1925-02-27

NATURALIZATION LAWS AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has received any communication from the British government relative to the amendment of the naturalization laws to prevent a woman of British nationality married to an alien from losing her British citizenship except by declaration of alienage, and providing for the re-admission to British citizenship of British women married1 to aliens where the marriage state, although officially existing, has for all practical purposes terminated? -'and, if so, what measures the government proposes to take to secure the removal at the earliest possible moment of the disabilities in this respect now resting on Canadian women?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any recent communication. The subject was discussed at the Imperial Conference of 1923. But I will have the records of the Department of External Affairs looked into to see if any communication has been received. since then.


John Livingstone Brown: The despatch says the matter was discussed in the British House and the Dominions were to be communicated with in respect of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not recall any despatch recently; there may have been one within the past five or six months. However, I will have it looked up and inform my hon. friend.



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) :: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) if he has received any report from the two railway companies with regard to the Peace river transportation question; and, if so, will he give the House the substance of the report?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, the only communications I have received lately concerning the question will be found in letters from Mr. Beatty and Sir Henry Thornton, saying that they hope to be ready in a few days to lay their views before the Minister of Railways.



SOLDIERS' PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humboldt) :: I should like to ask the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, if the government have under consideration the introduction of legislation along the line of the Pension bill of last session?


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: A similar question
is on the order paper. I will answer the question in .due course.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government if they have had representations made to them on behalf of the Great War Veterans' Association of Canada with regard to the distribution of the canteen fund? Also, if the government are aware that there seems to be considerable stir among the various branches of this organization as to the distribution of the fund? Also, are they doing anything to allay the anxiety of those concerned?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend was absent yesterday when a question was asked by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in this connection. All the despatches that have come to me from the different organizations state that a certain amount of money, $100,000, is intended to be paid to one particular organization under the authority of a bill which is shortly to be introduced in the House. The only answer I can give my hon. friend is that the information is not correct. There is no intention of introducing a bill to apportion $100,000 to any organization or set of organizations of returned men.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Or any amount?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is $100,000 laid aside for certain purposes, but not destined to one particular organization. I do not know whether I make myself clear in this respect. The bill which passed this House last session, but which was rejected by the Senate, provided that $100,000 should be paid to a central board of trustees, which board should attend to the organization and maintenance of a Veterans' Service Bureau here in Ottawa. No reference whatever was made in the bill to any one particular organization.


James Arthurs: Will the hon. minister
state whether any order in council has been passed in the meantime with regard to the
Soldiers' Pensions

apportionment of this fund? I asked a similar question yesterday.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think I informed my hon. friend yesterday that no order in council has been passed disposing of one cent of the canteen fund to anybody.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind hon. members that on the orders of the day the leaders on both sides are usually allowed to put a question or two, but hon. members generally must confine themselves to at most one question, otherwise the sittings of the House will be unduly prolonged. I hope the hon. member will be very brief in any further remarks he makes on the orders of the day.


Joseph Henry Harris: I would just like to read in this connection, Mr. Speaker, a telegram I hold in my hand:
Our contention is that canteen money should not be used for any organization that does not represent the returned soldiers.
I would like to ask the minister if any of this money is being distributed by any organization that does not represent the returned soldiers?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have just stated that no canteen fund money has been distributed to anybody so far by this government. I share the view expressed in that telegram that the money should not be apportioned to any one particular organization.


Mr. CLARK:: Yesterday I asked the minister when it was contemplated that legislation in regard to pensions would be introduced in the House, and he said that notice would probably be given next week. I understood him to say to-day that that question would be answered on a later day.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend is mistaken in that. The question asked by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Stewart) was whether the bill which is to be introduced will be the same bill as that of last year, and that is the question which appears on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs).



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I would like to ask the government if any action has been taken on the report of the Old Age Pensions committee of last session? If so, what action has been taken? And will 
legislation be introduced this year looking to the establishment of a system of old age pensions?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: That question is on the order paper and will be answered as soon as possible.



TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Trade and Commerce-bounty on crude petroleum, administration of, 51,500.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: We have had
the question of petroleum bounties up now for two separate years, and we have had information as to the amounts of production and the amounts paid. Will the minister tell us exactly how the production stands at present and what bounties have been paid?


Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This vote is $1,500 less than
the vote of last year. It is to take care of the administration of the bounty. As the committee is no doubt aware, the bounty will be discontinued on the 30th of June of this year. The following are the values of the production for the years 1919 to 1924 inclusive, on which the bounty has been based:
Y ear	Amount
1919		 $856,038
1920		 919,935
1921		 641,533
1922		 611,176
1923		 542,555
1924		 475,985


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister give the number of barrels?


Thomas Andrew Low: The following are the number
of barrels of 35 gallons each:
Year	Barrels
1919		   240,446
1920		 196,251
1921		 187.541
1922		 179,068
1923		 171,902
1924		 160,830


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
production in barrels for the last six months?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have not the figures for the
last six months only, but I can obtain them if my hon. friend wishes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The figures given last year, which were concurred in, as I believe, by the department and accepted without the slightest dispute from anybody, showed a total production of petroleum of 160,000 barrels. They were for the year that had been finished; we are now a year later. They cannot be the same. What my hon. friend

Supply-Trade and Commerce
has been giving is the production as of the previous year, so that the figures are a year out. I also point out to him that the other factor which was a matter of importance was that the production down to date-which would be for the then last year-in Lambton, which is the place particularly affected, was 145,238 barrels. What I would like to find out, if the department themselves know what they have been doing and what bounties they have been paying, is, what the corresponding figures are at the present time.


Thomas Andrew Low: The figures I have given to the House are for the calendar year-160,830 barrels for the twelve months ended December 31, 1924.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But the
bounties, as the minister knows, are paid according to the fiscal year.


Thomas Andrew Low: The bounties are paid monthly as the claims come in.
Mr. LeSUEUR:	Can the minister tell
us what bounty was paid on the oil produced since July 1, 1924?


Thomas Andrew Low: I can only give my hon. friend the figures for the twelve months ending December 31, 1924; we have not got it for the six months, but I shall be very glad to get the figures for each month if my hon. friend desires.
Mr. LeSUEUR: I should like to get them.


Thomas Andrew Low: For the twelve months ended
December 31, 1924, the bounties paid amounted to $83,857.
Mr. LeSUEUR:	I would also like to ask
the minister-and I do not do this in any antagonistic sense whatever-as to the results of the investigation made by the government into the situation in the oil producing territories. Is the government taking any action as a result of the investigation, or studying the question with a view to action?


Thomas Andrew Low: My department has nothing
to do with that investigation. I imagine it would come under Mines or the Department of the Interior.


Mr. MacLAREN:: How much bounty was
paid for the petroleum produced in Albert county?


Thomas Andrew Low: The bounties paid in Albert
county last year amounted to $3,648.14.


Mr. FANSHER:: What was the total
number of claims for bounty last year?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have not that information, but we can easily get it for my hon. friend.
Mr. LeSUEUR:	Might I ask the hon.
minister if this item had not better stand until we have the report on that investigation? Until we get that report, and until we know what action the government is going to take, the House is really not in a position to vote on the administration. This is a matter of vital importance to a certain section up there, and I think the proper department should give the House the information it requires.


Mr.   LOAV@: What difference would it
make? If it is found that the amount in the main estimates is not sufficient, it will be a very simple matter to place an amount in the supplementaries. If any change is necessary, that will be a matter for the Minister of Finance when the budget comes down. So I do not see that any object is realized in holding up the item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would not
think there would be any need for any mystery about it. There is always more or less 'mystery about some moves from the treasury benches, but after some difficulty last year, when the mystery was dispelled, we were told that Dr. Hume had been sent up there to see what ought to be done. He took some time, but he did finally get there, and we wanted to find out if he had made a report, and if so, what it was. We were told, as I recollect, by the genial Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart) that a report had been made, but it had not been made; that a letter had been written, but it had not been written; that it was quite true there was a communication, but it was confidential and personal, and so could not be brought down. I would think because it was personal it might possibly be all the more correct. Is there any reason why the people up there cannot know what the departmental information is as to their industry? It is a year ago now since this was up; it is a year ago now since they have desired to know what the department which is supposed to know all about this industry thinks of it; and they still do not know. Surely there is no reason why the report of Dr. Hume cannot be used by my hon. friend to-day.


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall be very glad to bring
the matter to the attention of my colleague the Minister of the Interior, and have the report, if there is a report, brought down providing there is no objection to such action.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the matter is dealt with that way, I suppose that will happen which happened last year, that we shall be told the report is personal and is not going to be brought down, and in the



Supply-Trade and Commerce
meantime we get no information upon it. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) was in the chamber a moment ago, but unfortunately he has gone. I should have thought he could tell us in a moment whether there is any use looking for any assistance in that regard or not. The amount of production in Lambton last year was given as 145,238 barrels. Can my hon. friend tell me what the Lambton production is this year?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sorry that the record here does not give the figures by counties.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then let us take Ontario, because the Lambton production is Ipretty nearly the whole Ontario production, although there is some in Kent.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sorry, but it is impossible for me to give my hon. friend to-day the amount of oil production in any particular county or province. However, I would be very glad to bring down the details by provinces if my hon. friend wishes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I want is just what I told my hon. friend last night- and I think he understood the reference pretty well,-full particulars in connection with these particular bounties that Ontario is so widely interested in and especially this particular part of Ontario. The first thing necessary, of course, is to know how the industry stands to-day, and I cannot appreciate my hon. friend's position at all. It is only a few minutes ago that he gave the production of oil in New Brunswick.


Thomas Andrew Low: There is just one county, Albert.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly, one
county; I do not care where it is. Then I asked for the particulars of oil production in one county in Ontario, and the minister said he could not give it. What is the difficulty in the way of giving information respecting oil production in one county in Ontario when there is no difficulty with respect to giving the information as to the production in one county in New Brunswick?


Thomas Andrew Low: The difference is that oil production is confined to one county in New Brunswick. There is no desire at all to withhold any information from any hon. member. There is nothing to conceal, but it would bn utterly impossible to bring down with every item all the details of any particular industry. If my hon. friend presses for the information we can obtain it for him. I shall be glad to furnish any information that he wishes with the most minute details.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Again, I cannoc appreciate my hon. friend's position. He says he can give these details for the province of New Brunswick because oil is only being produced in one county. Then he told me he could not give the information for the county of Lambton and I said "Very well, let us have it for the province of Ontario." Surely my hon. friend knows what was done in the province of Ontario as a whole. That is not a matter of much detail; the figures must be in his department,


Thomas Andrew Low: It is a very simple matter. If my hon. friend wishes to have that information I shall allow the item to stand and get it for him. Also I have no objection at all to producing any other information in connection with the matter. If my hon. friend will accept my word and allow the item to pass, I shall bring down the desired information. Otherwise the item can stand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it will probably save time if I tell my hon. friend what information I desire, it is really cognate to this item. The production in the county of Lambton last year, according to the figures given by the department as I recollect them when this matter was discussed, last session, was 145,238 barrels. I want similar inform-tion in respect to the period just closed. Then I want to know how many wells are being operated in Lambton. Last year there were 3.570 wells under operation, and there were 216 power plants. A further matter of importance and interest is the question of cost. The cost last year, at the commencement of the year, was $2.03 a barrel and later on, if I remember it correctly, $2.60 a barrel. These figures were given at the time the discussion took place in June last year. Again, the amount of bounty paid per barrel, on the basis of the calculation of last year, was 52J cents. I should like to know how much is being paid now. The item should stand until we get these details.


Mr. COOTE:: Would the minister be good enough, when he is obtaining that information, to give me a statement as to whether there are any wells in Alberta receiving a bounty. I ask for this information because I believe some wells in that province are receiving a bounty while others are not.


Thomas Andrew Low: There are some wells in Alberta in receipt of a bounty. Does my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) wish the item to stand?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, yes, I want that information.
FEBRUARY 27, 1925	f:!	595
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: All right.
Item stands.
The Copper Bounties Act, 1923, (bounty on copper bars or rods)-administration, $1,500.


Thomas Andrew Low: This item is $1,000 less than the amount voted last year. We found that we did not require as large an amount as we had anticipated and consequently we have effected this reduction.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What amount was expended last year for this purpose?


Mr. EVANS:: Will the minister state what amount has been paid in bounties since this act came into force, and to what companies the payments have been made?


Thomas Andrew Low: The amount expended up to January 31, 1925, was $130.90.


John Evans: To what company was that payment made?


Thomas Andrew Low: That was expenditure in connection with the administration of the act.


John Evans: I should like to inform the minister that I asked for the amount of bounties paid and to what companies?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, but when my hon. friend was putting that question the ex-Minister of Finance was asking how much had been spent in connection with this vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not said a word this time.


Thomas Andrew Low: Only two claims have been presented to the department up to January 31, 1925. These claims from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Trail, B.C., were based upon a production of 1,164,140 pounds of copper bars, and the amount of bounty was $14,551.75.


John Arthur Clark: What was the value of the output?


Thomas Andrew Low: The bounty is paid at the rate of 1} cents a pound of copper bar. We do not know the value of the output which totalled 1,164,140 pounds.


James Arthurs: The minister stated that nothing had been paid out last year except overhead expenses. Now he brings in an item amounting to, if my hearing is correct, $14,000. He is only asking for a vote of $2,500 for this year.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend does not understand that we look after the administration of the act and we have nothing to do with the paying of the bounties. They are paid through the Finance department. We simply 38}
pay for the administration, the checking up of the quantities and the amount of the bounty that is paid from time to time.


James Arthurs: Following up the idea,
if the total expenses of last year were $130 why ask for $2,500 this year?


Thomas Andrew Low: It only commenced last year
and consequently we had not much time to spend very much, and for that reason decided
to reduce it by $1,000.


John Arthur Clark: Another company has made
a claim. I do not think the minister gave particulars as to that.


Thomas Andrew Low: There are only two claims and they have been presented by the same company.


John Arthur Clark: Are those all the claims made since the act came into force?


Thomas Andrew Low: All the claims that have been
made.


John Arthur Clark: Can the minister state
whether there has been an increase in the production of copper bars since the introduction of this act?


Thomas Andrew Low: The act is just now coming into effect, and we have nothing to show whether there is an increase or not.


John Arthur Clark: Can the minister state the
amount of production in 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?


Thomas Andrew Low: It would be no trouble to obtain that information, but we have not it just now, as we were not interested in those years, as the act was not in effect at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Hemp Bounties Act, 1923, administration of act, $500.
Thomas Andrew Low: This is a new item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it would be very nice if the minister would let us know how the matter stands. This matter is of very great interest to the northwest in particular. It is hoped that under the provisions of the act-at least that is the hope of the Finance minister, and I think he had some justification for it-with the assistance that the government was giving we would be able to work up a really large industry in hemp products in Canada. At that time it was a question whether or not the work could go on and whether the mill would be installed. I am sure the House would be interested to know whether the work is going on and what position it is in, and whether the mill has been started, and so on.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. McMURRAY:: I think probably I
can explain this matter to the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), as I am more familiar with the local situation than the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low). Two years ago a bill was introduced to give bounties for the creation of a hemp rope and binder twine industry in Winnipeg. At that time negotiations were going on between certain people in Winnipeg and people in Ireland who were familiar with the rope, binder twine, hemp, flax and similar industries. At that time I thought the amount of the bounty was a little too small. As a matter of fact it did not interfere with the creation of the industry at that time. The real object of getting this bounty was to encourage a new industry, and at the same time to protect that industry from a possible war with the International Harvester Company in the United States, which company manufactured a great deal of similar products. However, we are taking the matter up keenly in Winnipeg now. I have been advised by the men who worked on the project that there were people in Winnipeg from the Old Land; I believe a great deal of ground is being seeded this year, and I am advised that there are fair hopes of the industry being established. Undoubtedly if it can be done it will be a wouderful thing for the western country. Growing out of this hemp, if we can supply enough binder twine there to take care in reasonable degree of the necessities of the western country, it will be a great aid to the western farmer in his work. It will also be sound policy in every way, and will afford employment there in the winter time and will keep capital, labour and money in that section of the country.
Sir HENRY' DRAYTON: Perhaps the hon. minister can go a little further than the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray) and tell us what the real difficulties are in this matter. As I recollect it, the question turned on two issues; one was the amount and the other was the duration. I think the duration had probably more to do with it than the amount. In other words, one of the all-important questions to those behind the scheme was that they should have such condition of affairs created for them under their contract with the government that they would be able to count upon a certain number of years during which they could go on undisturbed in the advanced cultivation of flax under the agreement as it was thought that the industry might take some time to work up. I remember that at the time I thought that in some instances the contract might

prove to be unworkable and so the work would not go on. I would like really to know from my hon. friend whether the work is going on, and if not, in what particular this contract has been found to be unworkable, and for what reason the west is prevented from getting this all-important industry?


Edward James McMurray: In reply to my hon.
friend, I say that this really means the addition of a new product so far as Canada is concerned. The hemp is altogether different from the flax. In western Canada it grows to a height of from eight to ten feet. We first got a knowledge of the use of it from the people -who came from Europe, and people in the Dauphin country. They were growing it and manufacturing a coarse kind of linen for their own use. We had tested it out in various places. The Winnipeg Board of Trade became interested in it. We tested it in various places around Winnipeg, and we were able to prove that it grew very well. The climate was not against it, and the product was of a high quality. The difficulty in the way of getting capital to invest in the enterprise was the fact that they were afraid of a war with the International Harvester Company, an immense institution heavily capitalized, which corporation would undoubtedly have competed strongly against us. They asked a certain bounty per pound on the finished product, and we did not give them what they wanted. If my memory is right they wanted about three and one-half cents a pound at that time, reducing each year. I think if the government accepted the principle involved, they should not stand in the way of a reasonable amount being granted to establish an industry there which apparently was indigenous to that part of the country. We grew the product and marketed it right at our door. We had electrically-turned spinning wheels in the industry and had the labour there. In every way it looked like a legitimate proposition once it got started. But we had to guard against this large organization in the United States that we felt would wage war against us. I think the government at that time having accepted the principle, should have supported it more generously, and that is really the root of the trouble. One of the leading men interested in the enterprise, a gentleman from Belfast, Ireland, after the negotiations had been running for some time, unfortunately died. He was very active in the promotion of this enterprise, and after his death other negotiations had to be opened up. I understand the bounty was good for six years at two and one-half cents a pound.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
I believe they agreed on two and one-half cents a pound. The Board of Trade in Winnipeg has taken the matter up actively. The city of Winnipeg feels that the time has come that it no longer sits at the receipt of customs in the wholesale line and that industries should be established that are indigenous to the country; and they are going actively into the question. They are in touch with this man who, as I said before, is in Winnipeg at the present time. The difficulty was purely a matter of getting a sufficient return for five or six years until they got on their feet with the industry established, and after that they would be able to meet any competition. This assistance was simply against a large combine in the United States.
I do not know whether I have answered my hon. friend fully or not, but that was the trouble. They felt that the drop of one-half cent per pound might come too early, before they were on their feet and the market was fully secured. While I am not a high protec-ionist, neither am I a free trader; but I think this was one case where an industry which was indigenous to the country and had every prospect of success was entitled to a bounty, and I think the bounty should have been a little more generous than it was. If that had been the case, the industry would have been established to-day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is only fair to say to my hon. friend, whether he is a protectionist or a free trader or anything else, I think at the moment he is rather more concerned as a Manitoban, to do something for his district that needs the help badly.


Edward James McMurray: Always.


Mr. JACOBS:: How badly?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just like most parts of Canada, very much in need at the present minute. My hon. friend asks me if he has answered the question fully. He has, but not quite definitely. I think the committee ought to know what really stands between success and failure in this instance. The differences are not very great and the difference in cost to the country cannot be at all excessive. Perhaps my hon. friend is in a position to inform the committee what changes to-day in the contract will ensure the going ahead of this project?


Edward James McMurray: I am glad to have my hon. friend's deep interest in this matter. He wants to know exactly what the difficulty is. The difficulty is simply the amount of
bounty that is being given. If the bounty had been four cents instead of three, I think the enterprise would have gone through with flying colours. The question is one of financing the company, and this menace was in the way. I think it costs five million dollars to establish the industry, and the people who are advancing the money will not risk five million dollars without a reasonable certainty of success.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Are these men from Ireland who are negotiating the same people who were negotiating in 1921 and 1922?


Edward James McMurray: It was a Mr. Coote who was negotiating in 1921 and 1922. I do not know exactly who the present man is who is out there, but Mr. Coote was interested in the negotiations going on at the time we brought in the bill. He felt that he would have great difficulty in succeeding on account of the smallness of the bounty. Unfortunately, he died, as I said, and negotiations had to be opened up with other interests. I got a wire a few days ago stating that the other gentleman was at Halifax and was coming through.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Do I understand that the bounty at the present time is one and one-half cents a pound on the manufactured article?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is one and one-half cents a pound on a sliding scale for the year 1926.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It is the opinion of the hon. member that this protection should be raised to three cents a pound before it will be
possible for them to go ahead?


Edward James McMurray: I cannot say that I expect the protection will be raised. I have no objection to the bounty being raised and I think it is highly advisable that it should.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the difference between bounty and protection?


Edward James McMurray: That goes into the
whole matter of education.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What acreage is being sown out there now?


Edward James McMurray: I understand the seed
that is of use for this is being brought out from Italy. Italian seed is the best seed, and I think there is some pro-4 p.m. vision that it can be admitted into Canada free of duty. I do not know what acreage is being sown, but I would imagine two or three hundred acres. Of course, it will take some time to establish and build this mill. When the mill is running
Supply-Trade and Commerce

at full capacity, it is estimated that it will handle the product of 20,000 acres of land and that 3,000 hands will be employed.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Has the hemp
grown actually proved a success up to date?
Mr. MoMURRAY:	Yes: I understand
it is of the very finest quality, and the climate and soil are entirely suited for this product. It is grown all through the Red river valley, and as I said before, it originated in the neighbourhood of Dauphin among the foreign-born people.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What percentage of this
binder twine is imported from the United States?
Mr. MoMURRAY: Speaking in this House on this bill two years ago, I made the statement-I found out afterwards that I was wrong-that little or no binder twine was produced in Canada. I understand there is a large and flourishing plant at Brantford that has done exceedingly well. I would estimate, in looking over their figures, that they manufacture enough twine for a normal crop of about ten million acres. That being the case, I suppose we have in Canada crops of possibly thirty-five or forty million acres, so that I would imagine that about twenty *per cent of our twine is produced at home and about eighty per cent brought in. That is only an estimate on my part, but I do not think I am far out.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Where does the factory at Brantford get its raw material?


Edward James McMurray: That is a different
material altogether from the hemp that we grow at home. I think they have plantations of their own' in Central America, and of course they get more of it from Manila.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Binder twine at present
is manufactured from sisal imported from Yucatan.


Edward James McMurray: Yes.
Mr. TOiLMIE:	What would be the comparison as to cost between the hemp twine and the sisal twine?


Edward James McMurray: I have not gone into
that particular aspect of the matter at all, *but apparently the men who are willing to invest their capital in Winnipeg were convinced that they could manufacture hemp twine. I understand it makes a finer and better twine than the imported article.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Might I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that if we desire to call this kind of assistance

protection, it is of a terminable nature; it is terminated in six years as against the other kind which is interminable.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is not an incurable
disease.


Mr. LADNER:: Does the minister agree
with six-year terminable protection?


William Richard Motherwell: I believe in assisting new industries in some form or other- always have.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I notice we are voting money under three different heads for the administration of bounties. Are three different departments, or three different staffs, engaged in this work? If so, could not the payments be administered by one staff and the vote put under one head?


Thomas Andrew Low: There are three different acts,
but they are all administered by the same department.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The same staff?


Thomas Andrew Low: The same staff here. Outside,
some of those engaged in the work are paid only part salary; for instance, two or three are paid 8200 in connection with the payment of bounties on petroleum and on copper.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is there a staff which
devotes all its attention to this work?


Thomas Andrew Low: Not at all.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How is the cost segregated for the different classes of bounties? For instance, supposing your official is dealing with copper bounties in the forenoon, crude petroleum bounties part of the afternoon, and hemp bounties the remainder of the day?


Thomas Andrew Low: Only the outside salaries are
charged up against this vote; it does not cover the inside staff.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Will the Solicitor General clear up this point for me? Has the bounty granted to this hemp industry been sufficient to get work started?


Edward James McMurray: 
Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is there a possibility of
success on the present rate of bounty, or do those who are negotiating require an additional bounty?


Edward James McMurray: I have an idea that
there should be an additional bounty; that would be my own opinion.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Will the government give it?


Edward James McMurray: I cannot speak for the government. There are men in the government who are strong neither for protection nor for bounties. I think bounties are desirable for some legitimate industries, and I also think that the government, having once consented to the principle involved, should not have stood on the amount of bounty, because no bounty was to be paid until the finished product was ready, and these men are risking a large sum of money, five million dollars, in the project. I think Canada should have been prepared to assume some risk when the other people were risking so much.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: In my opinion it is a very shortsighted policy on the part of the government to haggle about half a cent a pound on the finished product and about one or two years for the continuance of the bounty in the case of an industry of this kind. Mr. Coote explained to me when he was here that this industry will not only employ a large number of operatives but will also give a very profitable crop to a large number of farmers. Not only industry but agriculture is to be assisted by this project. As my hon. friend has pointed out, the market is right beside the factory practically, and the cost of transportation of the finished product will be a bagatelle compared with the freight rate from Brantford or any other centre where binder twine can be obtained. If in Manitoba flax and hemp can be produced that will make it possible for an industry comparable to the Belfast linen industry to be established there, it would be one of the best things that could be done by way of encouraging industries for the Dominion. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the government will look at this matter in a broader spirit than they seem to have done up to the present time. I hope that if they can find men who are willing to invest $5,000,000, they will show a more generous spirit in helping those men to establish this industry and put them in a position where they can overcome the difficulties which they are sure
to meet with at the outset until they get their factory erected and in operation. Never, I believe, since I have been a member of this House have I observed a proposal against which there could be so little objection, even on the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), and, as well, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low), who I believe is favourable to this particular industry-at least, having a knowledge of his good sense and sound judgment I would suppose so. I think the government ought to look at this matter in a little broader way and make it certain so far as they can that this industry will be established in Manitoba.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Judging from the statement of the Solicitor General (Mr. MeMurray) the House must be of opinion that the hemp industry is in a very precarious condition. We are asked to vote $500 for the administration of the Hemp Bounties Act, although the people who are to carry out the contract for the establishment of a hemp industry are dead, and he is looking for someone else to take their place. I think the minister had better strike out the item altogether, and wait until the company is brought into existence. I should like to say a word, too, to the Minister of Agriculture. He is a protectionist for six years. The Solicitor General wants to stretch it out, and probably would make it eight years or some other indefinite term.	.


William Richard Motherwell: It is terminable.


James Dew Chaplin: It is well to know that he is at least a six-year protectionist, and probably as he gets a little older he may add a few years more to that term.


William Richard Motherwell: Might I point out, this does not raise the cost of the article to the consumer.


James Dew Chaplin: Oh.


William Richard Motherwell: It does not.


John Evans: Mr. Chairman, I think the
government is to be commended for resisting payment of any higher bounty. Here is an industry about to be established. According to the Solicitor General, hemp can be grown in Manitoba as cheaply as anywhere else in the world; in fact he said that it attains a growth of eight or ten feet, which shows that the soil is very favourable to the crop. The product of the factory would have its market right there at its own door, a market of at least ten or fifteen million pounds of. twine, and it has the cheapest power on the continent. And yet this industry cannot stand on its own feet. What is the use of estab-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
lishing this industry if it cannot afterwards stand on its own feet in four, five or six years? The International Harvester Company and the Brantford Twine Company will still be in competition with it. What then? The promoters will come to this government and say:	"Here is an industry that must do down unless it is protected." I am against anything of that kind any more. We have plenty of these industries established on bounties and bonuses now. The British Empire Steel Corporation is a case in point; I think they have received more during the years they have been established than the amount they have paid in wages.


Mr. CARROLL:: How much does my hon. friend say they got?


John Evans: More than ninety millions.


William F. Carroll: No, not ninety millions,
and not nineteen millions, in bounties.


John Evans: It is my opinion that no
more industries of this kind, which cannot stand on their own feet, should be established. It only means a burden to the country later on, and the people have plenty of these burdens on their shoulders now.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The fact stares us
in the face that we are without an industry of this kind. We have every assurance that the country is capable of producing hemp and of producing the twine that can be manufactured from it. Experiments have been conducted and those who are engaged in the business are apparently satisfied that a success could be made of such an enterprise in this country. Yet the negotiations seem to be dragging; they are not coming to a head. The hon. member (Mr. Evans) does not want to give encouragement to any industry that cannot stand on its own feet. I could not help thinking last night as I listened to a representative from one of the Maritime provinces that this country is much greater than the people who live in it and who do not take advantage of the opportunities available to them. This gentleman pointed to the fact that over half a million people from his own province of New Brunswick are now residents of the state of Massachusetts, so I think it is about time we began to realize that there is need of our doing something to develop our natural resources.


Mr. KYTE:: They have been in Massachusetts for over twenty-five years.


Donald Sutherland: Their numbers have increased very rapidly of late.


George William Kyte: Not very.


Donald Sutherland: What assurance have those who would like to establish an industry here that they will have a fair and reasonable chance to make a start? Minister after minister on the other side got up here last session and warned the people that this was the beginning of the end, that the death knell of protection in Canada has been sounded. Now they propose a hand-out for six years, but, they say, "look out as soon as that is used up; you can rest assured you will have to stand on your own feet then or get out." But these are not the policies that are being followed in other countries. All progressive countries are doing something to establish industries, to take care of them and to assure their success. If we can manufacture in this country the twine that we need1, and1 if that much more money can be circulated among our own pedple, it will go a long way toward overcoming the stagnation which now prevails. This is only one instance among many that might be mentioned. If the government takes some reasonable steps to do something along this line I am sure hon. members will give them every encouragement, but if it is a matter of putting an item in the estimates simply to make the people believe that something is going to be done, I do not think that is of any use. If you do not propose to do more than you are doing you might just as well cut it out and be done with it, and thus end the farce.


John Evans: The remedy proposed by the leader of the delegation from the Maritime provinces yesterday was that trade should be allowed to go through its natural channels. He meant reciprocity and free trade.


Leon Johnson Ladner: At New Westminster a
cordage factory was established in connection with which all the raw materials w'ere imported. I refer to this case because of the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Evans) who is apparently an out-and-out free trader, so much so that he would wipe off the face of the earth any industries which cannot stand against all kinds of competition, fair or unfair, principled or unprincipled.


John Evans: I would not wipe them off, no.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Well, he would starve them to death. That industry was established immediately after the war, largely due to the enthusiasm of a number of returned men who put up their money to organize the business of a cordage company. After it had been established and was going with fair success, through the influence of such

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ideas as emanate from some of our friends from the prairies along the line of this wiping-out proposition, the government actually took steps to lower the duty on the finished product, to such an extent that the whole industry was in jeopardy. At that time members from British Columbia were given information which established beyond question that without a certain amount of protection against the mass production of large enterprises immediately to the south in the United States the industry would be wiped out of existence. The protective duty was increased, or rather established where it was before, and the result has been, as I understand it in a general way, that far from being an institution in difficulties the project has developed into a success and it is a credit to those who organized it and operate it. Employment is given to the people in the district, shipping is brought into the harbour by the imports of raw material, and the finished product is sold in all parts of British Columbia to the exclusion of the product from the United States.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: They import their raw material from foreign countries?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, they are not able to grow it in British Columbia.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Do they pay duty on it or does it come in free?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not think they pay duty on it; I do not see why they should if they manufacture the article here. The point raised in this discussion is extremely interesting to those from British Columbia. In our province we have essentially an industrial outlook. If we can bring into the port of Vancouver raw materials, whether they be sugar cane from distant lands to make sugar at the British Columbia sugar refinery, or materials for the manufacture of cordage brought in from Manila-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Can the raw material be grown in Canada?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Apparently it can be grown in Manitoba. It may be that the raw material will be got from that part of the country; in fact, if it is better business to use that raw material it will be substituted for the imported material. But my point is that if we in Canada are going to build up a country of economic independence, if we are not to be under servitude to the United States, we must use these instruments of protection, these methods of roundly developing our industrial life as well as our agricultural life.


Mr. PUTNAM:: For how long?


Leon Johnson Ladner: For more than six years.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What does my hon. friend mean by " economic independence "?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I will give an example.
Suppose our friends from the United States owned completely our basic industry in British Columbia, the lumber business. Let us say they owned all the forests and sawmills- everything-and sent their management in, and' after the payment of wages took all their profits which includes increase of capital making possible an extension of business, down on the other side of the line for industrial development there; I say then we should be economically dependent upon our friends on the other side. But if we owned those things ourselves through the citizens of British Columbia, and the business was conducted under their management, and the profits used for further industrial extension on this side, we would be economically independent. Although we want capital from any land, I think all experience shows that capital raised in your own country is infinitely more advantageous than imported capital, because the profits go back into your own country.


John Evans: If you become economically independent of the United States, you are still dependent on production and relying on some industry in this country, which is agriculture, which is not protected at all. Is not that so?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The industry of agricultuie in Canada-and I happen to be in that industry perhaps as much as anybody in this House-is protected just as much or almost as much as any other industry.


John Evans: In what way?


Leon Johnson Ladner: You get Crowsnest pass
rates; you get legislation in connection with your own business.


Mr. MORRISON:: Does agriculture get
any tariff protection?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Any action on the part of
a legislative body which gives special rates or special advantages to any particular industry is a species of protection for that industry.


John Morrison: The manufacturers in
eastern Canada have advantages under the Crowsnest pass agreement as well as the western agriculturist.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Leon Johnson Ladner: That may be so, but if you read the preamble of the agreement and the thirteen classifications of articles, you will see that the main purpose of the agreement is for the products coming from the east for the benefit of the farmer and colonization, and for the products of the farmer coming from the west for export.


John Morrison: It is all for the benefit of the farmer, according to my hon. friend. The manufacturers in eastern Canada, of course, are not at all interested in getting a market for their goods. They do not benefit under the agreement in any way!


Leon Johnson Ladner: The manufacturer receives a certain advantage, but I think a fair interpretation of the agreement will show that its main purpose is for the benefit of the prairie provinces and agriculture.


John Evans: Does not the hon. member
know that we are still paying a higher freight rate under the Crownest pass agreement than the local rates in eastern Canada?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That depends on whether
you live in Calgary or Edmonton, but generally speaking, the rates are considerably lower.


John Evans: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: All the discussion would
indicate that it is the people who are getting the benefit of the rates who want the Crows-nest pass agreement continued. The railways, who are operating under it, do not want it.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that his remarks are becoming slightly irrelevant to the question whether there should be a bounty granted.


Mr. HOEY:: I have been very much interested in this discussion. I think we are all anxious to see a binder twine factory established in the city of Winnipeg. I think, however, it would be regrettable if the impression went abroad that the negotiations collapsed because of the inadequacy of the bounties offered. I was hoping that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), or the member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), or perhaps the member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward), would tell us something about the actual experiences men have had in the growing of hemp. I have seen hemp grow, hundreds of acres of it. I have interviewed men such as Mr. Cotton, of Swan river valley, and I want to say that the men who have attempted to grow hemp have so far been profoundly dis-fMr. Morrison.]
appointed with the results. In conversation they have told me they cannot grow a uniform crop. I have seen patches of hemp growing on Mr. Cotton's farm eleven feet high, and other patches that would not be more than from eighteen inches to two feet -useless hemp. Furthermore, they told me that the machinery necessary to harvest it was almost prohibitory in price, that the curing of hemp was a problem that had never been thoroughly investigated, and consequently they were not persuaded in their own minds that hemp could be profitably cured in a commercial way in the province of Manitoba.


Edward James McMurray: Did the hon. member
discuss this matter with Mr. Coote when he was here? Is it not a fact that Mr. Coote was thoroughly satisfied that hemp could be raised here to the greatest advantage?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I think that is just how we
get into a great manjr of our troubles. In a conversation with me-and I was very much interested in the question-Mr. Coote said that he was basing his reports upon information gleaned from certain citizens of Winnipeg, men who might be described as legitimate or illegitimate boosters. But I am speaking of hemp as I have seen it grow in the province of Manitoba, in the northern sections of the province, and of interviews with men who have had experience in growing it.


Edward James McMurray: Will the hon. member
answer the question? Was not Mr. Coote, who was largely interested in this as an expert, satisfied that hemp could be profitably and successfully grown? Never mind what his researches were.


Robert Alexander Hoey: He expressed the opinion tc
me that he had little if any knowledge of growing hemp, or in fact of hemp. The Belfast Rope Works, the largest institution of its kind in the world, imports most of its raw material, and on the growing of hemp, Mr. Coote was not at all well informed, nor was he primarily interested in it. In view of the cost of the machinery, I think it will take a lot to persuade the farmers of Manitoba, particularly those who have already grown hemp, and grown it at an entire loss, that it can be profitably cured, and it will take a great deal of persuasion to get them to take up the growing of hemp in the future.
I think that this is a problem that might very well be taken up by the committee on industrial research, and we might have more information on it from the experimental farms; although I do not place much faith

Supply-Trade and Commerce
in their reports, because any hemp they have grown has been grown on small plots. I have seen it grown over one hundred acres or so, and I can assure the committee that it was not anything like uniform in height or in commercial value.


William Richard Motherwell: On the invitation
of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), I would like to give the experience of some of the experimental farms and some other farms. The very first year that I had this work in hand we sowed hemp on every experimental farm where there was any chance of its growing. You have to put it on reasonably good land, strong heavy land such as you get in the Red river valley, to attain the best success; and at our farms in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba we have had pronounced success in the growing of hemp nearly every year. In addition to that, turning away from the experimental farms I am sure that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) and the hon. member for Dauphin are familiar with how hemp has been grown in their respective localities. One of the reasons why hemp has become so unpopular in Manitoba is this: In 1921 they grew a magnificent crop at Portage la Prairie, with the understanding that they were going to have a factory to manufacture the hemp, and that they would get a price for their product. The enterprise did not materialize, and they were left with the hemp on their hands. There was no other purpose to which it could be put, and so it was a loss. That was the condition, and they did not want their fingers burned a second time, in the same way at all events. That is the disability under which this whole enterprise has had to grow ever since 1921. The fact is that the farmers had too much faith that the money would be forthcoming to put up the necessary building and to keep it going. I think it was very unfortunate, but probably it was natural that they should go too casually into the enterprise. I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion the heavy lands in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are eminently adapted for growing hemp successfully, running up to eight and ten feet, and the longer it is the better the fibre will be. I saw a very large field of hemp in Hungary on one occasion and judging from the look of it our fields of hemp appear to be quite as satisfactory as theirs. Of course, I do not know how an analysis of it would turn out, but I do know that a trial shipment of hemp to Ireland resulted in a very satisfactory manufactured product. This was only after prolonged experimentation.
The experiments have been going on ,for twelve or fifteen years; it is not a new undertaking by any means. I think that the least troublesome feature of the industry is the growing of the hemp. I might supplement what has been said by my colleague (Mr. McMurray) in that regard. Just as he indicated, the reason the money was not forthcoming was because the inducements were not sufficiently strong to warrant the investment of capital in the enterprise especially during these troublesome times in Great Britain. There have been something like four governments in power in Great Britain since these negotiations were started, with the result that financial conditions are somewhat disturbed and investors will not put money into the enterprise as quickly as under normal conditions. Consequently, for the purposes of encouragement assistance must be extended, particularly during such a period as we have been passing through during the last few years. I think these are substantially the reasons why the undertaking was not proceeded with-the lack of assistance, the shyness of capital, the disturbed political conditions, all these added to the difficulty of floating bonds or any other kind of securities for the development of industries in any of the overseas Dominions. These reasons are quite understandable, and I am sure will appeal to the hon. member for Springfield.


Robert Alexander Hoey: With respect to the amount
of moisture or rainfall, does the minister think it is sufficient to grow hemp profitably year after year?


William Richard Motherwell: I do. The difficulty is more in the matter of weeds. You must not have a lot of weeds on summer fallowed land, because it spoils the fibre. Then you must not put in your crop too early because the cold weather in the early spring is not as harmless to the hemp as it is to wheat. Furthermore, if there is a mass of weeds at the butts of your sheaves it lessens the quality of the hemp. I have had a full discussion of the matter with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward). I have not discussed it, I think, with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) but I am familiar with the land around Portage la Prairie. My first experience in the west was gained there, and I think the lands are exceedingly uniform in character and that hemp can be grown very satisfactorily there; at any rate I know of no difficulties in the way. I suppose there would be some years when there would be a drought, but in particular areas, especially in Dauphin and in the Swan river country, the same amount of drought is not experienced as in,

Supply-Trade and Commerce
perhaps, the southern parts of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I do not fear for the success of this industry because of any difficulty in the way of growing the raw material. I suppose it is like any other crop, I do not care What; even in the case of our major crop, wheat, there are occasionally off periods of production. But I do not know of any crop that is more certain than hemp if it is properly handled. But that applies also to any crop; you have to observe the conditions necessary to success if you wish to obtain the best results.


Mr. LEADER:: I should like to substantiate what the Minister of Agriculture has said with regard to the ability of the soil at Portage la Prairie to produce hemp fibre. I also wanted to support what the Solicitor General has said with respect to the different soils in Manitoba being aible to produce a good quality of this raw material. I was surprised that the Solicitor General did not in that connection mention the locality from which I come because it is a well known fact that if flax eleven feet high can be produced anywhere in Manitoba we can produce it two feet higher at Portage la Prairie.


William Richard Motherwell: I think you can.


Harry Leader: What the Minister of
Agriculture said in regard to the experiment at Portage la Prairie in the years 1920 and 1921 is true. Flax of great length was produced there on a private farm. I believe the statement was even made that a factory was to be built at Portage la Prairie.
I should like to suggest that if the government contemplates going on with this factory it should adhere to the original proposition and locate the plant in the city of Portage la Prairie. The Solicitor General has stated that the soil of the Red river valley is adapted to the growing of hemp fibre, and that it will have a tendency to clean the ground. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I do know that the Minister of Agriculture has stated that the soil should * be absolutely clean before the hemp seed is sown. That would imply that we cannot grow hemp fibre on a soil that is dirty, it must be cleaned first. Consequently considerable time, trouble, and expense to the farmers will be entailed in cleaning up the soil and seeing that their fields are thoroughly cleaned before sowing the seed.
I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what the attitude of the government is in the matter of bounties. Does the government wish to confine the bounty entirely to the manufacturers, or is it intended to aid also the farmers who produce their own material?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Department of Trade and Commerce is simply carrying out the administration of the act, and if my hon. friend will address his question to the Acting Minister of Finance I am sure that hon. gentleman will be able to tell him whether he contemplates granting further encouragement to agriculture or any other industry. The matter does not come under my department. I merely want to impress upon hon. gentlemen that my department is simply administering the act.


Harry Leader: Does it not occur to the minister that the one who produces the article in the first place is more entitled to the bounty, if any bounty is given, in preference to the middlemen who take toll out of it afterwards?


Thomas Andrew Low: I may say that I have my own opinion about all these things, but at this particular time I do not deem it advisable to make any statement of policy. When the budget is under discussion perhaps I shall tell my hon. friend just where I stand on these matters.


Edward James McMurray: I may say to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie that the producer of the hemp does share fully in the bounty that is granted. In this way: At the commencement of the industry the farmer must be paid a considerable amount for his product; I think the arrangement is that the land is rented from him and he is allowed so much per acre. He does not have to grow the hemp himself unless he wants to. The offer having been made to him the money to provide for the crop will be deposited in the bank -I think that is the arrangement-in order to take care of the farmers crop of hemp this year. In that way they benefit from the bounty. The farmer is not bound to grow that hemp fibre but it appeals to him as better, perhaps, than growing wheat, and in growing that hemp fibre he shares in the bounty.


Mr. FORKE:: Does the minister know
of any desire expressed by the farmers that this industry should be started at Winnipeg?


Edward James McMurray: I am very sorry to say that I have not heard such an expression in this House, and I have been exceedingly astonished that I have not.


Robert Forke: Or anywhere else?


Edward James McMurray: But there has been
from the farmers in Manitoba and the Red river valley, an excellent sphere of operations. Now that the arrangements have been made

Supply-Trade and Commerce
I must say that I am absolutely astounded that our friends from Manitoba are not supporting this proposition.


Mr. BIRD:: The minister need scarcely be astonished. I think the reason is to be found in the fact that the farmers are not keenly interested in the matter. Two years ago I took the opportunity of sounding a representative body of farmers in my riding, and they declared themselves emphatically against it. Not 'because the country will not produce hemp; it will produce hemp and many things; it will produce apples and plums, and I believe, watermelons, in certain seasons; it certainly will produce hemp. But in the year during which hemp was tried it did not produce it very well. I have not inquired into the growing side of it, and I do not think the farmers in the Swan river valley are objecting to it so much from that point of view. I think they all believe they could grow hemp almost any season, because in the Swan river valley we have more than our share of moisture. I think that is one of the fundamental requirements in growing hemp-abundance of precipitation-and we have that in our district, to a greater degree than have Dauphin or Portage la Prairie. If there is one place in the west where hemp should be sucessful it is in the Swan river valley. We have the rainfall and we have the soil; the farmers are not objecting to it from that point of view, but they believe it would interfere with their ordinary farming operations. They do not believe the season in the fall is suitable for the curing process. And that leads me to make the remark that I do not believe the proposition has been sufficiently investigated. I do not believe our Department of Agriculture has carried its investigation far enough to justify them in attempting to bonus the industry. Before attempting to set an industry on its feet it ought to be ascertained whether it has any feet to stand on, and I am not sure, and the farmers in my district are not sure, whether the industry will be a paying one from the point of view of the farmer; and I think that when you attempt to establish an industry in the west it is the producer who should be considered. It seems to me that without sufficient investigation along those lines the possibility is that you are going to have an industry established in Winnipeg which will have to import its raw material. I can quite conceive that Mr. Coote and others were not very deeply interested in whether Manitoba produces hemp or not; it was the establishment of the industry that was a point of interest to them. Once
established it would not matter whether Manitoba could produce hemp or not, because hemp could be imported, and the manufactured article couild be produced under protection, which of course would be the natural result. I have no real objection to a bonus in principle; I think perhaps some day we will have arrived at a state of social and economic enlightenment in this country when we will sufficiently trust each other to be able to make these concessions in order that legitimate and indigenous industries may get on their feet. But at the present time I am almost sure, after hearing the expressions of opinion from this corner of the House, that this is a back door attempt to strangle the free trade opinion of the west by means of hempen rope.


William Richard Motherwell: I may say that my attention was first drawn to the advisability of entering into this proposal by four Progressive members sitting right over there, and if I am challenged I will name them, but I am not going to mention the names unless I am asked.


Robert Forke: You must not do that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name, name.


William Richard Motherwell: Let one of the four make the request and I will give the names. I had a good interview in my office on this subject, and I was stimulated more strongly to go into it because I thought I had somebody behind me that knew something about the capacity of Manitoba to grow hemp. I did not divulge this two years ago, because I did not want to do it at that time, but when they have shown, not only lukewarmness from the very province and the country we are trying to benefit, but a certain amount of hostility, I think I am entitled to indicate where the encouragement first came from. If any new information has been brought to their attention since then to warrant a change, let them give us the benefit of it, and a change may be made even at this stage. If I had information brought to me at the present time that warranted me in changing my mind with regard to the possible success of this enterprise, particularly with regard to growing the raw material, I would consider myself at 'liberty to make the change, but that additional information has not been put before the House; certainly none was put before me. The longer I look into the question the more I am convinced that the manufactured article can be produced from the raw material out there. I cannot think

Supply-Trade and Commerce
of one single substantial new industry which has been established in my province during the last twenty years which has not got some kind of infantile assistance from which it has been gradually weaned. Is that not the way the animal and human kingdom is developed from infancy? But on the other hand, while I believe in helping them while they are young, I do not believe in helping them when they become hoary-whiskered and fifty years of age. I think we have been reasonable in this connection; we assist the young industries but we draw the line at the older ones. There is nothing inconsistent in our position in that respect. Would you extend the same paternal care to a young man of twenty-five as you would to a child of a year old? Certainly not. Neither should you extend the same assistance to an industry which has been in existence for twenty-five years as you would to one which has just been bom; there would be no logic in that. However, I have stated the position we take on this question. If you want to start a home industry without some assistance and let them depend upon foreign nations for their raw supplies for all time to come, well and good.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In view of the hon. minister's embarrassment-


William Richard Motherwell: No embarrassment
at all.


Leon Johnson Ladner: -and a non-appreciative audience from Manitoba, may I ask him if he will not place this five-million-dollar industry in the city of Vancouver, which has both arms open to him?


William Richard Motherwell: I made the statement two years ago that I had no doubt that if this industry was once established it would extend to the Pacific coast.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If our friends in Manitoba want to choke the industry by not supplying the hemp, we can get it by water from across the seas.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think our Manitoba friends in their hearts are against it, but I will tell you what they do not like; when they are endeavouring in their hearts to assist a legitimate industry, they do not like to have it thrust in their faces that it is protection.


Harry Leader: I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) will withdraw the remark he has just made, when he thinks it over. We are deeply interested in [Mr. Motherwell.)
this question. The Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray) said no one from this comer of the House had shown any desire to have this industry in that province, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture says he can name four who approached him.


Edward James McMurray: The four did not mention it to me.


Harry Leader: I am not particularly interested in that phase of it, but when he says that the farmers are not interested, I will tell hon. members why. There was a farmer at Portage la Prairie who raised a crop on two or three hundred acres; he produced a splendid article, and because there was no machinery to take care of this product he burned it. I want to tell the government: promote a factory, do not depend upon any government pap, and we will furnish the raw material which we have amply demonstrated we can do, if we are shown a reasonable profit for our labour.


Mr. WARD:: I have no hesitation in telling the House that I was one of the four. There is an angle of this question that has not been dealt with this afternoon, and it is the real crux of the matter. We are producing in Canada something like 1,060,000,000 to 1,200,000,000 bushels of grain annually, and we are absolutely depending upon a semi-hostile nation for our twine supplies. Supposing that war should break out between Mexico and the United States; our sympathies would naturally drift to the United States, would they not? Where, then, would we be for our twine supplies? The time is long overdue when Canada should have been seeking a way out of this difficulty by producing her own twine supplies. I was one of the four who approached the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). We can produce hemp in the Dauphin district quite as well as in the Swan river district. But I am not particularly interested in the question where the factory is to be established; you can establish it at Portage la Prairie, if you like, but establish it where you can produce the twine most cheaply; if you can produce it more cheaply at Portage la Prairie than at Winnipeg or anywhere else, establish the plant at Portage la Prairie. But establish the factory and we will produce the raw material. I am not averse at all to giving this new industry some assistance, and I do not think I am sacrificing any of my free trade principles in saying so, as long as proper safeguards are thrown around the bounty and it is put on a sliding scale. Let them have a sufficient bonus at the outset to give them a

Supply-Trade and Commerce
good send-off. I corroborate what the Minister of Agriculture has said,-when the industries get hoary-headed and have whiskers a foot long, it is time to take the bonus away from them. But this is an industry that we should seek to establish in Manitoba.


Thomas Andrew Low: May I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that this was an act passed in 1923. I have no doubt that everything in connection with the act and the industry was discussed at that particular time, and I cannot see what good will be done by continuing to discuss the industry. Unfortunately, the industry has not started. Many reasons may have entered into that. But the act is on the statute book and the only way to get rid of it is to repeal it. This is an item of $500, and we have occupied the time of the House this afternoon for an hour and one-half in discussing this question at a cost to the country, I should think of almost $500. I do not of course, wish to curtail discussion at all.


Robert Forke: I want to take up a little
more of the time of the House, because the Minister of Agriculture has to-day made some statements in regard to which I should .'ike a little more explanation. He speaks about being interviewed by four Progressive members who apparently were afraid to mention the fact that they had interviewed the minister. I have been searching my memory and I recollect who the four members were who did not interview the minister, but who went to the minister upon his invitation. That is quite a different matter. I recollect going down to the minister's office with Mr. Coote and hearing this matter discussed. If the minister can get his memory to work, he will recall that there was very strenuous opposition to offering any large bonus to any company to start an industry as to the success of which we were not very sure. It is all very well to point to hon. members in this House and to blame them for not standing behind him when he advocates the establishment of this industry; but I feel certain that his memory is at fault, and I have no hesitation in stating who the members were. They were my deskmate, the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) and myself, who went to the minister's office on the invitation of Mr. Coote and the Minister of Agriculture to discuss this question.


William Richard Motherwell: The statement made by my hon. friend is reasonably correct, but
there is another side to it. I do not recall whether it was Mr. Coote or myself who invited my hon. friends but we will let that rest. We discussed in a very frank and friendly manner the protective nature of the question, and I remember quite well our friends from Manitoba took the ground that they could not defend that side of it. I understood, however, from them equally candidly that they would not oppose it. If they are not opposing it now, I am glad to know that.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I was one of the men
who went to the minister's office, and I have no apology to make to this House for doing so. I would do so again. I went repeatedly, not only to the Minister of Agriculture, but to the Minister of Finance in regard to this hemp question, and in doing so,
I was doing my duty to the citizens of Canada, because this is an industry that should be started and receive every assistance. We on the Pacific coast are sending hundreds and thousands of dollars out of the country every year for rope. If this industry was started, we would not have to do that. Canada will not be what it should be until we get some of these industries started.


John Livingstone Brown: This seems to be a time
for confession, and it is true, as has been stated, that we went to interview the minister on this question. I was one of the four. We discussed the matter very freely. It is true, possible objections were 5 p.m. raised, possible advantages discussed, and for my part I have always contended that if industries were to be helped at all, the principle of bonusing is infinitely better than that of protection for the reason already given that there is at least some finality to a bonus. For my part, I would be only too delighted to see an industry of this kind established in Manitoba with reasonable help given to it at the outset. Whether hemp can be grown satisfactorily or not under average conditions that prevail in Manitoba, I do not know. Whether sufficient investigation has been made of the whole question prior to the present time, I do not know. I do not think, however, it would be fair to cite as an objection the fact that a large crop was grown in 1921 and that there was no market for it. We know that this is a crop that is of no use to anybody unless there are proper facilities for taking care of it. I may say freely that I have some doubt whether average conditions that prevail, not only for growing the hemp, but for taking care of it in the fall, will be such as to make it satisfactory to go into this industry. We know perfectly well our
(508

Supply-Trade and Commerce
fall conditions are frequently such as would probably interfere altogether with the harvesting of the crop-last fall, I think was of that character. At the same time, if it can be shown that there is any reasonable prospect of success, I should like to see the industry started.


Mr. MILNE:: I have no confession to
make; but as practically all the Manitoba members have been vying with one another in regard to this project of making rope from hemp, I want to say just a word. So far as I have been able to gather, most of the propaganda circulated throughout the country in connection with hemp growing has been published and circulated by promoters. Farmers are somewhat leary of promoters and I do not blame them a bit. As a matter of fact, in trying to get information as regards hemp growing, I came across some people who were making investigations. I am not going to give their names because they told me definitely that the experiment had not been carried on long enough for them to give out concrete information to the farmers or to advise them whether to take up hemp growing or not. Now it seems to me that the experimental farms should carry on this work. I think a programme should be laid out at those farms to demonstrate to the farmers whether hemp can take a place in the ordinary crop rotation of the western farm. We have had some contradictory statements in this regard. I think the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) stated that you must have clean land for hemp. Well, clean land in some sections of Manitoba is rather hard to find these days, and perhaps one of our biggest problems in western Canada, especially in Manitoba, is the weed crop. I think the government would be well advised, if they have the information available, to inform our farmers whether hemp growing is feasible and practicable on the farms of Manitoba. If that were made clear, I think there would be no difficulty in getting the necessary raw material for any factory that might be established. I certainly should like to see the industry established. I will not oppose its formation in any way if it can be accomplished on a sound basis, but I think it would be unfortunate if an attempt were made through promoters before a thorough investigation had been conducted along the lines I have suggested.


Mr. MILLAR:: , Has the minister any definite information concerning the point raised by the member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) as well as by the last speaker (Mr. Milne) that is, the proper caring for the hemp after it is

grown. I remember years ago when the old binder twine factory was in operation in Brandon the head of it interviewed experts and travelled in several countries, spending a lot of time and money in an endeavour to solve this problem. If I remember rightly, when the factory got into financial difficulties the matter of retting, that is the caring for the flax after it is grown, was still unsolved. That I believe is the greatest difficulty confronting the industry.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sorry I have not any
information on the subjeot; it does not come within my department.


John Millar: Perhaps the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) can furnish the information?	,


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
will visit the flax plant at the experimental farm he will find that the necessary retting process can all be done indoors. I think the same applies to hemp, but I am not quite sure. When I went through the hemp factories of Hungary something like fourteen years ago, they were still following the old outside process, but since then I understand they have adopted mechanical processes that have proven equally satisfactory and more convenient, being entirely under control.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Chairman, I am sure
all members will agree that we have gone into this matter very fully. I may inform the hon. Minister of Agriculture that even before his time not only farmers but manufacturers were interesting themselves in the growing of hemp in our western country. I remember at that time we investigated the matter pretty thoroughly, and there did not appear to be any sound objections to the growing of the crop. The Minister of Agriculture has stated that further experiments have been made at the various experimental farms, and that the results have been satisfactory. It has been pointed out too by the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray) that our demand for material of this kind to manufacture binder twine is very great. It has also been further pointed out by hon. gentlemen to my left that in the event of Mexico being at war perhaps our present supply of sisal for the manufacture of binder twine might be very seriously interfered with. On the other hand we have these negotiations progressing for a number of years without any definite result. Well now, if it is good to give a small bounty of one and a half cents a pound, and if it is practicable to give more than that, why not give it and get the industry started?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


John Arthur Clark: A great deal has been said
this afternoon about getting this industry started. It seems to me that it is in that very word that the difficulty lies. Everbody seems interested in getting the industry started. But, as the Minister of Agriculture very -aptly stated, our farmers are not growing hemp because they are afraid of getting their fingers burnt. I think that this also applies to the capitalists who are expected to put $5,000,000 into this industry. If the sole ambition of hon. member's is to get the industry started, they may be certain that the capitalist will hang on to his money until he is no longer afraid of having his fingers burnt. The Minister of Agriculture stated that he would be willing to apply the doctrine of protection to infant industries. Now, that is welcome news to me personally as one who is not afraid to state he is an out and out protectionist for every legitimate industry. But he and others say that when the industry is established the protection must cease. In my opinion that is just what is. making it very difficult to get this industry established.


Mr. ROBINSON:: May I ask the hon. gentleman what he means by a " legitimate " industry?


John Arthur Clark: I have not time to go into details. I am talking of one now which is legitimate. I know of very few industries in this country that are anything but legitimate. However, I think we will have very serious difficulty in establishing this particular industry and continuing it unless we are prepared to say to its promoters, " Just so long as you require assistance, whether it be protection or whether it be anything else, we will see that you get it, because the principle that we are prepared to adopt is to assist all legitimate industries." If we are willing now to recognize this industry, and assist its establishment, then surely we recognize it as a legitimate industry, and we should be prepared to look after it, whether it be for six years, ten years or throughout the history of our country. The Minister of Agriculture drew an apt comparison between protection for the infant of two years and the man of twenty-five. I would draw his attention to the fact, if he will listen to me for a moment, because it is something which his government might take very great interest in-but apparently he is not interested.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the question?


John Arthur Clark: I would draw his attention to this fact, that to-day it is not the infant of two years that is leaving this country but 39
it is the well-educated, full-grown man, the man that forms the very life blood of the nation. Now, which type requires assistance or protection; is it our young manhood-[DOT] migrating to the United States at the rate of
200,000	a year-or is it our infants of tender age?


John Evans: Tell us.


John Arthur Clark: I do not wish to insult the intelligence of the whole House. However, if the hon. member wants an answer, it is the youth we are spending millions of dollars to educate, to bring into the state of manhood, he needs protection to-day, we want to keep him in this country to-day, the man who is worth while to the nation. The only way you can keep him at home is to establish industries. And once you have established them, do not quibble over a period of six years; if the industry is a good industry, say that you are ready to assist it not merely for two years or four years or six years but as long as the country needs it.


Mr. LOVIE:: Let us get back to some
hard facts on the hemp question. I come from one of the best -farming districts in southern Manitoba-or as good as there is in any other part of Manitoba, at least- and I do not think the farmers there ever heard the word "hemp" mentioned, at any rate so far as the raising of hemp as a crop is concerned, When hemp is raised, how does it get to the factory? What has to be done with it? What machinery is needed for the handling of the crop in the fall? What facilities are necessary for shipping? Are the sheaves loaded on flat cars or is it baled and put in box cars? What are we up against as regards the marketing of the crop?


Mr. STEEDSMAN:: Before there is any
suggestion of increasing the bounty on hemp we ought to be sure that there will be a supply of the raw material for the factory when it is built. Personally I have never grown hemp, and I am not going to dispute the assertion of the Minister of Agriculture that it has been demonstrated clearly that-hemp can be grown. But it has been mentioned, I think, by one hon. member that the hemp crop is of such a nature that it cannot be harvested and got to the factory in the fall in sufficient time to make the land available for the crop the next year, in other words, that it will not lend itself to rotation. The Minister of Agriculture has said that it was necessary to have clean land, and summer fallowing was suggested. If that is so it will take three years to grow a crop of



Supply-Trade and Commerce
hemp, and the product would have to bring a good price to induce any farmer to undertake to grow it commercially. If my memory serves me correctly, the professor of field husbandry at the Manitoba Agricultural College has made the statement that hemp will not lend itself to rotation and that it cannot be got rid of in commercial quantities in time to prepare the soil for another crop the next year. If it takes three years to grow one crop it will be a pretty expensive proposition.


William Richard Motherwell: I can understand
its taking two years, but I do not see how my hon. friend makes it three.


James Steedsman: One year for summer fallow, one year to grow the crop, and your 'land is not in condition for the third year.


William Richard Motherwell: Why?


James Steedsman: Because in our climate the crop cannot be harvested in time to get the land ready for another crop the next year.


Edward James McMurray: Has my hon. friend
never heard of spring ploughing?


James Steedsman: Yes, but I would
refer my hon. friend to the report of the field husbandry branch of the Agricultural College at Winnipeg. We want this thing amply demonstrated. It will not do for the minister to throw such suggestions at me; we want proof. If it takes three years to grow one crop then I think the matter should be looked into very thoroughly.


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend does not want to go into that enterprise he is not obliged to do so; it is purely an optional matter. As my hon. friend knows, there are areas both in northeastern Saskatchewan and in northwestern Alberta where the lands are too flat for the growing of wheat. It is the newer land; I am sure my hon. friend has heard of such areas. He says that it might take three years to grow a crop of hemp. I do not accept that at all, but suppose for the sake of argument it did take three years, I would point out that the same condition prevails in regard to the growing of tobacco, on account of the numerous fungous diseases which attack the tobacco plant. Notwithstanding this fact, tobacco growling is developing very rapidly in Quebec and Ontario. I assume that when a man decides to go into tobacco production he must figure on getting sufficiently paid for it, having regard to the fact that it takes three [Mr. Steedsman.j
years to produce a crop. As to the point raised by my hon. friend from Macdonald, I must say I never saw a crop of hemp on wheels, 'but I remember as a young fellow in Ontario we used to cut hop poles, which are much coarser than hemp, so I assume the hemp can be transported in some way. A quarter of a million Christmas trees are cut annually in the province of Quebec, and they are just as bulky as hemp is. So there should be no difficulty in transporting hemp.


William John Ward: I would like to clear up
some misapprehension on the part of the hon. member for Souris and the hon, member for Macdonald. We have been growing hemp in Dauphin for about eight years, not on a large scale, but in small patches. We have farmers there who grow a patch every year as a windbreak. They do not plough the ground in the spring. The hemp is cut down and very often it is burned. They simply put on a drill and sow the grain without ploughing; it is not necessary to plough before seeding. But whether you are growing hemp for commercial purposes or merely as a windbreak it is necessary to summer fallow, because the hemp is a very delicate plant when it is coming up in the spring and the weeds may get the better of it. Suppose we summer fallow in 1922; the hemp grows in 1923, and in 1924 they simply put the drill on and sow wheat. We have taken forty bushels to the acre off the ground where the hemp had grown the year before. So if the hemp can be removed in the fall of the year in which it is grown there is no reason why the land should lie idle the next year. It seems to me that we have been derelict in our duty in this matter of the production of such a commodity as binder twine, because we have been sending outside of this country every dollar we spend in the purchase of that material.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: The minister said
there was one industry manufacturing binder twine in Canada. Is that the only one?


Edward James McMurray: I think it was I who
said that. I know of only one factory making binder twine in Canada, and that is at Brantford.


Arthur Edward Ross: Can the minister say what was done with the machinery in the penitentiaries for the manufacture of binder twine? Is that still available?


Thomas Andrew Low: I think the hon. member will
have to ask the Minister of Justice that question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
British and Foreign News Service, $32,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister be good enough to tell us how this vote started? I cannot find out from the estimates. I notice there was a vote of $21,000 in the estimates of 1923-1924; there was an increase there of about $10,000 odd, but I do not see any vote previous to that. How was that carried, and what are the reasons for the increase?


Thomas Andrew Low: The reason it was only $21,000 in 1923-1924 is that the vote covered the service for only part of the year. This vote is to provide for an agreement entered into in 1923 for a new service. The annual payment is $32,000. The full amount was voted last year. The agreement will expire in July, 1926.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When did the
payments start? What was the first vote?


Thomas Andrew Low: The agreement is for three
years and expires in July, 1926, so it must have been entered into in July, 1923, and the first vote would be to cover the period from July, 1923, to the end of the fiscal year, a period of eight or nine months.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this something which takes the place of the former vote we had in connection with the news service, the vote that was objected to so bitterly two or three years ago by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill)?


Thomas Andrew Low: I really do not know to what
vote my hon. friend refers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The vote for
the Canadian Press Association..


Thomas Andrew Low: That was a different thing
entirely. This is for a foreign service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So was the other. At the time this new service was initiated, did it take the place of anything or was it an entirely new venture?


Thomas Andrew Low: This is for an entirely new
service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it not the
fact that it was entered into just about the time the other service lapsed?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not know whether the contract was made just about that time or not. This agreement was entered into by my predecessor, now the Minister of Immigration. The other vote was a vote of $50,000 to the Canadian Press Association. That was dropped last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But it was promised to be dropped by the government before 39i
that time; it was stated in the House that it would be dropped. I think it was dropped just about the time this new agreement was entered into. What is the difference between the old service and the service the country gets under this agreement?


Thomas Andrew Low: The other was to assist the
press of Canada. This is to present independently and fairly to the outside world what is going on in Canada and to keep alive interest in Canada and Canadian enterprise. Reuters agree to transmit at least an average of ten thousand words monthly of Canadian news designed to promote the interests of Canada. The two services are entirely different. The other vote was towards the Canadian press.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it, then, that the vote that had lapsed was a vote that assisted in the dissemination of outside news from Great Britain and the like in Canada; in other words, it was something which would enable our own people to have news of what was going on in the empire at large; and this vote of $32,000 is, I understand, for the purpose of news being sent from Canada to other parts of the world.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are we
getting for it? Where is the news collected, who collects it, and where is it sent?


Thomas Andrew Low: Reuter's Agency in Canada
collects the news and transmits it to the different parts of the empire and other parts of the world.


Mr. CHARTERS:: How often is the news sent?


Thomas Andrew Low: Daily.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON; By whom?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sure my hon. friend when he was abroad this year must have noticed many articles appearing in the British press and also on the continent as a result of this service.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Is this news or are
these articles from Canada censored by the government?


Thomas Andrew Low: Not at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that quite
right?


Thomas Andrew Low: They are not censored.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not censored or inspired?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a vulgar impression, abroad in the country that they are, owing to the government's having appointed the same gentleman who looks after the government's publicity. Will my hon. friend deny that?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, but I will make inquiries
to satisfy my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not think my hon. friend would deny that. Surely there is no mystery about it. He is a very good man for that kind of work, a very estimable gentleman. I think the government were very wise in engaging him as publicity agent. Apparently it is necessary to have a publicity agent and that sort of thing nowadays. I think the government were very wise also when they chose the agency of Reuter's as their publicity agency. My hon. friend asked me whether I had noticed a whole lot of items last summer on the other side. Well, if he is going to ask me as to the number of items, 1 must confess that I could not get very many. It may be I was not lucky enough to get any of the newspapers that were getting help out of this $32,000. Perhaps my hon. friend would give me a list of the papers I should have been reading and was not. In other words, we are paying $32,000 a year for advertising overseas, and I want to know in what papers these items appear.


Thomas Andrew Low: In almost all the British daily papers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Anywhere else,
in any other countries besides England?


Thomas Andrew Low: Wherever Reuter's have an
agency.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there one in Paris?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I should like to know also the name of the newspaper in Paris because I certainly could not find any, and I read most of them. Perhaps the deputy could turn up the list and let us have it?


Thomas Andrew Low: He has not got the list of papers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does not the contract show the list?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, the contract does not show the list. It would be impossible to embody in it the names of the different papers served by Reuter's service,-it is a very lengthy list.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should have thought that you would have had something

definite in this contract which would show just how much space we are to get, and in what newspapers the information was to appear. Surely the contract contains some provision which will indicate exactly what we are paying for.


George Gibson Coote: May I make the request that the minister speak a little louder, we are not able to hear what he is saying.


Thomas Andrew Low: An agreement was entered into in June, 1923, with the government of Canada by Reuters-London-for a news service to the United Kingdom and countries in the British Empire, as well as to the principal countries of the world. This provides for the transmission by cable to the United Kingdom of an average of 10,000 words monthly of Canadian news designed to promote the interest of Canada. This is to be in addition to the service which Reuters already cable to Canada from the world at large, which they undertake to maintain at its present average length. It is also provided that there shall be a general dissemination throughout the United Kingdom, the British dominions, and elsewhere, of mail news calculated to arouse and maintain interest in Canada and Canadian activities-commercial, financial, industrial, agricultural and so on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that as far as we get?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, unless I send the hon. member a copy of the contract which I shall be very glad to do.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, I think there will be some clause which will show what we get.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have just read the clause and it states exactly what we get.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is wonderful in its generalization, perfectly marvellous. It appears to be more general than concrete; to be more general would not have been possible. Now, if my ear caught the minister's statement aright there are two services that we get; wre get a service to Canada as well as a service out of Canada. Perhaps we can find out whait happens to the service into Canada if we cannot learn what happens to the service out of the country. Now then, we have a service into Canada. Where does it go and who gets the benefit of it?


Thomas Andrew Low: All the newspapers take
Reuter's service. That service extends all over the world, and the newspapers that patronize it get the benefit of the news which is transmitted from one country to the other.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well really the
long and the short of it is this:	We have
nothing definite in our contract at all. We are paying $32,000 for Reuter's correspondents getting the privilege of taking some of our news. If I am wrong in the idea I should like my hon. friend to put me right and show me wherein I am wrong. That is the position of affairs unless there is something more definite which we are entitled to under the contract.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have read the clause covering the item in question which shows that an average of 10,000 words of Canadian news must 'be transmitted monthly; Reuters undertake to do that. I am sure that is very definite-ten thousand words or more. What more definite information] would, tmy1 ihon. friend like to have in the contract?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely my hon. friend sees what we are really interested in is the publication. We are entitled to get something definite on that question, one would think. I suppose it can be said that if the ten thousand words were sent that would look to be fair. That is true to some extent, but it is the matter of publication that we are interested in, and surely the minister ought to know whether we are really getting publication and to what extent use is being made of these ten thousand words per month.


Thomas Andrew Low: Let me state for the benefit
of my hon. friend that we received1 during the past year 12,975 clippings from British newspapers dealing with Canadian news items. I am sure that is something worth while.


Robert Forke: What particular use is made
of these clippings?


Thomas Andrew Low: They are sent to the various
departments that are interested in them and are used for whatever purpose those departments may deem best.


Robert Forke: Has the government any
say at all as to what sort of news shall be sent to Great Britain?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, we have no control.


Alfred Speakman: As I understand there
are two clauses in the agreement. One provides for the transmission to the United Kingdom of Canadian news designed to promote the interests of Canada. The other deals with the general dissemination throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere of news likely to arouse and maintain interest in Canada and Canadian activities. I was wondering how the government ascertains whether these undertakings are observed? Is the sending out of
news calculated to promote interest in Canada left entirely to Reuters?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Whether it is in the best
interest of Canada or the best interests of the government?


Alfred Speakman: I wanted to find out
who is exercising supervision.


Thomas Andrew Low: Reuters is a very reputable
agency. We go over the clippings as they come in and we find that the news transmitted is of interest to the various departments, to the people of Canada, and also to the people of those countries in which the news is published.


Robert Forke: The minister will realize
that it makes all the difference in the world whether the news is taken, as for example during the debate on the Address, from the statements of the government or from the statements of the opposition.


Thomas Andrew Low: The field is covered from all
sources and sometimes the remarks of the opposition are found transmitted in the service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not all.


William F. Carroll: I should judge the government would be very interested in getting back clippings from the various newspapers who take advantage of this service and ascertaining whether any false news is being transmitted. If such was the case correction could be made. It is pretty safe to presume that nothing is being sent out but what is to the advantage of Canada industrially and socially or otherwise.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
would not suggest that false news is being sent out. I do not think anyone would for a moment suggest that Reuters is sending out false news.


William F. Carroll: I do not suggest that
either, but if it were done the parties responsible could be brought to task.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like
the minister to tell me if the general impres-. sion that I have drawn to his attention is wrong. The government has a pretty good hold of the situation owing to the fact that the very capable gentleman who acts for Reuters also acts as its publicity agent here at Ottawa or director of government information if you like. Combining these two activities as he does, it is fairly clear that he would do the government no harm in whatever messages he sent-

4 fply-Trade and Commerce


William F. Carroll: Why should he?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not saying that he should. It may be that it is a very proper precaution for the government to take.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The minister tells us that he has received twelve thousand clippings. That does not indicate exactly how many different items were sent out by Reuters. What service do we get for this money?


Thomas Andrew Low: The number must be quite
large. We do not receive them all. We have received1 about twelve thousand. That does not cover all the items.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Do I understand there were twelve thousand different items sent out?


Thomas Andrew Low: Twelve thousand in British
newspapers alone. About 860 of these items related to agriculture dn this country.


Samuel Charters: Separate items?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thomas Andrew Low: I would like to return to vote No. 355.
Bounty on crude petroleum, administration of, $1,500.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is always a good sign to see members anxious to get as many details as possible in connection with the votes, but it seems too bad that the time of the House should be taken up asking many questions when if the members would sometimes turn to the reports that are filed at the opening of the session they would find the information they require, instead of spending hours in the House trying to extract the information from the minister. I find at the opening of the session I placed on the table of the House the thirty-second annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ending March 31, 1924, and just so soon this afternoon as my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) discovered that we did not have with us certain details in connection with a small vote, he endeavoured to press-


Henry Lumley Drayton: What item
is being considered?


George Newcombe Gordon: Item 355.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am glad that I am now
able to give him the full details, and if my hon. friend had only taken a glance at page 40 of the report filed weeks ago, he would have found an answer to every question with which he endeavoured to embarrass the department.
fSir Henry Drayton-]


James Arthurs: Was the minister aware
of the details himself?


Thomas Andrew Low: I knew they were in the report, but I told the House I did not have them with me. I find here the total production in the province of Ontario, the production in each county of the province and in each township in the county, the number of gallons produced in each month of the year, the amount of bounty paid each month, and the total bounty paid for the twelve months. If my hon. friend will just refer to page 40 of this report he will find everything in it that he asked for this afternoon.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now that my
hon. friend knows something about his subject, I am going to ask and get from him, as I am entitled to, the information in connection with this vote.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sending the report over
to my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want
the report. I would have thought that he would have had the material here, and if my hon. friend thinks he can make great progress by homilies as to what other people should do I am quite content he should think so, but I am still going to try to get some facts relative to what may be thought by my hon. friend to be matters of no importance, but which are of some considerable importance to the people immediately interested in them. As he has the information I am going to ask him, what the amount of production was last year in barrels?


Thomas Andrew Low: For Ontario?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


Thomas Andrew Low: The total number of barrels
for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1924, for Ontario, was 156,092.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are the figures
having to do with the administration of this department later than the last fiscal year? What has been paid this year? What is the production this year? My hon. friend seems to forget entirely that there is a broken period here in connection with the change in the bounties. My hon. friend can tell me now-unless the work of the department is entirely behind-what has been paid and what the production has been month by month down to the last accounting period. The books certainly should have been closed six weeks ago.

Sxiyply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: The information is in the report. It gives the statistics up to the end of the last fiscal year. If my hon. friend insists on bringing these right up to the 31st January of this year, we shall have to make up the statement for him and present it to him when these estimates are under discussion again. My hon. friend knows well it would be impossible to present a report to parliament showing the figures right up to the previous month. I thought I had all the information necessary for the House in connection with this vote, and if giving the details of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1924 is not sufficient, and if the House wishes further information, I will have to ask to have the item stand over, but I must know the wishes of the House in connection with this matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
asks to have it stand over.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, to get the information
for which the hon. gentleman asks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
has not got it yet. I also wanted to know the number of wells operating. Can the minister give me that now?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, there is no information as
to the number of wells operating. That will come under the Department of the Interior or the Department of Mines. We are simply administering the act and we do not record the number of wells.


Burt Wendell Fansher: When this item was up
for discussion early this afternoon I made inquiry of the minister as to how many claims were presented for bounty. We are asked to vote a certain amount for the administration of this work, and I think it only proper we should know the number of claims and the extent of the work in connection with the administration of the bounty.


Thomas Andrew Low: I will be glad to give my hon.
friend full information on the extent of the work in connection with the administration; but so far as the amounts which have been paid to each individual producer are concerned, I have not that information. The officials employed in connection with this work are:	W. D. McDermid, supervisor at
Petrolia, at an annual salary of $1,560; Hugh Boyle, part time, Sarnia, $200; S. E. Slipper, Edmonton, Alberta, $200; O. J. O. LeBlanc, St. John, $100. Travelling and other expenses amounted to $940. Of course, as I stated at the outset, the payment of bounty expires the 30th June this year.


Burt Wendell Fansher: I am well aware that the bounty expires the first July of this year, but I think we have some information in the amount that is paid in the different provinces.
I understand $200 was paid at Edmonton for the administration of this act, and if my information is correct, I do not believe that amount has been paid in bounties in Alberta.
I doubt if one-fifth of that amount has been paid in bounties for some years in Alberta.
I have the return for one of the years not long past, and I am doubtful if it amounts to $200.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend is quite right, but we have to have an officer there. It is quite true that the amount that has been paid is very small.


Burt Wendell Fansher: What is the amount paid in Alberta?


Thomas Andrew Low: The amounts are as follows.
1923-24	 $ 30 35
1922-23	
199	121921-22	
614	161920-21	
169	081919-20	
1,378	42


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has not yet told us the number of claims which were made. The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher) asked about that a moment or two ago. I should think the number of these claims would be in this department, not in the Department of Mines.


Thomas Andrew Low: I did not know the hon. member for East Lambton had asked the question, but I knew the hon. member for West York had asked it before. We have not that, but we shall be glad to make out a list, although it will be quite a lengthy one, for the hon. member, showing the amount paid in bounty to each producer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want a long list like that. I want only the number. I want to find out if I can how this business is being run and the number of claims put in. Last year we knew exactly what the situation was, the number of wells, power plants and the like. Surely it is only reasonable that we should have this year the information which we had last year without having a lecture about it. A minister of the crown with his deputy beside him ought to know what the whole activity is in the year, and that is all I am asking. I do not want a lengthy list; I want a little clarity and a little common sense.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, respecting The London Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Canada and to change its name to "London Fire Insurance Company of Canada."-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 11, to incorporate Dominion Chartered Customs House Brokers Association. -Mr. Me Master.
Bill No. 12, respecting The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.- Mr. German.
Bill No. 13, respecting a patent of West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 14, respecting a patent of Edgeworth Green.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 15, respecting a patent of Blair Engineering Company of Canada, Limited.- Mr. McMaster.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Thomas Andrew Low: When the House rose at six
o'clock the hon. member (Sir Henry Drayton) had asked for certain information in connection with the item under consideration, No. 355. I am securing that information for him and will try to have it inside of an hour. In the meantime we might pass on to some other item.
The Canada Grain Act, administration of, $1,100,000.


Robert Forke: Is it the intention of the
government to introduce a bill based upon the report of the Turgeon commission? The discussion on this item and on that bill would perhaps be the same, and it would clear the air if we understood exactly what the intention was in regard1 to that report.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is the intention of the government to introduce a bill based upon the recommendations made in that report.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will that be a new grain
act, to take the place of the old one?


Thomas Andrew Low: Many of the clauses in the
present Grain Act will appear in the new, but there will foe many new features also in the act it is proposed to bring down.


Henry Elvins Spencer: When is it likely to be
brought down?


Thomas Andrew Low: The bill is in course of preparation. As soon as it is ready it will be presented to the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does this item
carry any of the elevator charges?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, that is under another item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This merely
deals with the administration of the act itself?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If it is the intention of the government to bring down a bill following the report of the Royal Grain Commission in its entirety I can quite see that we should be wasting time by discussing this item, the supposition being, of course, that hon. members have their minds made up either pro or con on these issues. But if the government does not intend to carry out all the recommendations of the report, hon. members should know it so that they may have an opportunity of offering to the government the reasons which, .in their view, would be sufficient to justify the bringing down of a bill dealing with the whole question.


Thomas Andrew Low: Whether or not all the recommendations made by the commission in their report will be embodied in the bill is a matter for the government to decide. It would be almost impossible to hope that all would toe1 included. However, the whole matter will be considered by the government before the bill is presented to the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The west is very particularly concerned in this matter, and personally-and I think I speak for a very considerable interest in the east-I would hesitate to do anything which might in any way prejudice that case. On the other hand I am afraid the western members may find themselves in the position of having thrown away an opportunity of doing something to get the government, before it makes up its mind, to adopt such and such a course. And some gentlemen have not yet entirely abandoned the hope that the government will from time to time listen to reason.


Thomas Andrew Low: I can only assure my hon. friend that ample opportunity will foe given the House to discuss the bill. It will be a very simple matter to make recommendations or suggestions when the bill is brought down. Personally, expressing my o-wn opinion, I would suggest that the bill be referred to a committee.


James Arthurs: What portion of this vote is for the inside service and what for the outside?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: It covers the salaries of all
officers, inspection and weighing, the expenses of the commission and the clerical staff.


John Livingstone Brown: Those whom we in this
section of the House represent are naturally very much interested in the bill to be brought down, and it is hoped that the bill will be considered on its merits without the government having committed itself too definitely to any proposal embodied in it. We would like to have the assurance of the government that the bill will be throwm into the House and that the best reason of the House will be brought to bear upon making it the best that can be made for the carrying on of the grain trade. Having in mind what took place this afternoon we do not want to have a repetition of a long discussion on estimates and a wandering away into a discussion that would all have to be gone over again when the bill was introduced. We want an opportunity for the fullest and freest discussion and we want to have the best judgment of the House, whether of government or of opposition, to secure the best bill possible.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think I can assure the hon.
member that that opportunity will be given.


James Arthurs: The minister hardly answered the question I put to him a moment ago, namely, as to the differentiation between the salaries in Ottawa and those outside under this item. His reply was that weighers and so on were included under this' item, but I find an item immediately below for elevators and I understand that weighers would come under that item.


Thomas Andrew Low: There are no salaries paid in
Ottawa in connection with this item.


John Millar: Can the minister give definite information when the bill will be brought down? There are many controversial matters in connection with it, and the bill will require considerable discussion before it gets through either committee or the House, and unless it is brought down early, it may not be finally put through before the session is over.


Thomas Andrew Low: I think I can assure my hon.
friend that the bill will not be long delayed. It will be brought down very shortly.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I understand that the
administration of the Grain Act is met by the various charges on the grain trade. Have the charges made during this last year outweighed the cost of administration?


Thomas Andrew Low: We anticipate there will be a
surplus, but a reduced surplus from last year.


Mr. GOULD:: Has the decision handed
down by the Supreme court last year had any effect on the administration expenses of the Canada Grain Act?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, not yet. The case is still m appeal.


Donald Sutherland: The words "administration of the act" would imply that this vote was confined almost entirely to paying officials' salaries, and so forth, but I find quite a number of items, for insurance, and other matters not connected with salaries. Would the minister explain just what administration of the act covers, because it is quite evident from the Auditor General's report that it covers a great deal more than salaries.


Thomas Andrew Low: The vote covers all the expenditure for salaries of officials, permanent and temporary, and the contingencies of the various offices under the eastern and western divisions, salaries and contingencies of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and the salaries and expenses of the grain research laboratory, excepting the salary of the chief chemist.


Oliver Robert Gould: A few days ago I placed on
the order paper a question respecting the grain testing laboratory at Winnipeg, and I would have liked very much to have had that question answered before this item came up. It might facilitate its passing if the minister could give me an answer to the questions at this time.


Thomas Andrew Low: The answer to my hon. friend's question, which is No. 21 on to-day's order paper, is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Dr. F. J. Birchard.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Changes in staff in" 1922:
Herbert A. Watson re-employed as junior chemist at $160 per month from May 8, 1922, to October 1, 1922.
Andrew Cairns re-employed as junior chemist at $1,680 per annum, April 18, 1922. Resigned September 30, 1922.
5. M. Allman (R.S.) employed as a labourer at $4.50 per day from May, 1922.
Geo. McDonald employed as a labourer at $4.50 per day for 20 days during June and July, 1922.
W. Symes employed as a labourer at $4.50 per day during June, July and August, 1922.
Changes in staff in 1923:
S. M. Allman employed as junior cerealist from July 1. 1923 at $5 per day.
T.	R. Aitken (O.A.S.) employed as junior chemist at $140 per month from September 20, 1923.
Andrew Cairns re-employed as assistant chemist at $175 per month from May 21, 1923. Resigned September 13, 1923.
H. F. Bill, junior chemist, at $1,800 per annum. Resigned March 3, 1923.
Herbert A. Watson re-employed as junior chemist at $160 per month from May 1, 1923. Resigned September 30, 1923.



G18 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Sup-ply-Trade and Commerce
George Ward employed as a labourer at $4.50 per day for 17 days in September, 1923.
Changes in staff in 1924:
The services of the following were dispensed with on March 31, 1924:
T. R. Aitken (O.A.S.), junior chemist at $140 per month.
S. M. Allman (R.S.) junior cerealist at $5 per day.
Miss A. C. Lamb, clerk-stenographer at $1,140 per annum.
Mrs Tate employed as stenographer for 30 days at $90 per month, to assist in preparation of report.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
Mr. SALES:: In view of all the resignations read out by the minister, I would ask him how many officials are operating the laboratory at the present time.


Thomas Andrew Low: Dr. Birchard is the only one
in the laboratory at the present time.


Thomas Sales: That leads me to the further question, what is the policy of the minister in this connection? Research with a view to an improvement in the milling qualities of our grain is of very great importance to the farmers of this country. I should like to make a short quotation in this connection from the Canadian Milling and Grain Journal, which expresses this idea:
There is little doubt that on the grain exchanges of the future, glutenin will play an important role; it will not be sufficient for a grade of wheat to bear a general good name for strength; each shipment will have to undergo its own test, and will be marketed on the basis of actual and not accredited strength.
I should like also to make a short quotation from the report of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission. Dealing with this matter of research, the chairman states:
We are impressed with the great need for research work to be carried on for the promotion of our grain growing and milling industries. The keeping up nf the quality of wheat alone is of immense importance. Our excellent position in the better export markets of the world can be held only if we guard the quality of our grades. Commissioner Rutherford reported that in the Old Country extensive provision has been made for carrying on investigation and research in connection with wheats, flour and milling, with special attention given to the content and quality of gluten.
When we were in the United States, we visited two well-equipped laboratories for carrying on investigations in respect to wheats and milling, viz.-at Minneapolis, where the state has a 125 barrel mill and other splendid facilities, and at Manhattan, Kansas, where the state has made excellent provision for carrying on investigations in respect to questions relating to wheats, milling, baking and flours.
Canada is now in the position of being not only the largest exporter of wheat, but the largest exporter of the world's " best " hard wheat.
In the light of these facts it is very difficult for the people who are growing wheat to understand the attitude of the minister and of the government on this question. Here is Canada the largest exporter of wheat in the world, and all we are doing in grain re-

search is being done in a little bit of a one-horse place somewhere down a back lane, with only one man carrying on research. I think that is a policy this government should be ashamed of, and especially in view of the following figures:	I know the minister corrected me last year when I pointed out the revenue and expenditure in connection with the Grain Act, but I find that the figures this year are as follows: Revenue, $2,850,527.28; expenditure, $1,549,681.00, leaving a balance of $1,300,846.28. In the face of what the department has obtained from the administration of the Grain Act in the shape of weighing and inspection charges, and so on, it is not too much to ask that we should have a little money spent in determining the milling value of the most important commodity in this country to-day. I would therefore ask the minister and the other members of the government-and I am glad to see the Prime Minister in his seat- to pay attention to this important matter and extend this research work. I know it has been stated that this work is not on a commercial basis, that it is only a matter of experiment. But why not follow the example of the United States, and we export more wheat than they do, and provide sufficient testing machinery to enable these experiments to be carried out on a commercial basis. I would ask the government to pay attention to this phase of the subject.


Thomas Andrew Low: I quite agree with my hon.
friend that this is a very important matter. I also agree with him as to the importance of the industry. We are, as the hon. member has said, probably the largest exporter of hard wheat, in the world. The government is studying at the present moment just how to continue the laboratory in the most effective and most efficient manner. The matter was referred to the Royal Grain Commission and when the new act is being prepared, due consideration will be given to the recommendations made in that connection by that body. Hon. members do not need to impress upon me the importance of the work carried on by the laboratory. It is a question of how the work can be carried on with the greatest efficiency, and at the same time render the greatest use to the farmers of the Canadian west. We have only one purpose in this connection and that is to have a laboratory which shall be efficient and effective regardless of whether it is operating under the Research Council or in conjunction with the Canada grain board.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


John Millar: The fact that this matter
will come up for full discussion later on restrains me from saying very much at the present time, but seeing that the government is now making up its mind as to the legislation it will introduce, and that the recommendation of the Grain Inquiry Commission does not go far enough to satisfy very many of us or very many people throughout the country, I am moved to read extracts from at least two letters that I have in my possession. I may say that I have gathered, in connection with the resolution that I will move on this matter later in the session, a great deal of information from the United States, and from various laboratories and other sources in Canada. For the present I will content myself with reading extracts from two of these letters, and I should like the minister to take into consideration the facts there stated when he is deciding what legislation shall be brought down. One of these letters is from Minneapolis. I am not free to give the name of the official who wrote it but I can assure you that it is from a party who should know the facts. He says:
The premiums paid for wheat containing certain percentage of protein vary from time to time with the supply and demand as does the general level of prices. Speaking in a very general way, wheat containing 11 per cent of protein might be considered standard. If it contained 12 per cent protein, the one per cent additional protein might command 5 cents premium. If it contained 13 per cent protein, the 2 per cent additional protein above 11 might command 10 cents premium. For every one-tenth of one per cent of protein contained above 13 per cent an additional premium of one cent per bushel is generally paid; that is, wheat containing 16 per cent protein would command 30 cents premium over the 13 per cent protein.
I now read an extract from another letter received from the United States:
Laboratories to perform this service have been established by private concerns, boards of trade and in one instance by a state grain inspection department. Charges for making these tests range from 65 cents to $1. (In Kansas, Missouri, the laboratories can make 3,000 tests per day).
I wish hon. members to mark that statement because the time occupied in the making of the tests has been one great obstacle that has stood in the way of this reform which has been desired by our western farmers for, I think I may say, ten or twelve years at least. The extract continues:
In the Hard Red Winter and Hard Red Spring wheats, those containing less than 11 per cent protein usually bring the average daily market price for their numerical grades; for wheats containing above 11 per cent protein the premiums for each one-quarter per cent will range from one to two and one-half cents per bushel. The protein content is not shown on the inspection certificate but is shown on a separate certificate issued by the laboratory making the test.
I have also a letter from a farmer living in western Canada but I will just give the substance of it. He points out that the manager of the elevator in his town, a milling elevator and the only one in the place, draws samples not only from all the grain that he ships himself but from all the grain shipped from loading platforms and sends it forward to have protein tests made. That shows the extent to which the mills have carried on this work. They are selecting the strong grains from all over the west and they are making tests, and are taking off the cream in that way, and the farmer feels that with such premiums which I have referred to as prevailing in the 'States he should at least get a premium of perhaps one-half the amount the American farmers are receiving, perhaps two-thirds, but anyway a considerable premium. He does not see any reason why this premium should continue to go to the mills and the middle men and be lost entirely to himself. I assure the minister there is a very strong demand in the direction indicated, and it has been in existence for years. I could read from a report prepared by the officials of the Manitoba Crain Growers Association showing that one of their demands presented to the Grain Inquiry Commission was that a laboratory such as has been referred to should be maintained.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the farmer
get any premium?


John Millar: No. Perhaps I might explain that there has been a system of diversion of good grades of wheat and a premium is sometimes paid to the middleman of one cent a bushel. I believe that is supposed to be passed back to the producer, but I think that is done only in one case in a thousand; I do not know that I ever knew a farmer that received it. Consequently the answer I gave my hon. friend on that point is quite correct-the farmer never receives it. I think this subject will come up for discussion when the matter is taken up later, therefore I will not indulge in any further remarks.


Arthur Edward Ross: Can the minister
give any reason why there have been these resignations? Was it due to salary or some such cause?


Thomas Andrew Low: It was decided to discontinue
the laboratory in its present form and the services of these people were dispensed with.


Arthur Edward Ross: It was not a matter of resignation then but a change of
policy?


Thomas Andrew Low: A change of policy.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Lumley Drayton: Dismissals.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister replied, I think, to the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) when he asked a question about the report. I also put a question. I asked:
Has any report of the work of the laboratory been submitted by Dr. Birchard during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?
The reply was no. It seems to me the minister should state that both he and the government are seized of the importance of this work at Winnipeg; and yet no report has been received from the gentleman in charge of the laboratory. That is a curious coincidence, and I rise to ask if the department or the minister has asked for a report from Dr. Birchard.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is one of the very reasons we decided to discontinue the laboratory under its present staff. There has been no report submitted to the department. A partial report was sent in I believe some seven years ago, and Dr. Birchard never completed that report. He was asked to send in a complete report, and that is one of the reasons why, under Dr. Birchard, we thought the laboratory was not as efficient as we would like it to be.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Did the government or the department ever ask Dr Birchard for a report? Did they ever request an annual report?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


William James Lovie: Did Dr. Birchard present a report before the Turgeon commission? I would like to submit to this House a letter which I received from a farmer Who is largely interested in this matter. It is outside information. The letter reads as follows:
I would like to draw your attention to the attempt by the Department of Trade and Commerce under Mr. Low to close up our grain testing laboratory at Winnipeg.
I am aware of the Progressive's stand last spring, which prevented at the .time the definite closing up. But in spite of this the fact is the place is occupied by Dr. Birchard alone. Has no staff at all. Has all been taken away. He is carrying on alone and still working. But what can one man do alone in a place like that. The effect so far as the country is concerned is that the place is practically closed now.
At the time of the closing order there was a large amount of very valuable research work nearly completed. Work that would have been of inestimable value to us western farmers (and the country too) in proving the values of lower grades of wheat which are always so much discriminated against.
It seems that there was some effort being made at Ottawa, to close up the Winnipeg office prior to the Grain Inquiry Commission under Mr. Turgeon. But it seems to me that after Mr. Birchard gave that splendid constructive evidence re the milling values of the lower grades that Mr. Low could not stand having the like of that coming from a civil servant. Any-TMr. Low.]
way Mr. Birchard got the millers properly worked up so that practically all their efforts were confined to defeat what had been given out. I am led to believe that Mr. Birchard was prevented by some means from giving the court the conclusive evidence he had on file. Here is where the west lost out. This data is still in existence. It belongs to the western farmers and should be made available.
I think all the results from this kind of research work should be available to the public in some form of report. If the west had the facts that the Dominion grain reseajrch laboratory at Winnipeg has cn file there would not be the spreads we always have in the lower grades.
There is another thing perhaps not bearing all in line with this matter. There seems to be some way in which the choicer cars in each grade are being picked up before export for our Canadian mills. In this way I maintain the price of all the grades are lowered. Because it is a lower grade average being exported. The export market makes the price basis. So you will see if the choice lots are taken the average must have been lowered. And it is this lower average grade the ultimate export market buys and pays for on a world market value basis. The farmer loses.
As long as the Canadian mills can get all choice lots they need one could expect them to want lower grade stuff which may be a little more trouble to blend. Besides our mills using nothing but the choice grain, can export a flour in demand for blending. The farmer loses again because he was paid on the export price basis of the average (culled over) export grade.
I venture Mr. Low knows all -this being a miller himself. And it would be a great thing to be able to close Mr. Birchard's mouth forever.
I am afraid unless we watch carefully the knife will be applied to our splendid grain testing laboratory at the first opportunity. I understand the minister's plea is economy. A convenient one. But far from the truth. The farmers need that office to work at full blast and unbridled as an economy.
Perhaps if vthe department could not find funds otherwise they should sell one of those tied-up ships they can find no use for and in that way keep this office open. And thus practice economy before it rots out and half the farmers are out of business as well.
I am sorry to say but I believe it to be the fact that there is only a small percentage of farmers know anything about a grain testing laboratory at all, let alone our grain testing laboratory at Winnipeg. If the farmers only understood what they have a chance of losing there would be such a howl go forth that Ottawa would never dare think of closing it.
Mr. Lovie, I would like to have you get in touch with Mr. Crerar and any other members you can rely on interested in this matter. Perhaps you could pay a visit to the laboratory and get valuable facts to work on. So that we may not only prevent the closing going into effect but that sufficient pressure can be made so an efficient staff of help may be given Dr. Birchard to carry on with efficiency.
I can assure you if he had not been a real man Ottawa would not have been alarmed at all. Apparently what they would like would be a " ninny " in charge that would do as bid without question. Possibly then money could be squandered to " satisfy " the " clamouring west."
This	is a	vital matter for us	farmers and	I feel
sure you will lend a hand and real good will come of it.
If the minister wants the name of the writer of this letter I will give it in private, but I do	not	want	it spread	broadcast.	Theletter expresses the feeling in the west of those	who	know	the work	of Dr. Birchard,and there	is a	feeling among them	that
Supply-Trade and Commerce
money should be spent to keep that laboratory in a state of efficiency.


Thomas Andrew Low: I cannot add to what I have
already said. I fully realize the importance of the laboratory, and it is the intention of the government to continue a laboratory in some form. Whether it will be in the present form or under the Research Council, or connected more closely with the Canada Grain Act, is a matter to be decided upon. It is my intention when the new Canada Grain Act is brought in to have it referred to the committee on Agriculture, and there will then be ample opportunity for members of this House to make any representations that they wish to that committee.
After consulting my deputy, I wish to correct a statement I	made	a	few	minutesago.	Dr. Birchard did	send	in	a special report	to me last fall.	That	is	the	first report	in several years,	and	it	was	sent in
after the fact had been repeatedly brought to his attention, that his reports had not been sent in for some years. That- report has been referred to Dr. Tory of the Research Council, and will be brought 'before the committee when the new grain bill is being considered.


Oliver Robert Gould: The statement the hon. minister has now made is an acknowledgment that the replies to numbers 5 and 6 of my questions on the order paper to-diay are incorrect. I distinctly asked about reports being sent in and asked if they were available to hon. members. The answer was no in both cases. That will appear in Hansard.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is not on Hansard yet.


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes, the questions and
answers have been sent up to Hansard, and there is a grave error in the answers. I had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Birchard myself as he gave evidence before the Royal Grain Commission in the city of Winnipeg in the latter part of February of last year, and I was very much interested in his evidence, particularly in his description of what might constitute the different grades which they called the contract grades Nos. 1, 2 and 3, northern wheat. If hon. members will take up Dr. Birchard's statement and compare it with the Canada Grain Act as it is at the present time, people would understand the difference between the Canada Grain Act and the evidence submitted 'by Dr. Birchard. It would cause almost a revolution in western Canada. When Dr. Birchard said that wheat having a basis of 60 per cent of hard or marquis wheat with a mixture of some frozen or shrunken or other wheat, might
be admitted as No. 1 northern, and that similar proportions of high grade grain could be mixed and still maintain their grades as No. 2 and 3 northern, I was surprised but Dr. Birchard established it, I understand, from scientific tests. But the Canada Grain Act is not based upon that. After I went to my hotel, I was visited by two lawyers who were working for the grain companies there, and they asked me if I would issue a statement for the press at that time denying the possibility of Dr. Birchard's statement being true. I told them that I was not a professional man and that I had more sympathy with Dr. Birchard than I had with the Canada Grain Act. But such is the interest of the people who are making a living out of our wheat-


An hon. MEMBER:: V\rho were these
people?


Oliver Robert Gould: These were two lawyers
working in the interest of grain companies, without giving names. They visited me at the hotel and asked me to contradict the evidence given by Dr. Birchard.


Mr. GOOD:: Did they want you to falsify
what you had heard?


Oliver Robert Gould: To say that I did not believe the statement Dr. Birchard had made. That is the manner in which they endeavour to become a law unto themselves, in order to hide the evidence, to hide the truth. It is because of these things that people in this country, particularly in the west, are dissatisfied with the Canada Grain Act. I hope, as the minister has said, that this time we shall have a grain act that will be just and equitable to the people who are producing the grain. Tens of thousands of farmers would have gone before that grain commission if there had not been such an array of legal counsel who, they felt, would abuse them when they were there. Men who were sincere, who knew their side of the business, would have presented^ themselves before the commission, but the idea of subjecting themselves to cross-examination by the array of legal talent that was present intimidated them. Consequently, I am here to state that the amount of evidence given before the commission is not a fair criterion of the feeling that exists among the people pertaining to these important questions. I hope, when the act is framed, we shall have ample opportunity to make suggestions and that our requests will be acceded to in the Canada Grain Act.


John Millar: We have, I suppose, the
assurance of the minister that the valuable
Supply-Trade and Commerce

information that is now in the laboratory at Winnipeg in connection with experiments that have been carried on for some years and that are only partly completed, will be preserved so that it can be made use of.
Let me also say a word in regard to the reports. Some of those experiments require years to complete, for instance the experiments that are being carried on, I 9. p.m. believe, at the present time in Canada and the United States to discover the exact amount of moisture that oats may contain and yet be safe for storage. It requires years to complete that test, so that I do not think Dr. Birchard should be readily condemned because he has not handed in many reports. You can understand that climatic conditions in certain years are such that they cannot get the oats to experiment on, and then they must have certain climatic conditions when the oats are stored. Oats that might be all right in a cool season might be all wrong in a very warm season, so that it requires years to complete such a test as this and there may be others that will take equally long.


Mr. ROBB:: My recollection is that one of the troubles we had with Dr. Birchard was that he never would complete his work. We never could bring him up to a conclusion. With all due respect for my hon. friend's observation that it requires a long time to complete these experiments, I ktnOw from practical experience that we send samples to, I think it is Howard at Minneapolis, who does this work, and get a reply within ten days, or we can send them to the college at Guelph and get a reply within a week.


John Millar: The minister has, I think, missed my point. They can tell you in ten days or less how much moisture is in a sample of oats or wheat; but in an experiment that has been carried on over years, they have proved that a small additional percentage of moisture in wheat makes it still perfectly safe. A small additional amount of moisture, even one-quarter of one per cent means a good deal. It means, in some years, that dozens of carloads of wheat may be shipped down there and go through straight whereas formerly they would not. That means a good deal. Experiments of that nature are going on, and I believe they are unfinished with regard to oats, both in the United States and in Canada.


William Charles Good: Did I understand the minister to say that the department had asked Dr. Birchard for a report and that it had not been furnished by him?


James Alexander Robb: I remember very distinctly,
during the period when I was in that department, having sent for Dr. Birchard to try to get something closed up with him, but we never could get the work concluded. I think there were partial reports. I am speaking from memory as it is a couple of years ago.


William Charles Good: Did Dr. Birchard state that
these reports were in such a condition that they were not suitable for publication?


James Alexander Robb: I do not recollect that.


Thomas Andrew Low: I should like to read a few
words for the benefit of my hon. friend:
In this connection it may be said that a portion of this report was forwarded to the King's Printer in July, 1920, as material for Dominion Grain Research Laboratory Bulletin No. 2. This was all set up at the Printing Bureau and the proof sent to Dr. Birchard to read. For some months thereafter, we did not hear from him, and when Mr. O'Hara wrote to him he got no satisfaction, other than the statement that the report would be completed shortly. Finally, on Ocober 4, 1921, by order of the King's Printer, the type was re-distributed and the printing matter returned to Dr. Birchard. This report was never completed.
After part of it had been set up in type for about a year.


Robert Milne: Is it the custom of the government in departments which they consider are of such importance as this laboratory is, to retain men, year after year, without receiving reports from them? Is it the custom of the government to retain servants who are as inefficient as this report would lead us to believe?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no doubt that he may
have been making routine reports to the chief inspector at Winnipeg, but I have just read a clause in connection with this report to substantiate what the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) has said about our endeavour to get reports from Dr. Birchard.


Robert Milne: The department surely cannot consider this office of any importance or they would not stand for a minute for this sort of procedure.


Thomas Andrew Low: Ministers are sometimes very
considerate.


Thomas Sales: After listening to the minister's explanations, I am almost inclined to think he used the wrong term when he spoke of resignations. I think he should have said "dismissals." In spite of what the minister says of the importance of the subject, it appears that the policy is to disregard this office. If Dr. Birchard is not the right man in the right place, why not get someone that

Supply-Trade and Commerce
is, and make it a real office? Why put up with a man. who does not report and is not satisfactory? And why not spend some of this surplus money? I want to know again from the minister whether my calculations are correct as to the revenue and expenditures of the administration of the Canada Grain Act, because I have a balance of $1,300,000 according to what I can find from the Auditor General's report, and the laboratory costs are included in this figure. I am sure that the minister and the government would do well to put into operation a really effective laboratory so that the tests there made can be relied upon by practical men for commercial purposes. Will the minister kindly tell me what the revenue and expenses are this year under the Canada Grain Act so I may not have the wrong figures again?


Thomas Andrew Low: Answering my hon. friend's
first question, I fully agree with him that if Dr. Birchard is not the right man a more satisfactory substitute should be secured, and that we should not economize on the laboratory. I am fully seized of the importance of the work of this office. After we have amended the Grain Act I think hon. members on the other side of the House will have reached the conclusion that we are not trying to save a few dollars, but are simply striving to secure the greatest efficiency in the laboratory. No one in this House is more impressed than I with the importance of the great industry of grain growing in the west. But there is no justification for wasting money. We merely closed the office pending the report of the Royal Grain Commission. Upon that report we propose to act, and to establish a laboratory in Winnipeg that will be close to the point of inspection and of greater benefit than ever before to the grain growers of the west.


Thomas Sales: Is the amount included in
the estimates?


Thomas Andrew Low: The amount is included in this


Thomas Sales: But how much for laboratory
purposes?


Thomas Andrew Low: That will be decided upon after we have dealt with the report of the Royal Grain Commission. I have an open mind upon the question. Whether $50,000 or $100,000 is required, if the expenditure is going to benefit the farmers of the west, they will find me, as Minister of Trade and Commerce, fully in accord with it.


Thomas Sales: Now, the receipts and expenses?


Thomas Andrew Low: The surplus in connection with the administration of the Grain Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, is $528,559.74; for the ten months ending January 31, 1925, $172,246.11. I pointed out to my hon. friend last year that these elevators are all built out of current expenditure, and that no charge is debited against the revenue for interest on the amounts so invested. But over the actual operating expenses there is a surplus, as I said before, of some $528,000.


Thomas Sales: Why cannot we get this information from the Auditor General's report?
I think I can understand figures. Has the hon. minister included in this charge the interest on the elevators, and is this $528,000 the balance remaining after interest has been paid?


Thomas Andrew Low: Of course, the cost of operation and maintenance of the Canadian government elevators comes under another item, but so far as the Grain Act is concerned the figure I gave the hon. member is correct-$528,559.74 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924.


Thomas Sales: I do not want to be unduly critical, but I should like to understand where I am at. I find the Canadian government elevators on page 18 ZZ of the Auditor General's report.


Thomas Andrew Low: We have not reached the government elevators yet; they are under another item.


Thomas Sales: Yes; but there maintenance is included in the $1,549,681 of expenses. At page 39 ZZ are Canadian government elevators, maintenance at Vancouver, Saskatoon, Port Arthur, Moose Jaw, Calgary-these are all included in the $1,549,681. Then when I turn to the revenue I find the figure is $2,850,527.28. I cannot understand how the minister arrives at his balance.


Thomas Andrew Low: What year?


Thomas Sales: I find my figures in the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ' ending March 31, 1924. I got my figures from the same source last year, and the hon. minister then corrected me; he has corrected me again to-night. I want to know what is added to this expenditure which leaves only a balance of $528,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am quoting the figures for the Canada Grain Act alone. For the government elevators these are the surpluses: For the year ending 1922-23, $437,063.65; for 192324, $241,730.25. I have the figures for the previous years if my hon. friend would like to have them.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Sales: So the apparent difference in the figures is because the profits derived from the internal elevators are not counted under the administration of the Grain Act?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


Thomas Sales: I see.


Thomas Andrew Low: The combined surpluses total 8770,309.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I am glad to notice that the minister has apparently had a change of heart in the matter of this research work.


Thomas Andrew Low: Allow me to correct my hon.
friend; I have had no change of heart at all.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I hope he
has had a change of heart, considering the impression he left upon us in this part of the House last year.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not know what impression I left.


Charles Wallace Stewart: The impression he left upon hon. members in this part of the House, from the attitude he adopted toward the continuance of the laboratory in Winnipeg, indicated to us that the policy was to close it, and the policy that has been carried out since then, that of almost closing it, lent colour to that impression. I say I am glad if he has changed his attitude, or if he has not the attitude we supposed he had. T do not want to repeat the arguments that have been made here to-night as to the importance not only of continuing but of adequately enlarging that laboratory for the proper carrying on of experiments in research work. I want to give one concrete example of the possible value in dollars and cents of that kind of work to the grain growers of western Canada. A farmer in my constituency took two samples of the grain from his crop of the year before last, the appearance of which led him to believe that that grain varied in quality. He sent the two samples to the inspection department at Winnipeg and they both graded exactly alike, No. 3 northern. When he shipped his main crop, two carloads, one of each kind, the sample test proved correct; it was graded by the inspection department as No. 3 throughout. Shortly afterwards he was visiting in Minneapolis and he took two 5-pound samples of each of the grains that he considered to be different in quality, both of which had graded the same in Winnipeg,-No. 3 northern. He approached a grain firm in Minneapolis and submitted the samples, and one of the samples was graded as No. 1 dark northern spring.

The other, they said, was worth a premium on account of its protein content. By the way, I questioned him with regard to this test and he said it was almost a matter of minutes- a matter of hours, at the outside-because it was all done one afternoon. For this second sample, which had been graded in Winnipeg as No. 3, they made him an offer of 26 cents a bushel for carload lots delivered on the market in Minneapolis. To prove that the two 5-pound samples graded the same in Winnipeg he took them back to Winnipeg on his return and again submitted them to the inspection department there, and again they were graded No. 3 northern, both exactly the same. It is such knowledge as that, gained from practical experience, that has led the farmers of western Canada to believe that there is a better system of grading than that which we have had for many years past. And if there is a better system of grading it is apparent to us that it has to come through testing. Not that grading can be improved on the basis of the mere looks of the grain; the outward appearance is often deceiving. It is only by proper testing that the real value of grain can be determined. I maintain that a lead should be taken by the department along this line. The argument has been presented here to-night, and I think effectively, that the farmers are paying for that service and that they deserve the best service it is possible to give. I appeal to the minister therefore, not to close the laboratory at Winnipeg or even to keep it practically closed, as at present, letting a whole season pass by without any particular benefit accruing from it. I would urge upon the minister that it should be put into full operation at the earliest possible moment.


William Charles Good: The minister's practice scarcely tallies with his professions in regard to this work. Here we have practically nothing done for four years, yet it is work that means millions of dollars to the farmers. We have got the impression that the policy of the department is to leave the farmers at the mercy of the millers and the grain men.


Thomas Andrew Low: I assure my hon. friend that
if he has that impression, such is not my intention. I assure him also that the farmers have in the minister a friend who will do everything in his power to see that they get justice. I have listened to the discussion with considerable interest, having some little knowledge of milling. It is not ,an uncommon thing for us to receive at our mill a carload of No. 1 northern wheat which perhaps at another season of the year would

Supply-Trade and Commerce
not grade even as No. 2. Very often there is a great difference in the cars as they come in: whether or not that is at the mixing elevators I am not prepared to say. But we find a great difference at times in the No.
1 and the No. 2 wheat. Sometimes we will get cars of No. 2 that mill just about as well as No. 1. Speaking about the grades, my hon. friend knows, I suppose, that the grades of No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 are fixed by act of parliament, and if any change is to be made-


Charles Wallace Stewart: So far as
the protein content, the real value of the grain, is concerned, the regulations of parliament have very little to do with it.


William Richard Motherwell: The percentage of
protein content does not determine the value of the wheat for flour. It determines the quantity of protein but says nothing regarding its quality, which is the important thing. In the case of the low grade wheat such as we have this year the protein content in a No. 6 grade might be just as high as in a No. 1, but the point is that the quality of the protein is not there.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to say just
a word or two in appreciation of the service that Dr. Birchard has rendered to the farmers of this country, and to point out the service that he might have rendered had he been given support by the department. I do not know that there is a great deal to be gained by any criticism at this time, but, putting it mildly, it was pure waste of money to keep Dr. Birchard in his office for the last six or eight months without an assistant even to wash his dishes. When a man like Dr. Birchard, who has taken a high degree in chemistry, is placed in an office of this kind without an assistant it seems rather absurd for the minister to come and say afterwards that he has a great interest in this work. When I was on my way to Ottawa this year I came by way of Minneapolis and Chicago in an endeavour to get some information in regard to the grading of grain in the United States. One of the officials of the grain grading department there told me that in his opinion Dr. Birchard was a very valuable official: that he had met him several times, and that this country would lose a very valuable man if Dr. Birchard were not retained in his present position. I feel that all that Dr. Birchard needs to be a very valuable official for this country as some efficient backing up by the department. Dr. Birchard's services have never been properly made use of. Our grain 40
standards board -when it met in the fall should have called in Dr. Birchard and asked him to give evidence regarding the baking qualities of our wheat in each of these years.
I am sure that Dr. Birchard was making these tests, but I have been told that he was never called before that board. Now why do we keep Dr. Birchard in that position unless it is to determine the baking values of the different grades of wheat, and when the grain standards board is meeting to fix a standard for the year, surely if Dr. Birchard's services are to be made use of at any time, 'it should be when that board meets.
I am quite ready to agree with the Minister of Agriculture that the protein test in itself is not possibly a true indication of the baking values of wheat, but it is some indication, for to have a good strong milling wheat you must have good protein content and good gluten quality. When I was in Minneapolis on the floor of the chamber of commerce I saw the representative of a large milling firm offer a premium of 32 cents for a car of wheat from Montana that tested 13.40 protein. Another sample for which he offered just the bare market price of $1.97 per bushel tested 10.40.
I have here a letter from an official in the grain grading department of the United States giving the protein test of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Manitoba northern wheat, samples I had secured from Mr. Serls, chief inspector. No. 1 tested 13.84; No. 2, 13.76; and No. 3, 13.76 protein. I am sure that these wheats are just as valuable for the making of flour as this Montana wheat, possibly more so, because you will note that the poorest of them tested .36 above the Montana wheat. The same official told me that he had graded samples of our different grades of wheat, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 northern, this year, and that they would all grade No. 1 hard spring or better in the United States, that is, according to their grades. That would seem to prove that our No. 3 Manitoba northern had an equal milling value with this No. 1 hard spring Montana wheat that sold at a premium of 32 cents on the Minneapolis market.
I think the United States system of grading wheat is very much superior to ours. Their grades are very clearly defined so that even the farmer is never very much in doubt as to the grade of his wheat. On the other hand, under the Canada Grain Act, it is practically left to the discretion of the inspector as to what grade he shall fix. I am convinced that the policy of our Trade and Commerce department in the past has been to consider that whatever the head inspector said about the



Supply-Trade and Commerce
wheat was final; there was no appeal from his judgment.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a survey board.


George Gibson Coote: There is, but if the Minister of Agriculture would look up the Canada Grain Act and see how the survey board is appointed, I do not think he would argue that that board has very much reason to change any of the grades the inspector has set.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentleman is quite wrong. Some members of the board, are appointed by the ministers of agriculture of the provinces.


George Gibson Coote: While we are on that point
it might be pertinent to ask why the board of grain appeal was never appointed. Section 102 of the Canada Grain Act provides:
There shall be a board to be known as the board of grain appeal, to consist of three members who must be expert and experienced in the inspection of grain, to be appointed by the Governor in Council.
I asked the chief inspector in Winnipeg this year who were the members of this board, and if I understood him correctly he said that such a board had never been appointed1; so that I believe the chief grain inspector at Winnipeg is the keystone of this whole system, and if his eyesight changes a little bit from one year to another the grading of our wheat is going to change to just that extent.
To come back to the question of a grain survey board, the survey board which we have at Calgary is provided for in subsection 2 of section 104 of the act:
The said survey board shall consist of eight persons, six to be nominated by the board of trade of the city of Calgary-
I would like to know just why the board of trade of Calgary should nominate six members of the grain survey board. Whose grain are they surveying anyway? The clause goes on:
-and one each by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta respectively.
I am quite satisfied that up to this present season, 1924, there have been eight grain men on the survey board of Calgary, and at times I think there have been members of that board who belonged to milling firms in Calgary. Now in the grading of wheat there is always a conflict of interest between the miller on the one hand, and the farmer on the other, and the inspector is going to be influenced or at least pressure is going to be brought to bear upon him from both sides.
I would like the committee to remember that the millers are living in the same city with this inspector, and very often working

in the same office building with him, while the farmer on the other hand is on the average five hundred miles away from that inspector, and only one out of every five hundred farmers ever gets to the inspector to make a kick. That inspector is likely to be influenced by the! millers probably unconsciously and if he is not influenced by the millers he is likely to be influenced by the work of this survey board. If he grades the wheat a little too high and the survey board cut his grades down, on a few cars he will soon grade the wheat just the way the board thinks it should be graded; I dc not think there is any question about that.
If suggestions are to be received here tonight regarding the new Canada Grain Act I would say that if similar survey boards are to be appointed under the new act they certainly should not be appointed by the boards of trade of the different cities; but the wheat producers should have the opportunity of recommending for appointment at least a majority of the survey board.
There are many other points in which the present act is faulty and out of date, but I do not wish to go into them all at the present time. I should like, however, to refer before I forget to a few other things I learned on my trip to the United States. I found that in Minneapolis they have a state testing mill, a mill owned by the state for the purpose of testing wheat for its milling and baking qualities. They test wheat and manufacture flour there in commercial quantities. They also issue a report on each year's crop and they preserve all the data. All these statistics are gathered from year to year and preserved, and this work has been of great assistance, to the farmers in the United States. It has been, I think, largely owing to it that the farmers there are getting a premium, as high as 50 cents a bushel in some cases, for wheat shown by test to have a high protein content. In western Canada the mills are picking out the cars of wheat that they know will grade high in protein and gluten content. They are picking out all these cars and letting the rest go through to Fort William. As one hon. member said here to-night they' are getting the pick of this wheat, and there is no doubt they have in that way an advantage over every other miller in the world. This was pointed out to me very clearly by an English miller whom I met in Calgary in the summer of 1923 when the Royal Grain Commission was sitting there. He said "These mills have the advantage of us, they can pick out the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
best wheat and mill it. They buy it on the street market and buy it just as cheaply as we do. Not only that but when the wheat gets to Fort William it is put through mixing houses and the grade that comes out is mostly what can be called "line grade," that is it is down to the very lowest possible line under which it can get into that grade.
I may say that when I was in the office of the grain inspector in Calgary this fall I asked him to test for weight a sample of No. 2 wheat which he had received from Mr. Serls for his guidance in the grading of our wheat. It tested 62 pounds to the bushel. I asked him then to test the average No. 2 wheat that he had in his office. It tested 65 pounds to the bushel. That may give hon. members some idea of the difference between the average grade and the line grade.


Thomas Andrew Low: Did I understand my hon. friend to say that the average No. 2 grade tested 65 pounds to the bushel?


George Gibson Coote: Yes. The minister shakes his head as though he was a little hard to convince.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am not convinced that it went 65 pounds to the bushel.


George Gibson Coote: I have here a letter from Mr. George Hill, the minister's inspector at Calgary. I asked Mr. Hill to send me some samples of each grade of wheat to Ottawa. I have these samples now in my room in this building and I would be glad to exhibit them to the committee. I got them for that purpose. Mr. Hill was good enough to give me the weight per bushel of the different grades that he sent here, having tested these samples before he sent them. No. 1, he says, tests 65 pounds to the bushel; No. 2, 64 pounds; No. 3, 63 pounds; No. 4, 62 pounds; No. 5, 62 pounds; No. 6, 59 pounds. He adds:
Although the S and 6 are badly frozen you will observe they are heavy in weight. Surely there must be some quality where you get so much weight.
I do not like to be always holding up Alberta at too high a level in connection with Manitoba wheat, but I am sure there is a big difference between the wheat that is grown dn the western half of the prairies, and what is now grown in the older province of Manitoba.


William Richard Motherwell: Then why call it Manitoba hard?


George Gibson Coote: That is what I say. Why call Alberta and Saskatchewan wheat Manitoba wheat? The statement was made to me by an official who has been in the service of the inspection department for many 40i
years that, " for the last twenty years there has been premium wheat coming out of southern Alberta and you have never got any premium for it." He also said, " If you had had a different grade for your southern Alberta wheat there is no doubt in my mind you would have had premium for it ever since you started to raise it. You have virgin land and that wheat is heavier to the bushel." Surely when wheat weighs 65 pounds to the bushel it should be graded in such a manner that the grower can get some premium-he should get the premium which that heavy wheat really ought to command.
I have -taken up quite a lot of the time of the committee, but I should like to continue a few minutes longer, because this is a very important subject- to the farmer in Alberta. This year we have had more complaints about the grading of the wheat than I have heard in all my experience. The grading got so bad that we held an indignation meeting of farmers in my own town, and we despatched a wire to the Minister of Trade and1 Commerce on the matter. I am glad to say that the minister took action on receipt of that telegram, or very soon afterwards. He took the matter up with the Board of Grain Commissioners, and they sent one of their members out to Calgary to see what all the trouble was about. The reason for our complaint was that wheat which graded No. 1 last year would only grade No. 2 this year, and wheat that graded No. 2 last year, I mean in 1923, and was held over until 1924 would only grade No. 3. We had several: bona fide cases of that nature, and that convinced us there was something radically wrong. Accordingly a small committee went to the office of Mr. Hill in Calgary and examined his grain standards. He had standards there for all grades from N-o. 1 down to No. 6. We compared those standards with the standards which he had for each grade for 1923, which were still preserved in his office, and in our opinion the standards which he had in 1924 were about a grade higher -than they were in 1923. We sent a wire to -the minister to that effect as I have already stated. Commissioner Snow came to Calgary and held1 a meeting. He allowed the farmers to go there and present their complaints, but it seemed very hard to convince him that there was anything wrong. He seemed to have the view that if George Serls and George Hill said that this wheat was No. 1 or No. 2 that settled it. He finally brought Mr. Hill over to the meeting, and we found out then that one of the reasons our wheat was grading so low -this year was there were some green kernels in it, and he

Supply-Trade and Commerce
*said the millers objected to these green kernels. That, as near as I can remerdber. was what transpired.


Harold Putnam: What was the cause of
the green kernels; was the wheat harvested too soon?


George Gibson Coote: Some of the wheat was of later growth, and when the wheat was cut it was immature; when it hardened, it was green in colour. When I pressed both Mr. Hill and Mr. Snow to state just how many green kernels there might be in the sample he graded No. 2, they could not or would not say. Then I asked them what percentage of green kernels would be allowed in wheat that was otherwise good to grade No. 3, and they could not tell me. "Well," I said, "would you allow 5 per cent?" and they would not say. I said, "Would you allow 2 per cent?" and I could not get any statement from them in regard to that. We must in the new grain act define the grades specifically, in definite language, so that there can be very little question as to what the grade of the wheat is.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend will have an 'opportunity of presenting all these facts to the committee on Agriculture when the bill is before that committee, and while I do not wish to interrupt his remarks, he will have to repeat his arguments again before the committee, and perhaps it would be just as well if he could see his way clear to refrain from discussing the grade until the matter is before the committee.


George Gibson Coote: I will very soon refrain, but some of these things must be aired a little bit, or else there will be some sort of an explosion.


Mr. SPIAW:: Do I understand from the
hon. gentleman's remarks that he is suggesting that Mr. George Hill or Mr. Serls are not competent for their particular work?


George Gibson Coote: No I would not even insinuate that they are not. The fault is chiefly in the Grain Act. The act leaves it practically to the judgment of some gentleman in Winnipeg to say what is No. 1 wheat, what is No. 2 wheat and what is No. 3 wheat. According to the Canada Grain Act almost anything could be graded No. 3.


Thomas Andrew Low: If we do not leave it to the chief inspector, to decide the grade of the grain, to whom does the hon. member suggest we should leave it?


George Gibson Coote: Even under the present act I think it should be left to this grain appeal board, which has never been appointed.


Thomas Andrew Low: Would the hon. member call the appeal board together to examine every sample sent in? The appeal board in that case would require to have somebody examine and grade the ears as they came in.


George Gibson Coote: If we had a grain appeal
board, I do not think they would make a standard for one year about a grade higher than it was the year before. Commissioner Snow was very hard to convince. He said that Mr. Hill and Mr. Serls knew more about grading grain than he did, and I guess he was right, but after we had persuaded Mr. Snow to go down to the office of the grain inspector and examine the standards for himself he did admit that in his opinion there was about a grade difference. Why should there be about a grade difference between the standard of No. 2 wheat this year and the standard of No. 2 last year?


An hon. MEMBER:: Who did that?


George Gibson Coote: Commissioner Snow admitted it in the office of the grain inspector in Calgary. He could not do anything else, if he would tell the truth and if he had eyes to see. There was no question about it. One of the officials of the Calgary Grain Exchange admitted it. He did not know what it had been graded, but he was asked what difference there was in those samples, and he said there was a grade difference, and I think almost every man who examined those standards had to admit there was a grade difference. What I want to impress upon the committee is that we must define these grades in specific language. There is no question about that.
I wish to refer to another matter, the testing of our wheat for moisture. The way this has been carried on in the past has worked a very great hardship on some of the farmers. I saw a certificate for one car that had been graded No. 3 tough at Edmonton; it went on to Winnipeg and apparently they did not know it had been graded, and it was graded 3 straight there. Hon. members will know what it would have cost that man if he had not got a new grade on that car at Winnipeg. He would have lost the difference between tough and straight wheat which would have been anything from eight to twelve cents a bushel. If the testing apparatus we have in our grain inspection office to-day is not very carefully handled, it may show either too much moisture or too little moisture; it may show more than there is in the grain. If the heat is left on
FEBRUARY 27, 1925	[DOT]
Supply-Trade and Commerce
too long you will see a bigger percentage of moisture than actually exists in the grain, because when it gets too hot the grain starts to decompose and that forms moisture. The moisture content for wheat, so far as I understand it, is not fixed in the Canada Grain Act; it is set by Mr. Serls as 14 per cent, and anything more than that is graded tough. But there is lots of grain with 15 and 15-*- per cent moisture which is quite safe to store. In a trial shipment of wheat that was sent,
I think in the year 1915, from Vancouver through the Panama canal to the Old Country, they tested a great many cars; some of them showed 15-t per cent moisture. Although it was two months on the road it arrived in perfect condition. Why should we leave it to Mr. Serls to arbitrarily set the moisture content at 14 per cent? I believe that when the new grain act is drafted, in the case of every sample of wheat that tests over 14 per cent moisture-if that is to be the content-the percentage should be stamped on the certificate; so that the buyer and seller will know just what moisture is in that wheat. I think it is wrong sometimes to say that a car of grain should be graded tough if it contains 14.2 or 14.3 moisture.
One other point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is the practice that seems to me has just recently been put into effect at Calgary. Sometimes when our wheat is graded at Calgary, if we are dissatisfied with the grade we can ask for a re-inspection at Vancouver. I had one car raised from 3 to 2 grade by having it reinspected at Vancouver this fall, and that gave me an extra seven cents per bushel. But recently a car of wheat was shipped to Vancouver, graded No. 4 at Calgary, and the commission man in Calgary asked for a survey board to survey the sample. That board confirmed the inspector's judgment and said it was No. 4. Then the owner of the wheat asked for a re-inspection at Vancouver. Mr. Hill said he had instructions from Mr. Serls that after these cars were surveyed they should not be re-inspected at Vancouver. I took the matter up with him myself, and at my request he wired Vancouver asking them to re-inspect this particular car. When it got to Vancouver the elevator agent there put it in a special bin and wired Serls for instructions as to whether he could re-inspect that car on unloading. Serls told him no, they could not, that the survey on the car was final. Now the sample which the survey board judged may not have been a true sample of the car, and just because of the arbitrary action on the part of Mr. Serls the
party was deprived of the privilege of having that car re-inspected when unloaded. I think that action on the part of Mr. Serls was altogether unwarranted, and I would ask the minister to see that that practice is stopped. It seems to me there is no reason why that car might not have been re-inspected at Vancouver, and it is possible the party lost a grade on it. If so he lost ten cents a bushel.
I hope the minister will act on this last request of mine. I think he might take it up with the inspector right now, and might provide, when cars are shipped through to Vancouver and re-inspection is asked for, it should be allowed, because the samples drawn very often are not really representative of the wheat which is in that car.


William Richard Motherwell: I would like to say just a word or two about this survey board.
I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) in his suspicion regarding its personnel. I can recall the time when I was just as filled with suspicion, not only regarding the survey board, but everything else on the Grain Exchange. But when I became more familiar with the methods of appointing the survey board and the difficulty of making appointments from anywhere except Winnipeg where the surveys were to be held, I realized some of the difficulty of getting a board that would secure the entire confidence of everybody. If the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Hopkins) is here, he will recall that in 1906 or a little afterwards, in order to secure, if possible, the confidence of everybody in the personnel of the survey board, Mr. Dorrell of Moose Jaw, was appointed. Other farmers were appointed, including myself, and we got notice of the survey board about a week after the board meeting was over. You see how impossible it is to appoint farmers owing to their living, sometimes, hundreds of miles away from Winnipeg or Calgary. Finally, that method was abandoned. The next move of the department was to authorize the various ministers of agriculture for the three prairie provinces to make recommendations to the government and those recommendations would be honoured and appointments made in that way representing the different provinces. What was I to do? I had to get some person in Winnipeg- and I presume other ministers of agriculture were under the same necessity-in order that they might attend a hurry-up call of the board, as it might be called at fifteen minutes' notice. Consequently, I got in touch with Mr. W. W. Thompson, with whom I am sure all members from the west must be acquainted and who is one of the most honourable men

Supply-Trade and Commerce
we have in the grain trade, and I asked his advice as to whom I should appoint as being a good straight grain man. I used to believe there were none such, but now I believe there are. After he had made his recommendation, I recommended the appointment and the Department of Trade and Commerce made the appointment. If my hon. friend has any better way of making these appointments, let him produce it instead of continuing in his suspicions. Will the hon. gentleman representing Macleod answer this question? I know he will. Did Mr. Snow or anybody else recommend to the Department of Trade and Commerce that he himself be appointed a member of the grain standard board?


George Gibson Coote: Somebody did.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friend for reasons of his own, declined.


George Gibson Coote: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: But on the other
hand he was given the opportunity, since he could not act himself, to recommend another.


George Gibson Coote: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: And that other
accepted.


George Gibson Coote: In answer to the hon. minister, if he will allow me to answer right now, I may say that I was offered a
10 p.m. position on the grain standard board, but I was advised by two reputable solicitors that I had better not accept that, because acceptance might be considered as accepting an office of emolument under the crown which would interfere with my duties as a member of parliament. For that reason, I reluctantly declined. Personally, I would rather be a member of the grain standard board than a member of this House. I, however, declined for that reason and I suggested to the wheat pool board, that they might recommend some farmer or some person to the Board of Grain Commissioners, to be appointed to the grain standard board, and I believe Mr. King, of Raymond, was appointed on that recommendation. When I was speaking on this subject a few minutes ago, I said that I thought the wheat producer should be allowed to nominate or appoint a majority of the members of the grain survey board. I objected to their being appointed by the board of trade of Calgary. Many men on the board of trade of Calgary do not know good wheat from poor wheat any more than I do, at any rate.


William Richard Motherwell: I was not criticizing my hon. friend for not accepting the position. That was his privilege. What I wanted to

point out was that the government, through Mr. Snow, was doing everything it could to get a representative board. As my hon. friend was taking an active interest in it, it was suggested:	Here is a gentleman who is
taking an intelligent interest in this question; why not appoint him? That was a logical thing to do and it showed that the desire of the government and Mr. Snow was to have the board properly representative. My hon. friend took the next best step to going on himself by getting a nominee of the wheat pool. I had the pleasure of meeting that gentleman at Winnipeg when the board sat there to set the commercial grades. Not only was he appointed to represent the farmers, but Mr. Maharg was appointed as a representative of the Co-operative Elevators of Saskatchewan, Mr. McRae, representing the wheat pool of Saskatchewan, Mr. Dan. Mc-Cuaig, who had been on for Winnipeg for twenty years, Mr. Orerar, who had been on for some number of years and Mr. A. E. Wilson, another prominent gentleman who was head of the grain commission for the three western provinces. All these gentlemen with practical knowledge of the whole question have been on the board either recently or for many years, and that shows the desire of all governments, whether Conservative or Liberal, to try to get representative boards. Evidently, they tried to get a good man in the person of my hon. friend and he must accept some responsibility for declining. If the other gentleman was better than he was, then of course my hon. friend is absolved from any blame in the matter. Some day my hon. friend may have on his shoulders the responsibility of government, and when he is adopting the best methods obtainable among the sons of men, then he will ask the other fellow to produce an alternative that is better. I am asking my hon. friend that, instead of casting suspicion over all our boards and over all those in authority, whether it be on the grain board, standard board or survey board, or any other board: Why can he not show some more excellent way?
The criticism to-night about the protein content was logical enough, but the protein content can be got in about three hours by the sulphuric acid test. That, however, does not mean anything at all as regards the quality of the protein content and is of no indication in a country like ours where wheat may not mature due to frost. Under frost the protein content will become actually higher but will be of less value. There is a great deal of difficulty in connection with this complex question, and I would ask my hon. friend to think of these things.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. KELLNER:: When the minister states that the protein content is of little value, whom is he quoting from?


William Richard Motherwell: Dr. F. T. Shutt
of the experimental farm. I have not his books here, but I have five or six of them in my office.


George Gibson Coote: Just in reply to the minister's little lecture to me for criticizing so much, hon. members present will back me up when I say that I offered no criticism of the personnel of the grain standard board. I did criticize the Canada Grain Act as regards that clause which provides for the appointment of the survey board at Calgary. They are appointed by the board of trade in the city of Calgary, and that is what I was objecting to.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member
certainly did criticize the survey board pointing out where they are all appointed from around Winnipeg. How could it be otherwise? The survey board has to be called in five minutes, sometimes, and you cannot send to Indian Head, or Regina or Saskatoon.


George Gibson Coote: I am talking of the grain
survey board of Calgary, and I thought my remarks indicated that I was referring to that board. I saw the members at work several times, and only three of them out of eight were engaged on the different samples.


Charles Wallace Stewart: The Minister of Agriculture treats as worthless the test made in Minneapolis, which I gave to the House a short time ago, and which made a difference of 26 cents per bushel to the grain firm on the wheat they tested. Why should such a test be worthless in this country if it was worth 26 cents a bushel to the grain firm in Minneapolis?


William Richard Motherwell: I have heard so
many of these proposals put forward that I want to know more about them before I give an answer to my hon. friend's question.


John Millar: Mr. Chairman, the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture is my reason for reading this letter in regard to the time required for a test. I think his information as to time is rather astray.


William Richard Motherwell: About three hours.


John Millar: This is from the National
Testing Laboratories, Limited, Winnipeg, and I believe I am free to use the information:
In the evidence given before the recent grain inquiry it was stated that the time required to make a test was one hour. Our experience has been that it takes one hour and ten minutes from the time that the sample arrives in the laboratory until the result of the test is telephoned to the customer. This does not,
however, mean that every sample takes the same time. With our particular equipment if we receive twenty-four samples at one time, the first four would be reported in the above time and the balance would come off in groups of four in five minute intervals.
So that while it would take one hour and ten minutes for one sample, twenty-four could be reported in one hour and thirty-five minutes after being received in the laboratory.


William Richard Motherwell: The wheat I referred to was whole wheat. The more it is ground the quicker the result.


John Millar: There is nothing here to
indicate that it is anything else but the whole wheat that we have been talking about.


William Richard Motherwell: They have little
mills for grinding it.


John Millar: I have similar information from laboratories in the States. This paragraph of the letter deals with the cost:
Referring again to the grain inquiry, it was stated in evidence that at Kansas city the cost of protein determinations is 45 cents a sample. With the extra cost of chemicals and so forth in western Canada we could not approach this figure with the volume of business that we had during the past grain season, but if our present equipment was at work to the limit of its capacity, that is, working for twenty-four hours in three shifts, we could I have no doubt get down to this figure.
That is, 45 cents per sample.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mass production.


John Millar: Yes. With regard to the
minister's statement that the protein test is of little value, I think he is also astray there. In the laboratory at Winnipeg now there is, I believe, a baking as well as_ a protein test. While I have not much information to back this up, what little I have leads me to believe that unless there is frost or some other peculiar feature in the grain the amount of protein is all that is required. In case of frost and perhaps dampness the protein is damaged, and that damage would have to be determined. But the mills in Minneapolis, in Kansas City, Missouri, and in Kansas City, Kansas, are making the protein test on a large scale, and there is not any reason why the same cannot be done for the farmer. In that case he will get the benefit; at present the mills are getting the benefit. I am almost inclined to think this discussion has gone so far that possibly the minister might be ready to do with my resolution what he was kind enough to do with my former resolution dealing with Dr. Saunders- place something in the estimates. Now, if he will agree to accept the principle of my resolution, and provide machinery so that grain can be tested when the farmer desires

Supply-Trade and Commerce
it, and the test used as a basis for fixing the price, possibly it would not be necessary to proceed with that resolution and time would be saved.


George Gibson Coote: For fear the statement of the Minister of Agriculture may create a wrong impression, the day I was in Minneapolis I called on a gentleman who runs a private laboratory in the basement of the chamber of commerce, and he told me that he had tested 200 samples that morning at a charge of 75 cents apiece. Why would the grain men of Minneapolis have that number of samples tested in a morning if they were not making use of the protein test in selling their wheat on the market?


William Richard Motherwell: Were any of the samples damaged by frost?


George Gibson Coote: I could not say.


William Richard Motherwell: It makes all the difference in the world.


George Gibson Coote: I remarked to the head official of jhe grading system in the United States, " I do not suppose you have any frosted wheat?" He replied, "Indeed we have; we have considerable frosted wheat from Dakota and some from Montana. But certainly the protein test in most cases gives some indication of the milling value of that wheat."


Charles Wallace Stewart: The Minister of Agriculture has intimated that he doubts the reliability of the tests made in the time we have stated. Perhaps he would be good enough to inform the committee how long he thinks it should take to make a complete test?


William Richard Motherwell: It depends whether the grain is in its whole state or partially ground in a little mill. The time will run fiom one and a half to three hours.


Mr. JELLIFF:: Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce been down to the Russell hotel to inspect the dockage determining machine on exhibit there? If he has, will he tell us if he intends adopting it for use in this country as a standard? They have done so on the other side of the line, I understand. There are a great many disputes over dockage, and a great deal of complaint among farmers. I think this machine could be used with very great advantage both to the government and to the farmers.


Thomas Andrew Low: I assure my hon. friend that I am always glad to examine such a machine. Probably I was one of the first members of 
the House to see it in operation. It seemed to clean up pretty thoroughly the sample of wheat that I saw put through. Whether it would be feasible or not to place the machine in our elevators would have to be determined by experts. I am not in a position to say at the moment that I would care to go as far as my hon. friend suggests and recommend that the machine be placed in all Canadian elevators.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Another question. I think the very substantial surplus shown in his department would warrant the minister advising a decrease in the inspection and weighing fees. In -the delivery season some 1,500 to
3,000	ears of grain go through Winnipeg daily. My recollection is that the inspection and weighing fee is $2 per car, so that would mean a cost to the farmers of from 83,000 to 85,000 or $6,000 a day for that inspection service. In view of the surplus that is shown in the handling of the grain trade it seems to me that there might be a redriction in *this fee, with some advantage to the fanners who raise the grain. Has -the minister thought of making any such reduction?


Thomas Andrew Low: I would -be very glad to suggest that a reduction be made, -but unfortunately in a year when we -have a small crop our overhead goes on just the same. We have not 'the complete figures for the twelve months of this fiscal year, but I venture to say that the surplus will be less than it was for last year on account of the smaller crop. We have to maintain a staff, and any reduction that is made in the staff amounts to very little; the great bulk of the expense is continued. While for the last four or five years we have -had a surplus, yet for eight or ten years we had a deficit. I think this year the surplus will be reduced.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: A good deal has been said here to-nigh-t about complaints with regard to the grading of grain during .the last season. I have heard a great many complaints of that kind in my portion of the country. The farmers are all complaining that grain that they deemed' to be equal to that of 1923 has been graded from one to two grades lower, and it is difficult for them to understand it. I wonder if the minister has seen a little booklet that was issued by the Maple Leaf Milling Company in which they called special attention to -the excellence of lost year's crop from the milling standpoint. They state in the opening paragraph of that booklet -that whereas the old grain of the previous year's crop usually makes the best flour the new grain of last year's crop makes flour of

Supply-Trade and Commerce
just as good quality as the old wheat. So that if we follow the milling test at all in determining our grades the farmers of western Canada should have got just as good a grade last year as they did in 1923. It seems to me that all the statements that have been made to-night and alii these references to investigations along scientific lines must convince us that the basis of our grading should be changed; that we should get our grading on a scientific and- practical footing so that the farmer shall get the actual value of his product. I hope that in the drafting of the new grain act a new method of testing will be made effective.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The question raised by the hon. member for Maoleod with regard to the grading of tough grain, or the tough grading of grain, perhaps I should say, is one in respect to which the farmers in the northeast part of Saskatchewan have a standing grievance. Every second or third' year we have a rainy season and our grain is more or less damp. The farmer does not complain of the grading as tough of grain that actually is tough, but the elevator companies have a habit of grading everything tough in that particular district. I have been told frankly by travellers for the elevator companies on more than one occasion that they have instructed all buyers to buy everything as tough regardless of what the grain may be in that particular district. In some cases grain which is carried over from the year before, and which is perfectly dry, is graded as tough, though the buyers themselves admit quite frankly that it was not tough. That condition of affairs has been going on there for many years. I do not know just where the responsibility of the department would come in, but the matter should be dealt with in some way. The fall of 1921 was a very wet one, and practically everything in the way of oats and most of the wheat grown in the part of Saskatchewan in which I live was graded tough. Some of the oa.ts, in fact, soM as low as 12 cents a bushel. The farmers lost hundreds of thousands of dollars that year that I consider we had no right to lose. I remember one case of a farmer showing me some oats that had been grown the year before and that was graded tough. I sent a sample down to the grader at Winnipeg and it was graded straight there, but in discussing the matter with the elevator man I was told that he had been instructed to buy everything tough in that particular district. I came down here in the early winter of 1922 and I had an opportunity of discussing this
with the Board of Grain Commissioners. They told me they had Dr. Birchard conddct a series of tests, and I have here a copy of at least part of Dr. Birchard's report, dated February 1922. It says:
The data acquired at Winnipeg, Tort William and Montreal, lead to the conclusion that the moisture limit for oats is somewhere between 14.0 per cent as a minimum and 14.5 per cent as a maximum. That is to say, the evidence appears sufficient to indicate that oats carrying 14.5 per cent moisture may heat or otherwise go out of condition under extreme conditions, but that they will safely carry under the same conditions 14.0 per cent of moisture. No evidence of heating was obtained in any car where the original moisture was 14.0 per cent or under.
My grievance is that this report of Dr. Birchard was never put into effect, so far as I have been able to find out, by the graders. In fact, I understand they have been grading as tough anything up to 13 per cent in oats and about 14 per cent in wheat. I believe that the examinations would show no wheat spoiling at less than 15 or 15.5 per cent of moisture. During the last year or two we have had comparatively dry seasons and the farmers have not had such a grievance in that regard, but any fall may be unusually wet, in which event this thing will recur and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be lost to the farmers. I think something should be done about it.
Now, the point that has been raised this evening with regard to the milling value of wheat is an old one. It has been discussed in the prairies since 1907 or 1908, I believe, when tests were made which indicated that very often No. 3 wheat would show a higher milling value than No. 1 or No. 2. In these cases the farmer lost a great deal of money. In the fall of 1911 I took two samples of my own wheat to a local miller to have them thoroughly tested. Some of my wheat was threshed before there was any rain and it was perfectly dry, not bleached in any way. It graded No. 2. Some of the wheat that was threshed after the rain and was slightly bleached was graded No. 3. I am not sure what the spread was in the price, but I believe it was 7 or 8 cents. I took samples of both these grades of wheat to a local miller and had them both ground into flour. The miller told me that there was not a particle of difference either in the quality or in the quantity of the flour obtained from these samples. It was perfectly plain that both made exactly the same quality and quantity of flour. It simply meant that the miller who eventually bought it-


Thomas Andrew Low: What were the grades?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Milton Neil Campbell: The wheat that was threshed before it got wet and* was not bleached graded No. 2; the other, slightly bleached and slightly off colour, graded No. 3. But there was not one particle of difference in the milling qualities of these grades.


Thomas Andrew Low: While the quality of both grades might be the same so far as the flour is concerned, yet No. 3 would not yield as great a quantity of flour as No. 2. That is usually the case.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is what we have always been told, but this miller proved it was not so. He ground them into flour and could hardly tell which was the original shipment. There was not a particle of difference as to quantity or quality. Now we have hundreds of thousands of bushels of that kind of wheat in our part of the country, and it means the farmer loses a great deal of money. Somebody must make it. I do not say the miller always does; probably he pays a premium on that to the grain dealer. I know there are certain difficulties in the way of enforcing grading by milling value, but it seems to me something ought to be done in the way of looking further into it. It was considered quite feasible a good many yearn ago when the tests were first made, but for some reason or other nothing particular was done about it. This year there have been a good many complaints. We have heard a good many complaints in this House this evening, about the grading of grain. The farmers throughout the prairies seem to have the suspicion that the grading this year had some connection with the wheat pool; in other words, they seemed to have the opinion that there was a determined effort made on the part of the grain companies to put the pool in a false position. I was told very frequently by grain men that when they were expecting wheat to be shipped to the pool they had no margin; they were paid handling charges only and had no profit, so in order to play safe they graded what they call very close. That means very often that the farmer loses a grade. That is the explanation from the grain man's standpoint. But apparently the chief grader was grading very close too. I do not want to imply that there was any collusion between the grain companies and the grading officials, but that is the suspicion, and the results later on in the season seem to have convinced the farmers that there was some ground for it. If there is anything in that, it is a very serious thing, and it would be well for the government to look into it.


Oliver Robert Gould: We are going to have a new Grain Act, and have it built up in the manner we want. We are going to provide penalties in the act for infringement of its provisions. Possibly some of the evidence that is submitted showing infringements, even if it is submitted by hon. gentlemen here, will cause the penalty to be applied. I would like to see Dr. Birchard brought down here to give evidence before the committee to which the minister said the Canada Grain Act would be submitted.
Another citation that I want to make at xhis time came under my personal notice, and I am prepared to take my affidavit upon this if necessary. It is the protest of a man who was selling street wheat to an elevator last fall, and at last in despair he stopped going to that elevator and took his grain to another one, where he received a higher grade and 8 cents per bushel .more. He had to take a special bin at this first elevator that he went to, and for the first load he took in for his special bin he was allowed 47 bushels; the second load 43 bushels, and the third 37 bushels. They thought then that the special bin was practically assured, but the man took his grain to another elevator and got street price for a load, which meant 8 cents a bushel more. He took another load in; this was at 47 bushels; and the grain had some wild oats in it. He took in a third load and got the same weight and his 8 cents a bushel better. He was asked by the first elevator man if he was not going to use the special bin, and he replied no he did not think he was. The elevator man wanted to know why, so the shipper took the tickets out of his pocket and said as he showed them. "Here is a good reason why." He asked for cash tickets. Cash tickets were made out, and the owner of the tickets said, "Surely you can do as good as this bill, can't you?" and he did. He made the cash tickets out. The shipper then asked why he did not do that in the first place and the elevator man replied, "My positive instructions are that I must grade one grade lower than I know I can get for that wheat in Winnipeg." He was then asked how he got by the Canada Grain Act. I say, Mr. Chairman, that if the farmers had been receiving even justice under the act protests would not have been made in the numbers they are being made to-day; but these grain men think they are a law unto themselves, and I wonder who the individual was who would instruct an elevator operator out in the country that he should and must buy his grain one grade less than he knows he can

Supply-Trade and Commerce
receive for it in Winnipeg. That is street wheat I am referring to. The grain report shows that about fifty per cent of our wheat is sold as street wheat. Consequently when such practices are taking place, you see the terrible leverage the grain interests can exercise on the farmer, when fifty per cent of our total crop is street wheat. That is only one case. I could cite similar cases by the hour if necessary.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose my hon. friend knows that that matter has been very fully dealt with by the Royal Grain Commission. The evidence taken before that commission will all be available to the agricultural committee when the bill is submitted to them.


George Gibson Coote: There is one question I
would like to ask the minister, and that is as to the grades on wheat that are shipped out of Canada. I put a question on the order paper last week asking the number of bushels shipped to the United States last year and what grades. The answer I think was to the effect that the department had no record of the different grades shipped out. I would like to know if it is a fact that the department keeps no record of the number of bushels of each grade shipped out. It seems to me we should have that information. It is rather unfortunate otherwise, particularly in view of this suggested export tax on wheat.


Thomas Andrew Low: That question was not answered by my department, but by the Customs department. I do not think they keep a record of the different grades shipped out.


George Gibson Coote: Does the Department of
Trade and Commerce keep such a recotfi? Could we get the information officially if we asked for it?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, you would have to apply
to the Customs department.


George Gibson Coote: Are we to understand that
the minister's department has no record of the numbers of bushels of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 grades that are shipped out of Canada from the elevators at Montreal and: Fort William?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have no record of the exports of the different grades to the United States.


Arthur Edward Ross: Since the minister dismissed these chemists and laboratory assistants, has any research work been carried on by the government?


Thomas Andrew Low: Dr. Birchard is still in the
office, and he is no doubt doing some work for the inspection department in Winnipeg.


Arthur Edward Ross: To settle the
matter beyond doubt, is any research work actually being carried on by Dr. Birchard?
I would take it from what the minister said that he was the least desirable of the crowd, yet he is kept on and the other fellows are dismissed. Is any research work being done by Dr. Birchard, and is the only research work being done by the government being done by him?


Thomas Andrew Low: The only research work that
is being carried on at the present time under this department is by Dr. Birchard. He is still in the office at Winnipeg and there is no question but that he is carrying on some work, but to what extent I am not prepared to-night to say.


Oliver Robert Gould: The minister omitted to
answer my question as to whether Dr. Birchard would be called to give evidence before the committee to which the Canada Grain Act will be submitted.


Thomas Andrew Low: That will be a matter for the
committee on Agriculture to decide. Dr. Birchard gave evidence before the Royal Grain Commission very fully. That evidence will be in the possession of the committee and if, after scrutinizing it, they should decide that it is necessary to call Dr. Birchard before them it will be their privilege to do so.


Oliver Robert Gould: I would point out to the
minister that owing to incorporation of the testimony given before the Royal Grain Commission in the sessional papers only it is very difficult for all those members who are interested to obtain access to Dr. Birchard's evidence. The report was quite a voluminous one and there is only one copy of it although some thirty or forty members are very intensely interested in this evidence. I submit that every hon. member who wishes should have a fair opportunity of acquainting himself with the testimony given before the commission. When that evidence was laid upon the table-although the inquiry had cost this country a lot of money,-I might have moved that it . be printed, because it might not have involved a much greater expenditure, but in my generosity I did not ask that that be done. However I believe there should be some arrangement whereby Dr. Birchard's evidence could be made more available to the members of the committee. I have a copy of the official report in my office at the present time, and I wish to retain it as long as I can. Of course those members may see it who wish

Supply-Trade and Commerce
to do so, but if there were more copies available it would be much better for all concerned.


Milton Neil Campbell: The minister seems to
doubt my statement regarding the milling qualities of the two different grades of grain that I mentioned. That being the case I should like to quote some of the figures in connection with the tests carried out by the Department of Agriculture of the territorial government in 1924. In that year the territorial Department of Agriculture made arrangements with Professor Harcourt, a chemist in the Ontario Agricultural College, to conduct experiments along this line in order to find out the comparative milling values of the various grades of wheat. Eight one-bushel sacks were sent to the inspection office at AVinnipeg where they were graded all the way from No. 1 hard to feed, from the highest to the lowest grade. They were sent to Professor Harcourt under numbers so that he could have no means of finding out how the samples were graded by the inspection department. His report was that there was very little difference in the milling and baking values of any of them. I will just quote what he says in that regard:
The conclusion reached was that there did not appear to be much difference in the value of the different grades of wheat. Even the feed sample proved by no means useless for bread-making purposes, either in yield or quality; the only thing that rendered it less available for bakers' use was its darker colour. All who saw the loaves were surprised at the quality of this bread.
I may say that I myself ate some bread made from what was considered to be a very low grade of wheat-wheat that was badly frozen and which, up to that time, I had always considered utterly unfit for flour. I always wondered where all this feed wheat went, but after having tasted it I formed a pretty good idea because it yields very excellent flour. Now the results of the Harcourt tests were so astonishing that the territorial government made an extra test, which demonstrated conclusively that the first test was correct, and that there was no very real difference in the quality of the flour as be-, tween the No. 1 and the other grades. I think that is a very important thing. I should like to impress upon the minister that the department should look carefully into the matter and see if it is not possible to work a statement of that kind into the new grain act.


Mr.   LOIV@: I do not doubt at all the statements of my hon. friend, but an experience of about twenty-five years rather convinces me that you do not get the same yield out of No. 3 that you do out of No. 1. In the

case of No. 3 you get a greater quantity of the by-products. The quality, perhaps, of flour from No. 3 might be just as good as that from No. 1, but you would not get the same yield of flour, consequently No. 3 would not be worth as much as No. 1. Speaking from a milling standpoint it has been our experience that it is more profitable to buy the higher grades-we get a greater yield and we have less by-products. We find that when you get down below No. 3 a greater quantity is needed to make a barrel of flour although the cost of manufacturing the flour is just as great in the case of the lower grade as it is in that of the higher.


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps the minister's experience is not quite the same as it would be if he were buying direct from the market. I am inclined to think that some of these grades are doctored a little before they reach the millers. Now the tests carried on by Professor Harcourt in 1904 showed that in the case of No. 1 hard the amount of flour obtained was 70.S per cent, as against 68 per cent from the No. 4 grade. This difference is certainly not sufficient to account for the difference in price between No. 1 hard and No. 4.


George Gibson Coote: I should just like to explain, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) as to whether any experiments were now being carried on by the laboratory, that Dr. Birchard was kind enough to make baking tests from the different grades of wheat and to send them to the farmers' convention at Calgary this year to demonstrate to the farmers exactly the kind of bread that could be produced from these different grades. I should like now to express publicly our appreciation of Dr. Birchard's kindness in making those tests. Of course we wired the department at Ottawa first and asked that permission be given Dr. Birchard to carry out these tests. The department wired Dr. Birchard the necessary authority but in its telegram to me stated that it would assume no responsibility for any misapprehensions that might be caused by the use of the different breads. The bread that was exhibited was from Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The bread made from No. 5 looked to me to be good enough for anybody to eat, and to the ordinary layman it was hard to detect any difference in the quality of bread made from No. 4 wheat and that made from No. 1. Some bakers were called in to examine the bread and they pronounced it to be first class. Their

Supply-Trade and Commerce
opinion was that it would be impossible for anybody to tell any difference whatever between the bread made from No. 4, and that made from either Nos. 1. 2 or 3. So I think that as a rule any one of our Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 grades, if secured as they come through the hands of the inspector and before they go through the terminal elevator, will make the very best bread.


Thomas Andrew Low: Speaking again from experience I find that a blend of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 very often makes a better loaf of bread than straight No. 1. I should just say to the members here to-night that there has never been a complaint brought to my notice to which I have not given my personal attention at once. I think every member of the House will admit that whenever they have written to me they have found me willing to take up their complaints.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to ask the
minister if the Canada Grain Act does not require a return to be made of the grades that are taken in as well as those that are shipped out of the terminal elevators?


Mr. LOWT:: Yes. The act requires that a record be kept of the grades going into those elevators, but not in the case of grain exported to the United States. When it is shipped to the United States no record is kept of the grade.


John Millar: No record is kept of the grain going in and out of the private mixing elevator is there?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, the record is kept by the inspector at the elevator.


John Millar: In the figures submitted
last year or two years ago it was claimed later on before the Grain Inquiry Commission that there had been no cut off as between years, and therefore the figures were of very little value. Did they ever make a cut off and have a weigh up in the private mixing elevator?


Thomas Andrew Low: A weigh up at all the terminal elevators. Is the hon. gentleman speaking of private elevators?


John Millar: Yes.


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister said a few moments ago that every single complaint had
his personal attention. I have in my hand a letter sent to the minister by a man at Clairmont, Alberta, by the name of Gudlang-son, who I understand sent samples of his grain to the minister with the request that they be tested. I will not take time to read the letter as it is lengthy, but I would like to find out if a reply rvas sent to him because he claims no attention was paid to it.
I would like to say a few words also in regard to the situation of the grain laboratory at Winnipeg. The whole thing seems to have rather a nasty taste. I do not like the look of it at all. We have heard that one of our experienced chemists was left all alone; his staff instead of being retired, you might say, to use a better term, had been fired. The chemist was the only man left in a very large laboratory, and cannot possibly attend to his business properly. The minister claims he is very sympathetic with the interests of the grain growers. His expressions are all right, but his actions seem to prove otherwise. Statements have been made that this Dr. Birchard, who seems to be looked upon as a very able man by those who know him, has not been sending in his reports regularly. Do the reports come from Dr. Birchard direct to the department, or is there any body of men or any official who has to pass upon these reports before they reach the department. Is there any possibility they have been suppressed, if not in whole at least in part? I was very much interested in the information given by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). I noticed that he has obtained a large amount of valuable information by going through the States on his way to Ottawa. What surprises me is that the government through its Department of Trade and Commerce has not got this information before, or if it has, why it has not acted on it. It has always seemed to me strange that the Minister of Agriculture should be entrusted with the oversight of the entire interests of the farmers in regard to everything except the largest and most important product they produce; but the welfare of that product is turned over to another department, namely Trade and Commerce; not that I think the Department of Agriculture would look after it any better than the Department of Trade and Commerce, but I think a great deal of useful work could be done in both departments in regard to agriculture. I would like the minister to answer the question in regard to whether any official or officials stand between Dr. Birchards report and the department.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: No, there is no official standing between the department and the chief chemist. I think I stated very clearly our experience with Dr. Birchard. As a matter of fact, before I took over the department he had sent in a partial report which had been set up in type and remained down in the Printing Bureau for about fifteen months. The department at the time asked Dr. Birchard to complete his report, and he did not do so. The type was finally set aside, and the report was never printed, and never completed.


Henry Elvins Spencer: May I ask the hon. minister at whose instigation the staff of Dr. Birchard was fired or let out?


Thomas Andrew Low: Dr. Birchard is still in the
laboratory at Winnipeg.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was referring to the staff of Dr. Birchard.


Thomas Andrew Low: We decided to reorganize the laboratory and we are waiting, or have been waiting, for the report of the Royal Grain Commission. I am sure that when the staff is reorganized hon. members opposite will find that it will be more efficient than it has been.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister tell me
how many grain laboratories there are?


Thomas Andrew Low: One.


John Arthur Clark: What provision is made
for the testing of grain loaded for the western route?


Thomas Andrew Low: The only place is Winnipeg.


John Arthur Clark: How can grain that goes
by the western route be tested at all?


Thomas Andrew Low: Tests can be made at Winnipeg. Samples are sent to Winnipeg to be tested.


John Arthur Clark: What proportion of the vote is being set aside for the purpose of extending the grain testing at Winnipeg or other places?


Thomas Andrew Low: There is no special amount set aside. The vote is SI ,100,000, and the cost of the laboratory at Winnipeg is included in that amount.


John Arthur Clark: Can the minister give the
details of the vote, what it is for?


Mr. GRAHAM:: It is all on Hansard.


Thomas Andrew Low: I will be glad to give the hon. member the information. The item is made

up of the expenses of the board, secretary and staff.
Salaries, wages and expenses	 $	84,640
Inspection department, salaries and wage
expenses	 684,367
Weighing department, salaries, wages and
expenses	 336,267
Registration department, salaries, wages
and expenses	 19,039
Survey and standard board	 3,650
Grain research laboratory, salaries, wages, not including	the chief	chemist.. ..	14,300
Eastern division, salaries, wages and expenses	 24,202
Making a total of	 $1,166,465
That is the estimate of the Canada grain board.


John Arthur Clark: Under which department
does the grain laboratory at Winnipeg come?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have just stated, the grain
research laboratory. The salaries, wages and expenses, with the exception of Dr. Birchard's salary, amount to 814,300.


John Arthur Clark: That is just the point.
What provision is there then for this extension which the minister has been discussing so much to-night. I understood him to say that lie thoroughly agreed with the representations made by hon. members to my left that the work of the grain laboratory at Winnipeg should be extended. What provision is made in these estimates for extension of the work of this laboratory, if only 814,000 is in the estimates for this purpose?


Thomas Andrew Low: It has not been costing the
government that much, but that is the estimate made by the Canada grain board for this year.


John Arthur Clark: That is for 1925-26.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Is that right?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Can the work of this laboratory be extended under the provisions of this vote?


Thomas Andrew Low: If, after we are through with
the Canada Grain Act, it is found necessary to extend it so that more money will be required, a sufficient amount will be brought down in the supplementary estimates.


John Arthur Clark: My point is this: The Minister has already stated in most explicit terms, that there is necessity for the extension of this work. He apparently knew that before these estimates were prepared. Why then was it not included in the present estimates?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Alexander Robb: The Treasury board insisted
upon all ministers getting their estimates down to a minimum of their requirements, and we told them that a little later on, if they needed more, we would help them out.


John Arthur Clark: Is it the opinion of the Acting Minister of Finance that the work of this laboratory should not be extended?


James Alexander Robb: Not at all.


John Arthur Clark: Then, if the Acting Minister of Finance thinks it should be extended, how is it proposed to extend it under the provisions of this vote?


James Alexander Robb: The minister will work that
out, and he has already told the committee that if he has not sufficient, he will come before parliament again and ask for a larger vote. I would like my hon. friend to help us a little in trying to effect economy.


John Livingstone Brown: The fact is that the $14,000 vote for this particular work is larger than the amount spent last year.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is it.


John Livingstone Brown: That is the point.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is the point I have been trying to explain to my hon. friend.


John Arthur Clark: What was allotted to grain research work last year?


Mr LOW:: I am sorry I have not the
figures here.


John Arthur Clark: That is vital. I cannot see how it could have been very much less. As regards effecting economy, I can assure the minister that he has no more ardent supporter in that respect than myself. But if this is a vital work and it appears to me to be so from the unanimous expressions of opinion from this side of the House, I do not think the sum of $14,000 is going to effect very much extension of this service.


Thomas Andrew Low: Then, I may ask my hon. friend tc support me when I bring down my supplementary estimates with an increase.


John Arthur Clark: We shall have to see the
minister's plan first.


Mr. WARNER:: Is it the minister's opinion that the laboratory at Winnipeg will serve for the western shipper? Does he know that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction at Edmonton on account of the present grading? Different people have sent the same quality of grain east and west, and they never get as good a grade on their grain at Edmonton
as they do at Winnipeg. That causes a good deal of dissatisfaction as well in regard to the western shipments and most of the growers want to ship west.


Thomas Andrew Low: I caused an inquiry to be made about that very complaint, and the assurance that I have from the grain board and the chief inspector is that there is no difference in the grading.


Daniel Webster Warner: The people at Edmonton certainly feel that there is when they have sent the same kind of grain, grain out of the same bin and out of the same lot, to both Winnipeg and Edmonton, and they have found that they got one lower grade at Edmonton than they did at Winnipeg.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. friend because I sometimes have the same feeling when a carlpad of wheat arrives at our mill. We sometimes feel that there has been a mistake in the grading and that it should have graded a lower grade rather than a higher. These things are bound to happen. I made it my business to have the matter investigated with the result that the chief inspector and the Canada grain board assure me that there is no difference in the inspection


Daniel Webster Warner: I do not understand how
it can be possible to take samples out of the same lot even and then get one better grade at Winnipeg than at Edmonton. There must be a difference somewhere, whether they say there is or not.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Are there
the same facilities in the way of reinspection for grain going through Calgary to the west coast as in the case of grain going through Winnipeg to Fort William?


Thomas Andrew Low: Exactly the same.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: What establishment
is provided at Vancouver under this item? As I understand it, the department has at Vancouver inspectors and various other officials and employees who come under this item.


Thomas Andrew Low: We have an inspection and
a weighing staff at Vancouver, if that is what the hon. member -wishes to know.


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes, the details of
that and what amount is provided to cover the expenses of the establishment at Vancouver.


Thomas Andrew Low: I have a full list of the Vancouver staff with the salaries. If my hon. friend wishes, I will read them out to him.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Garland McQuarrie: I would like to have
that information.


Thomas Andrew Low: They are as follows:
Mackenrot, W. H., Weighman	$ 2,200
Carruthers H., Weighman	 1,950
Simpson, Wm., Weighman	 1,830
McGeachie, Don., Weighman	 1,800
Bottoms, R., Weighman	 1,740
Gardiner, M. R., Weighman	 1,740
Brown, Geo., Weighman	 1,740
Gowe, C. H.,	Weighman	 1,740
Rumble, Thos., Weighman	 1,740
Anderson, E.,	Weighman	
1,740Matheson, C.	E., Trackman	
1,260Reese, R. E.,	Trackman	
1.260Riddell, J. H., Trackman	
1,230Mills, A., Trackman	
1,230One weighmaster-name not given	
2,430Four other spare men	
5,760Total	$31,110


William Garland McQuarrie: How does that compare with the previous year?


Thomas Andrew Low: Of course the previous year would be much less. On account of the increasing flow of grain to Vancouver during the past twelve months we have added very materially to the staff.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is the information I want. What additional facilities are being provided to carry on inspection expeditiously at Vancouver?


Thomas Andrew Low: The staff is sufficient at the moment to meet the requirements. When foimd necessary it will be added to.


John Arthur Clark: Is that the total staff allotted to take care of administration work at Vancouver?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is the full staff. I might give it in more detail:
One grain inspector; two deputy grain inspectors; eleven weighmen; four trackmen; one deputy registrar, and two grain clerks.
As my hon. friend knows, with the increasing elevator capacity at Vancouver we are constantly adding to the staff.


John Arthur Clark: But over $1,000,000 is for the purpose of administration. Is this $31,110 the total sum required for administration at the port of Vancouver?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, for the weighing staff.


John Arthur Clark: That is the total under this vote required for administration at Vancouver?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister obtain for me the cost of grain research work for the previous year?


Thomas Andrew Low: My deputy informs me that for the past ten months the cost has been $4,800.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is the government's programme for grain testing laboratories limited to one at Winnipeg, or does it include similar facilities for the port of Vancouver?


Thomas Andrew Low: We are not committed to any programme. We are waiting to see how the agricultural committee will regard the new grain bill. If the committee thinks that the grain testing laboratories should be increased, it will be for the committee to so recommend to the government.


William Garland McQuarrie: The government, then, has no programme at all.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, we have.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is what I am asking.


Thomas Andrew Low: We intend to continue the laboratory at Winnipeg, but we have not considered the desirability of establishing another in Vancouver, unless it can be shown to us that it is necessary.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is any provision made for re-inspection at the interior terminals?


Thomas Andrew Low: No, there is not.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any possibility of getting such provision made?


Thomas Andrew Low: It will be the privilege of my
hon. friend to make any recommendations to the committee that he may see fit when the matter is under discussion.


Robert Gardiner: I was wondering
whether the minister had taken this matter into consideration in view of the report that has been placed before the House, and whether he proposes in the new Canada Grain Act to make any provision for re-inspection at those points.


Thomas Andrew Low: No, we had not thought of
making provision for such re-inspection.


Oliver Robert Gould: I presume that the new
Canada Grain Act is being drafted at the present time?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is correct.


Oliver Robert Gould: Undoubtedly there will be
a lot of work for the committee to whom the draft act will be referred, and I think it would save time if the minister would pass on to the draftsman for incorporation in the bill the recommendations for the improvement of the act that have been made

Supply-Trade and Commerce
here to-night. In answer to the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) the minister said he would ask for the members' endorsa-tion of additional expenditure when he brought down the supplementary estimates. Apparently the minister takes it for granted that he is spending the government's money, but I contend it is money taken from the grain trade, and I do not think there is any thanks due to the government for its promised generosity.


Thomas Andrew Low: But my hon. friend must bear
in mind that the capital expenditure is borne by all the people; therefore they have something to say in the matter.


John Livingstone Brown: That is as regards the public elevators.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: But all the rest of the expense is charged against the trade?


Thomas Andrew Low: That is right.


Oliver Robert Gould: During the years these
elevators have been in operation they have shown some profit?


Thomas Andrew Low: Only for the last four or five
years.


Oliver Robert Gould: Well, we have had the government terminal elevators for about ten years, and in view of the increased volume of grain to-day it would: be interesting if the minister would submit figures to the committee to show whether there is a credit or a deficit.


Thomas Andrew Low: That will be disclosed when
the item is under discussion. Elevators do not come under this head.


Oliver Robert Gould: True.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: As one or two of our
members are unavoidably absent, would the minister extend to them on the next vote the privilege of referring back to this item which we are passing to-night?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, if they wish to say anything on it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thomas Andrew Low: The hon. member for West
York (Sir Henry Drayton) wished me to again refer to item 355.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Since the adjournment, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend (Mr. Low) has relented; he has actually given some information, and it is the in-41
formation required. I will just read it so it will be on record. It is as follows:
Bounties Paid on Crude Petroleum
	1922-23		42	
	tn	g		s S
	t			O o3
Provinces	pq	0	O	Alberta	.. 379	9	1	$ 199 12N ew Brunswick.	. 4,513	6	1	2,369 50Ontario	. 165,059	871	183	76,229 95169,951	886	185	$78,798 571923-24	Alberta	.. 58	2	1	$ 30 35New Brunswick. .	. 6,945	8	1	3,648 24Ontario	. 145,200	636	174	76,130 95152,203	646	176	$79,809 54
One other point on which I wanted to get information was as to the number of wells, but I understand my hon. friend cannot get that without a good deal of inconvenience, so I shall not bother him about it. I understand that the number of wells is practically the same; that is fairly common ground. I would also suggest that my hon. friend bring down the report of Dr. Hanna and-perhaps of greater importance in view of the position of the industry at present and of the fact that this is perhaps the last opportunity for looking into something which will shortly disappear unless attention is given to it-the report of the other government emissary who was sent to look over the ground. If these reports are brought down I shall be quite content.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I understand that the list
which has just been read refers not to the total production of oil in Alberta but simply to the portion upon which bounty was payable. Of course, we produce much more than that, but on account of the conditions as to specific gravity our actual oil production is not fully indicated in these figures. I think we should have a bounty on all we produce and that that condition should not obtain in our case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You think it
should be limited, though, to the small well only?


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.19 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Questions
Monday, March 2, 1925