1917-07-23

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 84, to incorporate the Canadian division of the Aerial League of the British Empire.-Sir Herbert Ames.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. Ill, to incorporate the North American Accident Insurance Company.- Mr. Pardee.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113, for the relief of William Henry Bishop.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill No. 114, respecting the Montreal Central Terminal Company.-Mr. Girard.

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

Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What amount of money has been expended by the National Service Board to date?
2.	What amount has been paid to the directors as salary and expenses, respectively?
3.	Are the directors of said Board still drawing their salaries?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Including expenditure on card registration and Publicity campaigns, to July 1, $134,081.35.
2.	To Julyl: Directors'salaries, $19,131.71. Expenses: Travelling, $3,254.68; office staff, $6,687; premises, $1,514.90; temporary assistance, $777.60. Total expenses, $12,234.18. Total salaries and expenses, $31,365.89.
3.	The following Directors of National Service draw no salaries:	K. W. McKay,
Colonel Brock, J. H. Sherrard, Colonel Mignault, G. S. Campbell, L. P. D. Tilley, R. F. Green, Mark Irish.
The following directors have been drawing salaries at the rate of $250 per month: Captain Bowen, Colonel Chauveau, J. A. Macdonald, E. R. Chapman, A. L. Haining, Dr. Rutherford.
For the future no salary will be paid to any member of the board except upon the recommendation of the Director General.
I might be permitted to supplement the answer by saying that the staff of the Nation Service Board, at the head offices in Ottawa, have been, and still are, very actively engaged in the work of the Board and in any work that seems directly connected with the purpose for which the board was constituted. For example, a great deal of routine work of the office of Fuel Controller has, under an arrangement between the Director General of National Service and the Fuel Controller, been carried out by the staff of the National Service Board, and in that way additional expense to the country has been prevented. I understand also that 
the members of the staff at the offices in Ottawa are co-operating with the Food Controller for any purposes in which he needs their assistance.


BUSINESS PROFITS WAR TAX.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Who is in charge of collection of taxes from Companies in Canada? '
2.	On what basis does he decide amount to be collected?
3.	Before he decides, does he refer the matter to the Minister of Finance?
4.	If so, on what basis does the minister decide?
5.	Is the watered stock of a company taken into account?
6.	Do some firms in Ottawa get rebates on their taxes?
7.	If so, to wnat amount, and what are the names of the firms?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	The Minister of Finance.
2.	In accordance with the provisions of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916.
3.	Assessments are made through the Commissioner of Taxation and other officers of the Department of Finance throughout the Dominion, subject to the general authority of the Minister of Finance.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	Sec. 7, subsec. 5, chap. 11, 6-7 George V, provides that:
For the purposes of this Act the amount paid up on the capital stock of a company shall be the amount paid up in cash. Where stock was issued before the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, for any consideration other than cash, the fair value of such stock on such date shall be deemed to be the amount paid up on such stock; and where stock has been issued since the said first day of January for any consideration other than cash, the fair value of the stock at the date of its issue shall be deemed to be the amount paid up on such stock. In estimating the value of stock issued for any consideration other than cash, regard shall be had to the value of the assets, real and personal, movable and immovable, and to the liabilities of the company at the date as of which such value is to be determined. In no case shall the value of the stock be fixed at an amount exceeding the par value of such stock
6.	No.
7.	Answered by No. 6.	,


MR. BREADNER.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Is one, a Mr. Breadner, employed in the Finance Department?
2.	If so, what is his salary?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	Does he decide by himself the basis of taxes to be paid by Incorporated Companies?
5.	If not, does the Minister of Finance make the decision in every case?
Sir THOMAS W'HITE:
1.	Yes.

2.	Five thousand dollars per annum.
3.	Commissioner of taxation.
4.	Assessments are made through the Commissioner of Taxation and other officers of the Department of Finance throughout the Dominion, subject to the general authority of the Minister of Finance.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


COMMISSIONER OF THE YUKON.
Mr. KYTE:: '
1.	On what date was George Black appointed Commissioner of thd Yukon?
2.	What is the rate of salary and the total amount received by him since date of his appointment?
3.	What amount has he received for allowances or expenses in addition to his salary?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	February 1, 1912.
2.	Salary from 1st February, 1912, to 14th October, 1916, $6,000 per year, and from 15th October, 1916, $3,000 per year; total salary received to 30th June, 1917, $30,362.90.
3.	Living allowance, $28,225.81; travelling expenses, $3,644.15.


OGILVIE FLOUR MILLS COMPANY.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	What were the net earnings of the Ogilvie Flour Mills Company, Limited, and the profits distributed, for the accounting period ended August 31, 191/6?
2.	What was the amount of business profits tax levied upon the Company for the accounting period ended August 31, 1916?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Net earnings have not yet been determined by the department.
2.	The assessment has not been made.


PILOT COMMISSIONERS, LOUISBURG, N.S.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Who are the members of the Board of Pilot Commissioners at Louisburg, N.S.?
2.	When were they appointed and what salary or remuneration does each receive?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1 ' and 2. Thomas Townsend, appointed 10th September, 1898; James T. Kelly, appointed 8th October, 1915; Archibald * Me. Vicar, appointed 8th June, 1917, D. A. Morrison, M.D., appointed 8th June, 1917; E. G. Whitman, appointed 8th October, 1915. No salary or remuneration is paid to the pilotage commissioners.


DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved the second reading of Bill No. 82, to provide for the time in Canada being in advance of the solar mean time during the summer months.
He said: It may he advisable that I
should make a short statement with reference to this Bill. Daylight saving is a somewhat new thing in most countries of the world, and ab solutely new, on a national scale, in Canada. The argument? in favour of daylight saving during the summer months are based \ipon a good many considerations. The primary consideration is that of economy. The substitution of an hour of early daylight, which may be used instead of an hour of artificial light, naturally lends itself towards economy, particularly in the matter of lighting, and in the use of coal for the manufacture of gas, and of	electric	light. Outside of these reasons of an economic kind, there are many collateral considerations, which, though not financial, are perhaps more important. The history of daylight saving legislation does not go very far back. I think in 1908 the first Daylight Saving Bill was introduced in the British Parliament, and was referred to a select committee of the House of Commons, which reported in favour of the Bill. It was, however, not enacted. In 1909, another Bill was introduced in the British House of Commons a little wider in scope, and it was also referred to a select committee, which committee reported thereon. Afterwards Bills, were introduced in other sessions, but no legislation followed until 1916, when a resolution introduced by Mr. Henry Norton in favour of legislation along the line of daylight saving in the summer months was carried by a vote of 170 to 2, and in April, 1916, a Bill was passed, which came into operation on the 21st May, and remained in operation until 30th September. It was tested, therefore, in actual operation during 1916. In the -same year legislation for the same purpose was introduced in Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Portugal, Italy, and perhaps some other smaller countries. In at least ten of the more important European countries daylight saving legislation was adopted in 1916, and was carried into operation. A committee of the House of Commons in Great Britain was appointed to make an examination into the results of the operation of the Daylight Saving Bill, and also to extend their examination and observation, as far as they could, to the other countries in which the system had been in operation. This: committee, after due investigation, has reported, and I shall call the attention of the House to the report. The members of the Hou6e who desire to look into the report more fully will find it in the library.
[Stage Direction]
The first thing to note is the thorough way in which the inquiry was carried out. The committee, in the first place, issued what are now called, -by a modern term, questionnaires, and these were sent to the principal bodies, associations and interests in Great Britain, and to Government institutions, munition factories, industrial concerns, commercial bodies, chambers of commerce, boards of trade, labour unions and organizations, women's unions, co-op-perative societies, in fact they were sent to every particular interest that could be reached in the United Kingdom. Seventy-five per cent of the questionnaires sent out were answered, which is a very large percentage, and shows the interest taken in the matter in Great Britain. The committee gives the comments by the different interests, and the replies from the different interests, and arrive at general conclusions. I shall read a few of the special notes made with reference to special industries, or special interests, and then give the House, in short, the general conclusions that were reached by the committee. As regards public health, in section 19 of the report they say:
We have devoted particular attention to the question of the effects of summer time on the health of children and we have been glad to find that, in spite of certain statements whioh have been made to the contrary, the bulk of the evidence (mostly derived from educational authorities) favours the conclusion that in the case of children summer time has proved a success.
With regard to public morals and order, the committee remarks:
The tendency throughout the country to spend the extra hour of daylight in the evenings out of doors is said of itself to have made for an improvement in the general moral tone. In particular, a marked decrease was noted in some districts in juvenile offences, which is attributed by the police to the fact that during the summer time period boys were expected to be home in daylight.
In reference to the workers' interests generally, it is noted:
So far as the trade unions were concerned, we were not able to obtain quite as much detailed information as we could have wished. However, out of the fourteen trade unions to whom we addressed our circular, we had a definite expression of opinion from nine, the general verdict being favourable in each case, , though one or two of the secretaries remarked that they had not been able to make detailed or extensive inquiry among their members.
In section 25 they say:
The general view of employers as expressed in the replies to the questionnaires was that their employees had taken full advantage of the extra hour's daylight; and while the majority were not in a position, with so short a
fSir George Poster.]
period for observation, to state positively whether or not an improvement in health had resulted, a number had noticed increased vitality in their workers, and in some cases an improvement in the standard of the work. Only one or two employers recorded the appearance of any ill effects in the shape of tiredness and irregularity of time-keeping.
In the opinion of Mr. J. E. 'Hutton, manager of the labour department of Vickers Limited, the Summer Time Act was one of the greatest boons conferred upon the industrial classes of the greater towns and cities by recent legislation. The committee say:
We have had evidence from all sources of the value of the extra daylight to the very large number of workers who cultivate gardens and allotments.
In section 31 they say:
Taking the whole of our evidence, we are satisfied that the great bulk of the working classes are favourable to Summer Time, and we are convinced they stand to profit by it as much as, and in many cases more than, any other section Of the community. Such real inconveniences as have been experienced will, we believe, be remedied with a little more experience of Summer Time conditions.
The committee had the following to say with regard to children's sleep:
Only a very few authorities appear to consider that the evil was so pronounced as to outweigh the other advantages which children derived from the Act. The opinion of a very large majority, and the enthusiastic opinion of a great number, Is that the children benfited by the operation of Summer Time, both by reason of the extra time which they were able to spend in the open air, and also because of the cool hour gained in the morning in place of a trying hour in school in the heat of the afternoon. Many authorities reported that children had been brighter and fresher in the mornings in consequence. This view was confirmed by the medical opinion which we received, and it was unanimously supported by the witnesses who gave evidence before us.
With .regard to trade, industry and commerce, outside of agriculture, the committee notes, in section 37:
The replies received to the very comprehensive inquiries wThich we have described in paragraph 9 above show beyond all question that the opinion of employers in every trade and industry and business throughout the country is overwhelmingly in favour of Summer Time. We summarize the evidence on points of detail, such as effect on the health of workers, saving in artificial light, etc., under the appropriate headings elsewhere in our report.
After showing that there were some diversities of opinion, based upon difficulty in coming to accurate conclusions, in section 42 the committee, dealing with the question of economics in artificial light and fuel, state:

Nevertheless, though it has proved so difficult to arrive at any accurate estimate of the economies effected in light and fuel it is perfectly clear that the substitution of an hour's daylight In the evening during many weeks of the year for an hour's artificial light must have resulted in a considerable net saving; and this is certainly borne out by the information furnished to us. The estimates of the reduction in the consumption of electric light vary very widely, from 1.25 per cent in one case to 55 per cent in another. The returns from the power companies give a mean reduction of 2.0 per cent for lighting purposes. Thirty-eight private companies furnished figures which give an estimate of reduction varying from 10 to 41 per cent, the mean for the thirty-eight being 23 per cent. Sixty-four municipal undertakings give a mean reduction of 18.3 per cent in units used for lighting.
With regard to gas, Mr. Hanbury Thomas, of the Sheffield United Gas Company states:
The total quantity of fuel used by all gas undertakings in the United Kingdom for 1915 was, in round figures, 18,000,000 tons. Reckoning one and one-quarter per cent of these figures, the saving in coal effected by gas undertakings in the United Kingdom as a result of four and a half months of Summer Time may be put at about 260,000 tons.
That was with reference to the saving in coal for the making of gas. The saving to users of gas was estimated at £475,000. The statement is made that 11,500 tons of illuminating oils were saved toy the application of the Daylight Saving Bill.
When you come to agriculture, you have greater diversity of opinion. In section 53 the committee state:
As might have been expected, the opinions of the farmers and those interested in agriculture have been more conflicting than those of any other interest, in many cases totally diverse opinions as to the effect of Summer Time having come from the same district.
We find that the general opinion is that difficulties were easily overcome by organization and that the very definite advantage of having an extra evening hour for carrying crops outweighs any inconvenience. Many reports also mentioned the advantage at harvest time of the help of workers employed in other occupations whose longer evenings made it possible for them to give assistance on the farms. This, of course, occurred chiefly in districts near villages or towns.
Section 55 says:
In some cases trouble was experienced with milkers who were, it is said, unwilling to commence work in the very early mornings, and it is also stated in a few instances that at the outset the quality and quantity of the milk was affected by the earlier milking. These difficulties are only mentioned in a few of the replies, and the majority even of these few add that they were only temporary.
The committee say in section 56:
In the gathering and transit of fruits and vegetables the operation of the Act is generally reported to have been very beneficial, as in almost all cases these are better gathered with the dew on and transported during the cool of the day.
Section 59 says:
In spite of 'such difficulties as have been recorded, a very large majority of farmers and war agricultural committees are in favour of a renewal of the Act, and the majority even of those who are of opinion that it was not advantageous to agriculture consider that it should be renewed, as they recognize its great benefits to the community at large.
In respect to the later closing of shops, the evidence is stated to have been almost overwhelmingly in favour of the Daylight Saying Act.	_
These take in the main points in the special observations of the committee with reference to the results of their examination,
I will n<5w read the three concluding paragraphs entitled " conclusions " of their report which are general:
Taking the evidence we have received as a whole, we can unhesitatingly say that the vast preponderance of opinion throughout Great Britain is enthusiastically in favour of Summer Time and of its renewal-not only as a war measure, but as a permanent institution.
As we have already pointed out, some difficulties have undoubtedly been experienced, but not to anything like the extent predicted by the critics of the scheme, and we have not heard of any that could not be overcome with goodwill and organization. Indeed the experience of Summer Time in 1916 has converted many of its former opponents into hearty supporters. Moreover, as we have pointed out elsewhere, many of those who still hold the view that Summer Time may be prejudicial to their own interests admit that the general public advantages arising from it more than outweigh any inconveniences that may be caused in particular cases. In a few years we believe that what opposition still remains to Summer Time will have completely disappeared, and that the whole nation will regard it as a wholly beneficent measure.
We recommend, therefore, that Summer Time should be re-introduced in 1917 and in subsequent years.
As a result of that report the Summer Time Bill was again introduced and was passed with practical unanimity, and it is for the second year in operation in the United Kingdom. Similar investigations were undertaken to get at the results of the operation of the measure in France in 1916, and the report has been so far satisfactory that in France again the Daylight Saving Bill has become law for the present year and is in operation. Daylight saving measures are also in operation for the second year in the northern fringe of neutral countries that I have mentioned, and in Italy, and a similar measure has been introduced and passed for the first time in Australia.
[Stage Direction]
It will be noted that after the introduction and trial of a daylight saving measure, almost all of these countries have, after investigation, been so far influenced by the operation during the preceding year that they have put it into operation for the second year, and the report of the British committee recommended that the Daylight Saving Bill not only be passed for the year 1917, but that it be passed for successive years. The matter has been taken up in the United States, and an extended hearing commencing, I think, in March, was given by a Senate committee. Before that committee, opinions were brought from every part of the United States. The hearing has been concluded, and as a result the United States Senate has passed a Daylight Saving Bill by a large majority and has sent it to the House of Representatives, where it is believed that the Bill will pass with an equally strong majority. Inasmuch, however, as a large part of the summer season has been taken up, in the United States, in holding the hearings and passing the Bill through the Senate and .as the Bill, with other pressing legislation, has to pass through the House of Representatives, it is provided that the measure shall go into operation not this year but at the designated period in 1918.
In Canada we have had various experiments made with daylight saving, but in restricted areas, and, ef course, it is quite easily seen that when such a measure is put into force in a city or a small district, while surrounding cities and the generality of the country are not under the operation of a similar Act, it does not have its full force and effect. Even so, there are strong testimonies in favour of the good effect of daylight saving in various cities and towns in which it was in operation last year. The general impression, however, so far as far as I have gathered, is that it is shorn of its main and proper advantages unless it becomes ian extended measure-unless, in fact, it becomes a national measure. Some opinions are expressed that it would be better if, when a daylight saving measure goes into operation, it should go into operation contemporaneously with the Act in the United States, so that, along the border line where we have our traffic arrangements, there should be no clash of time keeping as between the two countries. As part of the summer is now past, and holding in view the suggestion that I mentioned last, I think it is reasonable to say that if this Bill is passed, a provision should

be inserted in it bringing it into effect next year when, in all probability, it will have the 'added support of similar legislation in the United States. As regards the demand for a daylight saving measure in Canada, there is a wide call for it from every part of the Dominion. There are also objections against it.
Sir WILFRID LAURilER:	What are
they?
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The call for legislation is generally from the manufacturing industries, the 'boards of trade and business associations of the towns and cities. The objections to the legislation that have so far come to hand are from sections of the farming community who foresee trouble iin certain lines of their work in the earlier time to be set, and inconveniences that would arise therefrom. It is fair to say that those are in restricted lines. of agriculture. What I. have read from the British committee's report would show that the same objections were held there; when the legislation was first introduced, but that upon the whole the agricultural interests, in Britain, being aware that the general advantages were entirely in favour of the legislation, are by a large majority in favour of the reenactment of the daylight saving law. The House will note that I have not put forward any particular plea either for or against such legislation in this country. What I was anxious to do was to place before the House a brief summary of what had been done and why it had been done so that members, if they had not been able to follow the outcome of similar legislation in other countries, might have the advantage of knowing what the result had been.
Personally, I am very strongly in favour of such legislation, largely on the ground of economy, but still more largely on the ground of public health and morals and the maintenance of social order, which seem to spring from the substitution of an hour of daylight for an hour of artificial light. Stress is laid in the British report upon the impetus given to production by the cultivation of small garden plots. These plots, though small in themselves, when cultivated all over the country, contribute tremendously to the food production of the nation. In that respect the British report is entirely favourable to daylight saving.
With this statement, I leave the matter before the House. I shall be glad of a discussion, if that is deemed wise, and we can then go into committee on the Bill,

and leave it there until the House has had an opportunity of digesting the information and coming to a conclusion.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: As this Bill
seems to be very technical and more information will he' required, I would suggest that the discussion had better take place in committee rather than upon the second reading.	-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On section 2-time advanced one hour:
Mr. MARCIL:: What is the prescribed
period in the United States?


George Eulas Foster: It runs from
somewhere in April to the latter part of September or about the 1st of October.


Wilfrid Laurier: The object of the Bill, in a nutshell, is that we shall, by law, call what is .seven O'clock, eight o'clock, and what is eight o'clock, nine o'clock. I agree that the object is a very praiseworthy one, but whether it is necessary to achieve the object by legislation is quite another matter. It is true that most of the civilized countries of Europe furnish us with precedents at the present time. Legislation, of this sort is an attempt to make us believe that a certain hour is really a different hour. The labourer's day generally commences at seven o'clock, at which hour all the factory whistles are heard summoning the labourers to their day's work. The school boy's day begins at nine, and the business man goes to his office about ten o'clock. Now, this Bill proposes that the labourer shall begin his day's work at six o'clock instead of seven, the school boy at eight o'clock instead of nine, and the business man at nine o'clock instead of ten. It i'S quite possible for these three classes to being their day's work one hour earlier without any legislation on the subject .at .all, and I think it would be we.ll if they agreed to do so voluntarily. If the captains of .industry would start their men working at six instead of seven o'clock in the summer time, and .the schools would o.pen at eight and the business offices at nine, the same object would be achieved. But it has been thought that confusion would .arise without the authority of the law upon the subject. I agree with my hon. friend that the report he has read justifies his conclusions. Without deceiving ourselves in this w.ay, I think it would he to our advantage if we all rose .an hour earlier
in the .summer time. But when we have the force of law behind us we shall have to be industrious whether we will or no, and when five o'clock in the morning comes, though we know it is only five o'clock, the Bill says it is six o'clock and we shall have to get up. So far, so good; I have no objection.
There is one point, however, that does no:t seem to have been considered. In Europe the area of the different countries is very limited. In England, for instance, a few hours' ride brings, you to the end of the Kingdom. In France, you can leave Baris at iany time of the day land reach the frontier before the following morning. But it is different on this continent. It takes over four clays to get from Halifax to Vancouver, and the same length of time to get from New York to the Pacific Ocean. Now the railways have a .standard time of their own, which varies .according to latitude. Has my hon. friend considered how railway time will he affected by this Bill? If this Bill is .passed and comes into operation next year, when it is ten o'clock by solar time it will be eleven o'clock under this Bill. In the city of Ottawa to-day, I think we are using railway time and not solar time.


George Eulas Foster: Standard time.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is railway time. My hon. friend would perhaps explain whether there would he any conflict with railway time. For my part I see no objection to the Bill; it ought to work well. But I think it would be better for the health of every one of us, and (to out .advantage in the other respects to which my bon. friend has referred, if of our own free will we rose an hour earlier in the summer time.


George Eulas Foster: As to the area of the different countries, the United States is within a few square miles as large as Canada, and no difficulty has been encountered there. A very thorough inquiry was first of all made, at which the railway companies were represented. That is a fact which in itself .serves for any amount of other evidence that I oonld give. Then with reference to the railways, I will read the opinion of Sir George Bury, vice-president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which I think would be taken as good testimony so far as the railway part of it is concerned.
There may he various views on the advisability of daylight saving, but there is one point on which there is no diversity of opinion, and that is that if daylight saving is to be successful it must be a measure passed by the Government at Ottawa, which would require that all

clocks in the Dominion be set ahead one hour ..at a stated time in the early spring, and set back an hour at a stated time in the fall.
The daylight saving scheme has been tried in many localities, and the main reason for its failure was entirely due to it not having been universally adopted all over Canada.
As I see it, if the people of Canada as a whole wish daylight saving, it tehould be adopted ; and so far as the railways are concerned, I believe they would gladly support it. If it were made universal in Canada, it could not, in any way, embarrass train operation.


Mr. CARVELL:: I can quite understand that so far as the railways are concerned it plays no part whatever, because for some years past we have been com-
5 p.m. pelled to adopt railway time in Canada. We know railway time is not solar time, but simply a conventional time. The earth is divided into sections, starting at Greenwich, every fifteen degrees east or west represents an hour in time. When they get back fifteen degrees, they drop an hour. Thirty degrees means two hours. Forty-five degrees means three hours, and sixty degrees four hours. That brings you to what we call Atlantic Standard time. I think the first degree would be somewhere around Cape Breton island, therefore, under present conditions, the people of Cape Breton island are practically solar time. Wherever you come to the centre of one of those sections, you have practically solar time. As you go east from the centre their time is slower than solar time, and as you go west it is faster than solar time. To my mind that is the whole difficulty in Canada. Although it does not make any difference to the railways, it makes a great deal of difference to the people. I happen to live on the very western edge of the Atlantic Standard time, and our time is half an hour faster than solar time. When you cross the boundary line into the state of Maine you are under the eastern standard time, which, I think has its centre very near Montreal, and which brings Montreal practically under solar time. As you go east they are slower until you get to the eastern border of the state of Maine or the western border of New Brunswick, where they are half an hour slower than eastern standard time. Going west, when you reach North Bay or Sudbury you come to the western edge of the eastern standard time, and there they are half an hour faster. I understand the railway company takes Fort' William as the dividing point between the two times, but that is only conventional, because they are taking much more than the fifteen degrees into the eastern standard time, and I think you will find the next section has much less 
than fifteen degrees. I just mention this to impress upon the minister the fact that in a country extending as far east and west as Canada does you have great inequalities now. It would perhaps be feasible to advance the clock an hour if you are at the centre of one of these sections, but, when you get west of the centre, where the time is faster than it ought to be, arid you advance it another hour, you are getting people out of bed in the night in order that they may be up at six or seven o'clock in the morning. They tried this daylight saving in St. John last year, and it was a great failure. The difficulty was that their time is about twenty-five minutes fast.


George Eulas Foster: Twenty-four minutes.	[DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I made a pretty good estimate of it. St. John standard time i.s 24 or 25 minutes faster than St. John solar time. Then they added an hour on to that, and there was great confusion, because the Canadian Pacific Railway carries its eastern standard time down to St. John, which is nearly 100 miles east of the eastern limit of the eastern standard section. The result is they had three times in St. John, the Canadian Pacific Railway time, Atlantic Standard time (which is legal time in New Brunswick) and this daylight saving time. I know that country pretty well, yet I had a great deal of difficulty in getting out of St. John one Sunday.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: They do not travel on Sunday down there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, they do occasionally. I could hardly tell what time the train left, so I simply went to the station and waited for it. If you compel the railway companies to adopt this daylight saving time, you will probably bring about a great deal of confusion. In this world there are a great many faddists as regards everything. Perhaps they are useful in some ways, but it has always appeared to me that this was one of the greatest fads ever put before the public. If you are going to adopt this Daylight Saving Bill, it. can only be in effect during the summer months, when we have a great deal more sunlight than we know what to do with. If you were at the Tropic of Cancer, within a few degrees of the Equator, I can see it might make some difference, because the farther north you go the greater the variations in the length of the days and of the nights, until you get to the Arctic Circle, and from there to the North Pole, theoretic-

ally you have a point where there are six months days and six months nights. In Canada on the 21st of June we have daylight from four o'clock in the morning until half-past eight in the evening, and as you go backward, or go forward, from the 20th of March until the 21st of September, when you have the equinoxes, you have more or less daylight. People in this country usually start to work at seven o'clock in the morning, and under this scheme you practically put them to work at six o'clock, solar time. But you have daylight for two hours before that. There is no saving of oil, light, coal, or .power. On the other hand, they cease work at six o'clock and there are two hours of daylight after that.


Mr. NESBITT:: Three.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There would be under this scheme if they ceased work at five o'clock solar time. That would give three and a half hours after the day's work was done. There is, I repeat, no saving of power, light, coal or oil in manufacturing establishments. It would not mean anything in the stores, because in the summer time the stores all over the country close in the evening. In our province we have a compulsory law on the subject. If two or three storekeepers petition the Government, they issue an order compelling all storekeepers to close at six o'clock. Therefore, there is no saving as far as the stores are concerned. It simply comes down to the question of a little bit of saving in the homes of the people. We all know that people will not go to bed in the summer time until it gets dark. You can make all the laws that all the faddists in the United States or Canada ask you to make, but they will not have any effect. The Anglo-Saxon says: It is my business when I go to bed, and I am not going to bed until after dark. The country will bum just as much oil and coal as it did formerly. While in many cases this system may be an advantage, while east of the centre line of these different sections or standards it would be an advantage, it would be such a great disadvantage to those people living west of the centre line that I am afraid the disadvantage would far outweigh the advantage. I believe that wherever it has been ' tried in Canada it has not been a success. However, if the minister is anxious to have it go through I am not going to vote against it, but it is only pursuing one of those pleasant discussions which are matters of entertainment but have no practical value.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: This notice has been on the Order Paper so long that I was in hopes that it would stay there until the session closed. I agree entirely with the remarks of the last speaker. If you have more daylight than you know what to do with in the East, we certainly have in the West. You say that you have daylight at four o'clock in the East and that it is dark at eight. In the West you have daylight at half-past two and you can see to read at ten o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You are that much farther north.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Yes, and west.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Being west has nothing to do with it; it is a matter of'north and south.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The report read by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce applies to England and possibly the continent of Europe. The conditions are not parallel as between Great Britain and Canada. You may say that the United States would perhaps present a parallel case. Did I understand the minister to say that a daylight saving law had been adopted there?


George Eulas Foster: It has passed the Senate.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We tried this out locally in Winnipeg and Brandon last year. Brandon stood it for one month, but as it was more difficult to abolish it at Winnipeg it lasted during the summer. When the council was called upon this spring to express itself with regard to daylight saving, it unanimously decided to go back to the old, tried and reliable time which has stood us in good stead for a great many centuries and is good enough for us now. People will not go to bed, even although the clock shows 11 o'clock. They will say: It is not eleven o'clock, it is only ten o'clock and are going to stay up another hour. In my opinion the farmers of western Canada are almost a unit against the adoption of this Bill and in favour of the system that we have at present. Coming from the West, where we have a tremendous amount of daylight, it occurs to me-and I say this without the slightest desire to be offensive -that, with a temperature of 81 degrees of this House and the session nearing the first of August, we might be occupying our time better with some other measures than talking about saving'daylight.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) says that he has requests from various boards of trades and cities throughout the country in favour of this Daylight Saving Bill. I did not catch what he said about agriculture, 'but I do not know of any agriculturists who want the time set forward an hour. What good would it be to them? They get up at daylight and they work until dark. They put in fourteen or fifteen hours a day. What is going to be saved by fixing the time earlier? They would have to get up and milk the cows, as my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) says, at three o'clock in the morning. The cows will object if they are disturbed an hour earlier. Then, what about the roosters-are they going to start to crow an hour earlier?


George Eulas Foster: In reference to
the roosters, they get in enough work now.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what I say too. They waken us up, heaven knows, early enough now without starting them an hour, earlier. I cannot understand, in so far as the agricultural community is concerned, where there will be any benefit. They have to get up at five; milking starts at half past five, and they work until seven in the evening. There would not be any benefit at all in getting them up at four instead of five. Then, in the evening they will not go to bed, as my hon. friend from Carle-ton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) has said, until after dark. They do not go to bed in daylight even on the farm. Therefore I do not see any benefit that can accrue on the farm. As to the manufacturer, he starts at seven o'clock and closes at six. It is daylight long before he starts, and he is not required to use artificial light except on a dark day, unless his shop is badly lighted.
I do not suppose that moving the clo.ck forward an hour will affect the darkness of a shop of that kind. If he works in a dark shop he will have to put on artificial lights but if he has a light shop he will not need any light. The hours of work will be the same. As far .as fuel is concerned, if he works eight or ten hours, he will use just the same amount of fuel whether he works in daylight or darkness. Therefore I do not see any possibility of saving in fuel. I can easily understand boards of trade asking for this because they largely consist of lawyers, doctors and merchants who like to close up early and go for a game of golf. But that will not help the country one bit. There is lots of time after

closing at six o'clock for golf, tennis or bowling. I do not -see any benefit in this thing, and I do not know where my hon. friend gets his petitions from. I cannot imagine what business or class it will benefit, except the gentlemen whom I have mentioned. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), I have no doubt, would like a law passed so that he would not have to get up at all, but I do not believe it will help the rest of us any.


Mr. BEST:: If the farmers are forced to get up an hour earlier, I do not think the cows would give nearly so much. The farmers are wakened up when they should be sleeping. I think changing the time twice a year would be a great inconvenience. Hon. members fail to realize what it means for the farmers to get up at half past four or five. The farmers cannot get to work, from haying till harvest is over, till almost eight o'clock. They cannot work while the dew is on the ground. If the time is put back, it is going to injure the farmers. The men working on the farms will see that the men in villages stop work at five o'clock in the afternoon, and they will want to do the same. Some of the people in the county I represent want the time changed, but only a small percentage. I am sure that not one farmer in my county desires to see the change, and I think it would be a great mistake.


Mr. TURRIFF:: There is one argument
which has not, so far, been advanced in this discussion. I heard a good deal of complaint in the West about the daylight saving scheme. It came chiefly from two classes of people, the farmers throughout the country and the women in the cities. In the case of the farmer, the chief objection was that farmers living ten, twelve or fifteen miles from a town, after they got through their day's work, would run into town in their automobiles, but would find that the stores -were closed an hour earlier than previously. The daylight saving did not affect the farmers themselves, because they got up just as early as before the time was changed, but it would shut them off from the opportunity of doing business in the stores in the villages and small towns.
I heard a great many complaints in Winnipeg from the women. Their complaint was that the children got up an hour earlier, and they simply could not get them to bed any earlier at night, because, as everybody knows, in Winnipeg, for several months in the summer, it is daylight until

ten o'clock at night. There was very, very great complaint about the change. There may 'be some advantages in it that we have not heard of, but take it all round, I do not think there is any great demand in Canada for daylight saving.


Mr. GLASS:: I do not think public opinion generally is behind this movement, and I will waste only a few moments in discussing it. Last year, in the city of London they tried an experiment in this matter, the movement 'being agitated, I think, by the Board of Trade, or by petition from a number of merchants. The plan was found to work very unsatisfactorily. It dislocated business and disorganized things generally, and it was only allowed to remain in operation for about a month, when opposition to it developed so strongly that the city council saw it was a mistake and cancelled the by-law. I find a great deal of opposition to it amongst the farming community in my district. Farmers generally [were inconvenienced, and when, this year, they saw that a movement was inaugurated to promote this scheme I received from different farmers communications expressing decided objection to the proposed Bill. I think business men and farmers generally will be more satisfied if the time remains as it is.


Charles Marcil: As far as I can see, it
would, be felt more especially in the large cities, particularly in Montreal, where the tramway service is not what it should be. It would be different if we had an underground road to carry the vast hordes of people, who go to work early in the morning and have to cover eight, ten, twelve or fourteen miles before they reach their work. A large number of working people have to leave their homes an hour, or an hour and a half, before the time they are supposed to commence wor|k. It would mean that these people would have to get up very early. We have had a great deal of inconvenience in Bonaventnre. We have the Eastern Standard time, Altantic Standard, and 'the local mean time, so that it brought about a confusion which has not ended yet. As to -a measure of this kind, it will not affect the districts which are remote from the towns, because tbe farmer residing a long distance from tbe city does not need to go to the market with his truck in the morning, and does not care at what hours the stores open or close. As the season is very short, he will get up as early as he can,_ and do all the work he can possibly do, because he
234i
only has three or four months in the year in which he can do any work at all. As far as those who are in (the cities are concernr ed, I tihink the proposition, could not be enforced successfully-for instance, in a place like Montreal-until the method and customs of the people are changed. In Montreal, especially in the summer evenings, .there 'are attractions galore for the young people, moving picture shows and parks of various kinds, and it is very difficult to get them to go to bed early. If these people keep up their present hour's, and are compelled to go to work an hour earlier in the -morning, I think -there will! he such an outcry that the Bill will not work at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: The right hon. gentleman- (Sir George Foster) read some reports wiith regard to the experience in the working of this law in England, and, amongst other things, said that the -application of -this law had resulted in- a great saving in expense for fuel and light. I cannot understand that. Cam the hon. gentleman explain, it? What difference would it make in the cost of -fuel to -anybody. There is no saving of fuel as far as I oan -see, or [DOT] of -light either, because in either case, the working hours in summer are all in daylight. It may be different in England, but -as far as thi-s country is concerned, I cannot see the force of his observation.


George Eulas Foster: The conditions
are different in England from the conditions here, because their evenings are not -so long. The facts as brought out by the examination are stated, and I have no doubt of those facts. Here, where we have such 1-ong hours- of daylight, similar -saving will not take place in the items of electric light land gas, although I think there would be fairly good economy, even in respectt of those two items, particularly as regards home consumption.
I have no disposition to force the Bill upon the House, if the House does not care to endorse it. I felt it my duty, in answer to very widespread requests-and a-s this legislation would be in consonance with that enacted in other great countries of the world-to introduce the Bill. I h-ave presented it, and I have frankly made a statement of the case before the House. I propose now to leave it in committee, and we cam- use onr judgment with reference to the future progress of the measure.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before the hon. gentleman takes any further action, I would point out one difference -between 'Canada and the United States, as far as daylight saving i-s

-concerned. In Canada; as pointed out by horn. gentlemen from the West, we have more daylight than we know what to do with in'the summer time, but my horn. , friend is sufficient of an astronomer to know that the further north yon go the longer the days in -summer time and the -shorter in winter. If my hon. friend would go down to the southern portion of the United States, say Texas, I do not imagine it, would be daylight before five o'clock in the morning, and it would be dark at seven in the evening on the 21et of June. Conditions are different here from what they are in the United States, because we are farther north. The southern part of New Brunswick is in latitude 45 or 46. In our part of the country in June it gets dark at about half past eight. In Winnipeg and in the country north of that city, where the latitude is about 50 degress, it does not get dark until ten o'clock. I can understand that in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania -and the southern part of New York state, the people might well take advantage of an extra hour in the morning, because they have not as m-uoh daylight to s-pare as we have. In Canada, nothing is gained by changing the time. You only disarrange the affairs of the people, and you do not make the saving that would he made by the adoption of such a measure in the central portion of the United States.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I think that the people of the part of the country from which I come would be in favour of this Bill. For some years we have had what is called "fast time" in Regina-it is by the working out of these things that we determine whether or not they are beneficial. In spite of the fact that in Regina the change of time involves all the inconveniences of having time which is different from the railway time and from the time in the neighbouring towns, year after year they have resorted to fast time during the summer. That is our practical experience.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the Regina time faster or slower than the standard time?


William Erskine Knowles: The Regina time would be -pTetty nearly the same as the solar time. Regina is less than one hundred miles from the point where the Canadian Pacifio train-men change the time of their watches. I cannot answer -my -hon. friend's question in any more detail. There is, however, that specific illustration in the case of Regina. Then there is this point:	at

all those places where the people have the option of taking whichever -time they, want, the people invariably go by the fast ti-sie. It is evident, therefore, that in its practical working out there is some convenience in the adoption of the faster time. It is a fact that we waste a great deal of daylight in- the morning -and that the average citizen is out o-f bed a great deal of the time after sunset. If you can do anything to equalize things by devoting the hours of darknes-s more exclusively to sleep, you are that much ahead in the enjoyment of life, and in the saving of light, and any other way you want to 'look at it. Personally I am very much in, favour of this Bill.
Mr. M-cCRANEY:	A few years ago in
the city of Saskatoon we had a by-law providing for the changing of time. On account of the railways having standard time, there was -a great deal of confusion, and that gave rise to some objection to the daylight saving plan. During the summer, before th-e term of the by-law had run out, the bylaw was cancelled, for the reason given by the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff): the difficulty parents had in getting their children off the streets and getting them to bed. I -do not think that they would ask for it again.


Mr. THOBURN:: There seems to be a consensus of opinion against this Bill. But, as with most Bills, there are two sides to the question involved. Most of the argument that I have heard this afternoon has been in favour of the agricultural committees; I want to say a word on behalf of the employees of the manufacturers. I think that if a vote were taken among the men employed in the manufacturing concerns of Canada, they would express themselves as largely in favour of this Bill. From my own practical experience, I am satisfied that the change would be a great benefit. Hon. gentleman may be surprised when I tell them that under present conditions the factories sometimes change their working hours in order to suit the hours of light and in order to prevent lighting up both morning and evening. In the spring they change the time one way, say half an hour; and in the fall they change it the other way. But another reason why the majority of men and women employed in the manufacturing industries are in favour of this legislation is that they all look forward to the evening as a time of pleasure. As it is now, by the time these people get home from their work, get cleaned up and do what they have to do about the house, they have not much time for pleasure. A man who has a garden, for

instance, always looks forward to the evening -as the time when he will do necessary work in the garden. I am satisfied that most of these men would rather go to work earlier in the morning and have that extra hour in the evening.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not hoe the garden in the morning?


William Thoburn: It is all very well to say that, but most of these men find it all they can do to get up in the morning, get their breakfast and get to work in time. If daylight saving were adopted, they would have the advantage of that extra hour in the morning, and they would get to work just as conveniently as they do now. I believe that they would prefer going to work an hour earlier in the morning for the sake of getting the extra hour in the evening.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George Foster for Committee of Supply:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand that the Military Service Bill comes up to-morrow. Of course, it will take the whole day, and possibly the taext day. I may say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who is leading the House -the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) is not here-that I should like to have the Railway Bill brought up just as early in the week as possible. I should like to be here when that Bill is brought up.


George Eulas Foster: It is quite possible that the Railway Bill will be taken up to-night. I shall speak to the Minister of Railways about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I should be glad if it were.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply.
Mr. Dugald Stewart in the Chair.
Trade and Commerce-Salaries, rent, wages and contingencies under the Canada Grain Act, $850,000.
['I understand that some hon. gentlemen who are not now present have some amendments to offer, and I would therefore suggest that the Bill be not given its third reading until the next sitting of the House.\nOn motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.\nTuesday, July 24, 1917.']
George Eulas Foster: This is an
increase of $125,000 over last year. This vote covers all the expenditures for salaries of officers, permanent and temporary; the contingencies of the various offices in both eastern and western divisions; the salaries and contingencies of the Board of Grain Commissioners; and the working expenses of the different Government elevators,
interior and terminal, from Vancouver eastward. The crop of 1913 ^as very much larger than was anticipated; in fact, it wras the largest crop in the history of the country, so that a supplementary vote had to be taken last year to meet the expenses of the year. As between the two years, therefore, the great crop of 1915, which commenced coming out late in the autumn and continued coming out during the year 1916, caused the extra work and consequently the extra expenditure. Generally, after the usual rush of grain at the close of navigation, there is a lull, and so much work does not have to be carried on, but the crop of 1915 came out with very little lull; it was coming out during the whole season, and as soon as the season of navigation opened again in the spring of 1916, the rush was very great.


Wilfrid Laurier: After the close of navigation it came out by railway?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: To Montreal?


George Eulas Foster: It came up to the western terminals, and a good deal of it came down to Montreal. Some figures might be enlightening. At Winnipeg and other western points, for the crop year ending 31st August, 1916, 354,039 cars containing over 474,000,000 bushels of grain were inspected. The preceding year the figures were 122,831 cars containing 153,000,000 bushels. That is, in 1915, there were about three times as many cars and about three times as many bushels of grain as in the preceding year-cars from year to year taking a greater number of bushels of grain. In the crop year of 1916, for ten months to June 30, 1917, there -were inspected 212,000 cars containing 279,000,000 bushels of grain, or an excess over the crop year of 1914 of about 89,000 cars and more than 126,000,000 bushels of grain. That accounts for the increased work of the staff.


John Gillanders Turriff: Does the minister purpose, during this -session, bringing in a Bill to amend the Canada Grain Act?


George Eulas Foster: I have already been questioned three or four times by my hon. friend and have made answer that I thought it would bp necessary. Some of the things that I had at that time in mind I regard now, after investigation, as not of sufficient importance to make it necessary to bring them in, but there are one or two points which I think will have to be dealt' with by legislation, and at the present time

I expect to bring in a very short Bill in amendment of the Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
John Gillanders Turriff: I understand ihat $2.40
is the maximum price. If an arrangement is made to take over the whole crop at a certain price for No. 1 Northern at Fort William, the price of flour should also be

fixed; the millers should not be allowed to charge what they like. It takes about 50,000,000 bushels of wheat to furnish the people of Canada with a year's supply of flour. It is well known what it costs to grind a barrel of flour, and what the	handling and	shipping charges
are, and I repeat that the miller should be allowed to charge not more than a certain price. Otherwise the consumer will have to pay for flour at a much higher rate than the farmer is paid for his wheat, and we shall have a repetition of what happened last year when the middlemen got away with millions of dollars that should have been saved to the consumers. Personally, I think it would be a good thing all round if such an arrangement was made. There is only one customer anyway; Britain is buying for herself and her Allies. I was up in the West recently, and the farmers with whom I discussed this question were all willing to accept a reasonable price. I never heard one suggest so high a figure as that mentioned by my hon. friend.


Mr. WRIGHT:: What does my hon.
friend consider a fair and reasonable price?


John Gillanders Turriff: I represent only farmers; I do not represent consumers in the ordinary sense of the word. In my judgment a reasonable price would be $2 for No. 1 Northern at Fort William, which would give $1.80 to $1.87 a bushel to the ordinary farmer in the Middle West. I think that price would be satisfactory to the farmer, providing he knew the consumers of Ontario and the lower provinces were getting their flour on that basis, instead of having to pay on the basis of $2.50 a bushel. I do not want to be understood as giving this price on behalf of the farmers; I was not deputed by any farmer to state a price, but I think the figure I mentioned would be fair as between the farmers I represent and the consumers that other hon. gentlemen represent.


Samuel Francis Glass: Is the hon. gentleman desirous of fixing a price for next year's crop or for - this year's crop only?


John Gillanders Turriff: I was speaking of this year's crop.	.


Samuel Francis Glass: My hon. friend would not go beyond this year's crop?


John Gillanders Turriff: No, I had not that in mind.


William Wright: Now that the bars are all down and wheat can flow freely into the

United States from western Canada, how can the price be regulated at Fort William? If the Americans happen to offer a little more than $2 a bushel, the farmer would certainly not send his wheat to Fort William to be sold at $2.


John Gillanders Turriff: I understand-and the Minister of Trade and Commerce can correct me if I am wrong-that the Governments of Great Britain, the United States and Canada are negotiating an arrangement for the handling of the crop of both the United States and Ganada. If the Canadian Government or the Wheat Commission made arrangements for buying the whole crop, a fair and reasonable price would be fixed, and everybody would have to live up to the agreement. I think you would find that the great majority of farmers would be satisfied with an arrangement of that kind, though no doubt there will always be some who would not be satisfied with $2 if there was a chance of selling somewhere else for $2.50. I have never heard a farmer express himself as not being satisfied with an arrangement of that kind.


George Eulas Foster: I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) to ask this question with reference to the 1916-17 crops?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was referring to the growing crop that will be on the market in two or three months. I quite understand that the 1916 crop is in the hands of the people who bought it, and it might be said we were confiscating their property if we made arrangements regarding the 1916 crop.


George Eulas Foster: The discussion covered both crops, I think. I wanted to make sure what my hon. friend's question was. The matter divides itself along certain broad and general lines. First of all there is one buyer, that buyer being the Allies, represented by whatever commission or committee they may set up. There will be a common buyer for the allied demands, and consequently they will not be competing against each other
The seller is divided into two. There is the seller in the United States, and the seller in Canada, and an arrangement will no doubt be made as to the price that shall be paid, having regard to both the buyer, who must have the grain, and the seller who furnishes the supply. The reason blatters have drifted along so far as they have without fixation of price or without such controlling and supervising regulations and methods as will be adopted, is that there is no -United States authority yet established with power to act. In Canada we
have the advantage of a War Measures Act by which Parliament gives the Government powers which are very broad and which cover a matter of this kind absolutely. Such a law does not exist in the United States, consequently the two Houses must legislate for these powers; and for the last six weeks or more they have been coming to conclusions as to just what legislation they should pass, what powers they will give, and what regulations and restrictions they will authorize to be made. Until the United States commission, or whatever it may be called, has its powers defined and is in a position to act, there must necessarily be delay and imperfect co-operation between Canada and the United States on this question. We all agree that, constituted as we are, it is advisable that the two countries should act together in reference to the prices of wheat. Our wheat goes into the United States without let or hindrance, and the market price is there accessible to the seller in Canada. It is expected that this week, or next week at the latest, the legislation will have been perfected, and then the United States authority will be constituted and its powers defined. In Canada, we have placed the matter in the hands of a Board of Supervisors, the constitution of which has been declared. The Order in Council has been laid before Parliament, and the powers of the Board are therein defined. That commission has visited Washington, and has had full communication and conference with the authorities there; and, so far as the crop of 1917-18 is concerned, it is the desire of our commission and of the United States authorities to act together. Just as soon as the legislation is through at Washington, just so soon oan the two bodies take accordant action. I do not think any prices will be set for the crop of 1917-18 until the preliminaries I have mentioned have been discussed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister
pardon me for a moment? I have just picked up the afternoon paper, and I find that the gamblers are betting that wheat at Winnipeg will be worth $2.31! in October. They are betting that July wheat will be worth $2.58; I believe that is in the Chicago market-they are betting that September wheat will be worth $2.31. I quite realize the almost insurmountable difficulty in applying the law in Canada and not in the United States, but just as long as the matter is allowed to drift, just so long will the gamblers

continue their betting, and when a man bets a Jew million dollars that wheat will be worth so much, he will move heaven and earth to see that nothing beats him on his bet. He will go to the Government, or will go 'anywhere, and say: I have so much tied up in options on September-or October-or December-wheat, and if you regulate the price at lower than $2.31 I am ruined. I would like to see something done that, if these men go on gambling on the price of wheat and are ruined, they shall have no one but themselves to blame. I think notice should be given to these people by the Government that if they will gamble they do so at their oiwn risk. The time has come when there should be very drastic action taken in Canada, not only in regard to the price of wheat but in regard to the prices of many other commodities. It is absolutely unreasonable that the consuming public should
5 p.m. be compelled to pay the prices they have been paying in many instances. Even if the United States will not pass the legislation, we have the power to prohibit the exportation of wheat from Canada, and we have the power to fix the price. Therefore, so far as Canada is concerned, we can at least protect our own people. Of course, the prohibition of the exportation of wheat is a last resort, and I hope it will not be necessary for us to go that far. At the same time, I feel we should point out to those gamblers that the food of the people must not be put up to unreasonable prices in order that they may satisfy their greed for money which they have not earned.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, we cannot prevent people from betting on what the price of wheat will be in September or October. As I was saying, the matter divides itself into two sections. There is the 1916-17 crop which remains on hand, which I do not think is subject to the limitations that the crop of 1917-18 would be subject to on the ground of accordance between the two countries under the regulations or control which they shall have.t There is not ,a ftarge quantity of the 1916-17 wheat in store in Canada, although there is a considerable quantity of it; a very large proportion of that, I believe-a larger portion than I had thought- is owned actually by farmers, and is held for a price. The advantage of whatever price it is sold at, if it be an advantage, will accrue to the farmers who

are holding the wheat in different storage elevators.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There cannot be very much sympathy with a farmer who refuses to sell his wheat for $3 a bushel.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the
farmer might not have exactly the same view of it. It is important at the present time that the surplus of wheat in Canada should find its market tand transfer from Canada at the very earliest possible moment. This is rendered necessary for two reasons-in the first place because arrangements have been made for the carriage of wheat up to the quantity of our surplus, and we do not want to retard these transportation arrangements in any way.
It is not impossible-I do not say that it will be done-that the board of Grain Supervisors will fix the price for the 1916-17 crop, which is now in store, independently entirely of what action may be taken in the United States in reference to their 1916-17 crop. The food controller, who has been appointed, takes up the problem where the Board of Grain Supervisors leaves it. They have to do with wheat and grain only. The moment they act upon wheat and grain, the food controller knows whiat the price * of the basic article is and then can conduct his work on a fixed and certain basis, provided the arrangement for price fixation is for the total crop. There will then be no debate and matters will be simple in so far as the basic price of the prime article of food is concerned. I do not think I can say anything more in reference to this matter. The delay is regrettable. The Winnipeg Grain Exchange is not allowing any dealings in futures, and consequently speculation is shut off from the exchange.


Mr. OLIVER:: What is the meaning of
the announcement of the figure of $2.40 spoken of by my hon. friend from Carleton?


George Eulas Foster: I have heard
nothing oflmially at all about the fixing of the price of the present crop in store. I just saw it in the paper but I have no official knowledge of it. I do not know whether it is true or not true.


Frank Oliver: The newspapers contained the very definite announcement that the Board of Grain Supervisors had established a figure of $2.40 a bushel for No. 1 Northern at Fort William. I rather understood from my reading of the item that this was the maximum price beyond which the grain of the coming year's crop should not be sold after August 1. Was it merely the

maximum price or was it a price at which it was expected grain would he taken off the farmers' hands?
Mr. CAB,VELL: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Does he think there will be any practical difference between fixing a maximum price and setting the price at $2.40? Would it not be $2.40 any way?


Frank Oliver: I am not sure of it; I am not a grain sipeoulator.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose you were a grain holder and the maximum price was $2.40, would you hold?


Frank Oliver: I am not a grain holder,
I am a consumer but that was my understanding of the item as I read it. It was not held -up to the farmer that he was going to get $2.40 a bushel but it was held up that he was not going to get any more than that.


Mt. MORRISON:: That was the idea I
took from it.


Frank Oliver: The minister -might answer that question.


George Eulas Foster: I could not answer that until I had official information. It may be that the reported action is an act of the board and it may be that it is not. It may be a rumour. It may refer only to the c-ro-p of 1916-17. It might refer to- the crop of 1917-18 but until I receive the official information I am not able to give it to the House.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Morrison) was about to say something.


Alexander Morrison: I understood from
reading the report in the paper that it referred to the wheat of last year's crop and that -it was a maximum -price of $2.40.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will remember that the item referred to marketing after August 1. My understanding was that it referred to the wheat crop of the present yeaT.


Alexander Morrison: If I recollect -aright it only had reference to the wheat on hand, the wheat in store, of the present year's crop.
-Mr. OLIVER:	I think that when this
item is being passed such an important action as is reported to have been taken by the grain supervisors -so early as to permit -an -anno-unoem-ent to he made in- the papers on Saturday should have been in- the -minister's hands for the information of the ' House. This -action -is going bo s-et the
policy of the Government in regard to- thi-s matter and it is of the highest importance to the whole of the western- country. I think the minister -should have been able to have stated exactly wha-t the purport of that action was and what the result was going bo be.


George Eulas Foster: I am very sorry that my hon. friend, tenacious as he is, and rightly -so, cannot draw from -me information th-at I have not got. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to give it to my hon. friend if I had it. I am quite certain I will receive intimation in reference to the action of the board just -as soon -as -it officially acts. Whether this is an official act or not, or a foreshadowing, or a rumour, I cannot tell, hut as soon as I have the information I will give it to- the House and the House has -a right to have it.


Frank Oliver: My ho-n. friend from Carle-ton said that if -a maximum of $2.40 is fixed there will he no minimum, that that will be th-e price -and that there will be nothing -below (that. Is that the correct vi-ew?


George Eulas Foster: I am no-t going to give my horn, friend, a vie-w as (to what will take place -in the practical operations of the market if you (set simply a maximum price -and nothing else. I do not know whether every man Who 'holds grain would hold it with th-e -idea that, that -being the *maximum price, conditions would be such that that he would probably get that price if he held on ito it rather than sell it at less. From that point of view it would s-eem that -sim-ply to- fix a maximum- price wo-uld be to fix the -actual selling price. But there are differences of opinion in regard to fixing a maximum and minimum price. From almost as many grain men as you may talk with you will get just as m-any different opinions -as to what will he the effect of fixing -a maximum price -alone or fixing a maximum -and minimum price.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry we are not
able to get more definite information from th-e Government in regard to this matter that is now entering upon -an entirely new -and -most critical stage. The House should be more thoroughly informed in regard to what may or may not have been the -action of this Board of Grain Supervisors and as to how -far their -action, is going to -affect the profits of the farm particularly in the western country. Surely thi-s is the place to give the public information in regard to it. If we have suffered in the past it is because we -have not known what was going ito occur. In the nature of things, we could

not know what was going to occur, but now, if, under the authority of Parliament, we are going to make things happen as we wish, surely Parliament and the country should know it.


George Eulas Foster: I do not want my hon. friend to have 'in the back of his head the least glimmering of an idea that I have this information and am not giving it to the House, because that would not be a correct idea in any respect. I do not know that he even thinks that. My arrangement made with the chairman of the hoard was that he should regularly and promptly report the principal actions that took place. As I have not had a report from him, I am rather inclined to think that no official action has been yet taken, and that what appeared in the newspapers was probably something of a guess.


Alexander Morrison: 
William Wright: Is it in the power of the supervisor to fix a price for the other grades of grain? This quotation seems to be for No. 1 Northern. As a rule the price for 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and the other grades are regulated by the law of supply and demand. There being a fixed price for No. 1 Northern, would the intention be to allow all the other grades to be regulated by the demand made for them, or would the Grain Supervisors set the price for each different grade of grain? I am not at all clear upon the point, and I think it would be of valrw to us if we had some information in regard to it.


George Eulas Foster: The Board of Grain Supervisors has complete power to fix the price of grain, and that means not only No. 1 Northern or No. 2, but all grades. No one knows better than my hon. friend that you must have some basis upon which to make a contract, and my own impression is that all grades are valuable and necessary, to the last grade of the grain, and that the prices of the several grades, if fixed by the Board of Grain Supervisors, will be fixed in accordance with the relation of the

grades to one another in point of milling values.


Frank Oliver: 
George Eulas Foster: The Order in Council fixing the powers of the Board of Grain Supervisors has been placed on the table of the House, and is available for members of the committee.


Frank Oliver: Certain powers are defined in the order in council, but very frequently those of us who are not familiar with legal construction may be the better of an explanation as to just exactly what the order in council means, and we would like particularly to have a statement from the minister as to the line in which the Government propose to direct the efforts and activities of this grain commission and what the object to be achieved is.


George Eulas Foster: After all, it seems to me that when, in any important question of this kind, you constitute and empower a body to deal with it the less interference with that body by Government the better; otherwise we should be exposed to the criticism that, whilst appearing to have this thing done by a more or less independent body clothed with power, the Government was simply using this body as an instrument to do what the Government thought best to be done. That is onb side of the question, and my hon. friend will see it is an important side, and that therefore it is necessary to be careful in the selection of the men to whom you trust these great powers. The other side of the question is whether, in any case, the approval of the Government is necessary before the decis-

ions of the Board become effective. I do not carry in my mind just what the powers of the Board aTe as defined in the order in council, but I am quite sure the intention was, after having selected this body of men, to put the power in their hands to the utmost possible extent, so that they, having the matter in -hand an-d being versed in all the ins and outs of this very complex business, might not be interfered with by the Government, or -by politics or parties. At the same time, in reference to regulations of certain kinds, the Government has power of approval.


Frank Oliver: In regard to certain negotiations that were in progress, I think last fall, in reference to the crop that is now on the market, I understand my hon. friend was negotiating with certain representatives of western grain interests in regard to fixing a price at that time. My understanding was that there was a price offered and a price demanded, and that if the arrangement had been closed at that time those who to some extent represented the farming interests would have accepted a basic price of $1.70 for No. 1 Northern, as against $1.30 offered on behalf of the Government through the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What is the fact in regard to that matter?


George Eulas Foster: I think the facts can be very simply stated. The Canadian Government have been anxious, since the beginning of the war, that Canada should have all possible opportunity of -supplying the demands of Great Britain and the Allies for -such things as Canada produces. We have always been in touch with the British Government and its. different departments in regard to all kinds- of supplies that are required and that can be produced in Canada. We are kept up to the mark in that respect by the people in Canada who have these things to -sell and who are anxious to dispose of them. In carrying out that line of communication, which had never been interrupted from- the time the war began, the question was mooted as to the crop of 1916-17. The British Government were asked whether they had any proposals to -make with reference to the securing of that crop. Different communications took place. I was in London for a little while; I met the Export Wheat Buying Commission there, and talked the matter over with them. The result was that they made an offer for the whole crop surplus for 1916-17, the offer Tunning at about $1.20 or $1.22 a bushel at Fort William. Ultimatelj1' they raised the offer to about
$1.30 or $1.32. I simply did what I thought was my duty; I passed that offer on to persons who appeared to be representative farmers who could take hold of and decide upon any such offer-the Council of Agriculture of the West. I asked these gentlemen to come down and s-ee me. They came, and I told them frankly and -fully what had taken place. They discussed the question with me, went back, and then decided that the terms were not high enough. Consequently, the thing fell through.


Frank Oliver: Did they make an offer?


George Eulas Foster: If my memory serves me correctly, the price ranged between $1.50, minimum price, and $1.75, maximum price. There again the question of minimum and maximum came up. There is a good deal in favour of the contention that if a maximum price is mentioned and the necessity for the grain is pressing, the grain brings the maximum price.


Frank Oliver: I believe that one of the gentlemen who was concerned in these negotiations was Mr. Maharg, president of the Council of Agriculture?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Has the minister seen Mr. Maharg's statement in regard to these negotiations? If so, does he agree with that statement?


George Eulas Foster: I have seen the interview which was given by Mr. Maharg, but I do not carry it in my memory. In so far, however, as Mr. Maharg's statement is not on all fours with the statement that I have made here, it must come from some misapprehension-not wilful misapprehension-on his part. I think that the attempt was 'made to represent me as pressing the western farmers to take the $1.30 a bushel. Whatever my private opinion was, it was not part of my duty to -press upon them a price which they did not wish to take. I may say frankly that as things looked at that time, it might have been that I thought they should very carefully consider a price at or around those figures. Matters, of course, have greatly changed since -that time.


Frank Oliver: The farmers who wished to sell last fall did get about $1.75. It will be observed that there is a very wide margin between the $1.75 which the farmers asked last fall for a part of the crop now in the elevators, and the maximum figure of $2.40 that has been fixed by the Board of Grain Supervisors for the remainder of that same crop. I am bringing these facts out

for the purpose of showing that it was not the exorbitant demands of the farmers that made the price $2.40, if that is the price, because certain representative farmers- who, however, did not officially represent the farming community-did, as a matter of fact, believing that that they were acting on behalf of the farmers, offer the crop at $1.75.	,


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend must bear in mind that conditions change. If there had been no submarine menace, and if many things that happened had not happened, perhaps $1.30 or $1.40 would have been a princely price. As it is, it turned out the other way.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to be understood as finding fault with what has been done. But the idea has prevailed in some quarters that the western farmer is taking undue advantage of the situation and is responsible for the high cost of the greatest necessary of life. I merely wish to justify him to this extent: that he did offer to sell out last fall at $1.75, which as a matter of fact, was the maximum price that the large majority of the farmers got.


William Wright: I do not know what authority Mr. Maharg would have in the West to speak for the farmers of the West. Neither Mr. Maharg nor any other man or association has any right or power whatever to speak for the farmers of the West, Each farmer is master of his own gjrain and can sell it at any price that he can get for it at any time. If the farmer was holding the grain, he was holding it expecting to get a better price, without any regard to any bargain made by Mr. Maharg or anyone else. I do not think too much stress tshould be laid on the fact that some association in the West mentioned a certain figure that might be accepted by the farmers of the West for their product. Such offer was made without authority, and would not be binding upon the farmers. Probably if it had been accepted, no action would have followed.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I do not represent the grain growers or the grain speculators; I represent a very large body of the people who have to eat bread. We are passing a large amount of money into the jhands of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the purpose of dealing with matters affecting grain in the West. As far as I am concerned, that money is voted for some useful purpose.
I am somewhat disappointed at the quantity of information we have been able to obtain

from the minister this afternoon on the question of grain handling and grain prices in the West. Some years ago, long before the war and since this ministry came into office, I took the responsibility, and more or less risk, to mention to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce that his department ought to be in possession of some information in respect to the price of grain from the time it was cut in the field until it got to the elevator and possibly to the mill. On that occasion, the minister answered me with a great deal of witticism and facetiousness and the know-it-all policy that he usually brings forward in matters of this kind, so that any one who doubts him or who looks for information is simply wasting time and beating against a rock from which he gets no result. That seems to be the policy of the minister about these matters. For many months since the war began, we were told by the minister that it was out of the question for the Government to do anything towards regulating those matters, but we kept at them until at last they seemed to change their minds and to think that something could he done, because they started appointing a commissioner, and then they appointed a commissioner to examine the report of the commissioner, and another commissioner to exa-. [DOT]mine the Board of Commissioners. The thing seems to go on like an endless chain without any termination. It would be unkind, I suppose, to say that the Government is taking this method of putting the thing off and giving it over into the hands of the profiteers, the combines, and the trusts, at the expense of the poor people.
I am not saying that is the purpose, but that is the result. If the question were put up to the minister to say: what did those who are getting this $150,000 cash do during the last year to help the miner or the lumberman in Cape Breton by cheapening the cost of flour, I think the minister would have to say that they did nothing at all, and that the Government did not ask them to do anything. I have in my hand a report made by Mr. O'Connor, an official of the Government, on the high cost of living. What he says in paragraph 2 of his conclusion is along the line that I have just suggested, namely, that the Government could have done something much earlier than they did. In paragraph 2, Mr. O'Connor says:
Individual instances of profiteering occurred during the year 1916. These I have already identified. If they had occurred during the present year, since the provision of the Order in Council under which I am acting in the

making of these investigations, I would consider it my duty to recommend that the facts he laid before the proper Attorney General for his consideration as to their criminality.
That is what an officer of the Government says about profiteering in this country, and this profiteering was going on as much, I presume, in connection with wheat and other things, and the reason the criminals are .going to escape is by the *accident of the date of an order in council. If the minister had the public interest at heart, he would not agree that a mere date in an order in council would permit them to escape, when the Government have the power to change that date back and forth just as they like and to make it go back to the date of the War Measures Act. Would the minister take this to be a good answer from anybody else to say that the order in council bore a certain date and that therefore criminality and profiteering could escape? This report has the approval and sanction of the Government because by them it is printed and by them it is 'laid upon the table of the House and distributed amongst hon. members. I further want to bring to the notice of the Government along this line-* and it is quite in accordance with the officialdom in the West and elsewhere for which we are voting money-that although they profess to be getting money from those big concerns for the carrying on of the war, it is merely farcical to he taking it from them in the way it is done, because the big interests simply pile it on the commodities they are producing. If a proper accountant were to investigate the business done by the great profiteers from whom this money is taken, he would find that not only do they put back on the price every dollar that is taken from them by way of a W.ar Profits Tax, but interest on the money, and everything else they can think of is piled on, and that is finally taken out of the pockets of the poor man. That is what has happened in the case of every article that has been taxed. The Ogilvie mills, and some other mills which might be named-I am notnamingthe Ogilvie mills as being greater sinners than the rest-when they sent the prices on flour up to $16 and $17 a barrel, did so for the purpose of getting back the moneys this Government is taking from them as a War Profits Tax. I simply mention this particular case as an illustration so that the minister may understand what I am speaking about. The Department of Trade and Commerce should have a distinct knowledge of every step about this grain from
the time the seed is put into the ground until the grain is handed over to the miller for grinding, or until the flour is put into the bags or barrels for sale. If we had that knowledge, as we surely may and can have it, we would not be obliged to take the most unfair course of asking hon. members here who represent western farming constituencies what they would call a proper price for wheat. That is not a proper question to put to such a member. It is just as unfair a question as to ask me what would he a fair price for coal at the pit mouth, or on board the steamer, because I might be giving away some secrets in connection with the business of the people whom I represent here. So far as the production of coal is concerned, there is no difficulty for any man who follows the matter to know to a half cent what coal should he produced for. He knows the amount of the royalty; he knows the cost to cut it, to hoist it, to put it on the car and to deliver it on board the steamer. Therefore a proper accountant or statistician who follows the matter will know to a half cent whether a coal owner is charging too much or not. The same thing ought to be true about wheat, and if the country wants to know whether a fair price is being charged for wheat, it is not the proper thing for a member on the Government side of the House, in order to make a political point, to ask a member who represents a farming constituency what is a fair price to charge. The department ought to know what it costs to produce wheat and what the charge for flour ought to be to give the millers a fair profit upon their investment and expenditure. We are past that stage in this war when we can speak about prices being regulated by supply and demand.
Whatever may happen after the war, the prdsent conditions demand that the Government arrange for the people getting flour at a reasonable price, and preventing prices from reaching a level which Mr. O'Connor said in his report might be lawful but was certainly not respectaDle. That is the ground I take. The people I represent in this House are non-produoeTS of foodstuffs, hut they are just as useful in the community, and just as useful in the production of the necessities of war as are the people of any other section of Canada. They should not he made the victims of speculators in this way, and he forced to pay $16 or $17 a barrel for flour. In this great Canada of ours there are millions and millions of bushels of grain every year that

we cannot use. There must be some remedy, and we have nobody to look to for a Temedy but the Government and the department. I sincerely trust that some action will soon be taken, without waiting for a new report and then getting some one else to report on the reporter, keeping the question up interminably, with no relief for the people.


Samuel Francis Glass: My hon. friend seems to
have lost sight of the difficulty that would ensue in a country like this if prices were to be fixed. We live alongside a country with 3,000 miles of frontier, the border, geographically speaking, being an invisible line. Conditions change very rapidly, and I have no doubt that one of the reasons why the board of supervisors were appointed was because of the entry of the United States into this war, and of the two countries having much in common. I have not heard any hon. gentleman express the opinion that it is the duty of this Government to fix a price at which the farmer shall be compelled to sell his grain; I do not think it is the duty of the Government to do that. I think it was fortunate that no action was taken last fall, when it was proposed to fix a price for the farmers' wheat. As events have turned out, they have been to the farmers' advantage. I do not think the people of this country object to the farmer getting the best (possible price for his commodities, but what they do object to is the profit that goes to the middleman between the farmer and the consumer. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed out that the board of supervisors have the power to fix a maximum price for grain. I do not see what good could come of fixing a maximum price unless some organization .backed up by Government buys the grain from, the farmer at that maximum price. On the other hand, I certainly think it would be an advantage to the farmer to have a minimum price fixed, spread over a period of two or three years. But a maximum price is of no advantage unless arrangements are made for buying the grain from the farmer at that price. If such an arrangement were not made, the law of supply and demand would determine the price the farmer would receive. I think the greatest encouragement possible would be given our farmers if we adopted the policy of the British Government of fixing a minimum price spread over a period of two or three years. The farmer who responds to the appeal for greater production necessarily goes to a large expenditure in breaking up more land, (Mr. McKenzie.]
acquiring more machinery, and engaging extra help, and it would be a great encouragement to him to know that he would receive a minimum price, ensuring adequate profit, for his product.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend from Cape Breton has intervened with an extraneous subject, remotely connected with what we are discussing, and I shall have to leave him on Hansard in order to get my answer in to the previous questioner before .six o'clock. The order in council reads:
The Board shall make such Inquiries and investigations as from time to time it deems necessary to ascertain what supplies of grain are noV available or will be available. The Board shall ascertain the location and ownership of such grain and what transportation and elevator facilities are available in connection therewith, as well as all conditions connected with the marketing and market price of the same.
The board are given the powers of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act for the purpose of any inquiries they may make. Section 4 says:
The Board shall have power from time to time to fix the price at which grain stored in any elevator may he purchased and the conditions as to price, destination or otherwise under which grain may be removed from such elevator, and may also prescribe what grain shall be sold to millers or milling firms in Canada or elsewhere, and what grain shall be sent to the United Kingdom and the Allied powers.
It will be the duty of the Board to issue such orders and take such action as it deems necessary to facilitate at all times the transportation and delivery of grain in excess of domestic requirements to the United. Kingdom and the Allied powers.
(a)	Any price so fixed shall be subject to the approval of the Chairman of the Board.


Frank Oliver: Once the board is appointed they are vested with a certain power. Are they expected to exercise that power from the date of their investiture, or do they allow it to lie dormant until an occasion arises that calls for its exercise?


George Eulas Foster: They exercise it whenever they deem necessary.


Frank Oliver: There may be no exercise of that power?


George Eulas Foster: Quite so.


Frank Oliver: And they may exercise it on occasion?


George Eulas Foster: Tes, my hon. friend will see that they do not go farther than the storage places. The grain trade goes on as it may, between the time it leaves

the producer and the time it is stored in the elevator.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is it the intention of the 'Government to establish a relativity of prices, or do they intend to grapple with those cases where industrial disease, blight or something of that description, has made it necessary that some remedy be adopted? Or do they propose to take some scientific plan and establish as I say the relativity of prices and maintain them in order that there may not be this continual unrest and the pulling of one against the other to such an extent that it distorts the whole body of industry?


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon. friend expect me to answer that question offhand, and without hesitation? I think I shall have to ask the privilege of seeing the question in print before I can make an answer that would do justice to myself or to my hon. friend. My hon. friend quite understands it is a most serious undertaking to arrange prices throughout the length and breadth of a country like this, in such a way that everything will flow absolutely smoothly.


Frank Oliver: In view of the importance of the subject, I think it would be well if the minister would read the whole of the order in council.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER. I have given the gist of the order. In so far as the fixing of prices is concerned the board has the decision as to what is necessary and when it is necessary.


Frank Oliver: I am sure it would be very valuable information, and much benefit would be derived from the reading of the order in council. Questions might then arise which do not now suggest themselves. For instance, I think the question I asked has brought out a fact which is not covered absolutely in the order in council.


George Eulas Foster: The main provisions of the order in council are:
5.	The Board shall have power to receive offers for the purchase of grain from millers and from the Wheat Export Company, Limited, or from any other person or body representing or acting for the Government of the United Kingdom or for any of the Allied nations or for any combination of the same, and from time to time to fix the prices at which such grain shall be sold.
6.	The Board shall have power to take possession of and sell and deliver to millers or to overseas purchasers at the prices so fixed grain stored in any elevator, and to account and pay over to the orders thereof the proceeds of such sales after deducting all expenses connected with the taking possession, sale and delivery.
7.	The Board shall, as far as possible, and having regard to position and the cost of transportation fix a uniform price throughout Canada for grain of the same kind, quality and grade.
S. Notwithstanding anything in the Grain Act or in the Railway Act, the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada shall have power to order any railway company to provide cars and other transportation facilities for handling grain and to transport as direoted, grain taken possession of or owned by the Board.
9 Every person shall truthfully and promptly answer any inquiry made by the Board or by any person duly authorized on its behalf about any matter within its powers or duties, whether such inquiry is made verbally, in writing, by telegraph, or in any other way.
10.	In this order "Elevator" means and includes any terminal, country, private, public and hospital elevator, and any elevator licensed by the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada.
11.	The Board, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may make any regulations it deems necessary for the purpose of fully and effectively carrying out the objects and provisions of these regulations, and in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations:-
(a)	For appointing representatives in different places in Canada for the purpose, from time to time, of making known in such localities the prices of grain fixed and other regulations or directions made by the Board, and for reporting to the Board any violations of any order issued by the Board or any regulation made hereunder, and generally for assisting the Board in the effective discharge of its duties.
(b)	To authorize the engaging of clerks, employees, and assistants and the paying of their salaries.
(c)	Creating offences and'providing penalties in respect of violations of any order made by the Board or of any regulation made hereunder.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid we will have to ask the minister for information as to the policy of the Government in regard to this matter. It might be as well to let it stand until after recess.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Blain in the Chair.


Frank Oliver: The Minister of Trade and Commerce was reading and explaining the order in council under which the board of grain supervisors was appointed. I would be glad if he would be good enough ito conclude the reading.


George Eulas Foster: I completed it just at six o'clock.


Frank Oliver: The order in council has conferred upon the board of grain supervisors very remarkable powers. I fancy it would be safe to say that all the power that

was delegated to the Government by Parliament in the War Measures Act has again been delegated by the Government to the board of grain supervisors in the matter of handling and dealing with the grain crop.


George Eulas Foster: As far as defined there.


Frank Oliver: Does it only apply to wheat; does it apply to other grain?


George Eulas Foster: To grain.


Frank Oliver: All grain?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: And to eastern Canada as well 'as western Canada, or only to western Canada?


George Eulas Foster: It applies to all Canada.


Frank Oliver: It is a matter of very grave interest to every one as to the times and occasions and circumstances under which the board will exercise these very great powers. My hon. friend informed the House that the granting of the powers did not necessarily mean the exercise of the powers, that they would be exercised as occasion demanded.


George Eulas Foster: There is a purpose to be accomplished. If they accomplish that purpose without fixing the price they need not exercise the power.


Frank Oliver: It is of very great interest to the public to have knowledge as to the circumstances and character of the occasions under which this board will exercise those extraordinary powers. That must be, I presume, a matter of explaining the arrangements or instructions as between the Government and the board. Just on that point I am sure the House and the country will be glad to hear from the minister.


George Eulas Foster: There are no instructions given by the Government, or by any member of the Government, to the board. There are the powers and they exercise the powers in the way in which we have discussed this afternoon. If the board wish to consult with me as the minister under whom they act to a certain extent-that is, they report to me-they have the right of consultation, but I do not consider, and it is not within the four corners of the order in council, that they are to be directed by the Government. Certainly no direction has taken place up to this present time.


Frank Oliver: The authority vested in this board is an authority to commandeer the grain crop of Canada. The minister, surely, was not a party to placing that enormous, that stupendous, power in the hands of otherwise private individuals without having an appreciation of, or an understanding as to, the circumstances under which such a stupendous power would be exercised. Surely the minister can enlighten us on that point?


George Eulas Foster: Again, I am unable after dinner, as I was before dinner, to give my hon. friend the information which I do not possess, and which, if I gave it to him, I would have to manufacture. I can only answer as to the facts as they are and these aTe the facts: This power is not a power over everything under heaven and on earth. It has to do with a certain line of action to bring about a certain result. The purpose is that the Allies shall get the surplus grain that they want from Canada, -this board is for the purpose of carrying out that idea, and it was given these powers in order that that might be done, going no farther than the storage place, as was explained' before the dinner hour. When the grain is stored then they have a choice of the various powers which I outlined. But the whole purpose of it is that for reasonable and fair prices paid the surplus grain may be put in the hands of the Allies for their purposes, conserving what is necessary for the use of our millers and for Canadian consumption.
Mr. OLIVEfe: Are we to understand that this action on their part does not require confirmation by the Government, no matter what the action may be?


George Eulas Foster: Of course, the Government always have the power, when originating and passing an order in council, to cancel it.


Frank Oliver: I have pressed the minister very strongly in regard to this matter, and I have done so because of its importance. Although, under this power, the grain supervisors have not control of everything in the heavens above or on the earth beneath, they have control of such an important part of what is on the face of the earth that there is no man in Canada but must feel a very deep interest in the exercise of the tremendous authority vested in them. I do not wish to be understood as finding fault at this stage of the proceedings with the object in view as stated by the minister; that is to ensure that the

grain of Canada shall reach the Allies at reasonable prices. Under the present circumstances of success that is a very proper purpose and is the object of governmental action. But I cannot agree that it is an entirely satisfactory position in -which the people of Canada find themselves under the order in council and subject to the policy as laid down by the minister. I gather from what he said that the board of grain supervisors may commander any amount of grain they please, at any time they please and at any price they please, and that the only remedy the Government has is to cancel their powers, and that the only remedy Parliament would have would be to upset the Government if circumstances would permit of such a thing being done.
I hope to be excused if I say that I do not agree that that is a satisfactory arrangement. This Parliament is, or ought to be, responsible to the peopie of Canada. The Government should be responsible to this Parliament for every act which is done under the authority of the Government which affects the people of Canada. That the board should ibe constituted, as far as possible, on limes removed from direction or control by the Government of the country.that is to say, by Parliament- is not, it seems to me, an arrangement that I could approve of as being satisfactory. I would not be prepared to argue that a reasonably wise choice has not been made in the selection of the board of grain supervisors. I have the pleasure of ian acquaintance with some members of the board, and others I do not know. But that is not the point. Putting myself in the position of the ordinary farmer, these gentlemen are handling my property, and, while I am willing to make every sacrifice in the interest and for the well being of the Allied cause in this war, L claim the right to have something to say im regard to the management of my own affairs. I am not speaking personally, but I am speaking as though I were a member of the farming community. As a farmer, I have a very deep interest in seeing that I secure that price for my product that I am fairly entitled to, under conditions as they exist, and, as a citizen, I am entitled to be assured that when the hand of authority is laid upon my property and my rights, it shall be in the best interests of the Allied cause. I am entitled, as a citizen of Canada, to have that tassuranace, and, being a citizen of Canada, I am, in fact, a member of the Government of Canada, or would 235
have been, if the elections had been held at the proper time.


George Eulas Foster: Or if we had
a union Government?


Frank Oliver: No, a union Government
would not have that result. But the citizens of Canada have the right to have the control and direction of their business, through their executive, the Government, and my view is that any board of commissioners, or body of men vested with authority, which under many circumstances is right and proper, should have full responsibility to the Government of the day for their action, and that their action should be subject to confirmation by the Government, so that the Government would be held responsible by Parliament and by the people for whatever action was taken. It seems to me that is the only satisfactory way of transacting this very important business. The fact that there are peculiar conditions which have to he met by special means, makes, it all the more necessary, in my humble judgment, that the chain of responsibility should he thoroughly established link by link, from the commission right back to the country.


Samuel Francis Glass: Would not (the Government which has appointed the supervisors have the power of cancelling the appointment, and, by that means, have direct control of the supervisors who have been appointed? If their actions are not satisfactory to the Government, they are immediately under the control of the Government, and the Government would have power to cancel the, appointment. In the meantime, these men attend to the details and study market conditions at a time when the members of Parliament are charged with other responsibilities, but I cannot see how you can take the control of this board out of the hands of the Government, because these men simply have the power delegated to them by the Government. Does the hon. gentleman not think the Government has power to cancel their appointment if it becomes necessary?


Frank Oliver: I do not recall the terms
and conditions of the appointment in the order in council. Is this board of commissioners appointed in the same manner as the railway board is appointed?


George Eulas Foster: Just appointed
for this purpose.


Frank Oliver: During what time?


George Eulas Foster: A term that is stated there, whilst action is necessary- until their recall.


Samuel Francis Glass: Would the minister say
whether the Government, has or has not the power to cancel or recall them at any time?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The Government has the power to cancel their appointment at any time?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: In that case, are we to understand that the principle of direct responsibility for the actions, and the results of the actions of the grain supervisors-, is accepted?


George Eulas Foster: Absolutely. My hon. friend has argued in a queer circle. He makes himself, in the first place, one of the farmers of the country, for the sake of argument. Suppose there are a thousand farmers in our country who are effected, the Crown has the property of that thousand farmers. The farmers are interested in knowing that they get a reasonable price and that their interests are protected. By what method could you put that thousand farmers into any room, and keep them there, where they could see everything that was done and ascertain whether or not their interests were protected? The farmers select representatives, and the representatives come to this House, and the representatives have their powers. They put Governments in, and put Governments out. The Governments have certain executive things to do. They undertake an executive action. It is impossible to have 224 members of this House in any room, in any place, at any time, and at all times where the Government is carrying out that executive action? It would be just as impossible for the farmers to be in attendance. There is only one way, under representative democratic government: that is that the farmers should hold their representatives responsible, and the representatives hold the Government responsible, and the Government cannot break its chain of responsibility by appointing a body of men and saying to them with reference to this particular work: go ahead and do it. Of course, the Government is responsible. As to the common sense of the thing, does my hon. friend think that 14, 16 or 18 members of this Government, or of any Government that you might have at Ottawa, is the proper party, around the council table, to 
decide and carry out such action as that contemplated here? The most abstruse questions come before council for investigation. Difficult questions have to be studied continuously, and must be studied by men who understand the questions, who will stay with the job, and who understand how to carry out the job. Therefore, when this question was taken up by the Government, it was clearly impossible that they could sit round the Council table and decide these matters, and keep themselves, day by* day and hour by hour, possessed of the information which would enable them to act wisely and properly. They did the best they could. They selected a body of men who they thought, possessed the knowledge, the honesty, and the probity, and they appointed them to do that work. My hon. friend would find greater cause for criticism if he came into the House and elicited from me the information that these men could fix no price and take no action whatever unless they first secured the approval of the Government. But my hon. friend has on hundreds of occasions in the House said that he has not the least bit of faith in this Government or any member of it. He thinks they would jew the country, jew the Liberal party, do anything at all under God's heaven in order to get ahead of the poor, beleaguered Opposition.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is very clear in his statements.


George Eulas Foster: What a splendid chance it would be for my hon. friend if we had tied up that commission, saying to them: Before you pull a string you must come to Ottawa and consult us as to whether you shall pull it or not; there is a chap out there by the name of Frank Oliver; you wind him up by taking his grain, some way or other. That is what my hon. friend, because of his view of the calibre and quality of this Government, would think that we would be disposed to do. We did not want to do that. We want my hon. friend s grain to get just as good a chance as , anybody else's. Therefore, we get the men, tell them to do the work-and we keep our hands, off them. If they act in such a way that it is a scandal and a harm to the country, we can cut the strings and their powers instantly cease. That ought to satisfy my hon. friend; indeed, I believe that it does satisfy him, but he will not admit that it does.


Frank Oliver: I am satisfied that the position taken by the minister in the earlier stages of this discussion has been definitely

abandoned by him. We are now given to understand that the Government is responsible for the acts of the board of grain supervisors.


George Eulas Foster: I never said any-* thing else, did I?


Frank Oliver: I understood otherwise
from my hon. friend's earlier remarks.


George Eulas Foster: I expressed myself badly if the hon. member got that idea from my remarks.


Frank Oliver: Then it was because of my misunderstanding my hon. friend that I have taken up so much of the time of the committee in securing from him the very clear statement that he has just made. I suggest the importance of having the_ position definitely stated. This board can commandeer all the grain in Canada at any price they like.


George Eulas Foster: No.


Frank Oliver: Then what can they do?


George Eulas Foster: They can do just what they have power to do under this order in council. They can go as far as the place of storage, but they cannot go into a farmer's yard, grain bin, or anything of the kind. Unless the farmer who raises the grain gets it into the elevator the board are not, under these powers, in possession of any string on it. That is quite different from being able to commandeer all the grain in Canada.


Frank Oliver: I misstated the case when I said all the grain. But all the grain in storage in Canada they can sell at any price they please, and the owner must accept that price. I recall that a couple of years ago, at the direct instance of the Government, some 15,000,000 bushels of grain * were commandeered in the terminal elevators at Fort William. I recall the difficulties that arose out of that commandeering, and I wanted to have absolutely fixed the responsibility for whatever may take place when similar action is taken, if it ever is taken, by the board of grain supervisors. Let us not make any mistake; we are giving our assent here to power that is of the most extraordinary and far-reaching character. While we agree that under certain circumstances and conditions it may be proper to exercise that power, there may be very wide differences of opinion as to its merit at the time it is exercised. I wanted, therefore, at this time and in this place to have fixed absolutely the respon-2354
sibility which my hon. friend has officially and in express terms assumed.


Samuel Francis Glass: 
Alexander Morrison: Is the grade mentioned in connection with that minimum price?


Samuel Francis Glass: The despatch says that the Food Administration Bill of the United States passed on Saturday last-


George Eulas Foster: Passed what?


Samuel Francis Glass: Passed the Senate, by a vote of 81 to 6. The despatch continues:
The bipartisan leaders had worked broader features of control into the Bill, extending Its operation specifically to coal, fixing a minimum price of wheat to the farmer of $2 a bushel, and empowering the President in time of emergency to buy fuel, wheat, flour, meal, beans, potatoes and coal from producers and sell to consumers.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Bill passed the
Senate, but not the House of Representatives.


Samuel Francis Glass: Passed the Senate, yes.


George Eulas Foster: It may go
through and become law, but no one can even bet on the result until the Bill goes through. So far that is just what the Senate thinks about it.


Frank Oliver: There is a good deal of merit in what my hon. friend (Mr. Glass) contends: that if there is to be an effort to increase production, the way to increase

it is by guaranteeing a minimum price. It is increase of production that we are all anxious to secure. It is increase of production upon which the success of the Allies largely depends, and that increase can take place in Canada more rapidly - and more satisfactorily than in any other part of the world. Has that subject attracted the attention of the Government, the Board of Grain Supervisors, or the minister?


George Eulas Foster: Certainly that idea has been present with the United States Government. Certainly it has been present With our own Government, and no body of men like the grain supervisors could possibly avoid having their attention drawn to that phase of the subject.
When one begins to speak about fixing the price of food in order to get plenty of food and more food for the world to live upon, one has to take this into consideration as a primary factor: What reasonable price is it which, while being just and fair to the consumer, will so act upon the producer as to make him feel that he is getting a reasonable return for what he raises, so that he will be impelled to keep on raising and, if possible, to facilitate and increase his production? If you place the fixed value of the product below what meets that reasonable desire, then, of course, you are face to face with an indisposition on the part of the producer to put capital, money, labour and trouble into the raising of the article, and you will perhaps turn him into some other line of production altogether. Certainly such a course would tend to discourage the effort to produce on the usual basis, and particularly the effort to produce on a larger basis. That must be taken into account. On the other hand, you have the great body of consumers. In this case, you have as the body of consumers the Allied countries and their forces. They are interested in getting, for as reasonable a price as possible, the product they want. You have also in the United States of America many millions of consumers who are deeply interested in what the price of food is to be, and you have proportionately the same in Canada, so that those two interests meet together, and the idea is to arrive at what will be a fair and reasonable mean so as to do right by both of these great parties. That is the problem that the United States on its part, and this Board of Grain Supervisors for Canada have to keep in mind in a very thorough way and, if possible, to arrive at right conclusions in regard to it.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the idea of a guaranteed minimum price, it is well known that in the Prairie West land can be brought under cultivation probably as quickly and at as little expense as land in any other country in the world, and it is as productive when brought under cultivation. At the same time, as costs have increased, the expense of bringing land under cultivation has increased accordingly, and with the scarcity of labour and the increase of costs, although the returns for bringing land under cultivation are great, there has not been that increase in cultivation that is entirely desirable from every point of view. The owner of uncultivated land no doubt desires to bring it under cultivation, but at the present moment his costs' of bringing it under cultivation are abnormal; they are very much higher than they were two or three years ago. If present 'high prices were going to (Continue he would be warranted in undergoing that expense in bringing his land under cultivation, but if he brings his land under cultivation on a basis of $2 or $2.50 wheat, and next year the price of wheat falls to sixty cents, we know how he will come out financially. That is, beyond any question, a very serious deterrent to the increase of cultivation in the prairie West. I am not laying down a policy for the Government, but I am taking the liberty of following the suggestion of my hon. friend from East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) of putting before the minister the conditions that would seem to indicate the desirability of suggesting a policy being inaugurated, if possible, so that we might have that increase in production, because, although we have the big reward, there is such an uncertainty attached to it that many of our people are unwilling to make the extra large investment that has to be made at the present time. ,


George Eulas Foster: That is a contingency which attaches to all businesses in all countries in all ages of the world. If every man who produced could be guaranteed that he would get a certain price which would give him a good profit, that would be a fine thing for the producers. I doubt very much if that is possible an this world, at least at the present time. What would apply to the farmer in the way of grain raising would apply to the man who raises stock and to the men who manufacture this kind of food and transport it and keep it in store for the consumer. The application runs through the whole gamut of .industry, and I am sure my hon. friend

will see how difficult it would be to bring about such a condition.


Frank Oliver: In England there has been a fixing of minimum prices for a succession of years for the purpose of securing a food supply for the people of that country. There is no difference whatever between the guarantee by one of the Allied Governments or by all of the Allied Governments of a minimum price on grain raised in Ganada, and the guarantee of a minimum price on grain raised in England. There is, however, the difference that such a guarantee might produce greater results in Canada than it possibly could in England. I am not suggesting the laying of a financial burden upon the Government of Canada, but this Government being in control of our affairs and acting as intermediary between the producers of Canada and the consumers of Great Britain, might not such a proposal be very well brought to the attention of the Allied Governments as a means of securing increased production in this country where production can be more largely increased than i?i any other country that is convenient to their purposes, in the hope that we might, while doing them good, do ourselves, or, while doing ourselves good, do them good? What is found to be good policy in England might be found to be good policy in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: There is a great difference between England and Canada in that respect. England is an importing country. She has to import the vast majority of her food, and she has had to do that for many years. Her grain cultivation has constantly been decreasing, and what Great Britain as an importing country is after in fixing a range of minimum prices for a series of years, is to bring back again the old cultivation of the soil in order that a country of 45,000,000 people may not be for five-eighths of its food dependent upon other and outside countries.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Has it ever occurred to the minister that the Government might raise wheat themselves on a large scale in western Canada?'


George Eulas Foster: We would have a fine time raising wheat.


John Howard Sinclair: That question might be considered. We aie said to have a hundred million acres of prairie land uncultivated at the present time. This land belongs largely to such companies as the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Northern, the Hudson Bay, and to speculators
throughout the world. This land could be . commandeered by the Government and brought under cultivation. This is the only country in the world where that could be done. Canada is the only place under the control of the Allied governments where there is such a large 'area of uncultivated fertile land. (No;w if it is true that there is a *pos

sibilaty of a shortage of bread in the -armies of the Allied powers, is that a question too large for the Government of this country to deal with? Would it not toe possible for the Government to eammandeer a -few million acres of that land- and secure the necessary machinery -and labour? It is not impossible to secure labour, I -suppose. I understand- 'that large numbers of Chinese have been t,ak-en from Northern China to work in the fields and trenches in France during this war. If we cannot get labour h-ene 'at too-m-e, -could not some such -arrangement be made for getting labour of that kind from -abroad? I think the suggestion is worthy of the minister's consideration. If we have years* of war ahead of us, and there is danger of a shortage 'in wheat, we have n-oiw -an opportunity to do -a big thing in putting our armies in the field and those; of our Allies beyond the fear of w-ant. That is not too big a thing for the Government o-f this country to undertake.


William Wright: I just wish to say a word in reply to my hon. friend -from Edmonton. He said that in England they had fixed a minimum price for wheat and bad done so and so. We hear too- much altogether about what is being done in England -and the United States. If the hon. gentleman would only read to-day's papers be would see that no- such arrangement has been m-ad-e in England. In fact, the question is probably being disous-sed in the British-House to-night while we are sitting here.
I think it would be well if hon. gentlemen would post themselves before -making such definite statements to the House. A question of this kind has two or three sides, and needs a lot of discussion. To-day's p-apers show th-e difficulties they are meeting with in England. I do not say th-at this will not be done in England; it will come to a head some day, but before we are directed to England and the United States for models which we should follow in o-ur legislation here, it would be well to 'ascertain what they are really doing in England -and the United States, or else let us go on our own hook -and do the best we can without reference to other countries.
I do not know that it is a very wise thing for this Parliament to lay down a
*3704


George Eulas Foster: That is exactly what is going on. The Board of Grain Supervisors went to Toronto on Friday night, and on Saturday had a conference with the food controller. The powers of the grain supervisors simply extend as far as grain and no further, but it is of great importance that they and the food controller should understand and work in complete uni.son*with each other, and that is what it is intended to do. The work of regulating the food prices and making everybody supremely happy in the process is in the hands of Mr. Hanna at the present time.	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: Under what department of the Government does the food controller operate?


George Eulas Foster: Under the Prime Minister, I think.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: I think I heard
my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright) say "something might be done." That is exactly what I think. Hon. gentlemen sit here listening to arguments and talking about wheat and grain, which is a subject that mostly concerns the grain growers of the West. We let them do whatever they like. I agree with my hon. friend that something ought to be done. We often hear it said that the farmer is making nothing, but I can assure the House that if the farmers are making nothing then the middlemen must be making a great deal, because it is a sure thing that the consumers of Montreal are paying plenty. There is no doubt about that. When the food controller tells us that we should not eat so much white bread and all the rest of it, it seems to me that it is high time something was done. The price of bread and flour is going up, and yet nothing is done except to talk politics. I want something practi-

cal done, and I think the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is a man of ideas and spunk, ought to do something for the cities, and especially for the city of Montreal and the city of Toronto.


George Eulas Foster: Let me ask my hon. friend what more he needs? Has not the city of Montreal a mayor?


Louis Audet Lapointe: Yes, and Toronto has a mayor too. But it is not an argument to say "leave it to the mayor." In any event, I will take my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce at his word. If he wants to leave it to the mayor of Montreal, we will have flour and bread very cheap.


Samuel Francis Glass: I am sure every one will agree with the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) in his remarks concerning the duty of the Government and the desirability of control of the millers, so that they shall only obtain a reasonable profit for their work, and not be allowed to bleed the consumer as it appears they have done in the past. I do not, however, agree with him when he refers to the conditions as they exist in the United States and in England, and when he says we should not look to them, but we must act and consider these things for ourselves. I grant he is right to a limited extent, but, at a time like this, with a border three thousand miles long between Canada and the United States, and with free transportation between those two countries and free wheat passing in and out, what may be done by the United States in regard to the regulation of wheat prices interests us very materially indeed, and we have to be guided largely by their action. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) criticised the department for not having taken action in the matter of food control earlier, but he knows and everybody in this House knows it would be a physical impossibility to do anything at the present time, were it not for the fact that the United States is allied with us and that we are both working towards the same objects. Conditions have changed, and now the Government is able to appoint a food controller, because the food controller of the United States and the food controller of Canada can be in constant touch with each other, and whatever actiop is taken in the United States can be taken here. I think my hon. friend from Edmonton has very logically reasoned the conclusion to which he has come in reference to the fixing of minimum prices, when he said it involves no responsibility
upon this Government. Of course it does not. We are an exporting country, and so is the United States, and it would be consummate folly for this Government to fix a minimum price for wheat were it not that they had some authority from the 9 p.m. Allied Governments, or the British Government to make such an arrangement. England is calling to this country and to the Uuited States, and the call is for greater production of wheat. To say we are going to have a fixed or guaranteed price for one year is no encouragement to 'greater production. It may be an encouragement to a man who has already tilled .his farm, to put in a little larger acreage than usual, but it is not of interest to the man who is about to work new land. My hon. friend from Muskoka says the members of this House ought to read the papers and know what the British Government did.
I do not know what they are doing now, but over a year ago they fixed the price and graded it for a period of three years. Of course, in view of the changed conditions this may have to be amended. If the Allied Governments need our surplus wheat they will get it, and if they need the surplus wheat of the United States they will get it, and if it be possible for them to fix a minimum price let them put a graded price for two or three years or for the term of the war.'


William Wright: If the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Glass) will read the newspapers of to-day, he will find I have stated the matter exactly as it is.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Chapter 7 of the report of the grain commissioners for 1916, shows the annual weigh-out at terminal elevators. On page 27 I notice that the surplus of overweights for wheat alone in the year 1916 aggregated 612,843 bushels, which means that the elevator companies weighed in that amount more than they purchased. I notice that the Dominion Government elevators show a shortage, with two exceptions. The Dominion Government elevator at Port Arthur showed an overage of 95,168 bushels, and the interior elevator at Calgary showed an overage of 1,849 bushels. Those two elevators were short 11,087 bushels and 2,293 bushels respectively on oats. On barley, they were short 6,844 bushels and 1,091 bushels respectively. On flax, they were short 1,987 bushels, and 7,537 bushels respectively. If the Dominion Government elevator system shows an overage in wheat or any other grain, I would expect that the grain would be sold and the consolidated revenue fund of Canada would receive the
3; 06

benefit. These private elevators, which are working under Government supervision and regulation, show a surplus of over 612,000 bushels of grain, which at a price of $2 a bushel shows an actual steal of a million and a quarter dollars from the people of Canada. Is it not possible for the Government to so amend the Canada Grain Act that a aondition of this kind could not possibly arise, and by which if any surplus is shown by those terminal elevator companies the money .shall be turned over to the consolidated revenue fund of Canada for the benefit of the people of the country?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend uses a strong term as against the elevators. Let us look into the matter a little; 612,000 bushels of wheat massed by itself is a very considerable surplus, and the figures he has quoted in regard to the other grain are also large, standing by themselves, but, when you compare those figures with the total quantity of grain that came into and went out of the elevators, the percentage is really a very small one.
But what did we do in connection with these elevators? We have a system of allowances and of dockages. The elevator takes in its grain and is allowed on the different kinds of grain, and on the different grades of grain of the same kind, its proper dockages. That is to clean the grain according to the direction, or to the .satisfaction, of the supervisor o,r inspector, and is to clean to grade where the dockage is allowed for cleaning to grade. These elevators, therefore, have a source of surplus. They get, for instance, one and a half per cent on wheat carrying a dockage of five per cent or more. That is pretty dirty wheat and requires a great deal of cleaning. They get an old time allowance which has been running ever since the grain (business was a business in the West. It has no legal status, and never had, but it is a custom grown up, sanctioned and agreed to as between the farmers and the elevator companies. The companies get 30 pounds .per car of wheat, 28 pounds per car of flax, 50 pounds per car of oats and 50 pounds per oar of barley. Up to within two years ago the allowance they received from that old custom was just twice those amounts. Two years ago, or thereabouts, the board of grain oohi-missiomers cut that allowance in two and so diminished to that extent the contribution by the old custom. Then, the elevators may or may not take in certain grades o.f grain; for instance, no grade grain -that is tough or damp, or wheat that is 
not in a condition for warehousing. They are not required to receive that grain. They take it in under contract with the shipper himself and the amount which they take as dockage upon that, or shrinkage, is one per cent of the gross amount. That is, there is a dockage set by the inspector to clean to required grade when it is under five per cent. I read a little while ago the allowances for cleaning up to five per cent and over, these being the amounts of dockage on all clean-to-clean grain or oars where the grain has to be cleaned, re-cleaned and re-cleaned again if necessary until it comes up to the required condition and to the satisfaction of the inspector. Then the elevator takes its dockage and its screenings therefrom and these are the legitimate bases for the overages or surpluses which, they have!
It may Ipe a question as to whether or not the allowances .and dockages have been in the past too great or are too great at the present time. That matter has been very carefully considered by the Board of Grain Commissioners. Uip to the time that we built our own terminal we had nothing to go upon. There .was no comparison as between, for instance, a Government run terminal and a corporate or privately run elevator. The inspection which could possibly be given could not afford ground for a reasonable judgment without our being guided by the running, under Government supervision, of a terminal and our knowing the whole of the .management and inside work of that operation and how it turned out. That way you get your basis for comparison as between that and other elevators, and also as to what is a reasonable return in the way of dockage. Ever since these elevators have been running these overages have, with these dockages and allowances, lessened from time to time. These elevators have been receiving and claiming these surpluses. When the board of grain commissioners took over the work of operating they had an opportunity, amongst other things, of testing out the system for a series of years and coming to conclusions from the real working of the Government elevators as to their overages and their reasonableness. Some two years ago the question came up in an acute form and we were looking into the matter in the department. I laid the question before the Minister of Justice and asked him for his opinion as to whether we had the right to take these overages. After a careful examination of the question the opinion of-the Justice Department was that whoever else had a right

to them the Government had no right, that they were the property either of the elevators or they belonged to the producers of the grain out of whose product these overages were won. There were no possible means of restoring these to the producers of the grain themselves. Therefore, there is only one of two things to do. You can reduce the dockages from year to year so as to bring the overages down to a minimum, or reasonable allowance; or you can, by legislation, affirm that the Government is to take all of these overages, or such portion of them as you may think it reasonable to take, taking all the expenses into account. Inat matter is now, and has been for some time, occupying the attention of the Board of Grain Commissioners and of the department and myself. Before the House rises I propose to bring legislation before Parliament which will in a legal way define to whom these overages shall go. That is a review, though somewhat inadequate, of the question as it comes before the department.


Mr. MARTIN:: I heard that a few moments ago the right hon. gentleman used my name in connection with the question of the cost of living in Montreal. Would the right hon. gentleman be kind enough to give me his power to act?


George Eulas Foster: I consider that I would have taken an awful step if I had made the proposal to hand over all my powers to the mayor of the city of Montreal. I never could be so fatuous as to undertake that. I certainly did not mean to. If my hon. friend has rushed in here with the idea he was going to have my powers transferred to -him I am sorry to disappoint him.


William Melville Martin: I thought we were serious people here, but if you are going to make a farce of it, all right.


George Eulas Foster: If there is any farce to be enacted, my hon. friend will have an important part in it.


James McCrie Douglas: In connection with the question of the loading of grain at the elevator, there is another table at page 233 of this report of the grain commissioners which shows the number of cars, and the quantity and kind of grain inspected in 1916 for the western grain inspection division, and I find in that compilation, in the recapitulation by provinces, that Manitoba had, in screenings alone, 153,000 bushels; Saskatchewan had 150,000 bushels, and Alberta 34,000, making 337,000 bushels
of screenings. If I understood the minister aright, he was claiming that part of the 612,000 bushels weighed into the terminal elevators included screenings.


George Eulas Foster: Part of the surplus of the elevators would include screenings.


James McCrie Douglas: I do not understand this compilation sufficiently well to know, but it would look to me as though the 337,000 bushels of grain might possibly be over and above the 612,000 bushels weighed in at the elevators.


George Eulas Foster: I -am not so certain about that. I will have to look into it a little before making a statement in reference to it. There may be something in what my hon. friend says as to that, but as to whether the screenings, which are taken out of their dockages, go to make up part of the overages, I do not know.


John Gillanders Turriff: There is no question at all that the 600,000 bushels overage is over and above the screenings, because when a car is inspected, and the inspector marks on it "4 per cent dockage" it means the net weight of that car is four per cent less than the gross -weight, and they are supposed to clean that four per cent out, to bring the weight up to the grade that it is given by the inspector, so that the screenings do not come in, in connection with this amount of overage. All the different scales of dockage that the minister gave us a few minutes ago are supposed to be necessary to make an average car of grain weigh out what is paid for it, and it generally takes something about that to keep the accounts fairly evenly balanced. But when these elevators have 600,000 bushels over and above all that, to my mind there is something very wrong, and remember this is not wheat that is being brought in load by load. This is all carload stuff, all terminal elevator stuff, and it is all carload weights, and there must be something very careless in the manner of weighing in and weighing out, when we find suc-h a tremendous overage as we- have here. It appears that these private elevators have far greater overages than the Government elevators. I understand the weighers are all appointed -by the Government and all Government officials, and have to account to the board of grain commissioners for the work they do. It seems rather strange to me that the private elevators should have so much overage, and the Government elevators should have such a shortage. When


George Eulas Foster: I will certainly
look into the matter and have my officers consider the suggestions made. When my hon. friend was%,speaking about the shortages and overages, he seemed to imply that the Government elevators also, had shortages-


John Gillanders Turriff: Not all.


George Eulas Foster: -and that the
other elevators had overages. He will see that the terminal elevator at Fort William had fairly large overages as well. The work of some of the internal elevators during their first season was probably not as good nor as accurate as it would be after they got

well started at work. We axe hoping to show a different record for the terminal elevators this year from what they showed the year before.


John Gillanders Turriff: Perhaps I was wrong
in even suggesting that there might be any intentional crooked work, and I do not wish to make that suggestion, because in the quantity of grain handled, the elevator companies, by being excessively careful to make themselves right, might easily gather up that quantity, as it is only a little over a bushel or a bushel and a half per car, but that is much more than is necessary. The idea that my right hon. friend expressed a little while ago, that one way was to cut down the quantity of dockage the elevators were allowed to take, might perhaps bring about a remedy. I am not so much worried about the overages as over the shortages from which the farmers have to suffer, and for which they do not receive payment.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend has to keep this in view-in 1915-16, there were received at Fort William and Port Arthur 286,000,000 bushels of wheat alone. This all commenced away back on the farms of the farmers. It has to go through many vicissitudes, changes, handlings, which cannot be made mathematically accurate. In the first place, there is the interior elevator at the station. The quantity of grain is weighed into that elevator. The first element that comes in is the weighing machine of the elevator into which the farmer loads his grain. It is impossible to make constant and repeated inspections of all these interior elevator weighing equipments. Large weights are necessary, and it would take an army of men to have those examined every now and then during the prevalence of the season. You may to-day send your men there, and they may test that weighing machine and put it into the best of order, and five days later something may have gone wrong and the weighing may not be as accurate as it should be. There is the first contingency in the thousands and thousands of country elevators- where the farmer's grain is weighed. Then when the farmer's grain takes its next excursion, it goes into a car and is carried for thousands of miles down to the terminal elevator. Cars are different one from another; some are new and some are old. There will be leakages and dispersals in that way. But when you come to examine the number of cars that make the journeys and the small number of instances 
in which these deficiencies occur and, therefore, these grievances arise, the latter number is only a small percentage of the whole. The railway company is liable for the quantity of grain that it receives being delivered at the1 terminal elevator. The elevator takes charge of the grain from the car and cannot be debited with more than the car turns out into it, but you come thefe against another fallible piece of machinery, namely, the weighing apparatus. The terminal elevators are under the close supervision of the weighmaster, and the weighmaster at the head of the lakes is a most capable man. If my hon. friend knows him, he will bear me out in that appreciation of Mr. White, who has had charge of the elevators at the head of the lakes for the last three years. The weighing there has been very much improved, and it is as carefully watched and supervised as it is possible for human care to supervise- it. Mistakes will always be made there will be errors and, in some Instances, there may be intentional errors. That is part of a system which you can probably never entirely eliminate, but which by good supervision and constant care you may reduce to a minimum. Therefore, when we speak about those cases that did occur, we must, in the first place, take them in connection with the very large number of cars and the great quantity of grain which is in passage, and we' must also take into account the human element and the mechanical element which come in, either of which is apt to go astray and awry at different times. Taking all these into consideration, I think I am perfectly right in saying that during the last five or six years there has been a very great improvement in the management of the grain handling apparatus under the supervision of -the Grain Board. Whilst there are those individual and sparse cases of trouble and difficulty, in the main, the grain producers and handlers in the West appreciate the system and give it as their opinion that, taken altogether, it is constantly improving, and is, taking human and mechanical fallibility into account, pretty nearly as perfect as it can be made. By increased care and supervision improvement is continually being made, and I hope we shall do something with this matter of overages and shortages that will be satisfactory. The last few years have been a testing and weighing out time. We have now a record which 1 think we can bank upon as being fairly correct, and it is a basis on which legislation may be had and adjustments be made.


James McCrie Douglas: I appreciate the fact that oh a percentage basis the elevator companies are, perhaps, not very careless in *having an overage of 612,000 bushels of grain for the year 1916, hut that is not the point I wish to bring before the minister. My point is this: The terminal elevator is an institution that is put there for a certain specified purpose, namely, to handle the grain of the dealer at the point of embarkation.
The point I wish the minister to adjust is this: That .any surpluses there might be over, should not become the property of the terminal elevator company, because it is not legally theiir money. They charge *what is supposed to be a reasonable fee for handling the grain, and there is no more reason why they should be permitted to retain what does not legally belong to them than why the banks should retain unclaimed balances; the two things are in exactly the same position. Surely it is possible to amend the Grain Act in such .a way that the private elevator companies will not be allowed to take groin that does not belong to them.


George Eulas Foster: I quite agree
with my hon. friend, but just how far we can go I cannot say at the moment.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: The minister has been willing to give us plenty of information tonight on matters that have come, before the committee, and I should like him to make a statement on the appointment of the new chairman of the grain commission. The farmers of western Canada feel the loss of Dr. Magill very keenly. They looked on him as a real friend on a very important commission, dealing with their affairs and I think many of them felt that the Government would have been warranted in offering him considerable inducements to remain at the head of that commission. I question whether there is any man who understands the grain trade better thorn Dr. Magill. When he was first appointed he was even then an authority, and I am sorry that in appointing his successor the Government did not look around for .another authority. I cannot understand why a Montreal lawyer was chosen as chairman of the grain commission, and I would ask the minister to inform the House of the knowledge this gentleman has of the grain trade-which I am afraid is very little. If the minister had asked me-of course, I know he would not-I think I could have named a very good man in case Dr. Magill could not have been prevailed upon to remain as chairman, and the man I have in
mind happens to he a .political friend of the minister. I have come in touch with the chairman of the Georgian Bay commission within the last year ot two, .and I must confess that he has a very wide knowledge of the requirements of the farmers of western Canada. Mr. Sanford Evans has visited the West .and given addresses there, and he has in my judgment proved himself to. he an .authority on western needs in connection with the grain trade. Mr. Boyd may be a very estimable 'and a very able gentleman, but the people of the West cannot understand why a lawyer from Montreal, who. I am satisfied has no acquaintance with the grain business, should have been appointed to succeed Dr. Magill. Dr. Magill, as I have said, was an authority, and an authority should have been chosen to succeed him, and from all I can gather the gentleman who has been appointed is not an authority by any means. I am sure the minister will give us some reason for the appointment of Mr. Boyd as chairman of that commission.


George Eulas Foster: I shall be very glad to give an explanation, but I cannot guarantee that it will satisfy my hon. friend. There was a time in Dr. Magill's life when he did not understand anything about the grain business. He was a professor in a university, a student above all else, and a man of great mental power and ability. He learned the grain business from that standpoint, a business which was absolutely different from all his training and work up to that time. I merely mention that to show that it is not necessary for a man to have been brought up on a farm, or in a grain exchange or to have been otherwise closely connected with the work of handling and raising grain in order to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the business of helping to conduct the mechanism of the grading, inspection, and handling of grain. I cordially agree with everything my hon. friend has said with reference to Dr. Magill, and I am strongly of the belief that when the people of the West are as well acquainted with Mr. Boyd as they became with Dr. Magill, they will come to look upon him as their friend, and a fair and able administrator of the office of chairman. I used a great deal of care when looking around for some one to take the place of Dr. Magill. I would have kept him if it had been possible to do so, but it was not possible; he had to go and I could not retain him. So I did the best I could to get some one to take his place. Finally Mr. Boyd was selected. Mr. Boyd, I was

informed by gentlemen who are well qualified to judge-and my inquiry was very thorough-is a gentleman of excellent ability, of the very highest character, and thoroughly reliable in every respect. He is, besides, of an energetic, industrious, and studious disposition. He does not take the office simply for the sake of getting the salary attached to the position. After a good deal of correspondence with me he accepted the position with a desire and a liking on his part to make a thorough study of the whole subject, with the object of making himself an approved authority on it. With that ability, that training, and industry and desire of his, I am quite certain he will prove a success as chairman of the commission. He is associated with practical men who understand the grain business, both from the elevator and the farmer's point of view, and consequently the commission is broad in that it can call upon men of different kinds" of experience and ability.
There is one thing to the advantage of Mr. Boyd, and that is, he has had a legal training and is in good standing as a lawyer. To my mind, a legal knowledge and legal training plays a very important part in the successful carrying out of the duties of chairman of the grain commission. These are the reasons why I chose Mr. Boyd. He has undertaken the work, and I bespeak for him a fair trial. I shall be very much disappointed indeed if he does not turn out to be a very successful member and chairman of the commission.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I think I was right in stating that Dr. Magill was an authority before he became chairman of the grain commission. While he was connected with Dalhousie University, the Saskatchewan Government appointed him chairman of a commission 'to inquire into the elevator question, and he there acquired a considerable knowledge of the grain business.
He had the knowledge and the qualifications to become chairman of the grain commission. He was also thoroughly acquainted with the grain trade of the West. The gentleman who has been appointed to succeed him may be all the minister says he is, but he has not the knowledge of the grain business. I hope he acquires it as rapidly as the minister thinks he will, and I hope he may be a success.


Louis Audet Lapointe: I agree entirely
with what has been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to Mr. Leslie Boyd. Admitting that a political fSir George Foster.]
friend of the Government had to be named, I think the Government could not have chosen a better man for the position. As the minister says, Mr. Boyd is a good lawyer and a practical, man in every respect, and he was a good alderman of the city of Montreal for many years, which is something.


George Eulas Foster: It certainly is
something.


Louis Audet Lapointe: He resigned his
seat to take up this new position, and I think the Government has made a first-class appointment. I believe my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mjr. Buchanan) 'knows Mr. Boyd.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I met him with my
hon. friend (Mr. L. A. Lapointe)


Louis Audet Lapointe: The only thing
that seems to worry my hon. friend from Lethbridge is the fact that Mr. Boyd may not have very much knowledge of the grain business. That may foe so, but I am sure he will acquire that knowledge as quickly as he acquired other knowledge which was useful to him. I feel he will be a practical man, and a splendid man for the position.


Frank Oliver: I would like to ask the
minister in regard to the permission given to the railway companies last winter to refuse the carriage of grain from points in Alberta to Fort William. During a part of last winter the railway companies operating in Alberta refused to carry grain to Fort William. Although they would take it to the internal elevators. I would like to know under what conditions that refusal was made?


George Eulas Foster: Under conditions of great congestion and insufficient haulage which obtained there for a considerable time. A great quantity of the grain was insufficiently stored and there was great necessity of getting it moved as quickly as possible. It was entirely a matter of railway transport, and I consulted with the chairman of the railway board, Sir Henry Drayton, and he took the question up with the railway companies, and instituted this system of more rapid transit of the grain from the places where it was originally stored, and where in very many cases it was insecurely stored. A certain railway division was told to use its cars to bfing the grain to a transition point, and then go back and get more, using the cars as quickly as possible, in order to take away the great quantities of wheat which were lying there
10 p.m. and about the removal of which the people were rightly clamour-

ing. Then another railway took the grain at an internal elevator, say Saskatoon, and moved it the other distance down. If the cars which were loaded at the distant points west of Saskatoon had to go all the way to Fort William and back, there was a usage and a delay of cars. If they could use their somewhat insufficient force to go short distances and do rapid haulage, they got the advantage of storage in a safe place, with as good conditions in the matter of cost as could possibly be given. The two sets of cars working together constituted a more expeditious way than could be got by any other means of handling the grain and of relieving the congestion in country places. This system was worked out by the chairman of the Railway Board, and the railway companies. Everything possible was done with the idea of moving the grain as quickly as it could be moved from the congested and threatened, districts. I say threatened, because of the insecure storage much of the grain being stored in open fields.


Frank Oliver: By what authority did the railway companies refuse to take the grain?


George Eulas Foster: If the railway companies refused to take grain, I suppose they refused to take it on the ground that all railway companies refuse at certain times of congestion to add to the congestion by piling more grain into cars which cannot find an ultimate resting place to be unloaded, and the cars get back again. When you have congestion towards the front, and that congestion becomes so great that if you pile more freight in, it simply adds to the difficulty, then as a matter of sensible haulage the railway company says: We cannot take any more until this forward portion is relieved. Last year there was this congestion of freight from New York, Baltimore, Boston, and Portland. The freight was piled up along thousands oE miles, and every storage facility was filled to the very roof. Finally, it became necessary that these embargoes should be put on. The embargo is a part of the system of railway transport, and although it may be unsatisfactory for the person who has a car of grain and wants it taken out at a certain time, in the end it w.orks out for better transportation in general.


Frank Oliver: I shall have to take issue with my Tight hon. friend on this point. I would like to know, if he can tell me-and if he cannot the Minister of Railways is beside him and may be able to give the information-whether the railway companies refused on their own initiative to haul the
grain, or if they did it under authority from any department of the Government, or any commission acting for the Government?


George Eulas Foster: So far as I know the embargo was on, and I received notice of it. As soon as I was notified, I immediately took the question up to see what could 'be done in order to relieve conditions.
I got in touch with the man who is best able, taking a general view of the matter and having general authority, to bring order out of confusion and to regulate so that the best haulage might be had. He went into the question very thoroughly with the railway companies, and they did the best they could.


Frank Oliver: The minister has not mentioned the name of this gentleman.


George Eulas Foster: Sir Henry Drayton.


Frank Oliver: Was the course followed
by the railway companies taken with the authority of the railway commission?


George Eulas Foster: I am informed
the embargoes are always put on by the railway companies themselves.


Frank Oliver: If they did it with the
authority of the railway commission, the people who were affected will have to hold the Government directly responsible for the consequences they have suffered.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know
whether that reasoning is correct.


Frank Oliver: That is the reasoning I
have to make. I wish to put the case to the Government as forcibly as it is possible to put it. There is supposed to be a public right which is expressed in what is known as the Common Carriers law. That is a law, which, as far as I know, was never set at defiance publicly and without cause until last year. All that my right hon. friend has said about the stress of circumstances compelling the railway companies to do thus and so on account of certain conditions existing does not apply, because these conditions did not exist last year. They existed the year before, but not last yeaT. Last year it was not a question of a heavy crop but of a short crop.


George Eulas Foster: It is more than the crop; it has to do with the conditions of general freightage.


Frank Oliver: Last year there was a very short crop and there was not the same burden of tonnage as there was in previous

years. There was not at any time last winter a shortage of storage at Fort William and if the railways did not haul grain forward to Fort William and to Minneapolis it was because they refused to do it and not because they could not do it. The result was very serious loss and damage to the farmers, particularly of Alberta. These railway companies offered to haul the farmers' grain to the interior storage elevator at Calgary, which would be a back haul, or to Saskatoon or Moosejaw. For what purpose were these storage elevators built? They were supposed to be built for the advantage of the farmers. They were supposed to meet a condition of grain blockade as a result of shortage of storage at the head of the lakes or of undesirable weather conditions. Neither of these conditions prevailed last year. Whether the action taken by the railway companies was simply to make matters easy for themselves, or whether it was taken at the instance of the Government in order to turn their elevators into earning propositions, I do not know, but I do know that the farmer producer of Alberta lost very considerably because of the failure of the railways to take the grain forward to Fort William or Minneapolis when it was desired that it should go forward. The statement that the railway companies were short of cars is a statement that I for one cannot give credence to. The railways were able to handle the crop production of the year before thopgh immensely larger than the crop of last year. Everybody recognizes that if they had difficulties last year' they were able to handle that immense crop of the year before during the period of transportation. Therefore, as there was no destruction of rolling stock in the meantime, as they still had it, there was no reason to believe they were not able to haul that grain forward as the needs of the country demand that they shall carry it forward; that is when the farmer desires to ship it. Any other construction placed upon the duty of the railways to the public is a wrong construction.
It is fitting in this connection, that I should draw to tne attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) the action taken by the railway companies in the vicinity of Edmonton in regard to the haulage of coal, where at the beginning of winter, and at the time the Southern Alberta coal strike was on, the railways, because of some disagreement between themselves, or for some other reason that no man can find out, absolutely tied up

the coal industry between Edmonton and the consumers of coal on the prairies at a most critical time of the year. I am not one of those who look upon the railway companies with any desire to see them do other than prosper but I do want to see it impressed upon them that they enjoy the privileges which they do enjoy as the servants and not the masters of the public. I look to this Government, in the discharge of their responsibilities and duties to see that the railway companies do their duty to the public as they did not do it last year in the province of Alberta.


William Ashbury Buchanan: Not long ago a deputation of Vancouver business men visited Calgary and made the statement that after seeing some members of the Government in Ottawa it would not be long before grain was moving westward to the Pacific. They said they had the assurance of one of the members of the Government that they were going to force the grain to the West and through by the Pacific route. The only member of the Government ;who could make a statement of that kind that would be official would be the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is in charge of the operations of the grain trade and I would like to know if he could give us any information about forcing grain through by the Pacific route.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Trade and Commerce never gave an assurance of that kind and never had any thought of that kind. It is not within his power to force grain. Grain has to go according to the natural channels. Under the circumstances which have existed for two years at least, and which especially have existed during the past year, any attempt to force grain through by way of Vancouver and the Panama canal' is absolutely impossible. My hon. friend will see that in a moment if he begins to think over the conditions as they exist. It is desirable that as soon as possible a shipment of grain shall be made by Vancouver and through the Panama canal for various reasons. Such a shipment, as soon as it can be made under anything like normal conditions, will solve two questions which are a little in doubt. One of them, not very much in doubt, is as to whether grain in bulk' will bear the passage through the canal without being injured or going wrong. The other is as to the commercial and economic possibilities of shipping grain through that route. But under these abnormal conditions you can settle that sec-

ond question. I am in communication now *with the British authorities with the view of having one of the British vessels which are being constructed on the Pacific coast, when she is finished and sails for Great Britain, take a cargo of bulk grain for the purpose of settling a doubt that has been expressed, although I do not think there is very much in it, namely, that bulk grain cannot be carried through the Panama canal. I believe there is no doubt it can be carried, and I hope before the season is over that a shipment of bulk grain will in that way go through from the West and through the Panama canal.
Trade and Commerce-.Supervision lake and ocean freight rates, $6,000.


Frank Oliver: There was a charge
this summer that lake freight rates were very high. Does this vote mean that there is any supervision or that any supervision can be exercised?


George Eulas Foster: This is a vote that was put in the year before last when I contemplated the appointment, if I could get the proper man, of a supervisor of lake and ocean freights. But the conditions have been so abnormal on the ocean and, to a certain extent, upon the lake, that I have not made the appointment, and we will have to get back to something like normal times before any good can come from the appointment of such an officer. So that this is a vote for the appointment of such an officer when the time becomes suitable.


Frank Oliver: Is this merely a vote for an officer who will secure information, or is it a vote for an officer who will exercise some authority?


George Eulas Foster: Primarily, it is for an officer who will secure information. The Department of Trade and Commerce has a system of subsidized services running to different parts of the world. There is always a question of freight rates coming up. We had no expert in the department, and I had not myself the expert knowledge which is necessary to guide decisions which the department and th$ minister must give oftentimes with reference to freight rates. I wanted an officer of that kind who would be the information bureau of the department with reference to freight rates, and then, with that information, the department could probably do more than it has been doing, even in
the past, in the regulation or control of freight rates.


Frank Oliver: What measure of control or regulation has the Government in regard to lake rates?


George Eulas Foster: It has none. We have no subsidized services on the lakes, and we only have power to control or regulate the freight rates charged by subsidized services. There has .been, as my hon. friend knows, negotiations with the British Government for some years back with reference to getting a concerted action between the United Kingdom and Canada, and, if possible, the United States, with reference to some general supervision of ocean rates. But nothing has transpired, although a good deal of attention has been given to it, and the war, of course, has stopped all those matters for the time being.


Frank Oliver: Is Canada still paying subsidies to the mail steamship lines?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The Government has not any control of rates?


George Eulas Foster: All the contracts with subsidized lines are signed, of course, by the minister, and the schedule of rates chargeable is within the control of the minister.


Frank Oliver: For freights?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frank Oliver: From what I have heard, the minister must be very liberal in the allowance for freights, because the general impression is that freights are very high.


George Eulas Foster: The freights are very high, and fifteen hundred thousand ministers could not have done much during war time to make any different rates.


Frank Oliver: I would suggest that, when rates are so high, and business demands that they be high, might not the subsidy we pay them be fairly withdrawn, on the same principle that the bonus that we pay to the lead smelting companies, when prices are beyond a certain figure, is reduced? The steamship companies are making more money than before the war, and surely we might save the money we are paying for subsidies.


George Eulas Foster: We might if we took away the subsidies, and we would then have no longer any control over the lines, which are mail lines. These mail lines must conform, in their dates of sailing, and



as to the ports of sailing, and the like of that, to their contract with us. We must have control of those things for the sake of the mails, and we keep that control and exercise it, because we subsidize them. They have to sign contracts and abide by those contracts. We might also impose certain rates of freight on them, but if the rates that we fixed were less than the rates that could be got from ports to the south of us, we would run the risk of losing our lines entirely.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to speak
about ocean rates, but in regard to the lake boats, there was a time this season when the boats were charging seven cents >a bushel from Fort William to Midland. That is a very high rate. It was not a case of supply and demand, but a case of hold up. The lakes are common property between C'-mada and the United States, and if it is not possible for this Uovemimenc to control the grain rate on lake (boats on our side of the lakes, perhaps the Government would consider the matter of entering into a reciprocity treaty with the United States, so as to secure a control of rates on the lake lines. This is a matter isurely within our reach, and while I am perfectly willing that the companies should make reasonable profits, everybody will admit that a seven cent rate is not within the hounds of reason, and is not a case of payment for services rendered, but a case of hold up, and should not he permitted.


George Eulas Foster: There might be, in normal times, some chance of a dual control toy co-operation in that way, in regard to the traffic on the lakes, although it is a complex question, taking into account the ore and coal and grain, which constitutes the chief pant of the freight, but at the present time I do not think any thing would come from an attempt to regulate the rates between the two countries. iMy bon. friend does not take that seven cent rate that he spoke about as an index of the general rate. I think the rates were about two or two and a quarter cents the last time I inquired.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Rill No. 13, to consolidate 'and amend the Railway Act. -Hon. Frank Cochrane.
Mr. Blain in the Chair.
Mr. COCHRANE:: On the 18th July I
accepted an amendment prepared by my hon. friend from Rouville and proposed by '
[Sir George Foster.!
the hon. gentleman from Rimouski, which reads as follows:
All railway employees on local passenger trains running in the province of Quebec, having to deal with the travelling public, shall he conversant with the English and French languages from and after January 1, 1919.
There has been strong objection to this amendment on the ground that it would cut men out of their seniority. For instance, a man running on a freight train to Prescott or Brockville would be prevented from being promoted, say, to a passenger train running to Montreal, because he was not able to speak French. I feel that the amendment suggested by the member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) will meet thq situation far better. I move that section 302 be amended by adding thereto the following as subsection 3:
After the 1st day of January, 1919, the Board may from time to time make such orders and regulations as it may deem advisable to provide that all or any railway employee on local passenger trains running in the province of Quebec shall be conversant with the English and French languages.
I am sure that none of us want to injure the railway'men, or deprive them of their right of promotion. Neither my hon. friend nor myself thought of this when the amendment was made. I hope that the committee will accept the proposed change.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I thought that the
amendment had been drafted in such a way as to meet all possible objections. It was at the suggestion of the Minister of Railways and Canals that the amendment was drafted in that form. However, I am sure that nobody would like to cause any injustice to the conductors. My hon. friend realizes that there are some grievances-I mentioned some the other day. I hope that the board of railway commissionefis will not allow this amendment to remain on the statute book as a dead letter. Under the circumstances, I agree to accept my hon. friend's further amendment, because I know that he is well disposed towards the conductors and towards the public. The very fact of inserting the amendment now moved by my hon. friend and the publicity the matter has had since it was brought before the committee may produce the desired effect of inducing the conductors on all local trains in the province of Quebec to learn both languages.


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

On section 215-expropriation proceedings:
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: At their last meeting the committee were good enough to say that clauses 215 and 232 should pass if they were amended so as to include the provision with regard to arbitration made in the clause of the old Act. The law clerk has carefully gone over these clauses and the member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) has spent an hour and a half of his valuable time in assisting in that work. They are satisfied that the clauses as amended are correct and that they will meet with the approval of the committee.
Clauses 215 and 232 have been amended by restoring the old arbitration proceedings before three arbitrators or a sole arbitrator, keeping the law in that respect the same as it is at the present time, and making the necessary verbal changes in the section as directed by the Committee of the Whole at its last sitting. These changes have been checked over by the member for Carleton. Section 196 and 197 of the old Act replace section 219 and 220 of the Bill. Section 206 of the old Act becomes section 229, but subsection 3 of section 229 remains. Subsection 3 of section 223, forbidding arbitrators to take any fees, is struck out. The other clauses have been amended verbally to make them agree with the other changes. I therefore move that the clauses as amended do pass,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Sections 215 and 232, as amended, agreed to.
On section 380-statistics and returns:
George Eulas Foster: A central department of statistics, which is attached to my department, is working along the line of centralizing and co-ordinating the economic statistics of the Government and of co-operating and co-ordinating with all the different provincial governments so as to prevent overlapping and to carry out an accurate, thorough and reliable system of general Dominion statistics.
In this Bill, section 384 and those that follow it and are conjoined with it provide for the complete gathering of statistical information for the administrative work of the board of railway commissioners. Those statistics are necessary for the work of the board, and they must gather them as they please and according to their own methods. Sections 379, 380 and 381 provide for a statistical return to the minister him-
236i
self, covering exactly the same ground, not for administrative, but for economic purposes. In that way, they cover the ground which is covered by the central department of statistics and they make a duplication of effort and of expense. But more than that, being not under one management as regards methods, schedules and information to be gathered, they do not serve the purposes of comparison, and the idea is that these statistics should be gathered by the -central department of statistics, so as to prevent duplication and confusion. This also has the other effect that you do not bother the companies with a duplication or a triplication of demands upon them for practically the same information. My suggestion is that all the statistics are provided for in section 384 and the co-related sections.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Section 384 in my copy provides that the returns cannot be used in a court of law except in case of default, or perjury or something of that kind.


George Eulas Foster: Section 384 iru my copy provides for the gathering of statistics.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Section 385 in my copy is the same as the one the minister is speaking about. There must have been a renumbering of the sections. We agree upon the section anyway.
On the motion of Sir George Foster, sections 379, 380, 381 and 382 were stricken from the Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That will require a renumbering of sections to the end of the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: The clerk of the House will look after that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the minister gone over this copy to see that the provisions of what is section 384 in my copy and which I suppose will be 383 in the minister's copy are provided by the present section 384. Section 384 in my copy or section 383 in the minister's copy says:
All returns made in pursuance of any of the-provisions of this Act last preceding shall be privileged communications, and shall not be evidence in any court whatsoever, except in any prosecution for,-
(a)	default in making such returns in accordance with the requirements of this Act;
(b)	perjury in making any oath required by this Act in connection with such returns;
(c)	forgery of any such return; or,
(d)	signing any such return knowing the; same to be false.

That is an important provision. It is quite right that many of these statistics should be treated as confidential, but if the company makes a false return, or fails to make a proper return, there ought to be some right to sue it for the purpose of securing a conviction. I turn to subsection (5) of the section which the minister purposes retaining, and it seems to carry out the same idea, but I would like to know whether it goes far enough. The subsection says:
The Board may authorize any part of such information to he made public when, and in so far as there may appear to the Board to be good and sufficient reason for so doing.
I suppose that would give the board the power to go into any court of law.


George Eulas Foster: Yes. There is a proviso after that:
Provideid that if the information so proposed to be made public by the Board, is of such [DOT]character that such company would, in the [DOT]opinion of the Board, be likely to object to the publication thereof, the Board shall not authorise such information to be published without notice to such company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are no powers taken away. I only want to make plain that there is nothing to prevent the board using this information for the purpose of punishing negligence or the making of false returns.
Bill reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Cochrane for the third reading of the Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I respectfully urge that the House consent to the third reading to-night, as I understand the Senate have very little before them to-morrow and would be able to devote the whole day to this Bill, if passed.


Mr. BUREAU:: I understand that some hon. gentlemen who are not now present have some amendments to offer, and I would therefore suggest that the Bill be not given its third reading until the next sitting of the House.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Tuesday, July 24, 1917.