outrageous conduct of these men. With regard to



the attitude which the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has taken regarding the question of reciprocity, I would just like to say to that hon. gentleman and to some other hon. members from the west that when the time comes to speak on this question we will be able to answer them. Perhaps the attitude of the hon. gentleman and other hon. gentlemen from the west regarding this measure that is before the House can be explained in this way. The hon. gentleman realizes that if the reciprocity arrangements, as proposed by the government, are adopted there will be very little need perhaps for terminal elevators in Port Arthur. They realize that a great deal of the wheat trade will be diverted to Duluth and that it will not matter so much who operate the elevators at Port Arthur. As far as I am personally concerned I believe that the motion moved by my hon. friend from Souris is one to command the support of every man from the west. There is no question that in so far as the handling of the wheat is concerned, as has been pointed out by the farmers year after year, after the wheat leaves the farms it does not reach the markets of the world in the condition in which it left the farms;. The identity of the wheat has been lost entirely. There is no question that the wheat has been mixed at different points and that the farmers and the country have been the losers to a great extent by the lowering of the grade. I did not rise for the purpose of taking any lengthy part in this discussion, but I do wish to place myself again on record as intending to support the motion of my hon. friend from Souris as I had hoped that every hon. member from the west would have done. In face of the many complaints that have come from the farming associations and the Grain Growers' Association I cannot very well understand the attitude of these men on questions of this kind when they come before the House. We had a question up here not very long ago regarding cold storage, a matter of vital importance to the cattle raisers of the west. As has been pointed out every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House coming from a western constituency opposed the resolution that was moved by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Every man on this side of the House coming from the west supported that resolution strongly as we have supported every motion I know of that has been brought up in this House from either side that contained any proposition to better the condition of the western farmer. I regret exceedingly that it seems impossible for any motion to be moved from this side of the House in the interest of the western farmers that will elicit the support of members on the other side of the House from the west.
Mr. BRADBURY


Mr. JOHN HERRON (Macleod).: Mr. Speaker, I take a good deal of pride in having my name coupled as seconder with this resolution which has been introduced by my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner). When this question was before the House two or three years ago I spoke in favour of a resolution along similar lines. I have not changed my mind from that time to the present; in fact, from the evidence that has been presented to me, from what I have seen and from what I understand about the way things have been going from that time to the present, I am more strongly of the opinion to-day than I ever was that there is only one way of remedying this evil that has been robbing the western farmers of their just dues and that is the proposition which has been presented in the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Souris this afternoon.
I understand that the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner), is precisely in line With the views of the western farmers who waited on the government in December, and surely the farmers who have made a practical study of this question for years and who are men of great intelligence, best know what their needs are. I was rather surprised to heaT this afternoon some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House complimenting the government wheat inspectors for discovering . that fraud and swindling had been going on in the elevators. Why, the very idea that 75 or 90 inspectors in 12 or 13 elevators permitted this fraud and swindling to go on to the extent it did before they discovered it, is proof positive of the failure of the system, and very strong evidence that these men were either incapable or were negligent in the performance of their duty. That circumstance does not give us much reason to hope for relief from the system of government inspection. We were told by the hon. member (Mr. Schaffner), that nearly half a million bushels of one grade of wheat were sold from the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William at a higher grade than it entered, and as there is no means of knowing what was done with respect_ to other grades, this shows that the swindling was of enormous magnitude. Again, it was proved that the elevators had actually sold hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat for delivery in Europe, when it was reported to be in the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William, and all this remember, under the eyes of the inspectors. What stronger proof is required of the incapacity of these men and the ^failure of the system of government inspection. I understand also that when some of those people were brought up for wrong-doing, the local magistrate held the trial behind closed doors,

that the defendants pleaded guilty and were fined $500 for each offence, or '$5,000 in all, and that in this way the evidence was precluded which would have afforded us some information as to the extent and duration of this fraud. That, I think, was not as it should be in the interests of justice. One of the strong reasons advanced by members on the other side for opposing government ownership, is the cost of acquiring these elevators. My idea is, and I submit it for what it is worth, that if the government experimented by acquiring in some way, the terminal elevators to the extent of 25 per cent of their capacity, we would be able to test by experience, whether government ownership would prove successful or not. I believe the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur have a capacity of 30,000,000 bushels, but that the greatest quantity ever in storage at any one time was about 19,000,000 bushels, and this season only 10,000,000 bushels. Now, suppose the government acquired by leasing, or expropriation, or otherwise, a capacity of 8,000,000 or about 25 per cent of the total, the expense of the undertaking would not be great and we would know in a few years whether it would be wise for the government to take over the elevators or not. Of course, if the farmers in the west could get justice thmugh private ownership of the elevators, it probably would be the better system, but so. far, we have not been getting fair play in this matter, and it would seem to be incumbent on the government to own and operate them. Certainly, if any advantage is to accrue to the farmers of the west from government ownership, then government ownership should be undertaken at once. That is my view of the situation, and I think that probably it would prove a solution of the difficulty without entailing great expense. I am strongly in favour of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), which, as I say, is in line with the demands of the farmers of the west.


Mr. WM. H. WHITE (Victoria, Alberta).: As a western member, I do not wish to go on record as being opposed to this resolution, which, in its opening paragraph reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of operating terminal and transfer elevators is detrimental to the interests of the western grain producers.
I think every one in the west will agree with that. But, in my view of the explanation given this afternoon by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), as to the Bill presented by the government in the Senate, I am rather inclined to the belief that while there is nothing wrong with 1111
the resolution, the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely), is perhaps at the present time, more in the interests of the farmers of Alberta. In my district we are not at present, growing grain very extensively, although no doubt in the future the industry will be engaged in, to a very large extent. When the time comes, what we will be interested in is a western outlet for the product. If the government is going to take over and control the elevators referred to in this resolution, we, of course, would urge that they should control the elevators on the Pacific coast, at Prince Rupert, Vancouver and elsewhere, and, when the Hudson Bay railway is built, we would desire them to also take charge of the elevators there. On the whole, as I understand it, there is not much difference between the Bill presented by the government and the proposition in the resolution, and, for the present, I think the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Humboldt, is possibly the more desirable.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Have you seen the Bill ?


William Henry White: No. I take my knowledge of its provisions from the statement made by the hon. member for Humboldt.


Mr. GLEN L. CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: Mr. Speaker, there is not very much left, to diseuss in connection with this resolution; but as a representative of farmers, and a farmer myself, I feel it my duty and my pleasure to say a few words congratulatory to my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) on his presentation of this case. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), in dealing with the steal at Fort William and Port Arthur last spring, and the prosecutions in connection with it, congratulated the government on their system of supervision at those points, under which they employed from sixty to ninety men at a cost of some $60,000 of the people's money, I think his argument was very weak when he said that to employ high-salaried commissioners would be beneficial to the farmers of the west, in view of the fact that the government had paid out $60,000 to sixty or seventy officials to watch those wheat thieves who own elevators at those points, and the fact that in the neighbourhood of half a million bushels of wheat was raised one and two grades from the time it went into the elevators till the time it went out, thus enhancing the value of that wheat to the extent of a little over $20,000. When it takes seventy officials at a cost of $60,000 to the people, to rob the farmers to that extent in one season, it would be adding insult to injury to them to appoint any more officials for that work. It is perhaps somewhat irregular to discuss

the Bill now before the Senate; but if this House saw its way to pass the resolution which has been brought before us so ably by my hon. friend from Souris, it would give a pointer to the Senate that it was the feeling of this House that some plan for the conservation of the people's wheat and money ought to be effected, and that a clause should be inserted in the Bill providing for the ownership and operation of the elevators by and for the people. For years the farmers have been agitating for the protection proposed in this resolution; for years they have been laughed at by this government, and only within the last year or two have the government offered their sympathy in words to the farmers of the west, and for a very good reason, namely, that the farmers are beginning to organize and will be an important factor in the next election. There are two principal reasons why the farmers have been agitating in this matter. One is for their selfprotection from the stealing of their wheat by low grading and mixing, which has been shown to-night to have amounted in one season to $24,000. A further reason is their great desire that the quality of their grain may be properly taken care of, and That is a more than sufficient reason, because northern Canada is the only place in the world where No. 1 hard wheat can be produced. The fact is that under the conditions that have prevailed, even in years when the government has had this very costly system of supervision in operation, no man who saw the wheat go into the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William and saw it afterwards in the market in Liverpool would recognize it as the same wheat, so mixed was it with inferior wheat. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on every member of this House who represents a western constituency to loyally support this resolution. I intend to vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) because, like all amendments brought on that side of the House against _ anything good proposed on this side, it is merely in the nature of a quibble and evasion.
Mr.-J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac). Mr. Speaker, while this question appeals more directly to the members from the west, anything that affects the western provinces necessarily affects the eastern portion of Canada as well, and anything that can be done to cement the provinces together should be done. There is undoubtedly a very strong feeling amongst the western farmers on this elevator question. When the deputation of farmers was here some time ago, I had the privilege of conversing with some of the gentlemen from the west, and I found that this question of elevators appealed to them more strongly than any other presented to the government. There does not seem to be very strong opposition Mr. CAMPBELL.
to this resolution on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite except for the reason that it has been introduced by a member on this side of the House. The hon. member for Victoria, Alberta (Mr. White), seemed to agree with the spirit of the resolution, but found fault with it because it made no provision for elevators on Hudson Bay or on the Pacific coast. It seemed to me that if the principle of the resolution was right, we might very well wait until we have the long-promised railway to Hudson Bay before we put an elevator there. I was under the impression that the hon. gentleman and other hon. gentlemen opposite were very much concerned at present with the probable shipment of grain south of the line rather than east and west; and I just want to give one reason to them as coming from a source which I know will appeal very strongly to every member on the government side and with special force to the right hon. the Prime Minister. The reason I am about to give is the opinion of no less a personage than President Taft. Speaking at Columbus a few days ago, referring to the shipments and the prices of wheat he said that wheat on the American side of the line was 9 or 10 cents higher than in Winnipeg and the reason he gave was this:
The difference does not arise from a difference in the cost of production in favour of the Canadian farmer but from the disadvantageous conditions under which he is compelled to market his wheat, due to the high cost of transportation, the expensive elevator charges, and the absence of those carrying and warehouse facilities which the American farmer enjoys.
I commend that statement of a very near and dear friend of this administration to their careful consideration, because in it President Taft clearly puts upon the shoulders of the government the blame for not having provided those elevators and transportation facilities which the farmers of western as well as eastern Canada have been clamouring for.


Frank Oliver: It will be admitted by every one that there is probably no question of greater importance to the western country generally than that of the handling of its great wheat crops, so that no time spent in intelligent discussion of this subject is by any means wasted. I do not think that any fault can be found with anything that has been said to-day on either side of the House. I wish, however, to draw attention to one feature of the question which appears to me not to have been touched. The resolution calls for government operation both of the terminal and transfer elevators, and the amendment asks the House to support the measure which the government is bringing forward in the

Senate. That measure has been described by some speakers as providing for government operation in the last resort, when operation by ordinary commercial methods with government inspection has proved a failure. But there is another way of putting the case and it is this: If the government should under** take without consideration or preparation to take control of the operation of both terminal and transfer elevators, it would assume a responsibility which I think it would not be justified in undertaking. It is an easy matter to sit down and figure out that certain results will follow certain actions; but in a question which concerns the whole product of the western country and the handling of that product, which involves interference with the ordinary channels of trade and investment, it behooves any sane government to move carefully and only after the fullest possible consideration. No government would be wise to assume, without further preparation, the tremendous responsibility of the ownership and operation of elevators, through which the grain trade of the west passes. What the Bill introduced in the Senate provides for, is a commission which will have full control of the grain trade from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and this commission will have power, when the funds are supplied by parliament, to acquire and operate such elevators as in its judgment should be so operated in the public interest. It seems to me that such a proposition is eminently reasonable. It is not necessarily an experiment in socialism, nor is it a rejection of the principles of socialism. It is a businesslike way of dealing with a matter which is of great business interest not only to the west but to every part of Canada. In my _ opinion the government would be ill-advised to rush unwittingly and lightly into such a responsibility as this resolution demands. Instead a measure has been prepared which will be first considered in the Senate and then by this House, which will provide for the appointment of a commission that will have the power of informing itself as to possibilities and requirements, and in due course have the fullest authority asked for by the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) to deal with any difficulties that cannot be settled otherwise than by absolute government ownership and operation. It has already been pointed out that the system of government inspection which has been followed so far, had not proved a failure, but rather a success. The fact that improprieties have been located and those guilty punished, is evidence that inspection does inspect and that the law is being enforced; and I have no doubt that that inspection and enforcement of the law will have due effect in the future management of elevators. However, the government is fully aware of the importance of the question and of the necessity to deal with it thoroughly; and the fact that legislation is in the course of preparation which will embody, as far as possible, every means for settling this question, is surely evidence that the government is willing and able to deal with it to the satisfaction of all interests concerned. The government, therefore; ask the support of the House to the policy which is embodied in the measure brought down.


Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM (East Huron).: I have listened carefully and with great interest to this debate. I am interested in the subject as an eastern member because there is a great elevator being erected in our county town, Goderich, and we are very much interested in having the wheat trade of the west continue to flow eastward through its present channel. Consequently, I look upon this debate as of great importance to me as a representative of the county of Huron. I congratulate the hon. member for Souris (Mr.Schaffner) on having brought forward this resolution. And it is hard for me to understand how hon. gentlemen on the other side who represent western constituencies can reconcile their attitude on this subject with the best interests of their constituents. They say that this resolution is exactly in accord with some Bill which is to be brought in shortly but which we have not yet seen. If this resolution and the Bill are in accord, then certainly the resolution is simply an endorsement of the Bill. Are we being deceived or are our friends opposite prepared to vote down the very principle of the Bill that the government is to bring before us? I would like to know how our western friends on the other side will maintain their positron when they meet their constituents. The grain growers of the west came to this Chamber and asked of the government sternly and firmly, that the government should own and operate terminal railways at Fort William and Port Arthur. The hon. member for Souris has had this resolution on the order paper for a long time ; it was on the paper before we heard anything of this Bill that is coming from the Senate, and for weeks before the western farmers came here to ask for government ownership and operation of terminal elevators. Why, then, should we vote the resolution down. I fear that hon. members from the west who vote against this resolution will have some very awkward questions to answer when they come before their constituents.
Now, there is no doubt there is a grievance. The grain growers when they were here stated distinctly that wheat was bringing from 8 cents to 10 cents a bushel more

[DOT]on the United States side of the line than [DOT]on the Canadian side-exactly the same [DOT]grade of wheat. Hon. members will recollect that when the grain growers were here I got up at that very point in their argument and said I would consider their argument was irrefutable if they would give us some positive proof of their statement. And they said they would leave that proof with the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). If they left that proof with the Prime Minister, then it is established that wheat is bringing 10 cents more a bushel on the United States than on the Canadian side. As I happened to ask the question, some of these gentlemen came to me after the meeting was over and showed me affidavits made by three man who had sent samples of wheat to be graded and priced in Minneapolis and in Winnipeg. That sent to Winnipeg graded No. 2 Northern, and that sent to Minneapolis graded No. 1 Northern. These affidavits satisfied me, and no doubt the Prime Minister was satisfied if they submitted to him the proofs which they offered to submit. Now', if the Canadian farmers are losing 10 cents a bushel on their wheat, there is a grievance, and that grievance should be remedied this year. A loss of 10 cents a bushel means an aggre-gae loss of $10,000,000 to the farmers of the west this year. Is it right that there should be any delay or any humbugging about this thing? I think that, of course, a part of this is dus to grading. The term ' Red Fyfe ' is not in the Minnesota Act ; they use the term ' hard varieties.' We have other hard varieties of wheat besides Red Fyfe, th? Marquis and others that are almost as good as Red Fyfe. But they cannot be graded as ' hard ' because ' Red Fyfe ' is named in our Act. It would appear that those who grade the wheat in the west, and those who manage the terminal elevators are in combination; and they have been taking $10,000,000 a year out of the pockets of the western farmers toy manipulations carried on. We may talk of socialism or anything else, but what we want is justice. That is what our western farmers want ; that is what they came down here eight hundred strong to ask for ; and that is what we are going to vote for tonight, for this resolution of the hon. member for Souris is in favour of granting them the justice that they ask. And it is against that that hon. members on the other side will vote. I would like to see the names of these hon. gentlemen lined up and see the excuses they will make to their constituents. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) spoke of what happened in 1909, as if that year had been the last one in which the farmers were robbed. He seemed to think there was no evidence in regard to 1910. I have here the report of the Elevator Commission of the province of Saskatchewan, issued by the Lib-Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron).
eral government from the very province from which the hon. gentleman comes, and I propose to read a few items out of this report. I would like to put them on ' Hansard ' to show how things were in 1910 in the province whose representatives are going to vote against this resolution. Hon. members on this side will not vote against the Bill if it is in accord with the resolution, and if it is not in accord with the resolution they will b? perfectly right in voting against it. I wish to trace the wheat from the time it leaves the farmer until it leaves the terminal elevator :


CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESENT SYSTEM.
[Stage Direction]
Against the initial elevators.
1.	Weights. That they give lower weights than the farmer is entitled to.
2.	Dockage. That they take too large a percentage as against cleaning the grain to grade and too large an amount to protect the elevator against shrinkage in handling the grain.	.	,
3.	tirades. That in buying the gram they give lower grades than the grain is entitled
to.	.
4.	Prices. That they give too low prices even for the grade allowed.
5.	Cleaning. That in many bases they have no cleaning apparatus, that in other cases they refuse to clean the grain, and that the farmers not only lose the screenings, but are also forced to pay freight upon them from the shipping point to the terminals.
6.	Special binning. That they refuse to
special bin grain on the ground that they have no vacant bins.	.
7.	Substituting Grain. That they often give
the farmer inferior grain, taking his superior lot instead.	.	,	.	. ,,
8.	Mixng. That they mix the gram m the bins so that the grades are skimmed, that is, that the grain shipped in any one grade is, on the lowest line of that grade, good enough to receive that grad© at the hands of the inspector, but not a good average of that grade.
9.	Shipping. That they try to ship stored grain to their own firms even when the owner desires to ship it elsewhere.
It is not charged by many that the elva-tor operators receive explicit instructions from their superiors to do these things, though this charge is made by some, but that the operators are under pressure to make the elevators pay, and that such practices are almost inevitable results of the system. And it is pointed out that the farmers who suffer most .from such practices are the homesteaders, the small producers, and in general those whose (financial conditions constrain them to sell in wagon loads to the elevators, and more especially, such of these classes as live ten miles and upwards from the nearest shipping point.

[Stage Direction]
1. That by restricting or refusing credit to many farmers, they force these to put their grain upon the market as soon as it is threshed, depriving them of the opportunity to hold it for a rise in price, and compelling them to sell when the market is glutted an.l

the price tends to be lowest. To get the best price the farmer should be in position to market his grain leisurely, offering it step by step with the milling and export demands. The banks make it impossible for the farmers to do this at present.
2. That in giving lines of credit for moving the crops they favour the larger companies, and at times favour a few such companies, thus giving these a virtual monopoly of bank credit, and assisting them in monopolizing the grain business.

[Stage Direction]
1.	That through leaky cars and other conditions, grain is lost or damaged in transit, and the loss is too frequently put upon the shipper.
2.	That they construct loading platforms as if the object was to render the use of them by the farmers as difficult as possible.
3.	That in the past they helped to create elevator monopolies and assisted them, and that at present they favour the large milling and elevator companies as against the farmer whenever they can, and especially at points where there is no competition between the railways themselves.

[Stage Direction]
1.	That they take too much dockage as against the shrinkage of the grain in handling.
2.	That they do not pay the farmer for the screenings which they take out of the grain when cleaning.
3.	That they do not clean the grain as the inspection requires, but sell it dirty, thus increasing their surplus
4.	That they mix the different grades of grain, selling grain of lower grade at the price of the higher grade, and that, the grain being dirty and lowered in grade by mixing, export prices are lowered and the prices paid to the farmers are also lowered.
5.	That at times they loan stored grain to themselves as dealers or to others, while the owner believes he is holding his grain for an advance in price.

[Stage Direction]
What I say is that these charges made toy a commission named by tlhe Liberal government of the province of 'Saskatchewan appear clearly to indicate a combination with the elevator system to rob the farmers of their just rights.
1.	That the grades do not represent the different values of the grain for milling purposes.
2.	That good grain in any one grade gets the grade price only, and that selling by grade enables the millers and elevator companies to lower the quality of each grade, and so to fix the export and home prices upon the basis of the lowest level of each grade.
3.	That the existing grading system is unfair to grain which though slightly bleached, smutted or frosted, is nevertheless of good quality for milling purposes.
4.	That mistakes are made in sampling and grading.

[Stage Direction]
1. That they cull the best of the grain for their own mills:
(a)	By buying through their own elevators, especially in the districts which produce the best milling grade, as shown them by their experiments.
(b)	By somehow selecting the best car lots in Winnipeg, or by having cars stopped at their mills or terminals, which they can buy or not as they choose.
(c)	By selecting from all the grain they buy the best lots, and selling the remainder.
2.	That the defeots of the grading system, and the absence of a central market, enabled them to buy -grain which though slightly bleached, smutted or frosted, is of superior quality, and to buy it at a price far below its value.
3.	That because of their culling, the grades
of grain exported are lowered, with the result that export and home prices are lowered, and that it is at these lowered prices they secure the very best of the grain, except where they pay a small premium.	_
4.	That besides lowering the prices by lowering the grades, they artificially depress prices:
(a)	By spreading false reports about the crops.
(b)	By juggling in options, and especially by selling market value early in the season in the Liverpool market, quantities of grain for future delivery.
One illustration of this bearing of the market is seen in the fact that wheat sells for less on the Canadian than on the American side of the line, though the Canadian wheat is the superior article.
I draw attention to that last paragraph. Here is a report published and printed by the Liberal government of the province of Saskatchewan, stating distinctly that the same class of wheat brings a better price on the American side than it does on the Canadian side. Now, I cannot see possibly how that can result from anything but a system of fraud on the Canadian side. We know that the Liverpool market fixes the price, both for Canadian and American grain ; because tooth countries export grain and we know that grain grown on the American side of the boundary line goes through Baltimore and New York to Europe, while that raised on the Canadian side goes from Port Arthur and Fort William to Montreal, and arriving in Liverpool they are sold in competition with each other. Therefore, this eight or ten cents per bushel must be lost on the way. The farmers are robbed on the road. They lose ten million dollars every year, that is taken from them on the way to the market; this happens between the grading and the elevators. The farmers know that this is taking place; they know they are losing all this money. They paid their way down here, and in a very careful manner they laid their cause before this government, and the government promised to listen to them. One of those farmers told the government on the floor of this House that they were losing ten cents a bushel on their wheat.	Now, are you
going to ask the farmers of the west
[Stage Direction]
to lose 'another ten million dollars? I say that is the position, if we reject this resolution of the hon. member for Souris; but I hope there are enough men on the other side of the House to back us up and to pass it. I would not consider it a vote of want of confidence at all, but an endorsement of the Bill which they are shortly to bring down, and which will, if they speak truly, be exactly in accord with this resolution. Now, why is there an amendment moved to this resolution? I would ask the hon. gentleman who moved that amendment to withdraw it. I think, in the face of what has been said here to-day, he would be doing a kindness to Canada, and particularly to the .western farmers, and more particularly to his own constituents in Humboldt, if he withdrew that amendment. Let us lay aside party spirit as much as possible; there is too much of it here, and let us try to do the best we can for the people. That is what they sent us here for. I was pleased with the speech of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin). I thought he made a very careful and temperate speech, and he gave us a great deal of useful information. I wonder he is not nere to stand up and support the hon. member for Souris, who has been juggled out of the benefit of the resolution he brought forward. >
Let me remind you that the member for Souris put his resolution on the Order Paper long ago, long before this Bill was ever mentioned by the government. And now, when he is allowed to bring it forward an endeavour is made to sidetrack it by this amendment of the hon. member for Humboldt. This is not the way for the government to carry out the desires of the grain growers of the west. It is simply a block game.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: I do not wish to he the only western member who has failed to raise his voice in support of the resolution of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner). Having spoken some time ago on the resolution of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin), I will curtail my remarks on this occasion. The House will remember that when that large delegation from the west came down to interview the government in the session of 1907-8, composed of farmers, a representation of the elevator men, and all the various interests connected with the transportation, the marketing and storage of grain it was then stated by the farmers present that they were convinced there was mixing going on in those terminal elevators. They were asked to produce the evidence. The owners of those elevators took exception to that statement, and while the farmers had no specific proof to offer at that date, they knew they were not getting sufficient prices for their grain in the old coantry; they wdre suspicious that the Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron).
grain was being mixed, and the experience of the past year goes to prove thht to a certainty.
A Bill was prepared by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that session. It was prepared largely under the influence of a report presented by a royal commission that had been appointed by this government to inquire into the grain trade. It is true that the royal commission did not report in favour of government ownership and operation of the terminal elevators. They did claim, however* that this government should control by supervision the weighing of the grain into the elevators and the weighing out of the elevators. It is now admitted by everybody that after giving this system a considerable trial the mixing of grain has gone on notwithstanding all those officials, who have been appointed by this government and that it has gone on under their very eyes. That was admitted by the hon. member for Ded Deer (Mr. Clark), and the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), this afternoon, and they took great credit to the government, by Teason of the fact that those who were convicted of mixing were convicted by these government officials and that, therefore, a great deal of credit was attached to the action taken by these officials. But, Mr. Speaker, if it is a fact that more of No. 1 or No. 2 Hard was shipped out of the elevator than came in, by reason of lower grades being mixed with No. 1 quality, it did not require any expert to discover that fact; almost anybody could have detected that, and could have laid a charge against these men of having mixed the grain. But, it did not prevent the mixing. The mixing went on right under the eyes of these supervisors, and it went on by reason of the fact that those elevators are owned and operated by gentlemen who are intimately connected with the grain trade, who are the owners of the line elevators, and by reason of the fact that they are vitally, financially interested in the manipulation of grain at the terminal elevators. Even under this new Bill, I believe that the ownership and operation of those elevators will not differ practically from what it is at the present time. The Act, as I have said, that was presented to this parliament in 1907-8, was prepared in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and when it came to this House, those of us on this side of the House who engaged in a criticism of the measure, asserted that it would not give the satisfaction that the government claimed it would. Last year when my hon. friend from Souris introduced a resolution, much on the same lines a9 the resolution moved here to-night, it was claimed by some hon. gentlemen op-

posite, as a reason for opposing it, and in support of the amendment which the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin), moved that the Act now in force, was carrying out the wishes of the Royal Grain Commission and, secondly, that sufficient time had not been given for the operation of the Act to prove that it w'as not going to be satisfactory. The hon. member for Regina went rather farther than that, and I will just read a short paragraph from the remarks which he made on that occasion. On the 5th of April, 1909, that hon. gentleman said:
I claim that government control if properly carried out should be as efficient as government ownership, if not more so. Under the present system you have two sets of officials, the government official and the employees of the terminal elevators, who act as a check upon each other. But if the elevators were owned and operated by the government there would be only one set of officials to weigh in the grain and to weigh it out, so that the present system if properly carried out ought to give us more efficient control than the system of government ownership.
Further on he said:
I have referred to the legislation passed last year. I claim that if this legislation is properly enforced under the system of government control, it must remove the difficulties of mixing grades which are alleged to exist at these terminal elevators.
Mark you, he says, that if the Act is properly enforced, it will do away with all mixing. Well, we had the hon. gentleman admitting last week, or the week before, that mixing has been going on under this Act. Is it true that the Act has not been properly enforced ? If it has not been properly enforced, whose fault is it ? Is it not the fault of this government who appointed over seventy officials for the purpose of enforcing the Act right under whose eyes the mixing has gone on ? The hon. member for Regina was either Tight when he stated that government control would be sufficient, if properly enforced, or he had a mistaken idea of the benefits that would accrue from government ownership and operation. Now, the Act of 1907-8 was not approved by the grain growers. They claimed that nothing but complete government ownership would put an end to mixing, that so long as those who had the manipulation of the grain in the terminal elevators were intimately connected with the grain trade and the owners of the line elevators it was impossible to check the mixing that was going on right under the eyes of the officials. The hon. member for Red Deer, who, I am sorry to say is not present, accused the members on this side of the House of socialism, by reason of their advocacy of the government ownership of terminal elevators. We had a resolution passed unanimously by the Saskatchewan legislature last year, which every Grit and Tory voted in favour of, demanding government ownership of terminal elevators. Is it that the Liberals and Conservative members in the Saskatchewan legislature are so tinged with socialism as to advocate that which has led to such strong objection here to-night ? The hon, member for Regina and the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt), have stated that a change has taken place and that they have come to the conclusion at last, by gradual process, that government ownership is the only remedy for the existing state of affairs.
Reference has been made here to-night to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, and it has been stated by the Prime Minister that the terminal of this road was going to be owned by the gov* ernment. If it is right and proper for the government to own the terminal of the Hudson Bay railway, what objection cap there be to owning the terminal at Fort William and Port Arthur. A minister of the Crown has stated that it is the intention of the government to have a terminal elevator, owned by the government, on the Pacific coast. To-day we find the government owning elevators at Port Colborne, St. John, Halifax and, I think, at Montreal. I do not think that they can be rightly charged with socialism by reason of owning and operating these elevators, If they can be operated successfully why cannot the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur be operated just as successfully ? When the right hon. Prime Minister was in the west he was met by delegation after delegation, urging the government to take over and operate the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William. The Prime Minister went to the extent that while he was personally not in favour of government ownership, still, if no other means could be devised, he could see no objection to the government taking over these elevators and operating them.
Well, I believe a Bill has been prepared and we have seen a short synopsis of it in the press. We had a short explanation of it by the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) here to-day and he stated as an objection to the adoption of this resolution proposed by my hon. friend from .Souris that the government desired to study the question, that they did not wish to rush into this thing. They want time to study a question that has been before the country and the government for several years past. It has been studied by the farmers. Parliament has been petitioned session after session and I do not think that by adopting it this session there would be any undue haste exhibited by

this government. It has been said that the new Act is going to provide greater penalties for the mixing of grain. I believe that last year the total amount of the fines collected in the three cases was $5,500, While under the proposed new Act the minimum fine is $5,000 and the maximum $20,000. It will, therefore, have a certain deterrent effect, but it does not do away with the real ownership of the elevators and take them out of the hands of those who are intimately connected with the grain trade in other portions of the country. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Cash) said that the delegation that came down here to interview the Prime Minister seemed to be perfectly satisfied with the interview they had had with the government and with the assurances that they had received as to the new Bill to be introduced on this subject. Well, I have a little proof here rather to the contrary. Last week the farmers of Saskatchewan met in convention, several hundreds of them being in attendance representing several thousands of the farmers of that province, and they evidently are aware of the nature of this government Bill introduced in the Senate, because this is how they commented upon it:
Whereas the Dominion government has so far conceded to our demands re the government ownership and operation of the terminal elevators as to bring down a Bill appointing a commission with drastic powers, therefore, be it resolved, that while acknowledging this forward step, the Dominion Council of Agriculture reiterate the request that provision be made for the necessary funds to purchase or lease the necessary terminals and reaffirm the former position that nothing short of government operation will remedy the existing evils.
That does not look as if the government Bill is going to meet with any greater favour from the western grain growers than does the legislation now on the statute-books. The question was asked to-day of the hon. member for Souris, if many of the farmers of Manitoba had availed themselves of the provincial elevators taken over by the government of the province this year, and, the hon. gentleman gave his reply. If you read the report of the chairman of the provincial commission you will see the hard proposition they were up against in the year 1910, which was a year of short crops and consequently a bad year to inaugurate a system of that kind. But notwithstanding that tlhe grain buyers 'at points where the government had purchased an elevator did their best to squeeze out and discourage the farmers from patronizing that elevator, they gave higher prices for the grain at these points than they would have paid under other circumstances. They have also built new elevators and equipped them in a modern manner, they have done away Mr. ROCHE.
with the heavy dockage that formerly existed, they now merely make deduction for shrinkage, they have special bins provided and there is every reason to hope that these modern elevators will give satisfaction. So much is this the case that the chairman of the commission having explained the operations of the Act-and remember it is less than a year since the provincial government took over the elevators-the Grain Growers' Association of Brandon passed a resolution unanimously endorsing the principle of provincial government ownershin of the elevators in that province. This, of course, is the very best reason that can be given to show that provincial ownership is in their opinion likely to prove a success. It is, of course, claimed that the provincial system of ownership will not ibe a success either in Manitoba or Saskatchewan unless the Dominion government acts in concert with these provinces and takes over and operates the terminal elevators. The amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Neely) is much the same excuse for shelving this motion as that resorted to last year when the member for Regina (Mr. Martin) moved his amendment. At that time the delay was asked to allow more time to see if the legislation introduced by the government would prove satisfactory, and to-day it is to allow further legislation being introduced.^ At present we have upwards of 70 Dominion inspectors overseeing the weighing in and out of the grain at these elevators, and about all that the Bill does is to appoint three supervisors to supervise the present inspectors, in addition to which it provides for additional penalties. The government Bill is not based on the principle that the farmers have been advocating and that we on this side of the House have been urging on the government, and for that reason I submit that the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) should be adopted and not sidetracked by the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Humboldt.
House divided on the amendment (Mr. Neely).	.
YEAS:
Messieurs
Allard,
Allen,
Ayleeworth,
Beaupa riant,
Boland,
Black,
Borer,
Brown,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chew,
Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
McMillan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin ((Montreal, Ste. Mary's), Martin (Reginal, Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud.
Miller,
Molloy,
Murphy.
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,

Currie
(Prince Edward), Delisle,
Demers,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Girard,
Gladu,
Graham,
Harty,
Hodgins, 1 Hunt,
King,
Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-
Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
i^aw,
j_.eimeux,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
McColl,
McCraney,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury),
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Dorchester), Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Talbot,
Templeman,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nieolet), Turcotte (Quebec County),
Verville,
White (Victoria, Alta.), and Wilson (Laval.)-9G.
Stratton,
McAllister,
McGiverin,
Warburton.
Loggie,
Fisher,
Pugsley,
Bureau,
Bickerdike,
Carrier,
Conmee,
Chisholm (Antigonish) Emmereon. *>
German,
Gorden (Kent), Guthrie,
Knowles,
LeBlanc,
McCoig,
McIntyre,
Martin (Wellington), Prowse,
Smith (Nanaimo). Turriff,
MacNutt,
Champagne,
Devlin,
Gervais,
Lachance.
Gordon (Nipiseing), Rhodes,
Boyce,
Jameson,
Daniel,
Osier,
Price,
Porter,
Ames,
Blondin,
Bristol,
Crosby,
Forget,
Lancaster,
Lalor,
Barker,
Magrath.
Paquet,
Donnelly,
Russell,
Marshall,
Crockett,
Cowan,
Worthington,
Northrup,
Elson,
Clare.
Macdonell,
Wilcox.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
NAYS: Messieurs
Armstrong,	Maddin,
Arthurs,	Meighen,
Barnard,	Middlebro,
Bast,	Monk,
Blain,	Nantel,
Borden (Halifax),	Owen,
Bradbury,	Perley,
Broder,	Reid (Grenville),
Burrell,	Roche,
Campbell,	Schaffner,
Chisholm (Huron),	Sexsmith,
Crothers,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Currie (Simcoe),	Sharpe (Ontario),
Doherty,	Smyth,
Edwards,	Sproule,
F raser,	Stanfield,
Goodeve,	Staples,
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Stewart,
Henderson,	Taylor (Leeds),
Herron,	Taylor
Hughes,	(New Westminster),
Kidd,	Thoburn,
Lake,	Thornton,
Lennox,	Wallace,
Lewis,	White ^Renfrew),
Lortie,	Wilson (Lennox and
McCall,	Addington) and
McCarthy,	Wright.-51.
PAIRS:	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Brodeur,	Haggart (Lanark), |
Borden (Sir F.),	Foster,
Harris,	Beattie,
The House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Verville for third reading of Bill (No. 3) respecting the hours of labour on public works.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I opposed the second reading of this Bill, and I have since heard nothing to induce me to change my mind. True, if the Bill, as first introduced, was intended to help the labouring classes it is less valuable to them in its amended form now before us, but be that as it may, my opinion is because I disapprove on principle of a measure of this character. I opposed it in the first place because it interferes with personal liberty. I hold that we should not by legislation here prevent a man from labouring any number of hours that his physical strength allows him to, and his actual requirements necessitate. In so far as this Bill interferes with personal liberty in that respect I oppose it. Again, I am opposed to it, because, if we are to judge by the petitions that have come to this House from working people in many lines of occupation, the aim of this legislation is in time to prevent every line of labour from working more than eight hours a day. One of the reasons given as a defence of this Bill is that it applies only to public works under control of the federal government, and if that were so it would be less objectionable to me than it is at present, but, without doubt it is designed t.o extend beyond public works. One reason that I

gave for my opposition on the second reading of the Bill was, and I repeat it, that if we legislate here to compel an employer of labour to pay 10 hours' wages for 8 hours' work the product of that labour must be sold at an increased price, and_in that way we are perpetrating a great injustice on those who must toil longer hours to pay for the product of the labour of those who work shorter hours. In ' the great city of Toronto- public works are going on all the time, and if you legislate that those employed on -them are only to work 8 hours a day, it is an incitement -to other men to agitate for equally short hours. If, for instance, the men in the Massey Harris establishment would only work 8 hours a day producing agricultural machinery, the price of that product must be enhanced beyond the very high price charged at the present time, and so the farmers who buy that product will Ibe obliged to work longer hours to pay for it. Although the agriculturists of this country are now working much longer hours than the men who produce these articles, if they are obliged to work one or two hours a day longer to pay for the enhanced price because of the shorter hours of labour, then you are doing a great injustice to the farmers of this country. If you compel a fanner, who now works 10, 12 or 14 hours a day, to work 15 or 16 hours a day to pay the enhanced price for an implement turned out by a man working 8 hours a day surely you are doing the agricultural classes a great ip-justice I represent an agricultural community, and I feel I would he doing less than my duty if I did not oppose the proposal made in this Bill. For this reason, as well as for others which I shall not delay the House to explain at present, I am opposed to this legislation.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: It is not my intention to occupy more than a few moments of the time of the House discussing this Bill, nor would I rise were it not that since the Bill was read a second time the agricultural society of the township in which I live and the horticultural society of the city of Kingston have both passed resolutions against the principle of this Bill, and have requested me to express their disapproval. I reiterate the protest I made when the legislation was first introduced. My constituents are largely farmers, and I believe the adoption of this principle works great injustice to them. One of the great difficulties of the Ontario farmers to-day is the securing of labour on the farm, and if you once adopt this principle on government works you insert the thin end of the wedge, and it becomes an encouragement to labouring men of all classes to demand an eight hour day.
That must undoubtedly militate against the farmer by increasing the difficulty he now experiences in obtaining labour. Any Mr. SPROTJLE.
one who knows anything about agriculture knows that a farmer cannot possibly limit his working day to eight hours. When this matter was under discussion some time ago, an hon. gentleman on this side who was supporting the Bill said that the farmers had very little to do in the winter. After they had collected ia good pile of wood and laid in a good stock of tobacco, all they had to do was to sit by the fire and enjoy themselves. But while it may be true that the farmer in the winter season, has not to spend the same long hours at work as he does in the summer, it is still uttsrly impossible for him to have an eight hour day because, if he is going to get the best out of his cattle, they must he fed at regular intervals, and his cows must be milked at regular intervals. To allow sixteen hours between the feeding at night and the feeding in the morning would prevent his getting the best results out of them, so that an eight hour day is an impossibility for him, even in the winter. Another objection to this Bill, is the vast increase in the cost of all kinds of government work to which this would apply. For instance, you are going to construct a building, and the men who formerly would work on that building 10 hours a day will, when this Bill becomes law, work only eight hours per day. That will certainly make a great increase in the cost, an increase of from 20 to 25 per cent. Another objection I see is this. Why should a man employed by the government in erecting a building work only eight hours a day when other government employees have to work 10 or 15 hours a day. For instance on our canals, such as the Rideau canal, the lockmen are actually employed the whole 24 hours. That is, in the whole 24 hours they have no time which they can call their own, because they must be ready to go out and do their work at any hour of the day or night. It seems very unfair, therefore, that a man engaged m building a post office should work only eight hours a day while a man employed in another department should be obliged to work 10 or 15 hours per day.
But the strongest objection to this Bill is that it must undoubtedly increase the difficulty which the farmer now experiences in obtaining the necessary labour. An instance was cited to me by a farmer in my own county the other day of this difficulty. He had an Englishman in his employ who bad come out from the old country. This farmer sold his milk in Kingston, and his hired man had to get up early to milk the cows, and then take the milk into the city. He would get into the city just-about the time, or perhaps a little before, other labouring men were going to work, and the result was that in a short time he threw up his job. He said : I am not going to work on the farm for an hour or two in

the morning, (before men working in the city start their day's labour. I feel that in justice to the people I represent, I must protest against the passing of such a measure.


Mr. HODGINS (Pontiac).: Before this motion is adopted I wish to say a few words on the question. It is not often I agree with the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) but on this occasion my sentiments are heartily in accord with his as I represent a farming community, and I feel that this Bill if it became law would be against their best interests. The successful men of the day, either in the workshop, the office, the factory, or the farm, are men who have given up more than eight hours per day to labour, and as my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), have said that if this measure be adopted it will increase the cost of living 20 per cent as well as the cost of all public works. The object no doubt is to insert the thin edge of the wedge and in the end, have an eight hour day established throughout the country. No doubt it is urged toy the labour organizations, but I do not think that this government should enact any such legislation, as these organizations are very capable of looking after themselves.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the thiro time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.53 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 14, 1911.