1923-02-15

MESDAMES KENNEDY AND LAFORTUNE

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received two letters, one from Mrs. W. C. Kennedy and the other from Madame D. A. Lafortune, thanking the House for its expression of sympathy in their great sorrow. In behalf of the House I acknowledge these communications.



ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17 respecting the Royal Academy of Arts.
He said: The object of the bill is to grant a public charter to this academy and to bring it under one of the federal departments. It lias been in existence for some time but so far has had no official channel of communication with the department. The purpose is to bring it under the purview of one of the ministries. The Department of Public Works is mentioned in the bill, but that is a matter of detail that can be considered and decided upon when the bill is in committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

[Stage Direction]
SIR HENRY DRAYTON:
1.	What amount has been collected under the sales tax during the present fiscal year in each city with a population of one hundred thousand or over, down to the 31st of December, 1922?
2.	(a) What amount of sales taxes were due and unpaid upon such date and (b) what is the number of taxpayers in arrears ond said date in each of said cities?
3.	Have legal proceedings been taken against such taxpayers? If so, in what cities and what is the number of such proceedings in each city?
Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Sales tax collections are recorded by customs and excise ports and not by cities. The collections at city ports, where population is in excess of one hundred thousand each, for the present fiscal year to 31 December, 1922, were as follows:
Montreal, $16,265,019.40; Ottawa, $1,046,81126; Toronto, $15,996,953.16; Hamilton ,$3,318,-522.63; Winnipeg, $3,511,598.66; Vancouver, $2,758,414.11.
2.	(a) Information not available, (b) The number of taxpayers in arrears on 31 December, 1922 in each of the said cities: Montreal, 1,058; Ottawa, 38; Toronto, 276; Hamilton, 71; Winnipeg, 152, Vancouver, 221.
3.	Yes: Montreal, 169; Ottawa, 12; Toronto, 83;Hamilton 9; Winnipeg, 13; Vancouver, 24.


INCOME TAX
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What	amount	of	income	taxes	has	been	collected during the present fiscal year down to the 31st day of December, 1922?
2.	What amount of income taxes was collected during the last passed fiscal year down to the 31st. day of December, 1921?
3.	What	amount	of	income	taxes	has	been	collected during the present fiscal	year down	to December 31, 1922, by each of the different offices?4.	What	amount	of	income	taxes	has	been	collected during the fiscal year last past down to December 31, 1921, by each of the different offices?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	$55,517,222.02.
2.	$72,517,814.77.
3: Halifax, $1,517,505.96; St. John, $922,425.89; Quebec, $1,953,853.75; Montreal, $18,195,749.82; Ottawa, $2,655,577.23; Kingston, $523,374.59; Toronto, $11,742,770.71; Hamilton, $3,693,159.12; London, $3,686,784.92; Belleville, $250,784.65; Fort William, $262,996.14; Winnipeg,	$4,019,399.64; Regina,
$1,217,009.04; Prince Albert, $104,143.93; Calgary, $1,477,994.05; Vancouver, $3,255,525.40; Dawson, $38,167.18.-Total $55,517,222.02.
4.	Halifax, $1,664,504.78; St. John, $1,338,395.70; Quebec, $3,227,560.37; Montreal, $19,149,250.82; Ottawa, $4,035,053.52; Kingston, $1,158,667.29; Toronto, $15,517,891.37; Hamilton, $5,648,794.90;	London, $4,954,217.39;
Belleville, $377,371.17; Fort William, $597,594.98; Winnipeg,	$5,754,174.24; Regina,
$1,890,685.33; Prince Albert, $208,855.61; Calgary, $2,253,263.35; Vancouver, $4,705,494.50; Dawson, $36,039.45.-Total, $72,517,814.77.


DIRECT TAXATON RESULTS
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What percentage of the receipts of the present fiscal year, down to December 31, 1922, has been raised by direct taxation?
2.	What percentage of the receipts of the last passed fiscal year, down to December 31, 1921, was raised by direct taxation?

Questions


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	24 per cent.
2.	32 per cent.
STAMPS ON CHEQUES Sir HENRY DRAYTON:
1.	Have any rulings been made for the direction of the public or the banks as to affixing stamps on cheques under the legislation of last session? If so, what ruling or rulings?
2.	What are the penalties for failure to affix stamps, or sufficient stamps on the cheques?
3.	Have any proceedings been taken in respect of such breaches ?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	No, as far as the Department of Customs and Excise is concerned.
2.	As provided by Special War Revenue Act, 1915, part 3, and amendments thereto.
3.	Yes.


NEW BRUNSWICK REPRESENTATION ON RAILWAY BOARD
Mr. MacLAREN:: Is it the intention of the government to add to the new Canadian National Railway Board a representative from New Brunswick?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: After consultation with the president of the Canadian National Railways, it was decided to begin operations with a comparatively small board representative of districts rather than of provinces. Should experience indicate the necessity for further additions, within the limits of the act, the government will not hesitate to make these additions.
D.S.C.R. HOSPITALS Mr. ROSS (Kingston):
1.	What was the cost per patient in different D.S.C.R. hospitals in Canada for year 1922?
2.	What was the per capita maintenance for same institutions for 1921?
3.	What was the strength of the staffs of these hospitals at the beginning of the year 1922, and also at the close of the year 1922?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	During the period from April 1, 1922 to December 31, 1922, the average cost per patient per day was $3.31.
2.	From April 1, 1921 to March 31, 1922, the average cost per patient per day in the different D.S.C.R. hospitals was $3.29.
3.	On January 1, 1922, staff employed in the D.S.C.R. hospitals numbered 1,751, and on January 1, 1923, 1,502.
RECEIPT STAMPS Sir HENRY DRAYTON:
1.	What rulings have been made with reference to .he affixing of stamps on receipts as required by legislation of last session? What receipts are exempt from the tax?

2.	Does the use of forms or printed letters enable the tax to be avoided?
3.	Does the usual course of mailing receipts obviate the necessity of stamping them?
4.	Has a complete list been compiled showing the different manners in which the affixing of stamps to receipts may be avoided?
5.	Under what conditions must the stamp be affixed?
6.	What is the penalty for the omission to affix the
stamp ?
7.	Have any proceedings been taken to enforce such penalties?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Counter sales slips and cash register tickets are not taxable, provided no words implying or stating acknowledgement of the receipt or the payment of money appear thereon.
Pay-rolls,-signature of employee thereon being receipt for wages,-taxable, in respect of each such signature.
Receipts for payment of legacies are taxable. A receipt for money in a deed or mortgage is taxable.
Receipts for payment of taxes, except those given to, or by, the Dominion Government o" Provincial Government, are taxable.
Individual freight bills and periodical statements of same, acknowledging receipt of payment, are taxable.
Customs house brokers' receipts are taxable.
Letters forwarded by mail, also postcards, acknowledging the payment of money, are regarded as letters and cards and not subject to this tax.
All insurance policies, whether fire, life, marine or casualty, wherein the payment of money is acknowledged are taxable.
All insurance receipts, acknowledging the payment of money, are taxable.
Receipts drawn out of Canada, but not valid until countersigned, in Canada, are taxable.
Voucher cheques and cheques with receipts endorsed thereon, when drawn upon or addressed to a bank, are not taxable as receipts.
Remitters counterfoil, being part of a taxable express money order, is not taxable as a receipt.
Employers may, if they so desire, affix a stamp or stamps to the Pay Roll for the amount of the total tax payable in respect of the receipts therein given, and they may cancel same by the method prescribed in the Act.	.
No stamp duty is required on a mailed post card acknowledging a remittance as such post card bears on the reverse side thereof, evidence that such card has already

Questions
been taxed under Section 13 (5) of the Special War Revenue Act, there being required thereon the tax of 1 cent in addition to the postage payable.
A mailed form letter, which by the method of folding has the address placed thereon without the use of an envelope, requires no stamp duty for the same reason as in the case of a post card.
A form letter, mailed in an envelope, acknowledging payment of $10 or over, requires a two-cent stamp affixed thereto because it has thereon no evidence that any other tax has been paid under the Special War Revenue Act.
2.	& 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.
5.	Conditions as provided by the Act.
6.	Penalties as provided by the Act.
7.	Yes.


MINISTERS' AND OFFICIALS' TRAVELS
Mr. STANSELL:: 1.	What Ministers of the Crown have been absent from Canada since the close of last session?
2.	What were the several tours taken by each minister so absent, and what was the object of each
trip?	...
3.	What were the names of those who, at public
expense, accompanied each minister, and what was the purpose?	,	.	,
4.	What officials of the various departments nave been out of Canada since the last session and for what purpose in each case?
5.	What were the several tours taken by each official so absent, and what was the object of each trip.
6.	What has been the cost to Canada of such trips
by ministers and officials, and those who accompanied them?	.
7.	What has been the cost to the Dominion of the various trips made by ministers and persons who accompanied them since the last session of parliament: (a) within Canada; (6) out of Canada?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: I would ask the hon. gentleman to kindly renew his question in the form of a motion, when it can be better considered.


MATT C. BECKETT
Mr. DUNCAN:: 1.	Was Matt C. Beckett, of Owen Sound, Ont., appointed Customs and Excise Preventive Officer for Grey county?
2.	If so, when was such appointment made?
3.	Was the said Beckett subsequently dismissed?
4.	If so, for what cause?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1 and 2. Mr. Matt C. Beckett, of Owen Sound, Ont., was authorized to act as a Customs-Excise Enforcement officer, without salary, and with power to make seizures for infractions of the excise laws, by letter dated 16th March, 1922, such authority to
terminate at any time at the discretion of the hon. the minister.
3 and 4. Authority for Mr. Beckett's employment was withdrawn by letter dated April 24, 1922.


GRAND TRUNK ELECTRIFICATION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of tha government been called to a telegram sent to the Hamilton Board of Trade by Sir Henry Thornton, President of the National Railways, dated December, 1922, stating that the Grand Trunk would be immediately electrified between Toronto, Hamilton and Niagara Falls and the border?
2.	Have plans been prepared, and what will the cost of this work be, and what amount of money will be required to be furnished by parliament for this project, and why were the government and parliament not consulted before such a declaration of policy involving an expenditure of millions?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to electrify the National Systenf in other parts of Canada as well?


George Perry Graham: .
1.	The President of the Canadian National Railway system has given no assurance to the effect that the Grand Trunk would be immediately electrified within the territory contemplated by the question. An assurance was given, however, that the Canadian National Railways would at once undertake an investigation of the whole position, to see to what extent it was necessary to improve transportation facilities to meet the requirements of the public; and that as soon as such investigation was completed the public might anticipate immediate relief.
2.	The investigation referred to is under way, but has not yet been completed.
3.	The Canadian National management will consider the electrification, from time to time, of such parts of the system as can be electrified economically and in the interests of the public.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY LAND
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What is the total number of acres of land sold as authorized by Statute of 1908 for the purpose of Hudson Bay railway construction?
2.	What is the total amount for which this land has been sold?
3.	How many acres of land are still held in western Canada on account of the above legislation?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	There was no specific authority under the Dominion Lands Act, 1908, for the sale of land for the purpose of Hudson Bay railway construction, but pre-emptions and purchased homesteads were sold under the provisions of the said act as follows:-
2.	Total acreage of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads sold under the statute of 1908,-8,050,720 acres approximate. Total
Questions

amount for which pre-emptions and purchased homesteads have been sold $24,152,160, approximate.
3.	Total acreage of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads held as entries not having been paid for in full 2,500,000 acres, approximate.
FORT CHURCHILL TOWNSITE Mr. CAMPBELL:
1.	Has any land or lands in Fort Churchill townsite been sold to any private party or interests?
2.	If so, what are the names of the parties, and the extent of the holdings of every person or interest in the townsite?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: Lands in the town-site of Fort Churchill disposed of by sale: East Peninsula: Block 30, lots 9 and 10, and block 31, lots 11 and 12 sold to Wm' Beech, approximate area 1.2 acres. All of blocks 440, 441, 442, 456, 457, 458, 511, 512, 513, 530, 531, 532, 585, 586, 587, sold to Carl Emerson Beech, approximate area, 44.5 acres.
Lands finally disposed of otherwise than by sale:
East Peninsula: All of blocks 432 to 439 inclusive; 459 to 466 inclusive; 503 to 510 inclusive; 533 to 540 inclusive; 577 to 584 inclusive, homestead of Wm. Beech, approximate area, 118.4 acres. All of blocks 443, 444, 452, to 455 inclusive; 514 to 517, inclusive; 527 to 529 inclusive; 588 to 590 inclusive, special grant to Carl Emerson Beech, approximate area, 44.5 acres. A parcel of land containing 12.63 acres, more or less, on the east shore of the West Peninsula patented on the 7th June 1913, to the Hudson's Bay Company (under deed of surrender), approximate area, 12.63 acres.
Lands in the townsite of Fort Churchill held under lease:
East Peninsula: Block 10A., lot 14; blocklO, lots 5, 6, 7, 8, leased to the Hudson's Bay Company, approximate area, 0.6 acres.
West Peninsula: Block E, lots 7, 8 and 9; block F, lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, leased to the Hudson's Bay Company, approximate area,
1.0	acres.
far as the government is informed there are no officials of the United States resident in Canada designated as commercial agents.
2.	Canada has no foreign consular representation distinct from Great Britain. 1 he Department of Trade and Commerce has no commercial agents in the United States. It has, however, one trade commissioner's office in New York City.
3	and 4. The question of appointing trade commissioners in the United States has been considered at various times.	Up to the
present, owing to the proximity of the two countries and the cost of maintaining trade commissioners, appointments have been confined to foreign countries whence commercial information is not so accessible to Canadian exporters.


Miss MACPHAIL:: 1.	In view of the fact that a large volume of trade is done between Canada and the United Kingdom, what steps has tho government taken to appoint representatives in Great Britain to foster and encourage Anglo-Canadian commerce?
2.	What officials with technical knowledge of Canadian trade are attached to tho High Commissioner's office in London?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The Department of Trade and Commerce have established officers and trade commissioners in the United Kingdom as follows: London, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow. The trade commissioners and their assistants foster and encourage Anglo-Canadian commerce.
2.	On the staff of the High Commissioner there are two officers with long association with Canadian trade who are able to deal effectively with any commercial inquiries received. There is also attached to the office a special customs investigation officer. The Dominion trade commissioner in London and trade commissioners throughout the United Kingdom are also in immediate association and close toudi with the High Commissioner's office.


TRADE REPRESENTATIVES
Miss MACPHAIL:: 1.	How many Consuls and Commercial Agents has the United Slates resident in Canada?
2.	How many Consuls and Commercial Agents has Canada in the United States?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to appoint enough Commercial Agents in the United States to adequately take care of Canadian trade interests and foster Canadian trade?
4.	If not, why?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	There are ninety-one consular representatives of the United States in Canada. So

SIR HENRY THORNTON Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:
1.	Dicl the government of Canada in October, 1922, enter into a contract with Sir Henry Thornton by which the government agreed that Sir Henry Thornton would be appointed President and General Manager of tho Canadian National Railway Company, and by which contract tho salary of Sir Henry Thornton was fixed, and other terms and conditions imposed?
2.	If so, did the government have any authority from parliament for making such contract, and in what section of what statute is that authority?
3.	What authority in law exists or existed for the government of Canada to enter into any such contract for a fixed term?

Questions
4.	If the government had no authority from parliament for the contract made with Sir Henry Thornton, wiiy did the government make such contract?
5.	If the government was of opinion that a contract of the nature made with Sir Henry Thornton was necessary, and if there was not authority in law to make it, why was parliament not asked at last session to grant such authority by statute in the usual way?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	None.
4.	It was deemed in the public interest to definitely secure the services of Sir Henry Thornton, and, as the Board of Directors had not been previously appointed, the government decided to make an arrangement with him and rely on the board ratifying it, as has been done.
5.	The circumstances under which it became advisable to execute this contract were not contemplated during last session of parliament.


LOUIS LEBLANC
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Was the position of light-house keeper at Carleton Point, Quebec, held by Louis LeBlanc prior to November 15th, 1922?
2.	Was the said Louis LeBlanc dismissed from the service ?
3.	If so, why?
4.	Were any charges laid against the said Louis LeBlanc?
5.	If so, was an official inquiry held, was the said Louis LeBlanc brought before an official tribunal and what were the findings of the official tribunal, if any?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Political partisanship.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.


CONSUMPTION OP INTOXICANTS
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	VYhat was the per capita consumption and per capita expenditure of all intoxicating beverages generally in Canada during the years 1914, 1920, 1921 and 1922, on the basis of the excise returns?
2.	What were the figures by provinces?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1. Per capita consumption of domestic beer and spirits based on excise returns during the fiscal years mentioned.
Fiscal year	Beer	Spirits
Gals. Proof Gals.
1914	
6.942	0.5901920	
4.096	0.4241921	
3.945	0.3131922	
4.389	0.204
Per capita expenditure not available from excise returns as these returns show quantities of beer and spirits, and not values.
2.	Information not available for the same reason. Beer and spirits upon which excise duties are paid in one province are not all consumed in such province.


SALES TAX COLLECTION
Mr. JOHNSON (Moose Jaw):: 1.	What were the sales tax collections, by months, during the calendar year 1922?
2.	What were the collections on domestic sales, and imports, respectively?


Jacques Bureau: Period 1922	Domestic	Importations	TotalJanuary . .	$4,280,908 70	$1,330,333 10	$5,611,241 80February .	2,935,733 48	1,372,919 69	4,308,653 17March .. .	3,208,772 71	1,984,678 91	5,193,451 62April	2,072,795 69	1,254,350 87	3,327,146 56May	3,829,680 84	1,771,193 00	5,600,873 84June	3,910,192 57	2,376,161 46	6,286,354 03July	5,072,101 64	2,338,538 20	7,410,639 84August .. .	5,558,573 84	2,634,669 71	8,193,243 55September .	6.314,427 85	2,387,863 36	8,702,291 21October .. .	6,692,070 84	2,533,984 44	9,226,055 28November .	6,213,902 40	2,663,118 62	8,877,021 02December. .	6,113,319 02	2,471,639 60	8,584,958 62$50,202,479 58	$25,119,450 96	$81,321,930 54


IRREDUCIBLE MINIMUM OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. MARTELL:: 1.	Was a conference ever held between representatives of the various provincial governments of the provinces of Canada and the federal government of Canada, between the years 1912 and 1922, with a view to securing for the four original provinces of confederation an irreducible minimum of representatives in the Canadian House of Commons?
2.	If so, what was the result of said conference?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	There is no record in any of the government departments of any such conference having been held.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN	,


OFFICIALS ATTENDING FAIRS
Mr. LEADER:: 1.	How many officials of the Department of Agriculture attended fairs during the nine months ending December 31, 1922, and what duties did they fulfil?
2.	What was the total expense incurred by such officials?


CIVIL SERVANTS-POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (Oxford South):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a despatch which appeared in the press on the 13th in-
Partisanship

stant, and which I think is of public interest as relating to public affairs. This is the despatch:
Toronto, Feb. 13.-Charges of political partisanship against certain employees of the Dominion government in Ontario are to be proved.
I believe that must be a misprint for "probed."


Mr. COPP:: There should be no trouble to prove it.


Donald Sutherland: The report continues :
Thomas R. Mayberrj', of Ingersoll, Ont., has been appointed as commissioner to conduct the investigation. His appointment has been officially gazetted.
I would ask if the substance of this despatch is correct, as the commissioner happens to be a resident of my constituency. Might I also ask, who are the officials against whom the charges have been preferred; and if one, Duncan Marshall, an official of the government who delivered an address at a political gathering in my riding in June last, is among those so charged?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the practice
the government has adopted with respect to any charges of political partisanship against members of the civil service has been to proceed very guardedly, taking care to see that the charge is proved in a manner to which no exception can be taken, before permitting dismissal of the person offending. In that connection the government has followed the precedent adopted by previous governments of appointing commissioners to investigate such charges where there appear to be substantial reasons for believing that they are well fou_ded. I believe Colone Mayberry has been appointed a commissioner to investigate some charges of political partisanship. Who are the parties concerned I am unable to say at the moment, but I can probably get that information for my hon. friend. He mentions one name that I do not recall as being among the number affected.
, Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition): Perhaps the Prime Minister will explain why there is such a multitude of exceptions to the rule which he saw has been adopted, and why so many have been dismissed without any charges being preferred against them to their knowledge, and without any pretence of investigation.


Jacques Bureau: There are precedents by the thousand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In some cases charges have been preferred against certain officials by hon. members of this House. Where an hon. member has been prepared to state to the House that of his own knowledge an offence contravening the provisions of the Civil Service Act respecting political partisanship has been committed, the government has acted under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, which provide that a civil servant guilty of political partisanship shall not be retained in the service. I think that list will cover any of the dismissals to which my right hon. friend has referred.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I presume that that list would cover practically every case, because the statement from any member that a man has been guilty of political partisanship is not very hard to secure from a partisan supporter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say a statement from any member. I said a statement from an hon. member of this House that of his own knowledge a civil servant had been guilty of a certain offence which was in the opinion of the government sufficient to warrant his dismissal under the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


Arthur Meighen: That of course will
apply in future to members of the House on all sides?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Undoubtedly. It always has.


Jacques Bureau: I make an exception in regard to the Customs department. I will not take any notorious recommendations.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Resign!


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Jacques Bureau: Say out loud what you
want to do. Don't do it behind closed doors.


Donald Sutherland: The	Chairman of
the meeting, who is a member of the Liberal executive of the province of Ontario stated that the party referred to by me was asked by Premier King to appear and address this Liberal picnic on his behalf.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no
recollection of having asked anyone to appear at a picnic, and I do not think I did. But I would say to my hon. friend that in regard to any matter deserving discussion here it is well not to base his information entirely on a press report.

Steel Strike
2S7


STEEL STRIKE AT SYDNEY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: In the press of yesterday there appeared a despatch with regard to a steel strike at Sydney. I have information from the men that they applied for a board some weeks ago and were refused; that their members are being discriminated against because of their protest against a wage rate of 28 cents per hour, and that yesterday their active members were dismissed, the result being a spontaneous walk-out of workmen. Three thousand men are affected by this strike. Is it proposed that this board shall be granted? What further information can the government give us with regard to this industrial dispute?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Some four weeks ago the first information the Labour department had of a possible strike in the steel works at Sydney was in a newspaper item stating that a board was to be asked for to investigate the question of the adoption of the eight-hour day, the checkoff system, and an increase of 15 per cent in wages. The article stated that as the steel industry was not a public utility under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, a board would probably be denied by the Labour department. On the 31st day of January application for a board was made; it came to the Labour department on the third day of February. The workmen were advised at once that their application had been received and that we would ascertain from the officers of the British Empire Steel Corporation if they would be parties to the formation of a board. Yesterday the answer of the companies was received. It indicated the company would be unwilling to submit the question of the eight-hour day in the steel industry, to a board for investigation, as that matter had been dealt with in 1920 by a board, which unanimously indicated the belief that it would be impracticable to adopt an eight-hour day in the steel industry. The companies also stated that they would be unwilling to submit the question of the check-off system-which, in substance, means that the company would be required to collect the union dues of all workmen engaged in the steel plant-to a board, and that it would be inadvisable to submit to a board the question of an increase in wages, in view of the low price of steel products and the inability of the company, as it was stated, to make a profit instead of losses, wage increases were not possible. That information has been to-day conveyed to those who are now strikers at Sydney.
The information given the Labour department in regard to the actual strike is this: The day before yesterday an employee there, who thought he should be, for the time being, on account of the illness of a foreman, placed in the position of that foreman-threw some belts onto an idler, or in some other way interfered with the proper operation of the plant, and was promptly discharged therefor. The workers' union took the matter up and insisted on his immediate reinstatement, and when that was not granted they brought on a strike. The information received to-day is that the strike situation is serious indeed and that every effort is being made so to handicap the steel industry at Sydney as to cause- if they are successful in their undertakings- irreparable damage to the steel plant. I may say that is all the result of a campaign undertaken during the past few weeks in Sydney. For instance, I hold in my hand a newspaper containing a full-page advertisement; it is dated February third, but there were others in advance of this one. The advertisement reads:
Wanted!
1,000 Steel Workers Who Have Courage Not Fear
Who are Men, not Scabs Who will demand An Eight Hour Day,
15 per cent increase of Wages Recognition of the Union And Put it Through and Win a Victory Are you with us, or Against Us?
The strike appears to be a part of the campaign of the Workers' Party of Canada, which to all intents and purposes is the same as the Communist Party, or the party in control of affairs, it is said, in Russia at the present time. That is the cause of the trouble as it has developed, and I may say that we have to-day advised the strikers at Sydney that they should not interfere with the protection and maintainance of the plant to the extent of causing great damage to the property of the Steel Company. That is the situation, briefly, existing for the past few days.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask, Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I hope the hon. member does not rise to reply.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish just to ask a question.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has already put a question, but if his further question will be brief, he may ask it, by leave of the House.
28S
Marketing of Grain


James Shaver Woodsworth: The question is whether the government are making any provision to protect the men from being worked twelve hours a day, and twenty-four hours every alternate Sunday?


James Murdock: The wage rates are by the hour, I understand, the day has been one of twelve hours, generally speaking, some days thirteen hours.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With twenty-four hours every other Sunday.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Murdock: I am not sure as to that.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- EMPLOYEES' PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (Calgary West): May I be permitted to ask the government if it has under consideration any pension scheme to be applied to the employees of the Canadian National Railway, and if not at the present time, do they contemplate taking the matter under advisement shortly?
George Perry Graham: That is a pretty large question to answer without any notice having been given. The Grand Trunk has a superannuation scheme. The Intercolonial has what is called a provident fund, which is a similar scheme. Just what the Canadian Northern had I am not able to say-perhaps nothing. But the question of having some kind of fund established is under consideration. I cannot give any particulars with regard to it.


PENSIONS COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Cojnox-Albemi):: May I ask the government if it is their intention to reconstitute the pensions committee of last year? This committee did excellent work and made a number of recommendations which became law; but I am prepared to prove that the government officials, the Pension Board, whose duty it was to carry out these recommendations, have in some cases deliberately ignored them, and in others deliberately evaded them. I know nobody to whom I can bring the matter except this pensions committee which did such good work last year.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: It is not the intention of the government to appoint a special committee on pensions and re-esta-

blishment similar to the one that was appointed at the last session. The main reason is that a royal commission was appointed during the recess to investigate problems affecting the returned soldiers. This commission is now at work and its report should be submitted before the end of the session, when proper steps will be taken to cany out its recommendations.


EMPIRE SETTLEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I should like to direct the attention of the hon. Minister of Immigration to an article which appeared in yesterday morning's press, from the London Times, in which the Times was somewhat critical of Canada for not having taken more advantage of the Empire Settlement Act, and pointed out that Australia and New Zealand were getting great advantage out of it. Will the minister be ready, shortly, to tell the House what move has been made by Canada to take advantage of the money which has been granted by the British government for this purpose?


Charles A. Stewart: It is the intention of the government at this session to ask for some money for the purpose of taking advantage of some of the schemes promoted by the Empire Settlement Board.


THE MARKETING OF GRAIN
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle) moved:: Whereas the conditions under which Canada, and particularly Western Canada, markets its grain are matters on which the prosperity of all Canada in large measure depends; and
Whereas there is a widespread and insistent demand in all the principal grain producing provinces of Canada for an improved system of marketing said grain; and
Whereas there is at present a great diversity of opinion concerning the weakness and abuse of our present system and also as to what system if adopted would prove most satisfactory for the future.
Therefore be it Resolved:	.
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that this government should create a commission for the purpose of making inquiry into the grain trade, whose findings might serve as a basis for improvement of present legislation relative thereto or for the creation |in the immediate future of some permanent solution of the grain marketing problem.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I realize in rising to make this motion that I am dealing with a matter of very great importance. First, Jet me say a few words in regard to the demand for a grain inquiry. There has been a persistent demand for it for some years,

Marketing of Grain
and committees have been appointed from time to time to try and find some better methods for marketing our grain, though it is true that a great many are under the impression that the present method, so far as its physical features are concerned, is as good as it is possible to get. During the last few months the farmers have met in con vention in the cities of Brandon and Saskatoon and passed resolutions in favour of a grain inquiry.
I should like to deal with a few matters in respect to which there is a general impression that there is a grievance, particularly on the part of the producer, but first a few words in regard to the methods by which we have advanced during the last twenty years. Many sitting in this House, and on this side particularly will remember the time when the conditions under which we marketed our grain were intolerable. I need not dwell on that; I merely wish to remind the House that it was a fact. Several times during the last two decades inquiries have been made, and I can think of no instance in which a thorough inquiry was made where it was not followed by legislation that has been of very great benefit to the producers and to the country as a whole. Commissions have been appointed in the province of Saskatchewan, and after one of these had completed its work and handed in its report, legislation was adopted providing for the creation of the Cooperative Elevator Company. I should like to contrast that procedure with the experience of the Manitoba government, which tried to apply legislative measures without first holding an inquiry. The question before them both was that of the government's owning and operating country elevators. In Saskatchewan, where they took the wise course of making an inquiry and careful investigation first, they have succeeded admirably, but in Manitoba, where they proceeded to apply legislative remedies without first holding an inquiry, they failed dismally. That .is so well known that I need not dwell upon it. In the year 1906 a commission was appointed and made a thorough investigation into the grain trade, and as a result of its inquiry proposed twenty-six changes. Twenty-four of these were accepted and approved and became part of the present Grain Act.
Some have asked, what results have followed these inquiries by commissions, and seem to be under the impression that an inquiry usually starts with nothing and ends with nothing. I have not time to dwell on all the improvements that have followed this particular investigation, but let me mention
only two which I think are well worthy of the consideration of the House. In the year 1907 and prior to that time, in the grain that was passing from Fort William to the transfer
elevators, there was an annual loss of 50,000 bushels. That had been going on for years. The lake carriers, when asked why they did not watch the scales to see they were not beaten out of their freights simply remarked, "The more you watch the elevator people the more they take from you, and we simply take our loss and add it to the cost of carrying.' The point I wish to make is this: After the remedial legislation recommended by the commission was applied, you will find if you look up the figures that after 1908 instead of there being a loss, the weights on the transfer elevators and at Fort William agreed very, very closely; in fact, there was practically no loss; and that has continued, I believe, up to the present time. I would ask if that is not a very definite and substantial benefit?-and it resulted from simply one suggestion from the grain commission.
Let me mention another. At that time it appeared as though there were abuses on the part of terminal elevators. It was very difficult to find out exactly what was taking place, but recommendations were made to remedy the abuses if they existed, and in the following year, 1909, or possibly 1910, several of the managers of the terminal elevators were prosecuted by the warehouse commission and fined S500 each on some five or six charges. That was another practical and helpful work of legislation resulting from a recommendation by one commission only. ] pass on. .
Some have raised this objection, that we expect that steps will be taken to create a wheat board. I am in sympathy with that idea; in fact, I propose to urge the creation of a wheat board. But the faults of which I am going to speak nearly all existed under the wheat board of 1919, and I cannot see that they would not continue to exist under a new wheat board. What are they? The spread in the country elevator between the track price and the street price is very great. Now I would like it to.be understood that the amount of grain handled in the country elevators is so small that they cannot make both ends meet-that is, the country elevators by themselves, receiving only the handling charges, are not paying propositions. And it is alleged-I will not say the allegations are all true-and our people generally believe, that a large part of this loss is made up by taking a too heavy toll from the man who is compelled to sell

Marketing oj Grain

his grain on the street. That man has not a carload, therefore he is at the mercy of the elevator. That is one allegation that is made and one which, I think, should be investigated by this inquiry board.
Another matter is this. An organization of grain buyers in the West are making very serious charges against the grain trade. I do not assume the responsibility for their statements, I do not know that the charges are all true; but they are very serious in character. They claim that those who employ them, the firms in Winnipeg, are using very strong pressure, amounting to intimidation and even threats, in order to induce them to take a greater toll from the farmers than they have any right to do. They are bonded to become good-that is what it practically amounts to-for any shortage. Their contention is that though they have purchased grain for a firm for many years they are not permitted by the firms for whom they purchase to know the outturns of the cars as they go to Fort William. The grain firms follow this practice: If a buyer writes to Fort William and asks for the outturns of its cars they are at once notified by the chief weigh-master and the grain firms thwart the buyers. This is their contention. The grain firms rather reproach the buyers when they ask for these outturns. They tell them, "We would supply them to you if you ask for them"; but the buyers allege that they have not been able to get these statements in a satisfactory manner from the firms who employ them. They are kept in the dark as to whether they are going to be short or not, and at the same time they are bonded to become responsible for any shortage. This keeps them in the position where they are constantly striving to get all the grain they can lest there should be a shortage for which they would be held responsible.
The buyers also allege that the bonding firms are in collusion with the grain firms to intimidate them and keep them in subjection; giving them anything but a square deal. Now it may be that they have tried to have these matters investigated by the Board of Grain Commissioners, and it may be that there is not much foundation for their charges, but it seems to me it is only fair that some regard should be paid to the wishes of a body of men-I do not suppose all are members of this organization-whose membership runs into many hundreds. They are the men to whom we must sell our grain, it must pass through their hands before it goes on to Fort William, and it seems to me that in view of the fact that they have been making these charges openly-in a little pamphlet

they have issued, on the platform, and in every conceivable way they can get the charges before the public-it seems to me only reasonable that opportunity should be given to prove whether these charges are true or false.
Since this resolution was placed on the order paper, a select committee of this House has been appointed, and it may be the opinion of some that this committee could successfully inquire into all these matters. I would submit, however, that the charges I have just mentioned could not possibly be inquired into by this committee, for the reason that the organization referred to would probably make charges against a dozen, possibly two dozen, grain firms in the city of Winnipeg. It would be unfair to allow7 such charges to be preferred without giving the grain firms the oportunity of defending themselves. That would mean summoning witnesses by the score, it would mean occupying a great length of time, and it would be a very expensive process, because many of these witnesses live out in the country and probably would not be in a position to leave their work and spend a week or ten days in the city of Ottawa. Moreover the programme allotted to the select committee in question is so large and comprehensive that no committee, in the given time, could possibly cover one-quarter of the work laid out for it. That is quite evident and I need not labour the point. We all know how long it took the Committee on Agriculture to deal with the wheat board question last session- it occupied somewhere about three months' time. Now the work laid out for this select committee will probably cover four or five times as much ground. In that event, how is it possible for the committee to do justice to more than a very small part of the programme referred to it?
It has also been urged that the present Board of Grain Commissioners have the power, and it is their duty, to investigate these charges-that if anything wrong has occurred it is within the jurisdiction of the grain commission to investigate it. Let me point out the position in which the grain commissioners would find themselves if that course were pursued. Suppose a charge of injustice or irregularity in connection with a terminal elevator, or a country elevator for that matter, were made. These institutions are run under regulations laid down by the Board of Grain Commissioners, and the commissioners would be in the position of sitting in judgment of their own acts. Therefore, I submit, the Board of Grain Commissioners are not the proper authorities to investigate

Marketing of Grain
these charges. Furthermore I am going to ask, among other things, that some changes be made in the Grain Act. Now I cannot conceive that the board would seriously regard it as a part of their duty to submit such changes in the Grain Act, although they might. I think they have known in the past that charges of injustice in connection with the inspection of grain have been made, and yet no recommendation, so far as I know, has come from that board. I had occasion to write to the grain commission some little time ago when the grain firms were following this course in connection with cheques issued for purchases of grain: They sent cheques to the farmers for the cars they had purchased and put the necessary stamps on the cheques all right, but they charged the farmers for the stamps. I wrote to the grain commission and pointed out that fact, but they took the stand that the matter was not within their jurisdiction. Now, if they regard little matters of that nature as not being within their jurisdiction, and if complaints have been made and have failed of investigation by the commission and no remedies are forthcoming, what is the use of going on year after year and waiting for a remedy which fails to appear? We cannot get a remedy for the difficulties which exist and yet plenty of time has been allowed to provide a remedy. Under the circumstances the time has come to adopt a better means of securing redress.
I have touched on the matter of the inspection of grain. Let me deal a little more in detail with that point. At the present time it is believed-it is not my opinion only but it is the general belief-by the producers of grain that they are not securing a just return for wheat of a certain nature, The wheat that I refer to is of this character: grain that has been damaged slightly, or at least slightly discoloured by rain. Nothing but the milling test will determine whether the grain has been damaged. Much of that grain is being graded as No. 3 Northern. Milling tests have been made again and again. A firm in Minneapolis made one test some years ago; our provincial governments have made tests; tests have been made in the city of Winnipeg; and in all cases it has been found that many of those samples of grain from No. 3 Northern, of the kind of which I speak, have proved to be equal in milling value to our very best No. 1. Northern. That has been proved beyond r, doubt. The difficulty is how to classify this grain so that it shall be sold for its proper value. Some years ago a suggestion was made from the grain trade, and for a time was
19*
backed up by a few farmers, in favour of creating a sample market, in order that this grain might be sold on sample. In a very short time, the farmers, looking into the matter, began to see that it was not in their interest. It simply meant that the best of each grade, the choice cars, would be picked out, and the poor cars would be allowed to go forward, and would be the basis of the price fixed on the Liverpool market. It would be a skimming off of the cream, and allowing the skimmed milk to go forward. The farmers at once commenced opposition to the creation of a sample market. That opposition has continued up to the present time, notwithstanding the fact that the sample market was created some years ago. Let me point out to hon. members that although that sample market has been in existence for some years, very few bushels, if any, have ever passed over the sample market, but with the sample market went the mixing privileges 

an excuse and a reason for the existence of the mixing elevator. I think I am not unfair or unjust when I say that those who asked for the sample market did not want the sample market, but wanted the mixing privileges. I am not prepared to say definitely how that grain can be classified. I will add a little more to the class I have just spoken of: It is not only grain that has been slightly bleached by being wet, but also grain that has been slightly frosted. There is in some years a considerable quantity of grain of that nature, and the farmers who raised it are selling it sometimes for fifteen and sixteen cents a bushel less than No. 1 Northern, whereas, it has been proved beyond a doubt that it is of as much value and as good milling wheat as No. 1 Northern. That, I claim, is a very great injustice, and I believe a change should be made in the Inspection Act, but I am not prepared to say just what it should be. If I could tell you exactly how that could be remedied, I do not know that there would be very much reason why a grain commission should investigate it. That is a matter which could and should be dealt with by a select committee, although I have pointed out some matters that could not be dealt with by them.
There is another evil to which I will refer. I suppose some of you would find it hard to believe, but there has been a practice in the past of substituting cars. Cars that
4	p.m. are near the top of the grade are of excellent quality, and those mixing elevators would want them very much, though by some mysterious method the cars have been selected from the general flow of grain and have been sent to the mixing elevators, and

Marketing of Grain
cars of poorer quality have been put in their places. This, at one time, was carried on on a very large scale. There is a very great injustice. As I have pointed out-and I think I shall repeat because I want hon. members to appreciate the point-the price that the farmer receives for his grain is based on the kind of grain and on the value of the grain as it arrives in the Old Country market, and when the grain is deteriorated, damaged in any way, and the value taken out of it, then the price is less, and the farmer must suffer the loss. Sometimes, when a commission of inquiry engages in this work it will find evils of which nothing was known previously. I remember one remarkable case of this sort-it is quite possible that something of that nature might be discovered, if a board of inquiry were appointed at the present time. Investigation took place in Minneapolis some year or more ago, in which it was found that scalping played a very large part. That is, a grain firm would buy from a farmer and they would transfer to another grain firm. Sometimes, it would be a legitimate transaction and sometimes it would not. In some cases, carloads of grain were sold five or six or seven or eight times, and the spread between the first and second selling price was sometimes thirty and forty cents a bushel. Now as a great many grain firms that are doing business in Minneapolis are also doing business in Fort William, the relations between the two exchanges are very close, and the practice followed in the two exchanges is veiy much alike. I have no knowledge that the evil practice of scalping is carried on on a large scale, or to any great extent, in Fort William, or rather in Winnipeg, but the fact is that it is .a growing evil, and as the commission denounced it roundly in Minneapolis, it would seem to me to be a question that the board of inquiry might investigate carefully.
Let me touch very briefly on a matter I think of considerable importance. Under the wheat board, I think it is common knowledge among farmers that the spread between No. 1 Northern and No. 3 Northern is seven cents- it stood at seven cents during the whole season. Wheat, you will notice, was nearly $3 a bushel. Now, mark you, after the wheat board ceased operations and the price of wheat dropped to about $1.50 a bushel, the spread, instead of being one half of seven cents, was doubled; instead of being 3J cents, the spread increased to fourteen cents and in some cases to fifteen cents. It does not matter very much to a man who is growing No. 3 Northern wheat if the price of No. 1 Hard or No. 1 Northern is good, so long as he has not

that kind of wheat, but what is a serious matter to him is the fact, if he has No. 3 Northern wheat, that the spread between No. 1 Northern and No. 3 Northern is sixteen cents, and it brings him a very small price, indeed. Can anyone well explain that? Is it not worthy of some investigation by a board of inquiry, that the spread between No. 1 Northern and No. 3 Northern was seven cents and since the wheat board went out of business, [DOT] the spread doubled, notwithstanding that the price of wheat went down? I think it well worthy of consideration.
Let me say a word in regard to mixing elevators. A few years ago there were very few mixing elevators, Now there are a great many; and I suppose the reason is quite evident-they are profitable. Grain is taken into the mixing elevators, and according to the regulations of the Board of Grain Commissioners, as it is inspected out, it should grade up to the average. But what takes place in the meantime? Nos. 3, 4, 5-we do not know what grades, sometimes it is one and sometimes another-are mixed together and as the grain goes out of the elevators the lower grades disappear entirely. What has happened is this. They have cleaned the good grain out of the lower grades; their weights increase; a great deal of the poorer grain in the lower grades has gone out as screenings and a considerable quantity of the better grain has been mixed in, so that wheat that has gone in as No. 6, or No. 5 or No. 4 may go out as No. 2 or No.
3.	A strong argument is advanced by the trade that this is really a benefit to the farmer, that it does him no harm but rather improves some of his grain, and that not so much storage is required. I grant you the last point, but I deny the others. I think that this practice entails a great loss to the producer of grain. In the first place, if the good cars are taken out of the general flow, what happens to the rest? The question arises, is the grain which goes out of the mixing elevators up to the average required by the regulations? I would not say that it is not, at the present time, because I believe that the change in the personnel of the Board of Grain Commissioners has very greatly improved the board. But I would point out that within the last few months, at least within the last year, one cargo went to the United States graded out of one of these elevators as "3 Northern straight." When it got to Buffalo it was held up, the purchaser refused to accept it, the inspectors drew samples which were sent back to Winnipeg, and it was declared by them that the grain instead of being "3 Northern

Marketing oj Grain
straight" was "3 and 4 tough." I know that that is only a matter of administration, and it is quite possible that it calls for no change in the regulations, but I think a board of inquiry would not do any harm if it investigated that matter along with others. How was it that a similar cargo was sent to the Old Country and there found in the same condition and rejected? I would mention another point in connection with these mixing elevators. In the evidence taken by the Committee on Agriculture last year, it was pointed out that there was considerable difficulty in getting rid of the grain. I do not know just where this happened, but the fact is that when James Stewart was head of the wheat board he refused to take grain out of these mixing elevators except at a discount of as high as four cents per bushel. What does it indicate, when a man who was competent and knew the grain trade thoroughly, refused to take grain out of the mixing elevators except at such a discount? It is pointed out, of course, that he did not exercise his powers in this matter. But what do we infer from that? Knowing whom they had to deal with and that he would take his discount if the grain was not up to the mark, they sent it out at the right grade. But in the past it has not always been that way. Now, even supposing that the grain goes out of the mixing elevators up to the average, the value for mixing purposes that is in the grain as it passes from the producers' wagons is taken out. I believe that the Old Country importer and miller, knowing that they buy our grain not for its intrinsic value as milling grain, but for its strength for mixing purposes, would use that grain for those purposes themselves, and if they got it unadulterated I think they would pay a higher price for it than they give at present. If that be true-and I think the point is well worth looking into-then the farmer is being robbed of something to which he has a right, because he is entitled to the full value of his grain as it passes from his wagon. Anything that damages grain or takes from its value in transit takes from it something to which the farmer is entitled. It has been told me, and the statement has been made on such good authority that I have no hesitation in repeating it, that a considerable quantity of grain is transferred between the mixing and the public elevators. For what purpose is this done? It is alleged that these mixing elevators have difficulty in getting rid of their grain, and the millers admitted in evidence last session before the agricultural committee that they would never take grain from the mixing elevators if they could possibly help it. That was their evidence, one and all. Now, when they have that difficulty in getting rid of their grain what do they do? It is stated that they send it to the public elevators. It then passes into the general bin. If it is not up to mark, or if the value has been in any way impaired, it passes to the general bin and goes to lessen the value of the grain that is shipped to the Old Country, and on which the price is based.


Mr. STEVENS:: Does my hon. friend intend to imply that the public elevators are doing the mixing at the head of the lakes?


John Millar: No, not necessarily so. The grain that has been mixed and skimmed down as low as the inspection system would permit, to such an extent that the millers do not want it, the exporters do not want it, and James Stewart will not take it except at a discount, is sent over to the public elevators where it loses its identity and becomes straight grade grain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But my hon. friend says that it was put into the general bins and thereby impaired the standard of the grain already there. Is not that mixing, and is it not contrary to law?


John Millar: What I am pointing out is that whatever value that grain would have for blending purposes, if it were not mixed, is thereby lost. That is to say, if that grain were sent over to the Old Country unmixed it would have a value - for mixing purposes which it loses when mixed in the mixing elevators.
Now, some time ago a statement appeared in a great many of our newspapers that must have cost a considerable amount of money. It was published by the secretary of the Grain Exchange, Dr. Magill, and appeared in many of the agricultural papers and the daily papers all over the country. We know that this advertising is quite expensive, and that statement must have cost a good deal. In it, it is claimed by Dr. Magill that all that the trade at Winnipeg takes out of a bushel of wheat is 4.3 cents. Now, anyone who knows anything about grain, anyone who knows the number of people that are employed on the exchange, the profits they are evidently making, the staffs they keep, the enormous army that feed off the handling of the grain, will know quite well that these people could not live very long if that were all they got from the grain. If 4.3 cents per bushel were all they got I think some of them would starve inside of six months. It is quite evident that there are underground ways of reaping a greater profit from the
Marketing of Grain

grain than that. It is obvious that this is not all the profit they receive. And that is one reason why, it seems to me, a commission should be appointed, not to look into any one of these charges, but to go into the whole subject from every point of view. All the circumstances taken together constitute a sufficient ground for the appointment of a commission to inquire into the matter.
There is another point I should like to mention. I know representatives of the trade on the Liverpool and London markets are very anxious to know just what steps are taken by the Canadian government to see that no deterioration of our grain takes place between Fort William and the seaboard. They ask again and again:	Inspection takes place
at Fort William; what inspection takes place after that? The grain is handled through elevators, some of which are private elevators. Are the steps that are taken to safeguard the various grades of grain sufficient and adequate? I know quite well that such steps in regard to grain that passes through American channels are not sufficient. I found on the other side of the water a great many complaints about grain that had come from American ports, and the trade could not understand why it was that such grain was not as good as that coming from Fort William. Although the evidence was not given on oath, it was discovered either at New York or Boston that after the grain passing through the American channels in bond has left the seaboard, it is considered to be out of bend and the grades are then mixed. Here I believe is a very strong reason why there should be an investigation into the trade, because 65 per cent of our grain is now passing through American channels. Our railways are crying out for more freight, and our elevators at Montreal, although they had all they could do last year, I am sure would not admit that they could not do more business. We want our trade kept in Canadian channels, and I believe that an inquiry might do much to this end, because the variation of a single cent in carriage would mean a great deal; it would keep millions of bushels in Canadian channels that are now passing out through American channels.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Before the hon. member leaves that subject, has he figures as to how much American grain passed through Canadian channels in the same period?


John Millar: I could not give exact figures to the hon. member. I know the amount is considerable. I suppose some people migh take the attitude that while as much American grain passes through Canadian channels

as Canadian grain passes through American channels, why, we are enjoying a square deal and have nothing to complain of. I do not take that view. It seems to me that the Americans take all they can get, and they would not stop if they got more than their share. And we too should get all we can. I do not think the Americans would blame us.
I am not just certain whether another matter should be brought under this inquiry, but I think it would do no harm if the possibilities of creating co-operative systems for handling our farm products were investigated and reported on,. This system has been adopted in the United States with considerable success, especially by the fruit growers, and a little more information on the subject to our farmers that would eventually help them to solve their marketing problem by the creation of such a system would be of great value. It is well known that the wheat board which we are asking for and expecting this year is only regarded as a temporary expedient. We are looking for something that is permanent. We have not yet found it. It might be possible that a grain inquiry would serve as a kind of cleansing of our present system and wipe out some of those evils or clear up misapprehension. If so, our people might be satisfied to continue the same system, but I doubt it very much. Otherwise we want some other system of handling our grain, and it is the general belief that the co-operative system will be found the best. Any assistance that could be given by this board of inquiry would be very much appreciated by the farmers.
In closing, I am going to make one suggestion. Commissioners have gone to the Old Country and investigated the condition in which grain arrives there. There has been a strong feeling on the part of some that grain arrives very much deteriorated; in fact, extreme statements have sometimes been made to the effect that the grain reaches there as chicken feed. That has never been anywhere nearly true. But unfortunately those commissioners that have been sent to the Old Country have not numbered among them a single grain inspector, and I believe the government will be well advised to send a well qualified grain inspector overseas to look into this matter and to report back to the grain commission and to the inspection department the actual condition in which grain is arriving there, and also to make suggestions for overcoming any trouble that his investigations may disclose. A great deal could be accomplished by getting in touch with the trade there and encouraging them to further develop business with the

Marketing of Grain
Canadian people. If a competent inspector were kept there for six months or possibly a year I believe it would be money well spent.


Mr. SALES:: Why not permanently?


John Millar: The member for Saltcoats asks, why not' permanently? Well, that is a matter for future consideration. After a period of one year, if it were found advisable to keep such an official there, I certainly would have no objection to his being retained.
You will note, Sir, that I have not dwelt to any great extent on the serious conditions prevailing among the producers of grain, but this is simply because I think those conditions have been mentioned often enough by others. I think the House appreciates the fact that it would be a very great inspiration and help if something were done to give those producers encouragement, before they sell their next crop, that something of a practical nature is being done to relieve the difficulties under which they labour. Because, we must continue to sell our grain in competition with the other countries of the world, and accept prices regulated by supply and demand, while, as has been many times said, we are compelled to buy in very, very high markets. On these grounds I ask hon. members to support this resolution.


Robert James Manion: I should like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions. He has mentioned a sample market. Does he favour the operation of a sample market? The other question is in regard to deterioration. He referred to the deterioration of grain going from the head of the lakes or Winnipeg to the London or Liverpool market and the interest that the farmer had in that grain. Is it not true of a very large proportion of the wheat sold by the farmer at the track, that once he delivers it to the country elevator his interest in that wheat ceases entirely? I am asking for information in both these cases.


John Millar: I will answer the last question first, lest I forget it. That ground has often been taken, that as soon as a farmer sells his load of grain at the country elevator, and receives his price therefor, he has absolutely no further interest in that grain. I think that is what my hon. friend means. But that is not so in any case, not even as to a part of his crop. The price he receives for that- load has been based on the actual value of grain arriving in the Old Country. That is, those who are importing the grain know what they have been receiving for that grade. It does not matter what the grade is, but we will say it is No. 3; they know what they have been receiving for No.
3 in the past, and if anything is done in transit to lower the value of that grain, the price will be less. It is plain that if the price is less the price to the farmer will be less; there is no getting away from that. So that the farmer is interested in what happens to that grain from the time it leaves his wagon until it is sold to the Old Country buyer.
The question has been raised with regard to a sample market. When a very considerable part of our grain is milled in Canada, I shall be in favour of a sample market, but so long as nearly all our grain is sold by grade, I cannot see my way clear to favour a sample market. What takes place is simply this-and I do not know that I need cover the ground; in fact, I believe I have already done so-it is a picking out of the best cars, the cars that are of great value, and getting them for the same price as for the ordinary cars; little or no premium is paid. What is left is less valuable, but it is on what is left that the price is based; therefore the price is less.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: Mr. "Speaker, I rise to support this resolution; I believe that an investigation into the grain trade is long overdue. The world's price for wheat is set at Liverpool, because Liverpool, being the great centre for wheat, collects the surplus practically of the whole world. It is this surplus, or the lack of any surplus at all, that sets the price for wheat all over the world. We, the growers in western Canada, are content if we get that- price, minus the cost of getting our surplus on that market.
The farmer can market his grain in one of several different ways. He can sell outright to a country elevator at a price based on the Winnipeg price-to a dealer whose interest it is to create as much difference as possible between the initial price and the price paid at Winnipeg. Now, the farmer may possibly load a car over the loading platform and ship to Fort William and Port Arthur, in which case he will save the spread that may exist between the elevator prices and the cash prices in Winnipeg, as well as avoid the effects of all the devious methods of elevator operators regarding grades, shrinkage, dockage, and so on. He may send his car down to be stored at the terminal elevator, and to be sold later when the price suits him, in which case he is given a certificate guaranteeing the weight and grade. But that car of wheat may be spotted on the way by some miller and diverted to his mill for his own use, or it
Marketing oj Grain

may be diverted to a private elevator for mixing purposes; and all the farmer has to show for it is a certificate. If his car is diverted, it means that the wheat was a particularly fine type of that grade, and it also means, that, although the price is made in Liverpool, according to the value the British miller sets on Canadian wheat in competition with the wheat of other countries, the British miller does not get a chance at the wheat as it leaves the farmer's wagon. I think it should be made illegal for anyone to go into the business of buying and selling with no intention of ever taking possession or delivering in case of sale. Many of these men at one time or another overstep their capabilities and have to unload in a hurry. When they do this, advantage is taken of it by the exporter; the price is beaten down, and that sets a price for the next twenty-four hours over the whole of the three prairie provinces. It is possible, too, for a combination of these men, by withholding or dumping, to influence the price the way they want it. It is unfair, I say, to the grower that the remuneration for his year's work should be subject to such haphazard methods of price fixing and resulting violent fluctuations-seeing that he has no other channel open to him through which he can market his wheat.
While I believe in as little government control of industry in any form as possible, one must realize that wheat is different from all other commodities in that, because of its great bulk it must be moved from the grower to the consumer 'in a collective way. The grower has no control over any part of the business after the wheat leaves the wagons at the initial loading point, and yet his price is subject to the speculation of a set of men who are interested only in making all the difference they can between the price at the initial point and the Liverpool market. Since the farmer's price is established outside of his province, outside of his country, in competition with the wheat of other countries, it is surely the duty of the government to see that the grower is protected to the point where his product cannot be further tampered with, either in the physical handling or in the matter of price fixing. Since this product of the farmer is one which must be handled collectively and which has to pass through thj hands of so many public utilities before it reaches the place where the price is set, I say again it is the duty of this government so to regulate these public utilities as to guarantee that full justice shall be done to those who are particularly interested in such products.

Many features of the trade which this commission should investigate are outside the province of the present grain commission. I think it is necessary that some consideration should be given by the commission of inquiry to the routes by which the grain of this country can reach its ultimate destination in the most economical way. I shall hope to see the appointment of men in this capacity who, by their integrity and ability, will command the respect of all concerned.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: I rise to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the two former speakers concerning this resolution. It is a cause of gratification to me that the government has so far conceded the point as to have this problem investigated by the select Committee on Agriculture, for a problem it is, and it has been a problem in the West ever since the West has been growing grain. I do not, however, think that the committee will have either the time or the opportunity to take all the evidence that is necessary in this matter. By way of illustration let me say that when a committee of this House sits and takes evidence it is only natural, and it is what we have been accustomed to find in the past, that the financial interests in the country, particularly those engaged in the grain trade, always send their delegations to give evidence before the committee, and invariably they are composed of capable men who give expert evidence. But I maintain that the producer, the man whose cause has been pleaded here to-day, and whose cause I am now endeavouring to plead, has not the same opportunity of giving evidence before a committee of this House that he would have before a royal commission, and that is one reason why I rise to make a small contribution to this debate.
I should like to see a royal commission appointed that would travel all over the country and give the producer, the man who has a grievance, and who has always had one -the man who is not receiving justice, and particularly so this last year-an opportunity to appear before it and give evidence. In my humble opinion that is necessary before justice can be done; but as I said before, I am pleased that the government have conceded the point of appointing a committee at all events. I hope that if the committee has not finished its work by the end of the session, and that if its work warrants continued investigation, as I think it will, the government will appoint a royal commission that will travel over the country and give all parties concerned an opportunity to give their

Marketing of Grain
evidence, and then bring in their report which the government might act upon through order in council so that it would not be necessary to wait until another session was called, but give relief before the next crop was marketed.
The two speakers who have preceded me have entered into quite a technical point. For myself I wish to give only concrete evidence.
I believe the commission could and would find out the conditions if they would only travel over the country and give the producer an opportunity to present his evidence. I might state that I think I have a right to speak for the producer, because I have endeavoured to take a man's part in the harvesting of thirty-one crops in that western country, and surely if an individual has done that much work, he should know something whereof he speaks and of the conditions surrounding the producing of grain.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) said, the spread between the price the producer receives and the price that is received on the market at Liverpool is altogether too great, and in the first place it is the producer of the grain who pays all the charges between, to say nothing of the inequalities of which the hon. gentleman speaks.
We have heard the complaint of the miller, and in my humble opinion the eastern miller, in the province of Ontario, we will say, is warranted in complaining on the ground that the grain which he buys to grist in his mill has lost much of its value because of its being purchased at the mixing elevators. The grain he gets is not as a rule of the same quality as the grain forwarded to the initial elevators by the producer, and that difference in price is always deducted from the producer. I have no doubt it may seem that this point has always been stressed in the House, but it has not been stressed very much until the last three or four years, and that is one of the reasons why men are down here now endeavouring to bring the matter before the House. I think I can assure the House that when the conditions are recognized and remedies applied, you will not have the same complaint from the people of the West. It is simply because remedies have not heretofore been applied that we are obliged to come here and ask for redress for our grievances.
I stated a few moments ago that I pro-, posed to present some real concrete evidence, something of which I am absolutely certain. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that in the year 1920 I made a statement on the floor here to the effect that I had visited the state of North Dakota and
had found a great disparity in the price paid there to the man who sold his grain to the initial elevator and the price paid to his neighbour just north of an imaginary boundary line. I found a difference of $1.01 a bushel between the price paid to the Dakota farmer and the price paid to the farmer in the West. In this country we had a wheat board in existence at that time and over there there was none. The explanation given by the interests-naturally it does not come from the producer, yet it is the producer on our side who suffers and has suffered for years- was that the United States required what hard wheat could be taken across the boundary for the purpose of mixing at the Minneapolis mills to provide a grade of flour acceptable to the consumer in the British Isles. That is true, and all very well, but. we find to-day that the United States is scarcely an exporting country; in fact, we believe that in the very near future she will forego the large revenue she has derived in the past from the export of flour; yet this same condition exists today. Again this year, for my own satisfaction and for the purpose of being in a position to furnish evidence to the House or before a committee, I made another visit to the state of North Dakota, and on the day of my arrival, which was 9th October, I found a spread of 11 cents a bushel between the price paid the North Dakota producer and the price paid north of the boundary line, and that was for a poorer grade of wheat than ours. They were receiving 93 cents a bushel, while I was receiving only 82 cents. I make this positive statement. In my judgment, and from what knowledge I have gained in seeing samples of grain, my grain that I sold this year-and you will pardon the personal pronoun, but I can speak more positively of my own case-was fully two grades better than the grain over in the elevators that I visited in the town of Sherwood in North Dakota; yet my neighbour was getting 93 cents a bushel while I received only 82 cents. When I reached home I found in my mail a map sent by the Railway Association of Canada, which shows the 49th parallel and the lines of railway paralleling the international boundary line. It also shows the comparative freight rates from points opposite each other along the international boundary, and I find that in each case there is a difference of 4| cents per one hundred pounds in favour of Canada. We might call that equal to 2 6/10 cents a bushel. Add that to the 11 cents premium that my neighbour to the south was receiving, and for a poorer grade of wheat. I went home quite prepared to ask this further question,-why is it, when

Marketing oj Grain
Liverpool is the pivotal point where the price is fixed for all export wheat, that my neighbour to the south of the boundary can receive 11 cents more than I, and all these other favourable conditions? It does seem to me, and I urge it upon the House, that this is one of the questions which the commission should investigate and determine.
I also submit that a committee of this House could not secure the necessary evidence. It would be different with a royal commission moving through the country and hearing evidence at various points. I am sure in that case the producers of grain would only be too anxious, oniy too glad, to have the opportunity of appearing before them and giving concrete evidence upon the points referred to. The evils in connection with this matter have been apparent for many years, and it is a cause of gratification to us today, Sir, to know that our government have recognized the fact and are adopting means whereby we hope to obtain redress. It has been a subject of complaint in the past that governments have been loath to take action in the matter; I am happy to think that a change for the better has taken place in that respect.
It occurred to me, when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle suggested that an officer should be located in the Old Country to look after our grains, preferably at Liverpool, that our government might have obtained samples from the Liverpool market and laid them before the members of this House, or at least before the Committee on Agriculture which is to look into this matter. I might state that as a producer I am prepared to collect samples of grain as grown in the prairie provinces in the year 1922, and I am prepared to establish the grades upon which the producer was paid; it would be a very nice comparison for individual members of this House to see the quality of grain that was produced and sold last year as against the quality of grades that are fixed as standards upon the Liverpool market.
May I give another concrete instance illustrating the conditions that prevailed in 1922. I read in the statutes that:
No. 1 Northern grain shall be sound and well cleaned, weighing not less than 60 pounds to the bushel, and ' shall be composed of at least 60 per cent hard wheat. No. 2 Northern shall be sound and reasonably clean, of good nulling quality, 58 pounds to the bushel, 45 per cent hard wheat.
The illustration that I wish to give the House, and I hope it will come before the committee, was furnished by an individual whose entire grain crop was grown upon prairie land that was newly broken. This individual purchased really good Marquis seed 	;
wheat from a responsible seed firm, and it was sown upon this land. I myself saw this crop many times, and helped to thresh and market the grain. When that grain was being marketed by the load on the street all the buyers were very anxious to purchase it, in all cases at the maximum price of No. 1 Northern. The producer placed 1,206 bushels of this wheat in the elevator to ship out, and when it was shipped out he received the grade of No. 2 Northern. Complaint was made and a re-inspection asked for, but the reply the producer received was, "We are not paying No. 1 Northern prices for wheat this year." Now I am prepared to take my oath, Sir, that that grain weighed 62 pounds to the bushel, that it contained more than 80 per cent hard wheat, and that it was as beautiful a hard, red wheat as anyone would wish to see. Yet that was the treatment accorded to that fine grain. I have wondered many times how many cars of a poorer grade of wheat those 1,206 bushels were intended to be mixed with to conform to the standard of grade required on the Liverpool market. That illustrates the problem which confronts the producers to-day, and it is an injustice to refuse them the opportunity of appearing before a commission.
Eeferring again to the question of the spread in prices in the state of North Dakota I wish to state that since the date to which I referred previously the spread there has gone up to as much as 21 cents per bushel, and the question arises why it is that a grower in the United States who produces wheat under the same conditions and suffers the same disability that I do, should receive 21 cents per bushel more for an inferior grade when the price for export wheat is set at the pivotal point of Liverpool. That is a very important question and one which enters largely into the question of immigration, as I would remind my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Stewart). How largely it affects the question of immigration I can best demonstrate by citing a newspaper quotation which I would like to have placed upon Hansard. It reads thus:
On Wednesday, December 13th, the Whitehead family, comprising Mrs. Whitehead, Sr., Mrs. Wm. Whitehead, Jr., and Edmund took their departure from this district proceeding to Sherwood en route for Michigan. This is the fourteenth family to leave this locality with no one up to the present coming to take their places. Out of the number gone only one was a bachelor.
That is the condition which prevails in the West; it is the condition which prevails all along the international boundary. And again I state, and reiterate, that this matter is one which we must take into considera-

Marketing oj Grain
tion, because there must be an equitable price paid to those who are producing grain and who are working fourteen and fifteen hours a day in so doing. I say that the question of immigration does enter into this matter and that the exodus from western Canada must be stopped. Because there should be the fullest opportunity of demonstrating what the West is worth. The potential wealth of the country is not challenged, the people of the West have a heritage that is well worth while; but parasites must be stopped from stepping in and taking an unjust toll from the people who are labouring there.
I am very pleased indeed that the government have at last made a move towards investigating the conditions about which we have for so long complained.
Mr. ARTHUR L. BEAUBIEN (Proven-cher):	Mr. Speaker, when coming down to
Ottawa last year, a large percentage of the electors of Provencher, which I have the honour to represent here, told me that they thought that a royal commission to inquire into the grain trade should have been established long ago. I thought so myself and was under the impression that during the last session, we had voted the sum of $40,000 for such an inquiry. If I am wrong in that respect I am open for correction. When parliament prorogued I returned to my electors and told them that $40 000 had been voted for such an inquiry. Afterwards the statement appeared in the press that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was of the opinion that there were not sufficient complaints to warrant an inquiry. I do not know what grounds there were for making such a statement. At any rate, I came back to Ottawa this year with full instructions from the people of my riding to press for a royal commission to inquire into the marketing and grading of grain. I want to take up the question of grading and emphasize that point to a greater extent, perhaps, than other speakers who have preceded me. In Manitoba-the oldest province of the West and one that has been growing grain for a longer period than the other two western provinces-we have a weed element to contend with, a menace which is more formidable than Saskatchewan or Alberta have to contend with. Consequently we are doing all we can to destroy the noxious weeds. And just here let me say that the farmers in Manitoba are the best farmers in the West because they have had a very much longer experience. And we are doing everything in our power to eliminate weeds, but we have a very hard proposition on our hands and we cannot eliminate
them to the extent I would like. So, therefore, the grading affects us to a larger extent than it affects the people in Saskatchewan and Alberta. This fall, I think, we grew one of the best crops in the southern part of Manitoba, which I have the honour to represent, that was ever grown in that province, and at the same time we have received lower grades this year than in any year I know of. Even in 1916, when we had an epidemic of rust, we really received better grades than we did this year, and, of course, our grievance is much more prominent than the grievance in any other part in western Canada, for the simple reason that we are very close to the boundary.
I live only 22 miles from the boundary, and I have taken wheat to Pembina, on the American side, and my wheat would grade No. 1, at Pembina, but on the grading market in Canada, it would grade No. 3 and No. 4, so that being so close to the line does not conduce to the farmer receiving justice in regard to the grading proposition.
I received before I came to Ottawa, resolutions from practically every municipal council in the county of Provencher, and I know that copies of these resolutions have been forwarded to the Prime Minister; at least, the councils intimated to me they were sending them. The municipal councils represent all the people in the country, and I think that these resolutions are not passed lightly. Before they pass those resolutions, they study the question, and they hear plans discussed, and so forth, and I do not think they would pass these resolutions, unless they knew what they were doing.
I think the appointment by the government of a parliamentary committee was a good move, but if the parliamentary committee were going to give the grain trade a thorough investigation, we would be here until this time next year, because we cannot hold a thorough investigation in Ottawa. You must go through the country and find out from the people who know. If you brought these people to Ottawa, it would involve a great deal of expense, and there is no doubt, if that were done, the Prime Minister and his colleagues would not be able to attend the Imperial Conference next June.
The kind of commission that we in this corner of the House desire-and I think the government should give us all the support possible-is not a political commission, but a commission of men who know the grain trade and have the interest of the country at heart. In my opinion, a political commission is no good and has no right to be appointed at any time. We want a commission that will
Marketing oj Grain

bring our recommendations to the government, so that if the Grain Act needs to be amended, the recommendation of this commission, which would be a royal commission, will be put into the Grain Act, and will relieve the Canadian farmers. I might offer a suggestion. We have a commission inquiring into the lake freight rates to-day. If the government consider that commission is competent to inquire into the marketing and grading of grain, I would throw out the suggestion that, when they are through with their present work, they keep on investigating and do not stop until the people of
5	p.m. the West are getting justice in the grading, marketing and mixing
of grain.
Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON	(West
York): I have been waiting in the hope that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would make a statement to the House and save further debate.	Hon.
gentlemen know that we had this all threshed out last year, and at the request of the government, we put through a vote of $40,000, if I remember rightly. Again, if I remember, we had the whole matter discussed one evening, when many of my hon. friends to my left were present, and when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) told us, as I recollect it-hon. members will correct me if I am wrong-that in -view of the fact that the Progressives, as well as the official opposition, demanded this investigation, it would be held. Well, of course, the government have been very busy. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has been out of the country a great deal, but he is here now -they are all home-and I was in hopes that we could be told that the investigation would go on.
Something has been said by an hon. gentleman to my left to the effect that they are glad that something is now going to be done. Well, we tried to do something and we were stopped. It was said we wanted to get a special organization-a political organization. We asked Mr. Wood-Mr. Henry Wise Wood -of Alberta, to act as chairman of that investigating commission, and he would not act. We thought that if we put him in charge of it he would at least see it was not political. He would be there and would be in charge. Failing to obtain Mr. Wood, we then asked Mr. Stewart to take charge. Mr. Stewart has been described more recently as a representative of the farmers on the railway board, but he declined. We did not want any political commission. However, that is all

old history. We thought the grievances of the West ought to be properly inquired into, and that any possible remedy that the West was entitled to ought to be given to it. We still think so, and I hope my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, will now tell us that the vote of last year is going to be put into effect, that the government still are where they were last year, and that the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be given immediate effect.


Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge):: It was not my intention to take part in this debate, but it seems to me one important feature has been omitted in the remarks that have been made, and that is the effect that this investigation might have on immigration matters. We have heard a great deal said during this session on the vast number of our people that were going to other countries, especially to the United States, and what should be done to keep these people here. It seems to me that if this question which is before us this afternoon is properly settled, it will afford some solution to that problem and assist us in keeping our people on the land. I come from the Lethbridge constituency, where we are engaged in a great irrigation project. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8,000,000 is to be expended in that country in placing those farmers in a position where farming in the future will be a permanent success and not be subject to all the ups and downs that have been experienced there during the last twenty years.
I want to acknowledge here some real and valuable assistance we have had in our labours from the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). We have sent men into the United States in an endeavour to get settlers to come in and take up surplus lands in the irrigation districts, and in this connection I would read a few lines from a letter which I have received from a friend who was in the United States engaged in that work. What I shall read has an important bearing on this discussion. It is dated from Oakland, and reads:
As you know I am down here to try to interest people in the Lethbridge Northern and I have had some success as far as interest is concerned but the people that would come have no money and those that have money see no real benefit in changing. I just want to call your attention to some of the things I can't explain to their satisfaction. Why fat steers at Calgary are selling for 3 to 4 cents per pound when they are worth 10 to 11 in Chicago? There is a man out north of here feeding Canadian stockers he bought at Minneapolis and says they are the best feeders he ever fed but he says where does the Canadian farmer get off that raises them? This country would take every steer for sale in Canada at a good price if it was not for the tariff. The farmers are getting $1.10 for wheat that would not make chicken feed, why do we have to take

Marketing of Grain
80 cents for No. 1 Hard when the farmer hero gets $1.10 for worse than chicken feed? Ask the Minister of Agriculture. They also ask the rate of interest and when I tell them 8 per cent they say "no Canada for
me."	,
I thoroughly appreciate and endorse the action of our government in proposing this com' mittee for this session to make a special investigation into these matters affecting agriculture. But, as has been pointed out by the mover of this resolution (Mr. Millar), it is hardly likely that that committee, within the short period available in this one session, could in any wise be able to cover the ground of the complaints raised this afternoon. I think what is needed is a royal commission to investigate this whole subject in as thorough a manner as possible. The subject is one that has been discussed up and down this chamber for the last four or five years. Not only last session was it under discussion; from the reading I have done of previous Hansards which have been sent me, I find that this same discussion has been going on for the past few years. Now, let us get down to the bottom of the whole thing and have it settled. It is the most vital question we have to deal with today, and bound up in it is the question of immigration, in fact, the question of the whole future of this country. It is a matter of patriotism that a royal commission be appointed to look thoroughly into the subject.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I think the hon. member
for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) is to be congratulated on bringing this important national subject to the attention of the House. I do not know any hon. gentleman more capable of dealing fully and fairly with the question than the member whose name is associated with the resolution. Grain inquiries are not new events in Canada. We have had a number of them, some national, some provincial, practically all of them, I think, considerably effective, and certainly all of them of an educational character. The first one I can recall was conducted in the year 1899. It was preceded by the action of a private member, the late Senator Douglas, who inti oduced into this House a private bill dealing with the grain trade. Previous to that we had had no legislation governing the warehousing, transportation and sale of grain, except what was called the Manitoba Inspection Act. The government of that day assured the late Senator Douglas that if he would withdraw his bill they would take the matter up at a subsequent session and during the recess have an investigation into the trade, bringing down later a bill based on the recommendations of that investigation. I remember quite well the personnel of that com mission, which created a great deal of interest throughout the West. People had been harassed and were not only filled with suspicion but were absolutely certain that things were not all well and this being the first commission of its kind it can well be understood with what interest it was received. The late Judge Senkler of St. Catharines, was appointed chairman of that commission and his colleagues were three gentlemen from Manitoba, all still alive, Mr. C. C. Castle, now in British Columbia, Mr. Lothian and Mr. Sirrett. I forget who was the secretary. They conducted the usual inquiry, travellm1-about the country, and created a great deal of interest, especially among the farmers. I travelled myself some fifty miles on the prairies to give evidence, and I felt when I went home that I had not spent the time in vain. When the recommendations came down, and subsequently the legislation based thereon, I was convinced that it was perhaps one of the most successful investigations that had ever been held in connection with this important industry. Notwithstanding the very thoroughness of that inquiry, however, time seemed to reveal certain weaknesses in the act. No matter how you legislate, it is said that some people can always drive through the law. And in the year 1906 another agitation sprang up for a further inquiry. I had the honour of recommending to the government of that day that the present member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) be not only a member, but chairman, of that commission; and I have no doubt that the opportunities he had at that time of investigating the trade, not only of Canada but of the British Empire, as well as the practical knowledge we had of the producing end, have enabled him to gain that familiarity with the subject which it is evident he has to-day. In 1908, there were a number of other commissions, all more or less important. One of them was provincial, appointed by the province of Saskatchewan, and resulted in the present co-operative elevator system in that province. Later on we had the commission of 1921 which has been referred to by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). It is true that the operations of that commission were estopped by injunction proceedings, and it has occurred to me, since attention has been drawn to the fact, that before any more royal commissions are appointed it might be well for the status of the federal government to be established in order to ascertain how far we can go in these matters. There is no doubt that there is a federal jurisdiction; but apparently the royal commission could not go the limit of the
Marketing oj Grain

present Grain Act in this inquiry. It would be well, therefore, for any investigation to try to avoid such an impasse as occurred - in this case, because it brings discredit on investigations generally and on the Grain Act in particular. I have no doubt that before such an investigation proceeds the necessary steps will be taken to see just where our jurisdiction ends and that of the provincial authorities begins. I would gather, however, from the remarks of two hon. members that we were to avoid duplicating the personnel of that commission-I do not know exactly why, I must admit-and that the personnel of the present lake rates commission is of the right type. If that is so, we naturally feel gratified at having pleased the House, more particularly that portion of it which is intimately associated with grain growing, with the personnel of this commission.
During the last few years not only has the agitation for a further inquiry into the grain trade been continued on the part of the producers themselves after these injunction proceedings were successful, but the Organized Buyers' Association, with headquarters at Moose Jaw, have been doing a great deal of educational work throughout Saskatchewan directed to the necessity of further inquiry, especially from their standpoint as buyers. I have noticed in the press the very radical and extraordinary statements made by them which, if true, should receive very careful attention. I have no doubt that the inquiry by the special committee mentioned in the Speech from the Throne will give representatives of this association an opportunity of being heard. At all events, I hope that will be dealt with when the committee is organized.
Might I state, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the spirit of this resolution is being complied with by the sessional programme? It is true that the commission to inquire into lake rates touches very slightly the particular matter mentioned in the resolution, but the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne which I am about to read is so comprehensive that I think it can be taken to embrace all phases of the grain trade. The only question is whether it is possible to get at the bottom of these matters from one central point like Ottawa, or whether it is necessary to have a commission take evidence throughout the country. This is the paragraph:
The adverse conditions with which agriculture generally is confronted in many parts of Canada, despite the abundant crops of the past year, render it desirable that a special committee, with powers to make recommendations, be appointed to look into various agricultural matters such as the mixing of grain in private terminal elevators, the marketing of farm porducts,-

To look into "the marketing of farm products." That is a very broad and comprehensive term. So I think the scope of the committee is quite sufficient to cover every phase and form of grievance. The paragraph concludes:
-the development of the live stock industry, and the possibilities of further diversification in our Canadian agriculture. .
I wish to point out at this stage that the desire of the government in this direction is already shown by the commission which has already been appointed to inquire into lake rates, and by the appointment of a special committee, the personnel of which is almost complete. I have in my pocket the names of all but three of the committee, and its full personnel will be announced, I hope, in the course of another day. The committee will be set to work immediately.
I take the ground that this special committee is necessary even though the grievances were imaginary-which they all are not, of course-simply for the educational value of these investigations. Every few years there is a new body of producers growing up who know nothing about the history of the grain trade or the former investigations of that trade, and who find our grading, inspection and sample systems very mysterious processes indeed. I remember very well in 1901, when I was first associated with the Farmers' movement of that day, going to Winnipeg as the Farmers' representative to inquire into the intricacies and mysteries of the grain exchange. I went with great trepidation, feeling I was entering a den of thieves but to my surprise I found the men engaged in the grain trade were' very much like other business men. I got to know David Home, W. W. Thompson, the warehouse commissioner, and Mr. Searle, our present chief inspector. You cannot find more upright men in any business in Canada. Later on I became acquainted with some of the grain merchants whom you would find on the grain exchange acting like so many madmen. I have no doubt hon. members have all played the parlour game imitating the grain pit, and even this mild game causes quite a lot of excitement; but when millions of bushels of grain are being dealt with the excitement in the pit of the grain exchange is easily accounted for. One can expatiate on the mysteries of the grain trade to people in a country district whose minds are harassed by a hundred other things and suggestively remark what these grain dealers are doing and that their intervention between the producer and consumer might well be dispensed with. Naturally a very bad impres-

Marketing of Grain
sion can be left on the minds of your hearers. I had an opportunity of being in the grain exchange in the city of Budapest, Hungary, and unless I had had a preparatory course in Winnipeg I would have thought that the wildly gesticulating men before me should not be at large. For the sake of its educative value alone the committee referred to in the Speech from the Throne should make its inquiry as exhaustive and complete as possible.
The question of grading and sampling is a very difficult one to handle, but if we can get men of the type of Mr. Searle at the head of affairs we have made a good start in removing the suspicion that the whole business is wrong. Many men entertain the idea that the grading system could be dispensed with altogether. In my youth in Ontario when we had any wheat for sale we took it to the local mill and sold it on sample. The owner and the miller were there, they both dug their hands into the bag, and arrived at a conclusion of the value of the contents. The value was decided by weight only, but it was a matter of negotiation between them, and was in effect a sample market. That practice is all right where the wheat is for domestic use, but for export purposes the quality of your wheat must be designated by grades, and consequently a system of grading has been worked out. The contract grades are Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Northern which are specified by statute. What we call the commercial grades under No. 3 Northern are set from year to year by the Grain Standards Board, and of course these grades fluctuate. No wonder it is all very mysterious to the man who has not been behind the scenes, but at the same time I do not know any better system of grading.
In the United States they have practically the same system, supplemented by what is called the sample market. In a country like the United States, where a large volume of wheat is milled at home, the sample market -in Minneapolis, for instance-is a tremendous factor. But in Canada our alternative markets are not sufficiently numerous to make the sample market a dominating factor; it is the export trade that counts, consequently our chief method of grading must be by statute or by standards board rather than by sample. You will recall that before the war a great agitation arose in the West for a sample market. The multiplicity of grades, running to fifty or sixty in number, the mystery that seemed to surround the establishing of them, the taking of the samples on which they were based, and so on, led to an agitation for a sample market such as they had at Minneapolis. That demand naturally reflected itself in this House in the demand of the western representatives-in 1911 or 1912, I think it was-for provision for a sample market. I do not think it was realized at that time just what a sample market meant.
A sample market cannot be of any appreciable value to anybody, much less the producer, unless those engaged in the trade have the opportunity of mixing the grades and the various wheats. The very essence of it is the buying of wheat which has an excess of virtue over the standard grade and mixing it with lower grade wheat. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, in our determination to progress we sometimes take a mistaken step; at times we learn only by finding out that we are wrong. So that action was taken, at the request of the western members of the House, to provide for sample markets-and that always implied mixing, and now we have come back to the old difficulties of twenty-five years ago in connection with these mixing elevators.
Prior to the passing of the old Manitoba Grain Act, which is now the Canada Grain Act, mixing prevailed at Fort William to such an enormous extent that that was one of the causes which led the late Senator Douglas to bring down the bill to which I have refereed. It was felt that the mixing process was deteriorating our export wheat to such an extent that the only solution of the difficulty was to stop the business entirely. There was no way of controlling it; therefore they stopped it.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has stated that mixing should be all right theoretically, because the owners of the mixing houses are required by law to turn out every carload up to the average grade of the public terminal elevator. That sounds pretty reasonable; in fact, it is almost more exacting, you would think, than the result would be in the case of the terminal elevators, because they have to turn out nothing less than the minimum.
Now, I find that quite competent men in the trade, mere who are probably better versed in it than any of us here, differ as to the mixing. Of course, a man who is engaged in mixing is invariably in favour of it, otherwise he would not be doing it. The man who grows the grain, especially if he is feeling hard hit at other points, is likely to suspect that there is some immense advantage accruing to the man who does the mixing, with corresponding detriment to the grower himself. Is it possible to take out, say one-third of the best of the wheat, one-third of the contents of a car showing quality over and above the straight grade -is it possible, I say, to take this out and have a residue as good as if there were no
Marketing oj Grain

mixing? Let us get it down to a simple illustration that we can all understand: if you had a dozen apples on that table and you took out the six best apples, could you possibly have as good apples remaining as you have taken out? It cannot be done. We may talk wisely about mixing elevators; we may say it is the only system by which export can be kept uniform and that no harm is done to the producer; we may say that on the other hand we are establishing an industry that is so profitable that it will bid up for these off-grade cars and that a part of the benefit will then be transferred to the producer. Well, I will guarantee that there is no hon. gentleman present who, even with the aid of the most powerful X-ray, has ever been able to see any benefit come to the producer as the result of mixing.
I know there are some men who know more about the grain trade than I do who take an exactly opposite position and say that mixing is all right. I know, too, that some of these gentlemen have the complete confidence of the Progressive group-and, indeed, of everybody who knows them. Well, if doctors disagree, who is to decide? It shows the necessity of reviewing this whole question thoroughly before coming to any hasty conclusion. There is nothing to be said . against anyone for having carried out the wishes of the West in the matter of the establishment of a sample, market. We tried it, and it is only by trying things that you get anywhere.


Thomas Sales: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but what he says there is not quite correct. At the meeting in June, 1917, when the grain commission decided to put the sample regulations into force, the Canadian Council of Agriculture, representing the organized farmers of the three prairie provinces, objected to that being done.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not mention it with the idea of blaming anybody. I will put it this way: the western representatives of that day-I cannot recall who they were-[DOT] thought they were voicing the public sentiment of the West when they agitated in this House for a sample market. It is a reflection on no one; we often have to retrace our steps. There is no other way of trying some things. Take the Hudson Bay railway; there is no way of proving whether or not it is feasible except by trying it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I point out to the hon. minister that when the act was amended providing for sample markets, it was not made obligatory; it was simply laid there for the use of those who desired to have it. It is

there to-day and may be used if there is a desire to use it. It was not forced upon an unwilling public.


William Richard Motherwell: I have not the act before me, and I speak subject to correction, but my hon. friend knows that certain changes were made in the act that were construed to mean that the right of mixing went with the sample market. Anyhow, everybody believes in its being practised-


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will permit me, there is an impression going forth from his words, now, I think, in this House, that when the act was amended this parliament placed the seal of approval upon the principle of mixing. I submit to him in all fairness-and I think he will make himself clear on that point-that that is not the case. All they did was to provide, because of a widespread agitation in favour of it, for a sample market.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not aware whether it was the government prior or subsequent to 1911 that was responsible for it, but that is immaterial.


Arthur Meighen: It was years after. The sample market was not created till about 1914 or 1915.


William Richard Motherwell: Anyhow, the point is that the sample market means nothing unless it implies mixing; there is no question about that. It is a dead letter otherwise, and I think a great many people did not understand that. I am not trying to reflect on anybody; I am simply trying to give the facts. If there is any construction to be placed on my remarks, they are of an extenuating nature with regard to anybody who was responsible. I happen to have taken the other side, and I have taken it all my life. You cannot eat your cake and have it; you cannot take the good out of your wheat and have as much good remain in the residue. It has often surprised me, Mr. Speaker, that this custom of mixing has not been complained of more in the United Kingdom. I can recall the time when my hon. friend from Qu-Appelle went overseas and found, as others have found, that our wheat arrived there in a very satisfactory condition, but the whole, or I will say, three-quarters of the milling trade of eastern Canada will not order out of those mixing elevators if they can get wheat out of the ordinary terminals. Do you think they do not know when they get value? Is it possible for a miller who has been in the business for years not to know what kind of raw product makes the best flour? I am told by the secretary of the Dominion Mil-

Marketing of Grain
lers' Association himself, who is to-day in Ottawa, that the milling industries of the East avoid buying out of these mixing elevators every time they can. That may not apply this year, because there is nothing bad to mix with the good wheat, for 70 per cent or more of the wheat of the West this year is No. 1 Northern, and it is nearly all in the contract grades. Consequently, mixing has gone out of business this year, because there is nothing to mix; but almost every other year you have enough low grade stuff to mix with the virtue in the high grade stuff. I have often wondered how men who should and do know infinitely more about the grain trade than I can ever possibly hope to do without going into it, can argue on behalf of mixing from the standpoint of the producer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then is it the intention of the government this year to amend the act so as to prohibit mixing and to eliminate entirely the so-called mixing elevators?


William Richard Motherwell: That will depend, I presume, on the report of the special committee, to which every facility will be afforded to get to the bottom of this question. Those gentlemen who believe in mixing will have the opportunity to give a reason for the faith that is in them, and those holding the contrary opinion will also have an opportunity to be heard, so that we can get to the bottom of this question. Then I presume that parliament will act as it usually does, on the recommendations of the special committee.


Arthur Meighen: If the government's mind is made up so firmly as the hon. gentleman represents, why make further inquiry?


William Richard Motherwell: I am only giving my own personal view. The question was raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and quite properly so, and I am simply saying that gentlemen in the trade whom I know, as well as others not in the trade, hold exactly the opposite view. Consequently, we must move with the greatest caution. We should consider the matter thoroughly and get to the bottom of it. In the multitude of counsellors surely there is wisdom; I do not think that any one man has all the wisdom on this very involved and intricate question.
Just a few words on the question of grades. This year there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction in the West regarding the grading system. I can remember that in the year 1901 there was similar dissatisfaction. Every time that we have a good crop, as in 1901 or 1922, the average man knows that it is good, but sometimes before he can get his


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
grain threshed, climatic conditions intervene, and while the grain is still in the stook it is so badly bleached that it grades as No. 3 Northern. We cannot see the point of it. Wheat that at the beginning of the season graded No. 1 Northern and sometimes No. 1 Hard, after one or two snowstorms, or perhaps even a rainstorm and exposure for five or six weeks in the stook, would be graded as No. 3 Northern. The miller will tell you the reason.
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: How do you account for wheat grading tough when there never was any rain except in June? Along the Red River valley we had most of our threshing done before the rains, but after one rainstorm in the West our grain was graded as tough.


William Richard Motherwell: I had a note on the tough question, and it is a tough question, but first with respect to the bleaching. I may say that the questions of bleached grain and tough grain are the two outstanding questions around which so much dissatisfaction revolves. The exterior of the grain is so wrinkled and bleached with the weather -sometimes I have seen grain actually frozen in the stook after it had been dry enough to thresh-that it looks as if it had been frozen before it was cut. No miller can extract as high a percentage of flour out of that grain as he could if it was not wrinkled. It has lost part of its commercial value, because there is no machinery for getting the maximum amount of flour out of it. But that is a miller's question. I can understand why the wheat would be graded down, although I did not at one time in my life. The wheat being mine I naturally saw it with a friendly eye, and I could not see how wheat that was perfectly good at the outset when it was cut was going to deteriorate in six weeks. I wanted the grade the wheat was at the outset.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I do not think the minister got my question right.


William Richard Motherwell: I am coming to that, but I am leaving the tough question till the last. I have had the opportunity, might I say, for over thirty years of being closely identified with the grading of grain, through being a member of the Western Grain Standards Board, and every year except last I was able to attend its annual meeting in Winnipeg. I think there is more real abuse in the disposition of that tough grain than in anything else I know. What are the facts?


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Marketing pj Grain
[Stage Direction]
I have just forgotten the percentage of moisture that is permitted in wheat-
Thomas Sales: Fourteen per cent.


William Richard Motherwell: I think we follow largely the practice of the United States, and
1	think they operate on the basis of 13 or 14 per cent. If there is excess moisture over that, it is graded as no-grade or as tough; it is moist, or it is tough. There are two degrees of toughness: one is slightly tough, and the other is so tough that it has to go to the dryer. There are thousands, and in some years, tens of thousands, of bushels of wheat with so little excess moisture that even though it goes no-grade, it can still be mixed with perfectly dry grain, which absorbs the moisture, and it all goes as straight grade. Every hon. member knows that. Well now, if my hon. friends were in the business, I have no doubt they would say that that was a fine way of dealing with this no-grade stuff. Here you have a dry wheat with a slight amount of moisture below the maximum, and here you have one with an excess of moisture. What is to prevent you mixing the two and producing a straight grade. At the last Standards Board meeting I was at, this question was very thoroughly discussed, and particularly in its relation to sprouted grain. What amount of sprouted grain is going to condemn a No. 1 and a No. 2 Northern and drive it into a No. 3? It is a very fine question as to how are you going to define many of these points by law; it has to be left to the fairness or honour of the chief inspector and his subordinates. We should not leave any more to them than we possibly can, but there are some points that are extremely difficult of definition in law. For example, would you say that if there was one kernel of sprouted wheat in a bushel you should throw it into No. 3 Northern? Well, that is a matter of judgment. If the wheat was uniformly good and very superior in other respects the inspector might permit that to go into No.
2	Northern. If he does not, the grain must go into No. 3, although it is otherwise good grain. It is the same with tough wheat.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend said a moment ago that he had been for a
great many years a member of the standards bureau.


William Richard Motherwell: A member of the Western Grain Standards Board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it would be very instructive and interesting to the House if the minister would explain how this board fixes

the standard from year to year. It would largely explain many of the technical points he has been discussing.


William Richard Motherwell: I should be very pleased to but I want to try and get through by six o'clock. I would leave that subject until the last if my hon. friend will permit me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a very important question.


William Richard Motherwell: Tougher than the tough. We can continue the discussion after dinner. In the meantime let me just finish my story. I have a few notes here jotted down as hon. gentlemen opposite were speaking.
Getting back to the tough grain, that is the grain that has just sufficient excess moisture in it to make it go straight grade. How should we legislate with respect to that? Should we prohibit that going into the straight grade? If you did that you would inevitably reduce its value to the man who buys it. It is a big problem and I just leave the matter there. It shows that the question is one which cannot be dealt with offhand. It is very complex and very involved, and it would take the united wisdom of the whole of this committee to bring about an improvement.- However I think improvement can be made in the law.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle said that even apart from the benefits that may be expected to spring from an investigation, the question of improving the morale of our people on the farm is well worth considering. I think I am safe in saying, without laying myself open to the accusation of anything like pessimism, that the morale of the people on the land throughout the whole civilized world, and not merely this country, is low. Anything that can be done to remove either real or imaginary grievances should be done. An imaginary grievance is often nearly as bad as a real one to the man who cherishes it, and we should not be intolerant of people when we find out their grievances are imaginary. I was closely associated with the grain trade for years, and I can appreciate the difficulties that arise when you are dealing with a question so involved. I never saw anybody yet who, on his first glimpse of it, was not ready to be permeated with suspicion because he did not understand it. The more one understands the intricacies of the grain trade, the more a lot of these mysterious things of which complaint is made disappear because they are capable then of being understood.

Marketing oj Grain
I am well acquainted with Mr. Searle, Mr. Horne and Mr. W. W. Thompson, the latter an octogenarian whose honour is above reproach. These are some of the men engaged in the grain trade. I hold no brief for them, but I think some of those who make charges are in the same position to-day that I was twenty-five years ago when I thought that no good thing could come out of the grain exchange.
Now let me endeavour to comply briefly with the request of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Just as soon as the crop is sufficiently dry to thresh action is taken. I may say that the low grade grain, as a rule, is slower in drying than good grain, with the result that it is usually the middle of October-from that to the 20th-when the inspection department, through its various agencies secures samples of the grain from every important area throughout the Canadian west. Those samples are obtained from the threshing machines through the various channels through which we have been getting them for years. As soon as they are secured the various members of the Grain Standards Board, composed of millers, dealers, and farmers, some of whom have been serving for twenty-five years, are notified by the secretary, Mr. C. N. Bell, that the annual meeting will be held in the city of Winnipeg at a given date to fix the standards for that year. When the board meets the bags are all arranged. There are fifty or sixty bags in approximate grades. Then the members of the board proceed each with a bucket or tin to go round to the different bags, each bag having a number to indicate that it was the one from which the sample was taken. They start we will say, at No. 4, that is the first commercial grade under No. 3, and the members of the board go about and build up from the samples from various districts as near as possible to the No. 4 of the previous year, and yet having entirely different characteristics. The year before it might have been a No. 4 because, we will say, of rust-thin, meager, lean stuff, but still of quite a good color. Or it might have been graded as No. 4 because of frost. That makes it a very difficult thing sometimes to get a standard sample of the same commercial value as the standard sample for the year previous. It is quite an involved business collecting standards, but that is the way it is done. We bring the wheat into the north light and spread it on the table. Three or four samples of the same grade are selected. Then they are set out in the light and compared in order to determine which comes nearest to the No. 4 sample of the year before. Next the samples are tested 20i
in the scales for weight, and finally we have a vote on the matter and that decides the grade for No. 4 for the current year. We do the same in the case of No. 5 and No. 6. Before we do No. 5 we take all the sacks from which samples were taken-a tin pailful having been taken from a number in succession-and empty them on the floor in a big pile and mix them up together. After giving them a thorough mixing we take a sample from it and compare it with what we chose before, and if they are similar-that is to say if the sample taken when the bags are emptied is similar to that taken from the respective tin pails-a vote is taken and the grade decided upon.
That briefly is the procedure. I have seen articles in the press making great sport of it. A person with a sense of humour and an active pen can ridicule anything especially something that he knows nothing about. However we have not been able to devise a better means. The only difficulty has been that as the result of rust or frost in order to get the samples graded properly you had to add a certain amount of low grade wheat. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the rest of the hon. members for the West will understand why and how that is done. But in order to meet that situation one year we had two series of low grades, one low grade series, Nos. 4, 5 and 6, as a result of frost and a corresponding series of low grades as a result of rust. And there you are. There are the two of them; you pay your money and take your choice. In the actual working out it was found that when they went on the markets of the world the prices of the two were practically indentical and the result was we never tried that dual system again.
I think I have covered all the ground, and I want to express my appreciation of the moderate manner in which the whole question has been discussed, and also to assure the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, that the spirit of his resolution has either been or is being complied with. When the matter comes up for inquiry before the special committee, if it is found that their facilities for research are so limited that they cannot get at the bottom of it, it will be their privilege to make a recommendation, and go as far as they can. The sample markets are still get-at-able. A great many phases of the matter are capable of thorough investigation, but if it is found it cannot be dealt with, either on account of insufficient time, or from being operated from one centre or from another, then it will be within the province of that committee to make a recommendation accordingly, and any recommendation made, either in the direction of a fuller and more favourable investiga-
30S
Marketing oj Grain

tion, or otherwise, I am sure, will receive full consideration by the government of the day. Whatever becomes of this resolution, I may say that I do not feel strongly about it, as I think that the spirit of the resolution has been complied with. I do not think harm will be done if it passes. I leave the matter with my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Car-leton, N.B.):: It is not my purpose to prolong the debate, but I would associate myself with the mover and seconder of the motion. No hon. member who has sat in this House for the last three or four years, and certainly no member who was here last year, will doubt 5 that there have been some abuses of the Grain Act and in the handling of that very 1 important commodity which contributes so ' largely to the wealth of Canada. I think the government would be well advised to inquire thoroughly into the matter. As regards the method that should be pursued, not being so well acquainted with the grain business as are my hon. friends from the West I do not, of course, feel like making any very definite suggestions. I should think, however, that if it is found that the scope of the committee which it is proposed to appoint is not adequate- and I doubt very much whether a parliamentary committee could deal fully with the subject-the government should appoint a commission to go thoroughly into all the circumstances in order that the investigation might be as complete as possible. However, as I have said, I do not intend to offer any suggestions in that direction.
I intervene in the debate especially to urge upon the government the advisability of extending the scope of the investigation to the marketing of all farm products, particularly those raised for export, instead of confining it to wheat or grain alone. We have a serious situation in eastern Canada. While we do not grow wheat for export, we grow a crop that is as important to us as wheat is to the West. And at the present time the outlook for the potato growers of eastern Canada is serious indeed as a result of some things that possibly are beyond our control, although there are some contributing factors that can be remedied by action on the part of the government. During the past summer the government established a frost-proof warehouse at the port of St. John to facilitate the export trade to Cuba.
[Mr.Motherwell.l
I might say that it became necessary for me to do a great deal of work this summer towards getting the project carried through. I am not blaming the government, but they had information that this frost-proof warehouse was not necessary at St. John, and that information came from persons who were interested in cornering the potato export trade of New Brunswick. When I came to Ottawa and explained the situation the government, I think, were fully seized with the importance of providing these facilities at St. John.
But we are faced with what is possibly a more serious difficulty. While the United States market was open to us our shipping problem was a fairly simple one; we just shipped by the carload. But since that market has been closed to us by the American emergency tariff, Cuba has been practically the only outlet for any quantity of our potatoes. I urged upon the government last spring, apart from the providing of these facilities at St. John, the importance of giving us a regular service of the Government Merchant Marine between St. John and Cuba. I would make that representation even stronger now, because my worst fears have been realized with regard to transportation from St. John to that island. In order to ship potatoes from St. John to Cuba our shippers must charter a vessel and load it with potatoes. If they cannot fill all the space with potatoes they must pay for it anyway. This puts the export business in potatoes into the hands of a few of the largest shippers of New Brunswick. The smaller shippers are practically shut out because they cannot charter and load a vessel at each trip.
There is another condition to be contended with in Cuba; and while we have no control over the actual trade in Cuba I believe that regular sailings from St. John would enable us to overcome the difficulty from this end. To-day there is a combine in Cuba that handles possibly two-thirds of the trade in potatoes on that island. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb), were he in his place, could verify the statement I am about to make, that there are a number of independent wholesale potato dealers in Cuba outside the combine who have been unable to get supplies from our exporters in New Brunswick because the Cuban combine, to whom our exporters have been shipping, absolutely refuses to take delivery of any potatoes from a vessel if there are any potatoes on it for one of the independent dealers.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I would call his attention to the fact that he is not speaking

Marketing oj Gram
to the resolution. The question before the House has reference to the conditions of grain marketing, and the hon. member is speaking on some other subject. I would ask him to bring his remarks into conformity with the resolution.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I certainly bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was merely urging the government not to limit the scope of the inquiry to grain alone, and was endeavouring to show the necessity for making it comprehensive enough to embrace the subject to" which I was referring. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), that when the proposed committee begins its deliberations, or when the commission, if the government decide to appoint one, is constituted, I may have leave to submit this matter for consideration. I thought this an opportune time to bring to the attention of the government the fact that there are other important exports in Canada besides grain, in the handling of which there are great abuses.


Charles A. Stewart: Needless to say, the department over which I, for the time being, have control, is very vitally interested in this question. Indeed, so vitally interested are we that it is the one field that is left open, under the provisions of the Immigration Act as it stands to-day, for which we may secure settlers. Owing to the occupational test and the fact that there has not been employment for intending immigrants to Canada, and the fact that those immigrants whom we are trying to induce to come to this country must be of the agricultural class, or domestic servants, any matter that affects agriculture is of vital importance to the Department of Immigration.
It is needless to say that in these days of readjustment agriculture is suffering more severely than any other industry in this country. It is desirable that this unfortunate condition of affairs should be changed, and with a view to ascertaining if some remedies at least might be applied through the agency of government, you find in the Speech from the Throne that a special committee is to be appointed as wide in scope as that requested by my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Caldwell). When proposing this inquiry it was not the intention of the government that it should be confined to the one subject of grain marketing, but rather that it should cover the wider field of all agricultural activities. My hon. friend who has brought forward this resolution (Mr. Millar) has introduced a question that is not at
all new, and in my remarks to-night I shall confine myself to his resolution.
His contention is that a special committee of this House would have neither the facilities nor the power to make the inquiry necessary to enable them to recommend a solution of the problem. Two features appealed to the government in discussing this matter. There is no desire on our part to circumscribe the inquiry in the slightest degree either with respect to the marketing of grain or to any other matter that hon. members may be desirous of having investigated as being of importance to agriculture. But we have had commissions in the past dealing with this very question, and it will be remembered that the one last appointed came to a somewhat untimely end not very long ago.
There are a few difficulties of grain marketing which it is doubtful if we can remove. Ten or twelve years ago I was directly interested in marketing grain, and I found that there is one type of farmer whom it is very difficult to protect, namely, the man who takes his grain and sells it on the street or to the local elevator. I have not yet heard of any scheme that will protect him, nor do I know whether one can be devised. We who raise and market grain in western Canada know how serious a problem that is to deal with. This year during the absence of the j Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) i I had the pleasure of looking after his department and I did not let any opportunity pass : to facilitate the movement of grain. The sending of the commission to Vancouver to; investigate when a blockade seemed imminent was for the purpose of keeping that outlet1 open if at all possible. We took some chances in that connection, and one hon. member told you the other evening that the transfer of bills of lading to allow the loading of grain freely at the port of Vancouver assisted very materially in overcoming the threatened blockade. The cleaning of grain and its storage in the Calgary elevator also helped. We are anxious to maintain the flow freely to the Pacific coast, but that does not help the very large number of farmers who sell by the wagon load throughout the whole season. Indeed, when a blockade occurs, as any farmer knows, they are the men who suffer most severely, and usually they are most remote from the points at which they market their grain. Therefore any drop in price affects those who usually can least stand the loss. But frankly, I doubt if any of us would be able to secure evidence that would assist that class of farmers.
Then the inquiry resolves itself into an investigation of the inspection and the mixing

Marketing oj Grain
of grain. The man who ships his carload of grain, and is not satisfied with the return he gets can have the transaction reviewed. You may strengthen your inspectional system, and with that I do not intend to deal.
There is a great difference of opinion on the question of the sample markets, but what I had in mind when discussing this matter in government circles was that within the confines of the membership of this House, within the confines even of the Progressive membership, there are men who know every phase of the marketing conditions surrounding wheat. I do not believe that a commission will be able to secure any new evidence bearing upon those conditions. But a committee can summon before it the grain commissioners and the grain operators, and it can get the outturn of the mixing houses as well as of the larger elevators at Fort William. It rather goes to confirm what I have always had in the back of my head in connection with grain marketing or the fixing of our samples. With all due respect to my good friend, when I was handling grain actively in western Canada I always had a suspicion that the grades upon which we sold our grain were fixed too high, with consequent detriment to the farmer who had grain to sell. I may be wrong about that. However, while I had charge of the Department of Trade and Commerce I wired my colleague (Mr. Robb) to get samples off the Liverpool market, in order, as suggested by my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) that we might have them before us for comparison when discussing the matter. Those samples will be here for the inspection of members of this committee, and we will secure all evidence available from the sources where the difficulty originates, namely, in the inspection and mixing. With that evidence before us we will endeavour to improve these facilities, if they are capable of improvement, and we will do it this session even if it requires an amendment to the Grain Act. If that evidence is not sufficient-and undoubtedly hon. members of this House will be prepared to give evidence and to suggest what evidence might be brought here of an expert character-then the government stand ready and willing to go to any length to settle, if at all possible, this very vexed question.
In my opinion we were wise, on the evidence we had in hand, to appoint a commission to investigate the lake shipping combine that we think exists to the detriment of the western farmer, and we are willing to carry on an investigation that will help to solve his difficulties in connection with the growing
fMr. C. A. Stewart.!
and marketing of his grain. The question is whether it would be better to start a commission at once upon the inquiry. I have attended many sittings of these commissions, and some of the material dealt with is not of very much value; they frequently wander very far from the point when it comes to evidence that is gathered indiscriminately. But this committee can decide what evidence is vital and what concerns should be brought here. The grain board itself should be here to show the net result of a year's operations, and with this and other information we can judge whether or not we have, through this piocess, been milked to a very large extent in connection with grain marketing.
Let me say this further thing:	In the
years when I was actively interested in this matter, we were furnished with Canadian ' samples and secured standard samples for grading in Minneapolis, and invariably, not upon expert test but with the naked eye, a difference of one grade could be observed between our standard and that of the American sample. I have not examined samples in recent years, but I assume that the same condition would exist to-day. My contention is that those who fixed the standards for the Canadian grain trade fixed them too high, with resulting detriment to the producer. When we get the samples from Liverpool we shall be able to compare them with the samples upon which our grain is graded in western Canada, and in that way I think we can arrive quickly and definitely at a conclusion as to what will be necessary to assist in the settling of this rather vexed question.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker I do not wish to
make any lengthy remarks on this subject, for I do not know very much about the mixing of grain, although I am the son of a farmer. But I would like to ask the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) if he would add to his resolution, after the word "grain" in the first paragraph, the words "and potatoes." I do not believe he will refuse to grant that request. The reason why I ask him to do that is this. Our American friends are coming over to New Brunswick for potato seed. It seems that we are growing the best potatoes in Canada, and our difficulty-just as it is with the grain growers-is the necessity for an improved system of marketing our potato seed. I would ask my hon. friend, therefore, to include these words in his motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for
the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind hon.
members that when the mover of the resolution speaks, .he closes the debate. If, therefore, any hon. member wishes to address the House on the subject, he should do so now.


Pius Michaud: If I may be allowed, in
case my hon. friend does not like to make the amendment I suggest, I would propose it myself.


John Millar: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to spend very much time in closing the debate. There seems to be a unanimity of opinion in regard to the necessity for an investigation.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has just said that a commission of this nature could not bring out very much new evidence. It is some years since an investigation of this kind was held, and all the time our system has been changing. 'The mixing elevator system, methods of mixing grain, the transfer of cars and many other evils have grown up since the last investigation took place, and I feel quite sure that even those in this House wTho are best posted on the subject cannot say that they know all about these matters, or that they know what allegations are true and what are not. Several charges have been made; and none of us are certain as to their accuracy. We shall make a great mistake if we base legislations on rumors or hearsay; we should have the actual facts before us.
The hon. minister stated also that he believed our present grades were too high. I must disagree with him in that respect; I do not think we suffer from that. If one raises a superior grade of grain, it is hardly just that he should not receive the better price. If his very best grain is thrown into something which is poor, naturally he must take the average of the good and the bad. The man who raises No. 2 Northern is not injured in the least if his neighbour raises grain that is one grade better and receives a little better price.
The last speaker asked that the words "and potatoes" be added to the resolution. Personally I have not a very strong objection to the addition of these words. But it may be suggested that those who are appointed to investigate the grain trade would naturally be men who are posted in that trade, and I was wondering whether they would have the necessary insight into and knowledge of the problems which my hon. friend has in mind. I was wondering whether that matter could not be brought before the special committee. If that, however, is not satisfactory
German Reparations
to my hon. friend, and if it is thought by the House that it would be best to have the two subjects investigated by the same commission, I would offer no objection to the addition of the words suggested.
I have nothing more to say, except in regard to the personnel of the commission.
I am convinced that it is very necessary to have men on this commission who are well posted on the grain trade. I am not sure that it is always wise to depend on a lawyer to act as solicitor for a commission after its appointment. I remember one experience where one of the best lawyers in Winnipeg was engaged,-a man well known throughout Canada, than whom for ability in his chosen profession I believe there is none better, yet I have seen him badly tied up when dealing face to face with the expert members of the grain exchange. He admitted to me that his knowledge did not go deep enough. He could get at the information on the surface, but when it>
came down to the difficult matters, the men who were dealing on the exchange day after day and knew all the ramifications of the business could twist and turn and get away from him. He admitted that to me more than once. I just mention that lest it might be thought that any men in whom the public had confidence, whether they had an intimate knowledge of the grain trade or not, might be trusted to do this work provided they had a competent lawyer to act as solicitor. I do not think that would be wise.
I am willing to insert the words "and potato" before the word "trade" and also before the word "marketing" in the last paragraph.
Motion as amended agreed to.


GERMAN REPARATIONS . MOTION BY MR. WOODSWORTH FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CANADA'S CLAIMS
James Shaver Woodsworth: That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the interest of world peace that Canada should withdraw all claims on Germany for reparations.
He said: One perhaps almost hesitates to introduce a motion of such far-reaching importance as this, on a question on which there has been comparatively little discussion in our Canadian press. However, anyone who has been following the situation at all as it has been discussed in the Old Country papers must recognize that we in Canada have a certain responsibility with regard to the Old World situation. I feel that since we were asked to participate in the great world war we ought to have some voice at this time in
German Reparations

deciding what our policy toward European affairs shall be, and especially as to our attitude toward the Peace Treaty of Versailles which concluded the war, and which in the judgment of a great many is very largely responsible for the chaotic conditions that prevail in Europe to-day.
I cannot discuss this resolution without discussing to a certain extent at least the Peace Treaty of Versailles, and also the war itself. One difficulty is that our Canadian people have had comparatively little discussion of the various aspects of affairs in Europe during and since the war. We have been perhaps inclined to say: Great- Britain is at war, or Great Britain has adopted such and such a policy, and we must follow the lead of Great Britain. I think perhaps the time has come when we ought rather to say: Since we have a certain responsibility in this matter, we must think out these questions for ourselves, and determine each on its own merits. I remember very well being in England during the time of the Boer war and hearing its merits discussed very freely in halls of various kinds, as well as reading the discussions in the newspapers. As you all know, at that time Lloyd George was among those who were bitterly opposed to the Boer war, and I think later events have shown that he was in the right. On my return to Canada, after the war was over, it was almost a shock to find that the people of this country had absolutely refused to consider any other than the one point of view. They said "England is at war, we must rush to her defence"; and apparently they were greatly perturbed if anyone suggested that there could be any other policy than that which happened to have been adopted by the party which was then in power.
Now with reference to the reasons alleged why we went to war. We were told that we went to war because Germany invaded Belgium, and it was only later that we discovered that Canada had been committed to war two or three days before Germany invaded Belgium. I think the Americans, probably, have been greatly excited during the last few months since they have learned more definitely the cargo that the Lusitania bore; not that anyone is exonerating Germany for the attack, but they are understanding a little bit more fully some of the circumstances that surround the various events of the war.
Further we ought to remember very clearly that whilst certain policies may be arrived at in Great Britain, these may in fact represent the conclusions of only a small section of the British people-possibly the conclusions only of her diplomats or her great financiers. Some

of us take the ground here that the interests of the common people of this country are not identical with the interests of the moneyed kings of this country; and a great many of the people of England, as shown by the last election, are also taking the ground that we ought not to follow the great financial leaders of Great Britain. If we criticize British policy, we are criticizing the policy not of the great masses of the people of Great Britain but the policy of a certain definite section of the people of that country.
Further I think, perhaps, it were well that when we refer to Germany we should, as far as possible, dispel from our minds the idea of the Germany which was conjured up during the war. Germany is no more a single entity than is Great Britain. Rather is it composed of a very large number of sections of people, very widely diverse in character. The Germany of the junkers and the war lords is one Germany and, I think, a Germany that very few of us here have any use for. But that is not the Germany of a large majority of the people. I remember that even during the heat of the war there was one man, at least, who stood up in the Reichstag and there suggested that war credits should not be voted, Karl Liebnecht, who was at that time hailed as being the bravest man in Europe. He represented another type of Germany, a type that was at that time protesting against the carrying on of the war.
However, I should not like to think so much of the Germany of the past, but rather to cal! attention to the fact that we have to deal since the war with a new Germany. Some among us have said that the Kaiser was responsible for the war, but we must remember that the Kaiser has been deposed, that the German people themselves have repudiated him and some of the war lords that were associated with him, and the policies which they represent. We are dealing with another Germany than the Germany that went to war. More than that-and this is the most important point it seems to me that at this stage we should keep in view-the indemnities which were saddled upon Germany by the Peace Treaty of Versailles are to be extended throughout the life time of another generation. Little German girls and boys playing around -if they play in Germany these days-are to be asked to pay reparations which simply means to give of their time and effort to pay for what men, for whom they had no responsibility whatever, were guilty of. And as we look forward to these payments extending away along through the years to come, it seems to me we may well pause and ask whether it is right, whether it is in the in-

German Reparations
terests of world peace, that we should attempt to carry out a programme of this character.
I should like to place this resolution frankly on the basis of the interests of world peace. We must rise above the old war-time viewpoint of one nation or empire set against another nation or empire, and think of the actual situation as it presents itself to-day and the extent to which we can establish a greater measure of good will and peace in the world of to-day. I take it that the Treaty of Versailles which closed the war was based on the theory of Germany's sole responsibility for the war, and I must ask your indulgence if I go into the matter a little on this point. Lloyd George said on March 3, 1921:
For the Allies, German responsibility for the war is fundamental. It is the basis upon which the structure of the treaty at Versailles has been erected, and if that acknowledgement is repudiated or abandoned, the treaty is destroyed. We wish, therefore, once and for all, to make it quite clear that German responsibility for the war must be treated by the Allies as a chose jugee.
But murder will out. You cannot always fool the people in these great concerns, and the publications which have been given to the world in recent years will, I think, indicate clearly to any unprejudiced man who studies the documents that are brought to our notice that Germany should not bear the blame forced upon her in the Peace Treaty because she is not solely responsible for the war. I am not standing here as in any sense whatever exonerating Germany for the dastardly part she played in the war-I want that to be clearly understood-but at the same time I say that we must not hold Germany solely responsible for it. Mr. A. J. Nock in 'a little book The Myth of a Guilty Nation which may be found in the Parliamentary Library has summarized the statements which have been given to the world recentfy. I may say that these statements are well documented if any of you are interested in reading them or in trying to follow them out in detail. Let me give these statements in brief:
1.	The British and French General Staffs had been in active collaboration for war with Germany ever since January, 1906.
2.	The British and French Admiralty had been in similar collaboration.
3.	The late Lord Fisher (First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty), twice in the course of these preparations, proposed an attack upon the German fleet and a landing upon the coast of Pomerania, without a declaration of war.
4.	Russia had been preparing for war ever since 1909, and the Russian and French General Staffs had come to a formal understanding that Russian mobilization should be held equivalent to a declaration of war.
5.	Russian mobilization was begun in the spring of 1914, under the guise of " tests," and these tests were carried on continuously to the outbreak of the war.
6.	In April, 1914, four months before the war, the Russian and French naval authorities initiated joint plans for maritime operations against Germany.
7.	Up to the outbreak of the war, Germany was selling grain in considerable quantities to both France and Russia.
8.	It cannot be shown that the German government ever in a single instance, throughout all its dealings with foreign governments, demanded or intimated for Germany anything more than a position of economic equality with other nations.
Mr. Lloyd George said on December 23, 1920:
The more one reads memoirs and books written in the various countries of what happened before the first of August, 1914, the more one realizes that no one at the head of affairs quite meant war at that stage.
It was something into which they glided, or rather, staggered or stumbled, perhaps through folly, and a discussion, I have no doubt, would have averted it.
Here we have a man occupying a most responsible position in the British Empire, a man who is credited with having done more than any other man in the prosecution of the war, coming out after the war is all over and saying that they simply stumbled into it, and that a discussion might have prevented it. Ex-Premier Nitti, in his book, Peaceless Europe, says-and he was another, let us remember, who was in the midst of things, and who had inside knowledge of what was transpiring at the time of the Peace Treaty, and who has intimate knowledge of the events of the war:
When our countries were engaged in the struggle, and we were at grips with a dangerous enemy, it was our duty to keep up the morale of our people and to paint our adversaries in the darkest colours, laying on their shoulders all the blame and responsibility of the war, but after the world conflict, now that Imperial Germany has fallen, it would be absurd to maintain that the responsibility of the war is solely and wholly attributable to Germany and that earlier in 1914 in Europe there had not developed a state of things fatally destined to culminate in a war.
Let me again remind you that it was in the Peace Treaty of Versailles, that we had the arrangement with regard to reparations which we deal with in our resolution. It was the very basis of that Treaty of Versailles that Germany was solely and wholly responsible for the war, a position that is abandoned by at least two of the premiers responsible for the drafting of that treaty. Now it is quite obvious that we in Canada are in a position-


Mr. VIEN:: Will the hon. member tell me who those premiers were?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Lloyd George was one and Nitti the other.
German Reparations


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that Lloyd George stated that Germany was not responsible for the war?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall read again, if I must, the passage which I have already quoted to the House.
The more one reada memoirs and books written in the various countries of what happened before the 1st of August, 19H, the more one realizes that no one at the head of affairs quite meant war at that stage. It was something into which they glided, or rather staggered and stumbled, perhaps through folly, and a discussion, I have no doubt, would have averted it.
That is very different from his earlier statements of a great conspiracy of which Germany has been guilty. It is very different from the thought that Germany is, as Premier Nitti had said, wholly and solely responsible for the war.
In Canada, during the war, we had no opportunity, as neither had other nations, to discuss the real causes of the war; in fact, it became a crime to discuss the causes of the war. Quoting the law, I find the provision:
It shall be an offence to print, publish or publicly express an adverse or unfavourable statement, report or opinion concerning the causes of the present war, or the motives or purpose for which Canada or tho United Kingdom of Great Britain or Ireland, or any of the Allied nations entered upon, or are prosecuting the same, which may tend to arouse hostile feeling, create unrest, or unsettle, or inflame public opinion.
Now that the war is over w'e have an opportunity almost for the first time to discuss publicly the real causes of the war, and perhaps we do so even yet in a spirit of prejudice which it is extremely difficult for any of us to overcome, it is only the seriousness of the situation in Europe which forces us to enter upon a question of this kind.
As to responsibilty for war, might I call to vour attention a very excellent pamphlet, which some of you probably have, published by Mr. John S. Ewart, K.C., entitled Canada and British Wars. Few of us have had the opportunity of studying closely the many documents which have been put forward in recent years. We all recognize that Mr. Ewart is a very profound student of constitutional history and of European affairs. Mr. Ewart distinguishes between what is called the predisposing causes and the precipitating causes. Let me quote a paragraph or two with regard to the predisposing causes, the general situation which existed in Europe when the war broke out-
Aa already indicated, distinction ought to be made between the predisposing causes-I prefer to call these the roots-of the war, and the precipitating causes. The whole subject is much too large for treatment here. I must content myself with stating-very' shortly, and therefore, inadequately,-the conclusions, at which, 
after prolonged study of the immense mass of material now available, I have arrived.
1.	Tho chief of the predisposing causes in western Europe was the desire of France to repossess herself of Alsace Lorraine, which had been taken from her in a war which she had precipitated.
2.	The chief of the predisposing causes in eastern Europe was the inclusion of Bosnia and Herzegovina in tho Austro-Hungarian Empire. For the inception of that situation (Berlin Conference 1878), the United Kingdom and Austria-Hungary were principally responsible. For its development Austria-Hungary was alone responsible.
3.	The predisposing causes, as between the United Kingdom and Germany were (1) German competition in manufactures, trade, mercantile marine, and war navy; (2) the substitution of Germany for France (the British traditional enemy in western Europe) as the potential aggressor upon Belgium and Holland, and the consequent establishment of a menace upon the North Sea coasts; and (3) the substitution of Germany for Russia (the British traditional enemy in eastern Europe) as the potential aggressor upon Constantinople and India.
4.	A general predisposing cause was the erection of Europe into two vast military camps, for which all the Great Powers were, in varying degrees, responsible.
In giving the situation which prevailed immediately on the eve of the war, let me turn to Lord Loreburn, who was in a splendid position to know the situation. He says-
Serbia gave to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, cause of just offence, as our ambassador frankly admits in his published dispatches. We (England) had no concern in that quarrel, as Sir Edward Grey says in terms. But Russia, the protectress of Serbia, came forward to^ prevent her being utterly humiliated by Austria. We were not concerned in that quarrel either, as Sir Edward also says. And then Russia called upon France under their treaty to help in the fight. France was not concerned in that quarrel any more than ourselves, as Sir Edward informs us. But France was bound by a Russian treaty, of which we did not know the terms, and then France called on us for help. We were tied by the relations which our Foreign Office had created, without apparently realizing that they had created them.
Reference is here made to those secret treaties, which were not known to the world generally until they were published 9 pm. by the Bolshevik who had obtained access to the archives in Petrograd. I have never yet seen these secret treaties published in any Canadian newspaper. They were first published, I think, in England in the Manchester Guardian, a reliable old paper which we all know. They were not sent broadcast to this country, and there are those who do not yet know of the serious nature of these treaties, which had a great deal to do with tying us to France and Russia and thus preventing us from acting at the moment when possibly war might have been avoided. But we have to deal with other treaties which were made in the course of the war. I want to quote from a man whom I regard as a high authority, Mr. E. D. Morel, who, by the way, it is of interest to remark,

German Reparations
defeated Mr. Winston Churchill. And this was one of the questions which were to the fore in the recent elections in Great Britain. Mr. Morel, in Foreign Affairs, says:
In this period it has been demonstrated by the acts of the Allied governments that our people were grossly deceived in respect to the motives proclaimed by those governments in waging the war and in rejecting overtures of peace.
For all those to whom authentic information was accessible, the demonstration had been complete long before the end of the war. From the date of the secret treaties between the Allies, the war became a war for loot.
Mr. Lloyd George, speaking at the Queen's Hall, August 4, 1917, said:
What are we fighting for? To defeat the most dangerous conspiracy ever plotted against the liberty of nations; carefully, skilfully, insidiously, clandestinely plotted in every detail with ruthless, cynical determination.
To continue:
And that was very early in the day, although their existence only became known (in part) at the end of 1917, through the Manchester Guardian. It is doubtful whether the general public ever knew of them at all, i.e., in any comprehensive sense. Secret negotiations began between the Allied governments for the division of enemy territory and resources almost immediately after the war broke out. By the spring of 1915 the British government had consented to the Tsardom realising its secular ambition, i.e., the acquisition of Constantinople and the Straits, receiving in exchange a large slice of Persian territory-Persia not even being an enemy; Italy had been induced to enter the war by a treaty ensuring the break-up of Austria-Hungary, with large territorial concessions to Italy in Europe and in Asia. All through 1915 and the summer of 1916 the bargaining with Rumania continued, and was finally concluded in August of that year, which also saw the conclusion of the secret bargain with Japan at China's expense. By the spring of 1917, Russia and France had made their arrangements for the- division of Germany, which would have brought Russian Cossacks to within sight of the Oder. When Mr. Lloyd George was declaiming in the Queen's Hall, in August, 1917, about defeating a German "conspiracy" against the liberty of nations, a series of secret pacts, constituting a more flagrant invasion of the liberty of nations than Napoleon ever dreamed of, were lying in the safes of the Foreign Offices of London, Paris, Petrograd. Rome, Bukarest, and Belgrade. And the young men of Britain were being called from the factory, the office, and the plough to fight and die for the noblest of ideals! Has such a betrayal of a people's faith ever been recorded?"
Let me again say that in his treatment oi the case Mr. Morel sees that all these statements are fully documented. You can read them in pamphlets published broadcast throughout Great Britain. One other word from Mr. Morel:
In other words, it is not a case of Germany and her partner having spent far vaster sums than their potential foes before the war. Incidentally it may be remarked that although before the war the British people were supposedly the least "militarised" people in Europe, these secret commitments had made of them the most heavily taxed people in the world for war purposes. When the war came the average burden of taxation for war purposes borne by the British citizen
was much heavier than the burden of the French, German, Austrian, Russian and Italian citizen. Thus the real combination which Germany and Austria had to face was a Franco-Russian-British combination. Yet, in the decade preceding the war, their expenditure in preparedness for war fell far short even of the Franco-Russian expenditure. And, almost to the last, the German government in its blindness was convinced that Britain would remain neutral...But
the most astounding fact which French publications reveal is that, when the war broke out, the French army alone was numerically as strong as the German!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
. Mr. WOODSWORTH:	If any hon. gentlemen doubt this statement they must consult the records. Mr. Francis Neilson in a book How Diplomats Make War, which can be found in the Parliamentary Library, has this to say on another point in connection wit*i the pre-war preparations:
The story of the naval conspiracy is told with extraordinary and brutal frankness by Lord Fisher in his book entitled "Memories". Lord French, Colonel Repington and Lord Haldane all confirm the story of the secret military and naval conversations between the British and French Staffs, begun in January, 1906, without the knowledge of-consent of even-the British cabinet, let alone that of the House of Commons. The reports of German diplomats recently translated and published in England exhibit the course of Allied war preparations and of the progressive isolation of Germany. The reports of the Russian Foreign Minister, Sazonof, written in 1912, show the extent to whijeh the Entente powers were even then pledged to one another and the evidence given by Marshal Joffre before the Metallurgy Committee in Paris in 1919, is conclusive with respect to the military understandings which existed among the British, French and Belgian Staffs.
Some hon. members would seem to be incredulous with regard to some of these statements. I do not wonder. Let me give an official statement concerning the question whether Great Britain was unprepared.
There is no doubt that the machinery for setting our forces in action had reached an order of completeness in detail that has no parallel in our history.
That is taken from the official documents issued by direction of the historical section of the Committee on Imperial Defence, and cp.ii be found in Naval Operations by Sir Julian Corbett. And again, Viscount Haldane says in his book Before the War:
To say, therefore, that we were quite unprepared is inaccurate.
Mr. Morel, whom I have already quoted, very well sums up the situation at the same time that he gives the source of the information, which I do not think has been very widely disseminated in Canada:
The story of British unprepared ness has vanished with the published admissions of Lord Fisher, Lord Haldane, Lord French, Sir Julian Corbett, Colonel Repington, Captain Peter Wright, and a host of others -not to mention Blunt's "Diaries". The legend of French and Russian unpreparedness was exclusively for British consumption; it was never advanced in France or Russia-indeed the feeling in French and Russian

German Reparations
official circles in the years immediately preceding the war was one of considerable confidence at the prospect of war. In any case, the legend has vanished with the publication of the Imperial Russian archives, the Belgian diplomatic dispatches, the book of the French General Buat, and that of M. Paleologue, the French Ambassador at the Russian Imperial Court, not to mention the extensive data now available concerning the Russian mobilisation and the character and composition of the Russian invasion of Prussia at the outbreak of the war. These publications and others which might be mentioned, above all the correspondence dealing with the conclusion of the Franco-Russian Alliance, have also finally exploded the myth of the "wanton attack" upon France.
I think that in view of the evidence adduced, of which I have given but a veiy brief summary, we must conclude that Germany was not solely responsible for the war.


Mr. LADNER:: The hon. member has given us the opinions of very eminent men with respect to the cause of the war. Will he not honour the House with his own opinion ae to whether or not Britain caused the war?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have given the opinions of eminent men, based, as I have said, on documentary evidence which may be obtained if any one takes the trouble to consult the books quoted. It is obviously impossible for me to bring into this Chamber and quote all the documents to which I have made reference. My own opinion would have been of very little avail in the matter. I think the House will agree with me in that. But I do say that the opinion of some of the authorities I have quoted cannot be disregarded


Leon Johnson Ladner: Perhaps the hon. gentleman misunderstood my question. I asked him if after the explanations given he would not favour us with his own opinion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that my own opinion on this particular case is of very little value to the House. I am not dealing with my own opinion, nor do I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) is very much concerned about my opinion in the matter. We are dealing with facts which are of a great deal more importance than mere opinions of individuals.
Now I come to the reparations as arranged for under the Peace Treaty. I presume that we have all read Mr. John M. Keynes' books on The Economic Consequences of the Peace and A Review of the Peace Treaty, in which he has made out a thorough case for revision. Perhaps it is hardly necessary for me to say that Mr. Keynes was the expert of the British Treasury at the Peace Conference at Versailles, and that his opinion has had the most profound influence upon British policy. Mr. IMr. Woodsworth.]
Keynes states very clearly that Germany laid down her arms under certain expressed conditions, and he charges that these conditions were not lived up to by the Allies.


An hon. MEMBER:: Well, well.


Mr. McMASTER:: Everybody admits that.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope hon. members will hardly question that statement. Let me summarize, or rather let me quote a paragraph or so from Mr. Keynes' book, because it is obvious that I cannot summarize the whole volume. He speaks of the conditions under which Germany laid down her arms. These were, among others, Wilson's Fourteen Points and some of the speeches that the then President of the United States had made, because it was following the assurances which he gave that Germany first began to treat with the Allies at this time.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise
to a point of order. I submit that this motion is out of order, and I refer you to rules 626 and 629 on page 168.


Mr. CANNON:: What book is the hon. member quoting from?


William Garland McQuarrie: Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Rule 626 reads:
This House will not proceed upon any petition, motion or bill for granting any money, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown but in a Committee of the Whole House.
Then rule 629:
The recommendation of the Crown is needed for such measures as bills relating to the extension of time for the repayment of the deposit which has become liable to forfeiture in the case of a private bill; the release on compounding of sums due to the Crown; the repeal of an exemption from an existing duty, as the burthen of the duty is thereby augmented ; a proposal to repeal an existing drawback on export of sugar, as it effects an increase of charge upon the importers who desired to export sugar.
Therefore I submit that in the first place this motion cannot be considered except in the Committee of the Whole House; and, secondly, that it cannot be considered at all without the consent of the Crown.


George Newcombe Gordon: I will consider the authority cited by the hon. member who raises the objection, and in the meantime the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) may continue his remarks.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me quote then, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Keynes' statement as to the conditions under which Germany laid down her arms. They were, among others:

German Reparations
The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
(4)	Adeqnate guarantees, given and taken, that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.
(5)	A free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, regard being had to the interest of the population concerned.
(6)	, (7), (8) and (11). The evacuation and "restoration" of all invaded territory, especially of Belgium. To this must be added the rider of the Allies, claiming compensation for all damage done to civilians and their property by land, by sea and from the air (quoted in full above). (8). The righting of "the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine." (13) An independent Poland, including "the territories inhabited by an indubitably Polish population" and "assured a free and secure access to the sea." (14). The League of Nations.
Before Congress on February 11, President Wilson said:
"There shall be no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages. . .Self-determination is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril . . .Every territorial settlement involved in this war must be made in the interest and for the benefit of the populations concerned, and not as a part of any mere adjustment or compromise of claims amongst rival states."
In New York on September 27 lie laid down the following principles:
(1)	The impartial justice meted out must involve no discrimination between those to whom we wish to be just and those to whom we do not wish to be just.
(2)	No special or separate interest of any single nation or group of nations can be made the basis of any part of the settlement which is not consistent with the common interest of all.
(3)	There can be no leagues or alliances or special covenants and understandings within the general and common family of the League of Nations.
(4)	There can be no special selfish economic combinations within the league and no employment of any form of economic boycott or exclusion, except as the power of economic penalty by exclusion from the markets of the world may be vested in the League oi Nations itself as a means of discipline and control.
(5) All international agreements and treaties of every kind must be made known in their entirety to the rest of the world.
Mr. Keynes, after showing how these different principles have been violated by the treaty, concludes:
This was the atmosphere in which the Prune Minister left for Paris, and these the entanglements he had made for himself.
This was just after the Khaki election, I
may say:
He had pledged himself and his government to make demands of a helpless enemy inconsistent with solemn engagements on our part, on the faith of which this enemy had laid down his arms. There are few episodes in history which posterity will have
less reason to condone,

a war ostensibly waged in
defence of the sanctity of international engagements ending in a definite breach of one of the most sacred
possible of such engagements on the part of the victorious champions of these ideals.
And again on this subject let me quote ex-Premier Nitti in his Peaceless Europe:
The peace treaties are the most barefaced denial of all the principles which the Entente powers declared and proclaimed during the war; not only so, but they are a fundamental negation of President Wilson's famous Fourteen Points, which were supposed to constitute a solemn pledge and covenant, not only with the enemy, but with the democracies of the whole world. . .
But it will remain forever a terrible precedent in modern history that, against all pledges, all precedents and all traditions, the representatives of Germany were never even heard; nothing was left to them but to sign a treaty at a moment when famine and exhaustion and threat of revolution made it impossible not to sign it.
Germany has already consigned all her transferable wealth; the gold in her banks, her colonies, her commercial fleet, a large and even the best part of her railway material, her submarine cables, her foreign credits, the property of her private citizens in the victorious countries, etc., everything that could be handed over, even in opposition to the rights of nations such as are known in modern civilized states, Germany has given. She has also hypothecated all her national goods...
France had but one idea, and later on did not hesitate to admit it; to dismember Germany, to destroy her unity. By creating intolerable conditions of life, taking away territory on the frontier, putting large districts under military occupation, delaying or not making any diplomatic appointments and carrying on communications solely through military commissions, a state of things was brought about which must inevitably tend to weaken the constitutional unity of the German Empire. Taking away from Germany eighty-four kilometres of territory, nearly eight million inhabitants, and all the most important mineral resources, preventing the unity of the German people, and the six million and five hundred thousand of German Austrians to which Austria was then reduced, putting the whole German country under an interminable series of controls -all this did more harm to German unity than would have been done by taking the responsibility of a forcible and immediate division to which the Germans could not have consented and which the Allies could not have claimed to impose.
What is the present situation? I have quoted ex-Premier Lloyd George; let me quote one of his latest utterances, published on January 20, last:
France has once more jumped on the prostrate form of Germany and the sabots have come down with a thud that would sicken the heart of multitudes on both sides of the Atlantic whose friendship for France stood the losses and grievances of four years' war. But what good would it bring devastated France or her over-taxed Allies? The additional coal that would be wrung out of Germany would barely cover the direct cost of collection. Although Germany bears the extra cost, the expenses of these punitive measures must all in the end diminish the means of reparations and therefore fall on the victor.


Lucien Cannon: Is the hon. member quoting from articles written by Lloyd George and published in the Hearst papers?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quoting from articles written by Lloyd George and published in our Canadian daily papers.
German Reparations


Lucien Cannon: Which paper?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think in the Montreal Star, and I believe I got my copy from the Ottawa Citizen. Once more permit me to quote from an article by ex-Premier Nitti, published in the European press:
In 1914 and the years immediately following, when the free and democratic peoples saw France apparently attacked by Germany, they took active sides against German imperialism. England, Italy and the United States of America stepped one after another into line and gave their blood and their economic resources to the defence of France and the rights of democracy. But later the Entente developed into nothing else than a system of violence (Gewalt-system). No German representative of the theory of might (Gewaltthrorie) has ever so glorified might as has the Entente since the end of the war. When one considers that the occupation of the Rhineland, partly by negroes, costs about four million gold marks a year and brings with it, in addition, every possible kind of evil, including the legal prostitution of German women to black men and men of other colors; that Upper Silesia, in open contradiction of the Treaty of Versailles and the mandate of the plebiscite, was dismembered; that it is to-day still considered possible by demands for senseless damages to bring Germany under an alien finance control like that endured by Turkey; that the most highly cultivated peoples of tho world have been forced under the rule of the least,-when one considers these things one can stand only in horror before this vast catastrophe that is not merely of an economic but rather one of a moral character.
In view of this situation it seems to me we ought to consider our whole policy in regard to reparations. And again, instead of voicing my own opinion, let me voice the opinion of one who knows well the conditions which obtained during the war, one of our most eminent Canadian statesmen, the Hon. N. W. Rowell.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Who?


Mr. DUFF:: You could not call him an eminent statesman.


Lucien Cannon: He is a dead one.


Mr. POWER:: De mortuis nil nisi bonum.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Speaking in Guelph before the Canadian and Rotary Clubs on January 26, Mr. Rowell said-I quote one paragraph:
Canada's substantial claim to a share in tho reparations is based on the inclusion of pension and separation allowances in the Treaty of Versailles. Canada should relinquish all claims under those heads, as they are not covered by the agreement under which Germany laid down her arms, and should not be included in the treaty. Further, as it is now admitted that Germany cannot pay even sufficient to cover the cost of restoring the devastated areas, any payments which might be made to Canada in respect of pensions and separation allowances would necessarily come out of the amount which should properly go to France and Belgium. If, after these deductions, there remains any further sum payable to Canada, we should be prepared to follow the lead of Great Britain and forego this amount in the interests of a general settlement of the whole
| M i. \Voodsworth.]
question of reparations and inter-Allied debts. Fortunately for us, the government of Canada, both during and since the war, has based our finances on the assumption that we would have to pay our own costs of the war, and the failure to receive any sum from Germany on account of reparations, will not involve any change in our financial program.
Now, on this question of our share in the reparations, let me point out that according to the original agreement, as Mr. Rowell has shown, the inclusion of pensions and separation allowances was not involved in the conditions under which Germany laid down her arms. There are one or two misapprehensions that should at this stage be removed. There are some who imagine that private claims for damages will be paid in Canada. I am told by those associated with the Reparations Commission that there is no intention whatever, nor was there ever any, that private claims should be paid. It is true that an advertisement was sent out asking that people in Canada who had suffered damages should send in their claims, but this was done in order that Canada might be able to estimate the amount of damages she should claim. It was not the intention that the money so procured from Germany would be turned over to private individuals. That policy was very clearly stated in the British House of Commons by Mr. Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer. In reply to a question on May 4, 1920, Mr. Chamberlain said:
His Majesty's government has given careful consideration to the position of individuals in respect of whose losses reparation will be claimed by His Majesty's government. It must be understood that tho claims to be made are claims by the British .government in respect of a wrong done to the state, and not claims by individuals in respect of private wrongs, and that the government do not act as the agents of any individual to put forward his personal claim. Any payments that may be received from Germany are therefore the property of the nation, and no individual will have any claim in law for any sum which the British government may receive from Germany in respect of reparation.
On one other point, too, I think there should be a statement made, and that is with regard' to the closely related question of the property or estates of German nationals in this country which have been seized by the Canadian government and are now being held. I believe there is a trust of something like $40,000,000 which is being administered. On this point may I quote a few sentences from the annual report of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. The president of the bank says:
In all references to it authorities on international law make it clear that our right to retain enemy property which falls within our control exists only so long: as the enemy country- fails to honour similar obligations or to restore our property.

German Reparations
Further:
It is with reference to these exceptions that difficulties are being encountered, out of which there may arise the very unfortunate conclusion that in the treaty departure has been made from principles which have been respected for centuries.
And still further:
We must not in this matter be influenced by anything but the facts, and by that honour among nations which has been displayed for centuries. It is true that the property and business interests of the Allies were sometimes very wrongfully dealt with in Germany, at least in the early years of the war, but it is also true that Germans ready and willing to settle debts directly with British creditors have been unable to do so because of the terms of the treaty. Every merchant seeking to do business in foreign countries, and every banker considerate of the credit of his country, should remember that international trade and finance are built on good faith ,and that we must avoid the possibility of these unfortunate exceptions in the treaty causing injustice and thus involving Canada in discredit.
Another point made by Mr. Rowell to which I would call attention is that if we were ever able to collect from Germany for our pensions or separation allowances, such sums would really come out of the amounts that ought to go to the building up of the devastated districts of France and Belgium. I have not been saying anything to-night with a view to arousing any feeling against France. I think, on the contrary, we may well say that if we relinquish the amounts which we claim, they might possibly go to the help of Germany in paying the amounts which ought to be paid to France and hence those districts which have suffered the most severely would be built up.
Let me very briefly summarize a few points which I should like to leave with this House.
First of all, that our claims under the Treaty of Versailles are contrary to international law as international law was understood before the war. I was reading only the other day the international conventions with regard to the laws and customs of war by land as signed at The Hague in 1899. It would seem as if we in our peace treaty at Versailles had contradicted almost all these conventions which had been drawn up, and which at that time were supposed to prevail amongst civilized nations when they were unfortunately drawn into war.
Next I would appeal on economic grounds. Canada's prosperity as that of other nations is dependent upon the prosperity of Europe. We cannot have prosperous conditions in Europe until the peace treaties are definitely modified. On that point let me quote from [DOT] one who, I think, will be considered an authority, Professor R. A. Seligman, Professor of Economics at Columbia University. In the New York Times of November 5, 1922, Mr. Seligman says:
What is the situation in the continental countries of Europe? They have no gold to remit. They cannot send us their land, railroads or factories. They have no more securities of foreign countries to turn over, as England did during the war. There is no likelihood of any substantial increase in the invisible items which they could transfer to us. On the contrary, in the present perilous economic situation there is slight probability of their receiving additional sums on foreign investments or profits on a larger merchant marine, or gains through developing banks or insurance companies; and the sums yielded by a possible increase in American travellers abroad or in the sums remitted by immigrants to this country would be only a drop in the bucket.
Again:
The truth is our debtors are bankrupt. They cannot pay now, and will not be able to pay in any assignable time. I have found no prominent business man or banker here or abroad who believes that there is any possibility of paying the debts. You cannot extract water from a stone.
But even if the Allies could pay, the final question arises: Should we demand that they pay now and forthwith? If they have the ability to pay, have w& the capacity to receive?
Still again.:
No explanation can obscure the fact that, despite the three-cornered trade, a nation's commerce must be envisaged as a totality. If the rest of the world pays a debt by exporting more goods, whether to us or to another country, it makes it harder for us to export the usual quantity of goods in return. The reason why, under normal conditions, exports are mutually profitable, is that the exporting country is thereby enabled to secure imports, that is, to buy commodities. It is a matter of give and take. But when, in order to pay an immense debt, the rest of the world has to increase its exports to us, there is nothing to call for imports in return; and with this cessation of our exports to foreign countries our factories will close, our industries will languish and a period of business depression will set in.
That is, we must realize that the world today is a unity, and that just as in the human physical system you cannot have one diseased part without its affecting the whole body, so in the world to-day we cannot injure one member without all the members suffering with it.
I do not know whether it is at all possible that I appeal on the higher moral grounds, that we take this stand in the effort to bring about better conditions in Europe. We may demand our pound of flesh, but all through the history of the world there has been another strain of teaching running that mercy is greater even than justice. We are nominally a Christian country. I wonder if we can ever learn to begin to put in practice those words which I heard no later than this afternoon from the lips of the Speaker: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive." I suppose it is bad form to say that. I do not often come into prayers, but I do not see why we should not begin to try to practise some of these phrases that are so often upon our lips.	It is quite true that the
amount involved, so far as Canada is con-
German Reparations

cerned, is not large. It may be true, as a good many have pointed out, that we will receive nothing anyway, but at least such an action of this kind on the part of Canada would be a certain gesture which might have some influence in other parts of the world. We read of an historic occasion on which a shot rang round the world. It is quite possible that action on the part of even a comparatively small nation such as Canada might have far reaching effects, and that our action may be followed by a somewhat similar action in other parts of Europe. Only the other day we were formally accepting the gift of a piece of land from France on which a monument might be erected to our men who fell at the front. I think none of us would withhold tribute to men who, from heroic motives, offered their all for what they believed to be the very highest and best, and yet one cannot but remember that the whole of Europe is strewn with monuments. I well recall some years ago spending a day on the battlefield of Waterloo and there seeing the great monument erected to the victors, Great Britain and Prussia, and in another part of the field a small monument, a most pathetic one I thought, an eagle with a broken pinion erected to the vanquished, France. Now the scene is changed. France is our ally for the time. Prussia has been our most deadly enemy. Before the monument is erected in France it may -well be that relations between England and France may be most severely strained. I wonder whether, after all, we can best honour the memory of those who fell on the fields of France and Belgium by erecting monuments over there, or rather may we not do more by seeking to arrange our economic and social conditions in such a way that future wars will not be brought about.
You remember how Lawrence Housman seeks to give expression to the feeing of the men who fought at the front:
We fought at Armageddon for the brotherhood of
man;
And safe within their fences the tricksters plied their trade.
'Twas the old fight we fought; and it ends as it began:
The gamblers hold their hands till the last trump was played...
And the freedom that we fought for is an unremembered tune.
Mr. Speaker, it seems, as we read history, as if the human race has climbed, by very small degrees, up the blood stained trail that has led to even the measure of civilization that we possess at the present time. Some recent developments have given to mankind a wonderful power, have given us control of machinery which might be used in the

interests of mankind or, if used by one group in opposition to the other, may spell the very doom of our race. It seems to me that on an occasion of this kind we should try, at least, to rise above the passions and prejudices of the war, the passions and prejudices that have kept the peoples of Europe apart throughout these years, and that we at this distance, somewhat removed from the horrors and chaos of Europe to-day should, in a little more dispassionate way, resolve that as for us we could, we would, do our utmost to start, things on a somewhat different path in the future. I would plead that the least we can do is to make what I have called a peace gesture and withdraw our claims to reparation from Germany.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuar-rie) has raised an objection, calling in question the right of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) to bring this resolution to the consideration of the House. Let me direct attention to rule 78 which reads as follows:
All aids and supplies granted to His Majesty by the Parliament of Canada, are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the Housce to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
I also find in Beauchesne's Rides and Forms the following:
626. "This House will not proceed upon any petition, motion or bill for granting any money, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown but in a committee of the whole House."
Now the resolution does not mention the Crown, but everyone will understand that moneys owing to Canada are moneys owing to the Crown.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling, may I speak to the point of order?


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly.


Robert James Manion: I do so, Sir, because it will be too late to speak after you have given your ruling. I have sat here listening for about an hour and a half to the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) discussing this question, and he has put before us all the arguments favourable to his contention. I do not know, of course, what your. ruling is going to be, Mr. Speaker, but speaking personally I should regret very much if, after the hon. member's argument of an hour and a half in favour of this resolution, the

German Reparations
motion were ruled out of order, because I do not believe it would be in the best interests of Canada or of this House that the hon. member's statement should go unanswered.


James Murdock: I would respectfully
make the same suggestion.


Hewitt Bostock: I have no objection to postponing my decision.


Lucien Cannon: In order that members who wish to address the Chair may know exactly when and how they may speak could we have an intimation as to when the decision will be given?


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the Minister of Labour has the floor.


Lucien Cannon: I am putting the question before the Minister of Labour speaks. I wish to find out from the Chair when the decision will be given in order that any member who wishes to speak may have that information.


Hewitt Bostock: I am in the hands of the House. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg having spoken and expressed his own views other hon. gentlemen are entitled to reply. I shall reserve my decision for the present.


Mr. SHAW:: Speaking to the point of order may I suggest that the rules of the House in this connection be suspended which will prevent the necessity of you, Mr. Speaker, giving your decision in the matter. I understand such action can be taken with the unanimous consent of the House.


James Murdock: I can imagine no other condition or time under which it could be as conclusively proven that "time is a great healer." Hon. members in this House, imagine, if you can, four years ago to-night, sitting deliberately and listening to a statement from an hon. gentleman such as we have heard for the past hour and a half. I want to say only a few words in regard to this particular matter, and not of necessity dealing at all with the particular question of reparations, or the question of the sums owing to Canada by Germany. I care not personally whether the reparations ever come or not, but I do be-live that there are some things that surely the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has either overlooked or else never experienced. He spoke? of the great trouble, tribulation and hardship that would come to future generations of German children should there be insistence on the payment of these reparations. I imagine that I learned in my younger days and since from the same Book of Holy Writ as my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg, and in that I found conveyed the suggestion of an eye for an eye and that justice is eternal. Four years ago that would have been conclusively proven to my hon. friend and other members of this House, I imagine, had anyone even thought of such a thing as raising the question that we have heard raised tonight.
I wonder if my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg knows anything of the wounds in the hearts of tens of thousands of Canadian mothers that are being opened up afresh tonight, and that would, if his view carried, figuratively speaking, bleed with the injustice of the proposals that have been discussed before. us. I think it can be very readily conceded that sentiment very largely rules the world, and, looking at it from every viewpoint of sentiment, I cannot but express the view that my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg has acted in entire disregard of the feelings of tens of thousands of Canadian mothers, yea, and of Canadian fathers, in making any such proposal or indulging in any such discussion as we have just listened to. My hon. friend surely overlooked the fact that mankind in all the ages, from the garden of Eden, has, we are told, been paying the penalty for sin, for injustice, for violation of the law, and does he appeal to us as human beings, thousands of Canadian citizens, with hearts still bleeding, and expect us to forget all of our conception of human justice and right, and do the work of forgiving, whitewashing, waving these things to one side, as is suggested in his resolution? The hon. member undertook, as I understood, to show that maybe Germany was not responsible for the war to the extent that was alleged, but I would submit to my hon. friend that were it possible for this resolution to pass, tens of thousands of Canadian mothers and fathers would hear the tramp of a nation run mad with the lust and desire for conquest, marching through Belgium, and that would be the only thing that they could see was the cause of the war.
I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I am personally concerned, I think the proposal of my hon. friend to-night is in entire disregard of the sufferings, the sacrifices and the feelings, present and future, of tens of thousands of Canadian citizens, and might I, in all seriousness, suggest that if my hon. friend is so sincerely desirous of bringing about peace and of obtaining harmony and co-operation, he will find wide scope in tb*

German Reparations

industrial field here in Canada, where there is ample opportunity for the exercise of his undoubted ability and great earnestness in this direction. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the motion should never have been discussed, because in my judgment thousands of our Canadian citizens will never be able to understand why we should, at this time, have listened to any such proposals as have come to us to-night.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not take objection to a discussion on the question of German reparations or the attitude that Canada should take towards it. I do object however, to the discussion of that very important problem under a resolution introduced in this form, and supported in a spirit and with language which, I think was inspired far more by a desire to discredit the great statesmen of the allied countries, rather than any desire to promote peace in Europe or throughout the the world. My hon. friend has quoted very liberally from what he is pleased to term great authority. I have read, and undoubtedly every member of the House has read many of the articles and books to which he has referred. I know of no work of literature from which one could not extract a clause here and there and distort its meaning, segregate it from its surrounding arguments, and make it serve some purpose to support some theory in many cases far removed from the subject under discussion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of order. May I ask the hon. gentleman to cite at least one or two of the books from which I have taken extracts and distorted them or wrested from the context.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have merely begun to state my argument. I have before me fairly copious notes of my hon. friend's remarks and it is my intention to give some consideration to his quotations. My hon. friend takes a purely business problem, an economic problem, a problem of a financial character between two nations, and one which could very properly, and undoubtedly would, come up under the budget proposals of the government, and uses it as the occasion of libelling the allied countries and, as I said a moment ago- and I repeat it-of deliberately casting aspersions upon some of the greatest statesmen in those countries, and above all-which I resent very much-upon the good faith of Great Britain and the British Empire. In the first place, my hon. friend referred, with a sneer in his voice, to the old practice, which unquestionably has been followed very widely, of trusting to Great Britain in the determina-

tion of foreign policy. I at once, Sir, agree that that might be a fitting subject for debate when some question was under consideration, as for example the subject of imperial conferences or any other allied question. But surely we can debate a question of that kind dispassionately and assert, if you will, a new and broader status for this country in imperial affairs without implying that Great Britain has invariably been wrong. My hon. friend went back to the South African war and raked around, showing to his own satisfaction that Great Britain had been wholly in error, without bringing forward any substantial proofs. My answer to him in connection with that South African argument is this, that General Smuts, who fought so valiantly against the British in South Africa,-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Henry Herbert Stevens: -is to-day the premier of South Africa and one of the most loyal sons of the Empire.


Hewitt Bostock: Do I understand the hon. member to rise to a point of order?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I deny that I ever made the statement-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Unless the hon. member rises to a point of order he can speak only with the permission of the member who has the floor.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member made a statement which I absolutely contradict.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend next referred to the Lusitania incident, and without giving to the House any clear reasons for his insinuation, and carefully refusing on repeated occasions to give his own opinion when requested to do so, he insinuated that some recent revelations more or less excused-I will not say justified-the Germans for the enormity of that frightful act they committed in the sinking of that ship. It is true that with his subtlety of language, of which he is a master, he avoided coming out freely and saying that he approved of the German action. Nor did he come forward and say that the Germans were justified. But he did insinuate, in that manner, of which I say he is a master and which he has used time and again in this country amongst the Canadian people to stir up strife and discord, that there was a question whether the Germans were not more or less justified in that act.
Oh, he says, the German people for whom I am pleading to-night have repudiated the

German Reparations
war lords. That is true. But I ask him, did his red revolutionary friends in Germany support the prosecution of those war lords for the war crimes they perpetrated, of which there was ample evidence before the people of Europe? Have they done so? What did Great Britain do? Great Britain was the mover in this matter and she induced the Allies to deal on a level, fair and equitable basis with the war lords and the war criminals of Germany who were guilty of the most heinous crimes ever recorded on the pages of history. They -were known to be guilty on the strength of evidence that was in the hands of the Germans to that effect, and Britain was fair enough to allow the German courts to try them. What has been the result? Will the hon. member or any one else in this House, in this country, or in Europe, assert that any measure of justice, but rather the most subtle and invidious type of evasion, was ever offered by the German people, the new Germany he speaks of, the revolutionary Germany he lauds to the skies? Have they in any measure sought to bring those war lords to justice? Not once! On the contrary, they have lent every energy, intellectual and physical, to blocking the way of attaining that end.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it possible for me to deny-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have never lauded Germany to the skies.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member can
interrupt only by permission of the member who has the floor, unless he rises to a point of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will answer my hon. friend by quoting his next statement. He pleaded on behalf of the little boys and girls of Germany. Well, what red-blooded man living to-day would not respond to a plea of that kind, whether the children were of Germany or anywhere else? But methinks there was a time when strong red-blooded men turned a deaf ear to the plea for children, boys and girls and babes. What about the advance of the German troops through Belgium and northern France? Outside of warfare waged by absolutely barbarous people, there has never been an instance in history in which there was such an utter disregard for the helplessness of childhood and the weakness of old age as characterised the advance of the German soldiery through Europe at that 21i
time. And yet my hon. friend comes to this House and says. "Let us think of the boys and girls of Germany". Why, certainly, I am prepared to meet him on that ground and discuss the resolution from that standpoint. But I think we ought also to think of the boys and girls of Great Britain, of France, of Canada, and other countries. Next, my hon. friend brought forward one of the stock arguments-well, it is not really an argument, rather let me say, one of his stock sneers at modern society, one of those soap-box references that we hear so often on the street corners, where men who have been toiling, or who perhaps are out of luck, or are misfits in society, are teased and agitated and aggravated into resentment. He trotted out the gibes about the great financial lords, and captains of industry. He based no argument on it, but he just introduced it in his speech -it will read well among certain groups of his followers and friends. They will say: Our great leader in the House of Commons has brought before the attention of his fellow members the iniquities of the financial lords of Europe.
Let me remind my hon. friend that his insinuation is baseless, for this reason. It was argued throughout the world that no great war could come. Why? Because the great moneyed interests of the world would not permit it. But I submit that in spite of the most bitter objections and in spite of all the efforts put forth by the great so-called "controlling influences" of industry and finance, this war bioke out. I am not going to rehash the discussion of why the war broke out, but I answer his argument with that statement, which no one can, I think, gainsay.
Then he quoted as the greatest authority of all, and the most outstanding-whom? Mr. Morel. What is Mr. Morel's claim to notoriety? Simply that he defeated Winston Churchill. That is the sole reason why we should accept what Mr. Morel says. As my hon. friend put it very modestly: "My opinion is no good; I give you Mr. Morel's." Now, in the long quotation my hon. friend read Mr. Morel referred to the conferences between the British, French and Belgian military staffs. Will my hon. friend deny that he called those conferences a conspiracy? Hansard will show that he did. What does he term a conspiracy? That which was published in the White papers of every one of the allied nations; everything to which he referred to-night and suggested to this House as a secret revealed because the spotless Bolsheviks of Russia had secured the archives in Petrograd. That was my hon. friend's argument. "This conspiracy was revealed." Those were his words. Revealed!
German Reparations

My hon. friend ought to know that this so-called conspiracy was revealed in 1914 at the commencement of the war and again in 1915 showing the conferences that had been held between these staffs on questions of preparation.
Then as an offset to our charge that Germany had been preparing for this war for years what did he bring forward? Britain's preparedness! And he quotes the speech of one of Britain's statesmen in that regard. Everybody knew

and well for my hon. friend, for every hon. gentleman in this House, for the whole North American continent, and for other parts of the world was it-that the British navy was prepared. Winston Churchill - whom he so slightingly refers to, and whom Mr. Morel, one of his British communistic leaders, defeated in the last general election in Great Britain-Winston Churchill abov all other men was responsible for the preparedness of the British navy. Was there any secret about it? I recall perfectly well in March 1914 one of the most lengthy and exhaustive debates ever held on a British budget had to do with the navy vote in that year, and again in 1913. And yet my hon. fiiend says there was a secret conspiracy among these nations, and that Britain's preparedness was in the nature of a crime equal to the military aggressiveness of Germany. These are the arguments, Mr. Speaker, that make one resent the presentation of a purely business proposition.
Then my hon. friend, in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), who asked him very politely and in perfect parliamentary order, would he be kind enough to give the House his own views, shielded himself behind the rather clever practice of reading the views of others. From one end of his speech to the other my hon. friend never told us where he stood on this question. But I know this much. If he goes to the city of Vancouver where he spent a few years, if he goes to the city of Winnipeg where he also spent an active period-in these cities, if he can do it with an audience just suited to him, he will tell them in most violent language where he stands on this question. I know my hon. friend's position. In this House he has conducted himself with commendable reserve. I have watched him during last session and this, and I must say I admire him. Bnt, Mr. Speaker, the language in which my hon. friend would express himself on these problems under other circumstances would be of an altogether different character. And so he was afraid to tell this House frankly where he stood on this

question. I challenge him, and I challenge everyone who belongs to that peculiar group of economic freaks, who owe allegiance to the Third Internationale in preference to the British Crown, to come out frankly and, through him, debate this question in the proper form-on the floor of the parliament of this country. If they have an opinion, this is the place to express it. I do not question a member's right to read other people's opinions on a subject while refusing to declare his own view. That is his privilege. But I do question a man's moral courage who will do it and then, under other circumstances peculiarly suited to himself, give vent to expressions of policies inimical to the welfare of this realm.
My hon. friend also addressed himself to quotations from Mr. Keynes' famous books on The Economic Consequences of the Peace and A Review of the Peace Treaty. I pay a tribute, Mr. Speaker, to Mr. Keynes, whom I look upon as one of the most thoroughly versed political economists in Europe and, perhaps, in the world to-day, a man of exceptional ability and one who has given expression to his own views in a very frank and courageous manner. My hon. friend selects a passage here and there and dovetails them into his speech this evening. Mr. Keynes once applied his arguments either in his book on The Economic Consequences of the Peace or in his famous articles in the Manchester Guardian Supplement during the past year in the manner that my hon. friend has applied them to-night. Mr. Keynes does argue-and I want to say here very frankly that in a large measure I agree with him

that the French particularly are interpreting the Versailles Treaty in a somewhat harsh and exacting manner. That is Mr. Keynes' argument in a nutshell. He labours very industriously and very effectively to prove his position.
But my hon. friend paid most of his respects to Great Britain in his insinuations. Well, Great Britain is the one country that has stood out firmly against an extreme interpretation of the Versailles Treaty by the French. Why was not my hon. friend generous enough to say that the country which has offered him protection during the whole of his life has been honourable in this regard? Why h'as he not been generous enough to say that Great Britain has been more than generous with the Germans in regard to reparations?
Then my hon. friend quoted ex-Premier Nitti of Italy. It might be well for this House to pause for a moment and ask what became of Mr. Nitti. Has he the support

German Reparations
of the Italian people to-day? He certainly has not. He has been completely rejected by his people.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about Mr. Lloyd George?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was coming to Mr. Lloyd George, if my hon. friend will wait a moment. Mr. Nitti has been rejected by his people. My hon. friend quotes Mr. Nitti to bolster up his argument, and he states in a general way that the people, not the few, should rule. But have not the people of Italy recently put Mr. Nitti out of business? I will give you, Mr. Speaker, what I am quite convinced, from several addresses I have heard him make, the hon. member means by "the people." In his estimation, the people are composed of that group in each country which corresponds to the
500,000	Bolsheviks in Russia out of the 180,000,000 inhabitants of that country. In his estimation, an organized group with his peculiar economic and philosophic ideas, no matter how small it may be numerically, constitute the people of a country. We happen to believe in majority rule. While there are injustices under our present system, and lots of them, we believe that through it we get the best expression of opinion on the part of the people that up to the present it has been possible to get anywhere. No man who has followed with any degree of interest the history of his friends in Russia will be able to argue, no matter how finely spun those arguments may be, no matter how subtle and insinuating the language in which they are expressed may be, that there is anything approaching real liberty under the rule of the Third Internationale, in Russia.
Now, my hon. friend quotes Mr. Nitti. Then he says that Mr. Lloyd George used the phrase-and we all know that Mr. Lloyd George is perhaps the most apt phraser that we have on two legs to-day-that Germany was prostrate. My hon. friend seizes upon this little phrase and produces it before the House as an argument in support of his extreme resolution, yet he condemns the part played by Britain under the leadership of Lloyd George all through the period of war. I would also remind him that the very gentleman whom he produces here as an authority has been rejected by Great Britain, and particularly, Mr. Speaker, by Mr. Morel and a few other of his friends.
My hon. friend introduced another suggestion which was unworthy of him-and that is going some. He introduced that old shibboleth about the French-coloured troops on the Rhine. He is not in a position to give accurate
information on that, nor am I. But this we do know, that a great deal of the agitation regarding the supposed occupation of the Rhine by coloured troops of France is mythical and false-is propaganda by the Germans themselves. There are more official reports excusing or justifying the French government than there are condemning them. I am not going to say for one moment that French troops occupying a territory like that have been blameless; it would be utterly impossible to pick out a group of men thus situated who would be free from any action that could be questioned. But to suggest, as my hon. friend has, that France has perpetrated a crime upon civilization in her occupation of the Rhineland, is, Sir, to present an argument that has no foundation in fact.
Then my hon. friend proceeded to quote a speech of Hon. Mr. Rowell. Quoting Mr. Rowell, he said: that Canada should follow Great Britain in the matter of a policy on reparations. In his opening remarks he jeered at and condemned Canada for following Great Britain in connection with the action taken at the outbreak of war; now he comes along and supports the statement of' Mr. Rowell that we should follow Great Britain in the matter of reparations. The question whether a thing suits my hon. friend depends on whether the action taken suits his own particular mental distortion. If it fits into that peculiar state of mind into which he has forced himself in recent years, then it is all right; if it clashes with that state of mind, then it is all wrong and there is no justice, equity, reason, logic or anything else in it. " What is right is what suits my peculiar state of mind"-that was my hon. friend's process of reasoning in his speech to-day, as it is in all his presentations throughout the country- and they are many-with regard to economic problems.
Then my hon. friend makes a general sweeping charge of violation of the treaty by France. I admit very frankly, Sir, that there is ample room for differences of opinion in interpreting the Treaty of Versailles. The greatest minds of Europe and America have been struggling with that treaty for the last three years. But should we not pause before making rash and hasty assertions condemning a whole nation for its action? Should we not pause and consider the peculiar and intricate conditions under which this treaty was entered into? Here we have a world literally prostrate as the result of the war-all participants in a state of chaos. State after state complete^ disrupted; new governments and new constitutions created overnight. Under conditions
German Reparations

of that kind, a score or more of nations meet together to draft a treaty of peace; is it any wonder that this piece of machinery produced under circumstances of that kind should in after years, in times of comparative peace and coolness, be found to be more or less faulty? So it is with the Treaty of Versailles. There are very few, if an}:, who do not frankly admit that the Treaty of Versailles must in some respects' be changed and modified. But that does not warrant my hon. friend's coming before this House with a libellous charge against the statesmen who made the treaty. I believe that with few exceptions, if any, the statesmen who engaged in the titanic task of trying to weave peace and order out of chaos did their duty faithfully and earnestly and with a common desire for peace. That they have not brought peace is something for which they cannot be blamed. It certainly will not contribute to peace to have such unfounded statements flung to the four winds as my hon. friend has made here to-night, and, unfortunately, is making on all possible occasions.
My hon. friend said also that this treaty and its enforcement violated international [DOT] law. , He did not tell us in what way it did so, but he said it violated international law as it was understood prior to 1914. I am not going to question the accuracy of his statement, but I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what respect there was for international law on the part of Germany and her allies? Was there any respect for it? Did not Germany openly declare and avow officially through her Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, that Germany would ignore international law; that it was in the interests of military tactics that Germany invaded Belgium?
Now I do not say that that justifies us in violating international law, but I would draw the attention of the House to the vast difference between the violation by Germany, and the supposed or alleged violation by France and her allies. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), suggests, how could a treaty violate international law? As a matter of fact, the whole question narrows down to this: Is the interpretation of the treaty by the Allies a fair and reasonable interpretation? Then the second question is this, and it is really the most important problem that this parliament and similar parliaments have to deal with: Assuming that we interpret the treaty correctly, and fix a given amount for Germany to pay, is that amount a reasonable amount under the conditions now existing, that is, can Germany possibly pay?
I would say this to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. After a great deal of

thought upon this subject so far as my individual capacity would permit, I am prepared to advocate and support this in the House of Commons: That we should seek to determine as far as we can, and in a generous spirit, the extent to which the reparation amounts due under the Versailles Treaty ought to be reduced to meet Germany's capacity to pay. That is a fair question, and one which may properly engage the attention of every fair-minded and intelligent and unprejudiced person.
My hon. friend then says he appeals on economic grounds. His economic grounds were not stated. He did not disclose cither his own opinion, or the economic grounds upon which he wished to support his motion. The only hint of an approach to economic grounds that he gave was a general, sweeping statement that Germany could not pay, that Germany was bankrupt. I would remind him and this House that up to perhaps six months ago Germany was the most prosperous country since the war of any in the world. It is true that about six months ago, or perhaps a little longer, this prosperity broke. The inflation of her currency and the devaluation of her monetary system has resulted in more or less of chaos in Germany to-day, but it is strange that only a day or two ago the German Reichstag asked the chief bank of Germany to release-what? 'A very huge sum of gold marks that they still held in their vaults, for the purpose of stabilizing the currency of Germany, and the bank refused to release that money. My hon. friend in his statement a moment ago said that Germany had no money, or words to that effect -that Germany was bankrupt, that she had no amounts of money, that all her gold and all her resources were gone. I would remind this House that in no single instance has the industrial machinery of Germany been tampered with except by my hon. friend's German friends, through sabotage and strikes, and in no other way. Germany's whole industrial machinery is intact, whereas France, as tve know, was prostrated and devastated over very large areas, a great portion of which will never be restored, indeed cannot be restored. Mines have been wholly destroyed so that they can never be worked again. It is so with other parts of Europe other than German territory; but German machinery remained intact and is intact to-day. Does not the wealth of a nation very largely consist of the things out of which they produce, such as the land and the machinery, whether it be industrial or agricultural? Germany was never touched in one of these things.

German Reparations
Her farms, her mines, her machinery, are all intact. Her people were undisturbed except those who were fighting in the war. Compare that, Mr. Speaker, with Belgium and France and certain portions of Italy, with Serbia, with Roumania particularly, with Bulgaria and Poland. Compare the condir tions in these countries with conditions in Germany, and you have a complete reversal.
Now let us turn for a moment to the situation as far as Canada is concerned. We are faced in Canada with a huge debt, and for the size of our population and our development that debt is an appalling burden. Some day in the near future I intend to discuss it at some length, but suffice it for tonight for me simply to remind the House that that debt rests with extreme weight and with grave possibilities upon the shoulders of the people. I am not prepared to say that we should forego the claims that we have against Germany; not at all, Mr. Speaker, but I again repeat that in so far as it can be shown, supported by intelligent and accurate information, that the reparation claims from Germany are beyond her economic possibility of payment, to that extent I am prepared to consider the reduction of our claims against her. But to come forward with a resolution such as my hon. friend has moved-1 was going to say 'falsely' clothed, but perhaps that would not be parliamentary-inaccurately clothed in the argument that it is in the interests of world peace to present this resolution under present conditions, and to support his motion by such a speech as he has delivered, which was far more significant in what it left out and in what he insinuated, than in what he actually did say-such an appeal, I say, should not win any support from this. House.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the mover of this resolution (Mr. Woodsworth), and also the last speaker (Mr. Stevens). They have both presented extreme views. I hope that those who will take part in this debate from now on will endeavour to keep to the middle road.	.	.
This discussion is one of the greatest importance, I believe, to this country. I do not think that anyone will disagree with me-I know that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) will not-when I say that the whole future of western Canada is wrapped up not only in economic peace but every possible kind of peace in Europe. If, therefore, by the cancellation of Germany's debt to us we can help to bring about that
peace, or progress just one step towards it, we shall have done a great deal.
The Treaty of Versailles which has been referred to so frequently to-night has not, I think, been glanced over at all. Let us look at it for a moment. In that treaty Germany specifically accepted responsibility for all the damage which she and the countries associated with her had done to Great Britain and her allies. On the other side, Great Britain and her allies specifically acknowledged in the treaty that the resources of Germany were not adequate to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage. The treaty did not attempt to fix the amount of damage for which Germany was to make payment, but it did provide for an initial payment on May 1, 1921 of twenty billion gold marks. This payment was to be in gold, in commodities, in ships, or, otherwise as the Reparations Commission might decide. In addition to that the remainder of the reparations to be made by Germany were to be decided upon by the Reparations Commission and were to be announced to Germany on or before May 1, 1921. On January 23, of that year the Reparations Commission reported that prior to December 31, 1920, Germany had delivered in payment of the 20 billions of gold marks referred to a large number of ships, a great quantity of commodities-I have the list with me but I do not. think I need weary the House by giving the details-and in addition all her submarine cables. The estimated value of these commodities varies very much but one thing can be said, and that is that the value fell very far below the 20 billion marks. On May 10, 1921, Germany under pressure, accepted an estimate by the Reparations Commission of the additional reparations payable which we fixed at 132 billions of gold marks, roughly about 33 billion dollars. These were to be covered by bonds in three series-A. amounting to 12 billions; B, amounting t.o 38 billions. Both of these, bearing 5 per cent interest, were delivered to the Allied governments. Series C, of 82 billions was non-interest bearing and was to have been delivered, by November 1,	1921. In addition, the
Reparations Commission decided that annual payments were to be as follows: 2 billions of gold marks and a variable amount up to 26 per cent of the total value of German exports. These payments were only sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds of Series A and B, and 1 per cent for amortization purposes, but they made no provision whatever for meeting the bonds of series C.
Now Germany made the first payment of 1 billion on time, but she at once commenced to
German Reparations

assert her inability to make any further payments. Then commenced those conferences. Conference followed conference, failure followed failure, leading up to the situation that we are now faced with. No one with a heart, no one with the realization of France's suffering, of the destruction which she has experienced, of her loss in every sense, can resent her stepping across into the Ruhr. No one who looks at the matter purely from the sentimental aspect, or from the aspect of cold justice, will blame her for her action. We all have deep sympathy for France, but in so acting did she take a wise step? None of the premiers of the other countries think it was a wise step. Only in this morning's paper I notice that an amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne is to be moved in the British House of Commons. I am not quite certain who is to move it, but the amendment, which is being prepared by Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Asquith, advocates the appointment of a commission in which the United States would be invited to participate for the purpose of investigating Germany's capacity for reparation payments and the best methods of securing a quick settlement.
The last speaker referred to the inflated condition of the currency in Germany but did not dwell on the effect that that had on the possibility of Germany meeting her debts. May I quote in this regard the Prime Minister of England. The charge has been levelled, mostly I believe by France against Germany, that she deliberately inflated her currency for the purpose of avoiding the payment of her debt, but the British Premier speaking about this says:
Honestly I cannot myself take that view gnd for this reason: It is perfectly true that by that method of passive resistance Germany can avoid her ever paying any indemnity, but it only means what is very like suicide for Germany. I can hardly believe that any sane government would deliberately adopt that course.
Yet that course was adopted and continued until it led to some extraordinary conditions. The position of Austria in this regard is a slight degree worse, but not very much worse, at the present moment. I read some little time ago of a mortgage that had been taken out in the year 1917 in Austria for the sum of 250 thousand crowns. The par value in dollars at that time was $50,000. That mortgage of
850,000	in 1917 was paid in August of 1922 in full for S3.12L A pension before the war of 30 thousand crowns was equal to about $6,000. To-day that same pension would buy you a breakfast. In the middle of August $1 would buy about one thousand marks in Germany. In January of this year $1 would buy more than eight thousand marks. Now

France has marched into the Ruhr. The immediate result of that action was to reduce the value of the mark to the vanishing point. Between January 14 and 18, the mark de-' dined by 50 per cent. To-day you can buy 1 million marks for $50. The result of that invasion was the immediate rise in the cost of living and it at once doubled the difficulty of the payment of German reparations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the position that Germany is in with regard to its ability to meet the reparations. The total of the European debts to the United States of America is about $11,525,000,000. Of this England owes $4,747,000,000; France $3,770,000,000; and Italy owes $1,891,000,000. The remainder is owed by 17 other European nations. Now even should series C amounting to 82 billions of gold marks be cancelled, the remaining 50 billions of gold marks, or 12J- billion dollars is more than the total owed by 20 European nations to the United States. Now if these nations, which have already received more than a billion in gold and several billions in value in commodities are unable or have not-with one exception, the proud exception of Great Britain,-been able to pay even interest it appears to be reasonable to believe that Germany may be unable to pay any large part of the reparations amounting as they do to so much greater sums.
Force has failed. I personally do not think there is any possible prospect of success in the French invasion of the Ruhr district. We have seen in the last few days the collapse of industries in Germany, and we have seen strikes and other disturbances started, the outcome of which I am sure every member of this House dreads.
On one point I must agree with the last speaker. We must give every credit to Great Britain for the magnanimous position she took at the Paris conference, and I desire to remind the House of it. The offer was that Britain woud cancel France's debt to her. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to note that Britain proposed that she should cancel her debt to France, provided France would consent to a reduction of the German indemnity, and would drop altogether the proposition of bringing economic and military pressure to bear on Germany. I read that statement in the Montreal Gazette of 13th December, 1922.
Now, might we not follow England's example? I do not think the exact amount of reparation due to Canada has even been announced. It -must be a comparatively small amount, and it will make little difference to us. No computation has been made of what is due to us by Germany up to this time. If

German Reparations
we pass this resolution perhaps we may in some small degree help to eliminate the old hatreds that we see rising up, even around us in this House, and we may be able to assist European reconstruction. When we have a crippled horse, Mr. Speaker, we do not cripple it further. We put it in a stable, and take it out, and feed it, if we think it can recover. If we think it can be made to do any work in the future we feed it, nurse it and look after it. If we do not think so, then we shoot it and put it out of misery. If we could find out just exactly what Germany's capacity is, and decide once and for all whether she can pay or not pay, then we could either put her out of misery, as France appears to be prepared to do, or sacrifice our reparations.


James Arthurs: Before the hon. member finishes, will he tell us whether he is in favor of the resolution of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg that Canada should withdraw all claims against Germany?


Edward Joseph Garland: I would appeal to this House to support the resolution that Canada should withdraw all claims to reparations in the interest of European peace, in our own interest, if you want to come nearer home, and in the interest of agriculture, if you wish to come still closer home.
Let me suggest to hon. members that we are told to-day, when we protest against the price we are receiving for our grain, that the low price is due to the appalling conditions in central Europe. May I say also that I hope this House will, in the interest of humanity, in the essential interest of the economic reconstruction in Europe and of human welfare and peace, support this resolution.


Robert James Manion: I may say at the beginning of my remarks that I certainly cannot support the motion of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). It is true, Sir, that if things go as they seem to be going in Europe, it is very probable that this country will receive nothing in the shape' of reparations. And yet, if my memory serves me correctly, the revised amount of reparations which under the Peace Treaty was to be paid by Germany was thirty billion dollars. Originally almost double that amount was proposed. Suppose the last revised figures amount to thirty billions, then by Keynes' latest works which I have consulted to verify the facts, if that thirty billions were paid, Canada would receive one per cent, roughly, which means that Canada would get about three hundred million dollars, and yet my
hon. friend from Winnipeg, looking at it from a cold blooded business standpoint, suggests in a three line resolution that' we pass a motion in this House to forego that three hundred million dollars. It is doubtful if Canada will ever receive very much reparations, but there is another standpoint from which to view this question, and that is this: The passing of such a resolution in this House would help to complicate the already very much complicated conditions in Europe for by such a resolution you say once and for all that you do not believe that Germany has any right to pay you anything. By such action you condemn France, who has recently gone" into the Ruhr, and I may say here, though it has no special bearing on this subject, that I have very great sympathy with France in her action in going into the Ruhr. When you remember the conditions which France fwent through, the suffering which France endured when the Germans invaded that country in 1870, when you remember that at that time the German troops first went to Versailles, and imposed upon France the most humiliating terms of peace, and on top of that, a very heavy reparation, you can well understand and appreciate the feelings of the French people to-day. The reparation demanded then was considered very heavy. Considering the value of money at that time and the value of money at the present time, the reparation payment which Germany imposed on France on account of a war which only lasted about six months, was, I believe, nearly equivalent to the thirty billion dollars imposed upon Germany on account of the recent war, and when Germany imposed that payment on France, she stayed in France with her army until the money was paid. Therefore, I feel very sympathetic towards France in the action which she has taken at the present time.
However, laying that aside for a moment, I do not believe it is the duty of this country to be the first to complicate the already very difficult conditions which exist in Europe. That is my first reason for very strongly opposing this resolution. My hon. friend from Winnipeg mentioned the boys and girls of Germany,-and I do not say this with any desire to arouse passion-when he mentioned the boys and girls of Germany, one was forced to think of the boys and girls in this country whose fathers had died in order to bring about peace in the world. While I do not accuse him of doing this with this object in view the intention apparently was to let the little boys and girls in Canada
German Reparations

suffer so that the little boys and girls in Germany might be relieved of the pressure of debt which they would have to pay in the future. According to all the despatches that we read at the present time, while the conditions in Germany are very bad just at the moment because of the Ruhr invasion, yet up to recently they had been very good probably better than the conditions in any country in Europe at least, and perhaps even better than conditions in Canada. According to persons whom I have met, who have visited Germany within the last year or year and a half, there was practically no unemployment in Germany, and yet we have a large unemployment problem in this country. And certainly, so far as Great Britain and France are concerned, and particularly Great Britain, the unemployment situation is critical. Indeed, so severe is it in Great. Britain that the British parliament, according to a despatch in the press to-night, was this very*day debating the question whether they might solve the unemployment problem by getting the unemployed to emigrate. Now, when a condition is so critical in a country that the unemployed are asked to emigrate as the only solution of the difficulty, it is obvious that conditions generally must be very bad indeed. I have certainly never read any suggestion coming from Germany or any of its people that there are in that country such conditions of unemployment as would necessitate anyone emigrating .from Germany.
I do not intend to waste the time of the House going into all arguments put forth, because many of them have been dealt with very ably by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). But with reference to Mr. Keynes, I have never read any statement of his suggesting that there should be an entire abandonment of all reparation claims. Ha did suggest that the reparation claims originally imposed against Germany by the Allies at the Versailles conference were too severe and he said that they should be cut down. But so far as I can learn Mr. Keynes suggested something like thirty billion dollars as possibly an amount which Germany could pay. He may have proposed a lower sum, but there has not been anywhere in his writings any suggestion that the reparation claims should be wholly wiped out. It is true that some of the men quoted by the hon. member who intoduced the resolution have probably taken that attitude.
In considering the stand which some men even in the British Isles have taken in contradistinction to the position held by the people of France, we must bear in mind that the conditions are altogether different in the
.'Mr. Manion.]
two countries. In England we find a country that was dependent to a great extent on its trade in the days before the war, and much of that trade was with Germany. So that, looking at the matter absolutely from the materialistic standpoint, the British people would probably be glad, as most of us no doubt would be glad in the interests of the world at large, but the English people particularly would be glad, to see Germany rehabilitated in order that there might be a resumption of British trade with Germany and British industries be once again put on their feet. France, on the other hand, was not so great a trading nation as Great Britain. She is looking at the danger that threatens her northern and eastern border from a country which invaded her and Belgium in cold blood. France is looking to the future, and I certainly do not blame her for so doing.
I shall vote against this resolution and I shall certainly be disappointed if it receives any great support in this House. If you support it you are practically exonerating Germany from all blame for bringing on the war. And while I cannot work myself up into a passion of hatred against Germany, I for one shall not vote to exonerate her from responsibility for the war through which we passed. But not only would a vote for this resolution be exonerating Germany, it would appear to me to be a condemnation of the actions of this country, of France, of England, and of the United States, which quietly for a period of three years discussed the question before going into the war. It would be a condemnation of all our Allies; it would be a condemnation of our boys who went overseas and of those who died there. I do not think, therefore, that we should vote for any such resohition as this, and it would be a great disappointment to the people of this country if this House at the present time, in the present condition of our finances, in the present situation in Europe, should pass a resolution of'this character. For these reasons I shall emphatically oppose the resolution.
On motion of Mr. Warner, the debate was adjourned.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr MANION:: ,
For a copy of all orders in council passed since January 1st, 1921, removing appointments or a'ffecting the removal of appointments or promotions from the Civil Service Commission.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Canada-France Convention
Friday, February 16, 1923