1911-01-25

BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE-QU ORUM.

Mr. MILLER moved:: That a quorum of the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce be reduced from 21 to 15 members iu accordance with the recommendations of the first report of the said committee.


Mr. FOSTER.: This matter might foe allowed to remain over for a day. There should be some reason given for this proposal. What is the number of that committee ?


Henry Horton Miller: I do not know exactly, but I think there must be 70 or 80 members.


George Eulas Foster: Fifteen would be a mighty small quorum.


Henry Horton Miller: I am willing to let it stand till to-morrow.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: What are the reasons for the reduction of the quorum ?


Henry Horton Miller: Quite a number of committees meet in the morning of which members of the Banking and Commerce Committee are also members. This morning we had sittings of the Agricultural Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Banking and Commerce Committee, and the Printing Committee. We are in the habit of calling the Banking and Commerce Committee at half past ten o'clock, while most of the committees meet at eleven, and sometimes we are able to get through a good deal of business m the 30 minutes before the other committees meet. In the Banking and Commerce Committee, as I suppose in some other committees, we do not have a large attendance and it seems to be more difficult to get. the members together at half past ten than at eleven o'clock. Often the committee would have to be dismissed or else do business without a quorum. The -matter was fully discussed this morning before rather a large attendance of the committee and it was the unanimous opinion that the quorum might be reduced.



BILLS RELATING TO TRADE, QUESTION OF ORDER.

Mr. SPEAKER.: A question of order was raised yesterday u-pon the introduction of a Bill by the hon. member for Rainy River, entitled: * An Act to amend the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.' The hon. mem-

ber for East Grey questioned the propriety of proceeding with the measure without the principle of the same having been first submitted to a Committee of the Whole House, toy virtue of Rule No. 50. This Rule reads as follows:-
50. No Bill relating to trade, or the alteration of tlie laws concerning trade, is to be brought into the House, until the proposition shall have been first considered in a Committee of he Whole House, and agreed unto by the House.
Not having had an opportunity of perusing the Bill itself, I could only judge from the observations made toy the hon. member for Rainy River in introducing his Bill, as to its scope and intent. In the meantime I requested that the Bill should stand until I could look into the point raised.
The hon. member for Rainy River having submitted his draft of the Bill to me, I find that it amends Chap. 16 of the Statutes of 1907 in some material particulars : that it relates to trade in electric and mechanical power is manifest. Clause 4 of the Bill repeals section 5 of the original Act, and provides regulations as to methods of distribution and the hours of service. Subsection 3 of clause 4 makes it compulsory for licensees under the Act to supiply power upon the request of any municipal corporation or of any other bona fide applicant for such power.
I, therefore, rule that the said Bill does' relate to trade as contemplated by Rule 50 and can only toe introduced after having been first considered in Committee of the Whole House.



FISHERY AGREEMENT AT WASHINGTON.

Mr. BRODEUR.: I beg to lay on the table of the House the regulations and the minutes of the agreement reached between this country and the United States in reference to the fisheries in contiguous waters.


George Eulas Foster: Is that printed ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest that it should be.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Very well, I move that Rule 74 be suspended and that these documents be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: As we do not want to have too many printed documents to refer to, it seems to me that something more might be included in the papers which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has brought
down, so that we would have the whole matter under our hand. The first suggestion I have to make is that, as the amended sections of the fishery regulations are given, it would be useful to have with them the present sections, so that we could tell at a glance what alterations have been made. Then, I think the protocols might be included so as to give us a concise and ready reference.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think most of the regulations are in the protocol itself, but for the sake of intelligent discussion, I think it would be well to have all the regulations included, and I will bring them down to-morrow.



IMMIGRATION STATISTICS.

Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior why the number of immigrants entering the country each month are not published in the ' Canada Gazette ' at the end of the month in accordance with a resolution passed on the 5th of May, 1887, which will be found in the Journals of the House for that year, at page 92. I do not know that it has ever been changed.


Mr. OLIVER.: I will have to ask my hon. friend to allow me to postpone my answer until to-morrow.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar):: 1.	How many acres of land has the government sold to the Grand Trunk Pacific Developing Company?
2.	At what price per acre was the land sold?
3.	Has the government bought any land from the Grand Trunk Pacific Developing Company?
4.	If so, how much land was bought and at what price per acre?


Mr. OLIVER:: 2.	Dominion lands-At $3 per acre, and one-quarter interest in net proceeds of sales. Indian lands-At $7.50 per acre, saving the rights of the province of British Columbia.
3.	Dominion lands-No. Indian lands- No.
4.	Dominion lands-Answered by No. 3. Indian lands-Answered by No. 3.


TORONTO ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to discontinue the lighthouse at Toronto island, known as Gibraltar Point light, which has been in use for the last 100 years or thereabouts? If so, why?
2.	Have any protests been received against such removal?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	The Lighthouse Board has recommended the discontinuance of the said lighthouse. But no action has yet been taken by the government on such recommendation.
2.	Yes.


GRAND MANAN FISHERIES.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	What have been, respectively, the maximum and minimum prices per hogshead charged to Canadian fishermen for bait out of the weirs at Grand Manan, New Brunswick, during the months of May, June, July, August, September, October and November, 1910?	.
2.	How many licenses for weirs at Grand Manan *were issued during the last twelve months?
3.	Are any of such weirs erected on the herring spawning grounds?
4.	If so, what are the names of the persons holding licenses therefor?
5.	Is it the policy of the government to allow the erection of weirs on the herring spawning grounds ?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	There were no herring at Grand Manan in May or June.
In July the prices ranged from$7.50 to $10.
In August $10 to $11.25.
In September $7.50 to $10.
In October $15.
In November $15 to $16.75.
2.	Sixty-four.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	No.


FISHERY REGULATIONS.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries been informed of the prosecution of one Charles K. Golden, of Chebogue, Yarmouth
Ur. OLIVER,
county, for alleged violation of fishery regulations?
2.	If so, who laid the complaint, what was the charge, by whom was the complaint tried, and when?
3.	Is the department aware whether defendant pleaded guilty or was convicted on the evidence of witnesses?
4.	What penalty was imposed, and has a return thereof been made to the department? If so. when ?
5.	Has any portion of the fine been refunded? If so, when?	_
6.	Has defendant Golden been previously convicted of, or charged with, violation of fishery regulations to the knowledge of the department? If so, of which and when?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Fishery Overseer A. M. Hatfield. Breach of the lobster fishery regulations. The stipendiary magistrate at Yarmouth. During the past fall.
3.	He pleaded guilty.
4.	$20. No complete return of the prosecution has yet been made, as the defendant asked for an extension of time, which was granted him.
5.	No.
6.	An examination of the records for the
past three years shows no previous .conviction.	.


THE 'JOHN B. YOUNG.'
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Is the government aware of the alleged stranding of the schooner 'John B. Young' on Amherst island, Magdalen islands, in May, 1910?
2.	What assistance, if any, did the government or Department of Marine and Fisheries render in getting the said schooner off or in towing her to Lunenburg?
3.	What expense, if any, in that connection did the government or department incur?
4.	What amount, if any, did the government pay for such purpose, and to whom ?
5.	Was the grounding of said schooner attributed by the captain or owners to any defect in the aids to navigation? If so, to which ?
6.	Was an inquiry held into the cause of the grounding of said vessel? If so, by whom and with what result?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	None. The vessel was reported to be a total loss.
3 and 4. The department paid to Mr. Joseph id. Noel $87.75 for board and lodging of wrecked crew.
5.	Yes. A statement was made that Entry island lighthouse was not in operation at the time of the accident. As a matter of fact the lighthouse was being removed to a new site and was temporarily replaced by a less powerful light.
6.	No inquiry was held.

IMPORTS OP BRICKS, TILES, &c.


Mr. MADDIN:: 1.	What amount of bricks, tiles, clays and manufactures of same was imported into Canada during tlie calendar years of 1909 and 1910. from the United Kingdom and the United States respectively?
2.	What amount of these goods during 1909
and 1910 was entered at Montreal, Halifax and Sydney, respectively ?
3. What is the present duty on fire bricks?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1. The imports into Canada from Great Britain and the United States of the undermentioned . articles during the calendar years 1909 and 1910 were as follows:
Unit
ofqty.
Bath Brick	  $
Building brick	M.
Paving brick	M.
Drain tiles, not glazed	   $
Drain pipes, sewer pipes and earthenware fittings, chimney linings or vents, chimney tops and inverted blocks, glazed or unglazed	 $
Manufactures of clay, n.o.p	 8
Country.
Great Britain. United States, (treat Britain. United States, (treat, Britain. United States. Great Britain. United States.
1909.
Great Britain.. United States., Great Britain. United States.
1,738
26,234
5,244
5,941
Quantity. Value.
1910.
Quantity. Value.
1,372
21,680
173,(580
64,719
74,047
2,275
34,200
1.35,809
122,173
131,763
1,993
27,056
7,717
2,780
2,269
26,447
248,035
95,058
29,936
4,298
35,179
140,259
197,796
164,117
2. The imports into the ports of Montreal, Halifax and Sydney of the undermentioned
articles during the calendar years 1909 and 1910 were as follows:	'
Montreal.-	.
Bath brick	
Building brick	
Paving brick			
Drain tiles, not glazed	
Drain pipes, sewer pipes and earthenware fittings, chimney linings or vents, chimney tops and inverted blocks, glazed or unglazed.
Manufactures of clay, n.o.p

Halifax.-
Bath brick	
Building brick	
Drain tiles, not glazed	
$


M. M.' $
[Stage Direction]
Great Britain... United States... Great Britain ... United States.. Great Britain... United States... jGreat Britain... United States...
4(32
3.407
4,543
1,334
1,872
6,718
39,760
£4,318
14,280
340
2,704
6,979
1,666
3,282
38,190
84,181
1,122
$
Great Britain	
United States	
Great Britain	
United States	
11,207
1,580
63,916
10,189
7,299
77,877
14,944
8 Great Britain... United States... M. Great Britain. . . United States... $ Great Britain... United States...
22
286
407
202
1,980
17
Drain pipes, sewer pipes and earthenware fittings, chimney linings or vents, chimney tops and inverted blocks, glazed or unglazed....	8 Great Britain.
United States.
1,842
1,835
Sydney.-
Paving brick
[Stage Direction]
Great Britain. United States.
405
Drain pipes, sewer pipes and earthenware fittings, chimney linings or vents, chimney tops and inverted blocks, glazed or unglazed....
Manufactures of clay, n.o.p....
8 Great Britain.
United States	 Great Britain. United States.
8,756
2,529
8,158
2,782
[Stage Direction]
3.	Fire bricks, of a class or kind not made in Canada, are free of duty. Other fire bricks are dutiable at the rate of 12i per cent, under the British Preferential Tariff, and at the rate Qf 22J per cent under the ' General Tariff.'

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the government collect any extra postage on the ' Review of Reviews,' an American monthly magazine, entering Canada from the United States? If not, why not?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: No. The said publication enters the 'Canadian mails under' regulations applicable to all United States' publications.


MUTILATED MAIL MATTER.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. ARMSTRONG :
1.	Is the government aware that great quanma^ matter are said to be daily mutilated, contents of letters exposed, and parts of envelopes torn oft so as to render the mail matter open to inspection, and in many instances the documents and correspondence torn or destroyed ?
2.	What action, if any, has the government taken to investigate the careless handling of mail matter?
3.	Has the government made any -effort to use other means in small post offices than tying letters together with string for outside points? If not, why not?
4.	Has the government made inquiry into the numerous complaints received by them within the past six months relating to the carriage and delivery of mails? If so, what are some of the improvements made re«-arding same?
5.	What reasons, if any, are given for mail matter between Kingston and Ottawa requiring days to make the trip?
6.	Has any investigation been made regarding said delays? If so, who is responsible for them, and what action lias the government taken to remedy same?
7.	What is the usual length of time that letters sent to the Dead Letter Office are held before returning them to the sender, and is it not possible to return them more promptly to the owner?
8.	Are registered letters handled under different instructions than ordinary letters? If so, what is the nature of said instructions?
9.	What arrangements has the government made with certain newspapers and corporations whereby said papers and corporations can have printed on their envelopes ' Postage paid in cash, by order of Post Office Department?
10.	How are such envelopes furnished, and if by the government, wliat is the charge per thousand, what inspection is made in the general use of said envelopes, and how many firms and papers in Canada use these stamps?
11.	Has the Atlantic mail contract been renewed? If so, to whom is the contract let, and what are the general terms of the said contract ?
Mr. MUR-PHT.
12 What -position does W. J. Johnston hold under the government, and what are his duties ?
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	No, but at times complaint has been
made as to the damaged condition of mail matter, and upon investigation it is generally found that such damage is occasioned in part by the natural wear and tear incident to the various handlings to which mail matter is necessarily subject, and to the fact that paper used in the manufacture of covers in which such matter is inclosed is of inferior quality, and not sufficiently strong to resist the ordinary friction and pressure which it must sustain by coming in contact with other mail matter during course of post.	'
2.	Whenever complaint is made of the careless handling of mail matter the same is at once carefully inquired into with a view to fixing responsibility and preventing a recurrence.
3.	No practical substitute for string has
yet been devised for tieing packages of letters.	_
4.	All complaints respecting carriage and delivery of mails are carefully investigated, and when it is ascertained that the irregularities complained of could properly be charged against the postal service, such' steps as are possible in order to prevent a recurrence are taken.
5 and 6. The department is not aware that other than the schedule time is required for the transmission of mail matter between Kingston and Ottawa.
7.	There is no specified time, the instructions being that all letters sent to the Dead Letter Office are to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
8.	Yes. Registered letters are letters for which a receipt is given to the sender at the post office at which they are handed in, and for which a receipt is taken before delivery. A record is also kept at each of the post offices and railway post offices through which such letters pass.
9 and 10. No such arrangements have been made. In order to facilitate the posting and despatch of third-class matter mailed in large quantities the postmasters of city offices may, on prepayment of postage in cash, accept printed matter such as circulars and catalogues under conditions as set forth in section 78 of the Official Postal Guide.
11.	This question refers to matters relating to the Department of Trade and Commerce.
12.	Financial superintendent, to whom is assigned the supervision and inspection of the accounts of the city and semi-staff post offices, issuing necessary instructions to the officers employed therein, and the performance of such other duties of a

financial nature as the Postmaster General may designate.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: There is a portion not answered because it related to another department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: About the Atlantic mail *contract. I will call the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to that contract.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that that portion be allowed to stand.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and I will call the attention of my hon. colleague to it.


FACTORIES FOR EXPLOSIVES.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	How many factories for the manufacture of explosives are there in Canada, and where are they situated?
2.	How many people are employed therein?
3.	What is the total capital employed in the industry?
4.	What number of deaths have been caused by explosion in such factories since 1896?
5.	What is the number of people who have been injured during same period by the same cause?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: This department has, through inquiry, become aware of the existence of 23 factories in Canada in which explosives are manufactured. The following list shows the locations of these plants and the explosives manufactured:
Name of Company.
C. & N. Fuse Work	
Ontario Powder Company	
Hand, T. W	
Bradley Torpedo & Oil Co	
Corey, H., & Sons	
Petrolia Torpedoes	
Prescott Explosives	
Energite Explosive Co	
Dominion Explosive Co	
Dominion Cartridge Co	
Hamilton Powder Co	
Hamilton Powder Co	
Standard Explosive Co	
The Northern Explosive Co	
Back-a-Back Powder Co	
A.	L. Howard Co	
French Electric Blasting Fuse Co..
Acadia Powder Co	
Hamilton Powder Co	
Western Explosives Co	
B.	C. Powder Co	
Giant Powder Co	
Dominion Arsenal at Quebec.
Where Situated.
Arnprior, Ont	
Tweed, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Petrolia, Ont	
Petrolia, Ont	
Petrolia, Ont	
Prescott, Ont	
Haileybury, Ont	
Sand Point, on Ottawa river	
Brownsburg, Que	
Boenil, Que	
Windsor Mills, Que	
Vaudreuil, Que	
Lavergne, Que	
Sherbrooke, Que	
Capelton, Que	
703 Merchants Bank Building,
Montreal	
Waverly, near Halifax, N.S	
North Fleet Bay, B. C	
Tunstall Bay, Bowan Island, B.C. North Arm, Burrard Inlet, B.C.. Telegraph Bay	
Explosives Manufactured.
Fuse and detonators.
Dynamite.
Fireworks.
Nitro-glycerine.
Nitro-glyeerine, oils.
N itro-glycerine.
Fulminate of mercury.
Cheddite.
Blaster's friend.
Sporting ammunition, detonators and electric fuses.	.
Dynamite, gelignite, cordite, monobel.
Black and sporting powder. Dynamite and black powder. Dynamite.
Back-a rock powder.
Fulminate of mercury.
Blasting fuse.
Dynamite and black powder.
Black powder, dynamite, gelignite, monobel.
Black powder, dynamite. Dynamite.
Dynamite.
2.	This department has no record of the number of people employed.
3.	This information is not on record in the Mines Department.
4.	While the department has no official record_ of the number of deaths caused by explosion in these factories since 1896, it is known that at least 25 persons were killed in explosions at four plants in 1910.
5.	As per question 4, the information is not on record, but it is known that at least 20 persons were injured in one explosion in 1910.


PRINTING BUREAU.
*Mr. MACDONELL:: 1. Is it a fact that a portion, if not the greater portion of paper purchased by the
Printing Bureau is not water-marked and consists largely of what are known as culls?
2.	Are there any employees in the Stationery Branch of the Bureau who have had a sufficient factory or mill experience to qualify them to distinguish culls?
3.	If so, has any such person examined the paper purchased during the past six months, and what was the result of such examination?
4.	Has there been purchased lately between 40 and 50 tons of board, ont of which to manufacture eases for use by census enumerators?
5.	If so, from whom was it purchased?
6.	Has all or a great portion of it become warped?
7.	Has it been accepted and paid for? If so, how much was paid?
8.	Who is requsition clerk at the Bureau.
9.	When was he appointed and upon whose recommendation ?

10.	What are his qualifications for the position?
11.	Has any loss been occasioned by reason of this requisition clerk, and what is the extent of such loss?
12.	In proportion to the time he has held the position how has his work compared with the previous clerk?
13.	On whose authority was the previous requisition clerk, Mr. A. E. Chamberlain, requested to send in his resignation? _
11. What assistance, if any, is given the present occupant of this position that was not given Mr. Chamberlain ?
15. What salary is now paid the requisition clerk?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	No. The Printing Bureau does not purchase paper ' culls.' Various grades of paper-required for different services-are purchased under contract, but in order to give all dealers and manufacturers an equal chance to compete, registered water marks, or trade marks, are not specified in the invitation to tender.	_	.
2.	Several of the employees in the stationery office have had sufficient experience to enable them to distinguish ' culls.'
3.	Yes. The results have shown that the papers are of good quality and value. All papers are examined and tested when received at the Bureau.
4.	Seventeen tons of mill board, for general use, were lately bought from the St. Lawrence Pulp and Paper Company by tender.
5.	Answered by reply to No. 4.
6.	No. About half a ton became warped and it was replaced by the company without expense to the Bureau.
7.	Yes. The contract price, forty-five dollars per ton.
8.	H. M. McClory.
9.	The 28th November, 1910, by the King's Printer who had personal knowledge of his fitness for the position.
10.	Twenty years a practical printer in the Bureau, of which 13 years were spent at the case, 5 years as a monotype operator and nearly t~wo years as a clerk in lithograph room.
11.	No.
12.	Very favourably.
13.	The King's Printer.
14.	None.
15.	$18.35 per week, the same rate as that at which he was paid before becoming requisition clerk.


NAVIGATION LICENSES ON GREAT LAKES.
Mr. MACDONELL :: 1. Is it true, as stated in the public press, that the Treasury Department at Washington has recently made a rule to the effect that only citizens of the United States will he allowed to hold navigation licenses for American vessels on the Great Lakes?


Mr. MACDONELL.: 2. If so, is it the intention of the government to enforce a regulation prohibiting United States subjects from holding similar navigation licenses on Canadian vessels on the Great Lakes?


Mr. BRODEUR :: 1.	The government has no information on the subject beyond what has appeared in the public press, and to that extent only has the government been advised of the matter.
2.	The matter will receive the consideration of the government should circumstances require it. In the meantime the existing legislation will continue to be strictly enforced.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY, HALIFAX TERMINALS.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the notices of motion are called I would like to ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Railways has had any opportunity of considering the .matter to which I called attention a day or two ago? I allude to terminal facilities, required by the Intercolonial railway at Halifax for the purposes of a better dock.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I am sorry to say that the Minister of Railways has not been able to take cognizance of this matter yet, but before next week I hope to give my hon. friend an answer.


MARITIME MAIL SERVICE.
Robert Laird Borden: Has my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) had an opportunity of considering the matter which I brought to the attention of his department during his absence, and which stood at the request of the Prime Minister? I allude to the representations of the Halifax Board of Trade with respect to the delay in the transmission of the mail to the maritime provinces during the summer months.
Mr. LEMIEUX^ I have a pile of papers before me, and I know that this matter is waiting. I will see that all diligence is had in attending to it.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing the full names of the permanent and temporary employees appointed at Quebec since the 1st of January, 1905, in the following departments: Post Office, Customs, Inland Revenue and Public Works; the age and place of residence of each of these employees at the time of their appointment, the dates and nature of change®, promotions or increases of salary granted them since their appointment.-Mr. Lachance.
For a copy of all correspondence, documents and papers relating to the late strike on the Grand Trunk Railway between the

said railway and the striking conductors and trainmen, or between either and any person or persons authorized or professing to act for either, or between the government or any minister or deputy minister, or any one on his behalf, and either of said parties or any one professing to act on behalf of either, since the 29th day of November, A.D., 1910, and particularly all documents, papers, correspondence and agreements relating to the re-instatment of any of the men who had been on strike, and the appointment of Judge Barron.-Mr. Northrup.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina) moved :: That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the investigations recently made by the government into the conditions existing in the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, and in view of the disclosures as a result of such investigations, it is in the interests of the western grain producers and of Canada generally, that such measures he adopted by the government as will more effectually prevent the improper admixture of grain delivered to the several terminals and transfer elevators through which the grain of the western provinces may pass.
He said : In bringing this matter to the House, I have no apology to make. It is a question which is of great importance to western Canada, and of equally great importance to Canada as a whole. In western Canada it affects not only the men who raise tlhe grain, but every citizen in that country, whether 'he he an agriculturist, a merchant, a professional or a labouring man. Every one there is affected by the quantity of grain produced, and the marketing of that grain. It is also a matter'of the greatest importance to Canada that the grain produced in our country should reach the markets of the world in the same condition as that in which it leaves the farms of the west. We have had a number of delegations waiting on the government during the present year, but none of these was of greater importance than the one which came from western Canada representing the agriculturists in that part of the Dominion. They made a number of requests, one of which was that the tariff should be revised downwards. In that respect I am in entire accord with our western agriculturists.
They also made a request With respect to the operation of the Hudson Bay railway, with respect to the introduction of cooperative legislation, and with respect to government operation or control of terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. I venture to say that of all these questions, not even excepting the question of the tariff, the matter of the proper control of the terminal elevators and the proper handling of grain in the terminal elevators, was probably the most important question concerning western Canada that was submitted to the present
government by the western delegation. This question has been troubling the residents of the west for a number of years past, and there is no question on which there has been so much discussion since the old trouble of the scarcity of cars. We had some years ago in the west the greatest difficrdty in obtaining cars to market our grain with. That difficulty, I may say, during the past two years, has been practically removed; I know' of no complaint with respect to getting cars for the shipment of grain in 1909 or 1910. But the trouble in the terminal elevators continues to go on. The provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are those most vitally affected by the manner of tha control and handling of grain in the terminal elevators, but the province of Saskatchewan is particularly affected. I want to give the House a few figures to show how important the production of grain is in that province, and how important it will be to that province in the years to come. I am not doing this as being at all provincial; but the fact is that at the present time the province of Saskatchewan produces more wheat than any other province in the Dominion, it produces three times as much wheat as Manitoba, and I am often at a loss to understand why all the wheat that is marketed from the western country should be called Manitoba wheat, when the fact is that we produce in Saskatchewan so much more wheat than Manitoba.


George Eulas Foster: You must have got your seed from Manitoba.


William Melville Martin: No doubt as regards the quality of wheat, the province of Manitoba compares favourably with that of (Saskatchewan. But I want the members from Manitoba to understand that there is another province^ producing wheat in western Canada besides Manitoba, a province that produces three times as much wheat as Manitoba is doing, or has ever done. Consider the Saskatchewan wheat production for three years, 1903, 1906 and 1909, for the purpose of making a comparison.


SASKATCHEWAN'S PRODUCTION OF GRAIN IN BUSHELS.
[Stage Direction]
1903.	190G.	1909.Wheat	
15,121,015	37,040,097	90,255,000Oats	
9,164,007	23,965,528	105,465,000Barley	
665,593	1,316,415	7,833,000Flax	
285,697	710,698	4,448,70025,236,312	63,042,739 208,001,700
Now there is a fact to note. The crop of 1909 placed Saskatchewan first, not only among the provinces of the Dominion, and not only in the production of wheat, but, also in the production of oats, and third among the states of the American union.
[Stage Direction]
Let me give you the figures. In 1909 the state of Minnesota produced the most wheat of all the states of the American union:
[Stage Direction]
Minnesota	 94,000,000
North Dakota	 90,700,000
Saskatchewan	 90,255,000
Kansas	 87,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Illinois	 159,000,000
Iowa	 116,000,000
Saskatchewan	 105,465,000
Mr. SPROULE, From what source does the^hon. gentleman get his figures?
William Melville Martin: From the Department of Agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan. I have seen them cited in a number of newspapers, and I am satisfied they are correct.


Mr. SPROULE.: I thought he gave the figures applying to the province before it was organized under a government of its own.


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend is correct for the year 1993, which was before the province was formed. But the calculation was made in the provincial, department of agriculture over the corresponding area of the province. However the figures for 1903 do not make much difference.


George Eulas Foster: Does the hon. gentleman know how the estimates he has read for the province of Saskatchewan agree with the estimates given by the Dominion Department of Agriculture? Is there much difference between the two?	,


William Melville Martin: I have not made a comparison all the way through. I know, however, that the estimate of Saskatchewan wheat is given as somewhat less in the report of the Dominion Department of Agriculture, which gives, the only figures I have knowledge of.
But the difference is not of much account. There is this further point to consider, that so far as the productivity of the soil is concerned, we occupy in Saskatchewan no mean position. Take again the figures for 1909 The crop reports for 1909 place Saskatchewan first, not only among the provinces of the Dominion of Canada, but also among the states of the American union, in the average per acre production of both wheat and oats. Now that is a fact of considerable importance, not only to our own province, but to the whole Dominion, when we consider how small a proportion of our arable area is yet under cultivation. Let me give the figures.


William Melville Martin: Bushels per acre.
Saskatchewan	 22 1
Minnesota	 16 [DOT]?
North Dakota	 15 7
Kansas	 14 1
United. States	 15 ?

Saskatchewan	 47-1
Illinois	 36 6
Minnesota	 33 0
Iowa	 27 -9
United States	 30-3
So that in respect to the productivity of the soil, our province occupies a very proud position. With these figures before us we can imagine what are the vast possibilities of that province with regard to the production of grain. In the year 1909 we had under cultivation only 7,016,272 acres; in 1910, slightly over 8,000,000 acres. The area under cultivation in 1909 was only equal to a little more than the area of our road allowances. And when it is considered -that the area of the province of Saskatchewan, south of the city of Prince Albert, exclusive of lakes and rivers, is 80,000,000 acres, by far the larger part of which is as good land as that now under cultivation, it may easily be seen what a vast production of wheat will take place in that province in ten years, provided the population increases as it has increased in the past. To show the soundness of my contention, I would cite the statement made by Mr. William Whyte, of the Canadian Pacific railway, a gentleman who has lived long in the west and knows the west from Winnipeg to the coast as well as any man. Mr. Whyte says:.
Saskatchewan is now producing one-tenth as much grain as all the United States, and in ten years will produce as much as all the states put together.
When we reach the point that Saskatchewan alone produces as much wheat as the whole of the United States, Canada will have made good her claim to be the granary of the British Empire.


George Eulas Foster: Has the hon. member (Mr. Martin, Regina) any figures showing the relation between the product and the number of producers? In one respect, that is quite an important point.


William Melville Martin: I regret that I have no figures to show the average for each producer. Having given these figures, I think the House will agree with me that the question brought forward this afternoon in the form of this resolution is one which merits the attention of every representative of the Canadian people.
Hon. members will recollect that in 1906 a royal commission was appointed to investigate the grain trade. That commission held sittings all over the country and endeavoured to follow the grain from the time it was

marketed in the west until it reached Liverpool. They finally made a report, and to show the relative importance of the question which is the subject of this motion and other questions, I may mention that this report declares that the main question then was that of getting cars. In 1906 the farmers simply could not get the cars to get their grain to market. The results were what every one who has been in the west knows.
I have seen towns along new lines of railway when farmers living as much as fifty or sixty miles distant had driven in with their grain. They found they could not get their grain into elevators, and neither they nor the elevators could get cars to ship the grain. So, these farmers, were kept waiting there for days, taking the profit off the grain and preventing them from getting the money to pay the bills of merchants and machine men. Let me quote a few words from the report of the royal commission to show the House how the commission dealt with some of these questions.
I refer, first, to page 8:
As our inquiry in the country proceeded it became apparent that the troubles that the farmers complained of, and also those complained of by the elevator companies, could be overcome by a plentiful supply of cars.
As I said, we have now the plentiful supply of cars, but we find that we have not fair treatment at the terminal elevators, so that this question of the terminal elevators is the most important question before us now.	[DOT]
A farmer dissatisfied with selling or shipping his grain through a country elevator could, with a plentiful supply of cars, load and ship direct to Fort William. Furthermore, as we have already explained, with a plentiful supply of cars an elevator operator would be able to pay the farmer a higher price for the grain sold on the street.
And so the report goes on with regard-to car storage and car distribution. The commission dealt also with the question of special binning. An amendment was included in the Manitoba Grain Act of 1908 dealing with that and with special flag stations.


Mr. LENNOX.: Would the hon. gentleman please state what special binning means?


William Melville Martin: I could not explain that better than by reading the sections of the Manitoba Grain Act, and the suggestions made by the commission.


Haughton Lennox: That is not necessary. At what place is the special binning done?


William Melville Martin: It has reference to the binning in the terminal elevators, keeping separate the different
grades of grain and the shipments of different farmers and elevator companies. Now, when it came to the question of terminal elevators, the Grain Commission made certain recommendations. They advised the government that government ownership was not the proper solution of this difficulty, and rather favoured government control. Pursuant to their report, legislation was passed by this parliament in 1908 which was considered by many men who were well able to speak on the subject as being a complete cure of the evils that existed in the handling of grain in the terminal elevators at that time. I may explain that one of the main evils found by the commission in the terminal elevators was that they were practically controlled by other grain companies who thus -were interested in the grain going through the elevators. That, to my mind, is one of the greatest difficulties of dealing with this grain question of the west, apart from government ownership and operation. If we could get legislation that would remove this element of personal and private gain in handling the grain, the question would be solved. Whether that is practical legislation or not, I am not in a position to say.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. gentleman say that the same people who handle the grain as an elevator company are handling grain for themselves?


William Melville Martin: That is the idea. Hon. gentlemen will notice, as I quote from this report, that the charges I refer to are borne out by the facts. Referring to page 18 of the report, I find the following :	-
The private corporations operating the terminal elevators at Fort William are composed largely of the shareholders, officers and directors of grain firms and country line elevator companies in Winnipeg, and as such have a direct financial interest in much of the grain passing through their elevators at Fort William. We find that the Canadian Pacific railway elevator at Port Arthur is operated hy a private company, hut is used exclusively for the handling of off-grade grain of different descriptions, and does not stand in the same relation to the general grain trade as do the other terminal elevators.
And there are other authorities on the same point. It is generally conceded throughout the west that the elevators are controlled by men who have an interest in the handling of the grain there. On the same page the commission goes on to say what are the principal improvements, in their opinion, needed in these elevators :
The matters to be considered in connection with the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur in our opinion are the establishing of | complete control of the cleaning and binning | of grain in all elevators, and the establishing

of a weighing department that will take over the weighing of all grain where public weighing is called for.
It "was upon that recommendation that the legislation of 1908 was passed by this House. I may also refer to wthat they say with respect to government ownership and operation of these elevators. It is to be found on page 19 of the report :
Bequests were made of us in the country that the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur should be taken over and operated by the government in view of the fact that so many of them were operated by private corporations interested in the grain trade. We also had a communication from the department under date January 23, 1907, inclosing a petition of members of parliament addressed to the honourable the Premier, requesting that we be instructed to specifically ' inquire into and report whether it is in the public interest that terminal elevators . . . continue to be operated by the common carriers or allowed to pass into the hands of or he operated by persons, firms or corporations engaged in the grain business.'
Then they go on to say:
In reply to this communication we addressed to Hon. Sir Bichard Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce, a letter, dated February 1, a copy of which is appended hereto. We can see no reason for changing the conclusions arrived at at that time and we believe if our recommendations are carried out they will give the public the same confidence and protection in the operation of these terminal elevators as if they were owned by the government.
In that communication to Sir Richard Cartwright, the commission recommended rather government control of elevators, government inspection and not government ownership and operation. Their recommendation is given on page 39 of this report:
We find it has been the tendency at Fort William for elevators to go under the control of private companies and we believe this tendency will continue. These private companies, through their allied companies buying grain in the country, are able to secure shipments of grain to their terminal elevators, and are thus in an advantageous position to compete with the elevators of common carriers, who have no control over the destination of grain carried by them.
8.	We believe the operating of terminal elevators by private companies under the present regulations would be detrimental to the interests of the trade, and would tend to destroy public confidence in the results obtained therefrom. Our reasons for believing this are, that the elevator companies (if they so wished) would he able to manipulate the grades for their own benefit, and not to clean the grain up to the dockage set by the government inspector.
9.	The fact that an elevator is owned and operated by a railway company does not with the present regulations, in our opinion, necessarily insure protection to the public. We


William Melville Martin: would like, however, to see the elevators at present owned, or to be owned, by the railways operated by them.
That, of course, brings up the question of the Canadian Pacific Railway elevator at Fort William.


George Eulas Foster: Who were the members of that Commission ?


William Melville Martin: John Miller, of Indian Head, a farmer', W. L. McNair, of Keyes, Manitoba, a grain man and Geo. E. Goldie, of Ayr, Ontario, a miller.
It has been said that a solution of this difficulty might be arrived at by linking the elevator companies with our transportation system, making them in fact a part of that system. I believe that would remedy the difficulty to a very great extent, because if you did that, you would get rid of the one main difficulty in our way that these terminal elevators are controlled by speculators interested in the grain trade and in the products they are carrying, so that it is to their interest to manipulate that product in such a way as to deliver from the terminal elevators a worse sample than is sent out by the western farmer. I think myself that if the transportation companies handled all our grain, we would have very little to find fault with now, because all the evidence I have been able to find, the report of the Grain Commission, the evidence submitted by the Dominion Millers' Association and the admissions of the farmers themselves, go to show that the grain that comes out of the Canadian Pacific Railway elevator at Fort William is in much better condition and is marketed in better condition than the grain that comes out of elevators owned and operated by private companies. I mention that, only as one solution that has been suggested for this difficulty.
-It has also been suggested to make the elevator men warehouse men pure and simple. I have mentioned this aspect of the question already; its object is to eliminate personal private gain which is the incentive to manipulation.
Another solution suggested ,is (government control. We have had government control since 1908. According to the investigations and the confessions of these elevator men, made in the last year, that system undoubtedly proved a failure and we have to look now for some other system, either government ownership or some better system of government control so that the grain will be marketed in proper form and reach the market in proper condition. To start with, we are able to show, as I will prove from the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce with respect to the investigations held last year, that government control as at present enforced, has proved a failure.

Failing a proper system of government control there apparently only remains government ownership and operation. It has been suggested that we should bring into force the Minnesota legislation. I had intended to make some study of the Minnesota "legislation, but have not yet been able to do so. I am told that in Minnesota the legislation permits mixing of grain. That is the principal difficulty in the way of enacting the Minnesota legislation in our country because the very thing we are endeavouring to prevent, is the improper mixing of grain in these elevators.
Let me deal with what has been proven to have taken place in terminal elevators. The system of government control went into force in 1908. It was tried for two years. We did have in 1909, as some hon. members will remember, a resolution in favour of government ownership of elevators, introduced by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Sohaffner). That resolution is found in the ' Hansard ' of 1909 at page 3993. It 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, 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.
At that time the legislation of 1908 providing for government control had been in force only some few months, I think since September 1, 1908. Only a part of one crop had been handled under that system, when in April, 1909, the hon. member introduced this resolution. I took some part in the debate and moved an amendment to his resolution which is to 'be found at page 4034:
That all the words after ' that' be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor :
The amendments of last session to the Grain Act whereby all transfer and terminal elevators were put under government control have produced good results. And if, on further experience, it is found that the present system of supervision is not adequate to prevent the undue mixture of grain in such elevators, House will be prepared to accept such turther legislation as may be needed to that end.	I
I moved that resolution at that time for the reasons I have already stated, that it was only fair to give the system of government control inaugurated by the legislation of 1908 a fair trial, and the handling of part of the crop of one year^vvas, I contended, not a fair trial. The system has now been given a fair trial with the result, that, it has proved itself absolutely inadequate to meet the situation. It seems to 76
me still that a system of government control properly inaugurated and carried out should as effectively control and handle the grain trade and protect the interests of those interested, as any system of government ownership. Under government control, you have two sets of officials, one checking the other. I believe that at Fort William and Port Arthur ther& were seventy odd officials doing nothing, but checking up the grain, weighing it in and weighing it out, and during the past fall, after the disclosures to which I am about to refer, the Department of Trade and Commerce inaugurated a system of registration under which a man who brings in grain must register the amount and before he ships it out, must get his warehouse receipt so that the amount registered in must equal the amount registered out. Under such a system, it seems to me, that it should be possible to prevent the mixture iof grain, but that result has not been attained, and now we are in a position where some legislation must be passed to properly protect the interest not only of western Canada, but of the whole Dominion.


George Eulas Foster: We now have some one before us whom we can question. When the grain growers were here, they had it all their own way, and we could not put any questions. I wish that either the hon. member who has the floor, or some other hon. member would give a very brief and clear sketch of the operation of handling the grain from first to last so that we could see the different processes in operation. Then we would be able to judge as to whether the checks and supervision were adequate. I would like to know what methods are employed in regard to the grain from the time it leaves the farm until it gets into the hands of the ultimate buyer, and also something of the difference between the terminal and transfer elevators.


William Melville Martin: If my hon. friend wants a correct idea as to the handling of grain, either at the terminal or transfer elevators he will, I think, have to ask some member of the House who is a practical farmer. The system is most intricate and I am told that no one can understand it unless he investigates for himself. Although I have given the matter some considerable attention I do not understand it yet, and I think the only way in which one can get a true conception of the system is to have it explained by some one employed in the elevator who has an intimate knowledge of the system.
I cannot understand how the manipulation of grain that has been proven, could have taken place under the very eye of the large number of officials who were there to prevent it. If the officials have been hon-



ourable and painstaking in their intentions then the fact that it did take place, must lead us to believe that the system is intricate and that it requires care on our part in legislating towards improvement. In the amendment of 1908 providing for government control, subsection of section 126a of the Manitoba Grain Inspection Act provides :
The inspector shall keep the proper records of all grain received in store in any terminal elevator, which records shall show the particulars of each parcel or car lot of grain received, the date received, the grade, dockage, if any, and the number of the bin in which such grain has been stored; and shall keep similar records of all such grain shipped from any terminal elevator, which records shall also give the name of the vessel or the number of the car into which such grain has been delivered.
That section provides a fairly detailed system of the method of checking in grain and checking it out. Then subsection 7
provides;
In the month of August each year stock shall be taken of the quantity of each grade of grain in the terminal elevators.
That subsection was inserted, I presume, for the-' purpose of enabling the government inspectors to check up the amount of the different grades of grain that were in the different elevators on the 31st of August.
On the 12th of December, 1909, the inspectors inspected and measured the grain in some of these terminal elevators and they found a shortage particularly of Northern No. 1. An investigation was then conducted into the dealings of the Canadian Pacific railway elevator; the Consolidated elevator, the Empire elevator, and the Port Arthur elevator. With respect to the Canadian Pacific railway elevator, after looking into the matter very carefully it was decided that there was no case. Mr. C. C. Castle, the warehouse commissioner had charge of this investigation and he reported to the Trade and Commerce Department on April 22, 1910, and in his report he gives certain facts with respect to what was found in connection with the manipulation of grain and the sending of false returns to the government as to the different quantities of grain in the elevators on the 12th of December that year. With respect to the Canadian Pacific railway elevator he states:
The managers of each of the elevators against whom discrepancies were alleged, viz., Canadian Pacific Railway, The Consolidated, The Empire and the Port Arthur Elevator companies, were called in but no satisfactory explanation was given by them except in the case of the Canadian Pacific railway, who immediately after seeing me had their records with those of the inspection department carefully checked over; the errors found were of a purely clerical nature, so that all differences have been satisfactorily accounted for Mr. MARTIN (Regina)..
in this case. Mr. Prank E. Gibbs, grain inspector ah Fort William, personally crosschecked his entries with those of the Canadian Pacific railway and certified to the correctness whereupon the matter was dropped.
But, in the ease of the other elevators it was a different thing. For instance, as to the consolidated elevator Mr. G. C. Castle
says:
Mr. Gibbs gave evidence that in the weekly sworn return to the commissioner for the week ended 26th November, 1909, the amount of No. 1 Northern wheat inspected out of that elevator exceeded the amount shown on the weekly return to the warehouse commissioner by 80,000 bushels. He also showed that a measurement had been made of the grain in store in the elevator on the 12th December last and such measurement indicated that the total quantity of No. 1 Northern wheat in store exceeded the amount shown by the weekly returns at that time by about 61,000 bushels.
The conclusion was in all these cases the elevator companies had taken No. 2, and No. 3, and No. 4, northern and mixed it with No. 1 northern and consequently shipped out far more No. 1 northern than they had taken in.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: Is Mr. Gibbs a government inspector?


William Melville Martin: Yes, he is the government grain inspector at Fort William. In the case of the Consolidated Elevator Company the investigation apparently fell through, by which I mean, it did not go to the same extent it did go in the ease of the Empire Elevator Company, and the Port Arthur Elevator Company. The Consolidated Elevator Company said that the increased amount of No. 1 Northern was on account of an error of their accountant in compiling the weekly statement to the government, and they also pleaded that they had loaned certain wheat to the Lake Shipping Association. Mr. Castle after investigation decided that this was not a very flagrant case, but he, however, laid information under section 25 of the Act charging the elevator company with sending in false returns to the government. Mr. Castle says:
However, I did feel that the officers were grossly negligent in sending in this statement, and felt it my duty to lay an information before tbe police magistrate here for sending in an untrue statement. The matter came up before the Hon. T. Mayne Daly, P.M., here to-day, and he fined the company the sum of $50.
As to the other two cases it will no doubt be interesting to some members of the House to give detailed figures with Tespect to the condition of affairs in these elevators, and I take my information from the report of Mr. Castle the warehouse commissioner. In the case of the Port Arthur elevator company the facts are as follows:

The shipments of No. 1 Northern exceeded receipts by 169,066 bushels.
In No. 2 Northern there should have been on hand 291,742 bushels, and there were only 175,096 bushels, a shortage of 116,646 bushels.
In No. 3 Northern there should have been on hand 346,460 bushels, and there were only 166,255 bushels, a shortage of 180,205 bushels.
In No. 4 Northern there was a shortage of 4,968 bushels.
This company was charged with sending in false returns to the government, it pleaded guilty and was fined $2,500. The question may arise as to why the manager of this elevator company was not prosecuted for something more serious than sending in false returns to the government. It was thought that the official who sent in the false returns should be prosecuted for perjury and also prosecuted under the Act for mixing the grain. I will quote what Mr. Castle says in regard to that and I think it will be agreed that it would be an exceedingly difficult matter to succeed in establishing a charge of perjury on account of the difficulty of telling exactly what amount of grain was in the elevator at that date. If you are going to prosecute a man criminally, you must have very definite information as to the amount of the grain. Mr. Castle says with regard to that, that he was advised by the government solicitor, I think Mr. Hudson of Winnipeg, that a prosecution for perjury or for mixing grades would be difficult to sustain, and he concluded his report in the case with the following statement:
In viey of this, I do not consider that any action of this nature should be taken at present, but that a rveigh up of the elevator should be made as soon as it could be done practicably and in the event of it then being ascertained that there is any serious discrepancy still existing in the grades, the question of cancelling the license should he considered.
Mr. Hudson advises me that in his opinion this is the proper course-not only in this case, but also in regard to Empire and Consolidated Elevator Companies.
The Empire Elevator Company was also charged with making a false return. In that case the shipments of No. 1 Northern exceeded the receipts by 437,884 bushels. There was a large shortage of No. 2 northern.


John Graham Haggart: What was the total amount dealt with by the company on which there was that surplus?


William Melville Martin: I cannot tell my hon. friend the amount of grain that went through that particular elevator, and I cannot give him that information. What I am saying is that there was that much more of No. 1 Northern shipped out than 76i
they actually got in, and they got that. No. 1 by grading with it No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 Northern. Of No. 2 Northern there was a shortage of 347,643 bushels, showing where they got the hulk of the grain. Of No. 3 Northern there should have been on hand 155,975 bushels, whereas there was only 5,502 bushels, showing shortage of 150,473 bushels. So that out of No. 2 and No. 3 you will get practically the amount of the excess grain that was shipped out as No. 1 Northern.	,


John Graham Haggart: It was just a change in classification?


William Melville Martin: Yes. In the case of No. 4 Northern there was. a discrepancy of 43,969 bushels. In Mr. Castle's report there is some explanation given of the discrepancy between the amount of the additional No. 1 that was shipped out and the shortage of No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4. They do not exactly balance. Now, these facts appear to me amply to establish the charge that manipulation of grain has been going on in the terminal elevators. Our grain from the west has not been reaching the Liverpool market in the condition in which it left the western iarmer. As a matter of fact, I believe a lower grade of grain is reaching Liverpool than is shipped by the farmers in the west, and that fact is due to 'the manipulation of the grades in the terminal elevators. Mr. Hudson, the solicitor who appeared for the government in the investigation, said this at its conclusion:
This case proved what the grain growers have been contending for years-that there was a mixing going on.


Mr. BRODER.: Is that grain only what is exported, or does it include the gi;ain that finds its way into the hands of the millers in the east?


William Melville Martin: I think it must include both. There is no distinction drawn between the grain that goes to the milling interests of Ontario and the grain that goes to the foreign market. Now, all this manipulation went on in the terminal elevators under our so-called system of government control, with a large number of government officials there for the purpose of controlling and inspecting the grain with a view' to preventing such manipulation. I said a few minutes ago that at the time the legislation of 1908 was passed it was generally agreed among men who understood the grain business, and who had investigated the subject, that the manipulation of grain and the troubles we complained of in the terminal elevators would be fairly well stopped, if not absolutely so, by the system of government control which was provided for in that legislation. In order to support that contention, let me

refer to what Mr. John Millar, a member of the Royal Commission of 1906, stated at Weyburn on February 20, 1909. He said this:
The weights both in and out of the terminal elevators had been found satisfactory, but the grain going out seemed to contain rather too much extraneous matter, as some of the cleaners were not of the best. It was pointed out that there was a tendency for the elevators to go into the hands of private companies who were themselves handling grain, (and the report of the commission had recommended that these and the transfer elevators farther east should be placed under strict government control. This had been done, and he believed the producer now had as much protection as government ownership would give him.
Another authority, the Hon. W. R. Motherwell, the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan, said:-
The government control secured over these elevators by amendment to the Manitoba Grain Act last session by the federal parliament has given the producer practically every safeguard and security which government ownership could possibly give. .
As I said in the year 1909, when this matter was before the House, as a general principle I do not believe in government ownership. I do not believe that it is the function of government to carry on the business that properly belongs to private individuals. The function of government is to legislate to protect the people and to adopt, in connection with the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, such legislation as will leave these in the hands of corporations, provided the interests of the people are properly protected. But after hearing the matter discussed the past two or three years, after hearing the representations made by grain dealers and grain producers, 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. I may be wrong, and if any settlement can be devised to properly protect the grain growers without government ownership and operation, that is what I would prefer. But failing that, I want government ownership and operation.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say in his resolution that he is in favour of the government ownership and operation of elevators?


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend can read into the resolution whatever he likes.


Arthur Meighen: I am asking the hon. gentleman whether that is what he wishes this House to vote for or not.


William Melville Martin: I have endeavoured to express my opinion to the House.


William Melville Martin: I have made the statement that while I am not in favour of government ownership as a general principle, I still feel, from the experience we have had, that we will not be properly protected until we have the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, owned and operated by the government.


Arthur Meighen: Why does my hon. friend not state'that definitely in his resolution?


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend can read this resolution as he pleases. I moved this resolution 'because I believed we should have legislation which will put us in a better position with regard to the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur than we are in at present. If my hon. friend does not want to vote for government ownership and operation, he is at liberty to vote against it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Melville Martin: In the case of the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, I believe a good case could be made out for government ownership and operation because the business is a profitable one. Apart from the mixing of grain, it is profitable from the point of view of storing the grain. Let me give you some figures which will prove this, and in that connection let me emphasize this point, namely, that all the grain of western Canada must go through the spout, it must go through these elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, so that the business is practically a monopoly, and secondly the storage business is very profitable.
During the year ending December 10, 1908,	80,000,000 bushels were put through the elevators, which, at 1 cents per bushel, makes	$ 600,000
There (was in store on January 1, 1909, to remain there perhaps four months, 7,000,000 bushels, which, at 4f cent3 maJfces	 332,500
In addition, say 3,000,000 bushels to come in after January 1, before navigation opens, yielding 3i cents per bushel 82,500
Total	 $1,015,000
So that the amount received for storage alone should be sufficient to pay all the operating charges, and give a reasonable return on the capital invested. Of course, if these elevators were in the hands of the government, the storage charges might have to come down, because on this side of the lakes they are lower than at the terminals. Suppose you take the winter storage at Fort William and compare it with the storage on this side of tile lakes :

Elevating and 15 days free storage,
| cent and %oth cent per day for 4 months, total 4 cents per bushel, or
4J cents on 1,000,000 bushels	$47,500
Elevator rates this side of lakes from 1st December to 1st May, including J cent elevation, equal to 1J cents on 1,000,000 bushels, being the rate on this side of the lakes	 15,000
Making the extra charges at Fort William on 1,000,000 bushels $32,500 ; which shows that the storage rates there are abnormally high.
I shall not detain the House much longer, and must apologize for having been so long, but there was, I understand, judging by reports in the newspapers and discussions in the lobbies, a draft Bill under discussion between the government and the grain growers when the western delegation was here in December. That draft Bill, I am informed, contains some provisions which might be beneficially put in the form of legislation. I understand it was suggested that a commission should be established, to be located at Fort William and Port Arthur which would have entire charge of the grain passing through the elevators at these two points, and have full control over the administration of the two companies which own these elevators. With respect to government control, I do not see why a properly constituted commission, composed of men, who thoroughly understand the grain trade, with proper facilities for carrying out the Manitoba Grain Act and the Inspection and Sale Act, and with ample powers given them under any amendment that may be introduced with respect to these two Acts-I do not see, I say why the elevators cannot be properly controlled and the manipulation of grain prevented by that system.


Haughton Lennox: That would be commission appointed by the government, would it ?


William Melville Martin: I cannot say whether by the government or not, but I presume it would be. I do not know who else would appoint it.


Haughton Lennox: Would that be part of the system the hon. gentleman advocates by way of carrying out this process of marketing the grain-a commission appointed by the government to carry out the operation instead of leaving it to private parties ? Or in what way does he expect to get the commission ?


William Melville Martin: Of course, when I referred to a commission, I had in mind a government commission, as I understand it, without ownership of the elevators. My hon. friend, I think, is referring to the matter of ownership.


Haughton Lennox: No, but I thought the hon. gentleman was expecting to put them under the control of the government with a self-appointed commission-virtually, the government operating through a commission.


William Melville Martin: It seems tome that whether the government owned the elevators or put a commission in charge, there would have to be a body of men to carry on the business and to apply the Inspection and Sale Act, and the Manitoba Grain Act in respect to these elevators.


Haughton Lennox: I am sorry to interrupt, but the question I was referring to was whether the government would own the elevators or not. The government in that case, would have to own them or lease them, I presume ?


William Melville Martin: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox), is quite correct. If the government decided to take these elevators over, they would have to own them or lease them. But I do not see how they could get alqng in any case without a commission or some body of men to supervise and operate them. I understand that it was also suggested between the farmers and the representatives of the government that more drastic penalties than those under the Acts referred to might be imposed under these laws.


Arthur Meighen: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, would he please explain whether the commission he refers to as being in charge of the elevators is a commission after government ownership has taken place or is it not ? I understand him to say that he saw no reason why a commission such as that suggested, should not make a success of preventing the anomalies that have occurred. Is that to be a commission under government ownership and operation or not ?


William Melville Martin: When I made the statement referred to, I was speaking of a commission without government ownership.


Arthur Meighen: And the hon. gentleman said he saw no reason why it should not succeed. Why then, does he say that government ownership and operation is sure to be the only solution of the difficulty ?


William Melville Martin: I have tried to make myself plain during the whole course of my address. Whether it is a commission or not, I believe that without government ownership and operation of these elevators, we should not have our grain properly dealt with. But, as I said a few minutes ago, I am prepared to support any legislation that I think is in the interest of the western grain producers and that

will assist in getting our grain to Liverpool in better shape than at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: But what I do not understand is this: If the hon. gentleman says that it will not be a success, except with government ownership and operation, how does he make that consistent with the statement that he does not see why a commission without' government ownership should not succeed ?


William Melville Martin: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen), need not attempt to show that I am advocating a commission to handle the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. I have said that I do not see why a system of government control is not as good as a system of*govern-ment ownership. I have said also that the present system of government control is not a success, hut that if any hon. gentleman can suggest a system of government control, that will prove a success, I will support it rather than [DOT] government ownership, which I do not believe in as applied to utilities. At the same time, my opinion is, and has been for sdtne time, that we will not get proper control of our grain in these elevators until some radical amendments take place and I believe that government ownership and operation will eventually require to be resorted to in order to properly protect the western grain producers against the men who are manipulating grain in these elevators.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Is the hon. gentleman making any distinction between government ownership and government operation ?


William Melville Martin: - I am not sure in just what connection I used the expression ' government ownership '. As a rule, when I speak of government ownership, I mean government operation. If the hon. gentleman would draw my attention to any particular statement that I made, I would be better able to answer his question.
But, I wish to get through. I know that this is a delicate question with lion, gentleman opposite. I am a little surprised that the resolution which appears on the Order Paper in the name of one-of these gentlemen from Manitoba had not tacked to it something perfectly consistent with the idea of protection. That would be in line with the plan adopted by these gentlemen in introducing a resolution with respect to lowering the tariff on agricultural implements.
But, before I was interrupted by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) I was going to refer to the matter of drastic penalties. I believe that, if, instead of the fines imposed by the present Act, imprisonment or drastic penalties of that kind Mr. MARTIN (Regina).
imposed, the manipulation of grain might be more effectively prevented. I desire to refer to a statement made by Mr. F. W. Thompson, of the Ogilvie Milling Company, Montreal, as reported in a despatch to the Montreal ' Gazette ' of November 29. Referring to the millers of Canada, he said:
We have always been unalterably opposed to the mixing of Manitoba grains, and will be glad to see such -amendments^ made by parliament to the Manitoba Grain Act as will effectually put an end to any possibility of mixing. The simplest and most effective way, in my judgment, to bring this about would be to impose such penalties as would largely exceed any possible gain to the guilty party.
So, there is some reason to believe that by heavier penalties we might help to solve this difficulty. It has also been suggested that, in case of violation of the Manitoba Grain Act, or the Inspection and Sale Act, the leases of the elevators should ipso facto expire-the breaking of the law would cancel the lease. And I have already suggested the elevators might be taken out of the hands of operators who have an interest in the grain passing through them.
One other point I wish to refer to. Whatever legislation is passed with respect to the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur, must, of course, be made to apply to all the transfer elevators between those points and the Atlantic sea-board; that would be necessary in order to preserve the identity of our Canadian grain until it reaches the European market. I do not wish to trouble the House with more quotations, but there is one matter that I do not see how to deal with, and that is the matter of grain transhipped to Buffalo. There is no possibility, so far as I know, of preserving the identity of our grain transhipped at Buffalo, of which there is a large quantity. Legislation passed by us must refer only to elevators upon our own side of the line. Let me read on that subject a very brief quotation from Mr. F. W. Thompson, whose words on another subject I read a moment ago:
In regard to the suggestion of government ownership of terminal elevators, this, of course, would involve an expenditure on the part of the government of a great many millions of dollars, and to carry out the object desired by those advocating such a course, it seems to me they would require to go far beyond the terminals at Port Arthur and Fort William. It would he necessary to take over in the same manner all the elevators through which the grain must pass in course of transit to and at the sea-board. Moreover, a considerable proportion of Manitoba grain is shipped through American ports via Buffalo, and, of course, Canada would have no control over it after it had reached that point unless an international arrangement can be arrived at for preserving the identity of Canadian wheat. We have recently been

informed by a Canadian exporting house that a system of mixing 'Manitoba wheat is being carried on at an American port, the grain being forwarded under another certificate issued at that port. As to whether it has gone any further than this we do not know, but it is plainly evident that if any change is to be made in the present system it has got to go infinitely farther than at present contemplated.
This proves that it is necessary to legislate with respect to the transfer elevators, as well as to the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, and also shows the difficulty with respect to grain transhipped at American ports.
Now, in conclusion, let me say that no subject has been more prolific of legislation than the question of handling western grain. A great many beneficial amendments have been made to the Manitoba Grain Act in the last ten years. There was a time in western Canada when the farmer did not even have the right to get a car to ship his grain; the elevator companies and the railway companies were one vast monopoly, controlling all the cars, and no ordinary farmer could get a car to ship his grain at ail. That difficulty has been long since removed, with many other difficulties, since the present government came to power. I believe there is no question which received more careful attention from the Department of Trade and Commerce than the handling and marketing of western grain, and I have every confidence that any legislation brought in by this government will be with the sole view of improving conditions at the present time existing in the west in the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. I have much pleasure in moving this resolution.


Haughton Lennox: Before the hon. gentleman resumes his seat, I have one or two questions to ask him. I notice in .the amendment which he introduced a couple of years ago regarding government ownership, he used the term ' undue mixture of grain.' In his resolution of to-day he speaks of the ' improper admixture of grain.' It would help us if the hon. gentleman would briefly tell the House what he means by these terms. For instance, when he speaks of the improper admixture of grain, is there any kind of mixture of grain that would be proper, or should be tolerated?


William Melville Martin: The improper admixture of grain means mixing different grades of grain. The mixing of the same grades might be proper.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. gentleman really mean that in his resolution? He is . surely not dealing with the mixing of the same kind of grain backwards and forwards. But if you take one grade of grain and put it into another grade of grain, is not that improper, .and to be prevented? ,


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend is quite right.	,


Haughton Lennox: There is one other question. I think he has made it quite clear, because he repeated it several times, that as a result of the careful study he has given to this matter, nothing but government ownership and operation, in his opinion, will be effective. Now that being the hon. gentleman's view, would he tell the House whether he would advocate such ownership and operation by a commission appointed by the government, or by a department of the government?


William Melville Martin: I understand my hon. friend asks whether I would be in favour of the government directly operating these elevators, or by means of a commission. It is a subject that I am not sufficiently familiar with to express an opinion; but offhand, I would say a commission.


Mr. THOS. MACNUTT (Saltcoats).: I desire to say a few words on this resolution before it is passed, as the subject affects not only the west but the whole Dominion. It is usually supposed that the farmers in the west are extremely prosperous, and can stand any kind of thing as regards tariff charges and so on. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer of the west is up against a good many things. He is, as it were, a partner of nature; he supplies the labour, and nature supplies the soil and climate. But nature is sometimes very unkind to him, and occasionally we have too much rain and sometimes too little. Sometimes we have a devastating hail storm which wipes out all chance of crops that year. At other times, a frost visits the fields before the grain is mature, and ripens it in fact before it is properly filled. This accounts for the different qualities of wheat. Now, I think the farmer is perfectly ready to accept any chances where he cannot control them. But I do not think he is at all willing to accept the extortions of the middlemen and others who are handling his grain, and who are simply watching the farmer to see how much grain he is raising in oTder that they may see how much they can make out of him when he sells his grain. The farmer is.willing to pay all legitimate charges and costs of hauling and handling. But there is a class of men, owners or lessees of the terminal elevators, who, it is well , proved, are in the habit of manipulating the farmers' grain to their own pecuniary advantage, and at the expense of the reputation of his wheat. While my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) was speaking, an hon. member asked him how this kind of thing is done, and my hon. friend replied that not being a farmer, he [DOT]could not exactly say, but referred his questioner to a farmer. Now I happen to be a farmer, and I may say that I do not know

exactly how this is done; I think the only man that can tell is the grain manipulator himself. He has got the science down pretty fine. But I understand it is something like this. The grain is graded into piobaibly six or seven different qualities. The qualities are established by purity, by colour, and by weight. Now if the grain buyer gets in a number of cars of different qualities of wheat, he will take some small quantity of the best grade and mix it with inferior grades so as to bring them up probably to the weight of an intermediate grade; and consequently he will get a bigger price for that grade. I have seen a great many farmers who have gone to the old country and have interviewed millers there. They have taken to the old country samples of our wheat, and have been informed by the millers there that they rarely ever saw wheat of that quality in the old country, if they did they were willing to _ pay a good price for it. One of my neighbours took a sample of No. 2 Northern which he had grown himself, and showed it to a miller in the old country, who told him that he rarely saw wheat of that quality, but lie would be willing to pay a good price for it if he could get it. He gave my friend a sample of what he bought" as No. 2, and when he came back to this country he showed it to the inspector who graded it as No. 4. Now that grain had been mixed m this way, and in this way we are losing the value of our wheat. When a miller looks at a sample of grain he says. This will make so much flour, it may be a No. 2 or No. 3, and we will fix the price at so much according to its milling value. Now if it is an inferior sample, if it is No. 2 or No. 3, yet inferior in milling qualities, the price is fyjed lower. So they never really get our wheat in the shape in which it leaves the fanners' loading platform, or the local elevator.
What remedy should there be to prevent this kind of thing? I think it will bo acknowledged that it exists. A system of government inspection was inaugurated and I am of opinion that to a certain extent it was successful although a great many are of a different opinion. I base my judgment upon the facts ascertained and the conclusions arrived at which proved conclusively that this manipulating was going on. It took some time to find this out. The government inspectors could tell the quality of the grain going out but they could not tell whether that was due to mixing or whether the grain came originally from the farmers in that shape, and until the stocks in the elevators got low no comparison could be made. When the stocks got low, the balance of the grain was weighed and graded, and then it was found that this manipulation had been going on. Several of those


Thomas MacNutt: who were guilty of this offence were fined. It has been said that this fine was nothing in comparison to the loss and damage that has accrued to the farmers, but they were not suing for damages, they were proceeding under the Criminal Code and a penalty was imposed, as is usual in these cases, not as heavy as it might be, but probably the fine for the second offence would be very much heavier, and imprisonment would be added. I think that when men find that they are sure to be detected they will not steal.
Like the hon. member for Begina (Mr. Martin), I am not particularly in love with the idea of the government operating everything in sight. I think the functions of government are something different and that it is the duty and the privilege of private citizens to carry on the commerce and business of the country. But sometimes such government interference is necessary, and this may be such a case. At all events, it would give satisfaction to the farmers of the west, who are very uneasy owing to the existing state of affairs. If the terminal elevators were operated by the government, I think probably it would be the best plan. Under the present system there are a large number of inspectors and they are paid out of the general revenue. If the government purchased or leased these elevators, and the inspectors, who are expert grain men, were turned into operators, the cost of their salaries and rentals and insurance, &c., could be made a charge against the wheat. In that way a great deal of money would be saved and every one who raises any wheat is perfectly willing that all legitimate charges should come out of the wheat. I think also that a man should accompany every vessel loaded with wheat going to Port Colborne or Buffalo, and that he should accompany that wheat until it reaches the sea-going vessel, after which it could not be tampered with.
However, my reason for addressing the House is to point out the absolute necessity for a remedy that will be really effective. It is quite possible, I think it is quite probable, that the only system and the better system is for the government to take over the elevators either by purchase or lease and operate them under a commission. I believe that leasing would be best in the beginning. As a farmer, representing a farming community, I wish to place myself on record as* being in great sympathy with this question. I know that these abuses have been going on, I know that very serious losses have occurred all through the west, it does not affect the east, I suppose, in the same way, but it certainly does affect the west as every western man knows. The problem is to provide a remedy, and I re-

iterate my belief that government operation under a commission would be the best. As there are other members who may wish to speak on this subject at length and as under the rules of the House this debate must close at six o'clock and may possibly not be resumed this session,
I shall conclude my remarks in order to permit other members to express their views. I simply want to place myself on record as being strongly in favour of an effective system which will prevent the improper admixture of the farmer's grain. He is entitled to the market value of what he grows, less the cost of transportation, &c. Every one will admit that he is not getting that under the present system and therefore it is absolutely necessary that some better system be thought out and applied. I have much pleasure in seconding the motion.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to overestimate the importance of the subject brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin). At the same time if I keep my remarks in due proportion to the meaning that he has chosen to throw into his resolution I shall be able to be very brief indeed. The hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MaeNutt) who has just taken his seat, has gone so far as to assure the House that on this great question he thinks that probably the proper solution is government ownership and operation. The hon. member has proceeded so far along the line of solving that problem that I venture to think it probable he will actually reach a conclusion by the time the government Bill comes down for consideration by this House. As for the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) I can only say that I can quite understand the resolution he has moved, and with all appreciation for his personal qualities and without perhaps even casting a reflection on the lucidity of his language, I must say that I am unable to understand his speech. So far as I grasped his meaning the hon. gentleman finds that a very great evil and very great abuses exist in the grain trade, as the grain passes through terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur and other transfer elevators. Up to that point we have no quarrel with him; we have only to say that these matters have been brought to the attention of the House by hon. gentlemen on this side for some years back, that this abuse is now recognized on all hands as existing, and that the injustice of it has appealed to all sections of the country. So there was no necessity whatever of further impressing parliament with its importance because the First Minister in this House has already laid it down that there was an abuse that
demanded a remedy. To that extent I cannot see that the hon. gentleman has accomplished much. His position in relation to the various remedies suggested, as I understand it, is this: He says he sees no reason why government control should not be successful; he advises, as he did some two years ago, the enforcement of the Grain Act as a solution, if that succeeds. He sees no reason why control by a commission without government ownership or operation should not be successful and he favours that, if that succeeds. And lastly he says that while he is personally adverse to the whole principle of government ownership and operation he believes it is a case for government ownership and operation and he also favours that, if it succeeds. So that, the hon. gentleman's cogitations lasting doubtless over many years has brought him at last to this remarkable point, that in a moment of daring he is willing to assure this House that whatever solution will be a success he is in favour of it. I must commend to the attention of parliament and the country the very great political enterprise of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin). There was a meeting in a rural school district some years ago and the subject of discussion was what should be done with the school house in the cold winter months. There was a very large attendance and a great many were in favour of closing the school and a great many others were in favour of keeping it open. After wrangling for a very long time an old gentleman at the back of the hall got tired and he rose and made this startling speech: ' Gentlemen, we have been here now for a few hours, we have wrangled and quarrelled together and we are no nearer the point than-we were when we started; now, I move that this school house be either kept open or closed up.' And, Sir, that is the attitude of the hon. gentleman for Regina as to a solution of the terminal elevator question. As far as the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MaeNutt) went in the direction of supporting the principal of government ownership and operation his remarks would be much more in point if he had made them to item No. 8 on the Order Paper which is the resolution introduced this session and for many years by the hon. gentleman for Souris (Mr. Schaffner). But it is not the record of'hon. gentlemen opposite to fall in line with a good policy or principle if it comes from this side of the House, and consequently these gentlemen opposite^ must precede it by this aimless and meaningless circumlocution put on ' Hansard ' by the hon. member for Regina. I have no quarrel to make with the motion in so far as there is any virility in it; in so far as there is any meaning to it. I would move an

amendment to it along a line that meant something specific only that such an [DOT][DOT]amendment would be simply anticipating the resolution now on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner). Clearly, the bulk of the discussion well may wait until we come to this masculine and virile resolution which brings the matter before the House in the form in which I submit it should be brought.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I share with every other member on this side of the House, especially the members from west of the Great Lakes, a feeling of very keen disappointment at the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) because I anticipated that when he rose in this House to discuss a question of such vital importance to the people of the west we would have heard from him something better than a criticism of the speeches of the hon. gentlemen who spoke before him. Sir, this question is of too much importance to the people to be made a sort of political football by the hon. member (Mr. Meighen) or anybody else. It is not a question of political expediency at all ; it is a question that affects the marketing of the most important product ' of our western Canadian farmers and for that reason I find fault with the remarks of my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) finds fault with the speeches of the hon. member for Saltcoats, and the hon. member for	Regina (Mr. Martin) in that they are too indefinite. Possibly my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) is a Solomon who possesses all the wisdom of the world, and knows the solution of every question off-hand, but does my hon. friend undertake to say that he knows a cure-all for all the evils of the grain trade of western Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Does my hon. friend ask a question?


David Bradley Neely: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: If he will look in ' Hansard ' at the speech I made last year he will see my views on the subject, and had he been here he would have heard them. My views have not changed since. I did not lay them before the House as the words of a Solomon. I laid them before the House as the straightforward view in definite form of an humble member of parliament.


David Bradley Neely: Well, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is a little more modest just now than he was a few moments ago, but even at this moment he does not undertake to say that his views provide the only solution of this question. I believe, Sir, that my hon. friends from Mr. MEIGHEN.
Regina and Saltcoats were perfectly right in taking a moderate position on the question because I think a man would have a good deal of hardihood who would stand on the floor of this House and say that he "had the only solution of this question that could be found anywhere in the world.
Mr.	SPROULE. Did	not	the	Grain
Growers' Association	which came to
Ottawa declare it to. be their judgment that the only solution was government ownership and government operation?
Mr.	NEELY. They	did	make	that
statement, and they also told us that the tariff is the greatest evil that the farmers of Canada suffer from, and does the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) agree with that?
Mr.	BORDEN (Halifax).	The	hon.
member had better ask the Prime Minister.


David Bradley Neely: The Grain Growers' Association of western Canada expressed the view that government ownership and operation is so far as they see the best solution of this question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not the best solution but the only solution.


David Bradley Neely: I must point out to my hon. friend that the commission appointed tor the purpose of investigating this question some four years ago, came to the conclusion that government ownership and operation were not necessary, and that proper supervision and control were sufficient or ought to be sufficient to bring about the alleviation of the evils from which the farmers were suffering. Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) tells us that he has expressed an opinion which is undoubtedly in favour of government ownership and control, but this off-hand method of finding a solution of the question without thorough and painstaking investigation is sometimes likely to produce very disastrous results. Take the case of the political associates of the hon. gentleman in the province of Manitoba. They undertook without investigation, without the appointment of a commission, to remedy the evils of the elevator system, and the grain trade within the limits of their own province, with the result that they placed an Elevator Bill upon the statute-books of the province, and put it into operation. I am not going to discuss that Bill, I am not going to discuss wdiether it is a good move or a bad one, but I am going to mention this fact : That the commission appointed by the adjoining province of Saskatchewan with Professor McGill at its head, and the other two members being leading members and directors of the Grain Growers' Association of the province of Saskatchewan,

came to the conclusion after weeks and months of investigation, that the system adopted by Manitoba was not such as they would recommend to the government of Saskatchewan. I am not criticising the action of the government of Manitoba, but I am using that as an illustration to show how dangerous it might be to lay down here a principle as the only absolute remedy applicable to a certain situation before we have given the matter, by means of a commission or otherwise, a thorough investigation that will enable us to get all the facts o,f the case before coming to our decision.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the report of the commission appointed by the Saskatchewan government was written and handed to the commission before they started out to investigate at all?	[DOT]


David Bradley Neely: I am not aware, neither is my hon. friend aware.


William Henry Sharpe: I think I am. It can be proven.


David Bradley Neely: I will not accept the statement of any hon. member of this House impugning the character and the dignity of the Saskatchewan Elevator Commission until the facts are laid before me in some definite form. I think my hon. friend has not strengthened his position in this House by making such an insinuation without delivering the goods. Why does my hon. friend make the statement? I say I am not criticising that commission one way or the other, and I am not criticising the action of the government of Manitoba one way or the other, and surely my hon. friend is not finding fault with what I said.
In reference to the resolution introduced by my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin), I am convinced that the government of this country is fust as anxious to settle this question satisfactorily and in the best interests of the people of this country as the most enthusiastic and ardent supporter of western interests can possibly be. I heard the Premier of Canada, during his western tour last summer, make the statement, in answer to deputations of farmers who waited upon him, that as far as the question of terminal elevators was concerned, his government had put their hand to the plough, and they would not turn back until they had remedied the grievances complained of under present conditions. As to the method, he did not say that his government had decided what it should be, but he was prepared to go the length of government ownership and operation, if necessary, if that were the only remedy that could be afforded. We must remember that there are a great many things that may militate against the success of the farmers' operations. Many
years ago, as my hon. friend from Regina intimated* the conditions of the grain trade in western Canada were very serious indeed. As a result of those conditions the farmers of the west became organized, and year after year they have come to Ottawa to lay their views beiore the government of the day in regard to the proper remedies for the evils that existed. The result has been that for many years past there has been an evolution in the grain laws of this country, an evolution, we confidently believe, wholly in the interest of the producer of grain. The establishment of a loading platform, the bringing into existence of the inspection of gram at Winnipeg, the introduction of government supervision and control at the terminal elevators at Port William and Port Arthur, have undoubtedly tended very largely to improve the conditions of the grain trade, and in recent years -in the last year, in fact-other changes have been brought about which, to my mind, have been responsible for a very great change in the grain trade of western Canada. I refer to the establishment at Port William and Port Arthur of a clearing house, which was not in existence when this question was discussed in this House two sessions ago. Perhaps some hon. members will recall that on that occasion I called the attention of the House to one great loss from which the grain trade wat suffering, in the fact that vessels which came to the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur to obtain loads required two or three times as long to load at those ports as they did at American ports, because of the absence of a clearing house. During the following summer the Department of Trade and Commerce, in agreement with the terminal interests at Port Arthur, established a clearing house, with the result that to-day, instead of finding great shortages on our Canadian shipping routes and a great loss of time in loading at Port William and Port Arthur, the conditions are very much more satisfactory at these ports than they are at ports on the other side of the boundary in the same line of business.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Can the hon. gentleman give me tup. date when that clearing house was establighed, and can he say that it has anything to do with remedying the evils of which the farmers of the western country complain?


David Bradley Neely: It was established some time in the summer of 1909. It appears to me to be a very plain proposition that anything that causes loss or waste in the grain trade must affect the price to the farmer, and anything that stops the leaks from the time the grain leaves the farmer to the time it reaches its market must increase the price of the grain. The differences in the figures with regard to the shortages at the ports

across the line, and at our own terminals at Port William and Port Arthur, and on the lakes, are very remarkable indeed. The average shortage at Chicago during the last season was 22 pounds of wheat to the 1,000 bushels; at Milwaukee it was 22 pounds. The smallest loss from any American port was 11 pounds per 1,000 bushels. At Fort William and Port Arthur there was actually a surplus of 2 pounds per 1,000 bushels shipped, and that is undoubtedly due to the establishment of the clearing house, which enables the government officials at these ports to fix any shortage at its proper place, and thus bring about a remedy.
I say that there is, in connection with this clearing house, a registration bureau at Fort William and Port Arthur, and this has been a very great step in advance as far as the remedying of the evils of the grain trade is concerned. With regard to this registration bureau, there may be those not familiar with the grain trade who may not understand its objects and effects, and I may point out that although there was a prosecution of a terminal elevator company for having made false returns during the season of 1909, or for having mixed grain, I have not heard of any serious complaints with regard to this season's operation from the purchasers of grain, especially from Fort William or Port Arthur. I have not heard of any complaints regarding the handling of grain at these points, and I think that one of the chief reasons for this improvement is the establishing of a registration bureau at Fort William. The object of this bureau is this, and it has this purpose and effect, that just as soon as an elevator gets a car load of No. 1 Northern wheat, the shipper comes to this registration official, who is called the registrar, who acts partly as a government official and also in the' interests of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and whose interests, so far as the terminal elevators are concerned, are identical with those of the western farmer. This registrar gives a receipt for the amount of No, 1 or No. 2 Northern, as the case may be, which the elevator man has received in car lots and has put into his elevator. This must correspond with the grade of wheat certificate furnished Ibiy the government weighmaster and inspector. When the elevator man wishes to ship out a certain quantity of No. 1 or No. 2 Northern, he must go to the registrar, and the registrar cancels his receipts to the extent of the amount shipped. When the elevator man is compelled to register with the registration bureau the amount of each particular grade of grain which he takes into his elevator and when that must correspond with the grade of wheat certificate of the government inspector and weighmaster, and when before he can ship out of his elevator any amount of any grade of grain, he must Mr. NEELY.
cancel the certificates or receipts with the registrar to the extent of the amount he ships out, can any one tell me how, at the end of the season, it is possible for that man to get away with mixing the grain at those terminals. What would be the benefit P If, for instance, he gets in 10,000 bushels of No. 1 Northern at the end of the season he has cancelled receipts or certificates to that effect, and the inspector goes into his bins and finds 100,000 more bushels No. 1 Northern in them-why it seems absurd a man should undertake operations that lay him immediately open to the clutches of the law. My hon. friends may ask how has it been done before. As a matter of fact this bureau was only established the past season, and since its establishment I have not heard of any serious complaint along the lines of those made in past years.
But there are dozens of other ways in which harm may come to the grain trade, apart from that which came in former years through the operations of these terminals at Port Arthur and Fort William. Take a case of this kind. A short time ago, in conversation with a wholesale baker who purchased flour which he supposed to have been made from wheat of a certain grade, he gave me this information. He was purchasing his flour from a certain miller in Ontario, supposing it to have been made from No. 2 Northern wheat. He found however, that the flour was very bad and not at all what it ought to be. So one day he took a trip to the mill and discovered that the miller was grinding out wheat that averaged No. 4 instead of No. 2 and was selling the flour as No. 2. He went to the miller and charged him with dishonesty, but the miller said that is the wheat I 'got for N^o. 2. Now I am absolutely convinced that it was not what that miller got for No.
2.	Here is the situation. We have an inspection at Port Arthur and Fort William, but the man who is shipping the grain from those points to any point in Ontario, for instance, says to the seller:	I do not
want you to put the grade oi that grain on your bill of lading. The wheat then comes down to Ontario without any grade marked on the bill of lading, and the miller, in the instance I have cited, _ may possibly have done this. He may have taken an old grade certificate, a No. 2 grade certificate, and have held that certificate instead of destroying it, and he may have shown that to the baker and have said to him: Here is the grade certificate for the wheat I am grinding into flour for you, when that wheat probably came to him without any grade certificate at all. There you find a side light on this question which shows us that after all the serious trouble in the grain situation, which in years past was at Fort William and Port Arthur, extends today to every point throughout Canada

where there is a transfer elevator. We must also remember that a considerable quantity of our wheat goes through the United States. The wheat that goes by the United States we have absolutely no control over from the moment it reaches an American port. The United States refuse to bond our wheat by the grade, they merely bond the quantity, so that in the case of wheat shipped to Buffalo or any other American port, all the shipper is responsible for is the quantity and not the quality, so that wheat of ours may reach the Liverpool market in a demoralized condition as the result of mixture that goes on across the line. I point this out simply to show that all the trouble is not centred, as some hon. members would suggest, at Fort William and Port Arthur, but that the whole grain trade of Canada is in such a position that the operator in grain who wishes to destroy the quality and grade of our grain as these grades are passed through the inspectors' hands at Winnipeg and Fort William has abundant field in any part of Canada. I call attention to these points to show that the question, after all, is not so simple as it might at first appear, and also to call the attention of the government to the fact that any schemes they may introduce-and as. I said before, I am satisfied it is their intention to bring in something that will be satisfactory, that will touch the heart of the question-should have cognizance of the grain from the time it leaves the market at the farmers' door until it reaches Liverpool and other world market points.
My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie, (Mr. Meighen), has suggested that there is one remedy for the evils of the grain trade, and that is government ownership and operation. I believe that, before we can have successful government ownership and operation, if that be the necessary solution, we must have men trained to the operating of the terminal and transfer elevators. Thus, in my opinion, the very first step in the solution of this difficult question is the appointment of a commission as suggested by my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin). That hon. gentleman was asked as to the sort of commission he would favour, and I may very well be asked the same question. My answer would be that I would favour a commission with the very widest powers possible, so far as the handling of the grain trade is concerned. I would favour a commission that would hold the same relation toward the grain trade as the Board of Railway Commissioners holds toward the railways. Such legislation would not be entirely new, for such a commission already exists in the State of Minnesota, where, I believe, the conditions of the grain trade are probably more satisfactory than in any other part of North America. They have what they call a warehouse and grain
commission which has powers and relations to the grain trade much the same as those held by the Canadian Board of Railway Commissioners in relation~to the railways of Canada. The members of this proposed new commission should be men thoroughly versed in the grain situation. And they should be given wide powers; for, if they are the right stamp of men, they can be trusted with such powers. And they should have a length of appointment that would ensure them freedom from any political or partisan influence for a considerable number of years. They should not be subject in any way to corporation influence or control. Get such a commission, give them the powers I have indicated, and it would be in their province to make regulations governing the grain trade, not merely at the terminals, but in every part of Canada, including the Atlantic and Pacific seaports and also our future port on Hudson bay. I would go even further and give them power to send agents abroad to learn of the condition in which Canadian grain is reaching the markets of the world. I have already shown that our grain going through American channels is subject to being tampered with. That is a state of affairs that we could not directly remedy; but, if we had such a commission as I speak of, though they could not control that situation, at least they could notify the purchasers, or would-be purchasers of Canadian grain, that if they wished to secure Canadian grai'' pure and intact, as it left the inspection department at Winnipeg or at Fort William, they must specify that that grain must pass by all-Canadian routes. That also would be a very important matter that would tend very largely to raise the standard of our grain in the markets of the world. If such a commission were inaugurated, it would be one of their main objects, after having thoroughly familiarized themselves with the conditions as they exist, to come to a conclusion as to the best method of handling the terminal and transfer elevators. The views of this commission would be invaluable as to the necessity or otherwise of government ownership and operation.
Now, I am not prepared to advocate views simply because they are the views of somebody else; and, while all my sympathy goes out to the farmer, not only the farmer of the west, but all the farmers who in the past, have been subject to loss through manipulation of their grain, I must first be convinced that government ownership and operation is essentially and vitally necessary to remedy the evil. It is a very simple proposition, some hon. members would suggest, or may think, to take the step, to go into government owner-shin. Yes, but if it does not work well, it will be very hard to get out of it. Hon.
)

members must remember that the grain trade of Canada is only in its infancy. We talk of the large quantities of grain that have been shipped from western Canada within the last couple of years. Why, we are only on the fringe of things in the great west. So, if we take such a step today, no matter how sincere we may he, no matter how much we may think it in the interests of the grain producer, if what we do militates in the end against the grain trade, the evil resulting will grow with the years. Therefore, I say, it behooves us to go carefully. Insistent-as I a.m aware- as are the demands of the farmers of the west for the speedy remedy, and loud as some of them declaim that the only remedy is government ownership and operation, I am free to say that my advice to the government on this occasion would be to consider with the greatest care every step that they take on this question. If they .make a mistake now, if they start out on a certain line of policy and that proves not to be *what they expected, the harmful results in years to come would be inestimable.
Now, I want to call the attention of my hon. friends who are so strongly in favour of government ownership to one or two features of the government ownership and operation of terminal elevators, and other utilities of this kind. The large financial responsibility involved in the expropriation or purchase of the terminal and transfer elevators of this country is not a thing to be waived lightly aside. We must remember, as I have already remarked, that while at the present moment this would involve an enormous outlay of money, in the days to come when new seaports^ are established in Canada, and our grain trade increases, this will involve an ever increasing 'expenditure on the part of the government. I am not saving that the country is not rich enough to do this. I am simply reminding the House that we must not consider as a question of no moment the taking over of these elevators. There is another feature in this question. We might possibly have some difficulty in getting hold, of these elevators, it might ultimately mean expropriation. I want to ask my hon. friends who are in favour of this principle if they consider that drastic measures of that kind at the present stage of Canada's development __form the best method we can adopt to induce foreign capital to come into this country for its development. The other day we heard a member of this House speak very strongly in favour of bringing our railways to account by reason of their excessive rates. These excessive rates probably exist to some extent, how far we do not know. But there is this to remember. The people of western Canada are so anxious to get Mr. NEELY.
railroads at the present time, no matter whose capital builds them, that I am quite certain the majority of the people would prefer to pay even excessive rates rather than have no railway transportation at all. So I say that we must be a little cautious how we proceed lest we discourage the investment of foreign capital in the enterprises that are necessary to develop this great country.
Another thing I would refer to the consideration of those who believe that government ownership and operation is the only principle to adopt. Any system that is adopted must be a flexible system. By that I mean that there must he no obstacle put in the way of the natural and easy flow of grain in the channels of trade as they now exist in Canada. I have already pointed out that it is essential that so far as possible we retain our Canadian trade in Canadian channels that is to say, we must encourage the shippers and buyers to ship grain by all Canadian routes if they wish the identity of that grain to be preserved until it reaches the markets of the world. Now, let this government undertake to impose conditions at the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur that will make the burden of shipping via those points onerous on the grain dealers, what will be the natural result? The natural result will be that trade will follow the lines of least resistance, and instead of the bulk of our grain going by Canadian ports as it does at present, we will find it directed towards American ports ; the grain will lose its identity, and we will lose the benefit of having it go by an all Canadian route. Take for instance, our customs and our post office administrations. We understand that there must be rules laid down for any government institution, and that it must be operated strictly according to those rules. You cannot leave everything at the discretion of the official who is operating. So conditions might arise under government ownership and operation that might be onerous to the man who is dealing in grain, and if that occurs once or twice in the experience of a grain dealer, the result will be that he will transfer the field of his operations to some place where conditions are not so onerous. Now, I am not suggesting that we should make the grain trade so flexible that the grain dealer can do what he likes with his grain ; that is not the point at all. I am referring simply to the problem of transportation, of getting the grain from the farmer's home to the markets of the world with as little friction and trouble as possible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, in solution of this question, a method that will preserve the quality of the grain intact from the time it leaves the government

inspector at Winnipeg and Fort William until it reaches the markets of the world. I say again that government ownership and operation of the terminals and transfefr elevators further east alone will not prove a solution of this difficulty, if, indeed, it be necessary at all to a solution of the question. This commission I suggest should have very large powers; they should be able, like the Railway Commission, to deal with every feature and phase of the grain trade from the initial elevator right through so far as our Canadian jurisdiction extends. There is no manner of doubt that to-day our law is too lenient. The men who in the past have been manipulating grain, making an improper admixture, under regulations less severe than we have to-day, have undoubtedly got off too light. The laws of the state of Minnesota are much more severe than are ours in regard to the penalties imposed. The question has been asked: What penalties should be fixed by a commission for elevator operators who break the laws? Unfortunately, many of the owners of our terminal elevators are not citizens of Canada; they reside in the United States, outside the jurisdiction of our law. The only remedy I can think of for that condition is that every elevator company operating at terminal points in Canada should be compelled to name and bond some prominent Canadian citizen, some business man on this side of the line, who would personally be responsible for the operation of their elevators. It would not be sufficient that the man who operates the elevator at a salary x>f, perhaps, $3,000 or $4,000 a year should suffer a penalty of 5 or 10 years' imprisonment for infractions of the law, there should be some substantial individual named as the representative of the company operating the elevator, and that person should be made responsible for any infraction of the law to the extent of any fine that may be imposed, as well as to imprisonment for that infraction. There is even a further penalty that may be imposed, cancellation of the license for a year or two years.


Mr. McKENZIE.: Are the elevator companies incorporated?


David Bradley Neely: They are, and must have a license.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then they are subject to indictment and fine as corporations?


David Bradley Neely: But the penalties imposed under the present Grain Act are not sufficiently severe. I think that while this matter is under consideration the penalty should be made so severe and the power of the commission to exact these penalties be made so absolute that there would be no inducement to the terminal elevator operator to do anything but the right
and proper thing. I have endeavoured to place before the House the different aspects of this question and to impress the necessity, before any definite principle is laid down by this House for the advice and direction of this government, that we should understand that the evils of the grain trade are of far greater extent than the manipulation of grain at Fort William and Port Arthur, that this mixing process may go on in any part of Canada outside of these ports and that whatever provision is made must be great ejiough and wide enough to protect our grain from the time it leaves the farmer's home market until it reaches not only the sea-board but the markets of the world.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not intend to address the House at any great length on this question. I may say at once, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, that I will certainly support the motion presented by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) to-day; but in saying that I am thoroughly convinced that an operation will have to be performed on that resolution in order to squeeze out half a loaf. My friend from Regina referred to some very interesting figures of the amount of wheat grown in Saskatchewan. I only wish there were ten times as much grown there, and there no doubt will be at some future time. He made a comparison of the amount of wheat grown in Saskatchewan with the amount grown in Manitoba, saying it was about three times as much. I have not verified these figures but I have verified the figures that they have a province, given by this government, nearly four times as big as our little country of Manitoba, and I would like to know whose fault it is that our province is so small today? It is due to wdiat I may call the ungenerous way in which the^ Prime Minister and his government have used that province of Manitoba.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Mr. SCHAFFNER I said I was not going to occupy the time of the House because I intend to bring forwmrd at the very first opportunity a resolution which I believe will be definite, -which is on the Order Paper and about the next in order. One of the hon. gentlemen said that we on this side of the House felt ourselves in a very delicate position. I have only to speak for myself, and if I may judge from the arguments put forward and the tre-, mendous effort that has been made by, hon. gentlemen opposite to speak on this, question, it will not be difficult for a, reading public to understand who are the gentlemen who are in a delicate position. So far as I am personally concerned, L am in no delicate postion, my position is,

definite, is decided, and I shall, when the; proper time comes, speak to that motion and support it, believing that it is right. A number of questions have been referred to to-day but I shall defer discussing them until my resolution comes up. One of these question relates to the government operation of so-called line elevators throughout Manitoba and the other provinces. I shall content myself to-day with repeating that I hope we shall reach the conclusion of this debate this afternoon in time to enable us to place ourselves on record as to how we feel in connection with the government ownership and operation of these important elevators throughout this country, the terminal elevators.


Mr. JAMBS CONMEE (Thunder Bay and Rainy River).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to some of the hon. members who have been discussing this question that the trouble is not altogether with the terminal elevators. It is the general representation that there is a good deal of manipulation going on in these elevators. I happened to be in the House when the delegation of western farmers was here and I heard their arguments. The difficulty arises very largely long before the grain reaches the terminal elevators and it is a defect in part in the legislation. I believe that when the grain reaches Winnipeg, and it may be there purchased by A, B and C and transferred to the local elevators. I do not know what the practice may be to-day as there may have been some recent change within the last few months. It is not inspected into these elevators although samples are taken, but it is inspected when it comes out of the elevators and it is reinspected at the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. That leaves the door open for any amount of manipulation, it permits the operator to mix it as much as he pleases, to buy a low grade and to mix with it a certain amount of a higher grade and bring it out so it will all pass out as a higher grade. That cannot take place at the terminal elevator for the reason that the grain is inspected into the elevator and out of the elevator. According to the regulations the elevator company cannot give out a greater quantity of any particular grade than their records will show they have taken in. There ought to be no great difficulty in protecting the grain at the terminal elevator or elsewhere if the regulations go far enough. Under our banking system, there is no trouble to turn up the records at any time and find howT a man's bank account stands, his deposits and audits, and so with the grain trade there could not be this manipulation if the regulations are enforced and proper records kept. I am not prepared to say that the regulations may not be im-Mr. SCHAFFNEE.
proved, I am assuming they are sufficient if they are enforced. The only possible manipulation that could possibly take place at the terminal elevator is, that the inspector might say: This grain should be cleaned to a certain extent. It is graded No. 1 or No. 2 Northern provided a certain amount of small grain and waste material is eliminated, and if that full quantity is not taken from it then the grain will measure out more bushels than the certificate will show and to that extent there might be manipulation to the value of these few extra bushels of grain. I believe that has been frequently done, but it is an evil that could readily be prevented. I have not had an opportunity of reading the hon. gentle- . man's motion, and I am, therefore, perhaps at a loss in speaking to it, but I may say that the remedy would not be applied within a reasonable time by the taking over of the elevators under government control. The obje.ct of that is to remove temptation by having the staff in these elevators disinterested so that there would be no motive for the manipulation which now takes place. Well, Sir, I cannot see wherein there would be better protection for the public in that respect than there is to-day under the system of examination if the regulations are made properly workable, and if they are properly enforced. In that respect I fanoy I agree more or less with the last speaker. Now, there is a good deal more than the terminal elevators to be considered. Grain is not inspected through all the country elevators; the grain buyers put their grain into the elevators in the country; they need not route it to Winnipeg; they may route it through to the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William, and in that case I admit there is very little if any opportunity for manipulation after the grain is shipped. But they may mix the grain previous to shipping it; they may say: Here, I can buy this at No. 1 Northern and this at No. 2, and this at No. 3. In my opinion these grains ought to be graded out No. 1, arid they may be mixed, and if the buyer is a good judge he may get the No. 1 grade for the wrhole bulk of the grain he has purchased, and that does frequently happen. Then, as to our milling companies; the milling companies at Winnipeg, and Kenora, and Fort William, and all other points have their own elevators and they buy the grain without any restriction whatever as the regulations do not relate to them at all. They can mix it as much as they like, and they can grind the inferior grade or the better grades just as they please. The questioh is a very wide one, and if it is to be dealt with at all it seems to me there ought to be some system of dealing with it all along the line.
Now, there is another question in connection with this matter; there are certain elevators at different points in the country

that do not deal with custom grain at all; they are built by certain men for the purpose of handling their own grain. I am aware that there is a question of some dispute just now as to whether an individual or a company should be allowed to carry on that business. I am not going to discuss that question because it is considerably involved and there is perhaps a good deal to be said on both sides, but at first blush it does seem to me that it is rather an extreme measure to say to any company or person: you shall not put machinery into a building to clean the grain that you may purchase. I believe the whole question of the protection of the farmer who produces grain can be worked out by proper regulations, if these regulations are wide enough and broad enough and extend not to one, but to all points, and are enforced. If the door is left open at one point for a continuance of the evil it is sought to remedy, then the door will be left open for manipulation all along the line, and I do not believe that a remedy can be applied in that way.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: 

this government and parliament on this question. The transportation companies, the farmers, the -elevator companies and the bankers were all represented, and, indeed, almost every other interest connected with the shipping of grain, _ and they had an interview with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his room. To that meeting the members of parliament were invited, and we heard the discussions proceeding day after day pro and con. As a result of those discussions the Minister of Trade and Commerce undertook to prepare amendments to the Manitoba Grain Act, and they were subsequently introduced to this House during the same session. Just prior to their introduction, however,, (a small delegation of farmers came here, -consisting of Mr. Langley, a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, and _ Mr. Mackenzie, the secretary of the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association, and they were here for some days. We on this side of the House were not honoured with an invitation to the conferences they were having with the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but we learned from some of the government members that they had access to those meetings. Session after session was held with regard to that Bill, but the Conservative members of this House were left entirely in the dark as to what was proceeding. However, when the amendments were brought down, they were the subject of criticism, not by hon. gentlemen on the government s-ide of the House, but by hon. gentlemen on the opposition side. We expressed our conviction that the amendments introduced would not accomplish the purpose desired by the farmers, and the result has proved that our contention was correct. I remember, during the election of 1908, meeting a certain senator in my constituency, who, in defending the government's action on this question, took the ground that while they did not go so far as to provide for government ownership and operation of terminal elevators, they had given something just as goodlike the proverbial dealer, who, when out of a particular article which is desired, offers something else which he asserts is just as good. The senator also said that the two farmers who were here, Messrs. Mackenzie and Langley, were satisfied with the amendments which had been introduced. I was rather surprised to hear that, for I felt convinced that it could not be so, and the very best evidence of that was that immediately after the election these same two gentlemen joined the farmers of the west in petitioning the government in favour of government ownership and operation of terminal elevators. Whether these two gentlemen had given their consent to those amendments merely until the election was over, for fear of injuring their political Mr. ROCHB.
friends they themselves know best, but that the farmers of the west were not satisfied with the amendments proved to be correct, and both of these gentlemen have been since down here as delegates to protest against the present Act.
The hon. member for Humboldt has stated that he is in favour of a commission, not to operate the elevators, but something like the Railway Commission, to enjoy the very widest powers to make regulations with regard to the whole grain-growing trade of the country. The Railway Commission does not operate the various- railways of the country,y therefore I think my deduction is fair when I say that his suggestion was not that a commission should operate the terminal elevators, hut should merely supervise the operation carried on under private ownership. This I am satisfied would not be any more satisfactory to the farmers than is the present Act.
Now the hon. member for Regina referred to the fact that the Royal Commission did not recommend government ownership and operation. They merely recommended a way of compelling the cleaning of the grain under -government supervision byi private owners. That is what the government provided for in the session of 1907-8, which -has proved to be entirely unsatisfactory.
At the same time that the farmers were urging on this government to take over the terminal elevators they were also urging on the respective provincial governments in the west to take over the various interior elevators, and to operate them. The hon. member for Humboldt referred to the fact of the Manitoba government having done that, and while he did not condemn it, he left the impression upon the House that they had acted hast. ily, and he warned this government to
-	take their time and not rush into govern: ment ownership and operation. We are
-	not asking the government to do anything * hastily. This question has been before , this House for years. It has engaged the
-	attention of this parliament and of previ-; ous parliaments, and it has 'been discussed , -by the -press and by the farmers for >
years past. It is no new proposition. It i i3 true, the Manitoba government did com. ply with the request of the -farmers in that l respect so far as the province of Mani-
-	to'ba is concerned. They appointed a com, mission on' which two out of the three , members are gentlemen who were sug-t gested by the executive of the farmers' 3 organization, in response to the govern-3 ment's request. These three commissioners l are running the interior elevators to-day
-	entirely independent of the government, 3 except that the government is responsible 3 to the people for the expenditure of the r money. And still this does not satisfy 1 some gentlemen in the province of Mani-

to'ba of the political faith of hon. gentlemen opposite.
But, in order to have the interior elevators working to the best advantage, -the farmers of the west feel convinced, it is absolutely necessary for this government to act in concert with them, and take over and operate the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur as well as the transfer elevators on this side of the lakes. And, while it is felt that provincial ownership of the interior elevators will redound to the benefit of the farmers it is "believed that it will not be a full success unless the terminal elevators are operated by the Dominion government, that does not necessarily mean the purchase at extravagant prices of existing elevators. As has been suggested by hon members in this House to-day, and on previous occasions, those elevators could be leased. In fact, in conversation, I have heard some of the owners of those elevators express themselves as willing to lease the elevators to the government, thiis making unnecessary the expense that would be entailed upon the country of initiating this .policy iby purchase. A lease might be made for a term of years for operation by the government, for, personally, I have no faith in the public operation of elevators that are privately owned, even under a government appointed commission.
I shall have an opportunity on the resolution of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) to express further my opinion on the question of public ownership, so I need not trespass longer on the attention of the House.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia).: parties would be imprisoned for one year for the first offence and three years for a second offence, I think probably you would get over that difficulty. We have some of the same men operating in the elevators in Fort William to-day, who were chased *out of Minnesota-some of the same gang. They have a law in Minnesota, as I understand it, something on the line suggested by the- Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), on several occasions. They have :a commission there to operate the elevators, composed of men who are not in the grain trade and who have never, at any time in their lives, been connected with the grain trade.
I do not know sufficiently about the system in Minnesota to say whether it is an absolutely good one; but I know that in the states of Minnesota and Dakota they had years ago the same difficulties in dealing with the question that we had some years past in the west-exactly the same only a good deal worse. But they have largely overcome them and, as I understand from grain men, millers and exporters, the present system applied in the terminal elevators at Minnesota is giving satisfaction. So that, while I am not at all sure about it in my own mind, if something in that line can be effected here which will give the same satisfaction as government ownership and operation, that would suit my ideas a good deal better.


William James Roche: Was the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin) correct in his surmise that they allow mixing in Minnesota at present?


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not sufficiently familiar with their system to be able to speak definitely. All I can say is that I have spoken with a number of men who have looked carefully into the subject, and they have expressed the opinion that the Minnesota system of handling their terminal elevators by an independent commission, who have never been connected with the grain trade, was -working very satisfactorily, so satisfactorily that these men who are now scalping wheat in Fort William and Port Arthur were driven out of business in Minnesota because they could not do business along the lines they wanted to and consequently drifted into our country.


James Conmee: They are still in business in Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth ias well.


John Gillanders Turriff: They may be, but they are doing business on a different basis from the way they are doing it in Fort William and Port Arthur. The trouble is that the terminal elevators have got out of the hands of the railways. As long as they were in the hands of the railways there was no great dissatisfaction. The Canadian Pacific railway always handled their elevators
well. In Fort William and Port Arthur, that company always gave very good satisfaction. There used to be some objection to the charges made for the handling of wheat, but there was never any charge that the terminal elevators, owned and operated by the Canadian Pacific railway, ever tried to do the farmers up for the benefit of the dealers. There was no object in their doing so. Later on, however, _ when the Canadian Northern railway built its elevators in Port Arthur, it leased the operation to Americans, who have subsidiary companies all through the west and own hundreds of elevators in all parts of the three _ prairie provinces. There is where the difficulty originated. The trouble has been that they use their opportunities to the great disadvantage of the farmers. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the regulations made during the past year by the Department of Trade and Commerce are a long step in the right direction. It has been pointed out to me by men in the grain trade this winter that now it is most difficult for any of these terminal elevators-no matter how anxious they may be to do wrong- to do so without being caught. But here I want to say that I do not believe you can watch them successfully. They will find some way of getting around the law. What we want in the west, what the western farmer and the Ontario millers, and the exporters want, is to be able to buy 100 cars of No. 3 Northern wheat and he sure of getting that grade. And mind you there is a spread of 4 cents between No. 2 and Ro. 3 Northern, those 100 cars will average about half way up between No. 2 -and Mo. 3 Northern, so that the wheat will be worth If cents per bushel higher than the price of No. 3 Northern, and will average that. What we want to accomplish is that when a farmer sells his wheat, the man who buys will be able to get that same quality and not a grade that is skinned right down so that it will barely scale say to Ro. 3 Northern The question is how best we can accomplish that, This is not a political matter in any sense, and any one who tries to bring politics into it is very foolish and will not succeed in gaining anything.
Every one in the west, and I think also in the east, wants to have something done that will enable the farmer to get a fair price for his wheat. I have heard it often said that the grain dealers do not make more than a fair profit. There is a good deal in that, but I will tell you why. A grain dealer will make $50,000 a rear up from the business but he will then r0 and speculate on margin in the Chicago narket, and lose $45,000 of liis $50,000. Then he will say that he has worked a vhole year and invested a lot of money md only made $5,000.
There is not only difficulty in the way o-raHino-. but there has been a certain


John Gillanders Turriff: amount of difficulty in connection with the weighing of wheat. When I was in the west some two or three months ago, I went into the matter somewhat fully, and it was made clear to me that a good deal of the difficulty which occurs from the weighing of wheat in Fort William and Port Arthur elevators comes from the fact that a lot of those elevators are old, and not from any desire to do wrong or injustice. They were ibuilt many years ago and their weighing machinery is obsolefe, and when you have a thousand cars coming in in a day, as often happens in the rush in the fall, it is very difficult to give the.same attention to each individual carload as should he given to it. I was asked by one _ man who was very much iuter-ested in having the weights correct whether something could not be done to have those elevators supplied with proper weighing machinery. Either the government should take them over or see that they were equipped with up to date machinery, or those who are running them should he compelled to put in such machinery so as to do away with the possibilities ot making mistakes and causing dissatis-iaction to the shippers.
Another difficulty is in connection with the cleaning of the wheat. For instance a farmer ships a carload to his commission agent in Winnipeg and the inspector grades it No. 2 Northern with a dockage of 5 per cent. That goes down to oSe o . these terminal elevators, owned bv a private- company ; and supposing they only take three per cent cleanage out of it they can put it in and ship it out with the grade, and they just make that much in the weight. Something, therefore, ought to be done.
Something must be done. Either we must have a commission to take charge of those elevators and run them-and I cannot conceive how the commission could run them if they were owned by private individuals. If they were owned by railway companies, then it could be ' done, because railway companies have no object in doing anything but what is absolutely fair as between seller and buyer. But if the elevators are still to be owned by private companies who are working through the west, I do not see how you can obviate the evils that are said to exist, and that no doubt do exist at present.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Has the hon. gentleman any suggestion to make other than government operation? Does he think government operation would cure these evils better than anything else?


John Gillanders Turriff: I am free to admit that I am not sufficiently familiar with the merits or demerits of the Minnesota system to say whether it would overcome the evils
we have complained of. Under the Minnesota system, I do not know whether the elevators are owned by warehouse people or by interior elevator companies. I cannot say that at present I have aiiy proposition-in my mind that I feel would be satisfactory,, outside government ownership and operation. But I want to say that if any other system can be found that promises to be equally effective, then, on the general principle of being opposed to government ownership, I would rather see that tried. But I think the commission system is at least the best adapted to government ownership and operation, and would result in the fewest difficulties. The western farmer is a reasonable man, he has never objected to paying for inspection, or weighing, or for freight charges. He is quite prepared to pay all the charges on every bushel of wheat he sjiips. So the government could take hold of these elevators and run very little risk of making any losses, because it is a much simpler matter to deal with than most other public utilities. But I want to point out that there are some serious objections to the government taking over these elevators. You may go ahead at present and build a new elevator with reinforced concrete, or brick, or of some fire-proof material; but you can operate that elevator so much more cheaply than the old elevators built ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, at Port Arthur and Fort William, that if the owners of those old elevators were to hand them over to the government as a present, the government could not run them any cheaper than they could build up-to-date new elevators, and make the other charges. -


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What would be the objection to doing that?


John Gillanders Turriff: Obsolete machinery in the old elevators, and another objection is the matter of insurance. In an up-to-date elevator, if it is absolutely fire-proof, you do not have to insure, because nothing in it can burn. But the old elevator is a wooden construction which has to be insured, along with perhaps a million bushels of wheat worth a million dollars; and although the rate is reasonably low, still it runs up. It was explained to me in Winnipeg three or four months ago that the cost of operating one of those old elevators to-day, if you got it for nothing, would be higher than the interest on a new up-to-date elevator.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Assuming it were w'se for the government to operate them, wuat would be the objection to building new and properly equipped elevators upon the same sites as the old elevators?


John Gillanders Turriff: This objection, that these people put their money into a legiti-

mate business years ago, built the elevators, according to the best method that was known at that time, and it would be unfair to pass legislation to put them out of business, and give them nothing at all for their property. So the government, in buying and running these elevators, will have to pay a great deal more than they are worth. That is one objection, but it is not an insurmountable objection. It would be better to do that even, if you could thereby stop the manipulation, and, mixing, and deterioration that goes on to-day. I claim it would be better for the government to take them over, even if we paid for them more than they were worth, and I scarcely ever yet knew of any government buying a thing without paying for it more than it was worth.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Could not that be remedied by proper arbitration?


John Gillanders Turriff: I have seen a good many arbitrations between the government and individuals, and the government nearly always have to pay more than the private individual could get for it if he sold it to any one else. That is one difficulty, but it can be overcome. Now, with reference to the general question of public ownership, I was very sorry to hear my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe), who is usually a very mild and reasonable gentleman, make such an insinuation as he did on the members of the Saskatchewan commission. That commission was composed of a noted professor, I think from the lower provinces, who was chairman; one of the other members was president of the Grain Growers' Association of the province of Saskatchewan, and the third man was one of the executive of the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan, and a member of the local legislature. To make the statement that this commission had their report written out and put into their hands before they ever started out to take evidence was, to my mind, an insinuation and a slur against the honour of these gentlemen that was altogether uncalled for, unless the hon. member was prepared to lay on the table of the House the absolute proof of that statement. I know Mr. Green, and I know Mr. Langley. I do not know Prof. McGill, but I am satisfied money would not hire either of these gentlemen to do such a thing. I think my hon. friend from Lisgar, when he comes to think it over, will feel it his duty to rise in this House and withdraw that statement. It is not a statement that should, be allowed to go out into the country without contradiction. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) felt a little warm over Manitoba being small. It ia true Manitoba is not as large as some of Mr. TURRIFF.
the other provinces, but I might ask who formed the province of Manitoba? I remember the occasion, and it wak done by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. A little later on, the Manitoba government thought the province was not large enough, and asked to have it enlarged, and the government of Sir John Macdonald, who had some very good points about it, gave them all they asked for, every acre. Then my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) starts in to abuse this government because the government of which he was a supporter many years ago, on two different occasions, in dealing with tjbis subject, gave the people of Manitoba all they asked for. Now they try to put the blame on this government. I remember some years ago, when the present premier of Manitoba came to my part of the country, then the district of Assiniboia, and had the nerve to propose that we in Assiniboia, then part of the Northwest Territories, should agree to the extending of the western boundary of Manitoba up to about Moosejaw. That would have been all right, perhaps, for the present premier of Manitoba, but it did not suit us at all, and the province of Manitoba can never 'be extended on the west. But there is a great tract of country there to the north, which can be included in the province of Manitoba, and in reference to which this government has ma.de reasonable offers to the people and the government of Manitoba, so although the province of Manitoba has not yet been enlarged, the blame does not lie with this government, but lies at the door of the present government of Manitoba. Thus I do not think any point can be made against this government in that respect.


William James Roche: Is it a fact that the legislature of Saskatchewan, at its last session, unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the Dominion government taking over the terminal elevators?


John Gillanders Turriff: I could not tell the hon. gentleman if they did or not. I am not aware. I regret that it is six o'clock, as there is a great deal more I would like to say on the subject.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is expected that to-morrow Mr. Fielding will make a statement to the House, and then we will take up Bills, probably the Bill in regard to the waterways.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned.


Thursday, January 26, 1911.