1924-06-19

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU (Translation) presented the third report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Printing.
.... Also the committee recommends that the order in council of June 12, 1890, defining the method of the spelling of certain words in official documents printed in the English language, shall continue to apply and be extended to all words in the English language; and that the New English Dictionary, known usually as the "Oxford Dictionary," be the standard spelling to govern all the public departments. [DOT]
Mr. SPEAKER:: With all due regard to
the joint committee on the Printing of Parliament, the last paragraph of their report need not be taken in consideration by the House as it relates to a matter which was not referred to the committee. Under the rules and customs of British parliaments, standing committees are not administrative bodies and * their power is limited by such orders or instructions as may be given the House. When the committee on Printing was formed the House passed the following resolution:
That the select standing committee on Printing be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
It is evident, therefore, that since the question of the orthography used in official documents by the various departments was not referred to this committee, it had no authority to report thereon and the last paragraph of the report should be struck out. When the House is called upon to give its concurrence I shall rule then that this paragraph is out of order.
I may add that the House is perfectly free to refer the question of official orthography to this or any other committee, but until it has done so, no committee has power to take it up and make recoramendations.
I most strongly hold, however, for the King's English, and it is quite proper that the various departments should understand that the standard English spelling should be used in official documents. If the matter had been referred by the House to that committee, then it would have been their duty to consider it. I say this in all fairness to the members of the committee who are doing their duty splendidly.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: At the end of the
session of our committee we could not refuse the petition of Mr. Fred Cook who asked that this question be considered by the committee, and we agreed to that.


Hewitt Bostock: , But the House of Commons is above Mr. Cook or any other official.


Mr. MACLEAN:: (York):	I brought up
the question, and inasmuch as that question was not referred to the committee for consideration, I would be prepared to move that now.


Hewitt Bostock: That question will come
up when the motion for concurrence is made.



NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) presented the first report of the select standing committee on National Railways and Shipping as follows:
Your committee has considered item No. 138 of the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925. namely, loan to Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited $900,000, and approve of the said item.

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: I had given notice that I would move to-day concurrence in the second report of the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections and it was my intention to do so. The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) however, has telephoned me that he is ill. It would be repugnant to me to do anything that would inconvenience the hon. member, who throughout the proceedings has shown every courtesy to the Chair. At the same time the hon. member and the House will realize that the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) is most anxious to resume his seat and this delay is causing him great inconvenience. I have therefore arranged with the hon. member for West Hastings to proceed on Wednesday, the 25th instant, and I now give notice that on that day I shall make the motion which I intended to move to-day.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: It would scarcely be
proper to proceed with a motion of that kind in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The matter could not have been proceeded with in the last two days, anyway.
Questions



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: I beg to
present a petition from the Union Mothers' Club of London, Ontario, with reference to
the establishment of a central place of execution in Canada.



HOME BANK

Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: I beg
leave to lay on the table a petition signed by 38 persons humbly praying for the indemnification of the depositors of the defunct Home Bank.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 195, to amend the Immigration Act.
He said: The bill contemplates very minor changes. With respect to persons ordered to be deported, if an appeal is granted, the time spent in Canada shall not be counted in the period of residence which is necessary to acquire citizenship. If the head of a family is ordered deported the minister may compel the transportation company t o take back with him the members of his family who accompanied him. The amendment provides also, under certain conditions, that free transportation shall be given to the immigration officers of the different provinces. There is a reference to medical attendance, and there is also some change in regard to the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act in relation to immigrants.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 193) (from the Senate), for the relief of Alfred Edward Briggs.-Mr. Simpson.
Bill No. 194 (from the Senate), for the relief of Louisa Elizabeth Smith.-Mr. Martell.

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

Arthur Meighen: Referring to parliamentary return No. 239; with what officials of the Canadian National Railways were interviews held by the Minister of National 
Defence in which interviews the statements as to coming rate reductions made by such minister in North Sydney on the 28th July, 1923, were authorized?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Interviews were held by said Minister with Mr. Dalrymple and Mr. Watson of the Canadian National Railways in the month of July regarding freight rates.
RIFLE SIGHT BRIDGES Mr. ARTHURS:
With reference to sessional paper 236, what firms were asked for tenders by the Department of Militia and Defence for 10,000 rifle sight bridges, as mentioned in the said sessional paper, (a) in Canada; (b) in Great Britain?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: (a) In Canada:	Messrs. MacKay &
Fraser Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S.;	(b) In
Great Britain: The Birmingham Small Arms Limited, Birmingham, England, through their Canadian representative Messrs. Fraser Company, Montreal.
WEIR LICENSES Mr. HANSON:
1.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries decided to amend the fishery regulations so as to provide that a condition be inserted in each weir license issued by the department, providing that no fish caught under said license so issued by the department shall be sold at less than a minimum price named in such regulation or to the like effect?
2.	When was such regulation passed and what minimum price has been fixed?
3.	How does the department propose to enforce such regulation?
4.	When will such regulation go into effect?
5.	Has the department the right to pass such a regulation under the Fisheries Act?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1 and 2. It has been made a condition of the sardine fishery licenses for Charlotte and St. John counties that the licensee will not dispose of his catches to be exported fresh out of Canada for less than 810 per hogshead. This course was requested by the sardine fishermen and weir owners of that district.
3.	By withholding the license if this requirement is not complied with.
4.	June 12.
5.	No such regulation is being obtained.


FISH HATCHERY-BEDFORD, N.S.
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Was there a dwelling built at Bedford, Halifax County, Nova Scotia, last summer for the keeper of the fish hatchery?
2.	If so, was it built by tender, and who was the contractor?

Questions
3.	What are the names of those employed, the rate of pay and total amount paid to each?
4.	What are the names of firms who supplied material and the total amount paid to each?
5.	What was the total cost of the building?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Rate Total paid	
Names	of pay each man	
Alex Heffler.. ..	.. $ .70 i	725.50Lewis Boutilier..	.. .35	106.40David Pulsifer..	.. .35	35.00f .50	Chas. Willis.. ..	.. ) .35	96.70Samuel Heffler.. .	.60	452.40F. Hoffman.. ..	.. .60	459.60James Redmond..	. .60	265.80R. E. Poverill..	.. .40 (load)	112.00R. S. Davison..	.. 125.00	813.50Robt. Barrett.. .	.60	454.80f .50	Leslie Heffler.. ..	. 1 .35	314.00Arthur Roche.. .	. .35	17.50.. .60	270.00John Gritt.. ..	.. .35	45.50Fred Ward.. ..	.. .75	34.50George Haystead.	. .65	59.80James Butler.. ..	. .30	27.60R. T. Sinfield..	.. .80	61.60R. White	.. .80	64.00Thos. Muldowney.	. 1.00	212.00C. Carr	. .40	84.80C. Fitzmaurice..	.. .60	98.40J. R. Havstead..	.. .65	21.45M. McDonald..	.. .35	7.00Chas. Whitely..	.. .65	7.80W. Smith.. ..	.. .35	64.40W. Frechleton..	.. .90	136.80$5,075.85	Part of the time some of these men were en-	gaged in making	new troughs for the hatchery.	4.	Name of Firm Material	AmountJohn Davison & Son, Ltd.Lumber, etc	$2,634 42R. S. Davison.. ..	73 85T. A. S. DeWolf &	Son.. Gravel, cement.. ..	245 70Evans & Co.. ..	322 30Melvin & Co	11 31Thos. Muldowney..	236 31Hill is & Sons, Ltd.	.. .Bath,, sink, etc.. ..	347 11G. H. Haystead.. .	51 11Wm. Robertson &	Son.. Wire nails	50 26D. Moriarty	10 00
Northern Electric Co.. ..Electric fixtures.. .		34 84
H. A. Fultz			1 50
R. Peverill			6 50
J. W. Canfield.. ..		3 70

5. For labour, $5,07585; for material $4,028.91; total $9,104.76. This includes the cost of the new troughs for the hatchery.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many ships comprise the government's Merchant Marine ?
2.	How many ships were originally built?
3.	How many were (a) lost; (b) discarded; (c) sold?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	57.
2.	63.
3.	(a) 2; (b) nil; (c) 4.


$300,000,000 LOAN
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide authority for the raising, by way of loan, under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, by the issue and sale or pledge of securities of Canada, in such form, for such separate sums, at such rate of interest and upon such other terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, such sum or sums of money as may be required, but not to exceed in the whole the sum of three hundred million dollars, for paying maturing loans and obligations of Canada, and to provide that the principal so raised by way of loan and the interest thereon shall be a charge upon and payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that goods produced or manufactured in Finland shall receive treatment as favourable as that accorded to goods produced or manufactured in any foreign country so long as goods produced or manufactured in Canada enjoy in Finland the same treatment as is enjoyed by similar goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, as set out in Article 23 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Finland, made at Helsingfors the 14th day of December, 1923.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved that the
Gold and Silver Marking
[Stage Direction]
House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend The Feeding Stuffs Act, and to provide,-
1.	That any commercial feeding stuff which does not contain as ingredients any screenings, scourings, scalp-ings, oat hulls, oat feed, buckwheat hulls, peanut hulls or shells, cottonseed hulls, peat or moss, or any other material of low feeding value, which the minister shall have power to designate by regulation, may contain a maximum of fifty per cent by weight of bran, shorts, middlings, or feed flour, singly or combined;
2.	That wheat flour sold for feeding purposes shall be deemed to be feed flour;
3.	That any material, including the scourings or scalpings in addition to all or part of the mill screenings, which has been removed from wheat in preparing such wheat for the processes employed in flour extraction, and which material contains more than eight per cent crude fibre, may be registered and sold as a commercial feeding stuff under the name "Mill Scalpings"; or, if the material has been graded by a grain inspector operating under The Canada Grain Act, it may be sold under such other name as such grain inspector may designate on his certificate of inspection.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, has the government any announcement to make about its attitude towards the strike which is now going on in the postal service at Toronto?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, if my hon.
friend will renew his question a little later when the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Stewart) is in his place, I have no doubt that the required information will be furnished.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Will I have an opportunity to renew my question?


Mr. GRAHAM:: I think before we close,
the House will be glad to get that information.


VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND HANSARD
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humbolt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to an apparent error or discrepancy in the record of the proceedings of the House. In votes and Proceedings of June 17, at page 405, I find certain resolutions reported as having been adopted. They appear under the heading "Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions" and are numbered 183, 184, 189 and 193. Turning to Hansard of the same date, I find

that pages 3319 and 3327 in which the report of the debates on those items occurs contain no record that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole either called the items or declared them carried.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed by the
Clerk Assistant that the items were passed, and that the record in the Votes and Proceedings is confirmed by the scroll-the famous scroll. There the hon. gentleman can find the evidence that the items in question were passed.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader
of the Opposition):	I think attention should
be called to the too frequent variations between Hansard and Votes and Proceedings.


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly, I will call the attention of the chief of the Hansard staff to them.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid that that will not be the sole cure. I have never observed such discrepancies occur previous to this parliament.


Mr. JACOBS:: Does the hon. gentleman
suggest a change of government in order to avoid further discrepancies?


GOLD AND SILVER MARKING ACT 1913, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 176 to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1913, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: Section 1, was carried.
SectioD 2 stood.
On section 2-"Platinum" to be applied only to articles of defined component parts.


Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday afternoon when this
bill was before the committee my hon. friend the ex-jMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) asked me to allow it to stand trver that he might be supplied with further information on the subject matter of the bill. Objection was taken to the amendment by certain hon. members on the ground that it would permit of articles being composed of 99 per cent iridium and 1 per cent platinum. I might point out that at the time this amendment was introduced platinum was selling at about $115 per ounce, and iridium at from $275 to $300 per ounce. I am sure that those

Gold and Silver Marking
hon. members were under the impression that iridium was an inferior metal. I find that platinum is one metal element, iridium is a metallic element resembling platinum in its general properties and occurring in nature in the metallic form alloyed with platinum. Iridium, osmium, palladium, rhodium, rutheum, are metals of the platinum group. These metals all occur naturally in alloy in the metallic form with platinum; they are not metals or combinations mixed with platinum to produce an inferior article.


Mr. McMASTER:: With careful attention one can see the lips of the minister moving, but that is as far as anything comes to this end of the chamber. We really cannot hear at all.


George Newcombe Gordon: The chairman has asked for order half a dozen times, but no attention has been paid to the call.


Thomas Andrew Low: We have followed the procedure adopted by Switzerland, a country that largely manufactures gold, silver and platinum goods. I pointed out when this amendment was introduced that platinum was selling at $115 per ounce as against $275 per ounce for iridium. That alone should answer the objection urged by some hon. members that iridium was an inferior metal mixed with platinum. The intention of the amendment is to give platinum the same protection that is given to gold and silver goods.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I do not remember anybody objecting to iridium on the ground that it was a base metal. All we want to do is to find out what the amendment involves. As it now stands you can have the pure metal-that would be pure platinum, I suppose; you can have "element platinum," and then again you can have iridium. What is element platinum?


Thomas Andrew Low: The deputy minister informs me that that is a term used metallurgically. It is the platinum, pure, allowing of no further decomposition. It is found in the Swiss act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The bill provides that you can stamp anything as platinum if 950/1000ths of the component parts of the metal appearing or purporting to be platinum are either the pure metal and element platinum alone or in conjunction with iridium.


Thomas Andrew Low: Iridium is part of the platinum itself. It is a metal that is very hard to extract and is consequently very valuable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Nickel ore is the substance from which we get platinum, iridium and these other valuable metals. A large amount of ore goes out of the country which is not refined so far as these rare metals are concerned. The information I want is how we are getting on with the production of platinum, iridium, and so on, from our nickel ores. My hon. friend took the bill out of committee in order to be able to get that information, but we have not got it yet.


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend will put the question on the order paper I am sure the Minister of Mines will be glad to answer it any time. It is true I said I would have the information, but I have not been able to secure it. My hon. friend knows I was busy last night until one o'clock-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, the hon.
gentleman kept us here until half past twelve last night, but it was not our fault.


Thomas Andrew Low: -and this morning I was in committee from ten o'clock.


Mr. BAXTER:: If at any time we have to define in court the elements of platinum, would it not mean its chemical constituents?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think it would. Platinum is itself an element-and cannot be reduced further.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Then what are the elements of an element? I also suggest that in dealing with platinum and iridium we should deal with all precious' metals. There is an extremely precious substance not mentioned in this bill, known as "bunkium". It is a most precious political substance, and it goes about the country to-day with no legislation, with nothing but the government stamp on it to indicate its quality or its source. Why not deal with "bunkium" when you are dealing with the rest of your precious metals?


William Findlay Maclean: Although we have an absolute monopoly of these precious metals, parliament has never yet been put in possession of the facts as to what they are and what their value is. The metallurgists speak of these metals as the "P" metals, P being the sign for platinum. They include iridium, palladium, polonium, chromium and two or three more-at least five in all. Nickel is one of them, and it is a metal of which we have a monopoly. We have all these metals, and they are going out of the country and are being

Gold and Silver Marking

refined elsewhere. Every nation wants these metals, and we could get a great revenue from them if we had them all analyzed and knew the quantities we had in our country, and adopted legislation that would at least compel the refining of these metals in Canada into the finished article. Nickel is only one of them, but nickel is the basis of nickel steel, and all the world wants nickel steel to-day. We have a monopoly of this metal, but it is being refined over in the United States and in England. The great industries of the world to-day need nickel steel, and they are absolutely dependent upon the nickel ores coming from Canada, and these ores are practically all contained in six square miles up around Sudbury. If that is the case, parliament and the people of this country ought to know it, and we ought to insist on the refining of these ores and the production of the finished article in this country. I have advocated that for years. I brought up the question-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. We are discussing a bill for the purpose of determining how a certain precious metal called platinum shall be marked, and I do not think it is in order on this bill to raise a discussion as to how the natural resources of this country should be developed or dealt with.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I appeal to the Chair.


William Findlay Maclean: That is all very well, but if there is any place where there is free discussion it is in committee, and I am surprised to hear such a reformer as my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) try to limit the discussion in this manner. We have these metals in our country, and no other country has them.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I raised a point of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is there any other hon. member who desires to discuss the point of order? I think the point of order is well taken, and that the hon. member is not in order in his discussion.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister know whether' this wording is employed with reference to other metals used? The reason I ask is because it appears to be about as clumsy as could be conceived. If it is the

same wording as the other, there would be an excuse for it, but if it is new, it certainly could be improved on.


Thomas Andrew Low: These words are added to the act as it was before. It says that the act shall be amended by adding to it the word "platinum," so that it will read "gold, silver or platinum."


Arthur Meighen: The first part is all
right, and the wording there is correct, except that I would have thought perhaps platinum should be used again, but it is the last part I am directing the minister's attention to- this addition.


Thomas Andrew Low: Will my right hon. friend point out where it is clumsy? I really do not see it.


Arthur Meighen: You have to do some
thinking to tell what it means. It says:
The word "platinum" or any contraction, abbreviation or colourable imitation thereof,-
In the first place, you do not speak about a "colourable imitation" of a word.


Thomas Andrew Low: Of the metal.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is wrong.
I thought that, too.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, of the metal.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no; he is wrong.
The minister will please be patient with me. I thought it meant the metal, and that got me wrong for quite a while. Now I think I see what it means, but I am only right on the hypothesis that it means a colourable imitation of the word. What is meant is any contraction of the word, any abbreviation of the word, or any colourable imitation of the word. There is no question about that. The minister has not understood the clause.


Thomas Andrew Low: I quite understand it. I am
sure it is very clear.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will not
say it means a colourable imitation of the metal.


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


Arthur Meighen: He said that first,


Thomas Andrew Low: No, I did not. I said it referred to a colourable metal.


Arthur Meighen: It does not refer to that at all.

Gold and Silver Marking


Thomas Andrew Low: The wording is clear. Let
me read it:
The word "platinum" or any contraction, abbreviation or colourable imitation thereof shall not be applied, either alone or in combination with any other word, to any article of merchandise composed wholly or in part of any metal unless 950/1000ths of component parts of the metal appearing or purporting to be platinum of which said article consists are either the pure metal and element platinum alone or in conjunction with iridium.
Could anything be clearer?


Arthur Meighen: The minister has come
to a new view on the first part; now I will discuss the rest. It means a * colourable imitation of the word, not the metal. The effect of it is this, if I may put it in simpler language-that you shall not apply the word "platinum" as a noun, adjective, or anything else, or any word sounding like "platinum" intending to convey the effect of that word to any metal unless 95 per cent at least-


Thomas Andrew Low: More than that.


Arthur Meighen: But 950/1000ths is 95/-
lOOths, is it not? My arithmetic used to tell me that was 95 per cent.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think my right hon. friend is a little rusty on his arithmetic.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister will take a few minutes more, I think he will come to my view on that. I appeal to the professor of arithmetic in the back row. I know he will agree with me.


Mr. ROBINSON:: It is 95 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: If I struggle along I
may possibly get the minister to know what this clause means. You cannot apply the word "platinum" as a noun, adjective, or anything else, or any word sounding like "platinum," intending to convey the effect of the word "platinum," to any metal unless 95 per cent at least of the article supposed to be platinum is the real element platinum or platinum in conjunction with iridium. Now that is the effect. Consequently, if the bill goes through-and I want to know if this is just what was intended-you can put out an article and use the word "platinum" in relation to it if not one-tenth, one-fiftieth, or one-millionth part of it be platinum, provided only that that portion of it which is supposed to be platinum shall be at least 95 per cent platinum; that is to say, if there i3 some corn-2151
bination of platinum used in another alloy, and the combination of platinum is only one-hundredth part of that alloy, you can use the word "platinum" with relation to the whole thing, or any adjective giving the effect of the word "platinum," provided only that 95 per cent of that one-hundredth part is elemental platinum, or platinum in conjunction with iridium. That is the effect of it; one can get that result after considerable meditation. And if such is intended, it really is not very much protection, because t'he alloy itself could be overwhelmingly something else, but as long as the little coating or whatever it may be supposed to be platinum is 95 per cent real platinum, the article can go and the adjective may be used.


Thomas Andrew Low: If I understand it aright, 950/-
lOOOths must be platinum.


Arthur Meighen: Of the whole article?


Thomas Andrew Low: Of the whole article.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the effect
at all.


Thomas Andrew Low: I may be mistaken, but I understand it that way. The bill was drawn by the Justice department, but lawyers differ, and if they have made a mistake in the meaning, they have done so without my knowledge.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is wrong as to his conception of what the draughtsman intended. The draughtsman who drew this never in the world intended the whole article to be 95 per cent platinum-never.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am fairly satisfied that is what he means.


Arthur Meighen: Then we had better
defer the bill, because he certainly has not produced that meaning. I should like to hear from the .member for Kings (Mr. Robinson); I fancy he knows something about the question.


Clifford William Robinson: The intention doubtless was that it should be 95 per cent of the element platinum, but it does not say so. I think it is possible to put upon the provision as worded the construction the rigid hon. leader of the opposition has given.


William Findlay Maclean: The minister
has told us that iridium is worth $300 an ounce and platinum $115. Now, an attempt is being made by some jewellers to palm off
Gold and Silver Marking



upon the public a substitute for platinum and to use the sign "P" for that metal. In that way they hope to impose upon the public and sell to them this substitute as being worth $115 an ounce, although it may contain only a small percentage of the real metal.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister had better defer the bill, because either the member for Kings (Mr. Robinson) is right as to the intention, or I am. We both agree as to the effect but I believe the member for Kings is wrong as to what is intended. I think it is only the proportion that it is supposed to foe or is ostensibly platinum that must be 95 per cent platinum, not the whole article. So we will wait until we hear from the Justice department.


Thomas Andrew Low: The language used in the
clause is "950/1000ths" which works out at 95 per cent. There is no doubt in my mind that the intention is to provide that the article represented as platinum must be 95 per cent platinum.


Arthur Meighen: I think we are all agreed that that is not the effect of the proposed legislation. Personally I am of the opinion -I should like to get the minister to understand it if I could-that it is not the intention that it should' be 95 per cent of platinum or platinum with iridium. The intention of the proposed legislation, if I conceive it correctly, is that only the portion of the article ostensibly platinum shall be at least 95 per cent either wholly platinum or platinum with iridium-only the portion which, in the words of the clause is "appearing or purporting to be platinum." Now, if the minister has my underatanding of it he will be able to submit the matter to the Justice department so that they will see what the point is and we will know to-morrow.


Thomas Andrew Low: Platinum and iridium are the
same metals.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point.


Thomas Andrew Low: Iridium is extracted from
platinum and is more valuable.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that matters.


Thomas Andrew Low: It may be 95 per cent platinum or iridium because the latter is more valuable than the former.
(Mr. W. F. Maclean.]


Arthur Meighen: The minister may know
that; I do not know whether iridium is the same metal as platinum or not. But that point does not come up at all. The minister says the intention of this bill is that any article, as respects which the word "platinum" or a compound' of it is used, must be 95 per cent platinum or platinum with iridium. If that is the intention the bill itself does not say so, or when passed will not make it law-not at all. Personally I do not think it is the intention. The intention is this, and I hope the minister will follow me, that the portion which is apparently platinum shall itself be 95 per cent platinum, or platinum and iridium combined.


Thomas Andrew Low: Ninety-five per cent of the
whole article represented as platinum, yes, certainly.


Arthur Meighen: The minister does not
get my point. I am sorry but I tried to expiain it the best I could.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister consult the Department of Mines and have the misunderstanding cleared up? A representative of the Department of Mines in co-operation with the law department surely will get the facts.


Mr. CALDWELL:: It is quite apparent
to me, from the memorandum in the explanatory notes, that this section does not mean that the whole article must be 95 per cent of platinum or platinum with iridium. In the explanatory notes on the opposite page I find this statement:
The full title of this act is "An act respecting the manufacture, marking and sale of articles composed of gold or silver, and of gold plated and silver plated ware".
The present act does not refer to platinum plated ware which must be very thinly plated, but what is now proposed would appear to be that it shall apply to platinum plated ware as well. In that case the whole article would not have to be composed of 95 per cent platinum.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, 95 per cent.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Ninety-five per cent of
the plating but not of the whole article. I think 'that is the point made by the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think it is 95 per cent of the whole article. What value would there be

Gold and Silver Marking
in it if the article might contain perhaps 95 per cent of other inferior metal? In that case why should a protection be asked for?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The Gold and Silver
Marking Act has reference to gold plated and silver plated ware. This is simply adding the word "platinum" to the Gold and Silver Marking Act. In that act it is provided that a gold plated article must be of a certain degree of gold or it cannot be so marked. In case of a silver plated article it must conform to a certain standard of silver-that is, the plating part of it-or it cannot be marketed as silver plated. Therefore the present provision would appear to mean that if an article were plated with platinum the plating, the thin cover, must consist of 95 per cent platinum. That is my understanding of the section.


Arthur Meighen: That is it exactly.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is the way it
appears to me.


Mr. BOYS:: I understand the minister to
say that 95 per cent of the entire article must be platinum or platinum with iridium. If that is the intention it seems to
4. p.m. me that if you insert the word "of" after the word "metal", and strike out the words "appearing or purporting to be platinum" you will meet the case. If that is done the section will read as follows:
The word "platinum" or any contraction, abbreviation or colourable imitation thereof shall not be applied, either alone or in combination with any other word, to any article of merchandise composed wholly or in part of any metal unless 950/1000ths of component parts of the metal of which said article consists-
And so on. That amendment would make it apply to the whole article and not merely to the plating upon it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That clearly is not the
intention.


Thomas Andrew Low: The intention of this amendment is simply to give platinum the same protection as gold and silver. I shall send for the Gold and Silver Marking Act, and if there is any difference we will make this provision conform to the act. The idea was that exactly the same protection that now applies to gold and silver under the Marking Act should apply to platinum. It was a provision of that nature I asked the department to prepare.


Arthur Meighen: I have the act here. I
will read the clause; I think it is in construction and substance the same:
The marks "silver," "sterling" or "sterling silver," "coin" or "coin silver," or any colourable imitation thereof, or any other mark intended to suggest such a quality, shall not be applied to any silver article, if the silver in the article contains pure silver in less proportion than nine hundred and twenty-five parts of pure silver in every one-thousand parts of such silver.
I do not want to say "I told you so", but this confirms every word I have uttered, only the wording in the Act is much better. I never had any doubt in my own mind as to whalt is intended and as to the real effect of these words, but what I rose to call attention to was the clumsy wording.


Thomas Andrew Low: If it is clumsy it is the work
of a lawyer.


Arthur Meighen: That may be, but I
have often had to attack the work of lawyers; really, it is no defence to anything to say it was done by a lawyer. What I argued first was that these words at the beginning modified or affected the word "platinum" and not the article. The minister conceded my point there. Then we had this dispute as to the percentage. That is settled. Next the point was raised that the intention of the law was to compel the platinum portion, or what was ostensibly platinum to be 95 per cent platinum or platinum and iridium. The minister persisted that it was the intention of the proposed law that the whole-article should be 95 per cent. The language of the clause in the existing act has been quoted, and as clear as words can put it it seems that it is the silver of the article, in the case of silver, that must be 92.5, or 924 per cent, silver. The intention of this is that the platinum in the article shall be 95 per cent pure. So the minister is wrong as to that. I would suggest that he refer to the draughtsmen the construction used in the original act as to silver and have it apply here; it is much clearer. When half a dozen of us in this committee are all mixed up on this question and the minister hopelessly so, it is hardly fair to ask the public to come to the right conclusion as to what it means.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The act with respect
to silver must have been in application for some years and it would seem that there is an advantage in using the same phraseology as regards platinum. I think the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition is excellent and would serve to expedite business.
339S
Gold'and Silver Marking


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the purpose of the
act to prevent manufacturing jewellers from making plated ware of platinum and to compel them to make ware of this description of solid platinum?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think the amendment
is intended to confer upon platinum any other protection than is given to gold and silver.


William Alves Boys: I think the hon. member (Mr. Caldwell) has hit the nail on the head? Is this intended to apply to the whole article or merely to a plate of platinum which is to be upon it? If it is intended to apply to the whole article, it is -clearly wrong.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is intended to apply just
the same protection as the act now grants to gold and silver.


William Alves Boys: What is intended in con-necttion with gold and silver? Is it intended to apply only to the surface or plate, or to the whole article?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The suggestion made
by the leader of the opposition was that this might be referred to the draughtsmen and brought forward at a later date. If that is a good suggestion, let us follow it and get on to another item of business. If it is not a good suggestion, let us continue to discuss the matter. But the sense of the committee might be, taken and the minister might tell us whether he is willing to follow the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have often- had to lean upon
lawyers, but occasionally I find I am leaning upon a broken, reed. This amendment is added to the Gold and Silver Marking Act, bo apparently plated ware is included:
In the case of articles made in whole or in part of an inferior metal, which has deposited or plated thereon, or brazed or otherwise affixed thereto, a plating, covering or sheet composed of gold or of silver, or of an alloy of gold or of silver, and known in the trade as rolled gold plate, gold filled, gold plate, silver plate, silver filled, or gold or silver electroplate, or by any similar designation, and in the case of articles of like nature brought under the provisions of this section by regulations made by the Governor in Council under this act,-
(a)	no mark shall be applied indicating otherwise than truly and correctly the fineness and also the actual weight of gold or of silver, or of alloy of gold or of silver, contained in the article, or the decimal proportion of gold, or of silver, or of alloy of gold or of .silver, to the gross weight of the article at the time the article is sold or delivered by the maker; but a mark plainly and truly indicating that the article or part thereof is made of rolled gold plate, gold filled, gold plate, silver plate, silver filled, or gold or silver electroplate, or of any similar material, as the case .may be, which mark must be accompanied by a trade fMr. McMaster.]
mark registered in accordance w'ith the Trade Mark and Design Act, may be applied; and,
(b)	whenever the fineness or actual or proportionate weight of the gold, or of the silver, or of the alloy of gold or of silver, contained in the article is indicated by a mark, the article and its accessories shall be marked as required by the last preceding section and the next following section of this act; and,
(c)	the actual weight or the decimal proportion of gold, or of silver, or of alloy of gold or of silver, shall not be less than the actual weight or decimal proportion indicated by the mark by more than ten per centum of the actual weight or decimal proportion so indicated.
2. The Governor in Council may, from time to time, make such regulations as to him seem necessary for declaring articles to be brought under the provisions of this section.
Thait will apply to platinum just the same as it applies to gold and silver.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This bill makes two amendments:	First, to -the title of the
act by showing that the act itself deals with platinum as well as with gold and silver. The second amendment is 12A which gives a definition as to what platinum is. The minister now apparently says that this applies to plated articles as well. It is most necessary that the legislation should not only be understandable but follow existing forms. I would suggest that the matter be referred back with the idea that not only should the language employed in section 9 of the act, for example the definition of silver as silver when you are dealing with pure silver, be followed in connection with this new section 12A of the act, but that, il the intention be, as apparently this covers plated articles and shows how plated section would indicate, that plated goods or platinum may be treated as platinum plate just as goods plated with gold or silver are treated as gold or silver plate under certain conditions, an amendment should be made to the appropriate section. My hon. friend will see that there are two distinct matters. Section 9 of the act covers silver; section 10 articles can be described and marked.	If
the intention be to allow articles plated with platinum to be so marked, the legislation ought to follow in form section 10, and the definition as to pure platinum should follow	the form of section 9.
The sale of pure gold is one thing and1 the sale of gold plated articles an entirely different thing, and the two must be treated separately.


Thomas Andrew Low: But this all applies to platinum.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is nothing whatever that extends the plating provisions of the act to platinum.

Gold and Silver Marking


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose my hon. friend
knows that the protection that is afforded in connection with platinum Iroods as far as plating is concerned is not necessarily so important as in the case of gold or silver?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Should not the bill be so worded as to make it impossible for white metal to be sold as platinum?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
point.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We want to protect the public from being sold any article plated with platinum as an article of pure platinum. An article made of fourteen karat gold is marked accordingly, but if it is only plated with fourteen karat gold the article cannot be marked "fourteen karat gold"; it must be so marked as to show that it is plated with such gold, I think the point of the exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), which is also the point I am making, is that the bill should be so worded as to make it impossible for dealers to sell platinum-plated ware as solid) platinum;. The minister, I think, would be well advised to accept the suggestion of the leader of the opposition and adjourn the debate on this bill; he should go into it thoroughly because the matter is an important one. Platinum is a valuable commodity and we should protect the public from being imposed upon.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does the hon. member suggest
that the men who drafted the Gold and Silver Marking Act are not sufficiently competent to draw up an amendment to the same act?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Certainly.


Thomas Andrew Low: They were able to draw up
the other act.


William Findlay Maclean: At the request
of the jewellers.


Thomas Andrew Low: At the request of the Minister
of Trade and Commerce.


William Findlay Maclean: But are not the
jewellers at the bottom of it?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes. There is always an agitation on the part of some group of the people for some action to be taken in one direction or another, and we endeavour as far as possible to satisfy public demands.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not think that
this amendment does make it plain that the
distinction between solid platinum and platinum-plated goods shall be observed.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am inclined to think that
after the twisting of words by one lawyer and the interpretation of them by another lawyer the language of the bill may possibly be not quite clear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That shows the use of
lawyers.
Mr. MoCONICA:	I think the language is
clear and expresses exactly what it is intended to express. Let me read the section:
The word "platinum". . . . shall not be applied, to any article of merchandise composed wholly or in part of any metal unless 950/1000ths of the component parts of the met ail appearing or purporting to be platinum of which said article consists are either the pure metal and element platinum alone or in conjunction with iridium.
I am sure that says exactly what it is meant to convey.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member did
not read all of it, however.


Mr. McCONICA:: I left out some of the qualifications, that is all. The whole section is as follows:
The word "platinum" or any contraction, abbreviation or colourable imitation thereof shall not be applied, either alone or in combination with any other word, to any article of merchandise composed wholly or in part of any metal unless 950/1000ths of component parts of the metal appearing or purporting to be platinum of which said article consists are either the pure metal and element platinum alone or in conjunction with iridium.
I do not think there can be any misunderstanding of its meaning, and there does not seem to be any sense in referring the bill Back to any one for the purpose of making it clearer; it is clear enough to me as it stands.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am glad to note that I have
at least the backing of a member of the American bar; it is gratifying to me to know that he construes the words as I do. I have had much to do with lawyers and have very seldom found any two of them who interpreted anything the same way; nor have I once received the same opinion from two lawyers on the same matter. So that it is not a surprise to me this afternoon to find lawyers differing. My one desire is to make the purpose of the bill perfectly clear; we are extending to platinum the same protection which we are now extending to gold and silver goods. If there are any words which might be omitted to advantage I shall have no objection to eliminating them.

Gold and Silver Marking


Arthur Meighen: This discussion was
started with a view to assisting the minister; certainly it had no other object, for we are not likely to have a general election over the quality of platinum. The endeavour of the committee was to make it dear just what the intended effect of the bill was and to see that such effect was really produced. The point was raised, additional to the point I raised myself, by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), that while this does take care of one class of goods it does not take care of the other, while probably both should be taken care of. Supplementary to what I stated, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) urged upon the minister the wisdom of having the wording of this clause the same as the wording of corresponding clauses respecting gold and silver so as to avoid litigation and the possibility of varying interpretations. The minister has offered his view as to several features of the clause, in every one of which he has been declared wrong by every hon. member who has spoken; and he has had to admit in two cases that he was wrong. I have not sought to make trouble for him on that account. But when he accepts the representations of hon. gentlemen in the spirit he does, I find fault. He thinks that he is scoring a point in defending himself by getting up and berating lawyers and saying how difficult it is to get them to agree. There have not been two lawyers in this House who have disagreed on this question; we have all been struggling to get the point into the minister's head. No one disputes what the hon. member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) says as to the intended effect of the section; I have not disputed his view, nor have I heard any other lawyer dispute it. I certainly think, however, that the section could be more clearly put, and I agree with the hon. member for Brome that it is far better, for two reasons, to use the language which was previously employed. First, because the language previously employed is clearer; and, secondly, for the very reason that it has been employed. It is always better to use language that probably has already been interpreted in the courts, that already at least, if it has not been interpreted has stood through the years and not required interpretation. This is all we have been urging.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It has been interpreted by practice.


Arthur Meighen: We all agree that if the intended effect is mat the article shall be pure, [Mr Low.]
or, as is put here, shall have the element platinum alone or in conjunction with iridium, the description is correct. The only one who disagrees is the minister, who keeps saying that the whole article has to be 99 per cent pure. Most of our time has been occupied in trying to make him see that that is not the intention. It is no use for the minister to abuse the legal profession. It does not seem worth while for us to try to assist him in any way, for instead of getting gratitude we get abuse. The only thing the minister understands is some plain talking.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have listened to the right hon. member, and I know that it is quite usual for him to cast slurs at hon. members who have not had the advantage of as long experience in the House perhaps as he has had, but he has not been able to show that I have been wrong in any case but one. In that instance, I made a slight mistake which I admitted at once. I have told him from the outset that my endeavour is to have this act extend the same protection to platinum as it extends to gold and silver. Now he says that we might use the same words in both clauses, but in making that suggestion be has no justification for casting slurs upon me.


Arthur Meighen: I did not cast any slurs.


Thomas Andrew Low: The right hon. member certainly did.


Arthur Meighen: For not using the same words?


Thomas Andrew Low: Not only to-day, but the other day when he said that I endeavoured to deceive this committee by certain statements which I had made.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister wants to get off this subject and discuss the other, we will do so.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes. He said that I intended to deceive the House, that my deputy had been a party to certain arrangements with the Civil Service Commission which I had attributed to the commission itself. The regulations were made in 1919 by the Civil Service Commission, requiring candidates for the position of commercial trade agents to have university education, and the age limit was also fixed in printed regulations in that year. They were revised at a later date by an official of the department appointed by my right hon. friend; but, as minister, I did not have any knowledge of the revision. Now, when the right hon. gentleman charged that I had misled the House he made a mistake; a charge that he cannot sustain. I have never

Gold and Silver Marking
intentionally misled anybody whether in the House or out of it, and I do not propose to allow such an allegation to stand against me.
I may make a mistake sometimes, on my facts, as everyone does, but I will not deliberately misstate facts nor mislead anyone. A man is best known in his home town, and if my right hon. friend should ever make a similar statement to that just made from a public platform in my home town, I would advise him to be well forewarned, for it would arouse objection, not from members of the Liberal party who might be present but from members of his own party. I have hitherto regarded my right hon. friend as a statesman, but it seems to me that tactics such as we have just witnessed are not worthy the leader of a great historic party; they are rather what might be expected from a ward politician. I am ready and willing at all times to discuss any question fully and frankly. There is absolutely no justification for casting slurs upon any hon. member because he does not happen to agree with opinions held by the right hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister is through I have a few very simple words to say. I have listened with due humility to the castigation which the minister has administered. His language was not very graceful, but its grace infinitely transcended its appropriateness. He managed to escape very quickly from the subject we are discussing to another. Yesterday I referred to the hon. minister in certain terms, and here, in Renfrew, or anywhere else,
1 am prepared to stand by every word I then uttered. The minister has not alleged that anything I did state was wrong in the slightest degree. I did not say that the minister deceived the House, much less did I say that ho deceived it intentionally. I said that the minister had stated to the committee that the Civil Service Commission was responsible- and he reflected on the commission as being responsible-for the restriction of the position i f commercial trade agent to university graduates. I called attention to what he had done, and I stated that he had no right to do it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I interpose to ask whether these university graduates were going to deal with platinum rings?


Arthur Meighen: I did not introduce this.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


Arthur Meighen: I think the straits of the minister who did introduce this discussion are pretty desperate. I stated that the minister had no right to reflect on the commission in this way, that he was treating neither the commission nor the House fairly in doing so when his own deputy and himself insisted on that restriction. I did not say the minister had so insisted; it was his deputy. In the face of that, I submitted that it was not fair to lead the House to believe that the commission was responsible for the condition referred to.


Thomas Andrew Low: Is it fair to hold me responsible for an act of the deputy minister that took place under the administration of the right hon. gentleman?


Arthur Meighen: I did not hold the minister responsible; I did not say he was responsible.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I think this discussion is absolutely out of order.


Arthur Meighen: Surely I have a right
to reply. The hon. member should have risen when the minister was speaking.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I restrained myself
while the minister was speaking, and I also restrained myself while the ex-minister was making his address. Now that the minister has objected, it seems to me time that those of us who are anxious to see the orderly progress of business should protest against a continuance of this discussion.


George Newcombe Gordon: I think the right hon.
gentleman might be allowed to make his explanation.


Arthur Meighen: I will be very brief. My
object is to set out to the committee what I said and to show that I was justified in saying it. The minister should have stated that the stand taken by the commission was not only agreed to but insisted on by his own department.


Thomas Andrew Low: Who was in charge of the
department?


Arthur Meighen: Sir George Foster, I
think.


Thomas Andrew Low: The only mistake I may have
made was in not coupling up the government of that day with the restrictions.


Arthur Meighen: Was it fair to refer to
this as something to show that the commission was not doing its duty? It certainly was not. In respect of the same matter the minister also held the commission alone responsible, and as an argument against the commission, referred to the fact that it wanted the age to be set at a certain figure, when he who now presides as his deputy was the
Gold and Silver Marking

man who insisted on that too. I do not think that was fair on the part of the minister, and I stand by what I said then. Surely it is not casting slurs on the minister to require that when he reflects on the commission he should give the facts and circumstances. That is all I charged the minister with, and he should not exaggerate my language.
As respects my conduct on the issue before the committee this afternoon, I do not need to make any argument. There is not a single hon. member who does not recall the whole of this discussion and what the minister has said-the spirit of it all from the beginning, and wdiether any slurs were cast on the minister. I do resent it that, when an endeavour is made to set the minister right in this matter [DOT]-and he was set right in respect to at least three features of it-he continually casts aspersions on the legal profession and attributes blame to them when nobody in the world is to blame at all. Why does not the minister accept in the right spirit the assistance he is given? We all know he said first that these adjectives referred to the metal. Everybody heard what he said next

it is trifling; it amounts to nothing, and I was not trying to make anything of it. But as to the next feature the minister resisted us when we persisted that it was never intended 'by this section that the whole product should be 95 per cent platinum. The minister assured us over and over again that that was the intention.


Thomas Andrew Low: There are no plated platinum
articles in common commercial use.


Arthur Meighen: They may not be plated, but they must be articles which are only partly platinum, and it is only the platinum part that must be 95 per cent pure. The minister was wrong there and wrong in an essential and fundamental part of the section. We did not denounce him for that, but when we point these things out to him why in the world should he be continually getting up and taking a fling at the lawyers? I did not denounce him because he had not used the language used before, I simply supported the member for Brome in the view that it is better to use it-that it is worth while referring this to the draughtsman to get it used. If the minister will not do that, all right; I will let it go, but I think it is the general desire of the committee.


Thomas Andrew Low: On the other hand we have the remarks of the hon. member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) who says that the clause is very clear.


Arthur Meighen: The minister had better
take that, then.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When we pass legislation of this kind we usually try not only to make it clear but also to make it enforceable. We are told that the purpose of the bill is to place this metal in exactly the same position that gold and silver occupy now. I have already pointed out that there are only two amendments, the first in the title and the second in this particular clause. There is an interpretation clause which, if anything is to be done, must be amended, because it deals with marks, and it is the improper marking which is the offence. In the original act we have in the interpretation clause the definition of "mark" as follows:
"Mark" means any mark, sign, device, imprint, stamp, brand, label, ticket, letter, word, figure or other means whatsoever of indicating, or of purporting to indicate, quality, quantity, or weight of gold or of silver, or quality or kind of gold or silver plate.
Then there is the definition of dealer:
"Dealer" means any person who is a manufacturer of, or a seller of or dealer in, whether by wholesale or retail, any of the articles to which this act applies; and whether such person is an individual person, or a corporate or unincorporated body of persons, or a director, manager, officer or agent of any such body.
Then section 3 provides that the act shall apply to (a) all gold articles; (b) all silver articles, (c) all plated articles. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that if we are to deal with this matter intelligently and effectively we must also amend this section to make the act apply to platinum. I shall not go through the whole thing, but surely enough has been said to show that the bill ought to be withdrawn and a proper amendment brought in.


Mr. EVANS:: I think it is high time
somebody besides the lawyers got in on this.
I always thought I could read the English language, and I fully agree with the hon. member for Battleford that the language here expresses exactly the meaning it is intended to convey. I do not see why there should be any quibble over it.


Thomas Andrew Low: This bill was referred by the
Trade and Commerce department to Mr. A. G. Troop, law clerk of the House of Commons. I am very sorry if the meaning is not clear. Will my right hon. friend give me the numbers of the clauses in the Gold and Silver Marking Act to which he has referred?


Arthur Meighen: The interpretation clause is clause 2. The application of the act clause is clause 3, and sub-clause 3 of clause 9 is the one I read. The point is this, to reiterate:
I have never, from the beginning urged any-

Gold and Silver Marking
thing else than that the amendment does mean what it is intended to mean. I have never had any doubt as to what was intended. But I think it should be made clearer, and I also think it should be in the wording of the old clause. There were additional points raised by my hon. friend to my left and by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton; these are points that will have to be taken care of separately.


Thomas Andrew Low: The proposals incorporated in
the bill were first referred to the Justice department and then to the law clerk of the House, and I was endeavouring to stand behind their wording.


Arthur Meighen: I was not finding fault
with them.


Thomas Andrew Low: I thought that several lawyers
should be quite capable of drafting a very simple clause to cover a matter that seems so very clear to me. Will my hon. friend read the clause in question? I have not got it before me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think I had
better go back a little before reading it, and I will deal with it in language which is entirely the language of the layman. In all acts there are interpretation clauses the purpose of which is to give the judge and everybody else an idea of what you mean. For example, in this case you have an interpretation clause which states what "mark" means; it shows that these are marks having regard to gold, silver, or articles plated with either of these metals. My hon. friend will see that this clause should be amended so as to make the definition of "mark" apply to platinum as well as to gold and silver. Then there is another thing always in a statute, and that is, you try and define the object of the statute, and you do that in the clause which deals with the application of the act. You have a clause here which says the act applies to such and such things, but it does not apply to platinum. You would have to amend that clause to extend it to platinum. Then you have your penalizing clauses as well. They have to do with the dealers. I am not going to go through the whole thing, but I just want to impress this point on the minister, that what he thinks he is doing is not being done. This has not to do with the wording at all, but with the act as a whole. The penalties are penalties against dealers. The present act defines dealers, and the dealers defined are dealers in gold and silver, or in articles of plated ware. So it is not sufficient merely to put in a substantive clause to say
something about platinum, unless the real machinery of the act which applies to the marking, the application of the act, penalties, and the like, is similarly amended.


Thomas Andrew Low: Do they not now apply?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, it is perfectly clear that the act applies to only gold and silver and plated ware. I do not think my hon. friend will find any difficulty at all, if he sends this back to the draughtsman and asks him to read the act he thinks he is amending. I think the law clerk of the House would tell him at once.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am surprised and disappointed to find that an amendment that was drafted on reference to the Justice department and later referred to the law clerk of the House of Commons is not understood by a number of the members of the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid you will have to blame the Minister of Justice, and not me.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am not blaming anybody. I confess that occasionally I am unable to understand what some complicated clauses mean with their "whereases this, whereases that, and whereases the other," when the matter could be perfectly and clearly expressed in a few simple words.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am perfectly content to leave it to the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell). He understands it.


Thomas Andrew Low: The clauses read:
2.	There shall not be applied to any silver article any mark indicating, or purporting or intended to indicate, that the silver in the article is of higher quality than it really is, nor any mark which contravenes the provisions' of subsections 3 and 4 this section.
3.	The marks "Silver," "Sterling" or "Sterling Silver," "Coin" or "Coin Silver," or any colourable imitation thereof, or any other mark intended to suggest such a quality, shall not be applied to any silver article, if the silver in the article contains pure silver in less proportion than nine hundred and twenty-five parts of pure silver in every one thousand parts of such silver.
I think the other is just as clear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I just say, in
support of the suggestion I m|ade a few moments ago, that the Bill might be withdrawn and referred again to the law officers. I remember hearing in this House the Hon. Mr. Fielding state how difficult it was to amend a bill at the Table, how difficult it was to get the1 precise phraseology sought. I think the minister might possibly consent to this suggestion. It is made in all kindness, and it does not involve the slightest disrespect to either the minister or the law
Gold and Silver Marking

officers. Any one is likely to make a slip. I do think it is advisable to use the same phraseology, or as nearly as possible the same phraseology, in legislation dealing with similar matters, because the department in the past may have had to apply these laws, and if they have a law which is exactly in the same terms it is easier to apply. It may possibly have been interpreted! by the court, and in that case it is a real advantage to have your amending act in the same phraseology.
Then there is the point suggested by my hon. friend for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), that the interpreting clauses will have to be changed in order to have the word " dealer " extend to a dealer not only in gold, silver, and plated ware but also in platinum. Undter the circumstances I 'think it would perhaps expedite business if the bill were referred to the law officers again. If the law officers are correct, and those of us who have found some ground for criticism are wrong, the minister will be re-established in his opinion, and perhaps will be able to convince those of the House who are of a different opinion from him. It seems to me that a good deal of time would be saved if the bill were withdrawn for the moment, and that could be done without the slightest implication of dereliction in duty, or carelessness, or anything of that sort.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my hon. friend think
the clause is not clear? Does he not interpret it to mean just what was intended in the drafting?


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is a little hard to
know just what was intended, as I was not present when the bill was drafted. I do think the clause is fairly clear. It seems to me that the words "any contraction, abbreviation or colourable imitation" means contraction, not of the article, but of the word itself, "platinum," and it seems very clear to me that the 95 per cent refers merely to that part of the article which is supposed to be platinum.
I think that is clear enough. But that does not cover my suggestion that it would be well to use the same phraseology as is used in connection with gold and silver, and it certainly does not cover the rather important point brought forward by the hon. member for West York, that there would have to be another clause added to the bill extending the definition of "dealer" to cover not only dealers in gold, silver, and plated ware, but also dealers in platinum.


Thomas Andrew Low: If such a course meets the
wishes of the committee, I shall be glad to refer the bill back to the Justice department and the law clerk of the House of Commons.
Progress reported.


TRADE AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Elevator, government grain, towards construction of, at Edmonton, $1,000,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister explain how this matter stands?


Thomas Andrew Low: There was an item placed in
the estimates last year for $200,000 towards *this elevator The work was started last year, and this year we have this vote for $1,000,000 in the main estimates. It is for the purpose of building an elevator [DOT]at the city of Edmonton with a capacity of 2,500,000 bushels. Excavation work was started last winter, and pile driving was continued during the spring. The contract for pile driving was let in the month of May, the successful tenderer being Carter, Hall and Aldinger. For the elevator itself the following tenders were received, Carter, Hall, Aldinger Company Limited, being the lowest:
Carter-Hall-Aldinger, Co. Ltd., Winnipeg,
Man	 $1,297,729
Northern Construction Company	 1,349,000
Barnett McQueen Co. Ltd., Fort William.. 1,398,000 MacDonald Engineering Company, Toronto.. 1,411,000
E. G. M. Cape Co. Ltd., Montreal	 1,419,000
Poole Construction Company, Regina	 1,433,000
Fegles Construction Company, Fort William.. 1,460,000
The successful tenderers, Messrs. Carter,
Hall-Aldinger have started work, and we hope
to have the elevator in operation by the time .the new crop is available. Edmonton is the centre of a great wheat growing district, and we felt we were justified in making this expenditure. There will be a further item in the supplementary estimates with respect to this investment. The reason that vote was not included in the present item was the fact that when these estimates were presented to the House, tenders had not been received. For that reason we felt that if we asked for the larger vote in these estimates it might disclose to the contractors the amount we had in mind.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What will the
*further amount be?


Thomas Andrew Low: The engineer has estimated that the elevator will cost $1,500,000.

Supply-Grain Elevators


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I suppose the amount in the supplementary estimates will represent another $300,000 will it not?


Thomas Andrew Low: The whole of the previous vote was not spent last year. Only about $21,016 had been expended up to January 31.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What engineer
is looking after the construction?


Thomas Andrew Low: Mr. C. D. Howe, Port Arthur.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He used to be
with the Grain Board before?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, and they found bis
services satisfactory.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose it is to be a terminal elevator the same as the elevators at Saskatoon and Moose Jaw?


Thomas Andrew Low: It will be identically the same.


Mr. JELLIFF:: What further consideration,
if any, has the minister given to the matter of erecting an internal storage elevator at Lethbridge? This question has been before *parliament, I think, year in and year out [DOT]for the last ten or twelve years, and the people of the district feel they are being treated very *unjustly in the distribution of these elevators, some of which have been placed at points not *nearly so well entitled to them as Lethbridge. *I discussed this matter at considerable length last year when the item for the Edmonton elevator was being considered, and the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) assured me that the representations made at that time would be fully considered-that the Grain Commission were going to investigate the Lethbridge situation. I inferred from the minister's statement that a report would be obtained with respect to Lethbridge and I knew that when it was presented it would be favourable. I therefore expected that some consideration would be shown to Lethbridge when the estimates were brought down this year.
I do not want to discuss the matter at great length but I draw the minister's attention to the fact that over 40,000,000 bushels of wheat which is about one-fourth of the entire production of Alberta, went through the Lethbridge freight district last year. I also draw his attention to the fact that such
5. p.m. an elevator is of great importance to us in connection with the movement of grain by the western route. It is true that we have an internal storage elevator at
Calgary but our easiest route to Vancouver is not through Calgary but through Golden. In taking the latter route some of t'he more severe railway grades are avoided. There are a great many reasons, both of a national and of a local character, to warrant the establishment of an internal storage elevator at Lethbridge. As I stated last year there is scarcely a place where difficulty <is more likely to ensue over car shortages than in that district. We are served by one railway solely, .the Canadian Pacific whereas Calgary, Edmonton and other points are served by two or three distinct lines of railway, and have the benefit of all the freight car equipment of those several lines. Since I have been a [DOT]resident of that part of the country we have suffered very severely 'indeed from car shortages on a number of occasions, in spite of the fact that the Canadian Pacific is handling the business in a very efficient and capable way.
I can remember that as far back as 1915 we were unable, on account of car shortages and lack of elevator space, to get that year's crop out until the summer of 1916. Last year we had a crop quite equal to that of 1915, and we had a similar crop in 1916. In 1922 we had a crop of 22,000,000 bushels of wheat, over one-third of the entire crop of Alberta. We feel very much aggrieved over the slight we have experienced 'in this matter, and our people are insisting that action be taken. A number of years ago when the location of these internal Storage elevators was first before the country and under consideration by the Grain Commission, Dr. Magill recommended the building of an internal storage elevator at Lethbridge. He was at that time head of the Royal Grain Commission. Since I have become a member of this House, I have talked with Dr. Magill several times and he has assured me that he made the recommendation at that time. He asserts, as he did then, that Lethbridge is the logical point for the establishment of one of those elevators. There come to Lethbridge, if I recollect aright, lines from seven different directions. There is the line from Macleod from the west; the main line of the Canadian Pacific from the east; the Cardston branch; the Coutts branch; the Lethbridge-Weyburn branch, recently completed, which brings grain from eastern Saskatchewan through to the west coast; the Al-dersyde branch; the Macleod-Calgary branch; and very soon we are to have constructed by the Canadian Pacific the Kipp-Retlaw branch. All these lines run into Lethbridge and bring an immense quantity of grain into that centre.
Supply-Grain Elevators

One special reason why they want an internal storage elevator there is the avoidance of a car shortage, which is a very important matter, because in the fall when our shipments of grain are heaviest, there is the greatest call on our railways for the shipment of coal. It takes 200 to 300 cars a day during that part of the year to get coal out of the Lethbridge district. The railways very properly will give preference to the coal business when the weather happens to be cold on the prairies and the people are likely to suffer from inclement weather.
Last year I had a statement, to which I referred, from the Lethbridge Board of Trade which is very greatly interested in this subject, especially on account of the mixed farming operations which we are trying to carry out in that district. They have gathered extensive data regarding the advantages which will be derived by that section of the country from the building erf an internal storage elevator at that point, and I am going to cite some of the figures. They state that in 1922 the wheat production was 22,662,000 bushels. We are very anxious to have the screenings left in that district in order to feed our sheep as we have a largely developed sheep industry there and have shipped as high as 1,750,000 pounds of wool per year. That has been very important at seasons when on account of drought conditions, the wool product was about the only immediate source of money for the farmer to provide for necessities and to leave any money at all in that part of the country. If we figure the screenings alone at two per cent on that wheat crop it *would amount to 453,000 bushels of screenings, or 13,597 tons. When you figure the cost to the farmer of shipping this quantity of waste all the way to Fort William and to the sheepmen in order to get the same quantity of screenings back-and pay S15 to $20 a ton for them in addition-you will realize that it amounts to a good deal of money. They paid $67,986 freight on those screenings im 1922. It required to move those screenings alone 302 cars. It required to move the whole wheat crop 15,108 cars, if we take 1,500 bushels of wheat per car. If you make the same calculation in connection with this year's wheat crop of 40,000,000 bushels, you have almost double the result. You have 800,000 bushels of screenings with a freight loss on those screenings alone of $120,000. The byproduct which they want to use in the Lethbridge district is carried all the way to Fort William, and then when they want those screenings in order to fatten their sheep in the winter season, they have to have the stuff

shipped all the way back again. That is what happens, and is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the erection of an internal storage elevator at that point with full facilities for screening grain.
That is only one feature of the matter. It is figured, if I remember aright, that it takes about 100 days to fatten sheep, and about 250 pounds of those screenings together with other feed must be used. The calculation is that with the screenings from the 22,000,000-bushel crop of 1922, they could fatten 76,000 more lambs per year than they are doing at the present time. On the basis of the 40,000,000-bushel crop for this year, those figures would be very nearly doubled. There you had in 1922 a possibility of adding 76,000 sheep to those that the people in that district are able to handle, worth $8 a head and, for mutton, this would mean $600,000 more to the return of the sheep men of that section. Every one of those sheep would yield probably seven to eight pounds of wool, or a total of about 500,000 pounds, which even at the low price of 25 cents a pound, would amount to $125,000. Therefore, the extra amount which could actually have been produced for the sheepmen of that district if they had the screenings alone there, would have been about $725,000. This is a matter of public interest to this country. The clothing situation and the food situation of this country are affected by it, and advantages would accrue to the people generally as well as to the farmers.
I want to urge this upon the minister. I notice he is paying no attention to what I am saying.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am making notes of what my hon. friend is saying.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I thank the minister. That is only one feature. I have always contended, as our people have that the Lethbridge district which produces as good grain as can be found anywhere in the world, should be the centre of an immense milling industry; that our raw product should there be converted into flour and feed of various kinds. There is no reason why that should not be the case.
I was before the Grain Commission years ago in connection with this subject when Dr. Magill was inclined to favour Lethbridge as the place where one of those elevators should be established and which he subsequently recommended. I took the ground that Lethbridge and the southern Alberta district should be the Minneapolis of Canada, and I hope the day will come when that will be the case.
I have been assured that the millers in that district are ready, the moment an internal storage elevator is erected there, to double and

Supply-Grain Elevators
treble their capacity. Time and again I have been in the offices of the Ellison Milling Company there and I have been shown files, telegrams and messages, of various kinds containing orders for flour from Japan and China. This country is very much interested in developing the oriental trade. In order to manufacture that flour the millers must have the lower grades of wheat, 4, 5 and 6, out of which they make it, and they cannot retain the quantity of these low grades of wheat in that part of the country under the present system of handling the crop and shipping it to Fort William, to supply that trade and keep their mills running to full capacity the year round, further develop the industry, and give our people the full advantage of the crops which they produce. I was on the coast last winter on the invitation of the Vancouver Harbour Commission and one of the first things I noticed on the docks was a lot of flour from the Ellison Mills of our district being loaded for the Orient. When I got home I spoke to the manager of the milling company, Mr. 'George Green, in regard to what I had seen. There were five carloads of that wheat being loaded on a vessel in the harbour at that time and I so reported to him; he said that if I had waited two or three days longer I should have seen thirteen more carloads. That is the situation and I think it is important enough to call for the consideration of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We can increase our output for the oriental and foreign trade from two or three times if we can get ah internal storage elevator out there which will retain in our district enough of the different grades of wheat year by year to supply our mills.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
present milling capacity?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I cannot say offhand. There is another thing I want to bring to the attention of the minister in that connection. At great expense to the people there are being developed extensive irrigation areas in that part of the country, and the method of farming in these irrigated districts is of the intensive type. We should be, and are, fast developing along dairy lines, raising hogs and cattle and sheep and poultry; and it is especially essential to the welfare and the proper development of these districts that we should have, combined with the forage crops which are easily produced in large quantities on the irrigated lands, the byproducts from our mills. There is scarcely a year in which we are not compelled, in order to supply the demands of our dairy farmers, to ship into that country bran and shorts
and all sorts of mill feeds and screenings which should be produced right there in the immediate district. It might be of some importance to the minister to mention the fact that one of our big sheep men there has brought down to Fort William, and fattened on the screenings, as many as ten thousand sheep in a single band. Mr. Harvey, a prominent sheep man of Raymond, Alberta, has brought that number down on different occasions; and a number of other men have brought down bands numbering from 2,500 to 5,000. Can the minister not do something to meet this situation? It is a long-standing demand which is justifiable from every angle I have mentioned: from the car shortage and the milling standpoint, from the mixed farming and live stock standpoint, and from the standpoint of the oriental trade. There is every reason why the minister should seriously consider this matter and bring down in his supplementary estimates a sum sufficient to enable him to begin the construction of an internal storage elevator at that point.


Thomas Andrew Low: I realize that this is a matter
of great interest to my hon. friend (Mr. Jelliff), and I agree with him in many respects. There is no doubt that many new elevators both internal and at various ports are required. But my hon. friend recognizes I have no doubt, that the government is obliged to cut its coat according to its cloth; we must proceed cautiously in matters of public expenditure and therefore cannot build more than one or two elevators each year. The hon. member knows that the cost of erection of these elevators must come out of current expenditure, and at present we are endeavouring to lighten the taxation burdens of the people as far as possible. During the recess it is my intention to devote myself to an intensive study of the whole wheat ques- i tion, with the purpose of finding some solu- l tion if possible to the problem of cheaper I marketing of the wheat of the prairie pro- \ vinces. I realize that a margin of two, or three, or five cents a bushel means much to those provinces, and with a crop of 400,000,000 or 500,000,000 bushels a reduction of five cents would amount to a considerable sum. The matter is worth inquiry. The department over which I preside can do no greater service to the people of the West than to endeavour to work out some amended system which will enable the wheat grower to market his wheat at a lower cost than is possible to-day. With that object in view I intend to devote to the whole subject as much time as I can between the close of this session and the opening of the next. I fully agree that it is a
Supply-Grain Elevators

sound idea to have in the immediate locality of the farming district an elevator where screenings-and if a mill-where by-products from the flour can be obtained for cattle. One thing we try to do in the milling business is to export as much flour as possible, retaining at the same time for the benefit of the farmers of this country all the by-products from the mill. For about three or four months of the year there is a great shortage of shorts and bran and certain other byproducts. If we can obtain a greater volume of export business in flour in Canada it will help us to supply this shortage, because feeds are rarely exported. I shall be glad to take into consideration the remarks of my hon. friend when the question of marketing western wheat is under scrutiny.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: When I was at Vancouver last winter I attended a banquet given by the harbour commission at which a gentleman connected with the milling industry of that city stated, in the course of his address, that Vancouver was not likely to become a big milling centre because it did not have a sufficient number of live stock in that part of the province to consume the by-products. He mentioned that it would be a great help to the milling industry of Canada, and would facilitate the handling of the grain crop, if more storage elevators were erected in the interior, and he named Lethbridge specifically.
I was glad to learn something from the figures which the minister gave the committee last night as to the results from the internal storage elevators. I find that the storage elevator which was erected at Calgary showed a loss in only one year, and that the net profits during the years quoted, 1915 to 1924, were $374,488.77. The elevator at Moose Jaw showed net profits of $170,782 for the same period. I am inclined to think that those elevators are most needed in the Alberta country, for we are furthest from Fort William and from Vancouver, and the empty cars that finally trickle back into our neighbourhood are accordingly fewer and very much slower in getting to us than to others more advantageously located. Consequently we have more trouble in meeting our car situation than those who are in the other provinces, and we have greater occasion to use these storage elevators. The minister also mentioned the elevator at Saskatoon, which I noticed made a net profit, in round figures, of $370,000. I think that is a good investment for our people. It is not a gratuity to the grain growers, because eventually these ele-
vators pay their way. We are very hopeful that an interior storage elevator will be established at Lethbridge, especially in view of the mixed farming that is carried on in the district, for this would guarantee a better return than is usual where this condition does not prevail.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: May I break in to ask
for a reply to the question I put to the government in the absence of the Acting Postmaster General, as to what course the government is going to take in regard to the strike of postal employees?


George Perry Graham: May I suggest that at
about five minutes to six the hon. member repeat his question? If we break in on this discussion it is apt to start all over again.


Mr. WARD:: Could the minister give us
any figures to show the service which is being rendered by the elevators located at Calgary, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon? I have been given to understand that very little grain is ever stored in them. If that is the fact, it seems hardly proper to build other elevators when this accommodation is not being utilized by those for whom it is intended.


Thomas Andrew Low: Before erecting a new elevator we always take into consideration whether it is likely to be self-sustaining within a short time of its erection and actual operation.


William John Ward: Are the interior storage elevators at Moose Jaw, Calgary and Saskatoon self-sustaining? If not, does the minister expect that they will be self-sustaining in the near future?


Thomas Andrew Low: I gave those figures last night
about six times, but I have no objection to repeating them. Patience is a virtue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


William John Ward: I understand they are all on Hansard, so I will look them up.


Mr. KELLNER:: Is it the intention of
the government to instal drying machinery in the Edmonton elevator? And would it be feasible to get a through freight rate on grain originating east of Edmonton and destined for Vancouver? At present we have to pay the local rate to Edmonton plus the local rate from Edmonton to the coast.


Thomas Andrew Low: Answering the first question,
it is intended to equip this elevator with all the machinery required including adequate drying facilities. In reply to the second question, freight rates are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.

Supply-Grain Elevators


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was very much interested in what the minister told us as to an effort to be made to bring down the cost of marketing grain, and also to hear his statement that efforts were to be made to export flour instead of grain.


Thomas Andrew Low: The mere fact that we were
able to get the ocean rates on flour from Canadian ports equalized with the rate as from American ports has helped wonderfully.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was going to
say that I hope it is to be something more than a pious wish. Of course the discrimination which was practised in connection with the Atlantic movement to which my hon. friend's reference applied, was so bad that I do not suppose anjmne thought it would continue. If my hon. friend did anything to get rid of it I congratulate him.


George Perry Graham: He did.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was simply a scandal.


Thomas Andrew Low: I was able to draft such a plain clause that the gentlemen at the Economic Conference understood it, and we succeeded in getting the rate equalized with the American basis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
object of the ministers's last statement is to show that he knows something more about dollars and cents than he knows about platinum.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, something more than I
know about law.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The correction of those rates is not helping the flour business very much while the present spread continues. We had evidence the other day before the committee on Railways that the present spread between flour and grain is 7 cents. It is hard to believe that we are seriously trying to promote the export of flour if we are going to sit down quietly under such a spread as that. The old spread was at one time as low as half a cent. It went up a cent, then a cent and a half, then to three cents. The government became alarmed-that was in 1913, I think-at the spread having doubled. I remember taking the matter up with the British Board of Trade when in England, and I recall that the whole question was gone into pretty thoroughly by that body. No definite action was taken by them, however. My recollection is that at that time the spread was 5i cents; to-day it is 7. That means there is just that much disability standing in the way of what the minister says ought to be done. We ought 216
to export a maximum amount of flour, for the reasons pointed out by the hon. member (Mr. Jelliff). It ought to be done in the interests also of the dairying industry, because those engaged in that industry are compelled to import hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of foodstuffs in order to carry on their dairying activities.


Thomas Andrew Low: Wheat is one of the best ballasts that can be obtained, and consequently the vessels very often take it at an extremely low rate. The ocean rates are something over which we have little control; they are under the direction of an Atlantic shipping conference. We have at present a gentleman in England, Mr. Preston, investigating these matters.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite understand that in certain cases we do get grain carried at a nominal rate. I am only sorry that that is not done more often, and that that nominal rate does not work back to the producer. It is not within his power to take advantage of these adventitious contracts. But the question of spread has nothing to do with these accidental rates.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not know much about platinum, but I know a little about flour and wheat. What is the spread to which my hon. friend refers? Is it the spread between certain commodities?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, the spread between the rates on wheat and on flour, a matter that has been discussed in this House and everywhere else for years.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend had not made any reference to wheat or flour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I thought I had. The spread I refer to is not that which applies in the case of abnormal rates or rates made applicable for the purpose of trimming boats; it is the spread between the regularly quoted rates, the conference rates, of wheat on the one side and flour on the other. If my hon. friend finds that his representative in England does not do something, well, he is going over himself and perhaps he will take a turn at it. Of course, some spread is to be expected; that must be said in fairness, because there are claims for damages, and there is a little more money involved in the case of loading and unloading flour. But the present spread is certainly a matter which should receive attention.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my hon. friend suggest a remedy?

Supply-Grain Elevators


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would refer
the minister to the report of the committee on Agriculture last year and to the evidence taken before that committee on this very question. At one of the imperial conferences a committee was appointed to take this matter up, and' a report was made two and a half years ago dealing with the question and suggesting, as I recall it, the creation of a tribunal in that connection. Nothing has been done by the government on that report. Perhaps they can find some better way of handling it, but certainly we shall never get anywhere unless we try to do something definite in connection with this question of spread.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am already trying.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope my hon. friend will not weary in well doing. Perhaps he will be able to bring back something for us next year. May I ask the minister whether he thinks there is any more favourable centre than Lethbridge for the purposes of an elevator of this kind, having regard to the character of the country and to the fact that we have there a district which can only live if mixed farming is adopted to a greater degree and if there are enough screenings there for the purposes of feed to the necessary stock? I have not heard any particular reason why Lethbridge was overlooked when others were being built. There may have been some reason, but the minister has not given it.


Charles A. Stewart: I understood that Lethbridge was to go before Calgary at one time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know;
I am only looking for information.


Thomas Andrew Low: It certainly should have pre^ ceded erection of an elevator at Moose Jaw.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that not a point where there is really more chance for mixed farming, and for the sort of thing the Minister of Agriculture wants done? Is there no better point at which to start it? I would like to find out from my hon. friend what the milling capacity is at Lethbridge. As I understand it, a lower quality of flour is in demand for the markets of the Orient than for the European markets. We use for milling for the Orient grades 4, 5 and as low as 6. That, of course, makes a flour of a character that does not carry as well, and would not last as long, as flour from our No.
1 hard, and it is not worth as much. It would look to me as if it was in the interest of economy that that should be milled as conveniently to Vancouver as possible.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose that my hon. friend knows that low grade flours are also made from No. 1 and No. 2.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think there is a smaller proportion of low grade flours made from the more expensive grades.


Thomas Andrew Low: It also depends upon the particular patent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think I am
right in saying that we have a maket for our poorer grades of flour made from the lower grades of wheat in the Orient, and if I am right in that, it would also follow that it would be the course of wisdom to mill that at some point in western Canada that is convenient to the Vancouver gateway. It would seem to me there is a great opportunity just now to extend this milling business in the Orient, particularly in Japan at the present time, for obvious reasons. Is the minister in a position to say whether we have sufficient milling capacity at the present time? Does he not think it would be a good thing to have a multiplication of our milling activities? I think the hon. member for the district suggested three times as much.


Thomas Andrew Low: The milling business increased almost too rapidly during the war, and the situation of the milling market to-day is that many mills find themselves in the position of running only twelve hours a day. I suppose my hon. friend knows that it is utterly impossible to make a flour mill pay when it operates only twelve hours a day, for the very simple reason that to operate for the other twelve hours costs only a trifle more. When the mill operates for only twelve hours all the overhead and almost every charge carried when operating twenty hours must be carried just the same. Operating at night simply means an addition to your staff of a couple of packers and a couple of millers only, say in a mill with a capacity of five hundred barrels. You would only require four extra men, but you could double your capacity. When the mill is working only twelve hours, an inferior flour is turned out because the run is stopping and starting again in the morning, and that is a bad thing. The longer the mill continues to run steadily, the more uniform and better the grade of flour turned out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I entirely agree with my hon. friend, but he is speaking of the situation generally. I was speaking having regard particularly to the milling of the lower grades of wheat for the markets of the Orient, and the best geographical position for mills

Postal Employees
for the purposes of that trade. My hon. friend is quite right as to the situation generally, but I was wondering how we were situated to-day having regard to the number of mills established in the district where it would be cheap and economical to handle the lower grades of flour through Vancouver to the markets of the Orient. The reason I asked is that the hon. member for the district pointed out that if the terminal elevator were built there, the local millers apparently think they have such a demand for their flour in the Orient that they are prepared to instal three times as great a capacity as they now have.


Thomas Andrew Low: The great problem in operating a flour mill is that the lower grade flour brings a very low price, and consequently there is some question whether a mill could operate entirely on low grade flour. The territory to which my hon. friend has referred seems to commend itself to me as a very good point for a flour mill.


John Evans: I would like to again press the point of freight rates to the internal elevators. The internal elevators have mostly shown a loss, and I do not think the farmers know exactly the cost to themselves of turning in their wheat to the terminal elevators. The charge in some cases, perhaps, is too high. The farmer, of course, would like to use the nearest elevator possible, so that he may get his weights and grades and go to the bank and get his money, but he does not know what the extra charge will be when his grain is turned in there.


Thomas Andrew Low: There is no extra charge, so far as the shipping of grain through the Edmonton elevator is concerned, except one cent a hundred, the usual charge for stopover. You can ship from any point and obtain the through rate to Vancouver with a stopover at Edmonton, at a charge of one cent a hundred for that stopover, whether it is for cleaning or any other purpose.


John Evans: Would that apply also to
wheat destined for Fort William? Would it apply to wheat going to the terminal elevator at Saskatoon and loaded at some point east of Saskatoon?


Thomas Andrew Low: I venture to say it applies to
all. I might quote my own case. We have a stopover privilege at Fort William. We can ship to Montreal, and we have a stopover at my home town. It costs us on the all-rail route one cent, and lake and rail, three cents.


Mr. MILLAR:: That cent a bushel stopover does not include elevator charges? It is simply for the stopover.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is all.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Is there no charge for
spotting cars in addition to that? When you re-spot your car to ship out, are you not charged for that also?
M,r. LOW:	No, unless it is going out by
another line, and it is some distance from the other. In my own case, between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, there is a switching charge of $5.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is on the car?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Elevator, government grain, towards construction of, at Halifax, $200,000.

Horatio Clarence Hocken: May I ask that question
now which I have asked two or three times?


George Newcombe Gordon: An undertaking was
given to hear the hon. member's inquiry. Perhaps this item could stand until after dinner.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I want to know what
course the government intends to take in regard to the postal strike.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Acting Postmaster General):: We discussed
the situation yesterday with the representatives of the postal employees and the newspapers last night intimated what the results of that discussion were. Before saying anything about that, may I say that before the executive left Toronto there was an order issued apparently for a strike yesterday at five o'clock, which would be effective throughout Canada. The executive, however, after discussions in Toronto, came here to discuss the situation with us yesterday. We appeared to be reaching an agreement in the neighbourhood of five o'clock, but whether the executive were late in forwarding their message to Toronto or not at all events the Toronto employees went out-all the postal workers in the offices and their assistants, all the mail carriers and their assistants, and the chauffeurs. Of course when that happened it broke in upon our negotiations. The government, as was intimated in the press, offered full consideration of the claims of the post office employees; we proposed that after the claims of the Civil Service were all adjusted by the Civil Service Commission we might sit around a table and discuss thoroughly the complaints of the
Postal Employees

post office employees as well as the complaints of any other civil servant. In addition to that we suggested that in the case of employees whose revised rates as determined by the Civil Service Commission are less than the former rate plus the 1924-25 bonus, such bonus shall be continued until the salary revision for the entire service has been consummated. That in brief was the offer of the government, and up to five o'clock we had hopes that it would be accepted by the officials. For further consideration of the offer of the government they ordered their men to delay the strike for twenty-four hours. That order was not obeyed in Toronto nor was it obeyed in Montreal. Subsequently some of the men came back to work, but in Toronto they did not return. That was the situation up to ten o'clock last night, when the officers of the association left here to go to Toronto.
As hon. gentlemen well know, the busy hour of the day is about five o'clock in that city, which is the biggest centre perhaps, that is seriously affected. The mails come in about that time and there is heavy sorting to be done for distribution as well as the getting of the mails out on the trains. That was all delayed last night. At ten o'clock last night I felt that we could not delay any longer, and as there did not appear to be any hope of getting an adjustment in time to begin work upon the Toronto mailing, I issued instructions to the Toronto postmaster that if the men did not return by ten o'clock standard time this morning he was to proceed to' put on men to take their places. That was done and I had a report at about four o'clock that indicated we had almost in the neighbourhood of four hundred employees at work in the post office at Toronto. So far up to the moment we have not, except in Montreal and in some of the other centres, had to resort to putting men on. The negotiations went on throughout the day in Toronto between the executive and the post office employees there, but at five o'clock the result was that they were not able to persuade the men to return to work. One of the officers-the representative from Hamilton, I believe-in disagreement resigned and intimated that he would undertake to try to prevent the men from going out in the city of Hamilton. I have no further word on the situation except that at the moment the men in Toronto, that is the regular employees are out. They are out in London to a considerable degree; they are also out in Windsor, in Belleville, in Brantford and part of them in Montreal.
As to the western situation we have word 
from a number of centres, namely, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon-most of the large centres-and there is no indication at the moment of a strike occurring. I am given to understand that there was not complete unanimity of feeling about the matter in these centres. We have no further word from Vancouver or Victoria; they took no action. Of course word reached them much earlier in the day than it reached the city of Toronto. At Montreal the mails are being moved, and everything was going on to-day except at one postal station in the city where a little trouble developed this morning. In the Maritime provinces, with the single exception of Moncton, the officers were operating with full staffs. At any rate there was no intimation to the department that they intended to go out on strike.
What the result will be of the issuance of the order coming at five o'clock to-night I am unable to say, but I wish to restate what I said the other day in the House when speaking on behalf of the government: While I am a strong sympathizer with labour,
6 p.m. while my sympathies are with the working man-as I think, perhaps, is the case with most of us-it is the government of Canada that is concerned here and it must carry on the business of the country. I said to the representatives of the men the other night "Gentlemen, my sympathy is with you up to the point where you declare a strike. After that bear in mind that I will exercise all the ingenuity and energy I possess to carry on the business of Canada." That is my feeling in the matter. At the moment we have nearly four hundred new employees at work in the Toronto post office. It is said that while the light holds out to bum the sinner may return. At the same time I simply have to say to the men that a settlement cannot be postponed indefinitely. The postal service of Canada must be carried on, the mails must be moved; and so far as I am able I am going to take every legitimate means to secure the number of employees necessary to do that. I make no threats. As I say my sympathy is with the man who has to work in that kind of way for a living. But there is a higher interest to be considered and that is the interest of the country at large. When that interest is attacked in that kind of manner my sympathy in very large measure ceases. Speaking on behalf of the government that is what I propose to do, so far as is possible, in order to keep the mails moving.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I wish to put two questions so that the House and the country may be informed; I have no desire to embarrass the

Supply-Gram Elevators
government in any way. What proportion of the total staff in Toronto is represented by the 400 men engaged, and have they been given the promise that they will be retained in the office in the event of a settlement?


Charles A. Stewart: At ten
o'clock standard time to-day a notice was posted in the Toronto office that the men who did not return to duty would be considered out of the service. As to the newcomers there is a large waiting list of men who are eligible and have taken their examinations. They were given an opportunity to go on first and we will continue to take on men just as fast as we require them, and adjust the situation later. But the men we are taking on now will have to be protected.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Department of Trade and Commerce, elevator, government grain, towards construction of, at Halifax, $200,000.


John Millar: 
Mr. FINN:: When the hon. member says
that the grain can be carried by water he is speaking of the St. Lawrence route when navigation is open there.


John Millar: Not necessarily so.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then will my bon. friend
tell us what he means?


John Millar: When the St. Lawrence
route is open I believe very little if any grain will go through either St. John or Halifax. It would be preposterous to carry grain by rail 700 miles, and in the case of Halifax
Supply-Grain Elevators

843 miles, when it can be carried the same distance by water for one-eighth the cost. Is there any force of appeal to patriotism that would induce shippers to go to that extra expense ?


Thomas Andrew Low: I might answer that by reading a letter which I wrote Sir Henry Thornton, the president of the Canadian National Railways, and his reply. The following is my letter to him:
As you are no doubt aware, we have had under consideration for some time the matter of the erection of an elevator at Halifax.
There seems to be a difference of opinion among the grain men and others as to the wisdom of building an elevator at this port. In the estimates last session we made provision for an amount to enable the government, if found advisable, to commence the construction of an elevator at this point. However, before undertaking this large expenditure, we desire to know absolutely whether it is in the best public interest. I am therefore writing to ask you to let me have your frank personal opinion on this matter as soon as possible.
He replied on February 21, 1924, as follows:
Replying to your inquiry of February 15th, with reference to the proposed elevator at Halifax, briefly put, the following represents my view of the position.
The elevator referred to is of a terminal character and it is my understanding that it will be built and operated by the government-not by the railway. The railway has however recommended the erection of the facility as the present elevator has entirely outlived its usefulness.
Having regard to the long haul to St. John and Halifax, it is doubtful if there is any profit to the railway company in handling grain to either port. But this commodity is required by steamships at both ports partly for ballast and partly as cargo, and consequently an elevator at both ports would seem to be justified.
Bearing in mind the legislation recently enacted making Canadian ports attractive to import business, principally from Great Britain adequate and modem facilities for handling grain at Halifax would appear to be necessary for the protection of steamship service, and therefore a situation is created which is beneficial to the country as a whole.


Arthur Meighen: What is the date of
that letter?


Thomas Andrew Low: My letter and the reply are
dated respectively February 15 and 21 of this year.


Arthur Meighen: I thought the government had decided on this matter long ago.


Thomas Andrew Low: When I came into office I had before me all the information, but I endeavoured to ascertain the opinion of the president of the National Railways, knowing that he would give me, his views frankly. I have read to the committee just what he wrote to me.


John Evans: Notwithstanding all that the minister has said, I cannot see that an ele-
[Mr. Millar.}
vator at that port is at all needed. Since the Vancouver port has been developed for the handling of grain, very little grain has gone east after navigation has closed. And even if it were necessary to haul a part of the western grain crop to a Maritime port, what is wrong with the port of St. John? Surely that has never been congested yet, and there are no indications that it ever will be. Seeing that Vancouver is a port through which grain can be shipped out all the year round there will be absolutely no necessity for hauling grain all the way to Halifax by rail. I am utterly opposed to this vote.


John Millar: Last year I believe the
amount of grain handled at this port was either 300,000 bushels or 300-I have forgotten just what the figure was.


Robert Emmett Finn: If the hon. member proposes to discuss this matter I wish he would make himself acquainted with the facts. Neither 500 nor 300 bushels is correct; the hon. member's figures are absolutely wrong. Let him get the facts before he undertakes to discuss the matter.


John Millar: If there is anything wrong about the figures I have, the responsibility must rest with the Department of Trade and Commerce because these figures were certainly contained in the report of that department.


Robert Emmett Finn: I challenge the hon. member's statement and call upon him to produce the' figures. If he will submit the facts I shall be content to accept them; but his statement is absolutely incorrect.


John Millar: I shall be pleased to do so.


Thomas Andrew Low: The elevator facilities at Halifax are inadequate for the handling of the grain. I really do not know whether there is any grain going through the elevator or not; it may be going direct from the rail to the ship.


Arthur Meighen: If there is no grain going through Halifax the elevator would handle it all right. W'hat does the minister mean when he says that he does not know whether or not there is any going through?


George Perry Graham: They are no longer discharging where the elevator stands.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, is that the reason?


George Perry Graham: There is no elevator handy now to handle the grain.


John Millar: Does the minister think
it is good policy to spend large sums of money carrying grain over the railway for the purpose

Supply-Grain Elevators
of providing ballast for the ships? Does he think we should compel the railways to carry the grain for nothing? I infer from the remarks made yesterday that it is the intention to compel the railways to carry the grain a part of the way for nothing; that is to say, they are not to be permitted to charge more for carrying the grain to Halifax than they charge for carrying it to Portland. That of course does not apply to the American railways. Now, this simply means that the National Railways will be obliged to carry grain hundreds of miles for nothing. Is that fair to those who are paying the bill? The Canadian people as a whole will have to pay for all this, and it does not seem to be a wise policy to take money from the public treasury or out of the producers of grain in order to make possible the transportation of wheat to Halifax to provide ballast for the ships.


Mr. VIEN:: Does my hon. friend think that the railways even at a reduced rate will lose money?


John Millar: If the railways are carrying grain to Portland a distance of 297 miles at a fair rate-and we may assume that they are not getting more than a fair rate-then if our railways are compelled to carry it 843 miles for the same price, is that not sufficient evidence for my hon. friend that our railways will have to carry the grain part of that distance for nothing, and must therefore lose money?


Robert Emmett Finn: No, it is not.


John Millar: Either they are losing
on the one or they are getting an enormous profit on the other.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend should
bear in mind that there is other traffic besides wheat, and that the success of the railway depends on the traffic it gets both ways, from east to west, as well as from west to east. The steamship companies with which the Canadian National is doing business give the railway a large inward traffic at Halifax, and if for the benefit of those ships that must get ballast wheat is carried, you will have to take into account the cost of the carriage of that wheat in connection with the profit from the cargo on the westward voyage. That trade is being developed by the ships calling at Halifax, and last year it was double that of the year before. It is like a grocer selling sugar on which he does not make any profit in order that he may sell some other commodity on which he does make a profit.


John Millar: Would the minister apply
that to the National Transcontinental and the port of Quebec? Strange to say, the cost of carrying grain from Armstrong, north of Fort William, to the city of Quebec a distance of 960 miles, is 21 cents, whereas the cost from Calgary to Fort William is 154 cents or for 960 miles is 11 or lli cents. If that is a good policy, would it not be wise to develop Quebec by allowing the railways to carry grain at a reasonable price, for they would get return cargoes from Quebec and the increased traffic would build up that port?


Robert Emmett Finn: The rate from Winnipeg or from Fort William to Quebec is the same as to Montreal.


John Millar: Oh no.


Robert Emmett Finn: I think if my hon. friend has
facts and figures bearing on this he should produce them before contradicting my statement. I have looked into the matter and know.


John Millar: Grain is carried by the rail
and water route for very much less; it is carried down to the bay ports for about 3 cents.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am talking of the all rail
rate.


Thomas Andrew Low: The rates on grain all rail
from Fort William to Montreal or to Quebec are the same; by lake and rail they are somewhat less to Montreal.


Thomas Vien: Half a cent a bushel.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is more than that-four or
five cents. But from Montreal to Quebec the local freight rate applies, which amounts to about 10 cents per 100 pounds. Of course, if you ship by water during the navigation season you have the advantage of the lower rate. But when you have to ship all rail, or lake and rail from the bay ports-because the elevators there fill up during the fall and you are able to continue shipment by rail through the winter-there is a very slight difference.


John Millar: But why is it that the grain is carried for such an excessive price from Fort William? As I pointed out before, while the rate from Armstrong to the city of Quebec is 21 cents, for the same distance, 960 miles, the through rate on the Canadian Pacific from Calgary to Fort William is 11 or 114 cents; that is, it is just double.


Thomas Andrew Low: Double from where?
Supply-Grain Elevators


John Millar: From Armstrong on the
National Transcontinental about 200 miles north of Fort William.


Thomas Andrew Low: What is the through rate to
Quebec?


John Millar: Twenty-one cents a bushel
from that place to Quebec, a distance of 960 miles. I had read that statement, and I inquired of the author if it was absolutely true, and he assured me it was.


Thomas Andrew Low: The rate from Fort William to Quebec is only 39 cents per 100 pounds. Three-fifths of that is about 23 cents a bushel.


John Millar: That would verify my
figures.


Thomas Andrew Low: And the other is 21 cents; there is a slight difference.


John Millar: A very slight difference.


Thomas Andrew Low: But my hon. friend knows that there is very little traffic on certain parts of the line.


John Millar: But we are anxious to keep our grain in Canadian channels, and it seemed to me strange, particularly last fall when there was so much congestion on the lakes and trouble in getting our grain down at reasonable rates, that there should be this prohibitive rate from Armstrong to the city of Quebec, where we have an elevator with a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels only partly used. One would almost think that Canadians were not anxious to keep their grain in Canadian channels. Now, the government can take this course if they wish in order to divert grain to Halifax, they can place an elevator there, but it is forcing the traffic uphill, it is the wrong place for it to go. They can say: "Well, we will force grain there, if we have to carry it for nothing." Traffic can be developed to Halifax in that way, but otherwise that port will not become a grain outlet. I would be willing to vote money for Halifax for any legitimate purpose, for I should like to see the port built up,-


Robert Emmett Finn: Thank you.


John Millar: -but I am quite convinced that it is a mistaken policy to force grain to Halifax at a considerable loss by compelling the railways to carry it at much less than eost.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but if he wishes to be taken seriously let him give facts and figures in confirmation of his statement.
TMr. Low.]


John Millar: I shall be very pleased to ask my hon. friend for information when he
speaks.


Robert Emmett Finn: When I speak you can ask me anything you like and I will try to answer you.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


John Millar: He will probably remember the statement I made a short time ago that the railways are carrying grain from Montreal to Portland, a distance of 297 miles, for a certain rate, which we may assume is a fair rate. In view of this I should like him to show by facts and figures how the railways can be expected to haul grain for a distance of 843 miles for the same rate and not lose money. I shall be very pleased to give him a chance to answer now.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Chairman, I propose to take my own method of placing my facts before the committee. But when my hon. friend speaks of the difference in distance between the two hauls of 550 odd miles, I presume his comparison is between the rates from Winnipeg to Portland and from Winnipeg to Halifax.


John Millar: No.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well, between what ports is the comparison made?


John Millar: I took the figures given
here last night by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), which I assume are correct, namely, Montreal to Halifax, 843 miles.


Robert Emmett Finn: What other port are you
putting against that?


John Millar: Montreal to Portland, 297 miles.


Robert Emmett Finn: An American port.


John Millar: Yes.


Robert Emmett Finn: Good for the Canadian West.


John Millar: I am not advocating that our grain should go there. Surely my hon. friend does not misunderstand me. I am simply comparing rates.


Robert Emmett Finn: When the St. Lawrence closes and the ports of Montreal and Quebec are not available, if he is not seeking to send Canadian grain to Portland, where else is he going to send it unless to St. John or to Halifax?


John Millar: I stated a few minutes ago that when St. Lawrence navigation is closed the grain will go to St. John, and should go there.

Supply-Grain Elevators


Robert Emmett Finn: Does my hon. friend know the difference between the all rail rates from Winnipeg to Halifax and from Winnipeg to St. John? If he does, let him tell the committee. He should have all the facts and figures bearing on the case.


John Millar: I know the difference in rates between Montreal and St. John and between Montreal and Halifax.


Robert Emmett Finn: But what is the rate from Winnipeg? Let us get out West.


John Millar: I do not see what that has to do with it.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am asking the question.


John Millar: The large part of the grain will be at the port of Montreal1.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am asking the hon. gentleman if he knows the difference in mileage between the haul from Winnipeg to St. John and the haul from Winnipeg to Halifax.


John Millar: I do not think it is necessary to know that. According to these figures it is over a hundred miles further to Halifax than it is to St. John so that the grain will naturally go to St. John.


Robert Emmett Finn: Does my hon. friend know the difference between the haul from Winnipeg to Portland and the haul from Winnipeg to St. John, where he says the grain should go?


John Millar: That has nothing to do
with it.


John Evans: The minister told us last
night that the charge against the handling of the grain from western Canada was about 6i per cent on the facilities erected for handling that grain. When the Minister of Railways says that grain is needed at Halifax for ballast, to what department would he charge the construction of this elevator?


George Perry Graham: It would be charged to the Department of Trade and Commerce and come out of current account. We cannot discuss this question from one angle only, otherwise we do not get at the real essence of it. During the past year, as a result of the new arrangements or the development of old ones, the Canadian National has had connection with increased steamship landings at Halifax. If it be necessary for these steamers to have wheat ballast, is it not better to work that in through Halifax, retaining the trade with the steamships and encouraging the steamships to call at that port? It does not cost the grain producer any more, and in the final analysis it will not cost the railways much more. It is worth while to make these experiments.
If arrangements are not made by which outgoing ships can get cargo as ballast, what will be the result? If the Canadian product is all carried to Portland, which is the shorter route, then the traffic will not in every instance be over the National Railways, because once you get to Portland there is competition, whereas at Halifax the Canadian National has the advantage. We cannot fairly discuss the matter without taking into consideration these various aspects of it-the traffic east and west, the circumstances with respect to return haul, the local traffic, the development of the harbour,of the port, and so on-not particularly, perhaps, the development of the port, but the consideration that when ships are induced to call there the resulting traffic will bring good returns to the Canadian National Railways. That traffic, if developed properly, would overcome anything that might be lost in the hauling of the wheat to Halifax.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I confess I rather enjoy
the ingenious but very patent attempt to inject into the discussion of this vote that which is calculated to cause friction between St. John and Halifax in the hope that they will begin to fight with each other so that there will be an excuse for not making an expenditure. I want to serve formal and friendly notice on the rest of Canada that the day for that sort of jockeying has long since passed. There was a time when a delegation could not come up from Halifax to see the government of the day about what they regarded as necessary expenditures without a rival delegation proceeding to Ottawa on the next train to badger the government for something for St. John. Well, we are not going to be played that way any longer. Our people are coming to realize the importance of the problem as a whole and we are prepared to support whatever will make for the benefit of Nova Scotia or of New Brunswick, irrespective of the constituency from which we come and of our political affiliations. We had a lively example in the House tonight:	We almost had the olive branch held
out. One hon. member-and his attitude is perfectly typical-is willing to give Halifax or to give St. John something that has not been asked for, that nobody has yet thought of; but if a concrete proposal is made to do anything for one or for the other he finds that it is something not directly subservient [DOT]to the interests of the West, therefore he will not support it. We do not admire that sort of tactics; it does not appeal to any spirit of fcroad Canadianism. If the part of this country that really carries the business is pre-
Supply-Grain Elevators

pared to take a course which will not add to the railway burden of the country but will change the aspect of it so that the burden will be borne for Canada and not for a foreign country, 1 do not think it is much of the business of hon. gentlemen sitting to my left. We in the Maritime provinces are entitled still to be regarded as a part of confederation, and we propose not to go out of confederation. Only those who indulge in idle talk in that part of Canada ever make any suggestions of that kind. Without our co-operation there would have been no confederation and the gentlemen who are so liberal in their criticism of the Maritime provinces to-night would not be here as representing any province of Canada, because there would be no Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: 
Thomas Andrew Low: As far as the Halifax elevator
is concerned, it will be looked into during the recess-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Has it not been looked
into yet?


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend will permit
me to answer his question, I intend to look into this elevator, along with all the other elevators, during the recess. So far as the site is concerned, if I adopt the same plan I
adopted at Edmonton and ask the city council and the board of trade, together with the railway, for I consulted the railway, to accompany me and show me the site they think would be in the best interests of the city-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think the railway is the chief thing to consult.


Thomas Andrew Low: -if I follow that course, will my hon. friend have any objection to the site that is chosen?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Not a bit. I will applaud
it.


Arthur Meighen: If they differ which site
will the minister take, the board of trade's or the railway's?


George Perry Graham: The best site.


Thomas Andrew Low: If the board of trade and the
railway board agree on the site, two out of three, the ordinary man ought to be convinced that the better site had been chosen.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister take
the city council and the board of trade over the railway?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, the railway is interested
in the elevator.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: You will build it on
the railway?


Thomas Andrew Low: We will try and build it on
the Canadian National railway. Our first interest is in connection with the railway.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How about the plans and
specifications and that sort of thing?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have already returned the
plans to the engineers and asked them to remodel them. They inform me that certain things can be eliminated without affecting the efficiency of the elevator, and that a 500,000 bushel capacity elevator can be erected for between $500,000 and $600,000, and 'in such a way that an additional capacity of 100,000, 200,000, 250,000 or 500,000 can be provided at any time.



Charles Wallace Stewart: Mr. Chairman, as this is a
very critical time for me, I should like to take this opportunity of making a correction of a statement I made just before six o'clock relative to the strike. I told the House that we had taken on in the neighbourhood of 350 men in Toronto. That figure was incorrect. We had applications from almost 400, but we have taken on and have in em-
Supply-Grain Elevators

ployment at the moment only 180. I do not want any misleading statement to go out; I want every statement I make to be absolutely correct, and I have therefore taken this opportunity that the Chairman has afforded of correcting my statement.


John Millar: I do not care to allow the remarks of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) to pass without reply. I am very glad he has got this off his chest, for it is a very bad thing for anybody to have on his chest. The trouble with my hon. friend is that it seems to accumulate there very frequently. Every other day my hon. friend has an accumulation which he must throw off in this way. And why is he doing it now? Because I discussed the rates at which our grain should reach the seaport, a matter in which we are vitally interested, without the least possible reason for giving rise to the fear that I had ulterior motives, or wished to create friction between the two ports. My hon. friend, in his characteristic manner, reads into my speech something which is not there. He suggests that I wish to make trouble. I am sure that with my hon. friend living in one of the districts in question there is no need for any one else to make trouble. If there is any necessity for stirring up bad feeling all that is necessary is to let the hon. member alone-he will produce that result quickly enough. I had absolutely no thought of creating any bad feeling between the two ports, but in the West we are interested in -the cost of carrying our grain and we do not want to see an elevator built unnecessarily if the expense is to be charged up to the revenue derived from our grain. That is an important point and I should like the minister to consider it.


Robert Emmett Finn: If my hon. friend wants to be consistent he ought to stop the operations of the Canadian National Railways in the West because they -are carrying millions of a deficit to-day.


John Millar: Is my hon. friend referring to inferior elevators?


Robert Emmett Finn: I am talking about the Canadian National Railways-the Canadian Northern, the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific.


John Millar: We have every reason to
believe those railways are paying.


Robert Emmett Finn: Are they? Are they paying
the interest on the capital cost?


John Millar: Can the hon. gentleman
give facts and figures to prove they are not?


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes. I say that to-day the
Canadian National Railway system, and largely in the Canadian West, is carrying a deficit of between fifty and sixty millions a year.


John Millar: And what share of the loss is incurred in carrying products to and from the Maritime provinces?


Robert Emmett Finn: I am positive it is under
four millions. Deduct that from the fifty millions and forty-six millions remain. You can take your share of that. I will agree to the elevator project being stopped if my hon. friend will agree to the stopping of the operation of these railways in the West where they are not carrying on at a, profit.


An hon. MEMBER:: My hon. friend
would not get any gtain down in his elevator then.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Hon. gentlemen in this
portion of the chamber who are opposing the project hardly realize the seriousness of the situation. Actually the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) says that if the opposition is persisted in there will be a danger of breaking up confederation. A little later he suggested that the two old time parties should get together and decide on a reasonable plan that would furnish a profit to one of these two ports in the east. However, I did not rise for the purpose of taking exception to what my hon. friend said. Western Canada is just as anxious for the upbuilding of eastern Canada as it is for the development of any other section of the country. I believe the farmers there are ready to send their grain to the East at any moment if a satisfactory rate can be granted. The desirability of this was pointed out last night in a very brilliant speech by the Minister of Railways. Let me mention a few things in which the West feels that it is not getting a fair deal, not as a result of the action of any particular section of the country but owing to the operations of certain interests in Canada. I would refer first to what took place in parliament two years ago when we. discussed the Crowsnest pass agreement and were successful in having the price of grain brought within the terms of that agreement. The western farmers thought that meant a considerable advantage and anticipated saving quite an amount of money on their crop that year, but the result was not what they expected. The vessel owners on the lakes immediately raised their rates and swallowed up the benefit the western farmers expected to have derived by virtue of the Crowsnest pass agreement. I

Supply-Grain Elevators
believe I am safe in saying that the western farmer in consequence received practically nothing from the reduction under the Crows-nest pass agreement. Then the embargo on Canadian cattle going to England was removed but what happened in that case? The ocean freight rates were immediately raised to a figure that took care of any reduction the West had hoped to derive from the lifting of the embargo. This session the government reduced the tariff rates on agricultural implements, and it was only reasonable to suppose that as a result the western farmer would be able to buy his implements a little cheaper. However, at this very time the Railway Commissioners are considering applications from railway companies asking for a reclassification of freight rates, which simply means that these companies are trying to get the benefit which should accrue to the western farmer from the tariff reduction. If such things are going to continue it would almost seem that no matter what load the western farmer gets from under, some other interest slips in and reaps the benefit. Now, in matters of this kind regard should not be paid to one section of the country. There should be co-operation between all parts of Canada so that from whatever action is taken the West will benefit as well as the East. And so we say to hon. members that if they will co-operate in helping us to overcome our problems, we will be ready to respond to any reasonable demands they may make upon us.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I must say that
when I saw this vote in the estimates for the Halifax elevator I was considerably disappointed. The project has been a live issue for a long time. It has been greatly talked about, and many promises have been made in regard to it. All these seemed to have come to a focus in December last when it was expected the elevator positively would be constructed at once. This view seemed to be justified seeing that tenders were called for and offers received, and apparently only the return of the Prime Minister from England was necessary to close the bargain and proceed immediately with the construction of the elevator. At that time $200,000 had been voted, the same sum that now appears in the estimates. But nearly seven months have elapsed and we are told by the minister that the plans have not yet been decided upon. Practically nothing has been done we are given to understand, and the matter is still under the consideration of the 9 p.m. government. Under the circumstances but one conclusion can be arrived at in my opinion and that is that
the government are playing with the subject. There is no intention on their part to erect an elevator at Halifax until another election looms up. Then we shall have one built in the air, so to speak, and it will melt in the sunshine. That is no way to conduct public business: It is not the way to treat any portion of the Dominion. Notwithstanding the treatment accorded to Halifax we see the sum *of $1,000,000 in the estimates this year for an elevator at Edmonton-following a vote of $200,000 last year-and how much more will be demanded next year none of us can tell. As so much storage is required for the grain out there in the West, which grain has to be moved east or west after it is placed in that elevator, why should the Canadian National Railways not provide in the eastern section of the country facilities for the handling of that grain? In the winter time water transportation which my hon. friend (Mr. Millar) spoke about, is out of the question. The rail rates to the Atlantic coast from Halifax on the north to, I think I can say, Baltimore on the south, have been equalized. The rate on inland carriage from points of production to the ocean is the same to all those ports. If that be the case, if the railways have established that principle, why should my hon. friend be so concerned about carrying the grain! to Halifax, which is, I admit, somewhat farther east than ports farther south?
There is another point which, perhaps, he has not thought of. If the land carriage to Halifax is longer than to either St. John or Portland, that certainly shortens the ocean carriage, and would it not be a reasonable proposition that the steamer which carries the grain the shorter distance from Halifax to the Old Country should reduce her rate for ocean carriage somewhat below the rate from St. John, Portland, New York, or any of the other Atlantic ports? The saving of time to a steamer would be greater, and we all know that time in connection with shipping is valuable. That would be a reasonable proposition and, if adopted, would give the inland carriage that much greater advantage.
We have heard a great deal about Canadian business going through Canadian ports. That is a policy which I think this country should adopt and should begin at once putting into effect. It is not, perhaps, for me to suggest how that is to be done. It is for the government to work out a policy which would be for the benefit of this country as a whole. Vancouver, it is true, has lately attracted a good deal of attention in connection with the shipment of grain. From what we hear and read, that business will increase there, and we are very glad to know that it will, because until
Supply

Grain Elevators

shipments of grain began through Vancouver, it all came east, the bulk of it going over American railways and through American ports.
My hon. friend to my left (Mr. Millar) has centred his argument on the fact that the distance is nearly 200 miles further from Montreal to Halifax than from Montreal to St. John; but I would remind him that the grain that would be shipped to Canadian Atlantic ports originates not in Montreal, but in the West, and therefore the difference in distance would not be so adverse as the hon. gentleman makes out. Complete trains of grain can be operated and handled with very little additional cost. Money would be earned by the handling and transportation of that freight and the overhead of the railways would be no greater. Therefore, the conclusion, it seems to me, is reasonable that without any extra overhead the earnings of the railways would be increased and the profit of handling and hauling this grain would be as much as the railway companies could, within reason, expect.
I am pleased with the remarks of the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter), who took the broad-minded view that he would be glad to see elevators built at Halifax and a development there. I feel with him that the competition and rivalry of days gone by no longer exist and that we can work together for the common good without any feelings of jealousy and distrust.
It is gratifying also to find that the government, apparently

and I am judging from what the Minister of Railways and Canals told us-is waking up to the fact that there are Maritime provinces and that they are worthy of some consideration. We have waited a long time for such an atmosphere. The various governments of the past appear to have handled this question of the rights and interests of the Maritime provinces with the same indifference. But it would now appear as if we were receiving some attention and as if good would come to us in the future because of this awakening.
As the Minister of Railways and Canals said *-and my hon. friend to my left should bear this in mind-the question is not one of grain alone or whether the grain pays or not. I doubt if any business in the world, I might say, is carried on, regarding which every article that is dealt with shows a profit. If it is necessary, in order to bring grain to Maritime ports, to carry that grain at cost, it is the duty of the great railway systems to do so and to take their profit out of the rest of the traffic which they are handling, the two working together with the result that profit comes.

The question of the elevator, I am sorry to say, appears to have been delayed. I did not catch what the minister said regarding the building, whether the plans are under way, whether they are completed or whether departmental officials are coming down to investigate sites. I would ask that he repeat the statement.


Thomas Andrew Low: The plans are being investigated further. I did not raise the question as to where the elevator should be erected; it was introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. Baxter). I simply answered the question by saying that I would adopt the same plan as I did in connection with the elevator at Edmonton. I consulted the city council, the board of trade and the Canadian National Railways, and I do not think that if I were to follow the same course in connection with the elevator at Halifax any hon. member could find fault.


William Anderson Black: That is quite all
right; I do not raise a moment's objection to that. But when are we likely to have the site selected and the work gone on with?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have already stated that the
erection of the Halifax elevator will be taken under consideration when the whole question of the marketing of grain is investigated by myself this year, and I hope that something definite will be done. Personally I am inclined to agree with the letter which I have read from Sir Henry Thornton; I agree that if Halifax is to remain a port ballast must be provided. If it is found advisable to build an elevator there after further examination we shall build one.


Mr. LUCAS:: What is the capacity of the present elevator?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not think it is in use at
all. I have no idea what its capacity is; perhaps my hon. friends from Halifax could tell us.


Arthur Meighen: How much grain has
gone through the present elevator in each of the last three years?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not the figures for the
last three years, but I have for 1923-300 bushels.


Robert Emmett Finn: The grain that passed through the port of Halifax in the last three years amounted to-


Arthur Meighen: Through the elevator.


Robert Emmett Finn: Through the elevator yes;
I will give the figures.

Supply-Grain Elevators


Arthur Meighen: What was it for 1923?


Robert Emmett Finn: From 1921 to 1924 it amounted to 2,861,612 bushels.


Arthur Meighen: How much went through in 1923?


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not know whether my
right hon. friend wants me to make in reply the same sort of statement he made at the last, session of parliament. He said then that very little had gone through and that as far as he knew, from the information he had, the elevator had been burned down. If it is burned down of course nothing could go through it.


Arthur Meighen: Who said that?


Robert Emmett Finn: No less a person than my
right hon. friend himself.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member
apparently is anxious to have a quarrel with me. He was in the House very little last session.


Robert Emmett Finn: I was in the House the night
the right hon. gentleman made that statement.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member is dreaming.


Robert Emmett Finn: Perhaps my right hon. friend
will allow me to read what he said.


Arthur Meighen: By all means.


Robert Emmett Finn: I quote the following from
Hansard:
Mr. Meighen: The information I have is that there was an elevator there that had a little grain in it some years, and for some years none. I fancy it was burned down. Anyway it is not there now. I had a return on this the other day-


Arthur Meighen: Read on.


Robert Emmett Finn: (Reading):
-I believe it was partly built by the railway and partly by the city. At any rate there were joint contributions. Can the hon. member tell us just what special event the government has in mind that caused it to deem it the part of wisdom to build a large elevator there?
Perhaps my right hon friend was dreaming when he said that.


Arthur Meighen: There has been a misunderstanding of what I referred to. I knew the present elevator was not burned down because I had seen it. I did know, however, that there, was little grain going through it.


Robert Emmett Finn: Did the right hon. gentleman
make those remarks to mislead the public or kon. members?


Arthur Meighen: "The right hon. gentleman" did not mislead nor intend to mislead the public in any way. Has there not been a fire in an elevator there?


Robert Emmett Finn: No, except to keep it warm.


Arthur Meighen: Well, elevators do not
need to be kept warm usually.


Robert Emmett Finn: The employees need to be.


Arthur Meighen: But the employees do not live in the elevator. I notice the hon. member fights shy of telling us what went through the elevator in 1923.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am not fighting shy; I do not think that any grain went through in 1923.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Give us the figures.


Robert Emmett Finn: I gave them as I received them from the Department of Trade and Commerce; during the period from 1921 to 1924 the amount was over 2,200,000 bushels.


Arthur Meighen: For the year 1923 the minister gave us 300 bushels.


Robert Emmett Finn: That may be; if the minister says so it must be right.


Arthur Meighen: I had no intention of taking issue with the hon. gentleman; I simply wanted to find out how much grain had gone through the elevator while the government had it. Even if I did not believe in having grain go through Halifax I would not be as much concerned over this vote as hon. gentlemen to my left. But my own apprehension is that there is about $200,000 more in it than will be spent-unless there should happen to be another by-election, in which event there might be a little stir. This vote has really an interesting history, and I wonder what comforting assurance the senior member for Halifax obtains when the minister advises him now on June 19, 1924, that the matter is going to be "taken into consideration."


Robert Emmett Finn: If my right hon. friend wants to know, I may tell him, to be candid, that I am disappointed.


Arthur Meighen: I should think so; I war too. I was in better hopes than that myself..


Robert Emmett Finn: I was in hopes too.


Arthur Meighen: Last fall one would have thought that there was only the shingling still under consideration; the whole structure was right in the mind's eye of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pic-tou). In fact, that hon. gentleman described
Supply-Grain Elevators

the fine architecture, the modem efficiency of it all, and he regretted that even one, two, three days might elapse before the contract was let.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Are you sure he made
that speech?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps we should not attribute this to him inasmuch as he has not yet had sufficiently frequent opportunity to deny having made the speech. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was there too, but he had to get back to Ottawa. Only for that the contract would have been let at once; but unfortunately the train had to take him back. There was to be a contract let, and the consideration of the whole thing was through; the decision had been arrived at. And how the Minister of National Defence lamented the fact that those few tedious hours had to elapse before it was under way. Here, seven months after, we find 1200,000 in the estimates, and the matter is to come under general review when the minister gets down to consider elevators some time next summer. After the by-election had been fought and lost the government discovered that the plans were no good. They discovered, first, that their own by-election plans were no good, and the two plans fell down together. It turned out that the plans had been made some years before. There was though no inkling of their unsuitability when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was there. The government did not discover it when the Minister of Finance was there. And all through the herculean efforts of the Minister of Defence (Mr. Macdonald), they never dreamt such a thing as that these were old plans. But the fact dawned on them suddenly just as the last return came in from Halifax; they found that those plans would not really do for an elevator suitable to the occasion, and there would have to be new plans drawn. I would be interested, as I know the House would be, and I think the hon. member from Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Millar) would be much relieved, if we could be told just how far advanced those plans are. Would we not like to have a picture of them here this afternoon-the result of the sweat and toil of the draughtsman since December 6, 1923! The minister has worked out how he is going to select the site: He is going to consult the Board of Trade and the city council and the railways -he forgot the Liberal Association,-but anyway he is going to consult all those authorities, and he is sure that if he does no fault will be found. It will not bring much comfort to the member for Halifax to be told that there is a site with no elevator on it, nor will the port be much helped.


Robert Emmett Finn: Does my right hon. friend
refer to me?


Arthur Meighen: I did have him in mind.


Robert Emmett Finn: I thought so, that is why I
asked.


Arthur Meighen: I was right in my reference. The same might be said as well of the member for Halifax in my rear; I do not think he takes very great consolation out of the fact that the minister has so far advanced that he now knows what plan he is going to adopt and will next decide where the site is to be after the other consideration is well advanced. How slow these things proceed! May I ask, has the minister in mind the possibility of a by-election this year; is that the foundation of this vote?


Thomas Andrew Low: During the last twenty or
twenty-five years I have engaged in approximately fifteen or twenty by-elections, and I have consistently refused to enter into such discussions on these events as so often occur in this House. I have always been able to go through the heat and feeling of by-elections and yet preserve a most friendly relationship with all my opponents. After the fight was over I was always able to greet my contestants with a sincere handshake. Now my right hon. friend refers to by-election promises. I would be the last one to introduce the subject, but let me remind him, when he asks this committee if this vote is founded on a by-election, of a very interesting event which took place in Kingston in 1919. A party of Conservatives met in the city of Kingston to discuss the pending by-election, and it will be remembered that the local candidate subsequently withdrew in favour of the exMinister of Finance, who was duly elected. The editor of the Kingston Standard, a Conservative journal, and one of the gentlemen who attended that meeting, and who was in the confidence of the Conservative party, printed the following in the next issue of his paper:
Mr. J. M. Hughes has withdrawn from the race as a candidate for parliamentary honours in this city and as a consequence it is generally believed that Sir Henry Drayton, Minister of Finance, will be elected by acclamation.
Mr. Hughes' withdrawal followed a conference in the Daily Standard office last evening attended by W. R. Givens, A. B. Cunningham, H. C. Nickle and Mr. Hughes himself. The situation was frankly and fully discussed, and at the conclusion of the conference Mr. Hughes announced his withdrawal from the contest. The best good will was displayed at the meeting and the whole discussion was along entirely friendly lines.
This morning Mr. Hughes drafted a letter explaining precisely the reasons that led to his withdrawal. The letter is as follows:

Supply-Grain Elevators
To the Editor of the Standard,
Sir,-I wish to announce that I have retired from the contest for the seat in the House of Commons. My reason for doing so is that it is reported that the Hon. J. D. Reid made the statement to a number of representative citizens that if Sir Henry Drayton was given the seat Kingston would be well looked after and that the harbour improvements would be assumed. Being a loyal and true Kingstonian and as I have always worked for the interest of the city I felt that I could not take the responsibility of going on with the contest and in any way interfering with the material progress of the city. I sincerely hope that Sir Henry Drayton will see to it that work will be started in a very short time and Kingston will become the eastern terminal of the Great Lakes.
I thank the many citizens who assured me of their support and ask them to put their shoulders to the wheel and work for a bigger, better and more prosperous Kingston.
J. M. Hughes.
I wonder if my right hon. friend has hanging in his office a picture of the great harbour works that were to be built following his colleague's election in 1919; I wonder if it took two years to prepare the plans; I wonder if he has even gone as far as I have in an endeavour to have plans prepared; I wonder if he had the approximate cost placed in the Estimates-or as soon as the by-election was over were the promises of the party forgotten? It was well known in Kingston that that was the bid of the Conservative government for the seat; as I said before, it is with reluctance that I refer to these things,-


Arthur Meighen: That will not hurt.


Thomas Andrew Low: -but when we hear so much about the purchase of the Hotel Scribe I wonder if my right hon. friend ever thinks of the purchase of the Daly building in Ottawa on the verge of a general election in 1921? As I said before I am sorry to refer to these things-


Arthur Meighen: Don't worry.


Thomas Andrew Low: -but these are facts, and I have referred to them because my right hon. friend has brought up the subject of election promises. I can assure him that it is my intention to look into the merits of Halifax as a point for an elevator-and also certain other places,-and I will not disappoint either the junior or the senior member from that city.


Arthur Meighen: I want first to assure the minister that the pangs of conscience the delicate sensitiveness which he "spoke so frequently of were quite unnecessary. He might have freely and heartily and enthusiastically made those references and gone into all of them with the utmost detail and without doing the slightest injury to us. What did the minister think he had? Evidently he had 217
somebody search the records for years back to see if he could bring home to the Conservative party some pre-election promises. And behold! after the mountain laboured can hon. members now discover the mouse? There was a meeting in the Kingston Standard office when Sir Henry Drayton was a prospective candidate in the local by-election. Next day a gentleman by the name of Mr. Hughes wrote a letter to the Kingston Standard stating that he was withdrawing because "it was reported" that the Hon. J. D. Reid had said that if Sir Henry Drayton was elected the harbour improvements would be looked after.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my right hon. friend
repudiate the statement of the men from Kingston?


Arthur Meighen: What men? There is
only the statement of one man, and the one man says, "It is reported," and he does not say who reported it.


Thomas Andrew Low: A man who was likely to be a candidate.


Arthur Meighen: He does not say even who reported it-wonderful evidence! The minister knows that the Hon. J. D. Reid, only a few days afterwards, the first time it was brought to his attention, distinctly denied in this House that he had ever made such a statement to anybody. Against this fictitious case the minister is faced with the promise of his own colleague, the Minister of Defence, brought right home to him in this House over a year ago, never to this moment denied- and he dare not deny it; quoted in the newspapers as well as quoted here; the whole thing pledged indeed explicitly by advertisement in the Liberal press. Well, against that he puts the statement of a gentleman in' Kingston that "it is reported",-by whom nobody ever heard-and he conceives that he has made a case. Then he mentions that delectable memory, the Scribe hotel. What was in the minister's mind in vamping that spectacle before the committee? If he wants to refer to the Scribe hotel let him at least do that honour to the president of the Canadian National Railways which he so begged for in his letter

let him call it the "Palais Canadien". Let the name Scribe hotel pass into bitter oblivion; let this whole nightmare be dignified from now on with its proper title. Surely the minister should extend to it that consideration if no more. What in the world his object was in stringing the bedraggled feathers of the Scribe hotel into this discussion I do not know. As for the other reference his purpose was equally obscure, or equally blind, I do not know which. What he had



Supply-Grain Elevators
in Ms mind we may find later in the evening or we may not. But anything the late government did the minister is at liberty to investigate to the bottom any time he wishes, but when he has investigations on his mind perhaps the "Palais Canadien" would be the first subject for attention; these things seem to be mixed promiscuously in Ms mind. The rest of us are on the Halifax elevator just now. I am struggling to find out how far the plans have advanced, and the minister is struggling hard to avoid answering.


Thomas Andrew Low: I will answer now. The plans are in the hands of the engineers.


Arthur Meighen: They are completed,
then?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, to be remodelled.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, old plans. Well, that is not very much progress. According to the statement last session they were completed many years ago, so the plans have not advanced much.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is more progress than my right hon. friend made in two years.


Arthur Meighen: Well, we did not make the pledges. After seven months the old plans have now got as far as the engineers. Hon. gentlemen who feel that this is a waste of money have not any great reasons for apprehension. If it takes another seven months for the engineers to locate the plans in their pigeonhole there will be as much progress as the minister likely expects.


Robert Emmett Finn: Before tMs item carries I
wish to say a word or two, and perhaps in some respects I am a little disconcerted by some statements made to-night by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. As I said to the right hon. the leader of the opposition, I am somewhat disappointed with those statements. They do not at all meet with my approval, and they are not what I understood from the government of which I am a supporter, from the Prime Minister, from the representative of Nova Scotia in the cabinet, the Minister of National Defence, and from all my conversations with and the assurances given, me by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. For my part I put the interest of the Maritime provinces ahead of party, and so long as I occupy a position of public trust in this House it will be my sacred duty to stand for what I conceive to be right and to criticise the government or any minister or any department when I believe it my duty so to do.

Last session when this matter was under consideration, the item in question being an amount of $200,000 in the main estimates, we did not receive very much comfort from some hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly from the hon. the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), who said it was useless to try to put grain through the port of Halifax. Indeed, he went further than that and said that the grain would be carried by the cheapest route. In that he was partly correct, because there was then a differential of one cent as against Halifax wMcfa does not now prevail. To-day Halifax is on a parity with St. John, Portland, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore. So that any objection based on the cost of carrying grain to Halifax is done away with by the removal of this differential, a result which was brought about through representations made by this government to Sir Henry Thornton and the Board of Management of the Canadian National Railways.
The statement was also made that no grain, or practically none, was put through the elevator at Halifax. The ex-Minister of Finance said that no grain had been put through that elevator except during the war. I have before me the figures as furnished by the Department of Trade and Commerce. I find that in 1915 there were 588,657 bushels handled at that elevator; from 1916 to 1920, 5,168,818 bushels; from 1921 to 1924, 2,861,612 -in all, from 1915 to 1924, 8,612,087 bushels, or in round figures, 9,000,000 bushels, an average of a million bushels a year.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Has the hon. member
the figures before him of the number of bushels for the crop year of 1921-22?


Robert Emmett Finn: No, I have not the figures
for that period. I have the totals from 1915 to 1920, which was practically the war period, because the war conditions continued a year or two after the conclusion of the war. Then I have the period from 1921-1924, and these I think, offer a fair basis for comparison ber tween what is known as the war period and the period of reconstruction which started in about 1921.
I was rather surprised at the statements of some hon. members here to-night, particularly the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) and of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans). They do not seem to coincide with the assurances given as l'ate as last evening by hon. gentlemen on the other side that it was their desire that grain and other western products should be carried through Canadian ports. I apolo-

Supply-Grain Elevators
gized to an lion, gentleman last night because he misunderstood my meaning in reference to the viewpoint of an hon. member in the Progressive group, but I find now that there are some gentlemen in that group who, notwithstanding the fact that presumably we all desire to be one hundred per cent Canadian, still feel it necessary to force Canadian traffic through Portland simply because it is a shorter haul, and even though the rates for the respective routes are the same. They come back with the answer that you should not take it to Canadian ports because it is going to cost a little more to take it there.
I remember at the last session of this House I had the honour of hearing a statement by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I commend him for his broadness of view in reference to a national question in the position of responsibility he occupied. It was when the question of deficits in connection with the Intercolonial railway was being discussed. He made the statement, which I think was fair, honourable, and proper from a national standpoint, that the government should address itself to the problem of the Maritime provinces and absorb if necessary as part of the national debt any reasonable deficit that might occur in the operation of the Intercolonial in order that we in the Maritime provinces might grow and develop. That is the spirit in which to approach this great question. Where would the great provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba be to-day in winter time if they had not a maritime frontage. Could Canada have become a nation, could Canada have boasted of open ports on the Atlantic the year round without that maritime frontage? No, she could not. If Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had remained out of confederation you would have been isolated in the West, and in Ontario and Quebec in so far as great national ports on the Atlantic are concerned. Were not these ports worth something to the great and growing prairie provinces? Do hon. gentlemen sit in this House simply for the purpose of selfish ambition, to develop alone these great prairie provinces? And then, as a result of confederation, as a result of the efforts of the pioneers who hewed the way to our national greatness, the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties, men who were born and brought up in this country, who did not come to a land of adoption, for this land was theirs by heritage, and in that heritage we in the little province of Nova Scotia have the right to participate.
217*


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I think the hon. member is liable to get on the wrong track again. There are lots of native-born Canadians in the West; it is not their land of adoption.
Mr, FINN:	No person's conscience
need be hurt who was not bom in this country, or the conscience of any body who was bom in Canada. The great western provinces were carved out in this confederation and we invited to this country from the British Isles and from all parts of Europe the very best of citizenship and offered them the best this land could afford, independence and the right which they enjoy today of sitting in this House as the worthy representatives of these new and ever growing provinces. But when you look back and think that the little province of Nova Scotia gave to this great Canada of ours three prime ministers in the persons of Sir Charles Tupper, Sir John Thompson, and the Right Hon. Sir Robert Laird Borden, to say nothing of the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, who for eighteen years has guided the financial destinies of this country, surely after we have participated in that way in the building up of this great nation we should not be asked to continue to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. I say in all sincerity that when I hear some hon. gentlemen of the Progressive group giving utterance to-night to Statements that are selfish to a degree, it makes me sick at heart indeed to feel that any such sentiments can bum within the heart of any of our Canadian people from these western provinces.
With reference to the carriage of grain and other products from our Canadian west, as the Minister of Railways has stated tonight, shipping at the port of Halifax this last season has increased over one hundred per cent. Over one million more tonnage came into the port of Halifax during the past five months, that is, before the St. Lawrence opened, than came in during the previous year, 1923. The ships that come to the port of Halifax land their passengers and freight there, and then go on to New York and Portland. Do not hon. gentlemen know that it is a day's sail from Halifax to Portland, and a day's sail back from Portland to Halifax? These are big ships, expensively operated, and under great demurrage charges, and by using the port of Halifax as their terminus those two days could be saved, which would mean two more trips a year for each of these large ships. I am assured by steamship representatives that if an elevator was built at the port
Supply-Grain Elevators

of Halifax where the ships could get the basic cargo of grain, they would not go to Portland, but would make Halifax their terminus and load and unload their freight and passengers there, inward and outward; but if we have not the facilities at the port to enable them to do that, it is impossible for Halifax to grow and develop and become the great port that we of the Maritime provinces expect it to be.
My hon. friend Itihe ex-Minister of Finance made a statement last session when this vote of $200,000 was under discussion, that the difference in mileage between Halifax and St. John was 267 miles. I have the figures before me to-night, obtained from the Railway department. and I find that the difference in mileage is only 113 miles. I also find that the difference in mileage between St. John and Winnipeg and Portland (and Winnipeg is 184 miles, yet the Canadian Pacific carry grain from Winnipeg to their own ships at St. John, 184 miles further than to Portland. The difference between St. John and Halifax is only 113 miles, so that with the freight rate the same to the port of Halifax, and facilities for handling the grain, these ships could obtain grain at that port and carry it across the ocean. There is no sound reason why we should not obtain our share of that traffic, and why the city of St. John should not participate in this Maritime development, thus helping to keep our people within our province and making us feel that we have a future. These are some of my reasons for supporting this vote of $200,000 to-night. My hon. friend (Mr. Black) made some statements in reference to the by-election in the city of Halifax. I desire to say to my hon. friend that when the vote of $200,000-


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I rise to a point of order. Has the by-election down in Halifax anything to do with the item under consideration?


Arthur Meighen: A very great deal. It has one hundred per cent to do with it.


Robert Emmett Finn: I may say to my hon. friend who has just raised the point of order that he was probably not in the House when this question was raised a little while ago by no less a person than the right hon. the leader of the opposition, and surely if I follow his experienced lead, I cannot be far wrong in discussing the same matter. The junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) said the vote for the Halifax elevator was practically designed to get the votes of the electors in the byelection. As I have already said, when that vote was placed in the estimates there was no by-election in Halifax. I came to Ottawa

as the representative of the people feeling in duty bound to submit sound reasons to the government for the placing of a vote in the estimates for the building of this elevator. That viewpoint was concurred in by the Canadian National Railway officials headed by Sir Henry Thornton, and as a result of several interviews my late colleague-now Mr. Justice Maclean-and I had with Sir Henry Thornton, he recommended that an elevator with a capacity of a million bushels be built. The recommendation was adopted, a vote was placed in the estimates and tenders were called for. Several tenders were received and the offer of the Atlas Construction Company of Montreal was the lowest. However, it was found that the elevator would cost more than was estimated. On looking into the matter it was ascertained that the specifications required the building of steel conductors of a very expensive type to two piers not yet built, and that expensive machinery beyond the needs of the port of Halifax was included. By the elimination of these features an elevator with a capacity of a million bushels, and machinery that would meet the requirements of the port of Halifax in every respect, could be constructed at a much lower figure.
In January last I discussed the matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I asked him if it was not possible to eliminate these features that were set out in the specifications and permit the lowest tenderer to take the contract cutting out these extra costs. The minister said to me "Mr. Finn, if it was my private business I would do that, but as a minister of the Crown I feel it my duty to call for new tenders and allow every tenderer an opportunity to bid again. That is cleaner business and would not and could not arouse suspicion." I agreed with the minister and he then told me that the Railway department would be asked to revise the plans. I asked only two things of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. One was that the capacity of the elevator should not be reduced. The other was that a provision should be inserted in the contract calling for the completion of the elevator by the close of navigation in the month of November or December next. I had the assurance of the minister that these two requests, which were fair and reasonable, would be accepted; and I was surprised tonight to hear him state that he was going to investigate the matter further and communicate with the city council and the board of trade at Halifax as to the location of the elevator.
Some years ago, when my right hon. friend opposite was a member of the Borden administration, plans and specifications for new

Supply-Grain Elevators
ocean terminals at the port of Halifax were piepared. That government disregarded absolutely the warnings of technical men and experienced marine authorities as to the location cf those terminals. Notwithstanding that advice, technical and general as it was, the sum of $18,000,000 was expended at the port of Halifax on these so-called terminals. The property taken for this purpose ran from one side of the city to the other. In the south end, our best residential district, the government bought at high figures property extending from South street down to Green Bank. The property taken included Mr. S. M. Brookfield's residence for which they paid him $76,000. The late government cleaned up too the residential section along that water front. Did they buy from the owners of these properties? No, sir, they did not. The word went forth to the Conservative party, and one of the leaders, one of the organizers, one of the men who were closely identified in business with a member of that administration, went round and took options on these properties, and they were sold to the government at advanced prices. When the hearing relative to this property was on in the Supreme Court a gentleman was asked under oath who the man was who had these options and he gave his name. It was that of a leading Conservative and an active organizer in the province of Nova Scotia.
These are the handicaps under which Halifax labours to-day. We have south end terminals and when a southeast wind blows ships are not able to lie alongside those berths but a tug has to pull them out into the stream. An artificial breakwater, which cost thousands of dollars, was placed there when natural breakwaters exist namely, MacNab's and George's islands. Furthermore, there is an inner harbour where pier number 2-which cost only a million-was built by the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding when he was Acting Min-i'ter of Railways to which all the great ships like the Aquitania, the Olympic, the Bergen-land, the Lapland, and other big vessels of from twenty-five thousand to thirty thousand tons could tie up. That is the heritage the party now led by my right hon. friend opposite left to the Liberal government. That is the state in which they left the port of Halifax with their expenditure of $18,000,000. In the plans and specifications for this development provision was made for an 10 p.m. elevator. That site is government property. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) say that he heard there were three sites available to the government on
which to erect this elevator. My hon. friend's statement is absolutely without foundation. There are no sites in Halifax available for an , elevator except two. One is a property in the north end and owned by the Railway department; the other is a site at the south end terminal also owned by the Railway department. hly hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) sought to convey the impression that interests were at work to effect a purchase that would result in private gain. There is no such site open for the elevator and no such condition existed at the port of Halifax in reference to the same.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member referred to certain purchases and Supreme court proceedings. How did they come to be in the Supreme court?


Robert Emmett Finn: They came into the Supreme court in connection with a suit that was brought regarding an option which had been obtained and which was not carried out. A writ was issued for specific performance in connection with the same.


Arthur Meighen: From the Exchequer
court to the Supreme court?	[DOT]


Robert Emmett Finn: tive for that constituency in this parliament, I will take the responsibility of saying that there is the site which has been accepted; there is also the fact that a million bushel elevator is to be built and at once. If these promises and assurances given me are not to be carried out, then I owe it first to my constituents, to myself as a public man and to the party of which I am a member, that unless these pledges are implemented by action, to say to the government-of which I am a supporter-that they will have to have some other person represent the constituency of Halifax in this House, because I will tender my resignation to the Prime Minister and go back to political dreams in my own good old city of Halifax.


Arthur Meighen: It may just be possible
that the government was fearing something of what the hon. member mentions and this accounts for the estimate being inserted. I want to make two or three remarks as to the words of the hon. gentleman, not, in the main, nor in a critical frame of mind. He quoted some words of mine, spoken in this House last session, and I must say for the moment I could not understand this quotation. I want to make clear to the committee now what the reference was. I knew that the present elevator was standing.


Robert Emmett Finn: I gathered my impression only from what my right hon. friend said. If he meant something different from what he said, I will agree with him.


Arthur Meighen: I meant exactly what I said. I knew the present elevator was standing and I could not refer to it in stating that I believed the elevator was burned down.


Robert Emmett Finn: What elevator was burned
down?


Arthur Meighen: The one before it. The hon. gentleman will see from my remarks that I had received a return regarding the matter, and looking through the return I had found that an elevator had been burned down. That is the one to which I referred.


Robert Emmett Finn: The right hon. member left
the House under the impression that there was no elevator.


Arthur Meighen: No. The hon. member knows the record of the elevator as I will show him in a minute. This is what I said last year:
The information I have is that there was an elevator there that had a little grain in it some years, and for some years none. I fancy it was burned down. Any 
way, it is not there now. I had a return on this the other day. I think it was used substantially just once. I believe it was partly built by the railway and partly by the city.
That would identify it to the hon. member as the elevator that was burned down. I am informed now directly by those who know, that it was built partly by the railway and partly, to the extent of, I understand, $50,000, by the city. The elevator in existence at present was not contributed to by the city at all.


Robert Emmett Finn: It must have been long before my oculars were working and they were working a long time ago when I was very young.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know about my hon. friend's oculars, but I know from hon. members of greater years and possibly as much knowledge that the elevator I referred to had existed there first.


Robert Emmett Finn: Perhaps the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), who is much older than I am, can recall and give the information to the committee.


Arthur Meighen: He just gave it to me.


William Anderson Black: I think what the right hon. member says is absolutely correct. There was an elevator there which was burned down.


Robert Emmett Finn: Before the present one was
built?


William Anderson Black: Yes.


Robert Emmett Finn: When?


William Anderson Black: At least twenty
years ago.


Robert Emmett Finn: Will the hon. gentleman undertake to tell me when that elevator was built and when it was burned down? The other day he said that he remembered playing with the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding when they were boys. Surely, if he can remember that, he can remember when the elevator was burned down.


William Anderson Black: That elevator was not burned down. It is standing there still.


Robert Emmett Finn: Which elevator is it that my hon. friend refers to that was burned down?


William Anderson Black: The first elevator that was built in the city of Halifax and to which the city of Halifax contributed was burned down.


Robert Emmett Finn: When was it built?

Supply-Grain Elevators


William Anderson Black: I have not the information at hand. I can get it for my hon. friend if it is of great importance to him.


Robert Emmett Finn: I should like to get it.


Arthur Meighen: I mentioned that just to show that I was not referring to the present elevator.


Robert Emmett Finn: I must say to my right hon. friend that I did not believe he was trying to mislead the House. I thought he was mistaken in his facts at the time. That was all.


Arthur Meighen: I evidently had before me some return. I want to make a little reference to what the hon. gentleman dragged in connected with the Halifax terminals.


Robert Emmett Finn: The right hon. gentleman dragged in a by-election.


Arthur Meighen: I am not complaining at all of this dragging in. Indeed, I rarely complain of anything. I do not profess great familiarity with the question. I was not a member of the government when the policy was decided upon. I mention that, though, only to explain that I am not as familiar with the matter as I otherwise would be. The part I want to refer to is the cost. The cost was great. My memory is fairly good at times, and a return which was brought down last session showed an outlay of approximately $16,000,000. The hon. member's figures were substantially over that.


Robert Emmett Finn: I said $18,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: The return I asked for
showed $16,000,000.


Robert Emmett Finn: I said $18,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister had said $30,000,000 previously, so I congratulate the hon. member on being infinitely more accurate at least than his leader.


Robert Emmett Finn: Thank you.


Arthur Meighen: I recognize the irony
of the reply because the hon. member must have been impressed in recent years with the utter abnormality of his leader in points of fact.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am getting to be great.


Arthur Meighen: Now, as to reasons for
the project. I do not doubt that there would be some engineers who would offer opposition; I have never heard of any project to which some engineers were not opposed while others were in favour of it. The balance of opinion I know was taken and I have received even recently very bitter complaints on the
part of eminent railway engineers of the failure to proceed with these works, on the ground that they are a real solution to the Halifax situation. As to which side is right and which is wrong I am sure I can give no opinion; if I did it would be utterly without any value. Suffice to say that whatever the hon. gentleman may have had in his mind there was nothing approaching graft or dishonesty in the matter. I believe that what he said was right, that in some way information as to the project got out, and there were certain properties acquired, or options secured thereon. But the Hon. Frank Cochrane took good care that these things were brought into the Exchequer court. He forced them' right through the Exchequer court and that is the very reason the facts referred' to camle out in that court and in the Supreme court to which appeal was made. It is just because Mr. Cochrane refused to submit to the prices asked for the property, by reason of these acquirements, that the matter went through the Exchequer court and finally to the Supreme court for decision. I have no more comment to make on the hon. member's speech than this:	I
entirely sympathize with him in his view that this project having been promised should be gone on with; it should be gone on with as a matter of good faith and not merely be held out as a bait to cover a by-election contingency. I was surprised at the figures which were quoted. I did not want to pour ridicule on the project in asking the hon. member for the figures for 1923; I wanted it for that year, as I want it for 1922 and 1921, year by year, in order to see just what has been the history of the port, especially of late.


Mr. MILNE:: I rather hesitate to say
very much after we have had one of our periodic scoldings from our would-be tutors on the right.


Arthur Meighen: To whom is the hon.
hon. gentleman referring? Is he referring to myself? If he is, I want to tell him that I was not scolding him nor anyone else; as a matter of fact I had not observed him.


Robert Milne: If the shoe does not fit the
hon. gentleman need not put it on.


Arthur Meighen: Be a man and say what you mean.


Robert Milne: When this item was brought qp I considered it to be in the interests of the development of our Dominion trade; and after the words of my hon. friend (Mr. Baxter), the significance of which I must
Supply-Grain Elevators

confess was hard to grasp, I rather gathered that he wanted the two old parties to get together-I think that was the drift of his remarks. I am afraid if they did Halifax might get two elevators. I heard the suggestion the other day that if the dry docks in St. John were moved to Halifax and a roof put on them they might be used for an elevator. As regards the elevator at Halifax, we have spent a couple of hours in discussing the item. I have jotted down the reasons which have been advanced in support of the proposed undertaking. One of these reasons is apparently political. I will avoid discussing that. Another reason has been dwelt upon at some length; it is that the work should be done from the standpoint of patriotism. Anyone who has ventured to dispute the * wisdom of this sacred item for the Maritime provinces has been charged practically with disloyalty; at any rate that has been the insinuation. Now, I yield second place to no one in the fervor of my patriotism and my Canadianiem, and I certainly resent any insinuation or innuendo to the effect that hon. gentlemen from the West are not as truly Canadian and as truly patriotic as our Maritime friends. Another reason why the elevator should be built, it has been suggested by one of the hon. gentlemen from Halifax, is that this structure would constitute a fine monument to some of our noted public men who have come from that part of the country. If the hon. member wishes to erect a monument to any of those great statesmen and is prepared to discuss the proposal on its merit I am perfectly willing to come across and assist in any way I can.


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. member is referring
to myself; I never made any such statement as he attributes to me. I did not say that the building of an elevator would provide a monument to public men.


Robert Milne: I gathered from the remarks of the hon. gentleman that as Nova Scotia had contributed these great statesmen to the public life of the country that was one of the reasons why the elevator should be built.


Robert Emmett Finn: I did not say that.


Robert Milne: If I am mistaken in that
regal d I must apologise to the hon. gentleman.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well, you are.


Robert Milne: Yet another reason was that the elevator would be the means of providing ballast for the ships. Looking over the shipping figures in a book which I happened to be reading to-day in connection with ship-Mr. Milne.]
ping, I came across certain facts. I got the book from the Bureau of Statistics, and I am rather reluctant about giving figures taken from any statistics, because my experience in the last few days has convinced me that one may secure figures to support almost any contention. However, the figures I have would indicate that in connection with Halifax there is about four times the tonnage going out from the port of Halifax as there is coming in. The minister; might be good enough to tell us why it is necessary to carry ballast to that port when there is about four times as much tonnage going out as there is coming in. The hon. member for Halifax also made the suggestion that ocean vessels could carry grain from Halifax at a cheaper rate. I admit that and I think the government should make an effort to see that the vessels carrying grain from our ports should give a lower rate to Halifax than to Boston.


Robert Emmett Finn: I want to remind the hon.
member that there are two members for Halifax. He is referring constantly to the member for Halifax; which of them does he mean?


Robert Milne: I am referring to the senior member for Halifax. He made the statement that about a day is saved in going to Halifax and that it is unfair that the railway companies should be made to carry grain that extra distance at the same rate, while vessel owners take grain a shorter distance and for the same rate. I understand that the insurance is considerably higher to Halifax than to United States ports; and as freight comes up the St. Lawrence river the rate increases. From the point of view of damages involved,
I can find no reason why the rate should be so high on the St. Lawrence. If the government in addition to building elevators and encouraging trade could press that point and secure a reduced rate on ocean transportation and a reduction in insurance rates, it would be of considerable advantage.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have already stated to the
committee that the matter is being investigated.


Robert Milne: I believe that by letting in
daylight on the steamboat and insurance rates and making them public property a wholesome effect will be produced which will result in a more equitable equalization. Why do we have to carry ballast to Halifax when nearly four times the tonnage goes out that comes in?

Supply-Grain Elevators


Thomas Andrew Low: A very large portion of the
freight shipped from Halifax will not serve as ballast at all.


Mr. GOULD:: What is the tariff charge
on wheat placed in the elevator at Halifax, and what does the charge cover?


Thomas Andrew Low: In 1921-22 no wheat was shipped through Halifax; in 1922-23, 300 bushels were shipped,


Arthur Meighen: The senior member for
Halifax (Mr. Finn) gave 2,000,000 bushels odd as the amount shipped between 1921 and 1924.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have given the figures as contained in the report of the Board of Grain Commissioners. I have nothing here to show the rate per bushel, but I am sure that the cost of handling 300 bushels must have been very high indeed.


Oliver Robert Gould: What I want to ascertain is the usual per bushel charge at a terminal elevator located, say, at Halifax or St. John.


Robert Emmett Finn: In reply to my right hon.
friend, the figures I received from the department of Trade and Commerce are as follows:
Bushels
1920	 1,920,600
1921		 199,000
1922		 none
1923	 300
1924		 none
From 1920 to 1924 the total is something over 2,000,000 bushels.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad to see that all but a very infinitesimal part was handled under the late government.


Robert Emmett Finn: No grain has been shipped in
these last years owing to the fact that the new terminals at the south end practically cut off the old terminal and it was impossible to get in any very big shipments of grain. At present there is practically only one track leading into the old terminal.


Arthur Meighen: The change was made long before 1920.


Robert Emmett Finn: With the building of the new terminals the piers from which grain was shipped were partly abandoned, and I am advised that they are not now in a condition to have big shipments tie up to them.


Arthur Meighen: They must have gone
into disrepair since 1920.


Robert Emmett Finn: I would think so.


Arthur Meighen: They should have been kept in repair.


Robert Emmett Finn: We could not get the necessary money from the railway.


Arthur Meighen: Nor from the government?


Robert Emmett Finn: The government had not direct control. Action was taken on the advice of Mr. Hanna, and as the general manager of the division was at that time located in Toronto, we hardly got anything in Halifax.


Arthur Meighen: I think that is probably the explanation.


Thomas Andrew Low: In answer to my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) may I say that last night when the elevators were under discussion I had the report of the Canadian Grain Board at hand, but to-night, not thinking the rates would be under discussion, I did not bring it with me. If the hon. member will secure a copy of that report he will find particulars of the various charges.


Oliver Robert Gould: I have the information here. I find that at the port of Halifax just exactly twice the tariff is charged as is in force at the head of the lakes. The computation given at the head of the lakes as a fair, cost figure to be used on handling is $50,000 per million bushel capacity, which would work out at one-half cent a bushel. I wondered if that included explosive insurance and ten days' free storage as at all the Atlantic ports. I know explosive insurance is a specific charge against grain at tidewater.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is one of the items to which I referred last night as not being included in the charges against the elevators. I am sorry that I have not the report with me to-night.


William Anderson Black: It has been reported in the press that the cost of the ocean terminals at Halifax was as high as $40,000,000, while another statement placed it at $30,000,000. I took occasion to write the Department of Railways for information on the point, and the deputy minister advises me as follows:
The capital cost of the ocean terminals at Halifax to April 16, 1924, is $17,025,432.09.
Against that there is real estate to the value of about $400,000, earning a fairly good rental; there is perhaps $150,000 of real estate which is unproductive; in addition some 88 acres of land have been reclaimed, the value of which I am not prepared to state definitely, but supposing it to be worth $5,000 an acre-the aggregate value reduces the cost of the terminals to about $16,000,000. I make this statement to correct any false impression which may have been created by the exaggerated reports regarding the cost of these terminals.
Supply-Grain Elevators

My hon. friend (Mr. Finn) seems in doubt whether or not one of the elevators at Halifax was burned down. I will satisfy him on that point if he wishes me to do so.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am not in doubt about its having been burned down; I only want to know when.


William Anderson Black: Well, I will tell you.


Robert Emmett Finn: I have patience.


William Anderson Black: The fact is that
notwithstanding all the promises which have been made to us on the eve of elections in Halifax with regard to elevators and shipments of grain, the people were too sensible to take them seriously. They knew that the promises of hon. gentlemen opposite had a habit of falling down. The expenditure of a few thousand dollars would have resulted in putting that elevator in such order that it would handle a certain amount of grain which would have been gladly accepted by steamship companies operating out of Halifax. They could have handled quite a large quantity of grain at very little cost. The boats of the merchant marine, instead of lying idle, could have been employed in carrying this grain to the markets of Europe. But what was done? Absolutely nothing; the elevator was allowed to lie idle. No desire was shown, no attempt was made, to create traffic through the port of Halifax. We have here to-day an appropriation for a paltry $200,000 towards an elevator and the statement from the minister that the plans are still under consideration, seven months after tenders were called on plans that had only to be revised. But even if the plans had been new, surely seven months was sufficient to enable the government to have the work of construction proceeded with. Had that been done, had the government been in earnest, we would have had a grain trade through the port of Halifax for the coming winter and arrangements could have been made with steamship companies to carry it in conjunction with the light traffic which is obtained there in the shipment of apples and other products. Had that been done we would be in a position next winter to make a beginning in the opening up of that trade, with, I am sure, wonderful prospects for the future.


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall be very glad to take
into consideration the suggestion of my hon. friend that the present elevator might serve the purpose by being repaired.


Mr. HANSON:: He did not make that
suggestion.


William Anderson Black: No.


Oliver Robert Gould: I cannot discern what are
the real reasons offered by the members for Halifax in connection with this elevator. I am not sure that they are patriotic reasons, neither am I sure that they are business reasons. I do not think that enough grain will ever go down that way to make a very large elevator at Halifax a satisfactory business proposition. The president of the Canadian National Railways may well be trusted to see that such amount of wheat is shipped through the port of Halifax as may be considered desirable or necessary. One has only to read the reports of former governments to find out what the relative values of the different ports have been in the past in this respect. The Halifax elevator has had a storage capacity of 500,000 bushels and the St. John elevator, 2,500,000 bushels. At Montreal the elevator has a capacity of 9,000,000 bushels. I asked a question a moment ago about the tariff charges, and I find that they are the same at all these plaoes. We are asked merely to provide traffic for the railroad down to Halifax, not, in my humble opinion, for business reasons. It is quite possible that the excess might go to Halifax if there is congestion at other ports; if St. John was overloaded with grain Halifax might take care of some of it. In that respect I do not object to seeing grain go down that way, but it will need some argument to convince me that the construction of a large elevator at Halifax would be a business proposition, or that it would be beneficial to the railways, to shipping, or to the individual persons who produce the grain. In every instance, according to the information I have received, the cost of these elevators is a charge against the grain; the grain pays it. That is admitted by the official sources from which I got my information. I am not going to oppose the item, but if it were proposed to construct an elevator of huge capacity at Halifax the House would be justified in raising strong objection.


William Anderson Black: I would like to
make myself clearly understood in regard to this elevator. I did not say that the old elevator was sufficient for the requirements of the port, or that it would handle the grain that should be handled there; it is old fashioned and out of date. What I wanted to suggest was that if the government were in earnest with regard to the establishing of a

Supply-Trade and Commerce
grain trade through the port of Halifax a beginning could be made with what we have there until improved facilities could be obtained. I did not suggest that the present building be put in such condition that it would take the place of a new one; its capacity is not large enough and the cost of modernizing it would not, in my opinion, be justified. It might, however, be used as a temporary means of handling grain.


John Evans: Not one economic reason
has yet been forthcoming from the minister or from anybody else as to the need for this elevator. It looks to me like a waste of public money. The cost of every elevator is a charge against the grain. The price is made in Liverpool, and whatever it costs to get it there from the grain fields is a charge against the farmer. We already have an elevator at Halifax of sufficient capacity to handle all the grain that will go through there. The Minister of Railways says we need wheat for ballast, but the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Milne) successfully contradicted that statement. There is more freight leaving Halifax seaward than goes in there.


Thomas Andrew Low: My answer to the question of
the hon. member for Neepawa was that a large proportion of the freight carried from Halifax to England and other countries was not of a nature that would be suitable for ballast purposes.


John Evans: We have also an elevator
at Quebec which is never used to its full capacity. We have several inland storage elevators, and there has been a debt on these annually-


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend knows the
Quebec elevator cannot be used in the winter time.


John Evans: No, but we have an elevator at Halifax, and it is no longer needed in the winter, as the amount that went through there last year goes to show. Since the port of Vancouver is being developed no grain goes east now in the winter, and the elevator at Halifax is only a waste of money. All these elevators that are not being used to their capacity at the present time, and which could be used for storage, are a charge against the farmers' grain. There is a deficit of from $16,000 to $25,000 each year against every one of these elevators in the prairie provinces. We are building another one now at Edmonton, and I only hope that it may be used to its capacity. The port of Vancouver is our natural outlet in the winter months, and I maintain this Halifax elevator is not needed.


Robert Milne: Is the wheat that is carried from Halifax carried at ballast rates, or are the Canadian National Railways expected to absorb that charge, and hand the grain over to the shipping interests to be used by them for ballast and charged the full cargo rate.


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend knows anything about ocean rates he knows that the shipper in Canada has nothing to do with fixing them. Whether the rate is two or three or ten cents, it is fixed by the vessel owners, and sometimes in order to get ballast the boats will carry grain at a ridiculously low figure.


Robert Milne: Regarding the effort that
is being made to have rates registered, was this matter put before the chairman of the Imperial Shipping Committee when he visited Canada this spring?


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend read the newspaper reports he must have seen that the Imperial Shipping Committee visited Canada at the request of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Robert Milne: That does not exactly answer my question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Inland Water Freight Rates Act, administration of, $5,000.
Arthur Meighen: Why is $5,000 needed to administer an act that the minister himself, without authority virtually repealed?


Thomas Andrew Low: Last year there was spent in connection with the administration of this act the sum of $3,238,65; for travelling expenses, $1,234.67; professional services, $1,592.71; telegrams and telephone calls, $288.63; sundries, $122.64.


Arthur Meighen: That is very interesting, but it has no relation to my question. I do not doubt there was money spent last year for telegrams, telephone calls, and travelling expenses, but those were all telegrams and telephone calls in order to arrange some method of getting around the act. The minister knows that. That was one of his chief troubles last year. He had an awful time with this act which was bedevilling the whole lake freight situation, and he had the job of his life to find some means of getting around it, and all this telegraphing and telephoning was done trying to work it out. The return is down on the Table, and it is a beautiful return. It tells all about the efforts made to get these people to come in, and how they would not do it because of his act; how Mr. Boyd went down; how the minister was

Supply-Trade and Commerce
telegraphed to meet some American shipowners in the corridor of a hotel, and how he postponed and finally got there. All these expenses I know had to be gone to. That was one of the penalties, but a trivial penalty of the act. The main penalty was paid by the shippers in western Canada; the main penalty was paid by the farmers who raised the grain. The question I am asking is why in the world do we need more money to administer the act in the coming year when the minister has managed to get rid of it by an interpretation? Is he really going to spend any more money on that act? If just because it is on the statute book you have to have a vote to administer it, you had better repeal it; it would be cheaper.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my right hon. friend mean it would be better to repeal the act for the sake of $5,000, an act that serves the purpose of helping the agriculturists of this country-


Arthur Meighen: Where does it help them?


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend says the rates were higher last year than the year before, and I quoted him figures sufficient, I think, to show that the rate last fall was only a trifle higher than the year before when the act was not in effect. So far as running around the country is concerned, it was worth running around the country for what was accomplished.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think it is worth keeping the act in order to get the rate up a little higher, even if he is right in his figures?


Thomas Andrew Low: There were many things which entered into the situation last fall. We had a very large crop, and when there is plenty of cargo offering, vessels are inclined to raise the rates as high as the traffic will stand. The hon. member knows the rates are fixed by the amount of cargo offering. The vessel owners usually fix the rates.


Arthur Meighen: What is the act for, if
they fix the rates?


Thomas Andrew Low: The act provides that when
the Canada Grain Board consider the rate is too high they step in and fix a rate. Fortunately last fall, notwithstanding the large amount to be carried, the rates were only a trifle higher than the year before when the act that my right hon. friend condemns was not in effect. So far as running about to meet people in Winnipeg or anywhere else is concerned no place is too far for me to go if I think I can accomplish anything for the good of any section of the country-Winnipeg, Vancouver, or Halifax.


Arthur Meighen: I commend the minister's honesty in smiling when he was making that statement. He knows this act is a farce, a howling farce. The minister knows he has expressed his opinion about it in language just about as strong as that. It is not a question of what the rates were all through the year. The rates dropped after the minister got rid of the act, in the early part of October.


Thomas Andrew Low: Let me correct my right hon.
friend. We did not get rid of the act, not at all. Again I say, I accepted the interpretation of a lawyer.


Arthur Meighen: What lawyer?


Thomas Andrew Low: The chairman of the Canada
Grain Board, a gentleman appointed by my right hon. friend. Surely he has confidence in him.


Arthur Meighen: An interpretation the
minister told him to put on it. The thing is a joke. What is the use really of making a farce of things. The minister knows as well as that he is sitting in his seat that no human being thinks the act means the interpretation given by the Canada Grain Board. The chairman no more thinks it, would not say it, never said so to the minister- he no more thinks it than this glass thinks it.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my right hon. friend
think that the chairman appointed by himself would try to mislead the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Arthur Meighen: No, and never did. He
just evaded it.


Thomas Andrew Low: He simply told me that was
the interpretation he placed upon the act.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend must think he is talking to a child.


Thomas Andrew Low: Oh, no, I do not.


Arthur Meighen: Why was the interpretation not put upon it until on in October? The thing is a joke. The interpretation is merely a means of annulling the act.


Thomas Andrew Low: Up to that time there was no reason for considering the act at all; the rates were all right. It was only when the grain movement started in October, that it was found necessary to look into the Grain Act to put the broadest interpretation on it in order to secure sufficient bottoms. It started moving about the first of October and continued to the end of November. However, this whole matter will be under discussion

Supply-Trade and Commerce
when the resolution comes up to amend the Lake Freights Act. It will be moved tomorrow, and then my right hon. friend will have an opportunity of discussing it.


Arthur Meighen: I know, but what I am drawing attention to is this: With the whole heart and blood out of the act the rest of it is just a shell. The shell is being preserved for mere appearance sake and we are paying 85,000 to help preserve that appearance. Does my hon. friend imagine for a moment that the amendment that is coming down is going to bring the act back to the same principle that was embodied in it? It is not. This vote ought to be cut out. I do not think any hon. member wants that act on the principle that was instilled into it and remained in it until this scheme of interpreting the act in order to get rid of it was adopted by the department. It was wholly unauthorized, but I think it helped to save the situation.
I think the reduction was due to the annulment, but what a cry of autocracy would have been raised if anybody else had done it. Never in the history of legislation was an act like that perpetrated by a government. But sometimes when the act itself is so monstrous the method of getting rid of it must be equally monstrous.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I should like to point out that getting rid of the act did not altogether fix up the rates either.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it did
altogether.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: In October the rate was 4.33. Then in November, I think the act was scrapped by that time-


Arthur Meighen: It was scrapped.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: -it was down to 3.87 and in December it had gone back again to 4.72.


Arthur Meighen: I think generally speaking the level after the act was scrapped was almost the same but a little higher than the year before. The year before was one of the highest years we have ever had.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The rate to Georgian bay ports appears to be a little less in that year. I ask the minister if he is quoting his figures from this book "The Grain Trade of Canada"? I notice his figures hardly compare with those that are in this book.


Thomas Andrew Low: The figures I quoted with
reference to what?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I am asking the minister whether he got his figures from "The Grain Trade of Canada"? The figures he has been quoting are not the same as the figures in this book.


Thomas Andrew Low: What figures is my hon. friend
referring to?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: You stated that the
figures in 1923 were less than in 1922.


Thomas Andrew Low: The figures I have here are for the seven months in 1923. From Fort William to Port Colbome the rate was 4.09 as against 4.36 to Buffalo for the same period the previous year. It is scarcely fair for my hon. friend to pick out one particular month and compare it with another month; he ought to take the average for the season. However, if my hon. friend will refer to the average rate each month during the shipping season he will find that the rates were slightly lower for the seven months in 1923 than for the seven months of the previous year.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The figures I quoted were the average figures.
. Mr. LOW: What is the average figure for the seven months of 1923?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: To Georgian bay ports?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes to Georgian bay ports.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The rate is 4.07.


Thomas Andrew Low: The average rate for the seven months amounted to 3.63 according to my figures.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The figures I have are
for nine months.


Thomas Andrew Low: My figures are only for seven
months, I do not think the boats operate for nine months. The figures I have are up to the end of November, 1923. They are the latest figures I have. I repeat that for the seven months the average rate to Port Colbome was 4.09 as against 4.36 to Buffalo.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: This book gives the rate to Buffalo as 4.42.


Thomas Andrew Low: Perhaps my hon. friend is not
referring to the same year.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It is the year 1923.


Thomas Andrew Low: Is my hon. friend referring to
the fiscal year or the calendar year? The book he has may be dealing with the calendar year.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It starts out with the
rate for April and gives the rates down to December inclusive. The average rate is given for all these months.


Thomas Andrew Low: At what page are the figures
given?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: At page 175.


Thomas Andrew Low: The rate I have here for the
eight months of navigation during the year 1923 to Georgian bay ports is 4.07. To Buffalo for the same year the rate was 4.42, so the Buffalo rate is higher by 11 p.m. .35. The rate from Fort William to Port Colbome amounted to 4.24 as against a rate of 4.42 to Buffalo. In each case the rate to the Canadian port last year was lower than the rate to the American port. I am reading from the page my hon. friend gave. Am I right?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: You have quoted correctly but the rates you now give differ from those you gave a little while ago.


Thomas Andrew Low: The only difference is that I
was quoting the rate for seven months. In this report the figures are for eight months, that is the only difference.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I do not know what the difference was but there certainly was a difference. I point out to the minister that during the months the grain is moving the rates are high. In July and August the rates are away down to 2i to 3 cents but there is little grain moving then. In the fall and spring months when there is quite a volume of grain movement, the rates are largely in excess of the average rate which the minister has been giving.


Thomas Andrew Low: Plenty of cargo is offering in
those months.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gold and Silver Marking Act, $6,MO.
Arthur Meighen: How much was spent
last year?


Thomas Andrew Low: The expenditures has run about the same from 1917-18 to 1923-24. The expenditure in 1917-18 was $3,878.10; in 1922-23, $3,737.34 and in 1923-24, $3,751.38.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Honorary Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research, $120,000.
Arthur Meighen: This is apparently, from its history, a merely formal vote, never spent.


Thomas Andrew Low: The vote is the same, but the amount is spent.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent
last year?


Thomas Andrew Low: The whole amount.


Arthur Meighen: What was done with it?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Research Council carries
on very important work. One-third of the amount is for the purpose of administration and the balance is for fellowships, studentships, bursaries and research work.


Mr. WALLACE:: Is this vote the only
source of income for the council?


Thomas Andrew Low: There is some other revenue,
but it does not go to the Research Council, it goes to the treasury.


John Alexander Wallace: My question is:	Has
the council any other source of revenue besides this vote for carrying on its work?


Thomas Andrew Low: The chairman is at present
president of the University of Alberta, but I understand that sooner or later he will devote his entire time to this work. The officers, apart from the clerks and minor officials, do not draw any salaries at all. Their expenses are paid to them.


John Alexander Wallace: This is a large item, and perhaps the committee might have some information as to the chief activities of the council. I am not opposed to the vote. I rather think it is a good thing.


Thomas Andrew Low: 
Mr. HOEY:: Is there an. annual report published covering the work of the council?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Has there been any
achievement of major importance by the Research Council to date

I mean any scientific application to industry which has really produced substantial results? That is one question I want to ask the minister. The second question is this:	Has the minister or the
government anything in contemplation in the way of extension?


Thomas Andrew Low: In connection with the lobster
industry there has been a' very important discovery. Heretofore in the packing of lobsters it was found that a rust developed in the course of shipments but I understand that a process has been discovered whereby this can be effectually prevented. This is one achievement I have in mind.


Arthur Meighen: That would be important and I am glad of it if the minister's statement
i.s correct. I had not heard of it. Has it been applied in actual commerce?


Thomas Andrew Low: I think so.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was at one time a specialist in lobsters; he has no interest in the business now. Perhaps the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Sinclair) could tell us something about this matter; I did not hear of it when visiting any factories. Is it a recent discovery? It may not yet have got into the channels of commerce.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: Three years
ago our lobster canners lost a very large proportion of their pack, the lobsters having turned black in the can after they had been packed a few months. The market that year did not absorb the output as readily as it had
done some years previously and the pack had to be held a few months longer. The Research Council went into the matter thoroughly and as a result of their investigations they discovered that by the addition of a very small amount of certain acetic acids to each can of lobster deterioration was altogether prevented and the meat was preserved for a considerable period. So far this method has proved effective and has been applied by several of the large companies who operate lobster factories around the shores of the Maritime provinces. During the past season or two a considerable number of packers have applied it with almost entire satisfaction, and the result of the investigations of the Research Council in that direction has benefited the lobster packing industry to a marked extent. Had. this discovery been made three or four years ago it would have saved to those who have large sums invested in canning plants, and who are obliged to lay out a good deal of money before the season begins, several thousands of dollars each year, not to mention the benefit to smaller factories who have also lost a good deal. These smaller factories did not feel quite able to apply the new method as soon as it was discovered; had they done so they would undoubtedly have saved a good deal. This one discovery alone justifies the very existence of the Research Council in my opinion.


Thomas Andrew Low: It has been estimated that in
that one industry alone there is a saving ot
S350,000	annually.


Arthur Meighen: This discovery was made in 1921.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not remember just when


John Ewen Sinclair: About that
time.


Thomas Andrew Low: A new industry is also starting
up now as a result of research on sulphite.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, there has been a discovery in relation to the production of sulphite.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not the details but a discovery has been made in that direction.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad of these
discoveries especially of the one in relation to lobster preservation, which should be of value. The minister has not yet answered the last question I asked him. Has the government in mind any work in the way of extension? I know that in later years of the
1.500
3.000
2.000
1,000
2,000
5,000
2.500
Supply-Trade and Commerce

old government the strongest pressure was brought to bear to have the institution established on a much more permanent basis, especially in regard to the provision of a building. Has the minister any plans?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have not considered any plans yet. A bill may be presented before the close of the session to permit the Research Council to accept fees in connection with the work they perform for industry. Under the present law they are not allowed to accept directly any fees or make any charges.


William Alves Boys: Was last year's appropriation ill spent?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inquiry re ocean freight rates, $10,000.
Mr. BANCROFT:: I would direct the attention of the minister to the excessive freight rates charged on cattle shipments to the Old Country. The figure still remains at $25 a head to Dundee and $20 to other British ports. Since the lifting of the cattle embargo against Canadian cattle the farmers of this country have been encouraged to increase the production of cattle for this trade. The tendency to increase herds of this type has however received a serious setback by the excessive charges levied in ocean transportation, and unless these cattle can be shipped at something like $10 a head the farmers may as well abandon all idea of participating in any way in this valuable branch of agricultural exportation. This is not a western matter only; it affects nearly every province in Canada. In its general effects the export trade of cattle is of even greater value to the country than the exportation of wheat because the raising of wheat for export purposes can only be carried on successfully in districts that are peculiarly suited to its production. But the raising or finishing of cattle for export can be carried on, on almost every farm in Canada. Therefore this is a very serious problem and deserves the most careful attention of the government.
If it is not possible to bring ocean freight rates down to a reasonable figure, the farmers may as well be informed of the fact so that they will not continue to waste their resources and their energies in an endeavour to produce cattle for export. The crux of the problem is to find out what it costs to transport cattle to the British markets. It has long been asserted that freight can be transported seven miles by water at the same cost as one mile by rail. The correctness of this assertion is shown by the fact that freight can be shipped from Montreal to

Vancouver by the Panama all water route, over 7000 miles, and then east to Regina, another 1100 miles by rail, at a lower cost than by rail from Montreal to Regina, a distance of 1780 miles. The conclusion therefore is unavoidable that where there is competition ocean rates are approximately one-seventh railway rates. But in the transportation of cattle from Winnipeg to British ports we find that the charge to Montreal is about one-half of the charge for carrying the same cattle across the ocean. In other words, the ocean rate is twice that of the rail rate, although before the war it was less than one-half. Since 1914 railway rates on cattle have increased 40 per cent, while ocean rates have increased 166 per cent, and this in spite of the well-known fact that a great portion of the world's shipping is now lying idle. If these ocean rates on cattle are justified by the cost of service, the sooner the farmer finds another export market the better; otherwise his only alternative is to abandon his efforts to raise cattle for export. But the suspicion is widespread that these rates cannot be justified and that the business of transporting cattle to Great Britain is in the grip of a relentless combine. It is to be regretted that the Imperial Shipping Committee presided over by Sir Halford Mackinder was not empowered to investigate this situation thoroughly. It is undoubtedly the duty of the government to get at the facts. It has been suggested that in order to determine the cost of transportation, and to maintain our cattle trade with Great Britain, the Canadian government should charter ten or a dozen steamers suited for the purpose, and transport Canadian cattle at pre-war rates. Now, the Canadian farmer is not asking that this trade be maintained at the expense of the taxpayers generally; that would not be fair I am sure. But if the government were to engage in this traffic for a while in the manner suggested, the feasibility or otherwise of maintaining this trade on a profitable basis would be demonstrated.


Mr LOW:: In reply to my hon .friend, I
may say that Sir Halford Mackinder was advised that we wished the ocean rates on cattle to be investigated. With this in view we communicated with the Board of Trade, the city council, and other prominent men of both Winnipeg and Montreal. At the present time this very important matter, along with others, is receiving the attention of a special representative in England, and I hope during the recess to investigate the matter myself, because I fully realize that nothing will help agriculture more than to ensure to the farmer

Supply-Trade and Commerce
a larger return from, his cattle than he has been receiving for the last few years. Before the session closes I hope to demonstrate in a practical way that I am trying to do something in this direction and I will then place before parliament the proposals I have in mind in order that hon. members may decide whether they should be adopted.


Mr. SALES:: Who is the special representative now in England?


Thomas Andrew Low: Mr. Preston.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Is the minister convinced that the export cattle business cannot be carried on at the present transportation rates?


Thomas Andrew Low: I had several meetings in this country with the representatives of the vessel owners and on each occasion they stated that it was utterly impossible to lower the rates, pointing out as one reason that the costs of dock-handling were as high as the peak during the war, and they informed me that the men were making a demand for a further increase in wages.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: We very much appreciate the statement of the minister and look forward with some hope at least to a successful termination of his efforts. In endorsation of the remark by the hon. member for Selfkirk (Mr. Bancroft) I would point out the remarkable increase in cost and what it implies. The raising of the British cattle embargo brought a feeling of relief and inspired a good deal of hope in the hearts of the farmers, but I am afraid they have found that that embargo was only removed in order that a freight embargo might be substituted. The increase in transportation costs has been almost incomprehensible to us. Before the war cattle were carried from Montreal to English ports at an average ocean rate of $7.50 per head; since the war and at the present time the rate is $20 to the western ports and $25 to the eastern ports of England-an increase, as my hon. friend said, of 166 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: Did the $7.50 rate apply to both eastern and western ports?


Alfred Speakman: Yes, in pre-war times.
Now, we quite understand that marine costs have risen since pre-war days, but we cannot believe that they have risen proportionately to any greater extent than railway costs of operation. There are fewer men employed in connection with ocean transportation, and in many ways the expenses are less than those incurred by our railways, and therefore I cannot see why the ocean rates should be any higher 218
in proportion than railway rates. At the present time it actually costs $10.20 to move a 1,200-pound1 steer-which is about the average for export-from Winnipeg to Montreal, a distance of 1,411 miles, while to move the same steer 2,060 miles by water costs from $20 to $25. In other words, the rates are almost the same per mile by water as they are by land. It is well known that water carriage is infinitely cheaper than land carriage, so that this state of affairs is to my mind unjustifiable. I cannot believe that these rates can be justified by the costs invilved. As I say, we are looking forward with some hope to a real improvement in these conditions through the negotiations and investigations being carried on and through the efforts of the minister and his department. If the present embargo on our cattle to the United States continues and if the present freight embargo to Great Britain continues, our live stock industry, the most important in the whole country, will be destroyed.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my hon. friend know
whether the shipper of cattle from Winnipeg has to provide the feed used on the trip? As I understand it the ocean liners provide the feed.


Alfred Speakman: The shipper of the
stock provides the feed in either case; the ocean carriers carry the feed free. There is a grievance in that connection. The feed is carried on the exposed deck, and in rough weather, particularly when the water is washing across the decks, the feed is frequently ruined.


Thomas Sales: I wish to corroborate what
the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) have said with regard to the precarious situation of the cattle raiser in western Canada. Unless some relief is given there is only one thing for me to do, as I said the other night, and that is to advise these men that there is no hope for them to continue in the business. When I say that they have been writing down the value of their cattle to the extent of 60 per cent below what it was a few years ago, hon. members will realize the seriousness of the condition they are in. I am pleased to hear that there is a special representative inquiring into this matter of ocean rates. The special committee on Agriculture dealt with it last year and I came to the conclusion then that there was no hope of the owners of ocean vessels reducing the rates voluntarily. I do not know just
REVISEn EDITION

Supply-Trade and Commerce
what we	can do.	If	we	attempt tofix rates,	then the	ocean	going menwill say,	"Well, we	will	not	go to yourport of Montreal."	I	do	not	see how we
can control them. That is why I raised the question the other night with regard to chilled beef-whether it would not be more advantageous to the farmers of this country to ship their beef dead than to ship it alive. I hope the minister will devote some attention to that question. I hope also that representations will be made to the government of Great Britain on the question of discrimination between one dominion and another. I was in the Old Country; I was in Birkenhead and I saw cattle from Ireland there, side by side with cattle from Canada. I saw scabs of cows from Ireland that could go anywhere in England while our fine steers could not move unless some representative of the Department of Agriculture said they could go. With him was the decision whether our steers were store steers or fat steers, the decision was not with the man who wanted to buy them. If this official of the English Department of Agriculture said they were fat, they had to be slaughtered at Birkenhead; if he said they were stores they were permitted to go into the country and be fed for a short time. To my mind that is altogether wrong. The man who is purchasing the cattle should be allowed to say whether he is purchasing them for slaughter or whether in his opinion they are fit to be fed for five, six, seven or eight weeks longer. I raised this point directly with the official, and he said, "Well, this is the law and I cannot alter it." I do hope that representations will be made to the home government on this point. Perhaps it is a matter that the special representative at present making investigations in the Old Country should take up. If there is to be discrimination between dominions, the right hon. leader of the opposition will no doubt recognize and will express better than I can what it may lead to in the future. I can only reiterate my opinion that unless something is done very quickly to relieve the situation the only thing the farmer in the West can do is go out of business. I have always thought that the railways could assist. There is a milling-intransit rate for the miller who handles western wheat; the minister will know all about it, as he is interested in the milling business. I have always been of the opinion there should be an in-transit charge for feeding cattle for export. For instance, an Ontario farmer buys cattle in the West; he intends feeding them for three or four months and then exporting them. Why should he not have the same 
privilege of a one cent per hundred pound stop-over rate, then shipping through to Montreal on the through rate, that the miller has for stopping wheat and converting it into flour, then shipping it on the milling-intransit rate? I think that would help considerably in the marketing of our cattle from the West to the feeder in Ontario who wants to go into the business but who now finds that the local freight rate from Winnipeg to his station and the freight rate from his station again to Montreal is practically prohibitive. These are the things to which I think the government should devote its attention if it earnestly desires to assist the stock grower of the West.


Mr. LEADER:: With regard to the situation of the cattle growers of western Canada, and particularly with reference to the question of transportation, which has arisen to-night, I had prepared some figures and had intended to speak on the live stock item in that regard, but I shall make a few comments under this item. The Minister of Trade and Commerce expressed a doubt a moment ago whether the farmers paid for the feed carried for the cattle during their transport.


Thomas Andrew Low: I did not express any doubt;
I simply asked the question.


Harry Leader: I wish to read a statement which was published in the Manitoba Free Press and which will show the actual charge that the farmer has to pay. The statement is as follows:
Detailed Statement of Cost of Shipping
Statement of cost of shipping 1,200 pound steer from Calgary to Britain, based on 21 steers to car from Calgary to Montreal, with an off-car weight of 1,085 pounds per steer at Montreal at a rate of

Calgary-
Sand and bedding, $1 per car	$ .05
Disinfecting car, 75	cents	034
Moose Jaw-
Labour (unloading $1,	loading	$1)	094Feed, 20 lbs. hay in	yard	per	steer	25Feed, 20 lbs. hay in	car per	steer	25
Winnipeg-
Labour	094
Feed in yard	23
Feed in cars	23
Fort William-
Labour	094
Feed in car	25
Chapleau-
Labour	094
Feed in car	25
North Bay-
Labour	094
Feed in car	25

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Montreal-
Labour (unloading and	loading)	095
Two feeds hay, 15 lbs. per steer per feed at
$45 per ton	675
Freight, 1,085 lbs. at $1.145	 12.42^
Insurance en route (25 cents per head)	25
Ropes 20 cents, buckets, forks,	etc., 11	cents. .31
Labour, marking and roping	10
Wharfage	15
Men for boat	75
Cattle broker's commission at	Montreal	50
On board ship-
Ocean freight	 20.00
Ocean insurance, 5/8 of 1 per cent on $1.60.	1.00
Feed, hay, about	 4.30
Feed, meal, about	 2.10
(Feed, according to order, receives by law 20 lbs. hay, 6 lbs. meal per day per steer)
Total	$47,425
That amounts to a little over $47 per steer. In addition to that the shipping interests compel the shippers to prepay freight in Canadian money, which Mr. Kennedy of Toronto computes adds from $1.50 to $2 per head. If the shipper was allowed to pay in English funds he would save that $2 per steer.
Here is another table supplied by Mr. Rice-Jones of Winnipeg, showing the rates applicable since the war:
Inland freight-
Winnipeg to Montreal, 1,200 lbs. at 85c... $10 20 Ocean freight-
Montreal to west coast of England or
Scotland	 20 00
Feed, inland and ocean	 8 00
Labor, Insurance, etc., inland and ocean.. ..	3 80

(AH charges payable in Canadian funds.)
Figuring the same movement on the basis
of 1914 rates the figures are:
Winnipeg	to	Montreal,	1,200	lbs	at 605c..	..	$7	26Ocean-Montreal	to	England,	average 30	sh...	7	30
Rail & ocean feed (estimate 20 per cent less than
1923)	
6	40Labor-Insurance (estimate 20 per cent less than 1923)	
3	04
That gives a total of $24 on the basis of 1914 rates, as compared with $42 as at present.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the government cannot escape responsibility in regard to this matter. When they anticipated the raising of the embargo on Canadian store cattle in the Old 'Country the shippers of western Canada in a live stock meeting held at Regina in 1921, passed a resolution advising the government to take under immediate consideration the feasibility of getting some of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships to carry cattle overseas. Mr. Arkell, the live stock commis-218J
sioner, was present at that meeting, and he made the statement-I have it here, but I will not read it-that he understood there was a surplus of cattle-carrying boats, and knew for a fact that some of them were being dismantled at that time. Notwithstanding that, when the trade developed and the cattle were ready for shipment overseas, we were met with the situation that the shipping interests claimed they did not have space enough, and they immediately raised the carriage charges, which leads us to believe that there is a deliberate combine existing in order to extort the last dollar out of the Canadian farmer and the shipper of cattle. I would just like to quote a few words from Mr. Rice-Jones, who represents the Grain Growers' Grain Company, which ships 25 per cent of the cattle shipped out of Canada. He appeared before the Imperial Shipping Committee at Winnipeg and declared that the present steamship rate was almost prohibitive and was strangling the export trade between the two countries, Canada and Great Britain. This is a live question out in the West, and it also should be, and I believe is, in the East. Here is an extract from an editorial appearing in my own paper in Portage la Prairie, which expresses it in better language than I could use. Referring to a meeting held in Winnipeg about two months ago it says:
At the Stockers and Feeders banquet in Winnipeg eminent men like the president of the C.P.R. and 1st vice-president of the C.N.R. gave advice favouring mixed farming and cultivating the home market. This is what the boys call "old stuff." Reduced transportation rates is one of the greatest essentials to assist agriculture. It has been demonstrated that it costs more to transport a steer to the British market than it costs to buy the beast in the stockyard in Winnipeg. How is it possible for agriculture to succeed working on that basis?
I shall not keep the committee any longer to-night, except to sound this warning, unless we receive redress, and receive it very soon, the cattle raisers of Canada will have to go out of business unless we can find another market, because the Old Country market is not proving what we expected it to be.


William Alves Boys: The minister told us that the special agent was Mr. Preston. I would like to get his initials, and to know something of his occupation, and if possible, the terms upon which his services as special agent have been secured by the department.


Thomas Andrew Low: His initials are W.T.R.


Arthur Meighen: That name has ravished my ears before.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Sales: What are his special qualifications for this investigation? What does he know about the business?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not the slightest doubt that he is qualified to carry on the investigation, and I hope that good results will follow.


Arthur Meighen: When did he leave?


Thomas Andrew Low: About six or eight weeks ago.


Arthur Meighen: Had the Liberal organization given him leave of absence?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not understand why my
hon. friend interjects these questions. He knows very well that Mr. Preston has no connection with the Liberal organization, and has not had for a number of years. I cannot understand why a gentleman of the standing of the leader of the opposition should ask such questions.


Arthur Meighen: It is strange.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is.


William Alves Boys: What was his occupation before he went on that trip?


Thomas Andrew Low: He is investigating the matters I referred to.


Arthur Meighen: What was his occupation before?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no knowledge of what he was doing before. I knew he was quite capable of carrying on this investigation, and that is all I was concerned about.


Arthur Meighen: Was not his principal occupation before hanging around to get the job?


Thomas Andrew Low: You seem to know more about him than I do.


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


Thomas Andrew Low: I know he is a good man to carry on such an investigation, and I asked the government to put through the following order in council:
The committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, advises that W. T. R. Preston be employed to investigate the alleged discrimination in freight rates covering Canadian shipments from Atlantic seaports, and also regarding the alleged combine in connection with such shipments in marine insurance, and to report on these subjects to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Arthur Meighen: What date was that?


Thomas Andrew Low: The 28th of February, 1924.


William Alves Boys: I have endeavoured to find out what his occupation was before he took
fMr. Meighen.]
this work. It strikes me that it would be very desirable to know whether he knew something of these very questions he was going to investigate, discrimination in freight rates, and freight rates in general. Perhaps he has that qualification, but so far as I know he has not, and I would be glad if the minister would let us know whether he has or has not.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have already stated that I thought he was one of the best men in the country to investigate such questions.


William Alves Boys: He is a journalist or something of that kind, is he not?


Thomas Andrew Low: It does not make any difference. I suppose lawyers are often appointed to investigate different matters. I imagine my hon. friend would say a lawyer was a good man to investigate matters in connection with the Grand Trunk railway. I am sure that a printer has some qualifications for such work.


William Alves Boys: Is that what he is, a printer?


Arthur Meighen: This is not the first
step the government took towards meeting the situation?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is mot the first step we took towards meeting what situation?


Arthur Meighen: What preceded that?


Thomas Andrew Low: When the delegates were going to England last fall I prepared a memorandum for them, pointing out that there was a discrimination against Canadian ports in the shipment of flour. I am sorry the exMinister of Finance is not in his place tonight because I think he made the remark that the difference did not amount to very much.


Arthur Meighen: This is in relation to
flour. I mean in relation to cattle.


Thomas Andrew Low: In relation to cattle? The
negotiations opened up about the same time.


Arthur Meighen: As this?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That is 28th February?


Thomas Andrew Low: I think it was a little earlier
than that. I think I carried on negotiations Shortly before that.


Arthur Meighen: With whom?


Thomas Andrew Low: With the vessel owners in
the city of Montreal and elsewhere. I had several meetings with them at which I endeavoured to persuade them to reduoe the rate, but I was unsuccessful. However, negotia-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
tions are still going on and I purpose visiting England during the summer. That is one of the objects of my visit. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) made the statement this afternoon that an equalization of rates between New York and Liverpool, and between Montreal and Liverpool, would not amount to very much. Well, the equalization amounts to about five cents a hundred, about ten cents a barrel, and about two cents on every bushel of wheat. My hon. friends can quite understand that if the Canadian miller is at a disadvantage of two cents a bushel it is a great handicap to him. We succeeded in having the rates equalized, and I think my right hon. friend will admit that was a great accomplishment. At any rate the farmers, as well as the millers, will admit that, because if the average miller was sure of a profit of ten cents a barrel on flour the year round he would be well satisfied. It is the great volume of flour that is manufactured that tells, and the mill must be run the whole twenty-four hours or it is almost impossible to make a profit in milling. I do not know whether I have given my hon. friend all the information he asked for.


William Alves Boys: Now give us the terms on
which he was employed?


Thomas Andrew Low: The gentleman who was sent
to England to investigate this matter? I will quote from the order in council:
The committee, on the same recommendation, further advise that subject to instructions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and while employed on the above work, Mr. Preston be paid remuneration at the rate of fifteen dollars ($15) per day for each day actually employed on the said work; and also that he be allowed for the time necessarily spent in travel while carrying on such work a living allowance not to exceed an average of ten dollars ($10) per day, in addition to actual cost of transportation while so employed.


William Alves Boys: There is no limit as to time?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister expect that Mr. Preston will require the $10,000 appropriation, or is some of that to be used elsewhere?


Thomas Andrew Low: Some of it has already been
used elsewhere. The chairman of the Imperial Shipping Committee was invited to visit Canada in connection with this investigation and we agreed to pay the actual expenses of the British visitors. Some of this vote will be used for that purpose.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it would be
convenient for the minister to let us have
the particulars as to how this estimate is made up-how much is set apart for Mr. Preston and how much for the other purpose?


Thomas Andrew Low: There is no portion set apart
for the other purpose.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it will not be
enough?


Thomas Andrew Low: The amount was arrived at
after the estimates had been prepared. We were not sure just how much would be required so w'e estimated the figure at $10,000. If I remember rightly I think the expenses of the gentleman referred to amounted to $2,000.


Donald Sutherland: Will the minister
say whether there is any other provision made for taking care of Mr. Preston during the coming year?


Thomas Andrew Low: For what?


Donald Sutherland: Whether there is any other item in the estimates to take care of Mr. W. T. R. Preston during the coming year? The sum of $10,000 would surely not be sufficient. If this is the same W. T. R. Preston that I have in m'ind, I think he was acting in the inquiry into the freight rates on the lakes during the past summer.


Thomas Andrew Low: He acted as secretary to the
commission.


Donald Sutherland: And prior to that
he was employed by the government in the Old Land. I have here some references to Mr. Preston which date back to 1898. I believe that almost continuously since that time he has been paid for acting in a somewhat similar capacity to that in which he will act during the coming year. This thing is getting threadbare. I do not believe the minister really knows Mr. Preston's record, and his ability to have items appear in the estimates for his particular benefit.


William Alves Boys: Put him on annual salary.


Donald Sutherland: The minister has
ability to size up the situation himself without any advice from Mr. Preston.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not had time; he is
preparing material for me.


Donald Sutherland: Then all I can say is that if there is not time, and it is necessary to have someone make this inquiry, select some person whose reputation will bear investigation; do not appoint a political hack such as this, a discredited political hack, a man whose very reputation stank in tha

Supply-Trade and Commerce
nostrils of the people of this province during the last twenty-five years. I doubt if there ever was in the history of the province 'of Ontario, or the Dominion of Canada, a man who had a more unsavoury reputation than this Mr. W. T. R. Preston. I noticed the present member for West Elgin (Mr.McKilLop) sitting in his seat a few minutes ago and I asked him what year it was Mr. Preston was carrying on his operations in that constituency. There were two or three by-elections there inside of two years, in 1898 and 1899. The result of Mr. Preston's activities in that constituency was that the candidate of the Liberal party was elected, but when a recount took place it was found that more votes had been cast for that candidate than there were voters, in some of the polling divisions. An investigation was held and the Liberal who had been elected, Mr. Donald McNish, resigned his seat and protested against the methods which had been adopted. I have here a telegram that was sent out by Mr. Preston to Mr. McNish on the night of the election in that year. It reads as follows:
Heartiest congratulations. Sorry to the bottom of my heart cannot be with you to-night. To be supported by such a noble army of workers should make you the proudest man in Ontario.
This was the telegram that Mr. Preston sent to Mr. Donald McNish, the member who was supposed to be elected on that night. When the matter was investigated Mr. McNish resigned his seat and he had a statement published over his own signature as follows:
1.	That a large number of persons were specially sent into the constituency by men working on behalf of the Liberal party for the express purpose of taking part, on Mr. McNish's behalf, in the election held January 12, 1899, and we believe that fraudulent and corrupt means were used by some of such persons to secure his election.
2.	That several of the said persons illegally and without authority acted as deputy returning officers at the said election,-
That several of the said persons illegally and without authority acted as deputy returning officers at the 6aid election, and in at least three cases so acted in the names of reputable local men, having under assumed names, been introduced to the returning officer by local agents of Mr. McNish.
3.	That in many of the polling subdivisions of the riding there were grave irregularities connected with the return of ballot-boxes and their contents, the voting, and the counting of the ballots thereat.
4.	That there were large numbers of persons brought into the riding for the express purpose of personating legitimate voters, and, assisted by some of Mr. McNish's local supporters, such persons did personate qualified voters in voting for Mr. McNish.
5.	That the declared number of votes for Mr. McNish largely exceeded the number of bona fide votes cast for him.
That a large number of ballots cast for Mr. Mc-Diarmid were in some nefarious and corrupt manner

manipulated, whereby the result of the election was rendered doubtful, and that in this connection the voting at Shedden and Middlemarch, and in several divisions in St. Thomas, where said strangers so acted as deputy returning officers, merits special mention.
This is from Hansard of July 26, 1899, reporting the discussion in the	House of
Commons. This matter was threshed out upon that occasion and Mr. Preston was immediately appointed as an immigration agent in the Old Country in connection with the Department of Immigration and Colon ization. While in that capacity he got into touch with the provincial Director of Colonization at Toronto, and this matter was also placed on the records of this House two or three sessions ago. In view, however, of Mr. Preston's renewed activities and his ability to have the government provide for him, I am going to read some of the methods which he was advocating at that time. This letter was dated and written on government stationery from 17 Victoria Street, 'London:
W. T. R. Preston to the Director of Colonization in the province of Ontario:
I have your letter of a late date on emigration to Ontario. You incidentally say in the letter that you are opposed to indiscriminate emigration. Well, in that respect you agree with everybody else. I do not know any one who suggests, or who would propose, that there should be indiscriminate emigration to that province. Whatever is done must be done carefully, and any who are sent out must be well selected emigrants. But don't run away with the idea that only well to do people, or those with money, are going to emigrate. If you are going to keep up a population in the old parts of the province you must be satisfied with sober, energetic and industrious emigrants. I know all you people are terribly afraid of the foreign element. Upon that point I don't agree with you and have no hesitation in saying that a good class of foreigners scattered about the old parts of Ontario will do very much more towards preserving a proper agricultural population than those from England for instance. Politically speaking I believe the introduction of a hundred families or so into some of those close ridings with the connection which could be had and maintained here would easily preserve for us many doubtful seats in that province. I know the anxiety or nervousness of the minister upon this question. Confidentially, I may tell you, I fear it bears some slight resemblance to one of courage. You know enough about politics to know that courage always beats. However as we don't agree upon that phase of the question we won't discuss it.
I have heard from the Wallaceberg people in answer to my letter of the middle of last month and I am now trying to meet their wishes among the best growers of Belgium. I will be over there in the course of a week or ten days and will then write to you as also to them, upon the outlook there.
Yours very truly,
W. T. R. Prestox.
This letter was dated October 18th, 1901. Afterwards a good deal was heard-and some hon. members may recall this-about him and his connection with the notorious North Atlantic Trading Company which was subsidized by the government of

Supply-Trade and Commerce
that time, and when an inquiry was demanded, the information was refused to parliament at that time, on the ground that some of those connected with that company were people of high standing on the continent and that some of them would likely commit suicide should their names be divulged. Mr. Preston was one of those who were associated with that scheme, and this has been the case during all these years. During the past year Mr. W. T. R. Preston was secretary of the commission that was investigating freight rates on the lakes. Now he is going to be taken care of by the vote that is before the committee to-night in order to provide for his maintenance. He evidently has claims upon hon. gentlemen opposite that he insists upon having recognized. He is not the only one. I have referred, during this session and last session, to some other parties who evidently contend that they also have claims that must be recognized and who< have been drawing their salaries and expenses out of the coffers of this country, illegally, as it was stated last session. The government absolutely refuse to grant a fiat to enable suit to be brought to recover the salary that had been paid to this other party. I claim that an item of this kind appearing in the estimates, with the minister stating that a portion of it, at least, is to go to pay for the services of Mr. W. T. R. Preston, is an item that ought to be struck out of the estimates. This country cannot afford to employ people of that character, discredited political hacks* that have been a barnacle upon the Liberal party in the province of Ontario for the last twenty-five years. It is about time that we were dropping characters of that kind instead of reviving them. I do not believe the minister knew the character of this man or he would not have made the statement he made here to-night, that this man was to draw the major portion of this $10,000 item which is now before the committee. This is the first time that I have referred to Mr. Preston's operations in this House, although they have been referred to frequently by others. I know there are many members in the House who know nothing about Mr. Preston, but the minister can very easily obtain the information that he desires without this item at all. If this item is merely to provide for Mr. Preston, under the guise of performing a public service then it should not appear in the estimate at all.


Thomas Andrew Low: I absolutely refuse to be drawn again to-day into a debate of mud-slinging and the style of debate that one would expect to hear from political wardheelers when a campaign is at its height.


Donald Sutherland: I object to having any insinuations thrown across the floor of the House. I came into the House a few minutes ago and I found that the minister himself was referring to Mr. W. T. R. Preston. You cannot introduce the name of Mr. Preston in this House and expect to avoid anything of this kind.


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend himself
referred to Mr. Preston. Why should two or three gentlemen condemn Mr. Preston? There are other members of the House who may have an entirely different opinion of him.


Arthur Meighen: What does the minister
think of the letters, which he has heard read, signed by Mr. Preston?


Thomas Andrew Low: To tell you the truth, I did
not listen to them.


Arthur Meighen: Then why does the minister describe something that he knows nothing about?
Mr. LOW" I heard enough of the remarks that were made in regard to the letters to know what they were about.


Arthur Meighen: The minister expects to
appoint a character like this at the expense of the country and have no one make any remarks about him? If so he quite fails to realize the character of hon. gentlemen in this House. This money is nothing but a piece of jobbery against the people of Canada; there is absolutely no justification for sending Mr. W. T. R. Preston to England to report on cattle rates-a man who has had no more to do with matters of this kind than anybody whom the minister might pick out of any newspaper office in this Dominion, or off the street. Mr. W. T. R. Preston is a man who ever since the election has been hanging around the door of the Liberal party wanting jobs all the time and getting them whenever the government could hand them out.


Thomas Andrew Low: Did my right hon. friend never have men hanging around looking for jobs?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but we did not give them.


Thomas Andrew Low: You did not?


Arthur Meighen: We did not send political hacks to England, at a cost of thousands of dollars to the people of this country, to look into questions in respect of which they had no experience whatever, no information and no qualification of any kind. A more absurd selection could scarcely have been made in the Dominion; I doubt whether the minister could have made one less acceptable to the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
farmers of Canada or to the people generally. Every one knows W. T. R. Preston. There is not a better known-or rather I should say a worse known-name in the political history of Canada. The minister may be going over to England this summer. Very well; let him go over and look into the matter. But do not send Mr. Preston over on the excuse that he is going to prepare the way for the minister. I find in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the House a statement which in the light of what is revealed to-night is more than amusing:
As a stimulus to stock-raising in the Dominion, and of direct benefit to agriculture, the government has been endeavouring to obtain a lower carrying charge on all shipments of Canadian cattle.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does the hon. gentleman object
. that?


Arthur Meighen: I think it is really amusing that the government should see fit to put that passage in the Speech from the Throne, on the basis of the facts revealed by the minister to-night. What were the efforts that were to be made? The first effort was for the minister to see some of the shippers and ask them to reduce the rates. He failed; and the next effort, the only other one, was on the very day the Speech from the Throne was delivered, to pass an order in council to send Mr. W. T. R. Preston to England.


Thomas Andrew Low: Does my hon. friend not know
that the negotiations had been carried on for several months?


Arthur Meighen: The minister told us
what they were. He told us that he himself failed in his request of the shipowners to reduce the rates; he told us that he was in Montreal with a view to having this done. This failure of the minister and the appointment of Mr. W. T. R. Preston are worthy of insertion in the Speech from the Throne!


Thomas Andrew Low: The efforts of the Minister of
Trade and Commerce were not, but the object was worthy of reference in the Speech from the Throne. Does my hon. friend know that almost every farmer in Ontario and in the province of Quebec, besides many in Alberta, have from six to ten steers to sell every fall?


Arthur Meighen: Who is talking about
that?


Thomas Andrew Low: If we can accomplish something in lowering the rates will it not help the agriculturists of the country?


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister think that is the point I am making?
{Mr. Meighen.]


Thomas Andrew Low: I know my hon. friend is trying to make out that what we are going to do is all wrong.


Arthur Meighen: What I am making out
is this, that the order in council appointing Mr. W. T. R. Preston to go to England, the day the speech from the Throne was delivered, is no basis for the presentation to parliament of a document of this kind. The thing is to laugh! Undoubtedly the subject itself is of paramount importance and warrants the visit of the minister to England. It is big enough, and if the minister accomplishes anything we will give him due credit upon his return. The minister claims to have already spent some time on the subject. He evidently will have to spend a little more before he knows as much about it as hon. gentlemen who have spoken to my left to-night, and behind me as well. He does not know very much yet about it. Nevertheless, he does know something about business and about freight in general, and it is quite right and proper that he should go and look after the matter. But we object to providing an excuse for keeping in some measure of comfort a political refugee of the Liberal party. It does seem to me extraordinarily strange that since the embargo was removed about a year ago, and during the very time these supposed efforts were put forth to reduce the rates, the rates should go up to the alarming figure they have now reached. If it is true- [DOT]land I have no reason to doubt it; indeed I was astonished at the statement-that water carriage to-day is practically equal mile for mile to land carriage, then surely there is something wrong. And if it is equally true that for what cost $7.50 before the war $25 is charged to-day, unquestionably there is an opening for some remedy, even if we do go the length of providing competition by our own investment. I do not pretend to have any experience in the cattle business, but knowing as I do the conditions under which the cattle men lived before the war, when the rate was $7.50, it is inconceivable that the industry could exist under a $25 rate.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is why I am anxious to
provide a remedy.


Arthur Meighen: I am not complaining of that, but it is an awful start to make to send Mr. W. T. R. Preston over and make the provision for him the first charge against the campaign. The minister's own efforts may result in something, and we hope they will. Could he not give us an indication as to what he proposes to do? There is no reason why

Supply-Trade and Commerce
that could not be done; no time would be so suitable for him to do so as the present. I am not anxious to discuss the matter to-night but we would have this advantage, that we could come to the discussion much better informed if we had an intimation in advance as to what the nature of the proposed legislation is.


Thomas Andrew Low: I would hardly care to discuss the matter without first having considered it fully with my colleagues.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) told us a while ago that there was to be something, so that he evidently knows about it.


William Alves Boys: It is 12.20 p.m. now and we have been working hard all day. During the past few days the House has been adjourning around 1 o'clock in the morning. This item is not large but it is an important one and it could stand further discussion. If the minister is not familiar with Mr. Preston's record perhaps a little more information could be given him if the item were allowed to stand.
I do not like to make statements I am not sure of, but I do know something of what has been already stated by my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland), and I feel confident that if the minister wants more information regarding Mr. Preston's record it can be got. Certainly it does not seem to me that Mr. Preston is the right man to send on a mission of this importance. If his investigations lead to nothing I doubt whether the members from the West will feel satisfied with any report he might make. I rose however to suggest that having in view the lateness of the evening this item might stand. The minister has made good progress and unless he wants to keep us until two o'clock he should report progress.


Donald Sutherland: I would hardly
think it possible that the minister would adopt the attitude he has taken in view of the statements that have been made regarding IMr. W. T. R. Preston. Transportation, not only inland but on the ocean, presents great difficulties from the standpoint of rates; the rates are absolutely prohibitive. Unless something is done therefore I do not know what the outcome is going to be for agriculture. If the minister insists on retaining Mr. Preston in his service I am going to move that the item be reduced by as large a figure as possible. Unless we have an assurance that the services of this gentleman are going to be utilised in some capacity in the interests of the country I will not be a party to voting this item. In view of the attitude of
the government therefore I move that the item now before the committee be reduced by $9,999.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment is not in order until it is in writing.
Some hon MEMBERS: Carried.


Arthur Meighen: It is absurd to suggest
that the item can be carried before the hon. member has time to put the amendment in writing.


George Newcombe Gordon: No effort is being
made to write it.


Donald Sutherland: The amendment is
in writing if the messenger will take it.


Thomas Andrew Low: Just a word on the amendment. Is it the wish of this committee that the expenses of the Imperial Shipping Committee which visited this country to investigate freight rates on the ocean shall not be paid? If this' vote is not passed there will be no means of paying those expenses. I propose carrying on an investigation with one object in view namely to secure if possible some reduction in the rates on cattle and other commodities going from Canada to the United Kingdom. The sum of $10,000 does not seem very much. It seems to be the impression of some hon. gentlemen opposite that we have not selected the right man. He has been appointed for a period of six weeks to two months. He will have the information as far as possible prepared and ready for me, and so long as he secures it I have no fault to find with him. The references that have been made to him do not enter into the question at all. The question is whether we think the vote is a fair and just one for the object for which it is intended, and the man whom I have selected will I think obtain the information that will enable me to carry on the negotiations successfully when I am permitted to visit England.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How much of this is required to meet the obligations imposed by the shipping board?


Thomas Andrew Low: About $2,000.


William Alves Boys: There may be a little misapprehension. As I understand it, the vote is only for two-thirds of $10,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment is that the item be reduced by $9,999.


William Alves Boys: It is not what I asked, Mr. Chairman, I said that the vote is for two-thirds of $10,000; therefore it is really for $6,600.


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Alves Boys: If $2,000 is required for this
other sendee, the amount apparently voted to Mr. Preston would be $4,600. If my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) could see his way clear to' make a change in his figures, I would be pleased that the amount to be voted should be the $2,000, and that $4,600 should be struck off.


Thomas Andrew Low: There is no fixed amount for
Mr. Preston; he may be in England for another month, he may not be. If he returns to Canada before I leave I shall be very gkd.	j|,t(


William Alves Boys: I appreciate that; but the
minister has explained that of this $10,000 $2,000 is required for a specific purpose, and that the balance may or may not be required for a specific purpose, and that the balance may or may not be required for Mr. Preston. The vote is for two-thirds of $10,000, which would be $6,600. If the $2,000 is required for the building, that would leave a vote of $4,600, which would be devoted possibly-we will put it that way-to Mr. Preston.


Thomas Andrew Low: Roughly speaking, he has an
allowance of about $25 a day including expenses, which would be not more than $750 a month. If he is away, say, four months, the amount paid him will not be over $3,000.


Robert Milne: Is it not a fact that the
Imperial Shipping Committee intervenes in complaints between shippers and shipowners; and has the Dominion a representative on that committee?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is true.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Mho is the Dominion's representative?


Thomas Andrew Low: Mr. Larkin.


Robert Milne: While the Imperial Shipping Committee apparently (were effective in reducing rates, yet it seems to me that their action was effective only so far as the millers were concerned, because the cattle rate instead of being brought down even with the low rate was raised to make it on a par with the high rate. So it seems to me the commission did not accomplish very much. But why was not this matter of the cattle shipper presented to the committee when it visited Canada? i understand that at Winnipeg the evidence relating to the cattle trade was taken under protest, the chairman stating that the committee had received no instructions to investigate the cattle trade. The cattle rates having been a matter of con-[The Chairman.]
tention for a good many years, I should like to know wrhy this committee was brought over here at considerable expense to investigate the grain business, while the cattle business was not touched.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have already stated that the committee w>as asked to investigate the cattle rates as well as the grain rates. If my hon. friend will drop into my office to-morrow I shall be very glad to show him the letter of instructions which was addressed to the chairman of the Imperial Shipping Committee.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the amendment.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, in
view of the statement made by the minister that $2,000 of this vote has been expended for another purpose, and that the vote is for two-thirds of the amount appearing in the Estimates, with the consent of the committee I should like to change the figures in the motion now before the chair.


George Newcombe Gordon: That cannot be done; the amendment must be withdrawn and a new amendment moved. The question is on the amendment, which has been already read to the committee. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw this amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment is
withdrawn.


William Alves Boys: Will the minister not accept
the suggestion we made? It is now thirty-two minutes past twelve. We have done a good day's business.


Thomas Andrew Low: We have been discussing this all evening. I am willing to abide by the decision of the committee.


William Alves Boys: Usually the minister is in
charge of matters of this kind. We want to be fair to him, but I think lie is getting on well. Surely he does not want to keep us here all night.


Thomas Andrew Low: We might as well decide now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Donald Sutherland: I move that the
item now before, t'he committee be reduced by $4,000.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: Is the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Sutherland) in favour of the principle of an inquiry into ocean freight rates?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Donald Sutherland: Most assuredly I
am, but I do not see any reason for employing a man of the reputation of W. T. R. Preston to make an inquiry of that kind. There are many competent men in the department who have all the knowledge required to make such an investigation. I doubt whether a trip across the ocean is necessary to secure the information that is required. I am satisfied that the minister, with his business acumen and the officers in his department can very quickly obtain all the necessary information without employing a character of this kind. Mr. W. T. R. Preston's whole record is against the utilization of his services in this capacity.


Mr. McKAY:: What particular charge does the hon. member make against Mr. W. T. R. Preston?


Donald Sutherland: I cannot make it
any clearer than I have already made it. I gave a partial report of his history for the past twenty-five years. It has been placed on the records of this House time and again.


Matthew McKay: The charges made by the
hon. gentleman have been very general in their form. Nobody in this assembly this evening has been able to determine what the hon. member means by those charges. Let him make a specific charge against Mr. Preston.


Donald Sutherland: Surely the charge
made by the candidate in West Elgin, Mr. McNish, should be sufficient.


Matthew McKay: Did the law proceed against him. Was action taken against him? Was anything proved against him? Nothing at all. I have known W. T. R. Preston for a number of years. I knew other organizers in Ontario who are dead and buried, but I am not one of those who wish to stir up the embers of the past. W. T. R. Preston is one of the cleverest men in Ontario. He may have been guilty, although not proven guilty, of indiscretions in elections he took part in. He was organizer for the Liberal party for a great many years and an abler man in that capacity never occupied the position. I can make charges against men, and prove them, too, who were organizers for the Conservative party, but that is not my province, nor is it my determination in getting up here to-night. But I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) to explain why in the election of 1917 in the Old Country W. T. R. Preston was arrested and kept in custody all day on a trumped up charge and released in the evening to prevent his activities during that day? Then I would like
to ask the hon. gentleman to produce a booklet or pamphlet written by W. T. R. Preston entitled "Taking off the Lid," making serious charges in regard to that election across the pond, charges which have never been answered to this day, though they were broadcast through the length and breadth of Ontario, and although they have been in the hands of hon. gentlemen apposite for a number of years?


Donald Sutherland: I have never seen it.


Matthew McKay: These charges have never been answered. One can therefore understand the animosity toward W. T. R. Preston on the part of hon. gentlemen in that corner of the House to-night.


Thomas Andrew Low: I had just one object in investigating the ocean rates. I selected Mr. Preston to do the preliminary work. He has been at it for the last six weeks or two months, and now by your amendment you ask the committee to repudiate the action of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If this vote does not carry there will be nothing to pay Mr. Preston. He has to be paid, but I am willing to stand behind the vote of the committee and will allow hon. members to decide whether I am taking the proper course in investigating the ocean rates at present in effect.


Arthur Meighen: I do not need to make
any comment on the minister's statement except this:	His argument, if there was one,
was to the effect that the government, having employed this man without the authority of parliament, now must have the money to pay him, no matter whether the government's action was proper or not. Parliament, if it has any authority at all, will exercise it in this case. As to the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. McKay) I do not think I am in a position to dispute that there is a measure of cleverness in W. T. R. Preston. I will concede also that for the purposes for which he was appointed as Liberal organizer he probably worked hard and had some qualifications; but I shall not define those qualifications. As to his being arrested in England, I did read about it. He was arrested by an army officer who, I understand, did not know who he was, and thought he was making a nuisance of himself. I did see the pamphlet that he wrote. He wrote it for the purposes of the Liberal convention, whereupon the Liberal convention passed a resolution that they wanted to get into power in order to investigate the charges of W. T. R. Preston, in order to investigate the awful scandals that he said had been perpetrated in England. They got into power by the storm they raised and

Supply-Trade and Commerce
under the dust they created, but they never investigated the charges. They have been two and a half years in office now, but they have shuddered at the brink. Now we have them in front of us; I want them to investigate the W. T. R. Preston charges. I want them to send a commissioner who is a commissioner to England to investigate them. Hon. gentlemen will remember that the worst of the charges were made against men who now are their closest friends. Catch them investigate the charges! Why, if the hon. member for North Renfrew came here with forks and tongs he could not prod them into it. So let the hon. gentleman not refer to charges that his own party are afraid to investigate. Preston's record smells to high Heaven in this province. As respects a matter of this importance, a matter that demands experience of a quality that he is foreign to as a stranger in the Dominion, this item is nothing but an outrage on the treasury and it is an insult to parliament to ask to have it voted.


Thomas Sales: I am sorry that a subject of so much importance to this country cannot be discussed without charges being hurled from one side to the other. We have tried to-night to talk business, serious business, business which affects our people and their getting a living. Speaking for my friends around me, I think I can say that we do not propose to take any part in the washing of old, dirty political linen. I am sorry we cannot talk business without that being brought in.


Arthur Meighen: It does not matter who is appointed?


Thomas Sales: I am glad to see that all
parts of the House realize the importance of this subject, and the responsibility for this appointment must be on the government.


Arthur Meighen: It rests with us if we
vote the money.


Thomas Sales: I do not know what the
qualifications of Mr. Preston are, and I asked the minister. I really think he might have been better advised if he had appointed Mr. Duncan Marshall. He has a knowledge of the subject at any rate, but I know that if he had been appointed hon. gentlemen to my right would have raised just as great a storm of protest as they are doing over this appointment.


Donald Sutherland: We sent him over
to the Old Country three times last year.


Thomas Sales: I know what is said about him, but I repeat, he has a knowledge of this particular subject.


Arthur Meighen: Better than Preston, all
right.


Thomas Sales: Yes, but in my opinion the
responsibility for this appointment must rest on the government. I believe the money should be voted for this inquiry, and I am not going to support the amendment.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The responsibility does
not rest on the government alone. It rests upon everybody who votes for the item. Members need not be afraid that I am going at this hour to discuss Mr. Preston. I know very little about him anyway. But just assume that this government appointed a criminal from the penitentiary; I am not going to suggest that Mr. Preston is in that class at all, but suppose the government took a criminal out of the penitentiary and sent him over. Listening to what my hon. friend from Saltcoats has just said, that would be all right, the government had the power to do it; the responsibility be on the government, and then he votes to pay the money for something that he might not in private life say he would approve of, just because the government had done it. Can truckling go further?


Alfred Speakman: I would just like to
make one comment in reply to what my hon. friend from St. John has just said. The only evidence we members in this corner of the House have had so far as to Mr. Preston's alleged bad character has come from the gentlemen to my right. Now I have a great deal of respect for these gentlemen, particularly for some of them, but I have not been encouraged from what experience I have had in the past to take all their statements at their full face value, and unless I have other evidence to back up their statements, I do not propose to take them at their full face value. If there was other definite evidence apart from the statements that have been made which would go to prove something against Mr. Preston, and not merely statements on the floor of this House by men who, however honourable, are not without a slight tincture of partisan feeling, I would accept that evidence and vote against the appointment of an unsuitable man.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
consider it no evidence when a letter is read signed by the man himself, in which he urges the bringing out of foreign immigrants and keeping them, one hundred families in a county, for the purpose of keeping control of them and influencing an election?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Alfred Speakman: I am prepared to
accept a written document of that kind1 at its face value. It was written, I understand, about twenty years ago. That man may have been a good Liberal organizer at that time, but that does not necessarily prove to me that he is not fairly honest in his business dealings.


Arthur Meighen: He was not a Liberal
organizer at that time. At the time he wrote the letter he was a Commercial agent for the Dominion, and was paid a salary by the Dominion government.


Alfred Speakman: Has the letter which
was read, or have his actions which have been condemned, any bearing on his qualifications for investigating the cattle trade? If it were proved that this man were unsuitable I would take a chance on destroying the investigation by refusing to vote the money, but as it is I am not prepared to accept the statements at their face value. In spite of the gentlemanly remarks of the hon. member for St. John, somewhat characteristic of him, I am not prepared to accept his word, and I propose to take a gambling chance in voting $4,000 that the government is sufficiently alive to the sense of their responsibility to see that a man is appointed who has some qualifications, and I propose instead of destroying the possibility of any investigation, to vote for the item.


Donald Sutherland: I am afraid my hon. friend is fairly easily satisfied. If he is anxious to acquire some information with regard to Mr. Preston I would refer him to Hansard of July 26, 1899, page 8579, and of April 4, 1907.


Mr. PARENT:: When have you been
studying that?


Alfred Speakman: This is 1924.


Donald Sutherland: Afterwards, while
Mr. Preston was in the employ of the federal government he was a Liberal organizer for the province of Ontario.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Was he engaged in the
1917 election?


Donald Sutherland: He took an active
part in the election overseas, and I only wish I had some of the literature over his signature that he circulated among the soldiers overseas, because if there was ever damning literature against any man it is the literature circulated by W. T. R. Preston on that occasion.


Georges Parent: Look in your back pocket.
You might find it there.
Amendment negatived; yeas 13, nays, 41.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inspection and Sales Act, administration of, $3,000.
Arthur Meighen: If the minister purposes
going on now, I may as well warn him he will go on in vain.


Thomas Andrew Low: I move that the committee
rise and report progress, but I wish to say that I did not like the threat of my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: -It should not have been necessary.


Thomas Andrew Low: If my right hon. friend had waited a moment he would have heard me move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rdbb, the House adjourned at 12.58 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, June 20, 1924