1912-02-20

Right Hon.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved that the name of Mr. W. S. Middlebro be substituted for that of Mr. A. C. Boyce on the Joint Committee on the Restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 107) respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters.-Air. Bennett. Sirncoe.
Bill (No. 108) respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Baker.
Bill (No. 109) for the relief of Herbert Horsfall.-Mr. Kay.
Bill (No. 110) for the relief of Kenneth Molson.-Mr. Rhodes.

[Stage Direction]
Air. A1ACDONALD (Pictou). Before the orders of the day are called I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday I asked the right lion, the Prime Minister as to whether or not an appointment had been made to the Supreme Court Bench of the province of Nova Scotia, and as to whether Mr. .1. J. Ritchie had received the appointment. I ventured then to say that I hoped the report was true, but I see that ' Hansard ' reports me as having said I hoped the report was not true. I desire to call the attention of the House to this fact, because the 'Statement is so wholly at variance with my own statement that I do not wish it to go on record. I regard Air. Ritchie as a gentleman of the highest qualifications, and I 'am satisfied that the government made a very wise choice in appointing him.
Air. BORDEN.: I distinctly understood my hon. friend to say just what he has intimated, that he hoped the report was true.



GOVERNAIENT WORKS TOLLS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 103) to amend the Government Works Tolls Act.-Mr. Monk-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. A10NK. I explained when introducing this Bill that its object was to correct a clerical error in the Revised Statutes of Canada. Under the Public Works Act (R.S. c. 39, s. 9, para, (b) ) the Alinister of Public Work© has the management Off works for facilitating the transmission of timber, and matters incident thereto. The Government Works Tolls Act (which it is now proposed to amend) gives the Minister of Inland Revenue authority respecting similar works. It is desired that the Alinister of Public Works shall have the authority in both oases.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to ratify and confirm an agreement between the Colling-wood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, and His Majesty, dated the 27th July, 1910, respecting the construction of a dry dock at the town of Collingwood, and to authorize the Governor in Council to pay an annual subsidy of three per cent, per annum , for twenty years upon the sum of $306,965.18, being the cost of construction of the said dry dock.-Mr. Monk.
Mr. AlONK. This resolution is presented to -the House under the fallowing circumstances :
On November 9, 1909, application was made by the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, for a subsidy, under the Act of 1908, to encourage the construction of dry docks, and specification and plans were submitted for a dock of the
following dimensions:
Length over all	
420	feetWidth at coping	
105	"Width at bottom	
100	"Depth on sill, low	water	
16	"Depth of dock proper	
22	"
While the plans, specification and estimates for this dock were under consideration by the department, with the object of arriving at the total sum upon which subsidy should he granted, the Dry Docks Subsidies Act, chap. 24, of the Statutes of 1908, was repealed by chap. 17 of the Statutes of 1910, which was assented to on the 4th of Alay, 1910. A recommendation was sent to
[Stage Direction]
*council on the 4th May, and an order in -council passed on the 11th May, 1910, authorizing the department to enter into an agreement with the Co'llingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, to grant a subsidy -on Dry Dock No, 2, of 3 per cent on $306,365.18, for twenty years. The Dry Docks Subsidies Act, chap. 17, of the Statutes of 1910, provides for the payment of subsidy on three different classes of docks, of which the third class is limited to a cost of not more than $1,500,000 with a subsidy of 3 per cent for twenty years. A third class dock must be 400 feet in length, 65 feet wide and 18 feet over the sill at ordinary low water when constructed in non-tidal waters. The Collingwood Dry Dock No. 2 possessed the necessary length and width, but was only 16 feet on the sill at low water, so that it did not qualify under the new legislation. As, however, the consideration of this application, made under the 1908 Act, had been completed before the passing of the Act of 1910, containing the new conditions, and as the dock was, in addition, at that time partially constructed, it was considered only fair that the dock should be subsidized and that special legislation should be introduced -at the next session of parliament to enable payment of the subsidy. Accordingly, on the 17th May, 1911, a resolution was moved by the honourable the Minister of Public Works, ns follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to ratify and [DOT]confirm an agreement between the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, and His Majesty, dated the 27th day of July, 1910, respecting the construction of a dry dock at the town of Collingwood, and to authorize the Governor in Council to pay an annual subsidy of three per cent, per annum for 20 years upon the sum of $306,965.18 being the cost of the construction of the dry dock, &c.
A draft Bill was also prepared, but was never introduced; the resolution still remaining on the order paper when parliament dissolved.
Under these circumstances the department is submitting the same resolution to the House. I do not think there is any doubt that the company is entitled to The subsidy under the circumstances.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. MONK moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. Ill) to authorize the payment of a subsidy to the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 32) respecting Grain.-Mr. Foster (North Toronto).
Mr. MONK.: On section 96-regulations as to binning and cleaning


Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I wish to add a clause as subsection 2 of which I gave notice. This, I think, should be changed in the latter half, after the words ' any terminal warehouseman neglecting to comply within thirty days.' That seems a long time to give, and it might be well to strike out the words ' within thirty days ' and insert the words ' within a reasonable time.' Thirty days seems altogether too long, and in some cases would be. In other cases thirty days might be too short if the improvements to be made involve a good deal of altering and changing. I do not see any better way of arranging it, except to say within reasonable time.


Mr. OLIVER.: I would suggest that it be made: 'within reasonable time not exceeding thirty days ' because in the rush of the grain season, unless the alteration can be made within thirty days there is no use making it at all.


George Eulas Foster: I am quite willing to put that in. Then we will insert the word ' comply ', ' within reasonable time not exceeding thirty days '. I move the adoption of the clause as amended.


Frank Oliver: The term used in the ' Hansard ' report of the previous debate is ' punishable ' not ' liable


George Eulas Foster: The law clerk put in the other word as being a better legal term.


Frank Oliver: Before the minister leaves that page may I ask if he has come to any decision in regard to overages which is alluded to in subsection 7 of section 95?


George Eulas Foster: The whole matter is under consideration. The overages for 1909-10 were considerable- more than considerable in fact. In 1910-11 the overages and shortages showed over the whole quantity of wheat which was passed through, probably 90,000,000 or 100,000,000, a balance of only about 35,000 bushels which is an almost infinitesimal percentage on the whole amount carried through. I am having the whole subject looked into now in view of establishing a basis as to what shall be done as between the shortages and overages. Of course we have a claim upon the elevator men for shortages, but they argue that if they make up the shortages they ought to be entitled to the overages. It is a perfectly allowable claim, I think that they should be entitled to the overages up to the amount that will balance the shortages. Over and above that there may be a question, but I am looking into the subject with my officers so as to come to a basis upon which this shall be regulated.


Frank Oliver: If you allow the elevators overages up to what would be a reasonable allowance for legitimate error in weighing, I think they could have no claim or right for anything over and above that, no matter what is done in regard to the shortages.
Section as amended agreed to.


Frank Oliver: Has the minister anything to inform the committee as to the effect of certificates on grain which passes through the States?


George Eulas Foster: I am also taking that matter up with various officers of our own, and of the United States Chambers of Commerce in the different ports. I am getting complete information as to what the custom is all the way through from the time the grain leaves our border until it takes a ship either at New York, Boston or Portland or at any of our own ports.


Frank Oliver: There will be no result from that investigation so far as the Act is concerned?


George Eulas Foster: No. It will be a guidance for the future.
On section 104-offices in Winnipeg,


George Eulas Foster: The next is section 104. I gave notice of that, and moved that a section follow to be denominated 104A. That section is to be found in ' Hansard.' It provides for an official Survey Board to be established for the district of Calgary in the western inspection division-for the manner in which that Survey Board shall be selected-and then applies the positions of other sections applicable thereto. The question raisedi the other day was a3 to wtietner it was wiser to allow the Survey Board to be appointed ultimately by the board upon competent persons being selected by the Board of Trade of Calgary. 1 think the hon. gentleman who raised the point favoured something like the plan that exists in the Survey Board towards the eastern end of the western inspection division. As I said then, that has worked out in practice to leave the work of the Survey Board completely with the members of it which were nominated by the Board of Trade of Winnipeg. The others having other business to attend to, and not being upon the grain exchange, find it inconvenient to attend and do not attend. In Calgary if you place two nominees from Manitoba, two from Saskatchewan and two from Alberta, the same thing would probably happen, and it would seem that if the board had the competency of the Survey Board within their own hands, there should be no difficulty in getting men eligible in Calgary, on the nomination of the Board
of Trade, who would be perfectly fitted to act. There would be no objection, if it were thought best, to have the Minister of Agriculture of Alberta make the nomination. But even then, I think, it should be a person resident in Calgary. And, if it were not so nominated in the Bill, it seems to me you would have a supernumerary rather than a helpful member of the board. I think we should get all that is necessary, and in thoroughly workable foTm under the plan I have intimated here. I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) has any fixed convictions on this subject or not.


Frank Oliver: I have taken some interest in this provision since my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) brought it in the other day. Conditions in Calgary are different from those in Winnipeg. In Winnipeg, the grain trade interests a very large proportion of the business community, whereas the grain trade does not interest a large proportion of the business community in Calgary. Besides, Calgary, of course, is a much smaller place than Winnipeg. Therefore, we could not look for absolutely the same conditions surrounding the appointment of members of the Survey Board on the nomination of the Board of Trade of Calgary as in the case of those nominated by the Board of Trade of Winnipeg. For these reasons, I could think it desirable that the provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan should have the authority to make nominations. I include Saskatchewan because it is expected that some Saskatchewan grain as well as Alberta grain will go through Calgary. I appreciate the desirability of the appointees being residents of Calgary; but I think that, perhaps, it might be wise not to require that by the terms of the Act. What I should like would be that the government of Alberta and the government of Saskatchewan should have the right to appoint two members each. It might be left to their good judgment whether they would appoint residents of Calgary or not. I have had discussion with parties well informed upon, and interested in, this matter, and they consider that six is not a sufficiently large board for Calgary. Under the provisions of the law no person is allowed to sit on a survey who is interested in the transaction under survey. With the small number of people interested in the grain trade in Calgary, and with a small board, it might be difficult to get a Survey Board in a position to act. Too many of the members of the small board might be interested in its transactions and, therefore, incapacitated from sitting. While it might seem that the large board is more cumbersome, it is not necessarily
345.

more cumbersome. On the contrary, it may be more workable and more available for work, provided the members are conveniently resident in the city where the transaction under survey takes place.


George Eulas Foster: I quite see the point that my non. friend (Mr. Oliver) makes. Part of it has weight, but he will excuse me if I say that the other has not quite so much weight. Calgary is not at present a grain centre such as Winnipeg, and it may be some little time before Calgary attains any such position. But all the aspirations and all the prospects with reference to the matter point to the belief that Calgary will, before very long, become a very important grain centre. And there will not be very much work to do until it has grown in importance, and it is very likely to grow in importance very quickly, depending upon the exits for grain which are available. It seems to me it would not be difficult to find in Calgary, where they have a population of
50,000	a large proportion of whom are business men, the material for a board of six. There is something, however, I think, in what my hon. friend says about responsibility. If one is appointed by the provincial government he is rather amenable to the responsible authority of that province. And if we include Alberta, Saskatchewan also should be included. There is no reason to include Manitoba, because Manitoba grain will probably not seek a market by way of the west. We must be sure to provide that a quorum is to be had, and non-resident members are a difficulty in that respect. If one happens to bo interested in the transaction and, therefore, ineligible, and if there are two or three or four non-residents, the making of a quorum may be difficult-. Perhaps it would answer if we make the board a board of eight and provide that the provincial government of Alberta and the provincial government of Saskatchewan shall each nominate one.


Frank Oliver: I should much prefer to have it two from each provincial government, but I would certainly rather have one than none.


George Eulas Foster: Considr ering the number of the whole Survey Board, I should think that one from each province would be enough. I move the amendment of this section.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Has the minister thought that in Calgary it may be difficult to find six people who are experienced in regard to the duties which will be put upon them under this Act?


George Eulas Foster: I have not thought so. If that were the condition, I should think it premature to erect Mr. OLIVER.
a Survey Board there at all. They must have the six experts, but if they can find no people except those who are incompetent, those people will not be approved of, and so there will not be a Survey Board.


William Erskine Knowles: I would not think that that was evidence of this being premature, because it is the interest of the grain trade which is dominant, and not- that of the citizens of Calgary. The province of Alberta, with all due respect for it, is not a grain growing province such as Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Of course, it excels in other things, in which they do not excel. In line with what the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has said, and in addition to what I have said, we are to remember that the people of Calgary have not been trained in that kind of business. It is easy, of course, to criticise, but unquestionably it is more or less owing to the experiment of preparing for what we hope will be a great movement of our grain westward. I certainly do not wish to throw any obstacles in the way of that movement, but I doubt that you will find men who will sufficiently excel in the knowledge of the .grain business to be appointed to this board.


George Eulas Foster: I stand up for Calgary in that respect; I think there is enough both of ability and experience to be found in that city for the creation of this board.


William Erskine Knowles: There is not an elevator in the place except those connected with the mill.


George Eulas Foster: They might not be good judges of elevators but they might be good judges of grain, and that is what they are there for. I think my hon. friend's fears are leading away his judgment.
On section 115.


George Eulas Foster: 1 gave notice of a new section to be substituted for this one:
All good grain that has an excessive moisture, being tough, damp or wet or otherwise unfit for warehousing, shall be entered on the inspecting officer's book as ' no grade ' with his notations as to quality and condition.
All grain that is unsound, musty, dirty, smutty, sprouted or contains a large admixture of other kinds of grain, seeds or wild oats, or from any other cause is unfit to be classed under any of the recognized grades, shall be classed as ' rejected,' with the inspector's notations as to quality and condition.


Frank Oliver: There is a very radical change from the old clause, and I am not quite clear as to the reasons for the change, that is, good mixed grain, or mixed grain of good quality, is changed from low grade to rejected. I would like to know on what ground that change is made.


George Eulas Foster: The reason for the change is two-fold. In the first place, the custom has been all along to grade the grain, and it has so been known and graded as is set forth in the substituted section. The first has reference entirely to moisture, that is the prime element in it..


Frank Oliver: That kind of grain is
brought into the rejected class.


George Eulas Foster: It was left out of the first class, and is put into the class of rejected.


Frank Oliver: On the face of it, it strikes me that the change is hardly justified. I am not an expert in grain, but I would like to know the reason why the change has been made.


George Eulas Foster: It has always been graded that way, that is the general grade all the way through, and it is belter to have the law put in consonance with the practice. But I believe the contention is that the practice is the correct way.
On section 125: security by license,


George Eulas Foster: That has reference to the bond. We had some conversation about it. I have given it considerable thought, and I propose to amend it in this way:	The clause, as it reads,
provides for a penal sum of not less than $10,000, and .not more than $50,000. These are two arbitrary sums. There does not seem to be any orinciple which underlies the fixing of these sums. If you have a small elevator of 25,000 or 30,000 bushels, although I believe the smallest at Fort William at the present time, is about 65,000 bushels, you can tax it $10,000 and if you have one of 7,000,000 bushels capacity you cannot have the bond larger than $50,000. That appears to be unfair, and I have been making some inquiry about it. I think it is undeniable that the bond imposed upon these terminal elevators, which have very responsible duties thrown upon them and are restricted by very close laws and regulations, the strictness of which has been conditioned by the necessity of preventing violations, should be adequate to the restrictions and responsibilities. In the state of Minnesota I find that they have a bond proportioned to the capacity of the elevator and, on inquiry, I also find that the country elevator system in Canada is run at the present time, where bonds are required, upon that principle. The bond is proportioned to the capacity of the elevator and in so far as I can learn, the system has worked well. So, I propose to apply the same principle to the terminal elevators. But, I do not seem to have the amendment in the form in which I arranged it, and therefore, we will let this section stand in the meantime.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 126, subsection 8: grades not to be mixed,


George Eulas Foster: The section as at present reads:
In no case, whether in a terminal elevator in the western inspection division or in a public elevator in the eastern inspection division, shall grain of different grades be mixed together while in store.
I propose to add the words ' or public ' after 'terminal,' so that it will read:
In no case, whether in a terminal or public elevator.. . . shall grain of different grades be mixed together while in store.
I think that covers the whole question.


Frank Oliver: That is all right.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: What is a public elevator?


George Eulas Foster: A public elevator is an elevator in which grain, in inspected in, stored and inspected out again.	-


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What is a terminal elevator?


George Eulas Foster: A public elevator may not be a terminal elevator. A terminal elevator must be at a terminal point, whereas a public elevator may be outside of a terminal point. Is my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) satisfied with this?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 132: no limiting of liability of warehouseman,


George Eulas Foster: The section reads:
No terminal warehouseman shall insert in any receipt issued by him any language in any wise limiting or modifying his liabilities or responsibility, except as in this part mentioned and except in so far as all parties concerned consent thereto.
I have on examination concluded that it is not right to leave these words in, and I propose to strike out all words after ' mentioned.' The warehouse receipt is_ a very important document, it embodies contracts and if you allow a plea to be put up that so and so has agreed to have it otherwise, it will lead to interminable confusion.
On section 151a,


George Eulas Foster: I Dro-pose to add to 151 a subsection providing that seed elevators shall not be obliged to store grain for outsiders. It permits.

them to do so but does not compel them. While thus protecting the operators of seed elevators, we require them to be licensed and to come under supervision.
On section 159,


George Eulas Foster: It was proposed to add a subsection to subsection 4, which provided that the owner of the grain shall have an absolute right of direction of the shipment of that grain for 48 hours after he has placed it in the elevator. On consideration I have decided that this amendment, which was proposed by the hon. member for Moose)aw (Mr. Knowles), does not give to the owner of the grain any right which he does not now possess under subsection 4.


Frank Oliver: I was not present at the last discussion of this section. I quite realize the necessity of the section, but it is a most arbitrary provision and an arbitrary provision in any law is liable to abuse and abuses have arisen. I am inclined to think that the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Moosejaw would establish a principle that would be of some substantial advantage to the owner of the grain.


George Eulas Foster: I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me in looking at the English of the section that the proposed subsection gives no more right of detention of the grain than is given under subsection 4. So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to providing for 48 hours of absolute detention if the committee think it best, so as to give an opportunity to the shipper of the grain to change his mind and send it somewhere else if he can make a better sale; but this would not very often happen, as we find by experience.


Frank Oliver: The implication in the section seems to be that the elevator man, being subject to the requirement, would be prevented from shipping the grain before forty-eight hours had elapsed. The principle, I think, is sufficiently important to warrant us in recognizing the proprietary rights of the owner of the grain for a short period after he puts his grain into the elevator, so that the elevator man shall not be at liberty to ship it out say an hour after he receives it. This point is perhaps more important In Alberta than in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, owing to the possibility of grain from Alberta being routed east or west. It is for that reason that I am somewhat stronger on the point than my hon. friend perhaps thinks I should be.


George Eulas Foster: I will make an amendment which will make it obligatory on the elevator man to allow Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
forty-eight hours to pass before the shipment is made. The farmer, of course, can waive that at any time.


William Erskine Knowles: If it is made obligatory on the elevator man to give forty-eight hours' notice before the grain goes out,_ this provides- all the protection that is given absolutely by subsection 4 of section 159.


George Eulas Foster: If section 164 is passed as amended, it accomplishes everything that is necessary.


William Erskine Knowles: I would call the minister's attention to the fact that his amendment in section 164 does not provide for the shipper waiving his right so that the grain could be sent off the very day it was put in if he wanted that done.


George Eulas Foster: I will see that the waiver is put into section 164 in the same wray that it is in section 159.
On section 169-special bins,


George Eulas Foster: I propose to strike out the words ' to any buyer ' which should not be in there.


Frank Oliver: I think there is a mix up about this section that perhaps is not covered by the amendment my hon. friend proposes unless he has some other amendment.


George Eulas Foster: I have given some attention to the section and it strikes me as being all right. The owner is not allowed-which is provided for in another part of the Act-and he is not allowed to allot special bins for other purposes than those which are stated in the provisions of this Bill as to flat warehouses. He is restricted in two things, the time and the purpose. The purpose of these provisions was to allow farmers to get grain out as sound and quickly as possible.


Frank Oliver: The special bin in a flat warehouse is only granted to farmers?
Mr. FOSTER	(North Toronto).	That
is all.


Frank Oliver: I am sure it is not intended to restrict a bin in a country elevator to farmers?


George Eulas Foster: No it is not.
(Mr. OLIVER. Yet that is what this section would do as amended. The provision of section 183 is made to apply to this section, and if that refers only to farmers in the case of a flat warehouse, it makes it apply also to farmers in the ease of country elevators. I think under such circumstances it is an awkward construction, compelling a person who wants

information to go to some other part of the Act to get his information fixed. I would suggest that the minister draft this section in order that it should convey the exact idea which he desires to convey.


George Eulas Foster: We will strike out the words ' to any buyer ' and I will consider the point raised by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 191-dimensions of loading platforms.
George Eulas Foster: This takes up the question of the loading platform which I promised to look into, to see if anything could be done to reconcile the warring factions. I now propose to insert the following after the word ' Board ' in the 26th line, ' which shall be of such height, width and length as the board prescribes, provided that in no case shall the length exceed 100 feet nor the width 24 feet.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 207, special powers to board to order supply of cars,


George Eulas Foster: It is proposed to substitute for section 207 the section of which I gave notice, and which, I believe, has been printed. This amended section provides for all the cases of discretion permitted to the warehouse men, and now to the board under the Manitoba Grain Act, which is found in ' A ' elevators that are in danger of collapse and in ' D ' where there is a liability to heating, and also for the other two cases which were placed in Bill 96 which we passed in this House, which was passed also in the Senate, and is now in operation. It adds also subsection 'E' as follows:
(e) Whenever, after due examination, the board considers it necessary and advisable in order to relieve congestion and facilitate the despatch of grain.
I do not know that it is necessary to explain, after the discussions' we have'had upon the clause in the Bill which has become law, why this subsection (e) is added here. It would seem proper that the board, which has the whole range of the grain transport in its eye and under its management, should have this discretion vested in it. When, in any particular case it is represented that there is congestion, or the despatch of gram is hindered, the board may make due investigation, and if, after due consideration, it deems it necessary and advisaole to relieve the congestion and facilitate the despatch of grain, it is given discretion and power to so order. The purpose is fully explained by the subsection itself. With
reference to this matter many objections and representations have been made. One petition has been received from the Credit Men's Association or Business Men's Association, petitions which have been largely signed and numerous copies of which and signatures to which have come into the office, asking for the suspension of the car order provision. Now, the suspension of the car order provision is a very different thing from the granting of this discretionary power to the Board of Grain Commissioners, an extension of the discretionary powers which they, in the person of the Warehouse Commissioner, already have, and which we have extended by our legislation of a few days ago. The moment petitions were circulated and signed in favour of suspending the car order section of the Manitoba Grain Act the farmers and the shippers of grain, of course, were alarmed. They were in complete hostility to the suspension of the car order provisions, for they remembered the situation some years ago, and which was relieved for them by the enactments made in 1905. And they were properly apprehensive of having the provisions suspended or done away with even temporarily, for fear that the old conditions might be brought back.
Now on that apprehension, and with that view, numerous letters and petitions have been forwarded to the department 'praying that the car order provisions of the Manitoba Grain Act be not disturbed. These two different petitions have come in and have been considered. I made some remarks in reference to this the other day. Whilst there are very strong representations made that it would be more economical and more in accordance with the general purposes and operations of the railway companies in their transport system, to give them the fullest privilege and powers over the distribution of their cars; on the other hand the situation in the west is a peculiar situation. We do not propose for a moment to interfere with the present security of the farmer gained for him by that legislation. At the same time, conditions are various in the northwest, and changes take place from season to season; and with all due regard for those rights and their preservation, I think we will not make a mistake if we give to the Board of Grain Commissioners the restricted but added discretion that is provided for in subsection (e). If you examine the car order provisions and also the practical working out of the same, you can see they are not based on grounds of absolute equality of privilege. The provisions are such that every man who has half a carload *of grain to ship, in conjunction with his neighbour who may have half a carload of grain to ship, has the. privilege of call-

ing for one car, and for one car only until all other orders are tilled. The large farmer who has many thousands of bushels of grain just as valuable to him in its way as the smaller crop is to the smaller farmer, has the privilege of calling for and placing on the order book one car, and until all orders are filled he gets no other. The elevator which is patronized by the buyer, and by the farmer as well to a very large extent, and which serves as both store house and forwarder for the farmers' grain, though it may contain 25,000 bushels or 100,000 bushels, has the privilege of calling for but one car on the order book, and until his turn comes again he gets no more as an elevator company or as an elevator man. The same is carried out all the way through. It is not, then as I say, based on grounds of equality of interest. I am not here to argue that it ought to be altogether based on the grounds of equality of interest in grain to be shipped; for I think if there is any one who needs to be protected, any one who needs to be cared for especially, even to the placing of restrictions upon others, it is the far distant and isolated and small farmer, who is often but a late comer into the northwest, who comes with his hands, and his team, and has little of this world's goods, who may need advances to be made to him to buy the utensils and stock with which to work, who has often to ask the country storekeeper for sufficient provisions and supplies to keep him until his grain crop matures and can be sold.
That person, I think, not only has a right to our sympathy, but he has a right to all the protection that we can possibly give him consistent with the fair rights of others. I do not need to go into an elaborate discussion of this matter to show to this committee that these rights of the small farmer are not only his best possession,, are not only the ground for his privilege of ordering >a car if he has a carload, but that they are also preserved to him by the facility with which he can get storage and sale of his grain, when it is impossible for him to get a car. I have read a good deal in the newspapers, arid I have stacks of letters in my department which show the difficulties, and troubles, and the almost absolute necessities of many of the class of people to whom I refer, when after the summer's toil, and the autumn's reaping and the late harvest and threshing of grain, they are able- at last to bring their wagon loads, or their half-wagon loads, of grain to the country station, to find that they cannot get a car, to find that the whole elevator capacity is filled, and that there is no purchaser for their grain because the purchaser has neither car to take away the grain nor elevator in which to store it. Then again, we have the conditions that Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto.)
arise with regard to some sections of the country as to frosting, as to late harvest, as to the dampness which ensues, and the like of that. These are cases when those who have the direction of affairs should specially strive to relieve those persons and those sections of the overplus of their grain when it can be best saved, and often when it must be quickly saved in, order to 'prevent it from being a total loss. We propose to have a Grain Commission which shall be able, efficient, honest and broad-nrnded, and to that Grain Commission I am going-to ask this committee to give the discretions which are provided in this clause.


Frank Oliver: This is a very important amendment which my hen. friend proposes; it involves a very important principle, and is entitled to the serious consideration of the committee. The legislation contained in this particular part of the Grain Act is, it may be said, very remarkable legislation. It undertakes to deal with the property of one man in the interest of some other man. It is the extreme of what might be called socialistic legislation,; I think, perhaps, the most extreme example of socialistic legislation that is on the statute book of any country. It is for the protection of the individual against corporations, or an aggregate of corporations.
It need not be supposed for a moment that such remarkable legislation would ever have appeared upon the statute-books, or having appeared, would have remained there, had there not been the very strongest reasons why, in the public interest, that legislation should be maintained. It has been on the statute-book for a number of years, it has been bitterly opposed from the very beginning on one side and determinedly supported on the other. There is no possibility of the two parties to this, what might be called, irrepressible conflict, coming to any amicable agreement. There is only one thing to do, and 'that is to take sides with one party or the other, either to maintain the position which has been maintained in the legislation that is now on the statute-book and stand for the right of the individual, or give up that legislation and permit the corporation to have its way. I have heard what my hon. friend has said with regard to the propriety of giving full authority to the Board of Grain Commissioners. On the same principle that my hon. friend has stated to the House it would be just as right to say that we only need one clause in this Act, namely, to give the Board of Grain Commissioners full authority to manage the grain trade of Canada. We are not going to do that and my hon. friend is not proposing to do it. Within the compass of a very long and complicated Act, an Act of very remarkable detail, he is laying down what shall be done in this, that and the

ether circumstances and conditions. I will admit that this is a remarkable case, but the very fact that this legislation is remarkable is the very reason why the authority of this statute should be there to protect the right of the individual as the only means whereby his right can be efficiently protected and the only means by which he can have confidence in the protection of that right. It, of course, goes without saying that where it is attempted by legislation to interfere with the rights cl property in such a remarkable manner as this Act does interfere with the rights of property and the course of trade and transportation, there can be no question but that there will be inequalities and, if you like, cases of injustice under its provisions. Many individual cases have occurred, and are occurring to-day in which it would have been much better if this Act had not been on the statute-book and transportation companies and grain dealers had their full liberty to transact their business as they might see fit. In many cases it would have been to the interest of the individual grain producer that that condition should have prevailed. That must be admitted and we cannot expect ever to have legislation of this detailed character that will not result in that way. At the same time from every part of the prairie country where people are raising grain there comes the same protest to-day as that which has come on every previous occasion against the abrogation of this, what they consider, safeguard of their right to a share in car distribution not according to the quantity of the grain, but according to priority of demand. I understand that during this present year, unaer the extraordinary circumstances, that have prevailed, there have been occasions when the warehouse commissioner lias gone outside of the terms of the Act, and, in defiance of the Act, has ordered cars to certain places for the purpose of relieving the extraordinary conditions that prevailed there at the time. 1 am quite aware that the provision which my hon. friend proposes to insert in the Act, merely places, by authority of statute in the hands of the board, which is to be appointed, the right to do what has been done, under these urgent conditions without the sanction of law. I hold the view that although there is that precedent for this provision of the Act, it is still in the interest of the people who are the most intimately concerned that the Act should remain as it is. Even if relief, such as has been given during the past year, cannot be granted if the Act remains as it is, still the mind of the people of the west is that the Act should remain as it is and that there should not be that possibility of variation in its terms that my hon. friend suggests. There is a provision for
variation in this section. It provides that in the case of an elevator in danger of collapsing or in the case of the grain in the elevator being in danger of heating, they shall have a right to a special order of cars. It would be quite right to add a provision as to a special order of cars in the case of distributing seed grain, but I must take exception and the very strongest exception, to any provision authorizing the ordering of cars to places where grain is damp and thereby liable to become damaged in accordance with the amendment made to the Manitoba Grain Act and to this further provision that cars may be ordered:
Whenever, after due examination, the board considers it necessary and advisable in order to relieve congestion and facilitate the despatch of grain.
In the first case-that of sending cars specially to places where there is damaged grain-I consider that the provisions now in the section to deal with elevators in danger of collapse and elevators in which grain is in danger of heating go as far as it is safe for the Act to go. When we have provided, as we have provided in the case of the Manitoba Grain Act, that cars may be specially ordered to any locality where grain is damp, and liable thereby to become damaged, we have not dealt wisely with the condition as it actually prevails in this very season, because the condition prevails in so many localities and these localities are so widely separated that if special orders be given in the interest of each locality where grain is damaged it practically means that there is no special advantage to any locality and the matter is reduced down to the point of that locality which is the greatest favourite, or puts up the best story, getting the advantage, which is an entirely undesirable condition of affairs.
I will admit that under this provision it would be possible to give relief in a certain locality, but in such a year as this, where the damage is extended over a wide area, the provision is aDsolutely valueless, and inasmuch as it introduces the possibility of favouritism, I object most strongly to this provision being incorporated in the Bill. I agreed to its being adopted as a part of the Manitoba Grain Act for this season without having given the subject the fullest consideration; it was represented to be a matter of urgency and we allowed the Bill to go through; but on fuller consideration I am prepared to take the fullest responsibility for the stand I take that this provision should not be embodied in this Bill which is supposed to be a permanent statute. The provision now proposed throws this whole question, which is the most critical connected with the whole administration

346S
of the Grain Act, absolutely on the discretion of the board. If we do this, without wishing to cast any reflection on the board, we have spent our time for nothing in providing the long and intricate list of regulations which comprise this Act. If you can afford to let the matter of car distribution go to the discretion of the board we may safely leave everything else to the same discretion. I would be bound to give the strongest opposition I could to the amendment now proposed, except that I would be willing to agree to an amendment that would allow of special orders of cars in the case of distribution of seed grain.


Mr. STAPLES.: I know that I may be .criticised for what I am about to say, by the advisers whom we have coming from the west so frequently. The same organization who are taking such strong exception to any change in the present Grain Act as regards distribution of cars, have always been very anxious that in constituting such a board as this, we should have an independent board. Where are they going to get their independence, if you surround them with legislation that prohibits them from moving one inch to the right or to the left except by special Act of parliament. Certain districts in the west are suffering because they cannot get their crops to market, and if an independent board has the right to go to that particular locality, and as this Act provides to investigate, to make a thorough investigation, then such a locality could get relief. And why should the board not be permitted to give them relief without coming here and asking parliament, which would take probably a whole session; the board should have that much independence, and if they are not anxious to relieve the people's sufferings to the greatest extent then they are not fit and proper persons to be on that board.
My hon. friend has no objection to the seed grain portion of the Bill but he objects with regard to the damp grain. The law before Bill (No. 96) provided belief for whom? For the elevator man whose elevator was collapsing, whose grain was rotting or spoiling, or heating. Was there any relief for the farmer who might have on his farm 5,000 to 10.000 bushels of grain heating or spoiling? Bill (No. 96) provides that such a man can get relief, the same relief as the elevator man. That portion of Bill (No. 96) which deals with damp wheat or wheat that is geing wrong, should be incorporated in this Grain Act. I cannot see any objection to incorporating the whole of it. i shall certainly support the minister in the amendments he has proposed.


William Erskine Knowles: So far the committee have been verv harmonious. We have had Mr. OLIVER.
division on only one matter, the name of the wheat, which was more a question of opinion than of principle, and I want to congratulate hon. gentlemen opposite that so far -they have shown a desire to meet the wishes of the grain growers for whom this Bill is in the first instance framed. On this question, however, we seem to part. The question between the western members on the government side and those on this side is whether we are going to give effect to the opinion and desire expressed to us by the organized representatives of the grain growers who constitute the great majority of our electors and without question constitute the foundation of the whole country in the west at least, There is no question as to what the grain growers in the west want. Hon. gentlemen opposite, I aim sure, have received representations from many constituents requesting that they should support the view expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I would not be outside the mark if I said that they had received no representations to the contrary. As far as we are in a position to know the wishes of our constituents at this distanci we believe their desires to be that there should be no radical changes in these clauses in connection with the distribution of cars.
My hon. friend from Macdonald says he wants to give this board powers so" that they will be able to turn a little to the right and to the left. I have no objection to giving them power to turn to the right, but I do not want to give them power to make a blunder some day and turn to the left. There might be some occasion when they would do good by exercising this discretion. There is no Cabinet ininis-tei or ex-C*binet minister in Canada vbo will question this statement, that in the administration of the laws of parliament or the regulations of a department, there are cases	in which	it would	be in	thepublic	interest	to depart	from	thelaw or regulation. In the administration	of the lands in the	west I haveknown	many a	case in	which	the
homestead regulations bore heavily on a man, but at the same time the parliament of Canada is governing, not one man simply, but seven or eight millions of people, and we must adopt legislation which in the long run and -on the large scale is going to be for the advantage of the great masses of the people. Would it be to the advantage of the grain trade of the west and of the people of Canada generally to have this clause inserted in this Act? I submit that it would not. I submit that it would be a step in a backward direction. This protection was only put on our statute-book after years of agitation by our farmers for this car distribution. It is not wholly satisfactory but it

is in the right direction, and it would be a reactionary step to take away that protection.


William D. Staples: The old Act made provision for the elevator man whose grain was spoiling. I suppose the hon. gentleman is in favour of that part of the old Act, as it stood. Is he opposed to giving the farmer whose grain may be spoiling on the farm the same relief?


William Erskine Knowles: I am entirely in favour of giving the farmer the relief which my hon. friend thinks he refers to, but which he is mistaken about, Before I sit down I wish to read a few resolutions of the farmers, who are intelligent, and who know as well as my hon. friend does what relief they need. I will first read an official _ extract from the Grain Growers' Association of the province of Alberta, signed by the secretary, Edward J. Fream. He says:
It has been rumoured that section 207 of the Grain Bill will be considerably changed. This section is, we consider, one of the most important in the Act and one on which considerable time and attention should be bestowed before allowing any changes to be made. It gives a privilege to the farmer which is his only safeguard against the elevator interests, and while a determined onslaught has repeatedly been made upon this provision, yet the opponents of same have never yet been able to present any logical argument why a change should be made. Before this clause was added to the Grain Act the farmers were completely at the mercy of the interests, and if the clause is removed or in any way weakened bv dangerous amendments which might be made to give two different meanings, conditions will be such that iu a short time the farmers would find the car distribution and the general treatment they would receive from the railway companies and the elevator interests even more intolerable than they were before the clause was introduced into the Act.
I attach a great deal of importance to such an expression as this, as I am sure the minister will. It is my duty also to inform the House of the representations from the associations of farmers in my own constituency. Here is one from the Milden Grain Growers' Association, in the northern part of the Mooseiaw district. I will not read the whole of the preamble':
Whereas many statements made in the said petition are untrue and misleading; and
Whereas any change made in the car distribution clauses of the Manitoba Grain Act, would be unfair and detrimental to both the large and small farming interests of this province; therefore
Resolved, that the Milden Grain Growers Association condemns the petition of the Canadian Credit Men's Association, and earnestly requests that no change be made in the aforesaid clauses of the Manitoba Grain Act; and
Further resolved, that the secretary of this association be instructed to send copies of this resolution to the Hon. R. L. Borden, Premier of Canada, Hon. Geo. E. Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, and to Mr. Knowles, representative of this constituency.
C. MILLS, President.
E. W. HENRY, Secretary.
The following is from Boldenhurst, in the northern part of my riding and further west:
At a meeting of the Boldenhurst Branch of the Grain Growers' Association, the following motion was unanimously carried:-
It was moved by Wilbert Haggarty and seconded by James Parsons, that this association strongly disapproves of any change being made in tlio Manitoba Grain Act in regard to the distribution of cars.
GEO. E. HAW, Secretary-treasurer,
Branch of G. G. A., Boldenhurst, Sask.
Another from Marquis, addressed to myself, is as follows:
Dear Sir,-Just a few lines asking your assistance in the present debate before _ the House on the present Grain Act, especially section 99. We, the members of the Marquis Association do respectively request that the present distribution of cars bo not changed, as the smaller farmers would be much more handicapped than they are at the present time. Hoping this will receive your immediate attention.
Yours truly,
ALEX. HENRY, Sec.-treas., Marquis, Sask.
Another from Netherhill, as follows:
Therefore, he it resolved, that we the members of the Netherhill Branch of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, here assembled, do hereby protest against the change of clause 99 of the Manitoba Grain Act, whereby the farmer will be deprived of the privilege of an equal allotment of cars with the Elevator Company.
Another from Dinsmore, as follows:
Be it resolved, whereas the Credit^ Men's Association has sent out petitions calling for certain alterations in clause 99, sections a, b, c of the Manitoba Grain Act;
Be it further resolved, that this branch of the Grain Growers' Association consider this petition to be unfair and misleading and such as to cause serious loss and inconvenience to the farmers of western Canada;
Be it further resolved, that this branch of the Grain Growers' Association earnestly protest against any alteration whatever in the clauses of the Manitoba Grain Act referred to.
Another from the Cataraqui Grain Growers, as follows:
The attempts that are being made in different sections of the country to attribute the cause of the present grain blockade to that section of the Manitoba Grain Act which relates to the distribution of cars, we entirely disagree with, and further, firmly believe that

this section of the Act has been, since its inception, of vital importance to farmers in securing more fair and just treatment in marketing and selling their grain, and that any alteration to its present reading we strongly object to.
'	(Signed) JOS. A. MILNE,
Secretary.
A copy of this lias been forwarded to Hon. Geo. E. Foster and Premier Borden.
I have received a communication from a constituent -of mine who is a very representative man, Mr. A. Bryan, of Bridge-ford, as follows:
Dear Sir,-I have addressed to the Hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce a strong protest against the petition that I understand has been presented to him by the Credit Men's Association of Winnipeg. The object of this is not to help the small farmers, as it is claimed to be, but to further the interests of tlie elevator people. The small farmer who lias not a carload of grain to ship lias not asked for it and does not want it. Most of these men here got some at least of their grain into the elevators, while quite a few small farmers who have just a carload to ship have not as yet been able to get a car.
The result of suspending clause 99 of the Manitoba Grain Act would be to compel these men to sell to the elevators. Now it is notorious in the west that the elevators rob the farmers all ends and sides. Not only is there a difference in price of between 5 and 10 cents per bushel between Port Arthur and street prices, but the wheat is knocked down a grade; it is docked extortionately and oftentimes proper weight is not given. On behalf of 200 farmers of the Bridgeford district I emphatically protest against it. Great consternation has been caused in regard to the said petition, and should it be regarded favourable bv the government, it might cause considerable friction, even rioting, as the farmers are determined not to have their rights infringed upon.
And they trust, you, as their representative, will make a strong protest when the matter is brought up.
I will now read a telegram from a western farmer, than whom there is none better in Canada. I refer to Mr. Fred W. Green, secretary of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association. The message is as follows:
Moosejaw Sask., Feb., 9, 1912. IV. E. Knowles, M.P., Ottawa.
Received many letters this morning signed Credit Association. Petition under misapprehension. Asked to have names removed. Holders of petition refuse. Asking me what they can do. Farmers generally denouncing Credits. Mean underhand trick.
(Sgd.) FRED W. GREEN, .
Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association.
Speaking for myself I have never had any other representation but one side of the question. I have had no constituent ask me to change to the other side. If the constituents of other hon. gentlemen have requested them to take the stand Mr. KNOWLES.
they took well and good, it is their business; but for myself there is no possible doubt in my mind as to the stand I must take viz: That this matter be not changed in the radical way in which the minister desires it should be changed.


Mr. MACLEAN (South York).: I am rather ignorant about the matter. Would the hon. gentleman give me a specific case where the farmers will be damaged by the enforcement of the proposed amendment?


William Erskine Knowles: In regard to this matter it is feared that a peril would be constantly hanging over the grain growers by reason of the power held by the three men who constitute that board. It is feared that from influences that were not in the interest of the country, tne board might order a distribution of cars that would prejudice some and unduly favour others.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to get an instance of that if I could.


William Erskine Knowles: I could not do that because the board is not yet born, and I do not believe in original sin to that extent.


William Findlay Maclean: The farmers must have instances in view, I should think of what might happen.


William Erskine Knowles: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: Then I would like to have instances of that.


William Erskine Knowles: I think I might answer that question in a brief way by saying that you place great power in the hands of three men. They will doubtless be respectable men, and men of ability, but I have not the least doubt also that they will be strong party men. It is possible they would be subject to influences that are not the highest and noblest-my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has been long enough in politics to know what I mean-and they might order a distribution of cars which would not be in the interest of .the grain glowers. Therefore, there is a feeling of danger which overshadows the hopes of our grain growers if that power is allowed to rest in the hands of the board. The member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) says whv not give them the power to turn to the' right or to the left. I stood up in this liouse" when we were framing the section of the Bill providing that the board be given power to make regulations, and I said I coul'd conceive that during the grain rush it might be necessary to make regulations without obtaining the consent of the minister or the consent of the Governor in Council. But me government would not give them even that little power. They said:	' Nothing. Every change in
the regulations which this Board of Grain Commissioners make must be approved, not only by the minister but by the Gov-

lernor in Council. They take the stand that they want the board to possess such wide powers and yet they are tying thejr hands. So strictly I say that with regard to this very essential and vital matter in the operation of this Act there should be no taking away from the farmer the protection that he is enjoying the benefit of.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would ask the hon. gentleman before he sits down whether he is in favour, or his friends on that side, of the House of incorporating Bill (No. 96) as we passed it in reference to damp grain in this Act?


William Erskine Knowles: I would have to read the Act over agin.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: This is the Bill that we inserted and it is now law:
Subsection 1 of section 99b of the Manitoba Grain Act, chapter 83 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, as the said subsection is enacted by section 4.1 of chapter 45 of the Statutes of 1908, is amended by inserting after the word ' collapse in the third line thereof, the words ' to places where grain is damp and liable to become damaged, or for the purpose of distributing seed grain to any point in the western division.'
Are hon. gentleman opposite in favour of incorporating that Bill in the Act?


William Erskine Knowles: If the hon. gentleman wants to make it permanent for all the year, and every season of the year, I say no, I am not in favour of it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. gentleman understands my meaning. I believe that the Act is a fair and legitimate one and I am in favour of it. I have received a number of letters and petitions from the farmers throughout my district asking me to exert to the utmost any influence I could, to prevent any change in the clause which refers to the distribution of cars. I received no petitions or letters to the contrary. 1 think there is something in the suggestion of my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples), that the fears entertained as to what would occur under the operation of the clause are more imaginery than real. The member for South York (Mr. Maclean) asked for an instance of where this ivould do damage. As the law is not operative yet it is not possible to give an exact instance; but the reason, I understand, why the farmers in my district object to any change is that in 1902, 1906 and in 1908 there were certain amendments made to the clause referring to the distribution of cars, and all the time they have been asking to be put in a position which they believe to be in their interest. The farmers believed they were subject to the influence of certain interests-it may be railway interests, elevator interests or other interests -and, rightly or wrongly, they feel that 110
the clause as we have it in the Manitoba Grain Act is in their interest. Now, in my opinion, if there was not some suspicion, justly entertained perhaps, that the interests were again operating in the belief that the matter had gone too far in favour of the farmers and against the railways and the elevators, they would not be sending us these petitions. This Bill, with the exception of clause (e), I am prepared to accept, and to defend before the farmers of my district. I believe it is in the interest not only of the farmers but of the country, that we should have Bill (No. 96) incorporated in this Act, and the other provisions of the amendment that the Minister of Trade and Commerce sees fit to introduce. But I must say-I cannot help saying-that I am a little afraid of clause (e). If it does not go any further than it says, well and good-and after all perhaps that is the only argument one has a right to make, that it means what it says-but I know that the arguments of the farmers will be that it is the thin edge of the wedge.
This subsection (e) reads:
When after due examination the board considers it necessary and desirable, in order to relieve congestion and facilitate the despatch of grain.
Now, if it always remained there, I believe the farmers would not so seriously object to this subsection. And I would not have it thought that I lack faith in the commission that is to be appointed or in the efficiency of this Bill as a working measure. We have been in committee on this Bill for some days, and, as my hon. friend was good enough to say-and we can all agree with him-this has been a very amicable committee and we have ground out what, I believe will be a splen-dit Grain Bill in the interest of this country. But this is the one clause which the farmers in my 'constituency do not feel fully satisfied about. Perhaps, for the reasons I stated a while ago they may have good reasons to be fearful of something that might occur if such broad powers as are proposed under this subsection were given to this commission. To repeat what I said before so far as the other clauses- are concerned, I am in full sympathy with them. My hon. friend from Edmonton, (Mr. Oliver) does not seem to be billing to go so far. But I am prepared to go upon the platform in my constituency, and support these clauses, as being in the best interests of the farmers, all except this one. I think it was the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples), who said that a farmer might have 5,000 bushels of grain in his granary spoiling, because of damp or of some other reason. Surely it would be of advantage to that farmer if the commission , had the powers, although he had had his



REVISED EDITION R-4 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
car, to grant him the privilege of receiving another car. Still, so far as this subsection (e) is concerned, I do not feel that I am in a position to favour so broad an extension of the powers of the commission as this would seem to give. I am strongly in favour of the other clauses, but this subsection (e) I could hardly support without further light.
George Eulas Foster: Keep an open mind.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Yes, I will keep an open mind.


Mr. CLARK (Red DeeT).: I should like to endorse what has fallen from my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) as well as my hon. friends from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) as to the universality of opinion on this subject among the farmers so far as we can gather from the communications sent to us. Personally, I have for years laid well to heart the teaching of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr-Foster) as to the importance of mixed farming. I am not immediately concerned with grain farming, preferring to deliver my grain on foot. 1 have no very strong opinion on this question nor any intimate knowledge of it. But I have an intimate (knowledge of the university (of Opinion which prevails amongst those who do know about it. This is not a party question at all. I had a letter a few days ago from a man who, so far as I know, never gave anything but a Conservative vote in his life until the last election, when he had the good sense, according to my view, to vote for reciprocity, and he spoke about this provision as^ being the last straw that would break the camel s back. Similar expressions occur in other communications that I have received. That would appear to indicate that the anen who are concerned, the men irrespective of party who are growing this grain, have been well served by the state of things as it is. I have not the remotest doubt that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) has brought to bear on this question what he brings to bear upon everything, a passionate desire to know the full details and to do what he believes to be best under the circumstances. I am sorry, on that account, that I have to differ from him on this question. But the representations are so unanimous from those who are concerned that I have no option. I agree with my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver).


Mr. MEIGHEN.: The question before the committee is worthy of the most serious attention of which we are capable. I have no fault to find with the statements
Mr. SHEPHERD
of fact as generally presented by hon. gentlemen opposite, namely, that there is a very unanimous sentiment in the west against any radical change in section 108 of the Act, and the general provisions referring to car distribution. At the same time, the reasons which I have received, and indeed the reasons so far as they have been presented to the House by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) do not appear to conflict with the principle or with the details of the amendment proposed by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster). The position taken by the organized farmers is that the ground gained some years ago and largely, I believe, as a result of their own agitation-shall not now be lightly surrendered or lost. To' my mind, this Bill does not go one step towards the surrendering any of that ground. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) seemed to try to get at the root of the principle involved, and I think, he saw it; but I think he shunned the logical result because he feared it might lose to him some political advantage that he seemed to think in sight.
Now, what is this clause? In former years in this country the rights of property were magnified, they were considered so sacred that public rights frequently were disregarded. And in no case did this idea of private rights predominate more than in the case of the railway companies. One of these rights was considered to be that of placing their rolling stock where they wished, and of carrying the grain as seemed to them most convenient. But parliament came to see in time that the public had a vested interest in this matter _ as well as the railway company, and parliament took upon itself to say by what rule the cars should be distributed. They declared that John Jones who orders first, and William Smith who orders next, and elevator ' B that orders next shall receive cars in this order. That was ground gained so far as it went, and so far as it has gone it has worked out to the advantage of the western farmer. The railway has not been able to dictate, since that was enforced, what they should do with what they considered their own property rights. The amendments proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) instead of being a (surrender, in my opinion is an advance on this principle. It declares that the general rule laid down shall still be followed, that parliament having once assumed the right to say how this should be done in a general way, still stands to that right; but parliament declares not only for that right in itself, but also that the commission appointed under the authority of parliament, the representatives of the public interest and the public need, shall be able to

enforce that right. Hon. members opposite conceded the whole principle when they conceded Bill (No 96), they conceded the force of the argument presented and the conditions that demand a change which have been brought forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. '
But now they recoil, and all they can advance to surround themselves is that they received certain resolutions. Why? Because the farmers have been taught to believe, Whether rightly or wrongly,- that there is going to be a surrender, there is going to be a step backward, and that all tne ground gained back in 1907 is. to be miyerL T1^*. That is not the case at all. The principle of the resolution read by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) shows that if they understood what is nro-P.osed to be done, there would be no opposition. What does Mr. Fream say? In the body of the memorial presented by him, this appears:
While it may be possible to provide for permission being given to the commission after investigation to supply cars for seed grain, or upon petition of farmers for the removal of wet or damaged grain, or where there was suffering through a shortage of fuel or food supplies, yet if there is any chance of the rights of the farmers being infringed by ambiguous or vaguely worded amendments introduced into the Bill, it will he better for our interests as producers for the clause to Temain as it now stands.
. Now Mr. Fream states the whole thing; in other words, he says that the better way is to leave the law as it stands and to follow the general rule just as it was, but, if, to the advantage of the farmer, it can be shown that it should bend in individual cases, that is all the bettter, provided the clause is clearly and not vaguely worded. That indicates the stand taken by the western farmer.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does not the hon. gentleman think that clause (e) goes further?


Arthur Meighen: It goes no further in principle at all. But the commissioners would require to he convinced that the farmers' interest was served by a divergence. You can never, by an individual statement of contingencies, state them all. There may be something which we do not conceive in this committee, and to make it advisable that the gtrict provisions of 198 should be made to bend in the interest of a certain community, clause (e) is neither more nor less than saying that if we have not succeeded in stating what classes and contingencies may occur, then the clause shall give the commission power to go beyond. Now the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) says that if you give the commission this power, you might just as well burn the Grain Act, and he says we llOi
are appointing a commission who shall superintend the grain trade of this country. Now what is the logical position of the member for Edmonton? What is the principle of the Grain Act? It provides a machinery that shall take care of the distribution and the outlet of the western giain, the grading of it, and so forth; it provides machinery for handling the grain tiade of this country. Then it appoints a commission to superintend that machinery, and it says to them:	There is the
machinery for you, take and operate it, and in operating it, we lay down certain general rules that you must follow. That is the Grain Act. This does not violate the principle in anv degree. The general rules are iaid down, but to get certain individual instances the commissioners are given power to acquiese in a public demand and in the public interest. Now why does the hon. member for Edmonton argue that this goes too far? He says it is right to take this clause providing for a rotary distribution of cars as a general rule. We lay that down, and I approve of it.
Now he says: You give the Grain Commissioners power in one case to diverge from it, that is, in a case where it is requisite to do so for the distribution of seed grain. That is all right, he says, to give them the power to diverge when it is requisite to do so. That is not violating the principle of the Act or of the constitution; but you are violating both, he says; and you are burning the Act, if you give them power to deal with cases of damp, wet wheat. The hon. member for Edmonton must see that there is no difference of principle at all. Some days ago all the members opposite were prepared to agree, by acceding to Bill (No. 96), that it was quite in accord with the spirit of the Grain Act to give the commissioners discretionary power, not only in the case of its requirement for distribution of seed, but also in the case of its requirement for allowing an outlet for damp grain likely to be endangered; and all along thev have been prepared, not only to give that discretionary power in these two cases, but to give discretionary power when the grain was damp and in danger of being damaged in the elevators. So that on both sides of this parliament we have for years recognized that it was in the interest of the people to give the Grain Commissioners, or those who have preceded them in practically the same duties, power to make this provision suit in any individual cases in the public interest. That is all we are doing now. We are extending their discretion, but their discretion must always be exercised in the public interest and as demanded by individual contingencies? There is no principle at stake, there is no ground to be surren-

dered, it is a public tribunal that is going to have charge of it.


Frank Oliver: How do the words in this section limit the action of the commissioners to individual contingencies?
I mean in contingencies as relating to individuals.


Arthur Meighen: That is the whole purport of each clause of the amendment. What is the first?	.
(c)	for the purpose of distributing seed grain lapse; .
(b)	to places where grain is damp and thereby liable to become damaged;	.
(c)	for the purpose of distributing seed gram to any point in the western division;
(d)	in cases where the operator of any country elevator reports in writing, under oath, that some portion of the grain in such elevator is heated, and that in order to preserve such grain it is necessary to ship such heated grain to the terminal elevator for treatment; provided, however, that no reliet shall be granted in such last mentioned cases as long as the warehouseman has sufficient room in his building for the re-handlmg of such grain;
(e)	whenever, after due examination the board considers it necessary and advisable in order to relieve congestion and facilitate the dispatch of grain.
Individual cases must be thoroughly examined first, and cause must be shown to convince the board that it is necessary and advisable in order to relieve the congestion, and t-o facilitate tlie dispatch of grain. So the whole section is built upon the idea that individual contingencies demand the exercise of this discretionary power of the board. Therefore, I think if hon. gentlemen will keep in mind just the actual circumstances as they will present themselves, and will let this go through, I think less than one year will serve to dispel any fear that may be at present abroad in western Canada concerning this requirement. ,
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



PATENTS OF THOMAS D. RAMBAUT.

[Stage Direction]
Further consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill (No. 84) respecting certain patents of Thomas D. Rambaut.-Mr. Ames.
On section 2-power to receive petitions and make orders.
Mr. CARVELL.: Mr. Chairman, before this section is adopted I want to direct the attention of the committee to something that perhaps is not very apparent on the face of the Bill as it stands. The committee Mr. MEIGHEN.
will remember that when this was up, I think a week ago to-night, I asked the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine, (Mr. Ames) who has charge of this Bill, if he knew whether these patents, as originally issued, came under the provisions of section 44 of the Patent Act. The hon. gentleman stated that he was not in a position to give me that information. I wrote to Mr. Lynch, chief of the patent office, and, a few days ago, received this communication:
Ottawa, Feb. 16, 1912.
My dear Mr. Carvell,
In reply to your question over the telephone this afternoon, relative to a number of patents granted to E. W. Cooke and assigned to one Rambaut, I beg to say that none of the patents have been under section 44 of the Patent Act (compulsory license system).
Tours very sincerely,
(Sgd.) W. J. LYNCH
Chief of Patent Office.
F. B. Carvell, Esq., M.P.
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Just consider for a moment what the promoters of this Bill are asking parliament to do for them. By section 38 of the Patent Act, which has been the law of the land for many years, it is provided that in order to hold a patent, the patentee, either directly or through some other person, must actually commence the manufacture of the patented article in Canada within two years of the granting of the patent. He must do more than that; he must have the article ready to be sold to any person who applies for it at a reasonable price and continually be in that position, or, to read the section, it is as follows :
Such patent, and all the rights and privileges thereby granted shall cease and determine, and the patent shall he null and void at the end of two years from the date thereof, unless the patentee or his legal representatives, within that period or an authorized extension thereof, commence, and after such commencement, continuously carry on in Canada the construction or manufacture of the invention patented, in such a manner that any person desiring to use it may obtain it or cause it to be made for inm at a reasonable price at some manufactory or establishment for making or constructing it in Canada.
That was found, in some instances, to work a hardship. I could give an illustration wherein it would work a hardship. A man might invent a complicated piece of machinery-we will say a certain kind of steam engine, or machinery for the making of some particular, specified article. Take, for instance, a printing press, or anything that you could imagine of which there are not many sales in Canada. It might cost a large amount of money to equip the factory and put it in a position to manufac-

ture this and possibly, when you equipped the factory and had manufactured one or two articles, it might be a number of years before you found sale for more than those two articles. The result would be an enormous loss. In that case many people have failed to keep their patents alive by manufacturing them simply because the initial expenditures in getting ready to manufacture and being in a position to keep on manufacturing the patented article have been so great that they did not feel that they could afford to undertake it. Therefore, in 1903, parliament attempted to get around that difficulty by passing section 44 of the Patent Act as it now stands, and which was codified in the revision of 1906. It is the law of the land to-day. Section 44 provides, speaking generally, that if, in the judgment of the commissioner of patents, an article patented comes within the class I have described, something which it would not be fair or reasonable to expect the patentee to be manufacturing all the time and to be in a position to sell to any Iverson who wants it, then the commissioner of patents has the right to give him a license so that he will not be compelled to manufacture, but he must hold himself in readiness to lease to any other person who wants to manufacture the article at any time, and if they cannot agree upon the royalty to be paid for the right then the commissioner of patents is appointed arbitrator in the matter.
But when this man Rambaut, or his predecessor in title, applied fox his patents and his patents were issued, they were not brought within the conditions of section 44 of the Act of 1903, and section 44 was the law of the land, then as it is to-day. Anyone can readily understand why these patents were not brought under the provisions of section. 44. They did not apply to a complicated piece of machinery, 'they were not regarding an article which might never be sold to customers because it was not like a 'Complicated steam' engine. They had reference to a method of making a certain kind of food-you might call it dtes-sicated food-something that would be sold, if sold at all, to thousands and tens' of thousands of people. If the invention had any use whatever it would be that an. industry would be established or the patent would be sold to other people who would be producing all over the country the article covered by it. The faon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine, when this measure was before the committee on a former occasion, took the ground that if we refused this patent we would possibly be .preventing the establishment of an industry in Canada. I want to point out to the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine, and the members of this committee that if we pass this Bill as it is drawn, and if we ratify
*section 2, we are defeating the very object that the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine, claimed to have in view when he asked us in 'the 'committee last week to pass this Bill for him. lie said: Refuse to pass this Bill and you will probably prevent the establishment of an industry in Canada. I say that if you pass this Bill as it stands to-night, without any question whatever, you will, prevent the establishment of an industry in Canada. You will be giving the owner of this patent the right to hold his patent for the remainder of the term of 18 years, which I think would be about 13 years longer, and hie may never expend a dollar in Canada either directly or indirectly. He will never have to expend a dollar upon any manufacturing establishment, he will never have to employ a man, until the expiration, of 13 years, and still his patent will Ibe perfectly good. All he has to do is to hold himself in readiness to say: I will give any man the right to manufacture this article providing he pays me 'my royalty. I am. satisfied that the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine, cannot gainsay one 'Statement I have made, because T have given you the law on the matter and I do submit that this Bill should not be passed. If we have to renew this man's patents, surely this committee ought only to renew them like an ordiuOTy patent under section 1. We should not give this man something which he did not have when he got his original patent. They are asking the parliament of Canada not only to give him something which he bad lost by this negligence, but they are asking parliament to give him something which he never thought of holding when be got the patent. The most that can be said is that he had a perfect right, if the commissioner of patents had thought proper, to have had the patent brought under the provisions of section 44, but, because it did not come under the provisions of section 44 I think it is only fair to assume that the commissioner of patents did not consider that it was a case that should have come under the provisions of that section. I have no knowledge of that myself and all I can say is that it looks that way to me. Now, they are asking parliament to put this man in a position that the commissioner of patents would not put him in. Therefore, I do submit that section 2 should be defeated because it is bad enough to give- an American who has no interest in Canada the right to continue this monopoly and this sort of business, but it is going too far when parliament is asked to continue a monopoly under which the beneficiary will never be compelled to spend a dollar or employ a man. in Canada.


Mr. AMES.: My hon. friend from Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell) a week ago and also to-night has endeavoured to create

the feeling that this Bill should not pass because the patentee is an American.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I never made such a statement at any time.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: That was the inference.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say so.


Herbert Brown Ames: I leave it to the judgment of the House if the whole tenor of the hon. gentleman's remarks was not to the effect that he would like to stir up prejudice against the applicant in this case because he was an American and a stranger. Our Canadian patent laws make absolutely no discrimination against members of any nationality, a German, an Englishman, an American, has the same rights to patent as a Canadian. That argument of my hon. friends the House will dispose of. once and for all as unworthy of its consideration.
I differ from my hon. friend's interpretation of a portion of the Patent Act. Under the original patent the patentee had the right to proceed under section 38 or section 44. Section 38 makes the patent conditional upon his manufacturing in Canada within two years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I spoke to Mr. Lynch and I have his letter stating that this applicant did not come under section 44. If Mr. Lynch has misinformed me, I have misinformed the House.


Herbert Brown Ames: I shall make the matter clear. Section 38 provides that the patent is conditional upon manufacturing within two years and not importing after that time. Section 44 declares the conditions which may be substituted for section 38 in the judgment of the officers. Under that section the patentee may give a license to others to manufacture. Clause 2 of the present Bill does not ask parliament to give this man the rights he originally had in their entirety. This clause simply says that he has the right of patent and the Commissioner of Patents, an official of the government, shall determine whether he can make out a sufficient case to have it declared that he shall have the privileges of section 44. If the Commissioner of Patents is of opinion that it is not advisable to give him the rights under section 44 the commissioner will say so. Inasmuch as the patentee, in the first place, had rights under both section 38 and 44, and purely through a misunderstanding he lost his rights and as this House has affirmed in the second reading that the principle is sound, it only remains for us to settle the terms on which the restoration of rights shall be made. My contention is that he should be given full rights, namely Mr. AMES.
to act either conditionally under section 38, or section 44, at the discretion of the commissioner. He now asks for two years more within which to commence manufacture. If the House says that he shall not have this privilege then I hope that the House will hold to that precedent and deal in the same way -with everyone else who comes here and asks for the restoration of a patent. This Bill asks that he be put back in the place he was in originally, the place he lost through no fault of his own.
The House has repeatedly granted relief to applicants who have forfeited certain rights. In 1909 the House passed five Bills of this character, introduced in every case by supporters of the government and in only one instance did the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) object. Last session, a number of others were passed, several of the applicants being Americans. While hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side of the House they agreed to Bills of this character, four or five of them every session. All these patents were restored although the fees had not been paid and they were restored for six years. In this case all fees had been paid for six years and it will be still another year before the time elapses so far as fees are concerned. These parties did not manufacture, that is all they failed to do.
They ask the opportunity within the next two years of establishing a manufactory here. If that opportunity is given them they will establish it, I thoroughly believe. If they are deprived of the opportunity, that industry will not come to Canada. It is not to be expected that an industry of this character will come to Canada if it is not protected in its patent Tights. I do not think people will invest money in an industry requiring any expenditure of capital if they can have no security that the man next door will not immediately imitate their process. They must be protected for a certain length of time. Now, this patent has lapsed, and parliament is asked to restore it. I do not know why exception should be taken to that request in this particular case. We have already passed three Bills of the same character, two of which have passed the Senate; but for some reason this particular Bill has been selected, and every possible objection is made to it.


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman say that the Bill that passed here the other night is at all of the same character as this Bill?


Herbert Brown Ames: Yes, very much indeed. On two of the Bills the fees nave not been paid, so nothing had been done. In this case the fees have been paid for six

years, from 1907 to 1913. The one requirement of manufacture was not complied with, but the parties interested will be very glad to comply with it if they are given another opportunity. I have not gone into the special reasons why Mr. Rambaut did not originally comply with all the provisions of the Patent Act. These were all given to the House a week ago. Inasmuch as the second reading, which involves the principle, has passed, and inasmuch as the Bill has unanimously passed the Private Bills Committee, and inasmuch as the preamble and the first clause, the essential parts of the Bill, have passed, I can only say that if the House desires to restore the Rambaut patent to the position it originally occupied, it will pass clause 2. But if the House decides that a man who allows his patent to lapse, and who comes here to have it reinstated, shall not have the privileges he first had, it will strike out clause 2, and he will have to be content with clause 1.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Herbert Brown Ames: In this case he asked for three months.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But you have not done it for five years.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does my hon. friend allege that on the 7th of May, 1907, when this man took out these letters patent, he had not the two options?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He had until the 7th of September, 1907, and that date went by.


Herbert Brown Ames: What this Bill asks is that he be put back where he was on the 7th of May, 1907.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why should he be?


Herbert Brown Ames: Why should he not be?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He allowed the 7th of September, 1907, to go by, and put it on the 27th of September, 1907, and there is no power on earth that can give him the right to come under section 44. Therefore, the argument of my hon. friend is fallacious.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that he took out his patent on the 7th of May, 1907. If within six months thereafter he had applied to come under clause 44, he might have done so.
Therefore for six months at least we had the advantage we speak of here. Clause 2 of this Bill says:	that notwithstanding
anything in the Patent Act, or in the patents mentioned in the preamble, the commissioner of patonibsi may within three months give the patentee the right to exercise the title which he had for six months following 7th of May, 1907. If he does not exercise it within six months he never can exercise it at all; he cannot exercise it during the whole year as the hon. member alleges*. We are, therefore, only giving him, as far as time is concerned, the right to: exercise the title which he had under sections 38 and 44 of the Patent Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He would not have the light to come under section 44 within the six months unless he had the right to apply, and the commissioner would have power to say whether he should come in.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is the same in both cases. That is exactly the case here.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But that right has gone four years ago.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is exactly the same in both cases. He has the right to apply and if the commissioner will not accept his application that is the end of it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is entirely out of court so far as section 44 is

concerned. If this man had gone back to the patent office he could not have got the right. How does he propose to get it? He sleeps until he is out of court entirely and his patent is no good. Then he comes back to parliament and says: ' I have been remiss in my duty and have not done that which the law required me to do and I want you not only to put me back in the position'I was in two years ago, but to put me in the position I would have been in if I had applied four years ago. My hon. friend is not serious in trying to make this committee believe the man is not asking something which he has no right to ask. My hon. friend says we will be preventing the establishment of a manufactory in Canada, and that if we do not put this Bill through,
' nobody will have the right to manufacture here the article covered by the patent.


Arthur Meighen: Would my hon. friend
meet the argument from this point: Is not this man Rambaut's right to be restored to his original position just on the same footing as that he has a right to he restored to the patent? That is to say he claims the right to get back his patent on the ground of an error. If that is good is he not also entitled to get back his option?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the only thing he would have a right to do would be to ask us to replace him in the position which he occupied the day his patent was voided or ceased to be of any value. Now, his patent ceased to be of any value on the 7th day of May, 1907, or on the 7th day of May, 1909. Therefore, on the 7th day of May, or we will say on the 6th day of May, 1909, he did not posses the right of applying to the commissioner on patents under section 44 for the right to manufacture. I do not think we ought to put him in a better position than he was in on the 7th of May, 1907. But if section 2 of this Bill be passed we are placing him in the position he occupied four years ago, we are placing a premium on the man's own negligence. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) stated that if you do not recognize this as the man's patent you may forever prevent the establishment of the industry in Canada. Does he not understand that if the patent has expired every man in Canada has a right to start this industry? It is a monopoly my hon. friend is trying to create, and if this Bill be not passed that monopoly is abolished. My hon. friend is interested in mergers, therefore his mind is running in the direction of monopolies. My hon. friend says that within the last few _ years many patents have been revived, but can he point to an instance where a patent has been revived giving back to the man something he did not possess at the time the patent was void? The Wadge case Mr. CARVELL
has been referred to as an illustration. In that case the patent became void because Wadge had not paid the $15. A patent is given to a man in order to protect the genius of his brain and he has two years in which to commence the manufacture of that article in Canada. If he chooses to do so he can pay $60 and he gets an 18 year certificate If he only pays $20 he gets six years protection. In the case of Wadge it was a matter of paying only $15 or $20 because he was manufacturing the article, had been doing so for many years, and had a big business in Winnipeg. This man Rambaut has never spent a dollar in Canada on the manufacture of the article for which he desires to revive the patent.


Mr. BURNHAM.: 
Mr. McKENZIE.: I am sorry the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) thought it necessary to introduce party feeling into a question of this kind. His evident purpose was to arouse his partisans to support his case, whether the law or the practice would sustain him or not.


An hon. MEMBER.: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, I am in order. It would be a pity if private rights of this character should be subject in this House to party sentiment or party bigotry; and I think that for a member of the age and experience in this House of the hon. member for St. Antoine to introduce such an idea into the discussion of such a Bill as itihis is liatheir ia pity. The hon. mieimiher for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) wanted us to disregard entirely the limitation of the statutes. There are limitations in this statute. There is what is well known in this country as the statute of limitations, dealing with the question of debts. An hon. member on the other side, let us say, loaned his neighbour $1,000 in cash, taking the man's note for it, and put the note in his safe. Through some misunderstanding, he has allowed more than six years to go by before trying to collect the debt. And when he asks for the money, the debtor, dishonest man as he is, says: You cannot collect the money because it is more than six years since I got it, and I will not give it to you.


John Hampden Burnham: Is there any tiling in that to prevent the statute of limitations from running?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There 'are so many that it would take too long-ias time is short- to tell them to my ihon. friend.
Mr. MIDDiLBBRO. Does not the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) think that the debtor ought to be paid the $1,000 notwithstanding the lapse of time?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Certainly. But the statute of limitations! is there, and the creditor cannot collect. There is a statute of limitations here and one is no more insuperable than the other. Suppose that the creditor in this case were to come to this House and say: This dishonest man is depriving me of $1,000; he has built a house with it and is living in the house; and I want you to remove the statute of limitations in this case so that I may collect my $1,000, he would have no chance of succeeding; in fact, I do not think there is an hon. member of this House who would introduce the Bill. Everybody would say:
Such a request is an absurdity; this is the law of the land, and you have to take your medicine. That being our attitude in one case, why should the hon. gentleman propose that we should iset aside so lightly the limitations in this case ? Whatever the genius of this man's brain has made is now the property of the country. The hon, gentleman must know that. His rights under the statutes have lapsed, the limitation clause of the statute having done its work.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What wias the attitude of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) toward the previous Bill? ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Herbert Brown Ames: That was all explained on the reading of the preamble a week ago, if the hon. member had been here.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was here. But the hon. gentleman did not say in his explanation where the mistake of law was. He told us there was a dispute between the heirs of one Cooke, and the person now holding this right. He did not explain how it was*, or how it was contended that Cooke had not got a proper title. If the hon. member comes to me as one member of the committee and tells me that he wants to perfect a title which he has received, I will vote with him, but I do not

feel that I am called on to support a man who slept on his rights, because he got some mistaken idea of the law and now comes to parliament to put him back, and give him what is to-day the property of the country to which he has no right. I have not heard any satisfactory explanation of what the difficulty was that prevented him from completing his title.


Mr. TURRIFF.: It seems to me that if the hon. member (Mr. Ames), would amend this legislation to put the man who had the patent in exactly the same position as he was in when he lost his. patent rights through not carrying out the terms on which those rights were granted -manufacturing the article in question, in Canada within a given time-if he would amend it so as to give this man exactly what he lost when his patent became void, then I do not think there would be anyi objection on the part of anybody in this House to reinstate his patent.


Herbert Brown Ames: I have been asking that he be given all that he had when he took out his patent. If hon. gentlemen think that is too much, will they pass the Bill if we strike out clause 2, and leave him in the position he was when his patent lapsed?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



THE GRAIN ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 32) respecting grain-Mr. Foster (North Toronto).
On section 207,-distribution of cars,
Mr. MARTIN (Regina).: organization asking me to support any amendment that may be introduced. It may be said by my hon. friends that the farmers do not understand what this amendment means. I am not prepared to say that that may not ue the reason in some cases. At the same time, as I said at the outset, I believe that the people of western Canada who have been shipping grain for twenty-five or thirty years and who have gone through the whole history of the development of the Grain Act and the question of car distribution, are in a far better position to express their opinion on these matters than any member of the Canadian Credit Men's Association located with headquarters in the city of Winnipeg can be. Let me refer to two or three representations that have been made to me. They do not differ to any extent from the representations that have been referred to by other members but they come from my own district and for that reason I wish to bring them to the attention of the committee. Here is a resolution passed by the Grain Growers' Association of Craik, Saskatchewan :
We the directors and members of the Craik Grain Growers' Association, and business men of the town of Craik, protest against any alteration in the Manitoba Grain Act, re distribution of cars as provided in section 99, clauses (a) (b) and (c) and that the present method of distribution of cars to the farmer has not been the cause of the blockade in wheat and the business of the country at a standstill as the petition circulated by the Canadian Credit Men's Association of Winnipeg has stated, and we further protest against the distribution of cars to be left to the Tailway commission.
I do not know where they got that idea about the commission but they certainly protest against it being left in the hands of the Railway Commission.
That petition is not only signed by farmers, but by a large number of business men in the town of Craik.


Arthur Meighen: The Credit Men's petition asked that it should be left to the Railway Commission.


William Melville Martin: I did not understand that. I have not seen the Credit Men's petition. Then, there is a resolution passed by the Grain Growers' Association of Grand Coulee instructing the secretary to

write the government at Ottawa informing them that the feeling of the local branch of the Grain Growers' Association is very much opposed to any change in the car order book and wish it to Tcmain as it exists at present.
There is also a resolution passed by the Wilcox Grain Growers' Association as follows:


William Melville Martin: 
Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: It is not often that I find myself thinking on the same lines as my good free trade friend from Regina. I am not a lawyer, but I do not like the look of this clause subsection (e). It opens the whole question of the distribution of cars in western Canada and places the whole power of distribution in the hands of the -commission. Under this clause the commission could send all the cars to any point they like in western Canada. We must have some hard and fast rule in connection with the sending out of cars for the grain in western Canada. This is too wide a power to put in the hands of any man or any set of men appointed by this parliament. My good friend from Portage la Prairie cited the cases of damp grain and seed grain and said that by adopting this clause we admit the principle of allowing these cars to be sent out in that way. The Act specifically defines what they can do in these cases. Subsection (e) opens the door wide and allows them to do as they like, and I am not in favour of that kind of thing. The clause is altogether too wide for me. If the minister wants to have this clause inserted he should hold the power in his own hands, let the government be responsible and not leave it with three men who may be appointed to run the car situation m western Canada.


Mr. BUCHANAN.: The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meigihen), said that he did not think the farmers, in expressing an opinion on the change in the Act, understood the clause being placed in it. The clause of the Credit Men's Association petition is practically the same thing only it leaves the matter to the Railway Commission, and not to the Grain Commission but it is along the same line of suspension of the Grain Act. That clause reads:
Your petitioners therefore pray that the clause in the Manitoba Grain' Act reonilatin0-the distribution of cars for grain shipment at country elevator points be temporarily suspended and that the control and distribution of cars at suyh points he placed under the sole direction of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada with instructions to the commissioners that absolute impartiality be shown and an equitable distribution he made based on the necessities of the extraordinary situation prevailing and so as to enable all of the producers to stand on the same footing in respect of the shipment of their crops, and that the necessities of the farmers as a whole, large and small, in each locality affected shall be the basis to govern the said commission in the distribution of cars.

This petition was sent to me and at the bottom was the following:
We, the undersigned farmers, members of the Raymond Agricultural Society, hereby declare ourselves in opposition to the above set forth petition for reasons set forth in the enclosed statement.
The ' enclosed statement ' was an article written by a farmer in the Raymond district who outlined some reasons why the Manitoba Grain Act should not be suspended and some of these reasons state very clearly the view of the farmers on this subject.
I do not intend to read the whole article, hut there are two or three clauses that I consider important:
Under the suspension of this rule, far; lers would be compelled to sell almost exclusively to elevator and mill buyers, from the fact that they would get all or nearly all of the cars. We are proud of the fact that the majority of the farmers of this great country are prepared to, and can, ship by car lots, if prices do not hold up to the market level, at local points, so that under the present rule in the Act we are not depending upon local markets. Row grade wheat brings better prices by shipping to points where needed for feed than can be had on the local markets.
Practically every petition which I have received from my constituency is opposed to any change in the Manitoba Grain Act or to any suspension of the car distribution clause, with the one exception of a letter from a large milling company in the city of Lethbridge, which asks me to support the proposed change in the car distribution clause in the interest of the small farmer; but I have had no petition from any small farmer, asking for any change in the Act. This petition from Raymond is practically from small farmers, and they are all opposed to any change. I have a letter from Robert E. Reardon, a farmer in the district of High River, Alberta, in which he says:
With regard to the car distribution, the trouble is not with the Manitoba Grain Act, as that is the only salvation we have, but with the Canadian Pacific railway with its lack of motive power and other equipment, together with late threshing. I have been able to get one car to ship grain since December 21, and there are now 144 orders on order book for cars at High River. It would pay into the hands of the interests 0. K. to have the car order book thrown out, and I hope you will oppose any such scheme.
I have a resolution from the United Farmers, of Gieichen, Alberta, an important centre of an irrigated district, where farming is done on a small scale. This resolution, which is signed by W. D. Tregs, secretary, and J. E. Ostrander, president, says with regard to the suspension of the car distribution clause:


William Ashbury Buchanan: Whereas we, the members of the United Farmers of Alberta, Gieichen, Union No. 96, believe that the railroads of the country can not handle cars grain-loaded by the elevator interests with any greater dispatch than those loaded by farmers; .and Whereas we believe that such a move would only end in forcing farmers to sell their grain to the elevator interests at any price which they might wish to establish which would undoubtedly end in the farmers of the country being forced to sell for greatly reduced prices; therefore,
Be it resolved that we are unalterably opposed to any change or suggestion of any clause in said Act relating to the distribution of cars.
Now, I think this committee would desire to have placed before it the opinion of the organized farmers of the west, and I have before me a statement which was presented to the Minister of Trade and Commerce by the Grain Growers* delegation, and which proves, I think conclusively, that the suspension of the Manitoba Grain Act would not relieve the car shortage, as they claim the shortage is not due to the present provisions of that Act. This statement says:
In view of the claims set fqrth by representatives of the railway that car distribution clause of the Grain Act handicaps them in the free movement of railway equipment and is partly responsible for the congestion that now exists in the movement of grain froI * 111 the western provinces. We wish to make the following statement:-
The clause relating to car distribution for shipment of grain was first placed in the Manitoba Grain Act in 1902, amended in 1906, and again in 1908 Not. till the latter amendment became effective did the growers of grain receive the full benefit of that provision of the Act. About one-third of the crops of 1908 and 1909 were loaded in cars by farmers over the loading platforms. That quantity is reported by Mr. Peters of the Oanadian Pacific railwav as being reduced to 20 or 23 per cent for the first four months of the 1911 crop. That statement may be correct, as at any points where farmers use the loading platform freely the spread between street and track prices that used to be excessive, is reduced to a minimum, consequently growers use the elevators instead of the platform.
Grain
cars.
In the four months ending 31st December, 1907, the railroads submitted for
inspection	 35,827
Same period, 1909	 69,748
Same period, 1911	 83,001
That is to say, the movement in 1909 was 33,921 cars more than 1907, and the movement in 1911, 13,253 more than 1909; in other words, the efficiency of the railroads for moving western grain for inspection was increased in the four months of each year under review 93 per cent in the two years 1907 to 1909, and only 19 per cent in 1909 to 1911. The Grand Trunk Pacific, which was not hauling grain to the lake terminals in 1909, is responsible

for 7, 587 cars, or 9 per cent of the inspection of 1911, so that as a matter of fact the Canadian Pacific railway and Canadian Northern railway increased tiheir efficiency only 10 per cent between 1909 and 1911, ae compared to 93 per cent, as between 1907 and 1909, notwithstanding the fact that the, Canadian Pacific railway operated a double track .road as far west as Portage la Prairie and part of the time to Brandon in 1911.
The above refers to inspection. Deliveries at the Jake terminals make a worse showing, the report of the inspection department showing as follows for the four months ending 31st December, 1909, and 1911:
Bnshels inspected.
1909	 66,470,994 or 84%
1911	 96,766486
Delivered terminals.
1909	 66,460,901 or 81%
1911	 76,766,136 or 79%
These figures indicate that the railroads delivered at terminals 5 per cent Jess of the inspected care in 1911 that in 1909, and that they made the most progress in moving the crop in the years farmers availed themselves most of the privilege of the loading platform. Railway representatives point to the fact that a car can be loaded in an hour or so at elevators, while it takes 24 hours or more to load a car over the platform. That statement may be true and would be an advantage to the movement of cars were an engine ready to pull a ear away from the elevator as soon as loaded, but that rarely happens. It ie a common occurrence to have cars placed at loading platform and elevators at the same time palled out of the station yards together after standing there loaded for some days.
We attach hereto a statement showing the car number, point of shipment, name of shipper, date of inspection, date unloaded at terminal of 882 oars booked by a commission firm in December and first week in January, selecting out cars twenty days and over in transit. It will be noted that cars were shipped from - districts scattered over Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and is a fair representation of the movement of cars in the period the statement covers. The list shows that out of 882 cars, 297 had not reached inspection and 654 were not unloaded at terminals on the 26th of January.
It is quite apparent that loaded cars take an average of twenty days or over en route from point of shipment in the west to the lake front allowing ten days for returning, makes 30 days for the round trip. But assuming that less time is required in the early part of the season and allowing an average of 25 days for the whole season and that farmers took one day longer than the elevators take loading each car of the 23 per cent loaded over the platform, it would affeot tne movement of equipment to the extent of adding one day to 25 on 23 per cent of the cars- a trifling matter when compared to the benefit farmers derive from the privilege of loading their own cars.
Assuming that ,it takes 30 days for a car to make the round trip from the western wheat fields to the lake front, a car would make four trips between 1st of September and 31st of December. To deliver the 66,500 unloaded at the terminals during that period of 1911
would require 16,600, and the railroads represent they have 40,000 care moving the crop. If that be true their cars only make about a trip and a half in the four months.
The facts stated above conclusively demonstrate that the congestion in trafic is not in a slight degree due to the distribution clause of the Grain Act and is wholly attributed to the inability of the railroad to keep their cars moving to destination after they are loaded or billed.
I will quote a few cases in which the cars have been out over eighty days, giving the shipping point, the name of the shipper, the date shipped, and the number of days in transit:
Saskatoon-G. Drabble; Oot. 13; 107 days.
Bluoher-Jas. Anderson; Oct. 23; 97 days.
Adanac-Geo. Sim; Oot. 23; 97 days.
Webb-H. C. Thierman; Oot. 28; 91 days.
Anglia-L. P. Jaimes; November 1; 87 days.
Liberty

M. A. Tannahill; Oct. 20; 99 days.
Keppel-B. J. Brandrith; Oot. 30; 89 days.
Gull Lake-O. E. Clark; Nov. 2; 85 days.
Now I have given the opinion of the grain growers in opposition to the change in -the car distribution clause of the Manitoba Grain Act, and I would urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce to seriously consider the position of the western farmers not only individually but speaking collectively through -their association against any change in the Act. They prefer to have it remain as it is. They had this clause inserted in the Grain Act some years ago, and think that it should remain there without any change whatever. The opinion of the farmers in my constituency is against any change, and I am bound to -support that view because the farmers know more of what is necessary for their welfare than men who are not engaged in agriculture in western Canada.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not going to delay the House by reading a lot of resolutions, although I have received many petitions from my constituency, each and every one of them asking that no change^ whatever should be made in the -car distribution clause of the Act. This is the first controversial matter apparently that we have had in connection with this Bill, and the Minister of Trade -and Commerce has been most fair and reasonable all through. But the farmers -are now asking -to have matters left as they are. I do not think the Minister, after the interviews he has had with the members of the Grain Growers' Association of the west, would gainsay the fact that these men understand wheat growing and the handling of the western wheat crop as well as any other class of men in existence. The farmers of the -three prairie provinces are absolutely a unit in asking that no change should -be made in this clause. Who have we on the other side? We have the millers, the elevator men, the grain exchange men, the railroad men,

the Credit Men's Association-we have the corporate interests on one side asking for a change in the interests of the farmer. Why should they speak for the farmer? Cannot the farmer speak for himself?


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman tell us who these people have approached and asked for the change? I have never seen any of them.


William D. Staples: Nor I.


John Gillanders Turriff: Railroad men have been advocating that change to me half a dozen times. Grain exchange men here advocated a change upon a dozen occasions.


William D. Staples: What change?


John Gillanders Turriff: They have represented that the present system of car distribution is not right, and that it should be done away with or chahged.


William D. Staples: They did not ask for this particular change, did they?


John Gillanders Turriff: They did not ask for this particular change but they asked that the clause be changed, although the farmers are urging that it be left alone. This matter particularly affects the farmers and why do these interests come to individual members and ask that a change be made on the ground that it will help the small farmer who has not a fair deal under the present systeln of distribution of cars? I am not going to say that the present system of distribution may not work a hardship in the ease of individual farmers, but the present law is what the farmers as a whole have fought and worked for, for years. All they are asking now is that it be left alone. They are afraid that if any change is made, if any power is granted to anybody else to interfere with the present system of car distribution they will be the sufferers in the end. I absolutely concur in that view. Surely when the men who are chiefly interested in this matter are asking that the clause should stand as it is at present the least that can be done is to comply with their wishes? Suppose this power is given to a commission- and I am not going to make any reflections on any possible commission that may be appointed because I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce will appoint the best men he can find-what relief is going to be given in a season when there is a general blockade all over the country, by changing the system? If there should be demands coming in from 500 or 1,000 points, as there are at the present moment, it would be simply a matter of discriminating as to which point you should relieve. Why not leave this matter alone, and then if some of the farmers suffer in consequence it will simply be because their wishes were complied with and the responsibility will rest with them. The farmers through their association understand the subjects in my judgment just as well as any of these interests that are asking for the change. The grain growers associations throughout the west have proven within the last few years that they understand all questions in relation to the growing of wheat. So that I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to withdraw clause (e). It has been claimed in this discussion that we have adopted this principle in supporting Bill (No. 96). I was in favour of that Bill and supported it with an accurate knowledge of what was doing, knowing that we gave the power in the meantime to deal with the present condition of affairs under which hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat are stacked up on the prairie, like coal, but knowing also that toe moment the Bill we are now dealing with became law, toe other measure would be repealed and be no longer of any effect. It is not fair for any one to advance toe argument that because we decided to pass that Bill in order to remedy an exceptional condition of affairs existing at this present moment, *that we were binding ourselves to relax the present system of car distribution for all time to come.
I had no such thought in my mind; and had I supposed that by passing that Bill, we should be held to be committing ourselves to the support of this amendement, I would not have voted for it. But it was nothing of toe kind. We have now a state of affairs in which the farmers ask for one thing and the interests which are generally supposed to be opposed to toe farmers, are asking for something else. The question is, are we going to do what the farmers want done in connection with toeir own wheat, or are we going to do what somebody else wants done in connection with toeir wheat?


Mr. WARNOCK.: I cannot let this occasion pass without uttering a word of protest against toe proposed change affecting section 207 of toe Bill. I would not be doing my duty to my constituents were I to remain silent. Like many other hon. [DOT] members on both sides of the House, I have received a large number of letters, telegrams and resolutions from farmers m Alberta, protesting against any amendment or suspension of this provision of the Manitoba Grain Act. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) speaking this afternoon, referred to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and said that that hon. member saw the principle but that he also saw a chance to make' political capital. Now, I have here toe report of the proceedings of a meeting of the United Farmers' Association, of High River, a .short time ago. This will

throw some light on the opinion of this Manitoba Grain Act, held by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). It says:
The meeting was called at the instance of Mr. Reardon, secretary of the local branch of the United Farmers' Association, who felt that something should be done to show how the farmers of High River viewed the proposed change. In the absence of the president, Mr. R. A. AVallace was appointed chairman, and speaking of the situation he failed to see how the proposed change of the interests would relieve the grain blockage. At the present time he said the terminal elevators were crowded and it was impossible to relieve the blockade at this end. He viewed this as a step on the part of the interests to have obliterated from the statutes the only clause whereby the farmers had any protec-tection. On this same point he had heard the former Minister of the Interior

*
That is the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver).

say that the farmers would be extremely
foolish to relinquish that one clause for which they had fought so long to obtain from the government, and he urged the local union to go on record as being opposed to any change in that particular clause referred to.
So, the hon. member for Edmonton was opposed to any change in that clause as far back as last summer, while the government of which he was a member was yet in power. So, when the hon. member for Portage la Prairie hinted this afternoon that the hon. member for Edmonton saw the opportunity to make some political capital out of the proposed amendment, I think he was making a rather unfair statement.
There is another matter here, to which I would call the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This was stated by some speakers at that meeting:
It was further learned that there are farmers who have shipped cars of wheat when the only grain they grow was oats; and others who have not threshed a bushel of oats or wheat, had made car shipments from High River. Intimation was made by some one present that the law would be enforced hereinafter with regard to false entries for cars.
I understand from this report that some farmers' are unprincipled enough to order cars sent ostensibly for their own use and then hand these cars over to the elevators. I do not know whether there is any law to deal with that matter, but I think it should be looked into, and, if there is such a law, the law should be enforced. I do not propose to read any of these resolutions and telegrams that I have received. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster, North Toronto), will accept my statement that I have them. But, as there has been some difference of 111
opinion as to the point of view of the farmer and grain grower delegates who were here a short time ago, I desire to read a memorandum handed to me by Mr. Fream, secretary of the United Farmers of Alberta, before he left for the west, giving an amendment which, I think, we would be prepared to accept:
Provided further that the board may, upon application of not less than three farmers in any new district, after investigation, order a limited number of cars to be supplied contrary to the provisions of this part, to meet cases of actual necessity only arising through shortage of food and fuel supply, such order to state the reason for same and to make regulations governing the prices to be paid for street grain while such order is in force.
1 think that under the circumstances and in view of the protests we have had, the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be well advised to allow section 207 of the Bill to pass without further amendment.


Arthur Meighen: I have only a word to add to what I have already stated. By what I have said, I still abide; and it has reference mainly to one or two hon. gentlemen who stated that the farmers in presenting their petitions are represented by me as not understanding the proposed amendment. In so far as I made any remarks in that connection, I simply said and simply meant that what the farmers' petitions so far had opposed was something entirely different from the proposed amendment, and no hon. member has presented, or, I believe, can present, a petition which in any way conflicts with the proposed amendment. I want to make that as clear as it is possible for me to make it. I am sure that no communications in my possession conflict with it. The farmers of my constituency are just as competent to understand this amendment as any other persons, and will understand it when they read it; and I think that the fair-minded ones among them will appreciate one and all of these provisions.


William Melville Martin: Does the hon. gentleman not think that any requests that no change be made in the present clause conflict with the changes proposed to be made?


Arthur Meighen: I have none that simply say that they want no change and stop there. They want no change along lines suggested in this association's petition. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) points out that the association's petition in so far as it asks that the distribution of cars under the Act be entirely placed with the Railway Commission, is in principle the same as the proposed amendment. Consequently the Credit Men's Association move along the line of these amendments and they are resisted by the



farmers, so it is said that the farmers would resist these amendments. Now, if I can see the point at all, it is that that which is asked for by the Credit Men's petition is diametrically the opposite to that. I know no more about it than the hon. member for Cape Breton; I never heard of them except that I got a petition with the name on it * The Canadian Credit Association, Limited ' ; and I thought at the time I would like to see some of those credit men myself.


William Melville Martin: It is a very strong organization in Winnipeg.


Arthur Meighen: This association asks that the clause be suspended, and it is against the suspension of the clause that the farmers' petition. What wowld be the result of suspending the clause? It would mean that we would be destitute of any rule of distribution. But now we say to the Railway Commission: We feel that in your hands you are in control of the distribution, we give you carte blanche. The farmers might protest if parliament sets up no rule by which they can be governed. But this clause retains the car distribution rule, and says that rule shall be followed unless individual instances and circumstances are such as to demand a deflection from it. Hon. gentlemen admit that time and again instances arise where a deflection is in the interest of the farmers themselves.


William Melville Martin: Does the hon. gentleman consider that subsection (e) as proposed by the minister, simply deals with specific cases, where a car shortage would happen?


Arthur Meighen: Absolutely deals with that, and with specific cases only. Hon. gentlemen have repeated, man after man of them, that cases frequently arise, and cases of enormous consequence, in which it is in the interest of the farmers that a deflection be made from the strict line of the rule, and cases that arise are right in line with (a) (b) (c) and (d). They are all agreed on that. But they say, when we come to (e), we are throwing our heads against a wall. What is (e)? It simply states another case, and it puts the burden of proof on the community that sets up the case, and that community has to show, to the satisfaction of the commission, that there exists a state of affairs among them, that will be assisted in granting a deflection from the rule.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the only difficulty I see about it. Who is to settle that question of fact?


Arthur Meighen: The commission. It has to be shown to the commission that it is necessary and advisable in order to relieve congestion and facilitate the dis-Mr. MEIGHEN.
patch of grain, and the commission must be convinced by proof in the individual case, or there cannot be a deflection. If it is proved by investigation, as it is bound to be, that the congestion will be relieved, and the dispatch of grain facilitated, then how can you say that in such cases, the farmer himself would not be benefited? How can you hurt the farmer, if you are going to relieve congestion and facilitate the dispatch of grain?


Mr MARTIN (Regina).: It is not clear tc me what is the meaning of the term,
' due examination.' It might mean anything.


Arthur Meighen: ' Due examination ' means just what it means in courts of law, where it has appeared doubtless time and again in the practice of the hon. gentleman, who has asked the question:	Due
examination ' means an examination adequate to the condition and to the circumstances in order to get at a correct result, and that is what the commission is for. That is one of their functions, one of the purposes of their creation. Why be frightened at a (bogey? Let us get the whole benefit of the Act. You will find cases in western Canada, in the congested parts, say, in Manitoba, where car after car is tied up, where the farmers are taking six, eight, or ten days to load; and at the same time, perhaps, in the northern part, or in the newer part, in some other territory, the farmers are suffering, and their grain is rotting, because they cannot get cars. They are being held up at one end, selfishlv, perhaps, and the other end is suffering. If such a case is made out, then who will say that the farmer is not going to get the benefit? Who can picture a case where congestion will be relieved, and the dispatch of grain facilitated, and the farmer not get the benefit of it?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Could not that special condition be met without interfering with the order of routine? As 1 understand it, the man who books for a car first, gets it in the order of booking. Supposing, without interfering with the order of booking in a specific case of that kind, you could get more cars, could you switch the Act in that way, so that the company would be compelled to furnish more cars, without interfering with the booking?


Arthur Meighen: I am glad my hon. friend drew attention to that point. In the first place, I do not contend that, as a general rule, giving power to the commission to order the distribution of cars to meet an individual exigency is going at once to relieve the car congestion, not at all; but I believe in individual instances it would. Other things will relieve it far more; there are other obstacles in market-

ing our grain much more formidable. But the retaining of this clause, and the insertion of the latter clause, to my mind, give the commission this power, that they can say to the railway company what they cannot say to-day: There is at a certain point an especial congestion bringing in its wake an exceeding amount of trouble, and we demand of you relief, that you send an additional force of cars to that point. This gives them that power. So I think the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) will see that there is a very important assistance being given by that clause. T do not know what the authority of the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) is. I do know, however, that he is a very apt pupil of two gentlemen in western Canada, when he makes a statement that some sinister interests in Winnipeg, the Grain Exchange and the elevator interests, are on one side of the battle, and the farmers on the other side are down here with their bayonets outside parliament endeavouring to get this measure through. I know nothing of that. _ The hon. gentleman has not said that in so many words, but he has reechoed statements sent through the west that some sinister influences are behind these amendments. I know of no such interests or influences. I have received petitions against the Credit Men's Association amendments, I have also received requests in their favour. I give them all as mature consideration as I can. But I do think that in addition it is my duty to think the matter out in the light of what is presented to me, and to give the utmost respect to what they present. It seems to me that the power given that commission to go to the office of a railway company and say:	Here, there is an
especial congestion at Weyburn in Saskatchewan, there is special distress at another point, and we demand that you make special efforts to relieve it, and that twenty cars be within ten days at those points-in legislating to give them that power we are affording practical relief in many cases to the very unfortunate conditions which we find obtaining at the present time. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite. I know t'he hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) understands the matter of shipping grain better than I do. But I do believe that I understand the plain English of this clause, and that an important reform will be effected by it if we will only open our eyes to the occasion.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask the hon. member if he considers that in the terms of this Act there is any such authority as he has just stated, that this commission has the right to go to the office of a rail-1114
way company and order cars wherever they please?


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman will read the clause he will see that it reads in this way:
Strike out clause 207 and substitute the following:-
The board may, in its discretion, order cars to be supplied contrary to the provisions of this part.
And then it goes on and names the instances. Notwithstanding anything in that part they can go to the railway company arid order the oars.	*


Frank Oliver: There is nothing in any part of this Act to give the authority which my hon. friend deliberately stated to the committee was contained in the Act:


Arthur Meighen: What does that give ?


Frank Oliver: It certainly does not give any such authority. It gives, authority to the commission to order a distribution of oars, but it does not give authority over the railway companies to compel them to furnish oars. I think the minister will bear me out in that interpretation.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
will recognize that i.t is only in so far as the cars available can. be distributed that we can interfere.


Frank Oliver: Precisely; then my hon. friend should not have made the very bold and bald statement which he did. '


Arthur Meighen: That very bold and bald statement, if you term it such, is still strictly correct. The commission can go to the railway _ company and say that it shall take certain cars away from a certain point which does not need them so badly and send them to such another point. That power is certainly embodied in that clause. I have not consulted the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I really think that .power is certainly embodied there. Let me put it again. Suppose the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has within ltself poweT of distribution of 10,000 cars. We cannot make .such orders and expect to have them fulfilled as would require
11,000	cars to be supplied, but we can give such orders as, within the scope of the cars available to the company, will force it to .send certain oars to a certain place and certain cars to another place.


Frank Oliver: I would like to know from the minister where that authority is contained in this Bill and how far the authority of the Bill goes in that regard.


Mt. CRUISE.: Mr. Chairman, I think I would not be doing my duty to the constituency which I have the honour to represent if I did not put myself on record

as being opposed to aniy change in the oar distribution Clause of the Grain Act. Like a great many hon. members on both sides of the House, I have received personal letters from different electors in my constituency protesting against any change in these clauses. I have also been favoured [DOT]with resolutions from pretty nearly every Grain Growers' Association in my constituency adverse to this proposed 'change. Several of these Grain Growers' Associations have also written me stating that they have had Large petitions signed and forwarded to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), protesting against any change. As farmers we regard any change in this clause with a great amount of suspicion, I believe I am justified in making this statement. I have been growing wheat now for about eighteen years, and I can remember that about ten years ago the bankers, tihe railway companies anid the elevator people combined together anid refused to give the farmers oars 'to load their grain. The result was that the farmers were forced to ship their grain through the elevators or sell it to the elevators. This enabled the elevator men to lower the price of grain, and the result was that the spread between the street anid track price was about seven cents a bushel. You can readily see the loss that the farmers sustained as a result of that most unsatisfactory condition of affairs. The farmers succeeded in getting placed in the Act the present car distribution clauses and the result has been that within the past three or four years the spread between street and track has not exceeded two or three cents a bushel. Therefore, the farmers realize that they have derived great benefit from the car distribution clause as it is at present embodied in the Act. I, therefore, am strongly opposed to any change. It has been stated here that no person has asked for any change in this clause. If the privileged classes have not been asking for any change certainly the farmers have not asked for any, and, that being so, why make a change? This clause 207 gives the commission all the power that is- necessary. It gives the commission power to have cars provided if there is an elevator in danger of collapse or if there is any grain heating in the elevator. They can cause cars to be sent to different points to relieve such a situation as that. If power were given to the elevators to distribute seed grain I think that is all that is necessary and that is all the farmers are asking for. I want to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce upon the fair stand which he has taken all the way through in connection with this grain Bill and also members on both sides of the House. I may say that while I know a little about growv Mr. CRUISE.
ing wheat, I know very little about making laws with regard to shipping and selling wheat. I attended the committee meetings very regularly, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I derived a great deal of benefit from them. I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the interest of the producers of this country, to comply with their request and make no change in the Act. If the farmers came down to Toronto, that beautiful city that runs the whole country, and insisted on having anything to say to the manufacturers about the distribution of the cars upon which they load their machinery, the manufacturers would say to them:	What
business is it of yours? Go home to the west and mind your own affairs. I do not mean to say that it is none of their business, but the view I take of it is that this is purely and simply a farmer's question, and, therefore, the manufacturers of Toronto or anywhere else should not say how our grain should be loaded and shipped. I repeat there should be no change made in the present Grain Act.


Mr. DOUGLAS.: Mr. Chairman, in common with every other hon. member from the west, I have received petitions and letters protesting against a change being made in this car distribution provision of the grain Act. The farmers in the district which I represent are not suffering in the same way that they are in other sections of western Canada, but at the same time they view with a great deal of alarm any change being made in the Act which has been a great benefit to them in this matter of car distribution. The car distribution clause in the Manitoba Grain Act has had the effect of increasing the price paid to them by the big elevator men and has redounded to the great benefit of the farmers in the matter of selling their grain. I have letters to show where farmers have taken grain to the elevators ana been offered a certain price for it, and not being satisfied with the price, and having decided to ship the grain to a commission house, rather than have the grain shipped cut the elevator man has come to the rescue and paid the difference in price, that has amounted in some cases to seven or eight cents a bushel. Therefore, the farmers view with a great deal of alarm any interference wdth this clause which permits them to order cars, turn about with the elevators, and in that way get the advantage of shipping their grain to a commission house or wherever they wish to send it. I am very pleased to see the stand which the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) has taken on this question.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mi. Sharpe) two years ago made a memorable speech which was of great benefit in my constitu-

enoy in the last election. I had occasion to use that speech more than once. It showed the breadth of -view of the hon. gentleman who, I am glad to see, retains that same breadth of view, and is not governed by partisan motives in discussing this Bill, viewing the question altogether from the standpoint of his constituency. Everything has been said that can be said for and against this Bill. I want to place myself on record as in favour of the car distribution clauses in the Manitoba Grain Act being left as they are.


George Eulas Foster: I have no fault to find with the discussion on this section. I do not think it has been a partisan discussion; it has been a discussion of men with different views, looking at it from different standpoints. It may be that as we are all human, some of us have the fear or the desire of our constituents behind us, but after all the discussion has been very fair, based on the view of each individual member, as to how it would affect the whole. I want to find a little fault with the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I think it would have been just as well if he had not given a little support to the theory that there is an irrepressible and persistent conflict between farmers and railroads. It is not necessary that it should be so.


Frank Oliver: I have scriptural authority for the position that there is always a difference of opinion between the buyer and the seller.


George Eulas Foster: I am not finding fault with the hon. gentleman for holding his opinion. Anything which tends to accentuate and pernetuate the idea _ that two great sections of the community shall and' must be eternally in conflict with each other, is not in line with the principles of human progress. There may be differences between them, but we ail feel that as we get to know each other better wars will cease. After all, broadly speaking, is not the interest of the railways of that great western country absolutely bound up with the prosperity of the farmer, and is not the best interest of the farmer absolutely bound up with his relations to the great transport interests?


Frank Oliver: If the relations are properly adjusted, yes.


George Eulas Foster: any other question I am not prepared to say.
Now, the Grain Growers' Association are militant; they are on the watch. The very moment this Credit Men's Association petition was scattered through the country, their notices went out. Here is something that is going to rob us of our car distribution clauses; that we must not allow; be active and be alive, and flood your members and the ministers with petitions against it. But does that prove to you or to me that the farmers would object, if they knew just what was proposed and the spirit in which it was proposed- that it was not by a lot of men caballing against their interests, but by legislators using the best opportunities they had for information, and doing what they considered best in the premises to alleviate slightly the conditions of congestion and hardship, when those conditions arose, and when after examination they proved them to be conditions which ought to be alleviated? If we could sit down alongside of each one of them and tell them exactly what it was proposed and meant to do, does anybody believe that the farmers of the Northwest would be dead against making any letter or syllable or word of alteration in these car clauses? I do not think so. Now, I have approached this question as_ a novice and a tyro, knowing almost nothing about it; but I have given some hard work and close attention to it, and to my^ mind it is a most interesting and absorbing question. I do not look on tnis as a matter which is before us now and may pass away in a few weeks or a few months. I look on this questioin of grain production and grain carriage in our vast Northwest, only the fringes of which have Been developed so far, as one of the most absorbing, one of the most important, and one of the most vital questions we have to deal with in this parliament, and one upon which very great interests in this country are dependent. I have approached this question without the least idea of party interest or party advantage, i want to see the best solution for the best outcome of that great problem, and it will take us this year and several years after this, if we put our whole purpose and our whole effort to it, to have it practically arid finally and satisfactorily solved. This little clause which I am introducing is not a violation of legislation which exists in the Manitoba Grain Act, nor a violation of legislation which we have adopted in this parliament this year. It is simply a further application of a discretion by a responsible body which is upon the scene of action, which knows and ought to know-and if it does not know it will not be doing its duty as a commission-the ins and outs of the whole business in that great Northwest-a dis-Mir. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
cretion by which, when a call comes from a lamed section, from a hurt portion, from a diseased'part of that great organism in the Northwest, they will be able in some little measure to apply the humanitarian principle, and send help sharply and quickly, even though some in better positions have to be delayed for a little time in the beginning. If a man is drowning in the river every other man who has the heart and soul of a. man in him is willing to go to the help of the man who is in trouble, even though it takes from him hours of his good time, and robs him of some of his profits. It is humanitarian. When this matter came up, and those five delegates, who you say represented the united farmers of the west, were in my office, and I put to them the proposition: here is damp grain, liable to damage and utter loss, held to the amount of ten or twelve or fifteen million bushels, by less fortunate men than you, who got your crops, or some of them out, and that is a call, I think, upon our humanity; not a. man of them offered a word against it, but every man of them said: Yes, there will be no objection among the farmers to that; it is only common humanity. That arises from the fact that you are close to them, and you can tell them just what you mean to do, and they can sit down and talk it over with you. I think the case was well put when it was said: if you can relieve the district where want and distress are imminent without much disorganizing the general plan for the healthy sections, is it not in the interest of the farmers of the v'hole country that you should have some power to do it? Some one makes the suggestion, let the Governor in Council do that. Great goodness! the Governor in Council sitting here in Ottawa, consisting of fifteen laymen, perhaps half of them distributed over this country at any given time, knowing absolutely nothing about railways grain transport, with the exception of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, and some others of us, who have travelled on passes in private cars, but having no grasp at all on the situation in the Northwest, stretching from the lakes to the rocky mountains. How can they do it? There is nobody that can do it sympathetically and well, and with a knowledge of the circumstances, but the three men who are devoted to that, who are the priests that minister at the altars of the great grain business in the Northwest, and who know just what is necessary for healing and for comfort. Now, that is all that this provision does; wrhy should we object to it? Why should we suppose that these men are going to run amuck? Why should we suppose that they will throw everything into confusion? It will not be to their interest to do it; it

will not be in accordance with their sympathies to do it; it will not be in accordance with the spirit of the Grain Act to do it. Their discretions are to be nsed within the purposes and lines of the Grain Act itself, and the Grain Act, if it means anything, means the relief of congestion and the quick despatch of grain. Whenever congestion is relieved and grain is made to travel quickly, that is for the benefit of the farmer behind, who has more grain to take the place of that which is moved out, and which is waiting, and anxiously waiting for the time when that will be moved out. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), laid much stress on this, and he is right to a certain extent, that the commission, after due _ examination, and finding that, in their judgment, it is advisable and necessary that the call for help in some parts shall be heeded at cnee, when they do that, may draw away from the general distribution some cars that are necessary to relieve that congested part. So they may to a certain extent.
But they certainly have this power as well:	They have the power and the right
to go to the railway companies and say:
'We want some extra cars put in there,' and they may get them. But suppose the railway company turns on them and says: * We have no extra cars. All our cars are filling in the programme to hundreds of stations and hundreds of districts all over that Northwest, each man having his car ordered, each elevator has a car order, we are filling in all those with every car that we have.' .Well, then if you have no more extra cars draw away a little portion from every one of those places and help the portion which is in dire distress. You will do the least possible harm to the others and you will do the greater possible good to those that are in distress. My heart is no more soft than the hearts of other members around this table, but I have letters in my office which would almost make a man's heart bleed. I have one letter in my office of a man living out some 18 miles from his station, a newcomer who was in debt for everything that he had been using, and his implements as well, who had got his grain at last harvested and threshed out lately but who had no order in for a car that could possibly get to him for months may be in the state of shortage and congestion there. Teaming in with his two teams a portion of his grain, what did he find? He had no cars. The car track buyer was there, but there was no car that the track buyer had into which he could put this man's grain if he had bought it. The man on the street was there, or thereabouts, but the man on the street could not buy his grain. He had no place to put it if he bought it;
the elevator was chuck full and had not been emptied for a long time. That man tried in vain to sell his grain or to store it, but there was no storing place for it. He took his grain back to his own farm again and kept it there. Others piled their grain out behind somebody's shed and covered it over, may be with some straw; they cannot sell it. Now it does seem to me that talk as we like about elevators and about our corporations, that if that elevator could have been emptied of its
50,000	or 60,000 bushels of grain there would have been a chance for that man with his wagonloads of grain to have sold it, because there would have been a place to store it if it had been sold. It seems to me that taking all these things into consideration it is not so serious a matter we are discussing that it will break up the whole car order system, and that if you do this you might as well burn the Grain Act. These assertions do not tally with the facts, and it seems to me that, looking at it from the point of view of those who are trying to do the best they can for that great interest, we have got to use our own judgment, getting at the view of the people interested as far as we can, and by using that judgment in this way, and giving this discretion to the Board of Commissioners, we are putting a piece of machinery there for use in individual cases of hardship involving sometimes total loss which means very much to those who have to bear that loss; we are putting a piece of machinery there which will enable a live and competent man to relieve distress, to aid in the despatch of grain and so to lighten the whole position. I would read something from a letter addressed to me by Mr. Fream, in order to show the way in which he approaches this matter.
It has been rumored that section 207 of the Grain Bill will be considerably changed. This section is, we consider, one of the most important in the Act and one on which considerable time and attention should be bestowed before allowing any changes to be made.
That is Mr. Frcam's position. That is a reasonable position. That is what we have been doing here, bestowing time and attention upon this Act because of its importance, and before making any change in it He goes on to say:
It gives a privilege to the farmer which is his only safeguard against the elevator interests, and while a determined onslaught has repeatedly been made upon this provision yet the opponents of same have never yet been able to present any logical argument why a change should be made. Before this clause was added to the Grain Act the farmers were completely at the mercy of the | interests, and if the clause is removed



We none of us think of removing it.
or in any way weakened by dangerous amendments which might be made to give two different meanings

We are not weakening it, we are strengthening it. We are not putting dangerous amendments there which might have two different meanings. We are putting a plain definite amendment, as plain as the English language can make it, and for purposes which are clearly to be understood. If that is done, he goes on to say:
Conditions will he such that in a short time the farmers would find the car distribution and the general treatment they would receive from the railway companies and the elevator interests even more intolerable than they were before the clause was introduced into the Act.
I would be disposed to agree with Mr. Fream as to the probable results providing things were done to weaken the clauses, or amendments were placed there that were dangerous, or had a double meaning, or if the purpose of these amendments were to do away with the efficacy of the Grain Act in its distribution clauses. To my mind it is to strengthen those rather than to weaken them. If I thought the clause Would weaken them I would drop it at once. Believing that it would strengthen them and would be worked out to the good of the transportation of the farmers' grain in the west, I submit it to the committee and ask for its passage.


Mr. WHITE (Alberta).: Mr. Chairman, although there has been a good deal said on this question by western members who object, as I do myself, to any changes being made in this clause, there is one point that I do not think has been brought out, although it is one that the farmers of the west most strongly object to. It is the question of prices.. As a great many of the members from the west know, in a great many places-certainly in the case of the majority of towns along the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern where there is only one elevator. Now, we have found from experience that when a farmer brings his grain to the elevator there is no competition whatever. He looks at the market quotations at Winnipeg and finds possibly that oats are 35 cents a bushel here, but the local elevator only offers him 20 cents. He knows the cost of transportation, which is a matter of about eight cents, and if he finds he can make three or four cents a bushel on his grain he orders a car and ships that grain to Winnipeg. Now, if you make a change whereby the farmer is not able to do that, if you deprive him Oj the privilege of disposing of his grain outside he is compelled to sell to the local elevators at whatever price the elevator Mr. FOSTER (N. Toronto).
operator demands. In my own section of the country that is the objection which has been taken to making any change in this clause, rather than on the car question. I know where a certain price was offered for grain at an elevator, but the farmer was not satisfied, and knowing the Winnipeg price he loaded a car, and the same elevator man offered him 12 cents more for the grain so loaded. That is why the farmers are so much alarmed about the proposed change. It is not a question of cars or car shortage, but simply that they fear the change will place them in the hands of their own local dealer. They cannot draw the grain to the next elevator, which is probably 10 or 15 miles away, they simply have to sell to him if this clause goes through.
So, you place the farmer at once at the .mercy of the local dealer; and I think that is the reason the farmers are objecting so much. I have known small farmers not having enough grain to make a carload, and two of them clubbing together to ship a car. I am very much opposed to the proposed change. In Alberta and the far west, there is no doubt about it, if this change is made, the farmers will have to take whatever price is offered by the local elevator where there is no competition; and even where there are two or three, they will combine and pay only a certain price. And the farmer will make five or six or even ten cents a bushel in loading cars for the Winnipeg market.


William Henry Sharpe: I would like to make my position perfectly clear in this matter. This amendment covers the whole of clause 207 of the Bill. There are five subsections in the amendment. The first, (a), is in connection with an elevator collapsing; (b), is in connection with the relief of damp grain; (c), is in connection with seed grain (d), is in connection with heating grain. All these I favour. But subsection (e), in my humble opinion, goes a little too far. I would not give that power to the commission. If I were voting on this section separately, I would certainly vote against the insertion of this subsection (e), of the amendment. If I have to vote on the whole five at once, I will have to vote for the amendment.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: The natural way is to take it clause by clause.


William Henry Sharpe: If it is taken clause by clause I will vote for the first four and against the fifth. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Roster) has brought to the attention of the committee the conditions in western Canada in connection with the grain blockade. We all know the conditions there. I had a letter the other day from a man who went from my part of the constituency in the province of Manitoba, who tells me that he draws

his grain to the elevator, a distance of forty miles, and then must bribe the elevator people to take the grain off his hands before they will take it. I say these conditions should not be allowed to exist. But this Grain Bill does not cover these conditions. We are allowing the railway companies to build branch line after branch line, and that is the reason, largely, for the congestion. The hopper is too large for the spout. We have to get a new outlet for the grain.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: To the south.


William Henry Sharpe: No, not to the south not by a long way. My hon. friend from Strathcona (Mr. Douglas), said that my speech of two years ago did him a lot of good in his campaign


Frank Oliver: I also found it very helpful.


William Henry Sharpe: You did not use it fairly then. I stand by that speech just as on the day I made it. And I stood by it through my campaign, and it was on account of that speech that I was able to win out against my opponent-and I could do it again to-morrow. I simply arose to explain my position in connection with this matter.


William Pugsley: I wish to say just a word with regard to the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster, North Toronto). It seems to me that in referring to the words of Mr. Fream, who said that the present law on this subject should not be weakened in any way, I understood him to say that it . will not be weakened by this amendment. As I understand the law now, the farmers themselves have the control of placing cars according to the order in which they have been called for. When you givej another body power to do away with the distribution of cars, you are taking away from the farmers the protection they have under the present law. The burden is upon my hon. friend (Mr. Foster, North Toronto), to show that the present law has worked unfairly, that it has caused dissatisfaction, and hardship. Else why make the change? If the law has worked well-and every hon. gentleman I have heard speak on the subject admits that it works fairly well-I do not see why any change should be made. As to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe), I think he can make his mind easy, for we can take a vote upon the different clauses of the amendment. And, feeling as I do, being in accord with my hon. friend, if there is no other way to take the vote, I will move as an amendment to the amendment that subsection (e) be struck out. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will move that himself. If he does,
I shall have much pleasure in seconding it.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to delay the committee, but this is perhaps a more important portion of the Bill than the committee has pet appreciated. I should judge from the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he has not yet fully appreciated the importance of the section, or the relationship that must of necessity exist between the farmer on the one hand, and those who buy and transport his grain on the other. It is not throwing any suspicion upon the grain dealer or railway company to say that in the buying and handling of grain their interests are not the interests of the farmers. It is an absolute necessity of the case, just as it is that two and two make four, that the farmer, and the railway company and grain dealers are in opposition to each other, and that opposition is apt to be a very strenuous one.
I do not wish to introduce controversial matter into the discussion, but if my hon. friend is not aware of the facts, it is his misfortune. The fact is that there is necessarily and actually a very bitter feeling and always has been-I do not know what it will be in the future, but it exists today-between the two opposing interests. It is no aspersion upon either of them to say that there is such a feeling, and it is not a proper appreciation of the facts to suggest that by any legislation We can do away with that condition. It is a natural condition, it is not an improper condition, except as it may be strained to improper limits. My hon. friend will be the greatest legislator that ever graced this parliament or any other, if he can bring those two interests into amicable conjunction. I want to impress upon the minister that this matter is one the importance of which cannot be exaggerated, that the action taken tonight is going to have far reaching consequences, and the responsibility thereof must rest upon my hon. friend and his colleagues. I want to allude to the argument made by the minister as to the urgency of the provision of sdbsection (e). He painted a picture of the deplorable loss to be suffered by reason of damp grain; and the necessity of rushing cars to the relief of the locality suffering from that condition. But my hon. friend does not appreciate the fact that subsection (e) has no necessary application to that condition. On the face of it, it applies to the locality and the condition where the grain is abundant, and may be as good as it is abundant. It applies to the condition of congestion, and gives authority to the commission to relieve that congestion. He sketched the condition to which clause (b) would be applicable; but I say that is not the condition that clause (e) is intended to pto-

vide for. From the wording of that clause it applies rather to a condition where the grain is merely abundant, and may be just as good as it is abundant. In such a case the board has the authority of this parliament to suspend the provisions of the Act in regard to car distribution, both at that point where it must go for oars, and at this point to which it will send cars. That is a radical change in the provision regarding car distribution. There can be no misapprehension in regard to the construction to be given those words. The member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) was insistent that it was right and proper to give authority to the board to order cars forward in special cases. There is no special case in subsection (e). Subsection (e) does not provide for a special case, it provides for a general condition. Take the condition that exists in the west to-day, a general condition of congestion, and the board has the right under that section to order any distribution of cars it pleases in any part of the west.


John Hampden Burnham: Is not that just what we are driving at, the very thing you have enunciated?


Frank Oliver: I am glad that my hon. friend appreciates the meaning of the section, but it is not the meaning which we wish to have attached to the legislation.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentip-man mean that under the authority of this clause a general order could be made to 'lie Tailway companies?


Frank Oliver: Surely.


Arthur Meighen: 1 think the hon. gentleman who sits behind him will tell him that no suoh order could be made. The Supreme Court has ruled over and over again in eases much less decisive that no general order could be made under the authority of that clause. It would have to be an order of cars to a special point.


Frank Oliver: I am saying that under the condition that exists in the northwest to-day the Grain Commission, under the terms of that order, would have full authority to send oars wherever they pleased and whenever they pleased. To-day, if that section were in force, the provisions in regard to oar order booking would be to all intents and purposes suspended throughout the northwest. Those are the actual facts of the ease. I do not suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce understands it in that way, but I am giving him my understanding of it, with a knowledge of the conditions.
There is another point. As the law stands at present the farmer who has grain to ship knows what his rights! are, he knows what he may expect. But Mr. OLIVER.
if you introduce the provision of clause (e), or even the provision of (b), but especially (e), then the farmer does not know where he stands in regard to his car order. As long as the law stands as it is be gets [DOT]his order in. his .turn with his neighbours, but give the commission the discretion that you are proposing to them there-they take the cars from here and send them there- and he is out of his calculations entirely as the result of this legislation. I do not want to delay the committee, I do not want to hold back tlhe passage of this legislation, but I want to emphasize to the minister that he is dealing with that part of the Bill that is most far-reaching, that touches most closely the people who are most affected by the Bill, and that in my humble judgment, and I give it for what it is worth, this section will not he limited to the degree that he believes it will be, that it will go so fax beyond that limit that it will have the effect, to all intents and purposes, of destroying the value of the oar-distribution provision in the Grain Act as it stands at the present time.
With regard to the provisions in Bill (No. 96) as to forwarding cars for the relief of localities where there is damaged grain, if there were a few isolated localities where the gram was damaged, it would be possible, as it would be right, to provide that this Grain Commission be given authority to specially forward cars to these localities. It was such a condition, no doubt, that the delegates had in mind when they discussed the matter with the minister, but, to-day, with the condition that prevails throughout the prairie provinces, with respect to damaged grain here, there and yonder in a hundred different locali-_ ties, there is no advantage in giving the right to the commission to send cars to one place or to another place. There are not cars enough available, there is no possibility of them meeting the requirements by any orders, they may give, -and it just reduces the matter to the point that they will send the cars wherever the loudest noise is made, or wherever the biggest pull exists, which is a most objectionable condition of affairs. That is a feature of the case that did not strike me at the time the Bill was going through the House, but it is the absolute condition, and it may be just as well to be understood in thalt way.


John Hampden Burnham: Is not that the condition prevailing in railway circles in Ontario now?


Frank Oliver: I could not say, I am sure; but that is the condition that prevails in the west. The condition of damage is so widespread, that there is no possibility of meeting that condition by any special orders that might be given and to

give authority to issue special orders under such conditions is simply to give authority to abrogate the advantages of the Bill for the man who wants to use those advantages. We have given the privilege of loading platforms to the farmers in the west. They tried to get them for a long time. They were successful in getting them at last. They have handled a large part of their grain over these loading platforms. Those loading platforms are a cause of offence to the elevator man, to the local grain dealer, and to the railway company, and there is no doubt that: do away with the car distribution clause and the loading platforms might just as well disappear from the scene.
The question has been asked: Who are the men who are demanding changes in this Act, with regard to car distribution? There was some question about it put forward. There is no question about it. Three years ago, when the Grain Act was under amendment, notice was sent by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce to all parties interested, to come and be heard, in regard to these amendments. The matter was public, everybody was admitted and we found there the railway man, the grain dealer, the one side, even the banker, lined up on the one side, every one of them demanding the abrogation of the section of the Act relating to car distribution, and the farmer on the other. There is no secret about who is on the one side, and who is on the other. There is no blame to either party, because they are on the respective ' sides, but there never has been any mistake about it, or misunderstanding that on the one side is the producer, and on the other are the interests that necessarily 'handle his product. There is just the same necessary conflict of interest between these two sections of the community as there was between the buyer and the seller in the days of King Solomon, and has been every day since.


William Pugsley: I would like to ask the minister whether he proposes having a vote taken upon each clause? The reason I ask it is that members of the committee might not entertain the same view of this clause as they do of others. I think there is quite a cousensus of opinion in favour of the other clauses, but there is a very strong objection to clause (e). That objection has been expressed very strongly on this side of the House, end if my hon. friend will not allow the vote to be taken on the different clauses, I would move that-the proposed new section be amended by striking out clause (e).


George Eulas Foster: I have no objection to taking them paragraph by paragraph.
Subsection (b) agreed to on division.
Subsection (e) agreed to, yeas 44, nays 29.


William Pugsley: I did not vote because I am paired with the member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler).


Mr. ROSS.: I did not vote because I am paired with Mr. Foster.
On section 208-inspection divisions.


George Eulas Foster: The object of the amendment to section 208 is to perfect the erection of Calgary into an inspection division. It follows the provisions with respect to Winnipeg making such changes as are necessary to apply similar conditions to Calgary.


Frank Oliver: On the 3rd reading I shall move an amendment to section 246.
On section 13-acquiring of terminal elevators.


William Pugsley: Do I understand that this section would allow the board to declare that elevators not only upon the Great Lakes, at Fort William and Port Arthur, but also upon the eastern side of the lakes and at Atlantic ports, terminal elevators, that these elevators being so declared the government has power to either construct elevators or to take over existing elevators? I am not able to see why the provision should not be general, why elevators might not be taken over and operated by the government to as much advantage on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and on the St. Lawrence as at Fort William and Port Arthur.


George Eulas Foster: This gives power to the Governor in Council to construct, acquire, lease or expropriate any terminal elevator, if parliament has granted the money for such purpose; and a terminal elevator is an elevator which exists at what has been declared by the board to be a terminal point. The only terminal point at the present time is Fort William and Port Arthur.


William Pugsley: I do not see why that should be so. I do not see why the board should have the power to limit and fix what shall be terminal points. Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, St. John, Tiffin, Port McNichol, Vancouver and Victoria, are just as much terminal points as Port Arthur and Fort William. It may be that in connection with the administration of the Grain Act the board might very well be given the power to declare a certain point to be a terminal point; but why this board should have the power to say in effect that the government may construct or take over an elevator at Fort William and Port Arthur, but shall have no right to construct or take over an elevator at any other point which, in reality, is just

as much a terminal point as Fort William or Port Arthur, I fail to understand. I would suggest to my hon. friend whether or not this provision might not well be broadened out. The grain does not stop at Fort William and Port Arthur. It moves forward to the Atlantic ports, and on to the English markets, and there is just as much, or almost as much, reason for the government owning and controlling elevators at Atlantic ports and also at the eastern ports on the Great Lakes as at Port Arthur and Fort William. But what I do decidedly object to is that this board shall have the power to decide at what points the government shall take over or construct elevators, and own and manage them.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly, the board should not have that power. It has not the power to establish inspection divisions, except with the approval of the Governor in Council, and it ought not to have the still greater power of saying which should be a terminal point, without the approval of the Governor in Council.
Therefore, I move that subsection (y) of section 2 be amended by striking out tlie word ' board ' and substituting therefor the words ' Governor in Council.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Oliver: The idea that the hon. member for St. John has in mind would be met if the word ' public ' were inserted either before or after the word ' terminal ' in section 13. That would be an elevator that actually did all the work of a terminal elevator, but had not the standing of a terminal elevator for the purpose of issuing warehouse receipts; that is, to do in the eastern terminal elevators just what the hon. member for St. John had in mind.


George Eulas Foster: I do not propose to widen it in that way.


William Pugsley: I think we ought to discuss the whole question of elevators under section 13. Speaking for the port of St. John, there is the most urgent necessity for additional elevator accommodation for the shipment of grain at that port.
The elevator at St. John was constructed by the Canadian Pacific Company, with some assistance from the city, and the provincial government. It was large enough when it was built, and for some years afterwards, but the business has developed so rapidly, that that elevator is wholly incapable of accommodating the business, and the result is there is great congestion. During the present year the business to that port has already very considerably exceeded the business of last year which was very large indeed. Last year I think the exports from St. John Mr. PUGSLEY.
reached the very handsome total of about $25,000,000, and up to the present time they are about $2,000,000 ahead of what they were last year. It seems to me that when we are considering the question of giving the government authority to either expropriate existing elevators or to build new ones, we ought to have some statement from the government as to what is their intention. I have no doubt myself that we have been altogether lacking in the past in the matter of making sufficient provision in the way of elevator accommodation east of the Great Lakes. It is true that during recent years great additional elevator accommodation has been provided at Tiffin and Victoria Harbour. In that respect both the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk railways are doing their duty. There is, however, only accommodation for a few million bushels east of the Great Lakes, while in the city of Buffalo there is elevator accommodation for pretty well on to 50,000,000 bushels which is far and away ahead of anything we have in Canada. By reason of this enormous accommodation, vast quantities of Canadian grain go to Buffalo which ought to be carried to Canadian ports east of the Great Lakes, and the business of transporting that grain is lost to Canada. It seems to me the government must increase the accomodation upon the eastern shores of the Great Lakes, upon the St. Lawrence and upon our Atlantic seaboard. No doubt the same remark will apply to the Pacific coast.


William Henry Sharpe: Where does the grain come from that reaches St. John by rail?


William Pugsley: Some by all rail. Some comes, strange to say, from the American west, although we get more package freight for them.


George Eulas Foster: It only gets to St. John by rail.


William Pugsley: Yes. At the present time the Canadian Pacific is bringing a good deal of grain by the all rail route north of lake Superior. There is this curious fact in connection with the trade of St. John, that while our whole export trade up to the present time exceeds that of last year by more than $2,000,000, that increase is almost entirely in American products. The increase of Canadian products carried to the port has only amounted to two or three hundred thousand dollars, while the increase in American products amounts to very nearly $2,000,000. I think the total Canadian products carried to St. John have amounted up to the present time to something over $7,000,000, and the total of American products between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend has given us some interesting information with reference to the increase in the trade of the port of St. John which we are all glad to know. But I think he is mixing up two different things. The Dominion parliament and the Dominion government have the right to build elevators in St. John now if they choose to. The purposes of this Act are special purposes looking to the regulation of the grain trade from the west, and specially at the great terminal points. Certain abuses have existed and it was contended that the control and supervision of the government at those points was not sufficient to protect the grain shippers and the grain exporters and the clause under discussion is meant to in some way cope with that difficulty.


William Pugsley: By the government acquiring the elevators?


George Eulas Foster: That is the principle involved in clause 13. We take the power to lease or construct.


William Pugsley: Is it intended to do it?


George Eulas Foster: Yes. There will be a grant of money asked for during the present session for the purpose of doing it, but I am not in a position to say how large the amount of money will be.


Mr. BENNETT (Simcoe).: I agree to a great extent with the hon. member for St. John as to the desirability of including in this policy the eastern elevators as well as those in the west. It would be quite easy to include within the scope of the Bill these eastern terminal elevators. The capacity of those at Midland and Port McNicoll only amounts to about 5,000,000 bushels, but elevators now are being built on a new principle. The Grand Trunk elevator at Midland and that of the Canadian Pacific at Port McNicoll are to-day so well equipped that it simply means the addition of more tanks to increase the capacity from one and a quarter to two and a half million bushels; and I am told some of them might be increased beyond that. It is simply a question of motive power. If the government can see their way to do this to embrace in the Bill the eastern elevators it would be most desirable and I hope the minister will be able to make the necessary provision in this Bill.


George Eulas Foster: The proviso is in the Bill and the powers are given, in the definition of ' Terminal Elevator ' as my hon. friend will see:
' Terminal elevator ' includes every elevator or warehouse which receives or ehips grain, and is located at any point declared by the Governor in Council to be a terminal point.
This links up with section 13, under which the Governor in Council has power
to-
-construct, acquire, lease or expropriate for His Majesty any terminal elevator if parliament has granted the money for such purpose.
So all powers needed are contained in the Bill. I do not wish it to be understood that the government is proposing to undertake the building of all the elevators east and west. It certainly is not proposing to do anything of the kind. And, for the present, it has no plans to construct, lease and operate terminal elevators at any other place than Fort William. The time may come when that policy will be extended to Prince Rupert, Vancouver or some other point on the Pacific, to Hudson Bay or to other places which the Governor in Council, after due consideration, deems it necessary to control in this way. But I do not want the committee to think for a moment that the government proposes to take in charge the building of these elevators. Something is to be left to private and corporate activity, and I think a great deal must be left to that in the future.


William Pugsley: If I may be allowed a question, is it not because of the fact that it has been left to private and corporate enterprise at Fort William and Port Arthur that difficulty has arisen?


George Eulas Foster: There are great difficulties between a point like Fort William and Port Arthur and many of the other points mentioned, as the hon. gentleman will see if he thinks of it for a moment.	.


William Pugsley: In what respect?


George Eulas Foster: The head of the Lakes is the point at which nearly all the grain that passes out centres within a small radius and passes through, and it is there that the particular difficulties are to be met with of which complaint has been made.


William Pugsley: Aire not Halifax and St. John two points at which all the grain concentrates that goes to Europe ?


George Eulas Foster: No, it does not all go through Halifax and St. John.


William Pugsley: In the winter season ?


George Eulas Foster: No. As a matter of fact, the same causes of difficulty that have operated and led to dissatisfaction at Fort William and Port Arthur have not operated and have not been complained of in the eastern elevators.

3532,
These elevators iare under supervision and will be kept under supervision, and, as is necessary, they will be kept under stricter and stricter supervision. But at the present time there is no grievance, no cause why these should be taken up 'all of a sudden and put in the same position as the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. A certain amount of grain goes out through St. John, -and I hope that in future more of it wild go out that way. Precautions have been taken which, in the course of the trade, I think, have allowed to rise only one or two oases in which a grievance has existed in shipping grain from Halifax or St. John. Grain is shipped from Montreal, and the elevators there iare under supervision in the same way. The supervision and power of the government follows the grain from Winnipeg to all these different places to the time of its transhipment 'across the ocean. These elevators are carefully looked after, and, if it becomes necessary, as the traffic increases, that they be more carefully looked after, iamd supervision added to and strengthened, it will be the duty of the government, as it was the purpose of the government, to see that this is done.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand the minister to say that he will 'be prepared to make a statement at some stage of the Bill in regard to the government ownership of terminals?


George Eulas Foster: I have made a pretty full statement; but if that does not satisfy my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), when we come to some other portion of the Bill that matter can be taken up and he can put the questions which he thinks are necessary.


Frank Oliver: In the lack of fuller information, it will be necessary, on the third reading to move the amendment of this section.


George Eulas Foster: I think we have had a pretty good siege of it today. I would like to have finished the thing, as leaving it over means that it will probably take an hour or two longer.


Frank Oliver: Can the minister say without inconvenience, what sections of the Bill still stand?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, sections 3, 121, 122, 124 and 125. These are the sections that remain, and there may be another section to be added.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-CORRECTION-MR.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto) moved the adjournment of the House.
George Eulas Foster: 


Hon. L. P. PELLETIER (Postmaster General).: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns I would like to make a statement. My attention has been called to the fact that at first sight there appears to be a slight contradiction between one part of my speech delivered in this House on the 22nd. of January last and another part of my remarks. In looking into the question, I see that something has been omitted and I wish to have the matter put right. I wish to state that on page 1,695 of ' Hansard,' line 9, after the words ' and religious point of view ' the following should be inserted:
' This is the condition of affairs which existed before the 2nd April, 1908. The Ne Temere decree now forbids, from a Catholic religious point of view only, mixed marriages before a non-Catholic clergyman,, but this is a matter which affects only Catholics and their conscience. It has no civil effect and does not affect those who are non-Catholics. As the ' Tablet ' puts it, the Catholic church has no power to change the civil law of marriage. The impediments to marriage which were in force on the first of August, 1866, continue to exist, but those created after do not come under article 125 of our Civil Code which speaks only of impediments hitherto existing.'



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

William Pugsley: What business will be taken up on Thursday?


George Eulas Foster: After the softening influences of Ash Wednesday have been experienced by us all, I think it is the intention to take up the Post Office Bill and probably the Tariff Commission Bill, and to give a step forward to the Manitoba Boundaries Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 22, 1912.