1926-06-18

AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization as follows:
Your committee has had under consideration the order of reference respecting the- cattle industry, with power to examine into the whole situation, and to recommend such measures as would, in the opinion of this committee, be beneficial to the further development of that industry, and after consideration of this matter, recommend to the House the following resolutions as passed separately by this committee at a meeting held this day, namely:
(1)	That this committee recommend that a Canadian representative at Washington should be appointed at once.
(2)	That this committee recommend that the government enter into negotiations with the United States looking toward the entry of Canadian cattle into the United States market on more favourable terms than at present.
(3)	That this committee recommend that the Canadian customs tariff against the United States cattle should be placed on the same rate and same specific basis as the United States tariff against Canadian cattle, with a provision that if the United States tariff duties be removed ot reduced, the Canadian duties would thereupon be removed or reduced to the same extent.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri) presented the third and final report of the special committee appointed to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise as follows:
The Special Committee appointed to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise, beg leave to present the following as their Third and Final Report:
1.	On the 5th February 1926 the House of Commons adopted the following resolution:
That a Special Committee of this House, consisting of nine members, be appointed forthwith to

Customs Inquiry-Report
investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise and alleged serious losses to the public treasury because of inefficiency or corruption on the part of officers of the Department and others, and that such investigation extend back over such period of time as the Committee may decide and have regard to all matters affecting the prevention of smuggling, the prosecution of offenders, the seizure, storage and disposal of smuggled goods, or goods seized for purposes of excise or other taxes, the appraisal of goods for revenue purposes, the collection of customs and excise duties, the knowledge of ministers or officials of offences or irregularities affecting the public service in said department, the efficiency of the administration thereof, and the necessity of safeguarding the public revenue and the public treasury, and that such Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, to print the evidence taken before the Committee, and to report from time to time.
2.	By a subsequent resolution the Committee was constituted as follows:
Messrs. C. W. Bell, K.C. (Hamilton West), Hon. R. B. Bennett, K.C., D. Donaghy, K.C., A. J. Doucet, J. C. Elliott, K.C., D. M. Kennedy, P. Mercier, K.C. (St. Henri), E. C. St. Pere, Hon. H. H. Stevens.
Mr. Paul Mercier, K.C. was elected Chairman. Mr. Elliott having been appointed a Minister of the Crown and by resolution of the House of Commons Mr. William T. Goodison was appointed to the vacancy so created, on March 15th 1926.'
3.	Your Committee sat from 9th February to 11th June, held 115 sittings, and heard 224 witnesses. Mr. R. L. Calder, K.C. was appointed Counsel to the Committee and Mr. R. D. Tighe, Assistant Counsel, both appointments being ratified by the House. Certain interested parties were represented by Counsel on a number of the hearings, by leave of the Committee.
4.	Notwithstanding the time devoted by the Committee to the taking of evidence the matters referred to it by the order of reference could not be completely reviewed. Much evidence was taken in connection with the Port of Montreal: the situation at Beebe and Rock Island, Quebec: and the operation of distilleries. The commiittee have also with some detail examined into iliquor smuggling in the Maritime Provinces. The committee have examined in a general way the conduct of business at certain customs ports of Ontario. The committee have not dealt, except incidentialiy, with the Middle West and the Pacific Coast. To a degree, therefore, this report is incomplete and suggestive rather than final. Full audit and extradepartmental investigation would be profitable in improving the service and recovering a large amount of revenue.
5.	Since 1897 the Customs Department has been under the control of s responsible Minister. In 1918 the Department of Excise, which had been a separate department of the Public Service since the year 1868 was amalgamated with the Customs Department and in 1920 and 1924 respectively the amalgamated departments were charged with the collection of sales and Income Taxes. The administration of these amalgamated departments is a serious task. The Customs frontier between the United States and Canada is a very long one and the position and number of bridges and highways crossing the boundary together with the extended line of sea coast rendered the suppression of smuggling difficult. The adoption by the United States of the Eighteenth Amendment has increased the difficulty, because it has made the incentive to illegally convey intoxicating liquor to the United States very great, and with the mass production of many products in that country there is a correspondingly great
incentive to illegally import such products into Canada. In the year 1925 smuggling assumed such large proportions that a number of business men made representations .to the Government, in consequence of which an Act, Chapter 39 of the Statutes of 1925, was passed making smuggling an indictable offence, where the goods were of the value of more than $200 and the penalties incurred by such smuggling increased.
6.	The evidence submitted to the Committee leads to the general conclusion that for a long time the Department of Customs and Excise had been slowly degenerating in efficiency and that the process was greatly accelerated in the last few years. Apparently the Hon. Jacques Bureau, then Minister of Customs, failed to appreciate and properly discharge the responsibilities of his office and as a result there was a lack of efficient, continuous and vigorous control of subordinates by the Headquarters Staff at Ottawa.
7.	The procedure provided by the Customs Act in the matter of Customs seizures is as follows: Upon making a seizure the Collector or Seizing Officer forthwith reports the circumstances of the case to the Commissioner of Customs (Section 174). Thereupon the Commissioner notifies the owner or claimant of the thing seized, stating the reasons for the seizure, and calls upon such owner or claimant to furnish within thirty days any evidence he may desire to submit. (Section 175). After the expiration of thirty days or sooner, if evidence is forthcoming on the part of the owner or claimant, "the Commissioner may consider and weigh the circumstances of the case and report his opinion and recommendation thereon to the Minister." (Section 176). The Minister thereupon either gives his decision and states the terms upon which the thing seized or detained may be released or the penalty or forfeiture remitted or refers the decision to the Court (Section 177). The Committee finds that this procedure was not followed. Although, as a rule, the facts are correctly recited in the summary submitted to the Minister, the opinion is not infrequently at variance with such facts, and the recommendation is so drawn as to elicit a decision to which such facts are repugnant. This discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that the report upon the evidence was in many instances preceded by a conference, and the recommendation was dictated by an intelligent anticipation of the Minister's wishes in the premises.
8.	The Committee is of opinion that the administrative duties of the Department of Customs and Excise should be left to the Executive Officers of the Department. Where the value of the goods or the amount in question is $200 or more the procedure should be automatic and not subject to Ministerial interference or control. Where the goods in question are under $200 the case would fall under the heading of "Petty Offences" and the Minister's discretion might there find a proper field for its exercise.
9.	The Committee finds that theft of motor vehicles
has frequently been associated with smuggling on the Quebec Customs frontier. The procedure followed by the Department in dealing with cars stolen and smuggled has resulted	in	an advantage to	the	thief
and receiver as against the owner of the car.
In the opinion of the Committee the procedure might be modified so as to provide that when the owner has established his title to the satisfaction of the department the car should	be	forthwith released to	him,under bonds to re-export it, and upon payment of charges for storage, etc., such release to be made at a time and place of which notice should be given to the person in whose possession it was at time of seizure in order that	he	may take such	legal	proceedings as are competent	to him to assert	any	claim
thereto or lien thereupon.
10.	The Committee find that it is the common practice of the Department to grant clearances to vessels
[Stage Direction]
Customs Inquiry-Report
[Stage Direction]
wholly or partly laden with liquor for the United States, or allegedly bound for a foreign port, but admittedly sailing to "rum rows," and that false landing certificates have been produced to obtain cancellation of bonds given for foreign export of cargoes so cleared.
The Committee further finds that a strong presumption is raised that some proportion of the liquor so shipped and cleared finds its way back into Canada for consumption. The Committee, therefore, recommend that excise and sales tax be levied on all Canadian made intoxicating liquors released from bond, no matter where they are carried and consumed, and that duty and sales tax be levied on all alcoholic liquors entering Canada, whether in bond or otherwise, irrespective of their ultimate destination.
Doubts have been cast upon the sufficiency of existing legislation to prohibit or authorize regulations prohibiting the illegal export of intoxicating liquors to the United States. To the extent to which such legislation may be insufficient the Committee recommends that it be amended. The Committee further recommends that, as soon as possible, regulations be made to prohibit clearances being granted to vessels carrying liquor as cargo, sailing from a Canadian Port to a United States Port, such regulations to make an exception in favour of liquor being imported into the United States in accordance with the laws of that Country.
11.	Subsection 4 of Section 171 of the "Excise Act" provides that "no spirits subject to excise which have not been warehoused for at least two years shall be entered for consumption". By reason of special circumstances arising out of the War, Parliament on the 1st day of July, 1920, Chapter 52, 10-11 George Fifth, Section 4, amended the section by adding thereto a . proviso empowering the Governor General to suspend the operations of the said subsection during such period or periods as he may deem necessary. From sessional paper No. 84, 1926, it appears that by Order in Council the following distilleries have been permitted to enter for consumption the spirits manufactured during the period of nine months or less from the date of distillation:
Gooderham & Worts, P.C. 641, April 17t.h, 1924.
Distillery Corporation Limited, P.C. 1646, September 14th, 1925.
Manitoba Refinery Company (Ltd), P.C. 1903, October 20th, 1925.
Consolidated Distilleries of Manitoba, P.C. 29, January 7th, 1926.
In the oipinion of the committee such unmatured spirits are unfit for human consumption and their release is injurious to the public health. The committee therefore recommends that Section 4 of Chapter 52, 10-11 George Fifth, be repealed at the present session of parliament and that the orders in council issued thereunder be, thereupon forthwith, cancelled. The committee further recommends that the technical regulations now governing the denaturing of alcohol be revised by competent experts so as to render all classes of denatured alcohol non-potable, and that where the Regulations under Section 171 of the Excise Act provide for the warehousing of potable liquors they shall provide for the maturing of such liquor in wood for a period of at least two years.
' 12.* The committee recommends that the following firms and companies should be proceeded against in the proper forum to recover the sums, if any, now owing by them to the Crown:
John Gaunt Company.
Dominion Distillery Products and Associated enterprises.
B. B. Glove Co.
Jas. A. Gilmore Co.

Globe Suspender Co.
Perfecto Garment Co.
Peerless Overall Co.
R. & G. Manufacturing Co.
Reliable Garment Co.
Stanstead Manufacturing Co.
W. M. Pike & Sons.
Standard Manufacturing Co.
Telford Bros. Garment Co.
Telford & Chapman.
Jenkins Overall Co. Ltd.
Snag Proof Limited.
Rock Island Overall Co.
Alco Dress Co. ,
O.	B. Earle Co.
Royal Cloak Co.
Miracle Dress Co.
Hollinger & Packer.
Klover Dress Co.
Poyaner Group of Companies.
Woodlens Limited.
With reference to the distilleries, the committee has not had time to investigate them all. The committee recommends that a thorough audit and examination be made of the records and accounts of all the distilleries in respect of all matters relating to a loss of customs, excise and sales tax revenue.
13.	The committee finds that the following officers have been delinquent in their duties and recommends that their sendees be dispensed with:
1.	R. P. Clerk, Inspector of the port of Montreal.
2.	A. E. Giroux, Superintendent of Customs and Excise, Montreal.
3.	W Duval, Preventive Officer at Montreal.
4.	John Landv, Customs Officer, Montreal.
5.	Collector E. Brownlee, of Beebe, Quebec.
6.	Marvin A. Sawyer, Customs Officer at Rock Island, and that in the interest of the public service arrangements should be made for the retirement of the following persons:
1.	R. R. Farrow, Deputy Minister.
2.	W. S. Weldon, Collector of Customs at Montreal.
3.	Henry McLaughlin, Surveyor of Customs at the port of Montreal.
14.	The committee recommends that the conduct of the officers at the port of Windsor, Ontario, and other important ports, should be further investigated and that the services of such of them as are found guilty of evasion of duty should be dispensed with.
15.	The committee recommends that the evidence of J. A. E. Bisaillon given before this committee with reference to his bank account for the amount of S69.000 be transmitted to the Attorney-General for Quebec, for the purpose of comparison with the evidence given by him on the same point at preliminary inquiry at Quebec, P.Q., in the case of Rex vs Symons et al, and for such action by the said Attorney-General as the evidence may warrant; and further that the evidence in connection with the Morris Delage Motor Car case be transmitted to the said Attorney-General for such further action as the said evidence may warrant.
16.	The committee recommends that for reasons of sound economy and increased efficiency there should be a reduction made in the number of ports of entry into Canada.
In support of this recommendation the committee would call attention to the following facts:
The United States has 270 customs ports of entry. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has 80 ports of entry. On the other hand, Canada has a total of 681 places at which customs revenue is collected.

Customs Inquiry-Report
17.	For the prevention of smuggling and of other frauds a strong preventive force under a capable administrator is necessary, and the committee, therefore, recommends:
1.	That the Preventive Service be re-organized under a Chief, possessed with the highest qualifications for such office, clothed with wide powers of initiative, direction and control.
2.	That such Chief Preventive Officer be authorized to select his staff in consultation with the Civil Service Commission.
3.	That the Chief Preventive Officer be authorized to organize within the Preventive Service a secret service force, with special training in criminal investigation work, which force shall be under the general executive direction of the Chief of the Preventive Service.
4.	That Preventive Officers and persons authorized to act as Customs and Excise Officers be given power to arrest without a warrant persons found committing any act declared by the Customs and Excise Acts to be an indictable offence.
5.	That in connection with Preventive Service work the R.C.M.P. services be used for Patrol Work on the border, and while so engaged they be given full powers as Customs Officers. Pending the reorganization of the Preventive Service the R.C.M.P. should be immediately detailed for Patrol Service on all important points on the Border.
18.	The evidence adduced before the Committee disclosed two outstanding facts, namely-
First, the methods of appraisal are exceedingly careless and fail to safeguard the interests of the importer or the revenues of the Country from being defrauded by undervaluation, and
Secondly, persons appointed as appraisers are in many instances untrained in the branch to which they are appointed.
The Committee recommend that the appraisal branch be re-organized and that all appraisers be chosen because of their competency to estimate the values of the class of goods they are appointed to appraise.
19.	The Committee recommends that in future 'the provisions of Sections 213 and 213a of the Customs Act, which provide for the removal of buildings within a hundred yards of the boundary which are made use of in smuggling operations, be strictly enforced.
The situation created by the location of Derby Line, Vermont, and Rock Island, Quebec, as brought to the attention of the Committee is of a grave nature, and they recommend that a bond be established in each factory in which bond goods imported from the United States shall be placed until released for manufacturing purposes, and that an officer be appointed to look after such bond at the owner's expense.
20.	The Committee recommends that Schedule "C" Prohibited Goods, of the Customs Act, be amended to include merchandise which is marked in contravention of the Gold and Silver Marking Act. That Act provides for prohibition of the importation of articles improperly marked, but Customs Officers ordinarily are not acquainted with the provisions of the Act, and for this reason the Committee recommends the inclusion of the prohibition in schedule "C" of the Customs Act.
21.	Where articles containing precious metals are seized and forfeited the Committee recommends that they be not sold in the open market, as at present, but should be melted down and disposed of as bullion.
22.	The Committee recommends that the regulations governing the distribution of the proceeds of fines and forfeitures be revised and that more liberal treatment be accorded informers and seizing officers. The moieties granted seizing officers in respect of seizures made
14011-298*
by them should not however, be distributed to such officers as each seizure is made. Such moieties should be paid into a special fund and periodically distributed to all the members of the Customs and Preventive Services.
23.	The Committee recommends that in cases of commercial smuggling or under-valuation, where the offenders are known, they should at once be arrested and brought to trial with the utmost promptness. The Committee further recommends that the Department of Justice be requested to select at once capable and experienced Counsel in important centres, and retain them to act for the Department of Customs and Excise in all future cases.
24.	The real solution of the difficulties at such points as Windsor, Niagara Falls, where traffic is heavy, and where a thorough examination of vessels and vehicles cannot be carried out, will be found in the discovery in advance by investigators of the secret sendee of the persons who make a practice of smuggling at these points, and their arrest when passing the Customs barrier. The Committee recommends that at bridges, ferries and main highways, where traffic enters Canada, in addition to the regular Customs supervision, vessels and vehicles should 'be searched at frequent, irregular and uncertain times. The uncertainty as to what vehicles will be examined, and as to when such examinations will be made, should operate as a strong deterrent of smuggling.
Your Committee recommend that such of the account books and other books and papers belonging to the firms mentioned in Clause Twelve of this Report, as may be necessary for use in any action that may be taken against the said firms, be retained by the House in order that they may be available if required.
Your Committee submit herewith for the information of the House, their Minutes of Proceedings and the Evidence taken by them.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask if we can
depend upon action being taken on Monday with respect to this report, by way of motion to adopt or otherwise? So far as we are concerned we are prepared to go on to-day, but I recognize that we have not the right under the rules.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Monday or Tuesday.


Arthur Meighen: It is only right, in connection with a matter of such importance, that we should know.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The reply first made by the chairman of the committee presents the position of the government at the moment. We are prepared to proceed on Monday if possible, but otherwise definitely on Tuesday. I have on the order paper a resolution with respect to external affairs which I have assured different members of the House would be taken up first thing on Monday. When that matter is concluded we are prepared to go on with this report. Before I knew when this report would be presented, I gave the assur-
469S
Peace River Election

ance that this resolution would be the first order of business on Monday, but I can assure my right hon. friend definitely that we will at the latest go on with the report on Tuesday.


Arthur Meighen: Why not go on with the resolution this afternoon?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This afternoon will be taken up by supply. I might say to my right hon. friend that I think hon. members of this House will wish to read the report before beginning to debate it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I for one wish to consider it carefully, and I believe the House will be in a better position to debate it after having had ample opportunity of considering it.


Arthur Meighen: I have not even commenced to insist that we go on with the motion this afternoon, but this is a matter in which this side of the House is just as much interested as are hon. members opposite, and which indeed is as much under the control of this side of the House as it is under the control of my hon. friends opposite. The report itself is not, a government presentation, and consequently we are entitled to know when it will come up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend wants a definite time fixed without possibility of change I will say Tuesday, but if it will help to accommodate him to have the debate Monday evening, provided we finish this resolution, I am prepared to say we will be prepared to go on then.


Arthur Meighen: That is, we may go on Monday after the resolution is debated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Then I will let the Prime Minister know which day we prefer.



PEACE RIVER ELECTION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. During the debate on the petition of J. A. Collins I considered that the ordinary proprieties demanded that I should absent myself from the chamber. To-day when reading Hansard I found the following statement by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) which appears in the second column of page 4630 of Hansard -for June 16, 1926:
I have heard rumours that the hon. gentleman will get the Chiltern Hundreds; that after he has served

his day and generation through this section and done his full share to keep this government in office, he will get some nominal job in order that the seat may be vacated.
In view of that statement, and in view of the fact that I have been impressed by some of the arguments made in both debates, I think I ought to explain my position with regard to this contentious affair.
I deny absolutely the truth of any such rumour on which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) may have based his statement. I have not been promised directly or indirectly anything, and I would consider it an insult to have any such proposition made to me. I would not accept anything if it were offered to me.
The petition under the Controverted Elections Act was duly filled by one Page, in the Supreme Court of Alberta. The charges in that petition are both serious and comprehensive, so serious that they appear to embrace every -crime which it would be possible to commit under our election laws, so comprehensive that they include every method by which those crimes could be perpetrated. I naturally felt that I owed it to myself, to my constituents, and to this House of which I a:m a member, to disprove those charges, that is, the ptersoniali charges, and that is all I am interested -in so far as the petition is concerned, -and I considered that the proper place to do so was upon the trial of that petition.
A rumour was circulated some time ago that the petitioner wais likely to withdraw his petition, but this could not be done without leav-e of the court, and even if the petitioner remained inactive, another person could be substituted for him. Immediately the rumour reached me, I instructed my solicitors that it was my intention to press the petition myself to trial, which attitude I had already indicated in my previous statement to this House.
It has beten stated that iby virtue of the provisions of section 91 of the Dominion Elections Act, no evidence could be given upon the hearing of the petition by voters as to whom they voted for. It is conceded that such is an accurate Statement of the law. Such evidence was receivable and given in the criminal prosecution of Robb, when 110 parties testified that they voted at one poll for Collins, who actually received, only 21 votes at that poll, so that if the -evidence of each of them were true, Mr. Colins was deprived of 89 votes at that pol. It should, however, -be borne in mind that the jury's verdict of guilty does not necessarily mean such to -be th-e -case. Robb was not accused of switching 89 votes, but merely of switching

Peace River Election
votes, no number naturally being mentioned, and1 if the jury had believed only one of these 110 witnesses, it would have been sufficient to justify their verdict.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. In my opinion the hon. member has gone far beyond his righit already, but inasmuch as he conceives it to be his privilege * to conduct a debate all alone by himsellf, when nobody has an opportunity to reply, I think it is my duty to intervene. Undoubtedly he has exceeded his privilege, and he reached the end of it when he denied the rumour which I stated here.


Mr. SPEAKER:: On a question of privilege, when an hon. member rises in the House to give his personal explanation, he must confine himself to the question of privilege, and not go beyond the limits which are permissible under the rules. I would ask the hon. gentleman to state briefly what he has to say in denial but not to reopen this whole debate.
Right Hon. W. L..MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, I think I
ought to direct your attention to the circumstance that the hon. member who is now speaking absented himself from the House during the course of the debate which took place, and had no opportunity whatever of denying the statement made concerning himself at that time. I think my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) took full latitude when he was debating the motion before the House the other day, and I think he should now be prepared to allow the fullest latitude to the hon. member to state his position.
Mr. M-EIGHEN:	The hon.1 member
absented himself, it is true, and rightly so, but his absenting himself from the debate was because of the same reason which even if there were no other, would prevent him speaking now. If he could absent himself from the debate when the matter ought to be discussed in order to debate it alone when it cannot be discussed, then, of course, the logic of the Prime Minister is right. I do not object at all to his denying anything which was said against him if he believes that anything said against him was untrue as a matter of fact, but beyond that he has absolutely no right to go. What is more it is so manifest he has no right that he knows it himself.


Hewitt Bostock: I have been thirty years in parliament, and I will take my own experience on matters of privilege in connection with similar cases to the one which
now occupies the attention of the House.
If the seat attributed to a member is put in question the member has to withdraw, under the rules of the House, when the matter is being discussed. That is the law of parliament. I was in a similar situation myself, five years ago, because the petitioner not having proceeded with his petition I had failed to resign within the legal delays from one seat after having been elected for two. When the question came before the House, under the rules I had to withdraw after I had made my statement.
In this case, the debate arose the day before yesterday on the petition of Collins. The hon. gentleman withdrew, as it was his duty to do; he also withdrew a few weeks ago when the first petition was under discussion. I now gather from the remarks made by the hon. gentleman that he complains of a certain statement made during his absence from the House by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), namely, that there was a rumour to the effect that the hon. gentleman would take the Chiltern Hundreds. We all know what that means under the British parliamentary system. It is a fiction of the law by which a member wishing to resign accepts an insignificant position under the crown to disqualify him from sitting any longer as a member of the House of Commons, The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) complains of that statement, and rightly so if it is not true, and his privilege to rise today to contradict that statement must be confined to that point. If he has any other matter to complain of affecting his honour, let him make that other point, but he cannot reopen the debate. He would be going beyond his privilege by reopening the debate. I have not the paragraph under my hand in Bourinot, but it is well known that no member can reopen a past debate by referring to Hansard and giving explanations about matters that came up when he was not in the House. Briefly the hon. gentleman is perfectly right in rising to a question of privilege, and denying any rumour or accusation affecting his honour, but beyond that he is not in order.


Arthur Meighen: I only wish to correct
one sentence, Mr. Speaker. The statement of mine which he referred to did not affect his honour. The rumour may have been unfounded but even if it was true it does not affect the honour of the hon. member.


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. gentleman
will proceed, I will hear what he has to state
Canada Evidence Act

further. Has he anything to state further affecting his honour in connection with the speech delivered by the right hon. leader of the opposition?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that it is my intention to resign as soon as the petition is disposed of and I can legally do so.
' I wish to rise to another question of privilege, if I may, in connection with a statement which appears in the Ottawa Morning Journal. On the front page of that paper appears the heading:
D. M. Kennedy switches to break probe deadlock.
Then in another column there are other statements made with respect to myself. I wish to say that these references to myself on the front page of this morning's Journal are not correct.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT-POSSESSION OF WEAPONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) moved the first reading of Bill No. 203 (from the Senate) to amend certain provisions of the Criminal Code respecting the possession of weapons.
Motion agreed to.
Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection at all to the bill being read a second time now on account of the lateness of the session, but I think the Solicitor General should explain its general purport. We had not expected the bill to be read a second time now.


Mr. CANNON:: This bill was introduced into the Senate by Senator Belcourt. The principal feature of the measure is the licensing of the importation, manufacture and sale of weapons. I wish to inform the House that I am not quite familiar with all the details of the bill, but I will furnish all necessary information and particulars when we are in committee.


Arthur Meighen: We are not going into committee to-day.


Lucien Cannon: Not to-day.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise, for the Minister of Justice) moved the first reading of Bill No. 205 (from the Senate) to amend the Canada Evidence Act as respects bank books and records.
Arthur Meighen: Would the minister explain briefly the purpose of this bill?


Mr. BOIVIN:: Its purpose is merely to grant a privilege to the banks which they have not hitherto enjoyed under the Canada Evidence Act. In other words, in certain cases banks have -been compelled to appear 'before the court and produce their entire books and documents containing the accounts of certain persons. The object of the bill is to enable the bank to produce extracts of these which are sworn to and certified in a proper manner.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mir. SPEAKER.: When shall the bill be read a second time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hewitt Bostock: To what committee shall this bill be referred?


Georges Henri Boivin: The bill is a very simple one and I move that it be referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting.
Motion -agreed to.


Hewitt Bostock: Now, as regards the other bill introduced by the Solicitor <3eneral.
M-r. CANNON: I move that Bill No. 203 be referred to the committee of the Whole at the next sittting.


Arthur Meighen: I do not object to the intention at all; I think the intention is right if these two motions be struck out.
The Clerk: Then they go to a standing committee.


Arthur Meighen: They cannot go to a
standing committee without a reference. If these two motions are struck out then it can be moved, when the proper time comes, that they go to the right committee.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the desire of the promoters is that the two bills should be considered by -committee of the Whole instead

Civil Service Superannuation
of going in. the one case to the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce, and in the other case to the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


Arthur Meighen: Then this last bill will
appear on the order paper on Monday in the form "House in committee on bill so-and-so"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: And tihe other one will appear in the same way?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The purpose is to have something on tecord1 which will disclose on the orders of the day the stage of the proceedings.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I desire once more to ask tlhe Prime Minister if there is any possibility of the government reconsidering their position and introducing a measure this session to postpone for some period of time-I have asked that it be postponed for a yeiar-the closing-shall! I say?- of the date for making application to come under the Superannuation Act, calling 'attention again to the fact that several groups of civil servants have not availed themselves of the privilege? I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to his very courteous reply to me of June 7 in which he intimated that the government might consider a term of three months. I again respectfully suggest a postponement for a year, but in 'case that time is not acceptable to the government that the period be three months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to my hon. friend I might say that the delay has been occasioned by the government's desire to have tthe opinion of the officers of the Department of Finance, and on Monday a statement will 'be made as to the decision reached. I think I 'can say to my hon. friend that we will be prepared to consider favourably a postponement for three months, but it is doubtful if we shall be able to consider a longer time.



ATHABASCA ELECTION INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Maicleod):: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend gave an intimation that he Was going to ask this question this afternoon, and I have obtained from the Justice department an opinion in reference to the first part of the inquiry. So far as the government is informed there appears to be no doubt that a judge of the Supreme Court of Alberta has power under section 10 of the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act to administer the oath required under the provisions of section 9 thereof. With respect to making provision for the inquiry I would say to my hon. friend that it is the intention of the government to have an amount placed in the supplementary estimates for that purpose, and as soon as it is appropriated by parliament it will be available.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR FIRE TUG

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I desire to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries a question based upon a telegram I received from the Native Sons of British Columbia. A number of public bodies in Vancouver and other places are interested in the question of a fire tug being bought by the Harbour Board of Vancouver,-as to whether it should be bought in Vancouver and built there, or whether it should be purchased in the Old Country. The telegram reads: Announcement harbour board's fire tug bought in the Old Country. Please ask in .the House the reason why.	[DOT]
In view of the communications between various public bodies on the coast and other bodies, will the minister inform us why this step has been taken?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: This matter is within the
province of the harbour board. We have no direct control of the decision of the harbour commission in a matter of this kind. Speaking
4702	COMMONS
Transfer of Postal Employees
from memory I may say that certain representations have been made in regard to this matter, but I would not like to give a definite answer just now. I will assure my hon, friend that I will make a definite statement shortly.



MOTOR CABS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I understand the precincts of the parliament buildings are in certain respects under the jurisdiction of Your Honour. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will take into consideration the making of some rules or regulations governing the speed at which motor cars use the approaches to the main entrance of this building.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am large enough in person, I think, to be seen, but twice during the present week, on leaving this House, I have with difficulty escaped collision with motor cars which, after passing the police at the gates, have assumed a speed that would not be allowed in any city such as Montreal, and I think some rule or regulation should be made limiting that speed, so that members leaving after the House closes may be free from accidents of that character.


Hewitt Bostock: I am glad the hon. member has called my attention to this vital question. I have received several remonstrances with regard to the speed of motor cars coming to the buildings, and I have also received letters, even from hon. members, stating that round this building where dwell a number of honest men, motor parts have been stolen, and various other articles have been taken away. Whilst the Speaker and the Sergeant at Arms look after the interior of the building, the exterior is under the surveillance of the superintendent of the Dominion Police Force. I have to-day written about these petty thefts which have been committed at the expense of one of the hon. members.. I will draw his attention to this vfery serious state of affairs. I will have a conference with him as regards the speed of motors. At the present time some of the Dominion policemen have been stationed at different points on the plaza in front of the building. The remarks of the hon. member are quite pertinent and I will see that they are given effect to.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I think we ought to make a clean-up of this whole matter. I desire to call attention of the 
proper authorities of the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the speed of motor vehicles on Wellington street. On more than one occasion I have had narrow escapes from a serious accident, and I think the attention of the proper authorities in Ottawa ought tO' be drawn to the fact that the speed of motor vehicles on Wellington street is beyond all reason. It is a very congested street for motor traffic, and I know gentlemen in the other chamber have had narrow escapes from serious accidents.



EXCESSIVE SPEED OF RAILROAD TRAINS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. C. McKILLOP (West Elgin):: Has the Minister of Railways had any complaint from any employees of the various railways throughout the country as to the excessive speed of the trains which they are called upon to operate?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I have had no such complaints.
TRANSFER OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: I intimated to the Prime Minister that I desired to ask him two questions framed upon a resolution a copy of which has been brought to my attention, from which it appears that the present Postmaster at Calgary who was formerly employed in the Vancouver postal district, was promoted to the vacancy in the Calgary office some time ago, and that Mr. Conlay who was employed in the Vancouver postal district has been appointed to the position of district superintend-3 p.m. ent of postal services at Calgary.
When these vacancies occurred the Civil Service Commission advertised for applications to fill the vacant positions, but the}' qualified the applications by limiting them in the case of Vancouver to that district only; so that those who resided in Edmonton or Calgary or other places in Alberta or in Saskatchewan were not in a position to apply for the position in the postal service in the Vancouver district, vacated by the appointment of Vancouver men to the Calgary vacancies. Recently a district office has been opened at Edmonton, and the same condition apparently for some reason arises, and those who reside in the Calgary district, are not able to apply to fill the newly created positions in the Edmonton district. I bring

Supply-Trade and Commerce
this resolution to the attention of the Prime Minister and ask, first, has his attention been directed to the resolution, and secondly, will remedial action be taken by the government in the premises?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend mentioned his intention of asking the question, but unfortunately it was since the House opened, and I have not had an opportunity to make inquiry as to the particular regulation referred to. The matter would appear to be one over which the Civil Service Commission has full control. I will make inquiries from them and ascertain why the regulations are drafted in the form they appear to be in. Of course there should be nothing in the way of discrimination, and I hope anything of the kind will be avoided.



CUSTOMS REGULATIONS- AUTOMOBILES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. de WITT FOSTER (Hants-Kings): I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Customs to his remarks of yesterday, in answer to a question relative to the person who had a car in warehouse storage during the winter under seal, and who had made application to his department, accompanied by the proper bond, for the privilege of taking the car to the garage and getting it repaired, prior to leaving for the United States. Has the minister given consideration to the matter since yesterday. The matter has been before the department for some time, and various officers of the department are acquainted with the circumstances.
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise): The hon. member did not give me the name, but I communicated his remarks as they appear on Hansard this morning to tlje officers in my department. The matter is being looked into, and I am sure I will have a favourable reply during the course of the day.
TARIFF ADVISORY BOARD RjBCQRD of evidence for information

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: On the 15th of this month the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) asked the government a question as to whether it was their intention to have the evidence taken before the
tariff board transcribed and made available for the use of members. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) will now answer that question.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I think I answered that question yesterday. The hon. member will find the answer on Hansard.



TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Trade and Commerce-The Canada Grain Act, administration of, $1,430,000.
Mr. GARDINER:: What is the total income under this item?


James Alexander Robb: The total income
last year was $1,641,811.70.


Milton Neil Campbell: What is the total
capital cost of each of the terminal elevators?


James Alexander Robb: The following statement
shows the original cost of construction together with the total cost including maintenance up to March 31, 1926, of each of the elevators enumerated:
	Original		Total to	
Elevator	cost	March 31,	1926Port Arthur ..	.. $1,403,028	67	$1,456,479	30Moose Jaw ..	.. 1,288,885	16	1,336,715	35iSaskatoon .. ..	.. 1,141,184	14	1,152,430	49Calgary	. 877,626	29	897,334	78Edmonton .. ..	.. 1,521,526	64	1,533,457	84Halifax	.. 649,633	09	650,953	77Prince Rupert ..	. 1,243,936	81	1,244,903	99Vancouver .. ..	.. 783,264	39	854,530	43
These are capital charges and do not include interest.


Milton Neil Campbell: What are the net receipts from each of these elevators for the past five years, including, if possible, 1925-26?


James Alexander Robb: I have a statement for the
years 1923-24, 1924-25, and 1925-26. This statement shows receipts, expenditures, and
so forth for the year 1923-24:
Receipts	$658,747	21
Expenditures: Management, operation
and maintenance	
417,016	96Equipment	
9,457	31
Carrying charges, for which no interest payments made, interest on capital invested in elevators,
5 per cent at time of construction	 259,196	59
Depreciation on elevators, 5 per cent
including machinery	 259,196	59
Insurance on grain other than at
Port Arthur	
7,500	00Insurance on elevators	
17,000	00
Taxes on elevators Port Arthur,
Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Calgary
and Edmonton	 259,000	00
Supply-Trade and Commerce

The insurance and taxes are also estimated on the basis upon which they would be paid if the elevators were privately owned. On that basis there is a shortage for the year I have given of $569,620.24. For the year 192425 the shortage was $325,939.64 and for 192526, $341,177.85.


Mr. ROGERS:: The minister has mentioned a number of elevators and it would be well to have a statement showing the earning p#wer of each one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to join with my
hon. friend in that request. I had an urgent inquiry with reference to the Prince Rupert elevator: the total moneys expended there to-day, the revenue to-day and the expenditures to-day. I am sure the public will be interested in view of the fact that it has been rented for $100. representing interest at,
6 per cent on something like $1,600.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, I think I can give hon. gentlemen the information they desire. Wie should keep in mind that we are now discussing the Canada Grain Act, not elevators. I have the information respecting the latter further along in my list.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister explain why there is such a large increase in this vote this year? I am rather astonished to learn the country is paying annually a million and a half dollars for the administration of the Grain Act, which has to do very largely with the marketing of Canada's premier crop-a crop that last year ran to nearly $500,000,000. I know of no other line of business where the government pays such high administration expenses without loading any portion of it upon the trade itself. Take the insurance business; when the salary of the superintendent of insurance was increased from $5,000 to $10,000, one-half of the increase was loaded upon the insurance companies notwithstanding their protests. I do not see why the grain trade should not bear the expense of administering this act. Why should a taxpayer in the province of New Brunswick have to pay any portion of it? It does not seem to me to be fair or justifiable. At all events, the cost should be kept within limits, and if there is to be any increase in the service rendered I do not see why the cost should not be paid for by the trade itself. I am not making this statement merely for the purpose of hearing myself talk, I should like to know why the country is called upon to pay a million and .

a half dollars a year for the administration of this act when the expense could be imposed upon the trade itself, and ought to be.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, that is a fair question, but my hon. friend is quite in error when he believes-sincerely I have no doubt -that there is a shortage. This particular business carries itself and shows a considerable surplus.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the income?


James Alexander Robb: We got a little ahead a
moment ago when discussing grain elevators. If we charge up interest on the capital invested, insurance and the taxes they might have paid, we do not show a surplus, but the business has been showing a surplus, and our friends in the west claim it has been rather profitable to the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a perfectly good explanation. But, as I understand, it does not pay interest or depreciation.


James Alexander Robb: We have never been charging interest or depreciation, but it is not a losing business. True, there is an increase in the vote this year of $280,000, but, as my hon. friend has just pointed out, the crop last year was considerably larger, and naturally this necessitated more men for inspection and weighing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then let the business
carry itself.


James Alexander Robb: And there was another reason. As we got along in the season the board asked for more money; climatic conditions having made it more expensive to handle the crop. For instance, we had to put a lot of grain into the elevators, dry it and put it back on the cars because the elevators were full to the roof.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That woulci be a charge on the grain.


James Alexander Robb: Then we were short the
previous year some $65,000. The memorandum I have from the board is that the increases were due to the following causes: the changes that were made in the Canada Grain Act when it was revised at the last session of parliament, which added expense to the operation; a shortage of $65,000 on the inspection and weighing branch of the board the year previously, which had been approved by the Governor in Council;

Supply-Trade and Commerce
climatic conditions-to which I have just referred-and the establishment of additional inspections for points west and of appeal boards at Edmonton and Vancouver.


Robert Rogers: Are we to understand
from the minister's statement that the cost of administration is covered by collections made from the grain trade of western Canada?
iMr. RORB: Yes, if you do not take into account interest and depreciation.


Robert Rogers: The minister did not tell us the amount of the surplus.


James Alexander Robb: I will give my hon. friend a
record of the business from 1910-11 to 192526:
Receipts	Expend itures	Surplus	Deficit$178,476 57	$198,644 32 1911-12	$20,167 75230,173 87	221,852 24 1912-13	$ 8,321 63	330,430 49	337,312 06 1913-14	6,881 57402,689 87	409,951 97 1914-15	7,262 10276,711 45	413,120 21 1915-16	136,408 76469,049 69	476,962 76 1916-17	7,913 07569,772 65	566,402 80 1917-18	3,369 85	563.266 92	634,422 50 1918-19	71,155 58340,545 75	598,369 21 1919-20	257,823 46394,309 77	617,781 33 1920-21	223,471 56810,952 57	654,815 58 1921-22	156,336 99	1.133.121 87	868,970 07 1922-23	264,151 80	1,503,616 09	953,342 39 '1923-24	550,273 70	1,661,223 84	1,132,664 10 1924-25	528,559 74	1,446,199 79	1,098,288 66 1925-26	347,911 13	1,641,811 70	1,149,997 74	491,813 96	
That is, for that period there was a surplus, not counting interest or depreciation, of $1619,654.95.


Mr. CHURCH:: This item is going up by leaps and bounds every year, and I fail to see why the grain industry should not pay the cost of administration of the act.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is a surplus.


Thomas Langton Church: That may be, but I want to point out how other industries are treated. In the case of a public utility, an electric light, gas or power company, the Department of Trade and Commerce charges a large sum for inspection, and I think the time has come
when we should call a halt regarding this particular industry; it has enough protection. Hon. gentlemen to my left, the grain growers, are in favour of a free trade policy for the people of this country, yet this industry is hemmed in by all kinds of protection. Why should this particular industry be singled out for special treatment when an ordinary public utility has to pay the cost of administration and inspection?


Mr. MILLAR:: Might I ask when the
Toronto harbour board is going to start paying interest on the money they owe?


Thomas Langton Church: There should be one law for all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: I might say to hon.
members to my left that the loud laugh bespeaks the vacant mind, and all they have done this session is laugh. I respect the. man who grows the grain on the farm, but I have no respect for the profiteer who makes his money out of the hard work of other men. I contend that this industry should pay the cost of administration of the Grain Act. If you read the Turgeon report you will see some recommendations which have not been carried out, and I fail to see why the cost of the administration of this act should be a direct tax on the other industries of the country. This industry has been singled out for special treatment all along the line, and the same is true of the agricultural industry; these are the two most highly protected industries in Canada.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend forgets that
while the expenditure is going up the receipts are also increasing.


Robert Rogers: I would like to say a word in respect of the matter referred to by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). I would not like a false impression to go out against western Canada, because the receipts and expenditures show clearly that western Canada is paying not only its full toll but is also providing a surplus for the treasury. That is largely due in the last few years to the fact that we have elevators at Vancouver which are doing a very large business and bringing in a very large return, which accounts for the large figures during the past few years as quoted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). I would not like any member of this House to think that the people of western Canada are not paying their way in this regard.


Thomas Langton Church: In answer to the remark
of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Supply-Trade and Commerce

Millar) I would say that Toronto pays all its debt. The money spent on the Toronto harbour since confederation has only amounted to $8,000 000, and it was never intended that interest should be paid. The city of Toronto contributes $96,000,000 a year in direct taxation to take care of this Grain Act and many other forms of protection accorded hon. gentlemen to my left, and Toronto only gets pin money. The rest has all gone to build the Hudson Bay railway, and other works of that kind. Would the hon. member tell me how much money was spent on branch lines in his riding, and what returns they are making? I think we need a ginger group in Ontario, in order that we may do something more than simply pay taxes all the time.


Milton Neil Campbell: The public utilities to
which the hon. member referred are fortunate indeed if they pay only the actual cost of administration. In the administration of the Grain Act we pay not only the actual cost but also contribute a large amount of money to the consolidated revenue. In addition we are called upon to pay for a good many of these political elevators which never should have been built, but the cost of which is levied against the farmers of western Canada. When the hon. member can show that some of the industries in eastern Canada are taxed to that extent, we will admit his point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think perhaps I started
this discussion under a false impression, and I want to make the amende honorable. So far as I am concerned I should have known that the Canada Grain Act carries itself.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Is this figure
divided up so that we can get the details as to the success of the elevators referred to by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr Campbell) a moment ago? We might start with the Prince Rupert elevator.


James Alexander Robb: We are not on that item yet.


Mr. CLARK:: I would like to ask the
minister if he can give the cost of administration by provinces.


James Alexander Robb: No, I cannot give it by provinces.


John Arthur Clark: Can the minister state
what assets are administered in the province of British Columbia? What have you to administer in British Columbia?


James Alexander Robb: Prince Rupert has an elevator, but British Columbia has not much grain and if it were not for the grain from the prairies the elevators in British Columbia would not be of much use.


John Arthur Clark: AVhat elevators are administered in British Columbia?


James Alexander Robb: The Prince Rupert elevator.
Previously we had the elevators in Vancouver, but they have been turned over to the harbour commission.


John Arthur Clark: There is now nothing administered in British Columbia under this act with the exception of the Prince Rupert elevator. Is that correct?


James Alexander Robb: All the elevators are administered. We have an inspection staff in Montreal where we have no elevator. This is for the administration of the Canada Grain Act. We have inspectors and weighmen in all the elevators that come under the act.


John Arthur Clark: This covers the inspectors * and weighmen in Canada and nothing else? Are there any elevators administered under this vote?
'Mr. ROBB: It covers the inspectors, the weighmen, the grain commissioners and their office staff, and the superintendent of the elevators who travels about.


John Arthur Clark: Are there any elevators
administered iby the grain board under this act?
Mr. ROBB': Certainly. I have just given them, and my hon. friend will find them on Hansard. They are at Fort William, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw and Calgary.


John Arthur Clark: There are none in Vancouver, but there is one in Prince Rupert. The elevators in Vancouver are administered by the harbour commission, are they not?


James Alexander Robb: So far " as the mechanical
operation is concerned, but we have our staffs of weighmen and inspectors.


John Arthur Clark: Are any elevators, so far as mechanical operation is concerned, administered by the grain board under this act?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the commission maintain a staff in the Atlantic terminals, at St. John, for instance, where there are three elevators, or at Halifax, where there is one elevator, which is not used very much?


James Alexander Robb: I think the Montreal staff are moved there in the winter time.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: As a matter of information-I am not asking because I am personally interested in the grain business

Supply-Trade and Commerce
-would the minister say what has transpired to increase the cost so rapidly from say 1915 or 1916 up to the present time? From the figures he read it would appear that the cost has doubled, that it costs twice as much now to administer the Grain Act as it did in 1915 for a crop of the same size.


James Alexander Robb: One difference is that there has been an increase in salaries all along the line. My hon. friend knows that it costs him more to run his sawmills now than it did in 1915. My hon. friend also brings up the question of 1915. The total expenditure in 1915-1916 was $476,000 odd, and the total revenue $469,000. Then coming down to the present time the total revenue was $1,641,000 odd, and the total expenditure $1,149,000 odd. It makes very little difference what your expenses are, if you have a surplus over expenditure; but there is all the difference between a surplus and a deficit.


George Brecken Nicholson: If when you handle
the same amount of grain you get a revenue of half a million .dollars in one year, and one million in another year, you must be charging the traffic just twice as much in that year.


James Alexander Robb: No, they had more grain.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does this vote provide for continuing the research laboratory at Winnipeg?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, and we propose placing an additional amount in the supplementaries for that work.


Milton Neil Campbell: Then we can rest assured that the work of the research laboratory at Winnipeg will be carried on this year?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: There seems to be
some question in the minds of the committee as to the grain business of this country carrying its own charges, particularly among the eastern members who do not understand the grain business as fully as the members from the west. I would call the committee's attention to the report of the Board of Grain Commissioners, which shows that they have a surplus over expenditure in the last five years of $1,843,847.01. What have our friends in the east to complain of when the business produces a surplus that goes into the federal treasury and helps to reduce taxation in this country? Even if the expenditure should go higher, so long as there is a surplus, I do not think there is any reason for complaint. As long as the business pays for itself and gives
a profit to the treasury, I think it should be satisfactory to hon. gentlemen. I should like to place the following figures on Hansard:
Board of Grain Commissioners
Revenue, Expenditure, Surplus, as shown in annual reports of the board for years 1921 to 1925 inclusive.
Revenue	Expenditure	SurplusS cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1921	960,228 60	723,310 02	236,918 581922	1,116,668 28	827,209 02	339,459 261923	1,369,244 55	950,222 19	419,022 361924	1,787,658 17	1,099,183 95	688,474 221925	1,201,714 97	1,041,742 38	159,972 59Total surplus.	1,843,847 01


Richard Burpee Hanson: How can the hon. member say that the business carries itself when it never pays a cent for interest on capital expenditure, or for depreciation on capital account?


James Alexander Robb: You might say the same thing in regard to St. John harbour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very true, and there is a good deal more I could say if I wanted to.
Mr.GARDINER: The return I have placed on Hansard deals with the operations of the Board of Grain Commissioners under the Canada Grain Act. The hon. member for York-Sunbury has asked a very pertinent question relating to the elevators owned by xhe people of Canada. I would like to call his attention and that of the committee to the fact that during the last four years farmer members from the west in this House have protested against the building of terminal elevators in certain parts of this country. Take the Prince Rupert elevator, for instance. Hon. gentlemen will remember the debate we had on that. It was stated that the elevator could not be a success until such time as there was an outlet for the Peace River country and the grain could go through that elevator. We protested against the Halifax elevator, not because we did not want to see the grain go that way, but because we said the grain could not go by that route at the present railway rates, and we asked the government at that time to see that the rate was brought down so that our grain could go not only to Quebec, but to Halifax and St. John. We protested against that elevator on that ground, but nothing has been done so far as rates are concerned. Yet our friends here say that this country is carrying the charges. These are political elevators, and if the country indulges in that kind of polities, it will have to pay for it.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Richard Bedford Bennett: I deprecate more than I can say the introduction of regional discussions when a matter of this kind is before the committee. In the first place, the grain business is the backbone of prosperity in this country. The value of the crop raised in western Canada last year is reflected in the present appearance of prosperity in the east. That is clear. Do not have any doubt about it. My friends may not agree, but I can tell them that that is so.
The grain business in western Canada has been free from many of the difficulties that were encountered in connection with the development of the grain business of the United States. Why? Because we had a federal grain act; we had a law of universal application to all the provinces in the west, and in 1912-1913 we passed it, as the Canada Grain Act so that its application was universal throughout the Dominion and not only in that part of the Dominion which was west of the Great Lakes.
I recall not long ago being in England and being asked by a group of business men to explain to them the operations of the Canada Grain Act, and when they found that the farmer who carries his grain to the elevator, if he is dissatisfied witli the grade that is given by the purchaser of his grain, has the opportunity of having that grade determined through means that are provided by the government and paid for out of the revenues of this country, and subsequently recouped by the trade itself, they thought it was a wonderful system in so far as the grain trade is concerned. It is true that increased knowledge has taught us much with respect to it, and the establishment of a laboratory at Winnipeg to determine the moisture content of grain is of the utmost importance. In England, where they are purchasers mostly of supplies of grain from which they can produce their flour and bread, they have found it necessaiy to determine by the most scientific methods the moisture content of wheat, and matters of that kind. Now the reason, I would say to my friends from the east on this side of the House, for all this machinery with respect to the Grain Act is not because we desire to encourage expenditure by this country, for the grain itself pays the tolls that are necessary to enable these safeguards to be maintained. The object of all this machinery is to protect the producer of grain, to protect his product right from the time it leaves his farm. In every instance the sums that are paid are recouped by the tolls that are taken by the officials for the

service rendered, so that at the end of the year instead of it being a charge upon the public revenues it means that we have received a surplus. That is the position with respect to that feature.
Now this charge with respect to internal elevators arises out of the fact that in the years preceding the war and during the regime of the Conservative government, although many people opposed the plan at the time, my hon. friend who sits to my left was responsible for the construction of three internal storage elevators-one at Saskatoon, one at Moose Jaw, and one at Calgary. Since then one has been constructed at Edmonton and, between the time of the construction of the elevators at Edmonton and Calgary, an elevator has been constructed at Vancouver and has been taken over by the harbour board. The one at St. John, I think, is now in the hands of the harbour board. It is operated, I believe, in connection with the railways and by the department directly. Then there was an elevator erected at Halifax which stores very little grain. Next, the political elevator that my hon. friend who has just spoken referred to was erected at Prince Rupert at a cost of SI,000,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, $1,600,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well, $1,600,000.
From this elevator, so far as I have been able to ascertain, not one single dollar of revenue has been received up to this date; the minister was good enough to tell me a moment ago that the records do not indicate any revenue.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will allow
me, it is just as well to have the record correct. The cost was $1,028,242.54.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend takes the estimates he will find the amount is more than that, it is $1,600,000.


James Alexander Robb: That is the actual cost of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend will find that that amount does not include the cost of the foundations which alone was very heavy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have here return No.


James Alexander Robb: The deputy tells me I have
given the wrong figures. The cost up to March 31, 1926, of the Prince Rupert elevator was $1,244,903.99.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that include the conveyor?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does it include the cost of the foundations?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Alexander Robb: It includes the cost of the
foundation and engineering services, water main, dock, elevator superstructure, advertising and sundries. The sundries amount to only $7.45.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So we have a property
at Prince Rupert that cost $1,200,000, and by a return that has been placed on the table of the House I find that we are paying a superintendent $3,800 per annum, an electrician $2,100, an engineer $1,920, a millwright $1,800, an accountant $1,800, a weighman $1,680, a watchman $1,200, and an acting foreman 70 cents per hour. That elevator is under the operation of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and the property is now rented for $100 a year. That is the difference between the elevators that produce revenue-the elevators that were constructed under the direction of the then Minister of Rublic Works at Calgary, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon-and the elevator constructed by my hon. friend and his government at Prince Rupert. One serves the grain trade, the other serves for votes. One produces revenue, the other a deficit. One enable an appeal to be made for political support, and it is that very thing-as the hon. gentlman who has just taken his seat says-that makes western Canada suffer. It is because there are men in western Canada who, for the temporary advantage of furthering their own personal interests, will advocate the expenditure of public money, expenditure the government is too weak to resist, that the whole trade in western Canada is suffering. That is the position. The cost of this structure at Prince Rupert up to last year was $1,200,000. At five per cent that is $60,000 per annum and the expense of the staff I enumerated a moment ago is over $9,000. And yet not one cent of revenue as far as the records show has come from that elevator and it is rented for $100. That is the position of affairs. Is it any wonder that western Canada suffers from the attacks of eastern Canada under these circumstances in connection with matters of this kind? The grain business itself, the product of the farms, pays every single cent that is necessary for the administration of the Grain Act and has yielded a handsome surplus during recent years. I direct attention to that because it has seemed to me that at times there is not perhaps in the east a clear appreciation of the fact that the determination of the quality of grain and the moisture content, the supervision of the shipping, the weighing, and the general exercise by the grain commissioners of judicial functions-if I'may use that term because they are judicial functions-have enabled the
farmer to have a sense of quality and of certainty with respect to the marketing of his product that has not been apparent in the United States of America, where a condition was brought about that culminated in the efforts made m the state of Dakota, of which perhaps hon. members are aware. I think that my friends who come from cities in eastern Canada should realize that this service is maintained at a high state of efficiency. Now and then there have been weaknesses in it such as you will find in every business, but in the main that system has been administered with an eye to the public service and that only.
I regret to say that in my judgment in many instances, and I direct this to the attention of the minister, the men are not sufficiently well paid. When you go to Winnipeg or to Calgary during the grain movement and see the way in which millions of bushels of grain amounting in the aggregate to hundreds of millions of dollars in value are being sampled, you will realize the vast responsibility that is placed upon men who are too ill-paid for the services they render; and I am heartily in sympathy with any proposals that will increase the compensation paid to these men in the discharge of the responsibilities placed upon them. I hope that my hon. friends will not take serious umbrage at the observations I make as one who has in times past-perhaps unhappily no more- been interested in the grain business, and I have been interested in it very largely for many years. Now I have no longer any interest in it but at one time I had the interest of one who had money invested in the trade and was receiving very profitable returns therefrom. I have been greatly interested not only in the development of the business but also in the operations of the act. Now that I am no more interested in it I feel that I owe a duty, at least to those who produced the grain from which profits have been abundantly made in times past- I am very frank about it-to do everything I can to maintain the high efficiency of the elevator service under the act. I think that high efficiency will be, to some extent, bettered if the minister recognizes the responsibility of those who have duties to discharge under the Grain Act and sees that they are adequately and handsomely rewarded for the services they render.


James Alexander Robb: I quite agree with the observations of my hon. friend regarding the efficiency of the staff, their devotion to their duties, and the necessity of providing adequately for them so that they will remain in
Sujrply-Trade and Commerce

office. Because, as my hon. friend knows, a new man might very seriously prejudice the interests of the producer as well as the purchaser of the grain. The House will be glad to know that quite recently we have provided that certain permanent members of the staff shall come in under the Superannuation Act,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are the provisions of
the Superannuation Act available?


James Alexander Robb: In the case of certain of the officials who have been on the staff for a number of years-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You should take care of these men.


James Alexander Robb: -we have made provision for them quite recently. As to their compensation, that is adjusted upon the recommendation of the Board of Grain Commissioners. That is all I have to say in that regard. I am sorry that we have again been dragged into a discussion of the question of elevators because the elevators are not now under consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I apologize.
Mr. RiOBB: I did not stop my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) when he was discussing the elevators because I understood he was leaving and wanted to get some information in advance.
As to the Prince Rupert elevator 1 have these observations to make. What my hon. friend has said as to the cost of that elevator and as to the revenue from it is quite correct. But the statement was equally true in regard to the Vancouver elevator. At one time people said "What are you going to build an elevator at Vancouver for; not a bushel of grain will ever go through there," and it was years before the operations of that elevator began to amount to anything. I recall on one occasion that I was in Vancouver and the houses at Fort William were becoming congested. The people from Alberta wanted to ship their grain through Vancouver because they could get a cheaper rate to Europe through the Panama canal, and the grain men in charge of the Vancouver elevator said "We cannot get any more grain through here because it will result in congestion; we cannot move it along." I also recall very well having communicated with the Board of Grain Commissioners, and instructed them to use the Calgary house to take care of grain required for Vancouver, so that the grain would be near at hand when the congestion at Vancouver was relieved. The elevator in
	'
Vancouver put through more grain in the year 1922-23 than it did in all the previous years since it had been built. I think last year a great quantity of grain went through, and w'ho knows what the Prince Rupert elevator may do? I am not defending the Prince Rupert elevator, but I say that that elevator to-day is exactly in the same position, so far as handling grain is concerned, as the Vancouver elevator was in its first year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh no.


James Alexander Robb: I have the figures.


John Arthur Clark: The minister states that
there was a period when no grain went through the Vancouver elevator. That is quite true, but it was known when the elevator was constructed that there was a field, or there would be a field in the future, for export through that port, because it was the logical route for grain going westward.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Why is that?


John Arthur Clark: Because there was no other
Canadian port to compete with it in regard to facilities for shipping. I do not want to be drawn into a controversy as to the relative merits of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. The facts are well known as to the length of the rail haul and the ships available for export purposes and as to the future possibility of securing ships. My purpose in rising is to point out to the minister that it was well known when the Vancouver elevator was constructed that the Panama canal would be available for the export of grain through Vancouver in the course of time. It is true that the elevator was actually constructed some years before the the Panama canal was ready for use. Had it not been for the war, however, the export of grain through the port of Vancouver would have materialized some years earlier. Throughout the period of the war there were no ships available for trade through Vancouver and she suffered in consequence more than any other city in Canada, because of the fact that her trade was hampered to a very large extent by reason of the lack of ships.


Malcolm McLean: Would the same argument not apply to Victoria and the Fraser river ports?


John Arthur Clark: They never came into question regarding shipment of grain.


Malcolm McLean: No chance of
their becoming ports?


John Arthur Clark: I am not discussing the relative merits of the ports, but a visit to the coast by my hon. friend would show that, as

Supply-Trade and Commerce
far as Victoria is concerned, it would require the handling of grain oftener than would be required when shipping through the port of Vancouver. So far as the Fraser river is concerned, it may be an ideal port for the export of grain. It has ideal factors, but at the present moment it has no facilities.	I
am not desiring to advocate extension of facilities at the moment or the curtailment of facilities. I am simply answering an observation that there was a long period wthen no grain was going through the Vancouver elevator. My point is that owing to the war there were no ships available, and owing to the fact that the Panama canal was not completed for many years after it was expected to be completed, the shipment of grain through Vancouver was delayed, and it was not until about 1920 that there was any possibility of shipments through the Panama canal. Then the development progressed and in the year referred to by the minister 1922-23. owing to a very large crop additional outlet had to be found and fortunately for Vancouver the grain in that year was forced to a western outlet; had it not been for the bumper crop in that year, Vancouver probably would not have been the great grain port it is to-day, because we were forced to
I	_J1 _ it 

xl. _ X

 Ti 1_____1 X _ C-1

II	audit; me giam mao yaxi.	uau tu iiuu an
outlet, and the size of the crop that year brought about a very rapid development in the export of grain through that port, and it has progressed since.
But what I want to point out to the minister-and I know the minister sees it-is that the facts and circumstances as between these two poitts, as between Vancouver and any other Pacific port are entirely different, and the reasons for the long delay in shipment through the Vancouver elevator are perfectly clear; first, the war, second the long delay in the completion of the Panama canal, and the securing of boats for the use of that trade.


James Alexander Robb: We might come back to the administration of the Canada Grain Act.


John Millar: I desire to occupy a little of the time of the committee in discussing a matter which is of vital importance to my constituents and to the constituents of other hon. members in this House. There is great need
4 p.m. of a grain research laboratory, which, if it can bring about a change in tlhe standards governing the inspection of our grain, will render a great service to grain producers and the grain trade generally. The time is ripe for it; I think it is due.
We have heard during the last twenty years a great deal regarding the selling of wheat on a better basis than that of colour and weight; that is selling it on its strength and on its protein content, and I wish to say that a research laboratory can render very great service in that direction. Look at the manner in which our grain is graded at the present moment. I read to the House the definition of our grades of grain, as follows:
No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat shall include all varieties of hard red spring wheat equal in value to ''Marquis" wheat; shall be well matured and well cleaned, weighing not less than 60 (pounds to the bushel and practically free of damaged kernels and foreign grains; shall contain 60 jper cenlt of hard red vitreous kernels.
Throughout that definition there is very little to indicate that strength forms a factor in grading our wheat. The number of pounds has nothing to do with it. The variety of wheat has something to do with it. Some varieties are stronger than others. The expression "red vitreous kernels" have been relied on to indicate the strength of the wheat. I wish to show that it is only in a general way that those words indicate the strength of the wheat. Before I come to that, it is recognized by all who are selling wheat, handling it, importing it or having anything to do with it, that Canadian wheat is very much desired in the markets of the world because of its strength and milling qualities. It is the wheat that is very strong in nitrogen and in protein that is desired by the millers of the world for the purpose of mixing with softer wheats and wheats that are lacking in those elements. Before dealing with that I wish to refer for a moment to another service that can be rendered by a research laboratory. There is a complaint for many years that bleached wheat which has been subject to a slight rain and discoloured only is not receiving its value at the present time according to our own inspection, and here is a service that the research laboratory can render. Referring to the evidence submitted by Dr. Birchard, who is now in charge of the research laboratory at Winnipeg, he makes two suggestions in regard to bleached wheat. He points out that his researches have shown clearly that this wheat has not been damaged for milling purposes. The same results have been obtained from researches carried on in other laboratories. It is found that the wheat has been slightly discoloured, that is all. Let us see what he says:
The first suggestion made was that wheat which has been slightly bleached on the outside should be regarded as sound and should not be considered as damaged wheat on account of bleaching only.



Supply-Trade and Commerce
That is to say, slightly bleached wheat is to be 'considered sound1 provided it is not mouldy or sprouted or obviously inferior in some other respects. Experiments show that wheat which is only bleached on the outside and: in such a way as to reduce its grade from No. 1 northern to No. 3 northern does not lose its actual milling or baking value. It is true that sometimes there is a slight decrease in the test weight per bushel, but this authority points out that if that were serious it would be degraded on that account also. Further he says:
It is not contended that slightly bleached wheat weighing sixty-two pounds per bushel will give the same yield oif flour as wheat yielding sixty-four and a half pounds per bushel but it is contended that slightly bleached wheat will give the same amount of flour and of as good quality as that produced from No. 1 northern having the same test weight per bushel.	-
Summing up he says:
Slightly bleached wheat is as good in every respect as wheat of the same test weight per bushel and of the same kind and variety which has not been slightly bleached.
During all the years I have been growing and selling grain1-and1 I have been doing so for the last 'thirty years-grain that has been slightly bleached has been consistently degraded one or two grades, consequently falling in value seven and sometimes eight cents per bushel!. Yet here we find one chemist who tel'ls uis that such grain has not been damaged for miMing -purposes although it has slightly decreased in weight per bushel. I am discussing the question at this length to-day in order to show the difficulties that exist in the present system. In bulletin 37 of the laboratory of Minneapolis there appears on page six a paragraph dealing with the different percentages of protein in Various grades of wheat. I quote the following:
This illustrates the difficulty of classifying wheats on the basis of their texture-or the percentage of
dark, hard and vitreous kernel	as is
attempted in assigning samples of dark northern and dark spring sub-classes; the presumption is that the dark northern wheats will yield flour higher in percentage of crude protein than will the northern spring wheats. This has not proven to be the case in the samples examined of the last two crops. The average low volume follows the average protein content in both of these crops, when No. 1 dark northern and No. 1 northern spring wheat flour are contrasted; the advantage being in favour of the No. 1 northern flours in both seasons.	.
That i<s to say, those which were lightest in colour gave the beat results.
This suggests that careful consideration should be given to the possibility of classifying wheat on the basis of protein content rather than on the basis of the less tangible factor of the percentage of dark, hard

and vitreous kernels, since the true protein is determined with far greater precision and is probably more definitely related to baking strength than is the kernel texture.
At page 25 the same writer says:
No. 1 northern spring wheat flour contained a slightly higher percentage of protein than flour milled from No. 1 dark northern spring wheat.
In other words, the lighter wheat contained the stronger flour.
This suggests the inadequacy of the present system of classifying spring wheats on the basis of their density or the relative proportion of vitreous kernels present. A determination of the percentage of crude protein in the wheat would probably afford a more satisfactory and accurate basis of classification in the several sub-classes of northern spring wheat.
In the paper Miller, printed in Liverpool, I find the following in the copy of February 20, 1026:
Manitoba wheat is not at present graded on a crude protein basis and as a result tihe grades overlap especially No. 2 and No. 3. The range of protein found in a somewhat limited number of samples for the last three years in No. 2 Manitoba was 12.4 to 13.2 per cent, while that of No. 3 Manitoba was 12 per cent to 13 per cent. Frequent cases have arisen where Nos. 4 and 5 Manitoba have proven superior in protein content to No. 3.
That means that the grade of grain which the farmer delivers as No. 4 at several cents per bushel less than No. 3 has proved on test to be a superior grain to the higher grade.
It is hoped that sufficient has been written to arouse the interest of millers in this subject of protein content tin the hope that they will also adopt some system of scientifically purchasing wheat.
This is from a British writer in a British journal, and it shows that the purchaser in the British market, where a great deal of our grain is sold, is taking a keen interest in that method of handling and buying and selling wheat. The same writer says:
With due regard for ther characteristics of wheat and for the limitations of protein figure the quantity of protein is a most useful index to the milling value of the wheat.
Some years ago two samples of wheat were taken from fields in western Canada, one before a shower of rain and the other after, so that the only difference between the two was that one was slightly bleached after the rainfall. The result of a test in the Howard wheat testing laboratory of Minneapolis is summed up as follows:
The results of this test are somewhat surprising to us and should be very gratifying ito you that we can assure you of their correctness. You will note that the comparative yield values show the No. 2 and No. 4-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
These were the samples that were slightly bleached.
-to be more desirable, even though the qualities of the flours in all cases were the same. But No. 2 and No. 4 are better flours.
J. E. Rahm, chairman of the Protein committee of the Board of Trade of Kansas, Missouri, says:
The protein runs from 10 to 15 per cent on the different samples and in this market Ithe colour or quality o>f the grain is no indication of the protein content.
This is what I wish to direct the attention of the committee to particularly:
The colour or quality of the grain is no indication of protein content.
I	hold in my hand a record of some tests that were made of western Canadian wheat in a private testing laboratory at Winnipeg. I am selecting the tests under letter C, not to give strength to my argument, but simply taking them as they come. These tests show protein content of 13.4; 13.7; 14.8; 11.8; 13.8; 13.2; 12; 12.2; and so on. Let me draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that in those tests of No. 1, appear samples that differ 3 per cent in protein content, the extremes being 14.8 and 11.8. What difference does that make in the price of the grain? Well, judging from the premiums that are paid on the American market it means a difference in price of at least 12 cents, or on the higher premium 25 cents a bushel. We have not such a system in Canada, but in the United States the common system is to pay a premium of from one to two and a half cents for each quarter of one per cent protein content. Yet according to our system these two samples of wheat are placed in the same grade, the farmer knows nothing about how strong or how weak his wheat is, and he receives the same price.
Let me point out that in the handling of all other products of the farm, cattle, hogs, eggs, and so on, the desire is to have them classified as nearly as possible according to their value, to have the choice steers, for example, put together, selecting as far as possible those of the same type and value, and naturally they bring better prices. Now, why should we be selling our grain in such a haphazard way that a man who is growing grain worth $1.60 a bushel gets the same price as the man who is growing grain worth only $1.50 a bushel? There is frequently that difference. This is a very distinct loss, as I will point out a little later, and it is no encouragement to farmers to grow the better types of grain.
What is protein? It is simply nitrogen that is stored up in the ground, finds its way into the leaves and stock of the wheat plant, and MOll-2991
at the proper time reaches the kernel, where with starch, sugar and mineral matter it forms the grain. Now, a part of this nitrogen content is under the control of the grain grower himself. In order to have a good supply of nitrogen, or protein, which is practically the same thing, in the kernel, it is necessary to have a good supply in the land. An experiment was carried on in Reno county, Kansas, some years ago, along these lines: Grain was taken that had been grown on a piece of land from which grain crops had been continuously taken for years, as we are now doing in western Canada. By the side of it was a sample taken from land that until five years previously had for several years-I do not know how many -been growing alfalfa. Alfalfa, sweet clover and other leguminous crops gather nitrogen from the air and store it up in the soil, where it is available for the grain. What were the results? The grain grown after alfalfa proved to have 14.36 per cent protein, while the grain grown a few rods away on land where there had been continuously growing grain had only 11.72 per cent protein. In addition to that, the alfalfa land gave a much heavier crop. So it is apparent that farmers can to a large extent control the amount of strength or protein in their grain.
Under our present system there is no encouragement to the grower to improve the quality of his grain. One party may be growing grain of a weak and soft variety that is lowering the general average of our grain on the markets of the world; the other may be doing those things that are necessary to produce a strong grain, such as growing it on high land, cultivating his land early in the season, using a stronger variety of seed and growing the crop in rotation, so that he has always a plentiful supply of nitrogen in the soil. Yet under the present system there is no inducement offered the farmer who does this. It is found in western Canada, and also in Dakota and other parts of the United States, that land that has been growing grain continuously year after year is now producing much poorer samples and the grain is bringing a lower price in the markets of the world. Notwithstanding this fact we have a system that does not in any way encourage the growing of better grain.
Perhaps members of the committee would be a little surprised to find that at times a sample of grain that is low in test weight per bushel is of more value to the miller, and he will pay more money for it, than a sample that is of high weight per bushel. A few months ago there was a convention of

Supply-Trade and Commerce
grain growers and pool members held in the city of St. Paul, at which one of the delegates gave this information:
Out high protein wheat in Kansas brings a very hiigh premium over and above low grade wheat. We have-
Let hon. members take notice of these words.
We have sold 48-pound wfheat during .the average price of the year for more money .than we have sold 62-pound wheat, as much as 4 cents and 5 cents a bushel more on the average, accounted for by the protein.
I	know western members will think that is a remarkable statement. That wheat, under our grading system, cannot go into No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3, and I am not sure that it can go into No. 4, because according to the qualification for No. 3 it must weigh 58 pounds to a bushel. Now, this weighs only 48 pounds. There is a wheat that brings a premium of four or five cents a bushel over the 62-pound wheat, and yet under our present system it could not be classed higher than No. 4, and I am not sure that it -might not have to go into No. 5. He was asked this question:
That is a particular case, not the average; that was only one particular sale?
The answer was:
That is more or less true all -the way through. These spreads on protein vary from the -beginning of the year to the last. The spread is not the same all the time. I
I follow that up by pointing out why it is that frequently the shrunken wheat, the wheat that is low in weight per bushel, is of -more value. The protein is the first element that goes into the kernel ; later on comes the starch. Now, if anything occurs to impede or stop the growth or filling of the kernel the protein is already in the kernel, but the starch does not get there; that is, the last element that goes into the kernel is the starch. Every day near the end of the ripening season when the kernels are bulging and becoming larger it is because of the starch finding its way into the kernels. Accordingly if you check the maturing of grain several days before it is finished you have a higher percentage of protein and a lower percentage of starch. That is the quality the millers want; when they buy a bushel of wheat not fully matured they are getting a larger percentage of the valuable protein, and yet under our system that wheat-is classed away down and has to take a very low price.
Some have taken objection to this system of handling grain because they say it wiil
I Mr. Millar.]
take a long time to make the tests and will tie up the grain at the inspection points. Let me point out that there are different systems under which this principle is adopted. In Kansas they have perhaps the most perfect system of handling grain on protein content of any place on the continent. Kansas has its own system; Dakota has its own system; Nebraska has another system, but the system in Kansas seems to be the best. I am speaking now of the pool in Kansas. The system there is to draw a sample of grain at the elevator when the load is delivered. That sample is drawn by the farmer and the elevator operator and sent to their own laboratory in the city. A test is made and the results are then sent to the head office, where each individual shipper has his own account; his name is attached to the sample and the results of the test are transferred to his account. You can see how they have created a system which gives each individual grower the full value of his wheat. If he sends in a 16 per cent protein sample that result is transferred to his account in the head office, and in this case he receives returns in the course of eight or ten days according to the protein content of his wheat.
Then there is the question of premiums; they are paid a premium of from one to two and one half cents for every quarter of one per cent. That means at least four cents for every additional percentage of protein. Is that worth while? Following that, 1 might state t hat the systems adopted in Dokota and in Montana are somewhat similar. They frequently buy individual cars, and pay a premium. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) a short time ago instanced a case where two samples of grain were sent from Canada to the Minneapolis mills. Although according to our Canadian system the two samples graded the same, and the farmer received the same price, on the Minneapolis market one sample received twenty-six cents per bushel more than the other. They handle the grain in that way; they pay premiums for individual cars, but they also have a system of paying premiums to stations. A certain station in Montana is found to produce wheat high in protein content, say fifteen per cent. In that case they pay a premium of fifteen cents or sixteen cents for all the grain coming from that station. Recently a friend of mine had a letter from his brother in Montana, in which he said that on all his grain he had received a premium of sixteen cents per bushel. In Nebraska we find a somewhat

Supply-Trade and Commerce
similar system; they are classified in stations. Here is a shipping station handling grain of twelve per cent protein content; another ships grain of thirteen per cent protein, and they are spoken of in that way. The premium is also paid in that way; all the grain from the thirteen per cent station will receive a higher premium than that from a station with an average of only twelve per cent.
I mention these points to show that in the United States it has not been found impossible to overcome these difficulties. They have faced these obstacles that have been raised in Canada year after year as a reason why we should not adopt this system of grading and selling grain, and they have been overcome. I might read a paragraph from the same delegate quoted a few moments ago, Mr. Cox of Kansas. He is speaking now of the pool which handles grain in this way, and says:
Our growers never knew much about that,-
Speaking of the protein.
-until the pool started. The fact is that the 10,000 growers in the Kansas pool are the only farmers in Kansas who can receive the benefit of their actual protein up to the present time, through their own association. It is impossible for a grain man to g'.ve exactly what it is, when in the country, because he has no way of testing it. We own our own laboratory and our growers take a sample with the elevator man of every lot of wheat, and it is sent to our own laboratory. We run the protein and send that test to .the head office, there we have an individual account with every grcwer and put down exactly the protein he is entitled to. Then we get grades from him and the elevator man at the time of delivery, from the wheat ticket. The sample goes to the laboratory and back to the office and in that way he gets credit for the protein and at the end of the year he is settled with according to grade and protein.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we should do away with our present grading system, but I do think that protein should be a factor as well as weight and colour, neither of which indicate the actual strength of the wheat. You can see that under our Canadian system it would not be necessary to hold up cars at Winnipeg; samples could be drawn at the country elevator and sent to the laboratory at Winnipeg, and the results could be recorded in the head office.
The question was asked as to how the pool protects itself against fake samples being sent in. The delegate pointed out that the pool has a contract with the elevator men to supply the same grade of wheat and wheat of the same strength as he receives. Therefore they are bound1 in self-protection to see that a fair sample is drawn and submitted to the laboratory.
Another objection has been made to this system of handling grain, and that is that when you get the quantity of protein, it does not indicate the quality. In a letter that came to me a few days ago, a British writer pointed out that this is not very important. In the case of grain that is damaged, once a buyer would see damaged grain, or grain that was frosted, or with green kernels or anything of that sort, he would not ask for the protein test, because it would be of little or no value, but it is of value in the higher grades. In a very large measure it indicates the value of the wheat in the higher grades. If that is the case, why would it not be wise to assist the pool? I believe that the time has come when this is a problem, not for the government, bqt for the pool, and I discuss it at this time because when the pool undertakes to handle the grain in this way, the support and assistance of the government will be necessary, and changes will be necessary in the Grain Act providing for the handling of grain.
We find that in the States the custom of handling the grain in the elevators is to classify the grades having about the same protein content, and put those grades in the same bin. It may be that it will be found wise to take No. 2 grain and mix it in some cases with No. 1. That is a matter for the elevator men and the grain handlers to work out. They have worked it out in the United States, and there seems to be no reason why we could not work out such a system here. But it will necessary to have considerable changes made in our handling system. That has been one of our difficulties in adopting this method of handling grain because, as has been pointed out, after the test was made, if it was found that certain grain was high in protein strength, it would be difficult to maintain the identity; it would take too much space. I am not sure that that is the case; in fact, it would seem from the information that comes to me from the states of the union, they store wheat of the same protein strength in the same bins. It would seem that it is not found expensive; it is satisfactory; they are adopting the system, and their officials state quite freely that it has come there to stay. Here is the reason why it has come to stay.
The large millers have been forced in past years, both in Canada and the United States, to sell flour from grain that has been brought up to a standard of about 12 per cent protein. It was pointed out by one of the delegates attending the convention of which I spoke

Supply-Trade and Commerce
that three carloads of grain, one of 14 per cent protein, one of 12 per cent, and another of 10 per cent, ground separately, produced flour of a different quality from three carloads of grain all of about the same strength, and the bakers have demanded of the millers that they supply them constantly with a blend or patent of flour that is of about the same strength, and the millers are doing that. In some cases, in fact, the millers have made long contracts for months ahead for large quantities of flour, guaranteeing its protein strength. That has forced them to search for the high protein wheat.
Another objection raised to this method of handling grain in Canada is that we have not a market for it, _that there is not the demand for it, that we could not get any considerable premium. It does not seem to me that that Objection is well taken. At the present time the American buyers are buying our high protein wheat in very large quantities, and taking it to the United States to grind for export. In this way they do not require to pay any duty on it. They pick out our choice cars of grain at Winnipeg and other points, and ship them to the United States, and our grain is there mixed with their soft wheat and with wheat low in protein content. If they desire our wheat now, as their land is becoming poorer with the constant cropping of grain, is it not reasonable to believe that in future they will require our grain to a greater degree, and that they will become keen competitors for our strong wheat? It is not necessary for them to pay the 42 cents duty. They can take our wheat in without that duty, and they are doing it now.
In the report of Dean Rutherford, a member of the Turgeon commission, who visited
England a couple of years ago, he states that certain millers there have said to him: We will pay a premium for this strong wheat if you can deliver it to us, that is, if it is worth your while to go to the expense of retaining the identity of the wheat and classifying all the strong wheat together. As is well known the large millers of Canada at the present time through their line elevators and also through picking out cars at Winnipeg, after inspection, are securing the very best of our wheat. They have samples sent in from different shipping points in Canada in the early part of the season, and they find out at what points the strong wheat is being grown. It is not always at the same points. A point that grows strong wheat this year may not do so next year. Now if our millers are taking these measures for securing our strong wheat, is there any reason to believe that if our government would establish a laboratory to take care of the samples that are sent there, and would make protein tests and deliver to the grower a certificate, the same as they do now with respect to grades, the system would not be a success? I have in my possession the inspection cards that are used in Kansas by the laboratory making the tests. If our government would make tests and deliver to the grower a certificate showing the protein strength of his wheat, it would be about as far as they could go. It would then be left to the trade and to the pool to establish a system whereby the farmer would be able to receive a premium for his grain that was strong in protein content. I have here the price card issued by the Hall-Baker Grain Company, of Kansas City, Missouri, showing the premiums they pay from time to time on wheat of high protein strength, and with the permission of the House I will put this on Hansard:
The following is a copy of a price card:-
Hall-Baker Grain Company, Kansas City, Ho., December 17, 1923 Sales of cash wheat were made on the Kansas City Board of Trade to-day as follows:-
1 Dark Hard	*	Cars	1 Red	2 Dark Hard	%	2 Red	3 Dark Hard	*	"	1 Hard	
108 111	%	2 "	1 Mixed	2 Hard	
103 115	*	22 "	2 Mixed	3 Hard	
99 114	*	39 "	3 Mixed	
*
107 %
107 109 % 105 110 #
Cars
3

<(
Receipts Wheat to-day 331	K.C. Dec. Close 99f	K.C. May. Close 104
1 our orders to buy sample table wheat will receive the best possible attention. We make no purchases on any order if we cannot secure the right quality at the right price. Charge for buying and shipping one
nor ppnt	'	&
We offer you subject to our immediate wire confirmation, and samples bulk grain, Kansas City weight and grades.
1 to 5,000 bushels each of the following grades
'Ur. Millar.]

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Shipment
Turkey "C" 2 Dark Hard	
14% Protein 3 Dark Hard 57..
Lot "D" 2 Dark Hard	
13 [DOT] 50% Prot. 3 Dark Hard 57. Lot "K" Choice Milling 2 Hard
13% Protein 3 Hard 57	
Lot "L" Choice Milling 2 Hard.
12-50% Protein 3 Hard 57..
Lot "50" Choice Milling 2 Hard 12% Protein 3 Hard 57	
1	Hard Wheat	
2	Hard Wheat	
2	Red Wheat	
3	Red Wheat 57	
3	Red Wheat 56	
4	Hard Wheat 55	
4	Hard Wheat 54	
5	Hard Wheat 53	
5	Hard Wheat 52	
F.O.B. K.C.	C.A.F. East St. Louis	C.A.F. Chicago or Mpls.	C.A.F. Group 1 Texas	C.A.F. Phila. Rate119	127	1291	1411	146116|	1241	127	139	1431114J	1221	125	137	1411113	121	1231	1351	140110	118	1201	1321	1371081	1161	119	131	1351106|	1141	117	129	13311051	1131	116	128	1321109	117	1191	1311	136105	113	1151	1271	1321101	1181	121	133	1371951	1031	106	118	1221931	1011	104	116	120192	100	1021	1141	119901	981	101	113	1171Hard Wheat-Unchanged to 2c. down-fair demand. Dark Wheat-	"	"	"
Soft Wheat

Unchanged to lc. lower-demand only fair.
E. & O. E.
I shall not detain the committee any longer. While it is uphill work to get the people convinced that this is a proper method of handling grain, the only way to get what you want is to keep pounding away, and I have studied this matter sufficiently to be convinced that it would be an advanced step. I do not expect, after we have discussed the matter in this way, that we shall immediately have the system of -grading grain changed, but I am in hopes that the government will see that its laboratory at Winnipeg is enlarged and made capable of making all the tests that are required. Some may ask, how long does it take to make a test? It requires from one hour to one hour and a half. What is the cost? In the United States and in the laboratory at Winnipeg the cost varies from 40 cents to one dollar, so the -cost is not excessive. Those who find that their wheat is low in protein, low in strength after having had a test made of one car probably would not care to have tests made on other cars. But it gives an opportunity to the man who is doing his best to keep his land up, to keep up the nitrogen strength, of his wheat, to produce wheat from the strongest varieties-in a word to grow wheat of the very highest type. That gives him an opportunity to earn a premium on that wheat that will pay him for his effort, and that is the least I believe that can be done. As I pointed out before, it is not encouraging to devote one's efforts to producing the best



HALL-BAKER GRAIN CO.

[Stage Direction]
wheat, wheat that is worth in extreme cases 50 cents a bushel more than the wheat of the same grade of one's neighbour, when it fails of recognition. The premium mentioned is probably the maximum when .you take the premiums that are sometimes paid on the American market. It is not likely that we shall reach the same premium on the Canadian market, for a time at least. But in extreme cases a premium of 50 cents a bushel has been paid; in other cases it would amount to 10, 15 or 20 cents. That figure would be common. It is therefore not encouraging to a man not to be rewarded 'by this premium after all the .efforts he has put forth. It is all very well for some people to say: You believe in pooling; why not pool?- I believe in pooling where it is necessary, but we do not usually think it is wise to go so far in the case of horses as to pool a horse that is worth $200 with a Scrub thlat is only worth $50. On the same principle we do not believe iit is in the interest of the grain trade nor in the interest of the farmer himself to deprive him of the premium to which he should be entitled when he enhances the value of his grain.
Mr. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):: I know the
minister is anxious to get his estimates through and I shall occupy only a few minutes in what I have to say. First of all let me state that I concur in the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle

Supply-Trade and Commerce
(Mr. Millar). I was not in my seat when he began to speak, but I presume his remarks were to the effect that he wishes the laboratory at Winnipeg to be enlarged in order to carry on to a much greater extent the testing of grain. It may not be a convenient opportunity to occupy the time of the House but I am impressed by the fact that the people in western Canada, possibly the people in Canada as a whole, are interested in the production of good grain, especially wheat. That is why the question at issue Should continue to be agitated until some action is taken to improve our system' of grading wheat. We have often heard the statement "Pigs is pigs" and many people when they think of wheat entertain the idea that "Wheat is wheat"- that whether you have a 60 pound sample or a 48 pound sample of wheat the quality is very much the same, and that it is merely a matter of pounds. But that does not necessarily follow. Even in the case of one field of wheat part summer fallow and part spring ploughing, both may grade the same, but there may be a great difference in quality since part of it may have a greater protein content and so be worth more money. Just as in the case of every other line of business, the farmer who is engaged in growing wheat should be encouraged to produce better wheat and to compete with others in doing so. If he is not given the necessary encouragement it all comes back to a question of looking at wheat simply as wheat without regard to the difference in value. Sometimes wheat is discoloured and yet it is possible that nothwith-standing that discolouration its quality has not been injured in the least. I had not expected that a discussion on this question would have arisen to-day, otherwise I would have equipped myself with certain data which I do not happen to have with me owing to the question having arisen so unexpectedly. I point out, however, that baking tests have been made by the government of different varieties of wheat, some of them discoloured to different degrees. In the case of the discoloured varieties it was found that when ground into flour it had not lost in any way its breadmaking or protein value. I believe in the results of these tests because they were carried out in a scientific way. The trouble with the present system of grading is that in too many cases it is unscientific. A man will come along, pick up a handful of wheat, and say that the grade is so-an-so. We all know that there is a difference in value even in the same grade of wheat, when graded under our present system. When the grading of wheat is carried out in a scientific manner the best grades 
realize a premium varying in amount. I believe we should do our utmost to encourage the wheat grower to earn a premium by producing the best varieties. There should be joint action by business men, millers, and agriculturists to continue the agitation for a better method of grading until success finally rewards their efforts. The objection is often heard that you cannot have a scientific system Of grading owing to the volume of wheat grown. This is only an argument to set aside the case. We do not know whether any plan is feasible or not until we have tried it. I hope the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who has studied wheat all his lifetime, will eontinue< his efforts until he succeeds in having a better system of grading adopted. He will always have my support. Grading is being improved in the case of eggs, butter, cattle and hogs; why should improvements not also be made in wheat? The present system of grading is obsolete and there should be no let-up in the agitation to improve it.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: There has been some
discussion as to the different ports on the Pacific coast in relation to grain elevators. I wish to say a few words with respect to the Fraser river in this connection but possibly I should defer my remarks until the next item is reached.


James Alexander Robb: Before the item passes I wish to make some observations in reply to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. They have brought up a subject of great interest not only to the grower of wheat but also to the purchasers, particularly to the milling industry of Canada. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle knows quite well that the milling value of the crop varies from year to year. Climatic conditions have something to do with it, and while a few years ago particular parts of the country were noted for the wheat of excellent milling value they produced, my hon. friend knows that within recent years the Canadian millers, who have trained chemists who conduct scientific tests into the value of grains grown in different localities, have practically boycotted some of these districts. I am glad that my hon. friend has brought this question up. It will direct the attention of the grain grower to the importance of selecting wheat of high protein value and of keeping away from those grades of wheat that are practically boycotted by the Canadian miller although they are used in some foreign countries. I am glad my hon. friend has emphasized the importance of careful cultivation and of following a rotation of crops so as to preserve the protein value of the wheat in the highest degree. But even

Supply-Trade and Commerce
that may be impossible under certain climatic conditions. I recall that a couple of years ago I was shown confidentially a chart of certain sections of the country where it was pointed out that the wheat was of a very inferior milling quality, showing that there was very little protein value in the wheats of certain sections. I have before me a record of the conditions in Kansas, so much referred to by my hon. friend. The average protein value of Canadian wheat is higher than the average protein value of Kansas wheat. There are certain wheats grown in Kansas of higher protein value than others. I am not proposing to tell the growers of wheat what grain they should grow but my hon. friend knows that within recent years in some sections of the country they have put in Durum wheat. The number of bushels have been considerably more to the acre, but they have not convinced the man who uses it that the Durum wheat is of the same value as the other wheat, and you must not run away with the idea that the man who grows wheat of good protein value does not get the benefit, or that the quality is not recognized by the Canadian millers, because they always pay a premium for that kind of wheat. They have buyers out spotting, and they pay a higher price for it. I have nothing to say against the point urged by my hon. friend. I am quite in sympathy with the idea of keeping up the highest possible protein value of our Canadian wheat, and I go a step further and say that there should be a system of enabling the grower of the wheat to get, without much cost, a record as to the protein value of his wheat. I do not think it is under any state inspection in the United' States, but my hon. friend knows that in Kansas they get that protein value. The protein value is established through machinery in the agricultural college of Kansas where the testing is carried on.


John Millar: There is one state where
they have state inspection for protein.


James Alexander Robb: They may have it in some of the states, but in the agricultural college they keep a record of it, and that is what I am alluding to. I understand that in the Research Council, of Which Dr. Tory is the chairman, they have made arrangements with the Board of Grain Commissioners to appoint a committee specially to advise with the Board of Grain Commissioners with reference to an improved method of establishing the protein value of Canadian wheat, and if there is not sufficient in the main estimates we propose to put something in the supplementaries to provide for this undertaking.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I should like to say a word about the grading of wheat. I recall a portion of an article written by the late Goldwin Smith a good many years ago, and I think what he said would apply to the situation. He said, "I know books because I am able to test them as a cheese monger can test cheese". The cheese mongers used to have a little auger and they bored into the cheese, then they took the auger out and smelled 5 p.m. it, and they were able to say, "that is so and so, such a grade". I think the cheese monger's test applies to our wheat. I think the minister rather outlined it when he said the conditions were changing every day in regard to the grading of wheat. It may be a climatic or other dhange. There are a lot of contributing causes which vary every year apparently in the growing of wheat, and in some way the men who buy the wheat have the same method of testing as the cheese monger. A buyer can tell in a second what the grade is. But the grade is not permanent as to content, protein or anything else. It is subject to change according to the climate. Something happens in connection with the seed; it varies with the years, and a product such as wheat is never permanent, but is influenced by the change of climate. There is some kind of internal development, so far as I can gather, in connection with the products of all kinds of growth and the process changes. It is all right to have experts in the schools of agriculture and to employ chemical analysis to ascertain the real qualities for the purpose of grading wheat. I do not know where it is going to end, I think every credit should be given to Dr. Tory and those who are trying to solve the problem, but the outstanding feature is that the ordinary buyer has the ability to grade the wheat in a moment. We ought to be able, in connection with our agricultural and other schools, to produce men who instinctively possess the faculty of being able to grade wheat, to fix its value and to say whether it will meet the demand of the foreign market. That market knows what it wants. They are always on the look out and they have the nose for buying. I am not a farmer, but I have heard a lot of this discussion. Perhaps I am not contributing anything to it, but the outstanding feature is the gift of the grain buyers, and these are the men who will make the greatest contribution to the problem of grading our wheat.


Robert Rogers: I do not think the minister fully explained the increase of $280,000. Why is it necessary? Is Dr. Tory engaged in it?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Alexander Robb: No, he has nothing to do with this. I explained all that. My hoc. friend could not have followed me. The sum of $65,000 has been included to provide for increased expenses in connection with the weighing branches of the board, if such increases are approved by the Governor in Council. I have here a memorandum by Mr. Leslie Boyd:
You will note there is a large increase over last year's figures, but as you are aware, several changes were made when the Canada Grain Act was revised at the last session of parliament, for the operation of which the board has had to make provisions in these estimates.
Then there is the $65,000 just referred to.
It must also be borne in mind that, owing to unsatisfactory climatic conditions, the movement of the present crop will be seriously delayed.
The movement of the present crop will be delayed and this will necessitate the retention of a considerably larger staff. Then the creation of an inspection office with appeal boards at Edlmonton and Vancouver will require additional help.


Robert Rogers: Have you anything in the estimates to meet the change in Moose Jaw?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Robert Rogers: That will be in the sup-plementaries?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the real significance in the change in climatic conditions? Is it working against the movement of the crop?


James Alexander Robb: It delays the movement. We have our staff ready in September to handle the crop, but if the weather is bad and the grain does not come along in any volume until the middle or the end of October it cannot be got out, with the result that it keeps piling up and we have to retain the Staff until the summer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is, to move the last year's crop?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Management, operation and maintenance of elevators, $585,000.
Robert Rogers: I presume the minister can give us a statement of the proposed increase of $60,000, and tell us the cost of operating each elevator?


James Alexander Robb: This increase is offset by a decrease of $30,400 in item 359 which we shall consider later. The two votes for elevators

this year show a net increase of $29,600 over the figures of last year. The cost of maintenance formerly included equipment, which is now shown under another vote as it is considered desirable to keep operating expenses separate from capital expenditure. This item covers all expenses in connection with the management, operation and maintenance of elevators at Port Arthur, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Prince Rupert and Halifax.


Robert Rogers: Have you a sepaitate statement showing the cost of each?


James Alexander Robb: What elevators does my hon. friend refer to?


Robert Rogers: I want to know about Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver.


James Alexander Robb: The following are the surpluses and deficits in 'connection with Moose Jaw from 1914 to date:
Surpl us	Deficit
1914-	15	
$17,199	931915-	16	
$56,432	371916-	17	
59,829	261917-	18	
73,482	321918-	19	
45,164	841919-	20	
22,814	381920-	21	
13,945	851921-	22	
9.237	171922-	23	
16,103	491923-	24	
33,017	731924-	25	
1,820	341925-	26	
15,726	07
The last mentioned deficit is for a period of eleven months. Then, Saskatoon and Cal-gai-y, in round figures:
Saskatoon	Surplus	Deficit1914-	15. 1915-	16.	$ 57,000	$11,0001916-17.	124,000	1917-18.	79,000	1918-19.	75,000	1919-20.	49,000	1920-21.	44,000	1921-	22. 1922-	23.	18,000	20,0001923-	24. 1924-	25.	35,000	21,0001925-26	(ii	months)	Calgary	868Surplus	Deficit1915-	16. 1916-	17.	$ 6,000	$9,0001917-18.	, 36.000	1918-19.	, 28,000	1919-20.	, 79,000	1920-21.	, 72,000	1921-22.	, 57,000	1922-23.	. 83,000	1923-24.	, 27,000	1924-25.	. 93,000	1925-26	(ii	months).	, 142,000


Robert Rogers: That is a profitable elevator. Mr. ROBB: Yes.


Robert Rogers: What about Vancouver? Mr. ROBB: The figures for Vancouver are
as follows:
Surplus	Deficit
1916-	17	(January-March).. ..	$8,0001917-	18	
7,0001918- 19	
$ 8,0001919-	20	
5,0001920-	21	
9091921-	22	
21,0001922-	23	
116,0001923-	24	(to	September 30)..	.	81,0001924-	25	
33,0001925-	26	(to	February 28)..	..	5,000


Robert Rogers: Has that elevator been
transferred to the harbour commission?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. We had no expenditures in 1924-25 or in 1925-26.


George Gibson Coote: Willi the minister give us the figures for Port Arthur?


James Alexander Robb: The Port Arthur house has
shown a surplus each year, figures:
1913-	14	
1914-	15	
1915-	16	
1916-	17	
1917-	18	
1918-	19	
1919-	20	
1920-	21	
1921-	22	
1922-	23	
1923-	24	
1924-	25	
Here are the

This was the peak.
1925-26	 $325,000


George Gibson Coote: Will the minister give us Halifax?


Mr. MacLAREN:: And St. John?


James Alexander Robb: Halifax does not show a surplus. The total revenue for 1926-26 was $4,474 01, with an expenditure of $14,169.04, leaving an operating deficit of $9,695.03.


Robert Rogers: I noticed in some return the other day that only 500 bushels of wheat were shipped to the Halifax elevator last year. Surely that cannot be correct?


James Alexander Robb: I should not think so.


Murray MacLaren: There is an elevator in St. John owned by the government-the Canadian National Railways elevator. I am afraid business has not been given to it very extensively according to that memorandum.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is in error.
The government has no elevator in St. John.


Murray MacLaren: The National Railway
have.


James Alexander Robb: It is not operated by the grain commission.


Murray MacLaren: It is operated by the
Canadian National Railways. There are two Canadian Pacific elevators and also the Canadian National elevator.


James Alexander Robb: I will try to get the information for my hon. friend.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, under
the previous item we had some discussion about the elevator at Prince Rupert. In my constituency we feel we were discriminated against when that elevator was not built on the Fraser river at or near New Westminster. The case for the Fraser river has been presented on many occasions. I remember a number of years ago when it was a matter of choosing between Vancouver and New Westminster for the construction of the first elevator, the Board of Grain Commissioners held a meeting at Winnipeg where the relative advantages of the two ports were presented to them. There were of course merits on both sides, and after a long discussion it was decided that the first elevator should be built at Vancouver. It was regarded more or less as an experiment. At that time I am informed a promise was made-not by the Board of Grain Commissioners of course-to the people of New Westminster that the next grain elevator on the Pacific coast would be constructed on the Fraser river.


James Alexander Robb: What year was that promise made?


William Garland McQuarrie: I think in 1912. A Conservative government was then in power. At that time the heads of the two great transcontinental railways, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern, favoured the location of elevators on the Fraser river. As a matter of fact, about that time the Canadian Pacific company purchased a large tract of land at Port Coquitlam on the Pitt river, a tributary of the Fraser river, for the purpose we were told of constructing, among other things, grain elevators. Subsequently the Canadian Pacific Company changed their policy and I think to-day they are practically out of the elevator business altogether. The Canadian Northern acquired Port Mann on the Fraser river just above New Westminster, it being their intention to build grain elevators there. As I have said, both railway

Supply-Trade and Commerce
companies favoured 'the Fraser river for that purpose. Why? Well, the minister has been out to the Pacific coast a number of times, and I remember on one occasion he visited New Westminster and met a number of the leading people there, who presented to him the advantages of the Fraser river in regard to elevator sites. The minister, I think, was quite impressed-at least he told us so at the time, and I believe he is always sincere.


James Alexander Robb: Did he promise an elevator?


William Garland McQuarrie: As a matter of fact I think he did promise them an elevator some time; he would not tie himself down to the exact time when that elevator would be built. But the Fraser river, as the minister very well knows, possesses certain advantages for this purpose. I have no doubt he appreciates the fact that the Fraser river at or near New Westminster is the closest point at which grain from the prairie provinces can be transferred to ocean-going vessels. He also knows that all the grain that comes over the Canadian National Railways must first come to Port Mann and New Westminster. The minister has been told a number of times, and I think must realize, that there would be a saving to the Canadian National Railways of $13 a car on all grain coming over that line if it was taken off the cars at Port Mann instead of being carried over to Vancouver. The distance is not great, it is true, but those cars have to go across the bridge at New Westminster and pay a toll to the provincial government, and as the Canadian National tracks stop ait that bridge, their cars have	to	be transferred	to the GreatNorthern tracks to be taken over to Vancouver, where they have again to be transferred	to	the	Canadian Pacific tracks andswitched to the elevator. That means of course that those cars have to await the pleasure of the Canadian Pacific, to a certain extent, and it is only human nature, and so works	out	in	practice, that	the CanadianPacific	handle	the Canadian	National cars
after they have attended to their own. Consequently there is a good deal of congestion in Vancouver owing to the limited trackage which is available there. That limited trackage was one of the principal reasons why the Canadian Pacific Railway Company desired to have grain elevators located on the Fraser river. All that switching means money; there is a saving of $13 per car to the Canadian National Railways on all grain sent to Port Mann instead of carried on to Vancouver. There is the element of time to be considered also, and I am told it takes as long to get 
these cars from Port Mann to Vancouver, because of all this switching, as to bring them from Edmonton to Port Mann.
There is another question, that of sites. I suppose in Prince Rupert it was necessary to buy a site. I do not know whether the cost of the site is included in the $1,200,000, but on the Fraser river it is not necessary to buy sites; the government already have four miles of sites at Port Mann. They have quite a large piece of property at New Westminster; altogether in New Westminster they have properties which cost the Canadian Northern Railway over $1,000,000. They also have another site half a mile in length at Woodward's landing, lower down the river near the gulf, so the sites are already there and will cost nothing. Then the question arises as to whether these sites are desirable, and if they are suitable for the construction of elevators. The minister has probably seen the Howe report; if he has not seen it, I will furnish him with a copy. The city of New Westminster secured Mr. Howe, one of the best elevator engineers in America, to report on the sites on the Pacific coast near Vancouver, including Burrard Inlet and the Fraser river. Mr. Howe reported that three sites on the Fraser river were suitable in every way for elevator construction, so there can be no question as to the suitability of these sites.
The next point is the channel. Have we a channel at New Westminster sufficiently deep to enable ships to come to that port? If the minister had been in the House last night when the Public Works estimates were being reviewed he would have heard the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) say that we now have in the Fraser river at the shallowest point a channel twenty-seven feet deep. This minimum depth only exists at two places, Woodward's slough and at the mouth of the river. The minister said that certain work is proceeding now which he is satisfied will, in a comparatively short time, result in the deepening of the channel at these two points to thirty feet, which will give a thirty foot channel from Port Mann to the gulf. That channel, even at twenty-seven feet, is sufficiently deep to handle almost any of the vessels carrying grain in those waters. As a matter of fact last year, as the Minister of Public Works told us, 150 deep sea vessels entered and left that port safely. We are shipping out large quantities of lumber to all parts of the world; we are accommodating all the ships carrying lumber from British Columbia ports, including a great many of the Canadian Government

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Merchant Marine boats. We have a number of these ships calling there regularly, so this would mean an increase in the business of that line.
Another advantage is the cost of construction. It is well known that the cost of construction on fresh water is much less than on salt water, due to the fact that in fresh water there are no teredos. The minister and hon. members of this committee know what teredos do to wooden construction, and as a result of that damage it is necessary in salt water to put in concrete construction, which is very expensive. In the Fraser river we have no teredos, however, and pile construction will last almost indefinitely, so the cost will be much less.
The remaining point is, would the grain come there; would there be business for an elevator if one were constructed on the Fraser river? I think it is admitted that grain has just started to flow out through Pacific ports, and the time will come when the present elevators in Vancouver cannot expeditiously handle the grain coming there; perhaps that time has already arrived. There is a necessity now for the construction of another elevator, and that elevator should be built on the Fraser river. At one time, as I have mentioned, there was a contest between Vancouver and New Westminster in regard to elevators; there was a time when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) championed the cause of Vancouver as against the Fraser river. He succeeded on that occasion but last year in this House he advocated Port Mann and 'the Fraser river for the construction of elevators.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: The hon. member is in his seat now and says "hear, hear," so you will see that the feeling which at one time existed is no longer in evidence, and the people on the Pacific coast in the vicinity of Vancouver and New Westminster are all agreed that the Fraser river is the suitable and logical place for the location of further elevators.
I do not wish to say anything against any other part of British Columbia or any other part of Canada, but I do think there is no reason at all why the Fraser river should be longer overlooked. I believe I voice the sentiments of my constituents, altogether irrespective of their political tendencies, when I say that New Westminster has not been fairly treated in regard to elevators. The question may well be asked as to why private elevators have not been constructed on
the Fraser river. That is a reasonable question and one which must be answered. In Vancouver it was necessary first to have a government elevator; no private elevators were constructed there at all until after the Dominion elevator was constructed and proved to be a success. The same is true of the Fraser river; there is no elevator there yet. Let the government construct an elevator on the Fraser river, and I have no doubt that it will be successful and others will follow. If the minister has any doubt about that, I would refer him to the Minister of Public Works who will tell him that he is firmly convinced that an elevator on the Fraser river will be successful from the start. I say this, that if that elevator which was constructed at Prince Rupert had been constructed at Port Mann instead, it would have been used to its fullest capacity right from the start, and there would not have been the condition which prevails in reference to Prince Rupert. The House was told about the Fraser river before that elevator was constructed, and many of my friends to my left stood up in their places and told the government that the elevator should be constructed at Port Mann instead of Prince Rupert. They said then, and I repeat it now, that an elevator built at Port Mann would be used to its fullest capacity all the time. There is need for it, and it would be successful. There is not an argument that can be adduced on the other side that has anything in it at all. I am not going to worry about this elevator at Prince Rupert. The fact that the government had to lease it to the pool for $100 a year, after having advertised for grain which did not come to it, is sufficient to prove that ilt would have been better to have had that elevator on the Fraser river. If the minister wishes to help the Canadian National Railway, if he wishes to help the grain trade, if he wishes to avoid a situation such as at present exists at Prince Rupert, he will see to it that the next grain elevator is constructed on the Fraser river, on one of the sites which the government already have there.


Mr. MANION:: The hon. member for Neiw Westminster touched on one point which I should like to mention. I do not see any reason why my hon. friend should not have his elevator, or two or three elevators for that matter, because this government builds elevators in various places and leases them for a nominal figure afterwards. I have here the lease which was made for the use of this Prmce Rupert elevator by the wheat pool. The elevator was built at a cost of $1,350,000,

Supply-Trade and Commerce
in round figures, and this elevator the government have leased to the pool for $100 a year. I have no quarrel with the pool; I have nothing to say against it; I think it showed good business instincts in getting the elevator at that figure, but it is an extraordinary proceeding for a government to go out of its way to build an elevator at Prince Rupert, which is 2,50 miles farther from the grain fields than is Vancouver, and then, having built it, never use it-not one bushel has gone through that elevator, except one carload just to test the scales-and then turn it over to the pool for $100 a year. The interest on $1,350,000 at '5 per cent would amount to about $70,000 a year, so there is a straight gift to the pool of the interest charge of between $60,000 and $70,000 a year. I find by the lease that the government have not only rented this elevator to the pool at $100 a year, but they practically guarantee to keep it in repair. I do not know that it takes in all repairs, but here is one clause:
The lessor will turn t>he said demised premises over to the lessee, together with all buildings, erections, machinery and fixtures in good and substantial repair, working order and condition, and that if it be found later that any expensive or major repairs-
Apparently the pool is to be permitted to make the minor repairs:
-are required owing to faulty erection or construction of the said elevator, the lessor hereby agrees to repair for the proper and successful operation of the said elevator, (but nevertheless the minister shall be the sole judge of the lessor's liability hereunder.
Then I notice another clause protects the pool in regard to fire, If the elevator should he touched by fire, lightning, tempest, flood or any other act of God the govemlment agrees to return to the pool the balance of the $100.
There are a number of other interesting clauses. I do not wish to take up the time of the House discussing this further except to say that I think it is a most extraordinary proceeding for the government to build! an elevator out of the line of the wheat tnade altogether at a cost of almost $1,350,000, and then lease it for $100 a year. I do not wish to criticise my hon. friend from Prince Rupert; he naturally is looking after the interests of his constituency. But I am criticising a government that is so careless of the interests of this country that it will1 take such a course as that. Everybody knows what it was done for. That elevator was built for no other purpose than to bribe the people of that constituency to vote for my hon. friend. Again I repeat, I am not 'criticising my hon. friend. He, like my good friends to my left and myself, is anxious to look after his constituents, but I
[Mr. Manion.l
certainly think such a course by the government is open to condemnation by this House. I would also point out that this lease provides that the elevator may be operated! as a private or public elevator, whichever the pool desires. They may make it a mixing house, or do anything they like with it. This is just an illustration, and there lare many of them, of the unnecessary extravagance of this government, and it is just another reason why the people are compelled to pay such high taxation today. I believe in helping the pool in every way, if it is a good thing, and the farmers think it is, but I do not think they should ask or should get a 'bonus of this kind to carry on the grain business at Prince Rupert or at any other place in this country.


George Gibson Coote: The hon. member said that only one 'carload of grain went through that elevator at Prince Rupert. Then does he think it fair to say that the government made a gift of $75,000 to the pool?


Robert James Manion: I am not criticising the pool at all. I think they made a good business deal. They apparently wanted the elevator, or they would not have leased it.


George Gibson Coote: I am sure my hon. friend
wishes to be fair to the pool-


Robert James Manion: And to the government too.


George Gibson Coote: This is the question I wanted to put to him: Does he not think it wall cost the pool something to use that elevator? Would the elevator have been used at all if it had not been leased to the pool?


Robert James Manion: Probably not, but the pool evidently wiants an elevator there, or it would not have leased it, and if It wanted one it would have co^b about a million and a half to build it. So that the people of Canada are practically bonusdmg the pool to the amount of sixty or seventy thousand dollars, which represents the interest on that amount.


George Gibson Coote: My hon. friend does not suggest that the pool would build an elevator there.


Robert James Manion: I would not. I am not
criticising the pool at 'all.


George Gibson Coote: Is it not a question whether the pool will be able to make much use of it?


Robert James Manion: I should think so.


George Gibson Coote: If they cannot use it, they
are not getting any gift of $70,000.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Robert James Manion: I agree with that, and it probably will not be used much, because to send wheat through the Primce Rupert eilevator you have to send it 250 milies farther by rail that it would have to go via Vancouver.


Mr. STORK:: It is not 250 miles it is 167 miles.


Robert James Manion: I thought the distance was 250 miles.


Alfred Stork: You are. wrong again.


Robert James Manion: There is no "again" to it. The eilevator was built so that my hon. friend would get votes, and he got them.


Alfred Stork: I got them in 1917 too, without the etevator.


Robert James Manion: When this elevator has
been standing there another year or two and does not handle any grain, my hon. friend may not get the votes next time.


Alfred Stork: We will eee.


Robert James Manion: I agree with my hon. friend from Macleod that the wheat will not go over this route, and that is affl the more reason for criticising the government for making this expenditure of nearly $1,500,000.


George Gibson Coote: I wanted to suggest that the wheat would not go there unless the pool got the eilevator.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is backing up my criticism of the government and I thank him for it.


George Gibson Coote: I want my hon. friend to be
fair. I ask him not to suggest that the government is making a straight present to the pool of $70,000.


Robert James Manion: I was not trying to be unfair to the pool. I was simply bringing to the attention of the people the facts with respect to the government's action. But I think they know most of these facts, and it is time the government realized they should not spend the people's money on hair-brained schemes of this kind.


James Alexander Robb: When hon. gentlemen opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Fort William, criticize us for spending public money in the development of ports or in building elevators, I point out to them that they are paying a very poor compliment to the people of Fort William and Port Arthur because there are few places in Canada where the government have spent more money than they have at the places named. I would prefer to think that the people of Port Arthur
and Fort William could not be influenced by the spending of public money. I submit there is money in the estimates this year for expenditures at the port of Fort William.


Robert James Manion: There is none for Fort William.


James Alexander Robb: Does 013^ hon. friend claim that when we are spending money at Fort William we are bribing the people?


Robert James Manion: No, but I do claim that three-quarters of the grain of western Canada is handled at Fort William and Port Arthur whereas at Prince Rupert none is handled.


James Alexander Robb: When my hon. friend puts up that argument-


Robert James Manion: I did not put up that argument as to elevators generally; I said it was applicable to this particular case.


James Alexander Robb: We have heard the argument frequently that these expenditures are intended as bribes to the people of the constituency. In the case of the elevator at Prince Rupert we have leased it to the Alberta wheat pool at a rental of $100 for a period of three years.


Robert James Manion: Two years.


James Alexander Robb: For a period of two years, and the pool have relieved the government from all expenditure of whatever kind excepting expenditure the necessity for which may develop in the course of the construction of the elevator. As to that, however, we have a guarantee from the contractor. The pool have taken over the elevator and by arrangement there is to be no taxation upon the property, so that the government will receive $100 net.
Some hon. .MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Alexander Robb: Wait a minute. The pool have taken over the elevator for a period of two years while the route as a grain-moving proposition will be tried out. The representations made to us are that the elevator will be filled before the end of that period. The development of the adjacent country, the gram from which will not go down to Vancouver, will require elevator capacity. The conditions at Prince Rupert may be compared to the conditions when the previous government in which my genial friend opposite (Mr. Rogers) was Minister of Public Works, and Sir George Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, put in an elevator at Vancouver and tried it out. What were the conditions

Supply-Trade and Commerce
in Vancouver? The government of that time did not receive even $100 in revenue. Each year the government of that period experienced a loss, it was $8,690.86 the first year, and $7,335.54 the second year.


Robert James Manion: Vancouver is a natural
place to have an elevator.


James Alexander Robb: That is only a matter of opinion. The people of Prince Rupert have a high opinion of their own port. It is only a case of a difference of opinion.


Robert James Manion: No, it is a case of freight rates.	-


James Alexander Robb: I admit that the freight rates
have to be considered. My hon. friend spoke of a difference of 160 miles.


Robert James Manion: I said 250 miles.


James Alexander Robb: That applies to the movement of grain eastward from Edmonton, but what about the possible traffic that will be developed along the Grand Trunk Pacific line, and along a line running northward from it, when people are settled in that territory? My hon. friend knows also that the trade with the Orient is increasing each year, and he will not say that Prince Rupert is farther away from the Orient than Vancouver is? Prince Rupert is nearer the Orient than Vancouver, and in view of all the conditions, the people of the district think there will be no great difficulty in filling the elevator.


Robert James Manion: I am glad to hear that.


James Alexander Robb: The consent of the Minister of Finance is sought in the case of all these projects and he has to exercise extreme care. I admit that I tried to cut down some expenditure in which my hon. friend was interested.
Mr. MANION; What was that?


James Alexander Robb: Some work going on around
the harbour.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is a little bit too quick in throwing out insinuations that he does not back up. He says I was interested1 in certain work. I ask him to state what I was interested in.


James Alexander Robb: Who is making this speech?


Robert James Manion: I do not know who is
making it; but I object to my hon. friend's
insinuations, that is all.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member for New
Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) advocated the spending of money on elevators at Port Mann, pointing out that it costs $13 a car more to
[Mr. Robb.I
move grain up to the present elevator, and reminding me of what the Minister of Public W'orks said last night in connection with the depth of water in the harbour. My hon. friend says that he is supported by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Well, I shall direct the hon. gentleman's remarks to the attention of my colleagues, the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works, and if what the hon. gentleman has said is true I am sure the government will not be allowed to forget the advantages of that great port.


Robert Rogers: I rather resent the reflection indulged in by the Minister of Finance in a comparison he made between the elevator at Vancouver and the one at Prince Rupert.


James Alexander Robb: The Vancouver elevator had
to be tried out.


Robert Rogers: When I agreed to undertake the building of the elevator at Vancouver, the Panama canal was to be finished in a very short time. The elevator was undertaken and constructed in a very creditable manner. Then the war came on and delayed the transportation of wheat through the Pacific port.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There were slides into the canal which delayed its operation.


Robert Rogers: Everything militated against that route for a few years, but the statement read to-day by my hon. friend with respect to returns showed the justification for the building of that elevator. If the elevator is making half a million dollars a year it is a very creditable showing, and1 justifies the course pursued in erecting it at Vancouver.


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the elevator was built before the Panama canal was finished?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: In what year
was it built?


Robert Rogers: It was built in 1914-15, I
think. In any event the Orient was always there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And then my
hon. friend will remember the slides into the canal.


Robert Rogers: Of course the war conditions prevented shipments through the port of Vancouver at first, but I tell the Minister of Finance to-day that Vancouver would be doing a great deal more business were it not for the fact that, through the government of

Quebec, Montreal and Southern Ry.
which he is a member, a statutory freight rate has been fixed that militates against the port to a very serious extent. Take the people of Calgary. If they want to ship grain to Fort William, a distance of about 1,280 miles, they can do it for 15 cents a bushel. On the other hand if they want to ship to Vancouver, a distance of 600 odd miles, just about half the distance, they are charged 13 cents a bushel when they should only be charged 8 cents. If we are to have a legitimate statutory rate it should apply to all parts of the country similarly situated in equal degree; and if the [DOT]Vancouver elevator has not earned more than half a milion dollars a year it is due to the manner in which it is discriminated against by the statutory rate fixed by tihe railway commission under the direction of this government.


Alfred Stork: The Prince Rupert elevator never was a political elevator. Hon. gentlemen opposite always insist that this elevator was built for the purpose of influencing the elections and winning the seat. Let me repeat what I have said several times already in this House, that we never required any such subsidy in order to carry the elections in 1917 when the War Time Elections Act was in effect and was used for the benefit of hon gentlemen opposite. On the contrary, the people of Skeena stood solidly behind Sir Wilfrid Laurier's policy of developing the country to be served by the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. And in 1917, without the subsidy on that elevator, they cast their votes in favour of the Liberal candidate, and again in 1921 and in 1925. In connection with the construction of this elevator at the end of the Grand Trunk Pacific line, I may point out that the people of Canada have a tremendous investment in that railway. When it was taken over and administered by the Mackenzie and Mann people, who were the natural enemies of the Grand Trunk Pacific, it was natural that it should fall into disuse, and unless the people of Canada are prepared to spend a little more money at the end of the Grand Trunk Pacific and develop some traffic over that line, it will always show a great deficit. This government decided that that piece of railway was worth salvaging, that it was worth spending more money on, and in order to induce traffic over the line they decided to construct an elevator in Prince Rupert. The construction of that elevator will bring this fall a tremendous tonnage over that line. The trade with the Orient is developing and increasing all the time, and Prince Rupert is the logical port. Stress is laid upon the ill-treatment of Vancouver by the placing of the elevator in 14011-300
Prince Rupert. For the last two years there has been congestion in the port of Vancouver when the wheat movement was on. Hundreds of thousands of cars, sprinkled all along the way from the prairie to Vancouver have been held up because of congestion at Vancouver; because at that port they could not handle the traffic offered. Surely it is a dog in the manger policy for Vancouver and the Vancouver supporters who sit on the other side of the House to claim that even though Vancouver is congested with wheat, even though they are unable to take care of the wheat that is routed there no Other port should get the traffic. There is room on the Pacific coast for two ports. Prince Rupert has many natural advantages as a port and we have great aspirations for its future in that regard. Indeed it is bound to be a great port. Adjacent as it is to the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, it will meet the needs of a vast wheat growing area which could only be served by the construction of this elevator. Last year I was up on the shores of Francois lake and I saw growing there a crop of wheat the equal of any wheat grown in Canada. There are over a million acres of wheat land adjacent to the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway which could use this elevator. Its construction is designed to create traffic over the Grand Trunk Pacific line of railway and to open up and develop a wheat country which otherwise would not be developed.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



QUEBEC, MONTREAL AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville) moved the second reading of Bill No. 173, respecting, the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time for construction.
Robert Rogers: We should have some explanation of this bill.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that this
bill is to complete a line from a point in the county of Lotbiniere to Quebec city. It is subsidiary to the Delaware and Hudson Railway, operating from Montreal to Sorel-Nicolet, and serving a large territory until



Gatineau Transmission Company
it reaches a certain point in Lotbiniere. It is intended to extend the line to the city of Quebec via the Quebec (Railway. I can assure the committee that the company is quite substantial; and the bill merely asks for an extension of time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	'
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Alice Victoria McGibbon (without amendment).-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Samuel Pave-ling.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of John Jones. -Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Benjamin Rapp.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Bernard Thomas Graham.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Robert Edward Greig.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Daisie Hawkey.-Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Annie Sophia Gordonsmith.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Bertha Amelia Bertelet.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Olive Mary Mead.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Alice Elizabeth Blakely.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Ethel Maud Hargraft.-Mr. McClanaghan.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Frederic Vinet. -Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 190, respecting certain patents of James MoCutcheon Coleman.-Mr. Jacobs.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 191 to incorporate Gatineau Transmission Company-Mr. Fontaine-Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill on legal grounds and as a matter of public policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Thomas Langton Church: In dealing with the question of 'disposing of the water powers of the country "we have a trust", as Mussolini said. "A country does not belong to the people

who live in it to-day. It is an inheritance from the past, a possession for the present, and a trust for the future." I am very much disappointed with the action of the government of Ontario. They claim they are making an agreement with the company based on this bill. I fear that the Hydro is through except as operating as a filling station for the International Paper Company and other branches of the United States trust. They are going to ask Ontario to build this plant and give it to them at the end of thirty years free of cost, paying the 115 rate to build this plant for the United States trust, instead of as in' Chippawa paying rates to build a power plant for Ontario itself to own forever. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the Privy Council recently decided that this parliament cannot declare a work to be for the general advantage of Canada unless it affects the body politic of the whole country. This company should have gone to the province of Quebec for incorporation, for the bill does not affect the federal body politic at all. It might as well be contended that a candy 3tore on Sparks street is for the general advantage of Canada. We are trustees for the people of the whole Dominion, and I protest against this bill because, as I say, it is not for the general advantage of Canada. As a matter of policy we are just at the parting of the ways. In the election of 1921 the Liberal party charged that the Conservative party was the creature of the big interests. Well, who are behind the Gatineau Power Company which is seeking incorporation by this bill? The United States superpower trust.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Mr. Chairman, I would request that the hon. member either speak louder or come down to the centre of the chamber so we can hear what he is talking about. It may interest us, and if so we would like to know what he is saying. We can hear nothing at all while he remains in his present position.


Thomas Langton Church: I am discussing the principle of the bill at present, and I believe I am voicing the opinion of a large number of the people of Ontario and of the municipalities who have invested money in the Hydro system. Now, without their consent and without a vote of the people these Niagara contracts which have been entered into are to be treated as scraps of paper and they are to be compelled to take power from a privately-owned plant. I am not at all surprised at what has been done, because the late Sir Adam Beck had to put up a fight to save the water power of Ontario for the

Gatineau Transmission Company
people, and I am not surprised at Mr. Ferguson's act. I know of nothing he has ever done for the hydro-electric system, so it does not surprise me to see him linked up with this bill, compelling the Niagara municipalities to part with their power and give it to western Ontario and take in lieu thereof power from this American trust, privately-owned and operated.
This House should protect the municipalities of eastern Ontario, which have been stagnant for a great many years because of the lack of cheap light and power. It has been suggested that Hydro power be developed at Morrisburg, but this government will not pass the plans and allow the work to proceed In my opinion this undertaking will not work to the general good of Canada, but will be harmful instead. Under clause 3 provision is made for the organization meetings and so on. This is simply a holding company, because it will be seen that under clause 4 the capital only amounts to S500,000, divided into shares of $100 each. The idea is that this company is simply a holding company for the American power trust; if they only spend half a million dollars how will they provide for the generation and distribution of this power? As I see it, the money will come from the American superpower trust across the border. Under section 5 the location of the head office is named, and under the next section the purposes and powers of the company are defined as follows:
The coimpany may-
(a)	for the purposes only of conveyirog and trans-mrtitinig and delivering electrical power or energy, construct, operate and maintain transmission and distribution lanes, systems and works over or below ground or water, and along, across or under watercourses, and for such purposes erect and maintain poles and towers and lay and maintain pipes, cables, wires and other conductors;
(b)	purchase or otherwise acquire, sell or otherwise dispose of, transmit for hire, and otherwise contract with respect to the acquisition, disposition or transmission of electrical power or energy.
The company is allowed to acquire property and to construct telegraph and telephone lines in connection with this undertaking. Under section 9 its borrowing powers are set out, and further on we see the agreements they are authorized to make.
Now I would like to come to section 10, which gives this company the power of expropriation under the Railway Act. I cannot find that power given in any other bill passed by this House, and I think it is a mistake. I wish to protest against the passing of this bill; I think it a sorry day for the province of Ontario and its hydro municipalities if this bill is passed.
14011-300-1


Mr. McGIBBON:: What is the particular
objection to this bill, when the province of Ontario can obtain power for less than they can develop it at Chippawa?


Thomas Langton Church: My objection is that the
municipalities have contracts to take power from the Chippawa development, the capital cost of which was about $65,000,000. Toronto had to put up most of that capital; they would not go on with the work until the city of Toronto guaranteed the bonds. Toronto has . contracted to take power from this publicly-owned plant and I protest against that contract being interfered with by this legislation, and the city made to take power from a privately-owned American trust.


Peter McGibbon: If we did not get power in this way where would eastern Ontario get the power?


Thomas Langton Church: They can get lots of power from the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa themselves if they want it. The city of Toronto applied for permission to build a steam plant to cost $10,000,000 which would have developed 75,000 to 100,000 horse power, but permission was refused. Thirty years hence after taking Gatineau, Ontario will own nothing and when they seek a renewal will have to pay $75 per horse power as the town of Cochrane have had to pay the Abitibi Power Company.


Peter McGibbon: That would not serve
eastern Ontario.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not want to take up all the time discussing this bill. The HydroElectric Power Commission had to redeem the Muskoka district from slavery years ago.


Peter McGibbon: May I tell the hon.
member ithat the district of Muskoka and the town of Bracebridge developed power before the Hydro-Electric Power Commission was in existence?


Thomas Langton Church: I have read the fifteen
Hydro systems. The Hydro took over the Muskoka, Severn and Wasdell systems. I may say further that in my opinion the government of Ontario has no power to treat these Niagara contracts as scraps of paper, and transfer these towns over to the Gatineau. Are we going to treat these contracts as scraps of paper, and take the power away and transfer it to western Ontario, and say to the municipalities:	You will have to pay for
power generated by private interests on the Gatineau. I doubt if the Privy Council would allow that. It is a sorry day for the municipalities of Ontario if, after the lifetime of
4730	COMMONS
Gatineau Transmission Company
work of Sir Adair, Beck, all these things are to be treated as a scrap of paper. If parliament passes this bill, by the end of thirty years the people will have paid enough to have purchased the whole plant, and they will not own one thing. Furthermore there are no terms for renewal in this contract, and on renewal thirty years hence, rates may.be quoted of from $60 to $75 per horse power just as the town of Cochrane under the Cochrane-Ferguson policy is trying to get it from the Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company who are asking $75 per horse power.
It is not in the public interest that this bill should go through. It is not for the general advantage of Canada, and I protest against thq passing of this bill. Under the Chippawa agreement the Hydro owns the plant at the end of thirty years, debt free. Under the Gatineau agreement we own nothing at the end of thirty years, and have built the plant free for this American company.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 15 consideration in committee of Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Red Lake and Northwestern Railway Company-Mr. Heenan-Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. HEAPS:: When this bill was up before, Mr. Chairman, we were told that certain amendments had been made to it in the Private Bills committee. I would like to see a copy of those amendments if at all possible.


The CHAIRMAN:: Certain clauses were
struck out. There is just one addition to clause 16, which I will read when we come to the clause.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Has the bill been reprinted, Mr. Chairman?


William Duff: I presume so.


William Findlay Maclean: I want to
speak about the principle involved in the franchise to build the road to Red Lake, because I think all that mining country, and it is the most promising mining country in the world, ought to be connected up with the Canadian National railways. At present a new thing is happening. There is a great mining country in the township of Rouyn, in the province of Quebec, where great dis-

coveries have been made and the township is desirous of getting railway service. Apparently they could not get railway service by going direct to the Canadian National Railways, so a local company was incorporated to build a line from Amos southeasterly to Rouyn. That road is being built by an independent company, and a big bond issue is to be floated in connection with it. This is a new development in the way of building branch lines from the Canadian National railway, that is, first to incorporate a local company for the purpose of building the road, and then issuing a large block of securities, and then later on unloading them on to the Canadian National. My contention is that this road ought to be taken care of absolutely as a branch line of the Canadian National railway.
Then when we come to this Red lake proposition, which is an extension probably of one hundred miles of railway to be 'built by a private company, we notice that there is a great rush to incorporate this company. We are having promoters come here from all over to build railways into that mining country. I do not know how many more of these companies will come along, but I do know that the richest mining country in the world to-day is in the province of Quebec, in Ontario, and probably in Manitoba, and all of these mines will want to connect up with the Canadian National railway. The stand I want to take here to-night, and I am sure I shall be backed up 'by public opinion in Quebec, Ontario and [DOT]Manitoba, is that the Canadian National Railway ought to build all these lines if they are worth being built at all. They ought to be owned directly by the people, and my suggestion is this, instead of giving a franchise to these private companies, the Canadian National ought to build this line direct themselves from Amos to Rouyn, and then southwesterly to Cheminis on the boundary between Quebec and Ontario, where they would join up with the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, and once on the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway they could go north and west, via Kirkland lake and on west to a station called Westree on the Canadian National, on the Sudbury main line. In that way we will have the National Railway serving all that mining country in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba instead of a lot of local companies. Here is the second company coming forward for a franchise, and I make the prediction that there will be at least ten of them coming along later. Now that ought to stop. The greatest mines in Canada recently were dis-

Red Lake Railway Company
covered, first of all, when nickel was found near Sudbury, and next the Cobalt silver camp. The Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway was built-it is wholly owned by the province of Ontario-and then came the discoveries in Porcupine. That territory also is served by the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario.


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. member
think this country is justified in going ahead and building railways on the prospect of something being discovered along the route?


William Findlay Maclean: I say that if
others are prepared to build these railways, at least the Canadian National ought to be giten the preference in the matter. Does m hon. friend object to what the province of Ontario did in connection with the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway?


Peter McGibbon: My hon. friend has
not answered my question. It was this: Does he think we would be justified in building railways in the hope that along the right of way something might be discovered?


William Findlay Maclean: Oh no, I am not.


Peter McGibbon: That is what you are
doing.


William Findlay Maclean: I am objecting
to exploiters getting ahead of the National Railway in the matter of all these possibilities; and they are more than possibilities, thej; are actualities. It is in the interests of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and it is in the interests of the National Railways that there shall be a great main line through this mining country.


Peter McGibbon: But the National Railways said they did not want it and would not touch it.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, because the exploiters want it, and they, perhaps, would put a little silence round the National Railways. The point I want to make is that this is the greatest mining country in the world. Part of it is in Quebec, part in Ontario, and part in Manitoba. The province of Ontario has 200 miles of this country, and what the Canadian National ought to do is not only to build these lines but take over the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario line which is practically a paying proposition now. Then the people of Canada would own the railways in the greatest mining country in the world. All I say is in the meantime let these profiteers whoever they are, these exploiters, wait.
There is no reason why we should give them this charter if the road is not needed. It was not intended to serve the mining country, it was to serve the exploiters.
Mr. O'NEILL: What about the Gowganda camp, in which I understand my hon. friend is interested?


William Findlay Maclean: I am not interested in Gowganda at all.
Mr. O'NEILL: What you are saying has to do with its welfare.


William Findlay Maclean: No, what I am anxious for is to see the greatest mining country in the world preserved for the National Railways. When the National line is up there it ought to have the opportunity to secure the traffic. Let me tell my hon. friend something. The National Railways get out a magazine every month which is distributed among their employees. In this is a little card asking the reader-who of course is an employee of the company

if he knows of any traffic that it is possible to get in his district, and if he does, to send to the head office a post card containing the information. That shows how anxious they are to get freight. They should be equally anxious to secure the railways that are going to develop the northern country. My contention is that the Canadian National should own the line from Amos right through Rouyn to Cheminis on the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario at the interprovincial line, through the Kirkland Lake gold field to Swastika, then north to Earlton Junction. Then west to the present terminal at Elk Lake, then on via Gowganda and Shining Tree to Wfestree on the Sudbury line, opening up the richest area in Quebec and Ontario of copper, gold, silver and gold again. That is the greatest series of lines through a mining country that I know of, and they can all be combined in one. That would be a profitable route and would give the Canadian National complete control of the territory. We have got the whole northern country now practically outside of the Canadian Pacific, that is at all profitable. I do not want to see any unnecessary rush in building railways. I do not know why parliament should let these other people go ahead before the National Railways have a chance at it. Of course the Minister of Railways says the Canadian National Railways have no present interest in the matter. Certainly not if the method is continued which has been followed in connection with the development of the Rouyn field, that is, to allow a local company to get a charter, issue securities to build a road, and then sell out at a great ad-

Red Lake Railway Company
vance to the Canadian National Railways. The principle I have indicated is the general principle I have laid down here. If you grant the present request it will not be long before other people will be asking for charters for the construction of small lines to serve the mining country in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba.
'Mr. MoGIBBON: May I ask the hon. member piloting this 'bill through the House, who is responsible for the clauses respecting the water powers it is hoped to acquire?


Robert Rogers: They are all taken out.


Peter McGibbon: Not in the bill as presented to me.


Donald Sutherland: Before we attempt to pass sections in this way, I think we ought to have the bill printed as it came from the committee. It is rather significant, in view of our railway experience, that the Minister of Railways is not in his seat when this bill is going through, to inform1 us what the policy of the government is in connection with branch lines. I protest against going on with the bill until it has been printed with the amendments in it so that we shall know what we are doing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quite agree with the hon. member for South Oxford that we ought to have an exact copy of the amendments made to the bill before us before we proceed with the measure. It is establishing a bad precedent if we undertake to discuss a bill that has been changed when we have not the bill in its amended form before us. The province of Manitoba is very much interested in this particular bill. At the last session of the legislature a measure was passed guarantete-ing 125,000 per mile to 'a company that would build a line from in or near the city of Winnipeg to the Red lake district. I tried to get a copy of that bill from the parliamentary library, but they did not happen to have one there. I did not know what attitude the province of Manitoba had taken towards this -measure, but I consulted a newspaper record and found that the provincial legislature did pass such a bill as I have stated. Now we ought to have some definite idea as to what the views of the Manitoba government may be before we pass this legislation. In the next place I " think the Minister of Railways ought to be in his seat, because the bill now before us has some bearing upon the Canadian National Railways. According to the provisions of the bill this railway is intended to go into the town of The Pas in the northern Manitoba area. As a matter of fact this governi.Mr. W. F. Maclean.]
ment is interested in a railway which will pass through The Pas into the Hudson bay district. If it is impossible, as stated by some hon. members, for one railway going into that district to pay, it will be altogether out of the question for two railways to operate in that country at a profit. One of the things we are complaining about at the present time is the fact that there are too many duplications of railways, and I protest strongly against any railway duplication in the northern Manitoba area. Why is Manitoba interested in this matter? I find that in clause 12-I know nothing of any other amendment-power is given to the railway company to build a railway-


William Duff: Clause 12 has been
struck out.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is all the more reason why the bill should be allowed to stand over until such time as we can have its exact form before us.


William Duff: If the hon. gentleman says he wishes the bill to stand over I will get the sense of the committee upon it. If the committee concurs in the idea it will not be necessary to discuss the matter any further.
Mr. O'NEILL: The bill has been allowed to stand half a dozen times, and the objections now urged are only technical objections. Unless it is held that the bill should be reprinted there is no reason for any further delay.	[DOT]


Peter McGibbon: We are not all members of the Railway committee, and we do not know everything that goes on there. The Minister of Railways is supposed to be a kind of superman sent from heaven to guide this country in solving its railway problems, and he is not in the House to direct us. What do we know about this bill?


William Duff: I will read the clauses as we go along if the committee so desire.


Peter McGibbon: But we have not the 'bill in its amended form before us.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I move that the bill stand.


William Duff: Is it the sense of the committee that Bill No. 95 should stand?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Duff: Then we will continue with the consideration of the bill. We are now at clause 2-provisional directors.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Donald Sutherland: We ought to have copies of the bill in its amended form in our hands before we proceed with it. We are told that a certain clause is not in the bill, and also that there is another clause to go in which has not been printed. It is quite irregular to pass a bill which has been before the House three or four times and sent back. There is something peculiar about a company attempting to get a charter under such circumstances. There is no such company in existence. The old practice of issuing charters to companies which simply proceed to dispose of their charters has been in effect in this country too long. We are paying the penalty for our mad folly in issuing railway charters in Canada for so many years; and if the rumours are true I think we should be very careful about issuing charters to this company, which has apparently been already endeavouring to dispose of its charter, in the hope that the country affected will develop into a rich mining district. The company have nothing at stake. If the country does not develop as we hope it will, the charter will lapse, and I suppose if they spend $5,000 during the coming year on the road all they will have to do will be to come -back next session and ask for an extern sion. We should have a statement from the Minister of Railways in regard to charters of this kind. We have witnessed the spectacle of the government by order in council issuing a charter for a spur line similar to this to connect with the Transcontinental in Quebec. Surely parliament has some policy in regard to such cases. This is not the original bill we are asked to pass; the chairman says several sections have been struck out and others added. It is a most unusual thing to do.


James Alexander Robb: I think the request that the bill should be printed, or at least that it should * stand until the Minister 9 p.m. of Railways is in his seat is not unreasonable. He is engaged in other work, and if there is no objection by the promoters I think that it should stand.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Management, operation and maintenance of elevators, $585,000.
Alfred Stork: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was -replying, by way of defence of the Prince Rupert elevator, to the remarks that had been made by the hon. member (Mr. Manion) in which particular emphasis was laid on the fact that this elevator had been leased to the wheat pool at a nominal rental of $100 per annum. The hon. gentleman indulged in considerable criticism of the government on this account. Certainly $100 is a modest sum; but, as the minister pointed out, the wheat .pool in taking over the elevator takes over at the same time the payroll and all expenditures connected with its operation. When we recall the disastrous experience of the Vancouver elevator during the first two years it operated this rental of $100 a year -for the one at Prince Rupert will bear scrutiny. One of the last acts of the government of which my hon. friend from Fort William was a member for a few fleeting weeks was to provide for the construction in the city of Victoria of a dry dock at a cost of some $6,000,000. and I venture to say that if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), to-day wanted to lease that dry dock, which will be completed this fall, he would not receive a bid of $100 if the contracting company had to assume all obligations in connection with its operation. I am in no way criticising the Victoria dry dock, for I am very grateful to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) for the assistance he gave us when the Prince Rupert elevator was under consideration in the House. The hon. member for Fort William would1 do well to observe, as I have always tried to observe, the old adage that bids us live and let live. The Victoria dry dock is just as liable to censure as is the Prince Rupert elevator, but I have noticed that those who are most ready to criticise the Prince Rupert expenditure know least about it. The hon. member for Fort William had a good deal to say about this matter in the last campaign, although he has never yet been interested enough to visit the country of the Grand Trunk Pacific, nor has he ever set eyes on Prince Rupert.


Robert James Manion: That may be true, but I
have visited the Grand Trunk Pacific country. I have not seen Prince Rupert, but that is not the whole of the western country.


Alfred Stork: It is an important part of
it.	.


Robert James Manion: In my hon. friend's
opinion.


Alfred Stork: I should be glad to have ah the opponents of the Prince Rupert elevator come out there and learn a little about their own country.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Peter McGibbon: Where would you put
them?


Alfred Stork: Some hon. gentlemen, at
least, we might put in the elevator.


Peter McGibbon: That is the only place
you have.


Alfred Stork: If hon. gentlemen opposite
would display a little more constructive ability and do a little less knocking, it would be better for the country. I am glad to have heard the remarks of the hon. member for Fort William and of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) if only for the reason that when the people of that new and growing country learn of the attitude of these gentlemen, bearing in mind at the same time the criticisms on former occasions of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), they will realize what kind of ride they will get should the Tory party ever come into power.


Peter McGibbon: I can understand the
remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork), and I am bound to commend the government upon the steadfastness with which they pursue their policy. The policy of the present government is a simple one-to the victor belongs the spoils. This policy they have practised ever since coming into power and the Prince Rupert elevator is a good example. The hon. member advises us to live and let live. For myself I think that is a good rule, but I object to any party living off the public treasury, and that is what the party opposite is doing in connection with this elevator. Now I have been in Prince Rupert. I was there one foggy morning and for an hour or two I could not tell whether I was in it or out of it.


Alfred Stork: Is must have been Vancouver you were in.


Peter McGibbon: No, it was Prince Rupert, all right; and when the hon. gentleman invites parliament to visit that city he forgets that there are only two places in which they can be accommodated-the elevator and the sea.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a big
warehouse there.


Mr. McGTBBON:: I appreciate the way
this government look after their friends. They look after them first, last and always; it is the first thing in the morning, it is the noontime meal and it is the evening meal. Then they try to justify it before parliament. I admire the astuteness and ability of the Min-

ister of Finance for the defence he put up this afternoon, but when you boil it down to the last analysis it is simply this: We have spent SI ,300,000 of the people's money to put an elevator at Prince Rupert in order that the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Stork) may retain his seat in this House. That is only one of the 245 constituencies represented in this House where the government has tried to debauch the electors in order that candidates supporting the government might be returned. Negotiations took place to debauch the constituency that II now represent and seduce the former member to desert the party to my left, which he was elected to support, and go over to the government. But I need not delve into further history of this kind. The people know all about it, they know this government in order to retain office is ready to secure support by any means within their power. The Prince Rupert elevator is an instance. They have used it to good advantage, I admit. The best evidence is that the hon. gentleman from Skeena is a member of this parliament.


Robert Rogers: Mr. Chairman, in reply to
what the hon. member for Skeena has said respecting the dry dock at Victoria, I would point out to him the well-known. fact that in 1917 there appeared to be imminent danger of a German squadron attacking the Pacific coast, there was considerable excitement, and as a precautionary measure the provincia1 government purchased a couple of submarines. I happened to be in England when the matter came before the admiralty, and was sent for to discuss conditions on the Pacific coast, with the result that the admiralty refused to send a warship in there because there was no dry dock. The late Mr. Bonar Law, then a member of the British war cabinet, supported the request by the naval authorities that we undertake the construction of a dry dock at Victoria as rapidly as possible. The work was started and, as I understand, is now completed. As hon. gentlemen are aware, shortly after I came back to Canada 1 resigned, and since then I have not been in touch with conditions at the coast. I want my hon. friends to have no misgivings about the dry dock at Victoria. If it is not serving any useful purpose at the moment, it must not be forgotten that it was built at the direct request of the British government solely for military purposes.


Alfred Stork: I should like my hon. friend
to understand that I was in no way criticizing the Victoria dry dock.
JUNE 18, 1926	, ; i
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: Mr. Chairman, I want to get the committee away from this political discussion if I possibly can. It seems to me that the government should have under consideration the providing of additional drying facilities at our western terminals. We find in Alberta especially, for our grain feeds most of the terminal elevators on the Pacific coast, that we generally have different grades of wheat;-not always, but it happens very frequently-frosted, at other times damp. Last year much of the wheat was damp, and when in that condition it gives the transportation companies an excuse, sometimes necessarily so, when drying facilities are really inadequate, to put in effect what is known as the permit system, which means that grain intended for the Pacific coast must go eastj ward, where there are drying facilities. When the farmer ships his carload of wheat to the elevators he may not know whether it is damip or not; therefore the transportation companies take no chance, but say: This may be damp wheat, consequently you will have to get a permit. This system interferes very materially with the westward flow of wheat. Last year it was invoked and prevented the flow of our grain to the western terminals. I am not one who wishes or expects to see all our wheat go westward; I know it will go easward or westward, according to supply and demand. I think there is now fairly ample storage room at the terminal elevators, but the drying facilities are inadequate, and the government should see that these facilities measure up to the other accommodations. This is a very important item. All western men connected with the grain trade know that ample drying facilities must be furnished to take care of the regular flow of grain westward.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At what points?


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: At Vancouver or wherever the elevators may be. I should like to see elevators along the Fraser river. I wonder a private company does not invest capital there. The grain trade to-day is in a different position from what it was when the government built the elevator at Vancouver; it is now an established fact that a very considerable proportion of our grain goes westward, and will continue to go in increasing quantities, with proper elevator accommodation. I have no doubt that with elevator accommodation the Fraser river would get a lot of the grain before it reached Vancouver. Therefore I should like to see private elevators built there, and I would not object to the government giving assistance to this end. There certainly seems to be an inviting investment at that point as nearly as I can find out. But I do wish to urge upon the minister this one fact-I think he is aware of it already, for no doubt complaints have come to him-that we want some additional drying facilities on the west coast. I do not know what it would cost to provide these facilities, probably the capital outlay would be considerable, but if we provide the storage accommodation we must also provide corresponding drying facilities.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman is probably correct as to the field for private investment in elevators along the Fraser river, for that is the place where there is a demand for -the grain. He is perfectly right when he says the grain will go where the demand for it is. My hon. friend from Skeena gives us a reason to-day for the building of the Prince Rupert elevator-congestion at Vancouver. I think he said-if my recollection is wrong he will correct me-that some 100,000 cars of grain were held up at Vancouver. Is that right?


Alfred Stork: Yes, many hundreds of cars were on the road between the prairies and Vancouver.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought my hon. friend said 100,000.


Alfred Stork: No, I said many hundreds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Therefore the reason we build at Prince Rupert is that there is congestion at Vancouver. We knew what the real reason was, always, but this is the first time we have got an avowed reason- this elevator is built at Prince Rupert because there is congestion at Vancouver. I should like to apply to that reasoning the common sense statement of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Tobin). Grain moves where it is wanted. That is the ordinary way about everything. But the real justification of this government for building an elevator at Prince Rupert, according to the member for Skeena, is: Because there is congestion at Vancouver, where facilities are required, we will build an elevator at Prince Rupert, where there is no grain going. That is the pitiful excuse we get to-day, but the one interesting thing is that this is the first time a real attempt has been made to present an excuse; the thing was so absolutely inexcusable. The hon. member was saying tha1 the Tories were calling this a political

Supply-Trade and Commerce
elevator. Two gentlemen who have been voting with the government all through this session stood up this afternoon and said that one of the shackles placed upon the grain trade of western Canada by this government was the building of political elevators, and this elevator at Prince Rupert was described as such by these two hon. members. They certainly did not idly so charge the action of the government they support; they said it because they know it to be true. Everyone knows it to be true, but some will not admit it.
I am also going to agree with a further remark made by the hon. member for Macleod (M>r. Coote). In reply to the hon. member for Fost Wil'liam (Mr. Manion) he pointed out that under the circumstances 'he did not think the hon. gentlleman was quite fair to the pool when he suggested that the pool were getting a whole lot for nothing. I do not think they are. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, in one sense they are getting a great deal1 more than they should get, because usually the last thing a government should do is give one concern an advantage over others; they should treat them all alike. For example, this government has elevators at other points in the system, and business elevators as contrasted with political elevators are rented for a return of 7 per cent of the investment. Here we have an elevator rented for $100, as against others rented on that basis of a return of 7 per cent. I will illustrate some of these cases, so there can be no dloubt about it. Let us consider the big elevator at Port Arthur, acquired by the government when the Canadian Northern system was taken over; that elevator is rented now to the Saskatchewan Co-operative. The Saskatchewan Co-operative is a first rate concern; it is operated similarly to the pool, by and for the farmers, and there is no reason why we should turn round and penalize the Saskatchewan Co-operative on the one hand and give property for nothing to the pool on the other hand. Nevertheless, we charge for that elevator a rental of 7 per cent of the value, and on the other hand we charge $100. Why? As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Macleod; the pool are not getting anything; they are trying a great experiment. They are now engaging in the task of trying to create a demand for grain where there is no demand; they are going to all' the expense and trouble of trying to work up a (grain business at a centre where no such business exists. There is no use rubbing it in; we all know that is what the pool' is trying to do. The grain commissioners have been running advertisements
[Sir Henry Dravton.l
in an attempt to get people to ship their grain where there is no demand for grain, and now the pool is going to try to do what the government has been unable to do. I only give this as an illustration. The other elevators are just the same, and I will say for the government that they have the same rate for everyone who wants business elevators. For instance, for elevator D, which is leased to a private 'company, 5 per cent of the whole capital' investment is received.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Will the hon. member tell me who built the external storage elevators at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, and what return the government is getting from them?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will have much pleasure an answering that question at once. These elevators' were built by a former Conservative administration; they are still maintained and operated by the government; they are not rented, but are some of the elevators which showed a profit.


James J. Donnelly: What return are they making?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are
among the elevators which showed a profit of something like $1,500,000 this year. They were put up for the purpose of this hon. gentleman who was speaking not very long ago about dry storage; they are for the purpose of looking after the crop at a time when elevators are necessary, and according to the record's they are very often necessary. Does my hon. friend suggest that these elevators are rented for $100 a year? If so he is wrong; they are not rented at all. They were put up for the western farmers and they are so operated.


James J. Donnelly: Are you getting your interest on the money?


Henry Lumley Drayton: You had better ask the minister, who gave the figures this afternoon. This government thinks so much of the Moose Jaw elevator that at the request of the grain commissioners and on the motion of a gentleman from the district who knows something about it, Moose Jaw has been made an inspection point. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope-and I trust the hope is not entirely vain-that we will not have any more experiments like this. Of course the hon. member will still go on talking in Prince Rupert; he says he wants if knocked here so he can go there and just tell the people what the wicked Tories would do. He can do a little more; he can go and tell them what two supporters of this govern-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
merit who know the business say of that elevator. He can go and say that the hon. member for Macleod and his friend describe it as a purely political elevator, but he will have to get- another tune. After all, vacant and idle elevators are not good assets; there are lots of honest ways of spending money profitably, and the sooner the hon. gentleman knows it is a bad thing not only for the country but for his own constituents to have money spent improperly, it will be better both for him and for his constituents.
Mir. TOLM'IE: We have heard northern British Columbia spoken of in a rather disparaging way by some hon. members tonight, and I would like to point out that there is a tremendous undeveloped empire in that northern country. It is well fitted for agriculture of a diversified nature and for the raising of cattle, and particularly dairying. I have never believed that we oan develop 800 miles of our Pacific coast by putting all the development into one harbour; I have always believed that we should divide it and give any place where there is an opportunity for development a chance to have some money spent in that direction. Whether or not this elevator at Prince Rupert will be a success is something that will be settled in the future. I remember quite well that when the elevators were built at Vancouver they were idle for some time. I remember that when it was proposed to build the Esquimau dry dock we were faced with the same kind of criticism we have heard to-night. Why was that dock built? A dock was built there in the seventies with a capacity of I think 434 feet; that is, no ship could be entered for repairs if it were longer than about 400 feet. During the war it was necessary for us to beg the United 'States government to permit us to send some of the British war vessels over to Bremerton, Washington, for repairs. Our -Canadian mechanics had to follow to the United1 States to secure work on the British ships. The new dry dock at Esquimalt which will be ready this fall for the accommodation of vessels is the second largest dock in the world. It will handle easily the largest ship 'in the world. It will take in the Hood without any difficulty whatever, and with from *one to two hundred feet to spare. It will take in at one time two large merchant vessels, or three smaller vessels. It is strictly [DOT]up to date in every possible respect.
. What have our American friends been doing in making provision for the quick repair of .ships on the Pacific coast? Before this Esquimalt proposition was undertaken in Canada, we had a little short dock in Esquimalt, and one other dock contemplated in the city of Vancouver, and at that very time the Americans had no less than sixteen docks scattered from the southern coast of California up to Puget Sound in the state of Washington, making every provision for the care of ships. With the development on the Pacific coast, the greater volume of commerce passing through the Panama canal, and the development generally of western Canada, this dry dock at Esquimalt will be an asset of the very greatest value to our shipping interests. We shall be prepared to handle any ship there, and handle it quickly. In looking over the whole of the Pacific coast for a spot at which to locate, Yarrow's Limited, the great shipbuilding firm of Glasgow, Scotland, decided to locate at Esquimalt. They are carrying on a large ship repairing business there, and also some shipbuilding. In one year alone they handled over 110 vessels in the small dry dock and on their slips, and they had to turn away many vessels because they were too large to be accommodated in the Esquimalt dry dock. I am quite sure that if the Minister of Public Works, who has charge of this branch of the government work, undertook to negotiate with any ship repairing firm, he could come to an agreement at once for the lease of that dock, but that would not be desirable because in connection with a government dock every ship repairing firm should stand on an equal footing and all be given an equal chance to secure the dock for that purpose. So the Esquimalt dry dock has a great future before it. It will only be a matter of a few years before the business of ship repairing will have increased to a very great extent on the Pacific coast. The building of that dock has been justified long ago, and the project will be endorsed by the development that will take place in the future. It is a very difficult thing to say at the present time, with the great development that is going to take place on the Pacific coast, just how an expenditure on any particular work is going to turn out until we have had a chance to see things develop, but we expect that Canada's great development in the future will take place on the Pacific rather than on the Atlantic for some years to come.


James Alexander Robb: Before the item carries, may I say that provision has been made for additional driers at the Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Calgary houses? Vancouver is fairly well equipped, I think. I recall that in 1922 either myself or my predecessor, the hon. member

Supply-Trade and Commerce
for Vancouver Centre, gave a contract in connection with that house. It is fairly well equipped with driers, and they have been added to this year.


Mr. FOSTER:: I would like to add a word to what the hon. member for Victoria has said with regard to that great north country extending down to Prince Rupert. It seems a shocking thing when one is reminded of an expenditure of $1,250,000 at Prince Rupert for an elevator, to think that practically nothing has been done to develop that great stretch of northern couritry in British Columbia. Some years ago I had the opportunity of traversing that section of British Columbia, and when one remembers that after you pass through the mountain pass you have practically 500 miles of country with hardly a mountain to be seen, and that nothing has been done to develop it, but that $1,250,000 has been thrown away on an elevator at tidewater at Prince Rupert, it seems to me it is only another evidence of the lack of business ability and acumen on the part of this government in failing to assist in the development of the natural resources of Canada. Why a half or a quarter of that money devoted to the assistance of a pulp mill, for instance, near Prince George would have provided employment there and enabled a settlement to have started. Another quarter of the money specifically set aside for settlement in that territory would have provided a great deal of traffic for the Canadian National lines. It does seem to me that in the expenditure of the capital funds of this country we ought to begin on a business basis and set aside certain areas in the nine provinces of the Dominion and work in co-operation with the provinces to develop traffic along the line of the Canadian National railway instead of spending money on useless projects such as this elevator at Prince Rupert.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Commercial Intelligence Service, including miscellaneous expenditure in connection with the development and extension of Canadian trade, $375,000.
Robert Rogers: This item calls for the
expenditure of a very large sum of money, and I would like some explanation from the minister as to what it is for. I find by the Auditor General's report that the amount expended last year was less than is asked for this year. I think there is room for a great saving in the expenses incident to this Commercial Intelligence Service, and that the expenses of our agents are far beyond anything that can be considered reasonable or fair.


James Alexander Robb: There is some difference of opinion, but not very much, as to this service. My hon. friend who has just spoken finds some fault with the vote. The only complaint I have received is that it is too small. Business men from all over Canada' have come into the office and said that we should enlarge upon this service. I recall when I was Minister of Trade and Commerce having a gentleman come in to see me who had just returned from a trip around the world. I will not give his name, but to show his standing I will say that he was, and still is, a director of the Bank of Montreal, and he thought that we were not treating our trade commissioners around the world fairly, that they were not in a position to meet the public as were the commissioners from the United States and other countries. We looked into the matter and did make some additional provision in the way of living allowance and other incidental expenses. The vote this year is $33,250 more than was voted last year. The vote includes salaries, travelling expenses, living allowances for the trade commissioners, assistant trade commissioners, junior trade commissioners and commercial agents; the salaries of clerks in trade commissioners' offices, travelling expenses of officials at Ottawa-that is, the junior trade commissioners who go out and get some training in the different industries; salaries of temporary clerks, miscellaneous expenses in connection with the development and extension of Canadian trade. The staff, as of March 31, 1926, consisted of: one inspector of trade commissioners' offices; 22 trade commissioners, three in grade 3, three in grade 2 and sixteen in grade 1; one vacancy, three assistant trade commissioners; five junior trade commissioners, one commercial agent. The figures I have quoted relate to the outside staff. Does my hon. friend want to know where they are stationed?


Robert Rogers: I am not objecting to
these appointments, but some of them run as high as $10,000 and $15,000, and yet no explanation has been given with respect to them.


James Alexander Robb: That has reference to the
maintenance of the office, I imagine-the rent of the office and the travelling expenses in the country where the agents are stationed, and the salary of an assistant clerk. For instance we have only one representative in Australia, a country larger than the United States and almost as large as Canada. In that country the representative or his assis-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
tant travels from coast to coast. The same is true of Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires in South America. Our representatives there also cover a very large territory.


Robert Rogers: I see the agent there had
an expense account of $15,000 odd. That is a good deal for expenses.


James Alexander Robb: What office is that?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The office at
Buenos Aires.


James Alexander Robb: The expenses for that office
amounted to $11,822.63.


Robert Rogers: I am speaking of Melbourne.


James Alexander Robb: The office at Buenos Aires
is a very large office, and as my hon. friend knows, it is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in. Our agent at Buenos Aires pays for rent and taxes, $1,087.23; salaries, that is his own salary and the salaries of the staff, $9,460.66; newspapers and periodicals $40.34; sundries, $1,234.60.


George Eulas Foster: What is his salary?


James Alexander Robb: It is $5,900. In Calcutta,
India, considerable travelling is involved.


Robert Rogers: Are you giving the figures
for last year or the year before?


James Alexander Robb: They are the details of expenditures for 1924-25. I imagine there would not be much difference last year.


Robert Rogers: What have you for Mr. Ross, the agent at Melbourne?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Ross had travelling expenses to the amount of $2,970.88. In that connection I may say that was Mr. Ross's year to come home and travel through Canada, visiting the different exporters. I think he was also sent to England on a mission, and he travelled to the West Indies prior to our making a trade agreement with those islands. His rent and taxes amounted to $811.10; salaries $10,836.64; newspapers,$51,48; and sundries $792.19.


Robert Rogers: What about Mr. Ross of
Shanghai.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Ross of Shanghai is now
on the retired list. The new man is Mr. Cosgrove. My hon. friend can get after Mr. Ross of Shanghai as much as he likes.


Robert Rogers: I have nothing to say
about him; I do not know anything about the man. What results did you get from the expenditure in Shanghai?


James Alexander Robb: The trade in that country has
increased considerably. I am not prepared to say that it was altogether due to the efforts of Mr. Ross. In 1921 the exports of Canadian products to China amounted to $4,906570, and in 1924 to $12,998,248. In 1925 it dropped to $7,838,187. My hon. friend knows there has been some disturbance over there and some restrictions on British trade. I am told, however, that the trade has now increased and that for 1926 it will be more than double the amount mentioned.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister be
good enough to tell us what are the principal articles of trade?


James Alexander Robb: That we export from Canada? I have not that list before me. My hon. friend will get that information in the trade figures, but speaking from memory I recall that we export to China considerable quantities of flour, wheat, condensed milk, butter put up in tins, considerable lumber, and I think some fish.


Peter McGibbon: What I had in mind
was the proportion of increase for instance, in the case of flour which is one of our main commodities.


James Alexander Robb: I have not that information
before me, but I am told by some mills that they are running altogether on that business. The trade statistics show that our exports for China increased from twelve millions in 1924 to over twenty-four millions in 1926. This great increase is wholly due to exports of wheat, wheat-flour, silver bullion, and pig lead. We have no special information which would indicate that the trade commissioners have been responsible in any way for this large increase.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister be
good enough to tell us what particular grade of flour is used?


James Alexander Robb: I could not tell my hon.
friend that. I would imagine they are not yet buying the highest grades.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
doubt about one thing, and that is that the foreign trade of Canada has increased very much. I tell my hon. friend frankly that the tremendous increase we have had in our foreign sales is due to business which has been thrown at this country. I think my hon. friend will agree with that.


James Alexander Robb: I will agree with that.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is thrown at this country because other countries that formerly would have been competitors with Canada in the foreign market are not now in a condition to compete. Therefore, as my hon. friend agrees, there is a very large increase in our foreign trade due to business which has been absolutely thrown at us. Our foreign trade is large and we are becoming more and more dependent upon it. Not only are we becoming more and more dependent upon the foreign trade having regard to our agricultural products, but we are also becoming more dependent upon that trade with respect to our industrial efforts. I have in mind a factory-I would not mind giving my hon. friend the particulars of it if he desires- that is very busy, and has been very busy for the last two or three years, possibly one of the few factories in Canada in that happy position. That is because it is in the export business. But the ordinary output of that factory was 80 per cent domestic and 20 per cent export. I may say that in the United States, which produces so many goods similar to what we do, and whose methods of life are so similar to our own, when their exports exceed 8 to 9 per cent of the total production it spells bad times -because their best market being their home market, the higher price is easily got at. But when the condition is the one I have mentioned, it means that the purchasing power is falling .off, and they look upon it as an indication of bad times. We have always exported more than they have. We have never been able to absorb as much of our own production as they have, our purchasing power not being nearly as great as theirs. But in connection with this factory the normal was 80 per cent absorbed by the purchasing power at home and 20 per cent exported. To-day only 40 per cent of that production is sold at home and 60 per cent is exported, not because we have gone into the business but simply because the competition we formerly had is non-existent. The business has been thrown at us, and we have fortunately been able to get it.


Mr. YOUNG (Weybum):: Is the total business of that factory more than it formerly was?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It certainly is. The hon. member will see the percentages. It would have to be bigger, or else they would be doing nothing in Canada at all, and while the Canadian business has shrunk, the total output is greater.

Mr .ROBB: What goods are they manufacturing?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Rubber tires. The reason is perfectly plain; before that the continental rubber tires hacf that market. They are not now in a position to finance raw material, the cost of which represents a large proportion of the finished article; so that we are doing very well in that business, as the hon. minister knows. I would much rather the government would spend money in connection with this vote than in connection with sonje others. I am now referring particularly to what they spent in connection with the arrangements made for treaties. The only place where we have been crimped in our export business is where we make trade treaties. I will stick to that same firm and give an illustration. Before we had our treaty with France that same firm had an office in France and was selling a certain amount of tires in France. As a result of the treaty we have to-day the ministers go over to the continent and negotiate for us, but this firm have had to close their office in France and cannot sell any tires there. Therefore I am anxious that any further effort for trade should be made upon business principles rather than upon the line of trade treaties brought about by very amiable gentlemen who have not very much knowledge of trade or business. The effect of that treaty with France is not confined to tires, because the result of the treaty is that last year we cut in two our exports to France, which were ascending before the treaty was made, and she doubled her sales here. This business is becoming vital to this country, and therefore we have to do something to hold this business which was thrown at us, or which we got as an accident. I hope my hon. friend will give the close attention which he at one time gave to this particular service. I will tell him that the service lately has not been satisfactory. He had a interregnum in his office as Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think when he was in office he took a fatherly interest in this particular branch of the service, and was interested in it, and I know that he had some good men; I ran across some very good trade representatives outside. But it has not been as it might have been for the last few years, and I hope my hon. friend will take -a real keen interest in it.


James Alexander Robb: Replying to the observations of my hon. friend as to the trade with France, we must not lose sight of the fact that the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
purchasing power of France has been somewhat lessened, in so far as trading with Canada is concerned, on account of the depreciated value of the franc. I rise more particularly to point out some of the work that the trade commissioners are doing. I have a note here from Mr. Clarke, who was formerly the trade commissioner at Milan, and a very excellent officer. He has recently been promoted to be director of commercial intelligence. We had some considerable complaints in regard to our trade with Spain. Our Canadian trade was at a disadvantage in Spain; some of our Canadian banks which had connections there were at a disadvantage, and Mr. Clarke was sent to Spain and negotiated an arrangement with that country whereby we were temporarily given the second column in the Spanish tariff. That would come in under a treaty which Great Britain had, in which the dominions were entitled to participate.


An hon. MEMBER:: What year was that?


James Alexander Robb: That was in 1925. As a result, the Canadian exports to Spain have been increased from $110,136 in the eleven months [DOT] ending February, 1925, to $771,377 in the corresponding period of the fiscal year, and the trade is growing. In the matter of flour, the Canadian trade has been practically shut out of the market in Greece. They had enacted some economical restrictions which applied to flour imported into that country. Mr. Clarke was sent down there in August, 1925, and succeeded in inducing the Greek government to remove the restrictions on patent flour, and during January, 1926, the restrictions on other grades of flour were removed entirely, and that was a very great advantage to Canadian trade.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member was dealing with Spain a moment ago. How is it that the trade returns in agricultural and vegetable products show that our exports to Spain, which in 1921 were $339,900, had decreased to $177,000 in 1925?


James Alexander Robb: Because of those disadvantages we suffered under the revised tariff rates of Spain. Mr. Clarke went over there and placed us in a better position, and the trade has since been increasing. We are now negotiating with Spain to place Canadian exports on a more favourable basis-to get them on the same basis as the United States.


Donald Sutherland: The effect of these treaties and arrangements is, so far as agricultural products are concerned, that we suffer in every instance. Why is it? How does it come that these trade arrangements reflect adversely on agriculture? In this particular case the decrease in agricultural exports to Spain is practically shutting us out.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member quoted a decrease from 1921 to 1925, and I have just explained to him that in 1922 or 1923 Spain made some readjustments of tariff that practically closed our business in that
10 p.m. country. It was for that purpose that Mr. Clarke was sent there to have it placed on a more favourable basis, and the business is now improving. In regard to agricultural products, my hon. friend is quite mistaken. While I have no figures, I notice here that Mr. Harrison Watson had succeeded in getting into Great Britain the following articles:
Spelter.
Filing cabinets.
Birch veneer.
Handles.
Railway sleepers.
Box shocks.
Wall paper.
Cobalt nickel ore.
Alfalfa meal.
Alfalfa hay.
Boxes.
Malleable fittings.
As a result of the work in the Liverpool office, this direct business was obtained, and it was the means of obtaining other business. The details of results in the Liverpool office show trade in these commodities:	apples,
gloves, potatoes, alfalfa meal, handles, hay, flooring, talc. In the Bristol office: sugar, rubber footwear, concentrated apple juice, tobacco, pianos arid parts, newsprint, potatoes, fruit punnets, broom handle squares, alfalfa meal, box shooks, lumber, broom handles, steel tubes, hand shoe tacks. In the Glasgow office: flax, rubber footwear, flour, eggs, handles, canned goods, cheese, casdara bark, calico rollers, silos.


Robert Rogers: Perhaps the minister would explain the expenditures incident to Mr. C. N. Wilde, of Mexico City, which last year amounted to $10,000.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Wilde's salary is $3,540, and his living allowance $2,000.


Robert Rogers: What is the expenditure this year?


James Alexander Robb: It comprises:
Travelling	
$	124 75Rentals and taxes	
2,088	46Salaries including staff	
7,313	44Newspapers and periodicals	
23	50Sundries	
794	95Total	
$10,345 10
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Robert Rogers: What benefit is derived from the agency there?


James Alexander Robb: The Mexican trade over the past few years has been:
1921		$1,088,197
1922		 1,197,597
1923		 3,291,096
1924		 3,510,397
1925		 2,856,409


Donald Sutherland: The trade returns show that in 1921 our exports of agricultural and vegetable products to China amounted to $58,895 and by the year 1925 they had increased to $4,103,000. This is a very substantial increase in tradte with a country with whom we have no trade agreement. Now let us look at the trade with some of the other places that have entered into trade treaties with Canada. For example, our exports of agricultural commodities to Italy in 1921 amounted to $56,579,751, whereas last year, after the treaty had come into effect, it dropped right down to $11,200,000. Surely the minister cannot contend that a trade treaty of that kind is in the interests of this country. What a contrast there is between that slump in trade with Italy and the increase in our business with China, with whom we have no treaty. Again, our exports of similar commodities to France amounted in 1921 to $12,871,679 and last year they had fallen to $4,175,000. These are the facts that we pointed out when the treaties were being put through the House, and we have striking evidence that so far as agriculture is concerned these treaties in every instance have proved disastrous to Canada. That is why we devoted so much attention to the recent trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand. Agriculture has been sacrificed by this government in the case of every treaty they have entered into with a foreign country.


Mr. TOLMIE:: 
James Alexander Robb: I cannot quote any statistics, but I agree with the hon. gentleman as to the quality and quantity of Canadian timber available. It will interest hon. members from British Columbia and elsewhere to know that when the Wembley buildings were under construction the Canadian High Commissioner in London made very strong representations to the committe in charge, even carrying his appeal to members of the British government, to have Canadian timber used in the work. He pointed out that the exhibition had been advertised as an * inter-timperial affair and he discovered that they were starting construction with Scandinavian and other materials. I am glad to say that Mr. Larkin was successful in having a change made in the plans so that our own timber was used. I myself saw at Wembley beautiful exhibits of British Columbia timber in doors and panels. I also came across some excellent exhibits of Australian hardwoods. While I am not advertising Australian timber I am bound to say that Canadians make n, mistake if they run away with the idea that we in this country produce the best hardwood in the world. There is very good hardwood in Australia as well. They are short of the softer woods, for which they have to look to the Washington territory, but more particularly to Canada, to meet their requirements for the shipping of fruit.


Robert Rogers: Was Australian timber
used in our building at Wembley?


James Alexander Robb: No, they had an exhibition building too. The hardwoods of Australia are not suitable for shipping fruit. It carries better apparently in our softer woods, and I think we could develop a very profitable exchange of timber with that country. They say the Australia wood is not so susceptible to the teredos as our own timber. I think some of their wood is used in British Columbia on that account.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Robert Rogers: Has the minister at hand the total cost of our exhibit?


James Alexander Robb: That will come in the estimates of the Immigration department.


Murray MacLaren: How many trade agents are there in the West Indies?


James Alexander Robb: We have Mr. P. W. Cook at Jamaica and Mr. J. Cormack at Trinidad. They travel about the islands.


Murray MacLaren: Have we any trade agent in Havana, Cuba?


James Alexander Robb: Not permanently. We send men there occasionally to look into trade matters. We have under consideration the appointment of a resident agent.


Murray MacLaren: There is a general impression abroad that we have an insufficient number of trade agents in the West Indies, including Cuba, especially as the trade agreement with the West Indies will no doubt lead to a considerable increase of trade. Am I correct in thinking that the minister is considering making an increase in the number of trade agents?


James Alexander Robb: We are always training them. As I said a moment ago, representations have been made to us to appoint more trade agents. Of course, we can only appoint them as we have a supply of trained men. Regarding Cuba, as my hon. friend knows, in that market there is a 20 per cent preference against Canada in favour of the United States. It is a market of considerable value, particularly for products of the Maritimes, such as potatoes and fish. A considerable trade could be developed down there.


Mr. FLEMMING:: I would impress upon the minister the importance of encouraging our trade with Cuba. There is a large and valuable trade at the present time between the Maritime provinces and that country. In talking with men who are familiar with the trade possibilities, I have always been impressed with their view that a real, well directed effort would bring substantial results. Our present trade has incidentally made it easier, it seems to me, to develop trade in other lines, and I think it is highly desirable that every effort should be made to this end not only in Cuba but in the British West Indies. It seems to me the trade between ourselves and the people down there should be most valuable because naturally we are producing what they require, and they are producing what we require. Therefore I view with a great deal of favour the treaty with the British West Indies, and I hope it will 14011-301
result in substantially increasing our trade. From the knowledge I secured several years back, I believe that efforts to increase our trade with Cuba will bring splendid results.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What is the trade name of Douglas fir as sold in the Old Country? 13 it not sold there as Oregon pine?


James Alexander Robb: I recall Mr. Larkin told us he did not think the British people were giving our timber proper credit.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think every possible effort should be made to induce our British friends to buy from us. I remember in the early years of the war some 53 or 54 shiploads of timber left the Pacific coast consigned to points in Great Britain, and 50 of those cargoes left United States ports, although we had plenty of timber in British Columbia to fill the Old Country demand.


Robert Rogers: Have we any agents in
Copenhagen and Hamburg?


James Alexander Robb: We have a very good agent at Hamburg, Mr. L. D. Wilgress. He speaks German and Russian, and travels all through that part of Europe.


Mr. ESLING:: Mr. Chairman, I have a
letter bearing on this vote which I think will interest both the minister and the committee. Either some of these trade commissioners are very, very busy or else there are not enough of them, judging by what I am about to bring to the attention of hon. members. An industry was established in Nelson for the manufacture of clothes pegs, and while not operating on a very large scale, its output for one year amounted to $25,000. Established in 1922, it prospered to such an extent that in 1023 new machinery was installed, but just as they were getting under way the market was flooded with a similar product from Sweden, and they were obliged to shut down. A similar situation occurred in connection with a clothespin factory established in a small community in Quebec. The matter was brought to the attention of the department and has been under investigation apparently since 1922, with a view to ascertain if the Swedish article was being sold on the Canadian market at a lower price than in Sweden. As nothing resulted we appealed to the department again, and were advised that there was some difficulty in having an investigation made in Sweden by a Canadian trade commissioner, and that a representative in Rotterdam would have to be absent from his post for at least a week in order to make this investigation. I wonder how close to Sweden we have a trade commissioner. Here is an industry closed for a couple of years, the local men have practically lost their investment, the



Supply-Trade and Commerce
payroll has ceased, and yet our trade commissioner cannot go there to investigate conditions because it would take him a whole week. In other words, for the sake of saving a week's work on the part of this man a promising industry is obliged to close down, and its employees lose their jobs. They could not get this investigator to go; then they tried to have a speoial investigator go from England, and it was impossible for him to make the trip. Then the appointment of an investigator with headquarters at Paris was considered, but that apparently has not been done and then we get down to June, when the department finally decided that it was almost impossible to arrange to have one of the officers in Denmark or Germany make this investigation in Sweden. It seems most regrettable that an industry has to cease and a payroll vanish because an investigator cannot take a week to ascertain the conditions. I ask the minister if he will not endeavour to remedy this state of affairs.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend must be quoting from the records of some other department; we have no record of that kind in my department. I recall this question of clothes pins being brought up by a manufacturer in Quebec; we looked up the matter and discovered that the importation of clothes pins wTas practically nil. Then the complaint was altered, and it was said that while the importations were very small the Canadian manufacturers were compelled to reduce the price because of competition from these foreign countries. I do think they met with some competition and reduced their price in consequence, but I forget whether the competition came from Sweden or Norway.


William Kemble Esling: It seems as though the government has abandoned the idea now.


James Alexander Robb: I will have it looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade and Commerce-Dominion Bureau of Statistics (including 1925 census), $625,000.
Robert Rogers: This is an increase of $500,000; I suppose that is due to the census?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, the five year census in the prairie provinces.


Robert Rogers: Will the minister say when the census enumerators were appointed?


James Alexander Robb: I think they must have been appointed some time ago, because I believe the work is over. I remember signing the order a long time ago.


Robert Rogers: You have no information there?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Robert Rogers: Have you the names of the enumerators?


James Alexander Robb: I have not got them here.


Robert Rogers: How were they appointed?


James Alexander Robb: In the same way they were appointed in previous years, I think; on the recommendation of some person in that county who knew conditions. The identical method followed by . my hon. friends was adopted in this case.


Robert Rogers: I think my hon. friend is all wrong, because I understand that in the appointment of these census enumerators certain Progressive members were honoured with the selection of the enumerators, while certain others were not so honoured. That never happened in the Conservative regime. I think my hon. friend is doing us a great injustice in making that statement, and some explanation should be forthcoming.


James Alexander Robb: I have none to make.


George Brecken Nicholson: When this question was up before I raised the point of co-ordination of the different statistical branches of the service, and I understood that the minister was going to have the matter looked into and see what could be accomplished along that line. I would like to ask him if anything has so far been done.


James Alexander Robb: Yes. I was a bit surprised
myself to find that there was a little overlapping in that regard, and I think the officers are now working towards the elimination of duplication. I believe that was what my hon. friend was complaining of.


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes. Since the matter was discussed at that time I have personally investigated a specific class of statistics, and I find that they are duplicated in toto; the statistics furnished to the Statistical branch are in the regular form, while the statistics furnished the Income Tax branch are almost identical in relation to such matters as salaries paid the employees of a manufacturing establishment and all that sort of thing.


James Alexander Robb: The Income Tax branch?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, the Income Tax branch. They receive statistics which are practically identical with those sent to the Statistical branch having to do with the census of industries. This involves a tremendous amount of work in connection with the industry and it must necessarily involve a lot of work in connection with the two branches, because the compilation of these records cannot be done without some considerable expense. While the analogy is not so complete in the Department of Labour, a tremendous amount of work is done in connection with the statistics for the Department

Supply-Trade and Commerce
of Labour which is also done in connection with the Statistical branch, and my suggestion is that this work should all be co-ordinated in the Statistical branch, or in one particular branch at any rate. I do not know of any branch which can handle the work better; the information we get from this branch is very satisfactory. Then any department requiring information of that character could get it from the statistician. I can assure my hon. friend that it will mean a tremendous saving.


James Alexander Robb: I quite agree.


John Arthur Clark: I wonder if the minister
can tell us the change in the amount of the subsidies paid to the western provinces as a result of that census?


James Alexander Robb: We have not that information yet. As my hon. friend knows, they are based on the population altogether, under the act.


Robert Rogers: The return is not complete as yet?


James Alexander Robb: No.	'


Robert Rogers: Would the minister let us
know if it cost $500,000 to conduct the last census?


James Alexander Robb: The 1921 census of the prairie provinces cost $415,000, and we added 15 per cent for the additional population this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course there was a little more work done in 1921.


Robert Rogers: Was that increase of 15
per cent due in any way to the fact that the Progressives had the patronage?


James Alexander Robb: I would not think so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade and Commerce-Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, administration of (export of electrical energy) $1,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I take it that
this item is put in as a result of the order in council passed last year?


James Alexander Robb: I think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Last year we
had an experiment in connection with budgeting; we rasied public revenues not by resolution of this House in the ordinary way but by order in council, and it is due to that order in council that this $1,000 is in the estimates. This $1,000 is to collect the tax on the horse power which is being exported. It iS not a heavy tax; it is a small tax, though it works very hardly against the municipalities that had contracts which have to run for many years. I would like to know what the collections have been under that, what representations have been made to the government in connection with that tax and its legality by the municipalities and the provinces.


James Alexander Robb: I do not know that that has
been questioned, but my hon. friend is quite right as to why the amount was put in. I observe that it was put in here in view of the discussion which took place last session. The expenditure up to March 31, 1926, has been $424.18; license fees, $600; export duty, $288,392.41.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Bow much of
that latter amount has been paid, and by whom?


James Alexander Robb: Payments have been made as follows:
		License	Export Duty to-
Kilowatts:	Fees:	March 31/26Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario.. Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario,	80,000	$50 '	$ 65,272 47(off-peak ot interruptible power)	45,000	50	Canadian Niagara Power Company, Niagara Falls, Ontario	
Canadian Niagara Power Company, Niagara Falls, Ontario,	45,000	50	$ 92,408 66(Power returnable on demand)	r	
Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Co., St. Joseph de Sou-	20,000	50	langes, Quebec	75,000	50	106,870 26International Railway Company, Niagara Falls, Ontario	200	25	The Ontario and Minnesota Power Co., Fort Frances, Ontario.. ..	3,000	50	4.820 79Maine and New Brunswick Electric Power Co. Ltd., Andover. N.B. West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Rossland, British	2,500	25	2,012 38Columbia	1.500	50	185 64Western Power Company of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia.	10,000	50	16,391 01British Columbia Electric Railway Co., Vancouver, British Columbia	5,000	50	201 75Sherbrooke Railway and Power Company, Sherbrooke, Quebec.. La Compagnie d'Eclairage de Napierville, Limitee, Napierville,	100	25	38 16Quebec	500	25	30 88International Electric Companv, Ltd., Stewart, British Columbia..	25	25	31 78Maritime Electric Company, St. 'Stephen, New Brunswick	200	25 $600	128 63 $288,392 41
4746
Supply-Trade and Commerce

Some representations have been made to us, I might say in reply to my hon. friend. There was a question as to whether we had a right to charge an export duty on certain contracts that were made prior to the Export Act becoming law many years ago. We did not want to go into the courts with the case, and I have recently instructed the deputy not to press for payment on account of those contracts. They were contracts made prior to this becoming law.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Old contracts
of the Hydro Electric Company.


James Alexander Robb: One, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was the
contract they fell heir to as the subsequent purchasers of the Ontario Power Company.


James Alexander Robb: I think that is right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very glad to hear the minister's explanation. J


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Honorary Advisory Council for scientific and industrial research, $150,000.
Robert Rogers: Who are the officers of
this council?


James Alexander Robb: I think there has been no
change for some years. The officers are as follows:	President, H. M. Tory, president
University of Alberta; secretary, S. P. Eagle-sop, Ottawa. The members are: Frank D Adams, McGill University; Charles Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines; A. L. Clark, Queen's University, Kingston; Hume Cronyn, London; A. Frigon, Dean, Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal; Sir George Garneau, Quebec; J. H. Grisdale, Deputy Minister of Agriculture; A. B. Macallum, McGill University; A. S. Mackenzie, Dalhousie University; J. M. McArthur, of Price Brothers, Quebec; J. C. McLennan, Toronto University; J. A. McClelland, Montreal, vice-president of International Association of Machinists; W. C. TMurray, Saskatchewan University; R. F. iRuttan, McGill University.


Robert Rogers: Would the minister tell
us what services they are rendering for this amount of money?


Peter McGibbon: While the minister is
looking up the information I think this is an appropriate time to ask the government to give us some survey of the work of this organization. To my mind it is potentially one of the greatest organizations that could be created in this country, especially when we think of what has been accomplished in the United .813168 by such scientific institutions as the Mellon Institute, for example, or the

Bureau of Standards at Washington. With our vast natural resources, the possibilities of a scientific organization of this character are unlimited, as they are also in the way of industrial research. I think this body is the finest we can produce in the way of an organization in this country. We should have from the government some account of what they have accomplished. I would also ask why the late president of the council is not in office to-day.


James Alexander Robb: Who is that?


Peter McGibbon: Professor A. B. Macallum.


James Alexander Robb: I have just read the names
of the council, and Doctor Macallum is on the board. My hon. friend was not listening.


Peter McGibbon: I was listening. Doctor
Macallum was head of the council before, but to-day he is practically a nonentity on the board. He was the directing force for a good many years. He is the most eminent scientific man that this country has ever produced. He has held professorships in two universities in Canada, and has refused the presidency of five universities; he has a world-wide reputation and is looked upon as one of the greatest of living scientists. He has been honoured by the Royal College of Great Britain and yet has been relegated today to the practically unimportant position of a member of this council. However, that is of secondary importance. The main thing is that the possibilities of this body practically cannot be recounted. Therefore I ask the minister what the government has been doing and what they propose to do in order to facilitate the council's work.


James Alexander Robb: I shall direct the observations of my hon. friend to the attention of the board. The government have nothing whatever to do with the naming of the chairman of the board. The government have never interfered with the personnel of the board; I think the membership is practically the same as when we assumed office, with the exception of certain gentlemen whose appointment was unanimously desired by the board itself. The members themselves select their president; I do not know why Dr. Macallum was not appointed president. I do not know whether my hon. friend is speaking for Dr. Macallum-


Peter McGibbon: No, I am not.


James Alexander Robb: -or simply expressing his own point of view. The hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) asked a moment ago what the board were doing. I

Supply-Trade and Commerce
observe there is an increase of $15,000 in this vote. I think they have asked for more, and I am not sure that we shall not have to provide more for the work they are carrying on; they are certainly doing very excellent work.
The increase	in	this vote	is	required toenable the council	to carry	out a definiteprogramme for research on both the human and bovine phases of tuberculosis. All existing agencies in Canada, including the federal departments of Agriculture and Health, university and sanataria laboratories have been enlisted in this work, which will insure co-ordinated and concentrated attack on the problems of this disease. This work, which has been definitely organized, calls for an expenditure	on	the part	of	the councilduring the year 1926-27 of $33,000, in addition to considerable	sums which	are	being contributed by co-operating laboratories. It is impossible for the council to provide for this work without an increased vote. I was looking for one of the hon. members for Hamilton, who wanted to speak on this question, but I observe he is not in the House at present. At this point may I be permitted to give credit for what it has done to one of the great insurance organizations of Canada, as the chairman of the council sends me the following letter:
Hon. James A. Robb,
Acting Chairman,
Sub-committee of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Robb :
In view of the fact that the estimates of the National Research Council tlnis year contain provision for an increased vote of $15,000, which is necessitated mainly by the work recently undertaken in connection with tuberculosis research in Canada, you will be interested to know that, in connection with this research, I have just received official confirmation from the Sun Life Assurance Company (that they have granted to this council for the extension of this research the sum of $10,000 per year for a period of from three ito five years, depending on the period of the investigation. Since the National Research Council estimates are to be considered in the near future, I have not made public announcement of this, thinking that you might wish to make /the announcement regarding it at the time when the estimates are being considered.
Yours truly,
H. M. Tory,
President.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Chairman-


James Alexander Robb: Permit me to finish the review of what the council are doing. The National Research Council is charged with the functions and duties detailed in sections 6 to 10 of the Research Council Act. I think it was Sir George Foster, the then minister, who introduced that legislation. Now, let me outline some of the work the council has been doing. For instance, take the following:
Cereal Grain Rust
It ihas been estimated tha/t Canada suffers an average annual loss of not less than $25,000,000 through cereal grain rust. No important effort was made in Canada to solve this appalling economic problem until the National Research Council, acting in close cooperation with the federal Department of Agriculture, enlisted the co-operation of the universities situated in the three prairie provinces in the organization of a co-ordinated and concentrated attack on the many problems of this disease.
An associate committee on cereal grain rust, on which each of the above bodies is represented, has been appointed by the council and (through this committee, the membership of which comprises the foremost grain rust experts an Canada, a definite programme of researches on cereal grain rust to be carried out in Canada has been established. The committee has also been charged with th rsponsulbility of putting that programme into effective operation and with the wholehearted co-operation of the Federal Department of Agriculture and the universities of the prairie provinces, has, during the past year, been actively engaged in the actual prosecution of a comprehensive and thoroughly co-ordinated programme of researches on grain rust. This work is ibeing carried on in the three prairie provinces and all facilities available in these provinces as to man power and equipment, are being utilized to the fullest possible extent.
Tuberculosis
Apart altogether from the untold suffering and misery directly attributable to the ravages of tuberculosis among humans, there is each year an appalling economic loss arising from the illness of those suffering from this disease and through the premature death of thousands of the most desirable type of citizens. In adidtion to this, it is obvious that bovine and avian tuberculosis are responsible for an enormous annual loss in the live stock and dairy industries.
Recognizing the importance of this problem, the National Research Council enlisted the co-operation of the federal Department of Agriculture in a plan for the co-ordination and stimulation of research work in Canada on this subject.
An associate committee on tuberculosis research has been appointed by the Council, representative of all the principal agencies now carrying on research work on this disease throughout Canada, and an executive committee comprised of the most eminent authorities in Canada on tuberculosis has been appointed to take charge of all work which the committee may decide it is advisable to undertake. A detailed programme of tuberculosis researches .to be carried out in Canada has: been established by the committee and arrangements: have been made for the active and effective prosecution of chat programme.
At the present time researches are being carried out by groups of workers centered at .the University of Montreal, at the University of Toronto, at the University of Alberta, and at the* research station of the federal Department of Agriculture, Hull, Que. Certain phases of the research programme are also being investigated at Queen's University, and at Queen Alexandra and Fort Qu'Appelle sanatoria.
The council have made a study of the discolouration of canned lobster. They have also conducted a research on rook crushing.
4748	^	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce .
For the 'benefit of hon. gentlemen who are interested in mining, I will read what they say as to that:
The outcome of an investigation on the above subject, carried out by <the National Research Council in the department of Mining Engineering of the University of Toronto, was of such value to the mining industry that as a result the Hollinger Mining Company gave a fellowship of $1,200 to assist in continu-. ing this work and the Nipissing Mining Company donated the sum of $20,000 for the founding of a permanent fellowship for research work in the department of Mining Engineering at the University of Toronto.
The council have investigated the subjects reforestation, engineering standardization, and Canadian magnesite. As to the last lamed matter they say:
The Canadian magnesite industry was developed chiefly during the war, but on the cessation of hostilities the renewed competition of Austrian magnesite almost destroyed Canadian export trade in this commodity. As a result the producing companies in Canada asked for assistance in solving various technical problems of their industry. This question was referred to the National Research Council. On investigation . of the question and after consultation with the Mines department, the council recommended that research work on this subject siho-uld be undertaken. This recommendation was accepted and the council immediately appointed a special committee representative of both the council and the federal Department of Mines and assigned to this committee the duty of discovering, if possible, more economical methods of producing magnesite from the Canadian deposits and of developing new uses for ,tbe material. This work was begun in the summer of 1925 and is now being actively prosecuted with satisfactory results.
Other subjects dealt with are the following:	Wireworms, winter hardiness in crop
plants, radio inductive interference, bacteriology of haddock, red discolouration of cured codfish, chemistry of fish-curing, saving domestic fuel, briquetting of low-grade lignites, increasing nitrogen in the soil, acidity and lime requirements studies upon Quebec soils, the origin and control of false wild oats, best methods for obtaining aeurate results in testing the yield of varieties and strains of grain, cultivation of drug-yielding plants in British Columbia, destruction of marine piling by wood-boring animals, utilization of Canadian low grade iron ores, disintegration of concrete in the alkali soils of western Canada, reduction of complex ores of British Columbia, disintegration of iron and steel in alkaline soils, the senses of vision, touch and' taste, researches in the field of low temperatures, and a number of additional investigations.


Peter McGibbon: I do not wish the hon.
minister to think I am "critizing this item, except in this respect: that the $150,000 in the estimates for a project of this kind is nothing at all. For example, in the United States we have the Mellon institute, which is expending 
about $2,000,000 a year in this work. We have the Dupont institute expending about another $2 000.000, the Kodak company and the Rockefeller Company all spending millions, so that $150,000 for this project is practically a bagatelle.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Hear, hear.


Peter McGibbon: The Minister of Interior says, "hear, hear" in a sarcastic jocular way.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I am
really in earnest.
'Mr. McGIBBON:	I am glad to hear it.
This institution if properly manned has a potential value of hundreds of millions to the country. I could cite a company in the United States which saved over $500,000 in one year in one discovery for making yeast for baking bread. WTe know that the success of companies like the [Kodak company and the Dupont company are due to the fact that they have scientific laboratories which have made discoveries which put them in the forefront and ahead of every other competitor. We know that the government of Canada has no equipped laboratory and no place in Ottawa, or any place else in the Dominion, to carry out this work. I am not blaming the government for that. I sat on a committee for three years which gathered evidence on this subject. We brought men from all over the continent of America. We got through this House an appropriation of about $600,000 to erect a building, which appropriation was kicked out in the home for incurables.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Peter McGibbon: I am speaking in earnest. Mr. Chairman. This Scientific and Industrial Research council, if it has efficient men and proper facilities, offers possibilities to this country that no other organization or institution in this country can possibly offer. For example, I carried a problem to them some years ago for solution. That is what this institution is for, and that is what the Mellon Institute does in the United States. If a business man has a problem in connection with his business that he cannot solve he takes it to the institute. Maybe they solve it and maybe they do not, but in many cases they do.
I submitted two or three proposals to the council myself. One was the possibility of extracting the tanning powers from tanbark which is located, as many hon. members know ten, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty miles back from the railway, where it is a commercial impossibility to bring it out; yet the properties are of great value to the country. Then

Supply-Trade and Commerce
there is the possibility of converting hides into leather. It takes about six months with the present process, and it is quite possible that it could be done in two or three weeks or a month; and just consider what a saving that would be to the country. I have made the statement in this House, and I repeat it to-night, that Canada is living off the commercial brains of the American republic to the south. Any manufacturer will tell you that. In this country we are working secondhand, so to speak. We are living off the scientific brains of the American republic, and they are far ahead of us in industrial works.
I am not blaming this government; the previous government which I supported was just as bad.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is awful, that is terrible.


Peter McGibbon: Well, I will take it back. Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Peter McGibbon: The government of which my hon. friend was a member passed a vote of $600,000 through this House; it was kicked out in the other chamber and never restored. No properly equipped laboratory for this class of work exists in Canada. This proposition offers the greatest .possibilities to this country. All you have to do, Mr. Chairman, is to read the evidence which we obtained in committee of this House for three years in succession. showing how institutions in the United States and other organizations had profited by the tens and1 hundreds of thousands of dollars through scientific discoveries made by institutions of this kind. For instance we know that the government of the United States buy all their material for government contracts on .the .recommendation of the Bureau of Standards at Washington. And why? Simply because they give a report on a scientific basis, after analyzing the product. That report is the .basis on which all purchases are made by the United States government.


Robert James Manion: How does this government do?


Peter McGibbon: I do not know. I ask the minister to take this seriously into consideration. He has admitted that two companies have volunteered to give him $50,000 towards it. I do not say they should not. I think they should. I think other industrial corporations should do more, but the fact is that the Dominion of Canada to-day has no proper organization to devolop this scientific industrial council. In a country like Canada, with
our vast natural resources, our coal, our pulp-wood and timber, land all the other problems that are confronting this country, it is up to the government, whatever party is in power, to give an organization such as .this proper support in order that commercial organizations and1 corporations in this country may be afforded- the proper facilities to put Canada at least on a par with other countries of _ the world. This remark has reference to agriculture as well, everything is included. We know -and the Minister of Agriculture will -confirm it-that- one reason why the American republic to-day can pay higher wages than any other country is that the production per man per day in the United States is not equalled anywhere else. They have that value largely on account of the scientific 11 p.m. methods which have been developed, .and I submit that an appropriation of $150,000 for this organization in Canada is absurd. We have not facilities here for educating brilliant scientific graduates of universities, 'in order that we may take hold of the subject and develop it. Until we have these institutions this country will lag behind other countries which possess these facilities. The minister has told us about the appropriation for the study of tuberculosis, -but I do not see why that should be brought up now. This is an industrial organization. The other appropriation comes under the Department of Health, and when we come to that department I am going to say something about the dry bones in that organization. It has been sterile ever since its birth; in fact, it may be said to be stillborn. This is a scientific age, and neither the professional man nor the corporation nor the country that neglects scientific methods can keep up with competitors. This work costs money and we cannot expect individual firms to undertake it. As a matter of fact -it is impossible in many cases, just as it is impossible for individuals to discover cures in medicine. True, this has been done, as for instance in the case of Doctor Banting. But experimentation is expensive and should not be left to the enterprise of individuals or of corporations. It is the duty of the government in the interests of the country to pay more attention to scientific research. I go so far as to say that the only salvation for Canada, with her tremendous national debt and the other problems she has to cope with, is to be found in new and improved scientific methods which will enable her to compete with the rest of the world and get ahead of her competitors. If not this country will surely fall behind. I am not speaking in any partisan

Supply-Trade and Commerce
spirit to-night. In my opinion the Senate is responsible for the present condition of the organization, and I urge the minister in the interests of the country to get his government to take hold of this matter in earnest. Give our manufacturers and our business men the necessary leadership by providing proper facilities in Ottawa or anywhere else as may be deemed best, so that our problems may be scientifically investigated. I am quite serious about this 'because I have not the slightest doubt that if we do not engage in an intensive programme of scientific research we shall not be able to hold our own.


James Alexander Robb: As Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce I appreciate the remarks of the hon. gentleman, and my only fear is that the persuasive eloquence of the hon. gentleman is going to cause my colleague, the Minister of Finance, some trouble.


Mr. CANTLEY:: If I mistake not, the
council arose out of work undertaken in the first place by the Munition Resources Commission of Canada, appointed towards the close of 1915 for the purpose of inquiring into the supply and sufficiency of raw materials in Canada required for the production of munitions of war. Among the subjects which the commission investigated was that of a supply of magnesite, referred to by the minister. Prior to that time we had had, so far as was then generally known in Canada, no refractory' material suitable for use 'as open hearth furnace linings. That subject was thoroughly investigated and solved. Other matters taken UP were the supply of molybdenum, tungsten, and bauxite. These matters were brought to a successful conclusion and at the close of the war, when the commission disbanded, one of the suggestions then made had reference to the formation of such an institution as this council.
One of the difficulties in connection with a matter of this kind is, in the first place, lack of money; and in the second place, in this particular instance, we made the mistake of vetoing a proposal for the erection of a building in this city or elsewhere, which would be devoted entirely to scientific research generally and particularly to analytical work.
A million dollars could very well be spent on such a building and its equipment, and if we are to keep pace with our neighbours to the south it is absolutely necessary for us to go into this thing wholeheartedly. In the United States there are dozens, nay, scores of large corporations which spend sums of money ranging from half a million to two million dollars annually in scientific research and they incur this expenditure in the belief that they will get satisfactory returns. That belief is 
justified; they do get returns. We have in this country few corporations who have the like requisite facilities. Our manufactories are not so extensive, nor have they the capacity or capital. The result is that as manufacturers, both individually and collectively as a nation, we are falling behind the United States and other countries as well. Consider what Germany has been doing during the past quarter of a century. In chemical research she led the world and although that is not quite true to-day the fact remains that had it not been for her scientific research work Germany would not have been able to put up the fight which she did, and upon her scientific policy and achievement was founded to a large extent the German philosophy and hope of world domination.
_ We must make serious efforts along scientific lines if we hope to keep abreast of the times. The trouble I see with the present organization is the fact that, we have such a 'large number of professors engaged in the work. I do not find fault for a moment with the fact in itself that so many professors as such are on the council, but they have to devote their energies largely if not exclusively to their professional work in the colleges to which they are attached, so that they are able to give only secondary and fragmentary consideration and effort and but a very general oversight to the work of the council, meeting as they do three or four times a year, the addition of some practical men would help. What is needed is a permanent organization headed by the best man available, with several departments dealing with the various branches of trade and industry. I do not think we should bring health research within the orbit of such an institution. This should be a matter of industrial and agricultural investigation exclusively. I do not say anything against the need for investigation along the lines of health and sanitation, but that is entirely a different department, and the two branches of research should not be merged, for they have little in common. Unless this country is prepared to take a broad view and have the courage to spend money we shall make but little or no progress. We have voted $3,000,000 for the Hudson Bay railway. Give us $3,000,000 for industrial scientific research and within three years results of far reaching importance will ensue.


Charles A. Stewart: I could not allow this opportunity to pass without saying a word or two in connection with this matter, because I want to endorse heartily everything that has been said by both my hon. friends opposite. This is something which unquestion-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
nbly must be taken up earnestly. In the department of Mines and allied branches, in seventeen small disjointed buildings in the city, research work is going on under the direction of men who are doing the best they can under the circumstances. But this is not enough. Let me say however, in defence of the research council, that they are working along lines which in my opinion will ultimately bring results if only we give them the backing they require. They are making use of the universities of Canada and are trying to correlate the work. The investigations that are in progress in Ontario and elsewhere are certainly laudable and are laying the foundations for what I hope will be something substantial in the future. I most cordially support the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite that we should select a piece of ground in Ottawa and begin the construction of buildings which will be fit to house the men engaged in scientific research. We only need to point to one investigation to show the incalculable benefit of systematic, scientific research: I refer to the discovery under the Department of Agriculture of Marquis wheat. Who can estimate what it has meant to the people of Canada to have produced this new wheat which to-day is grown so extensively in the west? That is only one thing. To-day research is going on in connection with the rust evil, and if it is successful it will result in a saving to the farmers of the west and to the people generally of at least forty or fifty million dollars annually. Once more I voice my support, in the strongest possible terms, of the suggestion to construct buildings in Ottawa to provide facilities for thorough scientific research and to make this the centre from which wiill radiate all subsidiary activity. I do think the universities entering into this field will have a beneficial effect upon the student body, and although they are costing us a larger amount of money, we will get the benefit of the investment in the ultimate advantage that will accrue to the people of Canada.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse what has been said and go a step further. During the five sessions I sat in this parliament every session we had a discussion somewhat similar to this, but we are now just where we were then, simply because no positive step has been taken. If the minister will include in the supplementary estimates a vote necessary to do all that can be done this year to provide at least a building, which is the first requisite in connection with this work, I am confident the
House will support him. By virtue of the manner in which the money is being spent, we are not getting $150,000 worth of results. The research council is scattered all over the country, and it is impossible for its members to get together except at very infrequent intervals. My hon. friend refers to what is being done by the universities, but these are teaching institutions, and we should not mix up research work with the teaching of science, for example. I happen to know a young man who has been endeavouring to do some research work in one of our universities. He got a small grant from the research council, but it was so inadequate that he had to appeal to private individuals to pay the transportation costs on the materials he required. We ought to make a positive beginning which will ultimately grow into a research institute right here in charge of the best man we can secure for the job. It will be found that most of the men who are doing the best research work in the large institutions of the United States graduated from our own universities, but had no opportlunities to do such work here. During the war we were mining ores in northern Ontario that contained 27 per cent sulphur solely for the purpose of getting the sulphuric content. At the same time a few miles away we were transporting other ores to roasting beds, although they had just the same amount of sulphur, but we had no other means of extracting the baser metals.


Robert Rogers: I am almost converted to the view that the research council has some value. What remuneration does its members receive?


James Alexander Robb: They got only their travelling expenses.


Robert Rogers: It is now getting late, does not the minister think we ought to adjourn?


James Alexander Robb: There are only a few more items to be dealt with.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, as a
representative of the agricultural industry, I can assure the minister that we will be very glad indeed to see a very substantal item in the estimates for research work so far as it affects industry.


Peter McGibbon: And agriculture?


Robert Gardiner: And agriculture as well. We are willing to accept our share. But I rose to call attention to the fact that this session we have had two or three very long debates and on each occasion have been told that the only thing that can save our industry is higher protection; to-night, however, our high tariff

Supply-Trade and Commerce
friends say it is research work that is needed. They tell us our industries are so far behind our American competitors that unless more money is spent in research work we must have higher protection. Then for heaven's sake let us have some research work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing of parliamentary and departmental publications, including the Canada Year Book, $100,000.
Robert James Manion: Why the $10,000 increase?


James Alexander Robb: The greater number of
publications.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have some recollection that at one time a question arose as to mixing parliamentary publications with the Department of Trade and Commerce. What do we really do for parliament in this vote, because I think no parliamentary publications should appear in the Trade and Commerce vote.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, parliament is responsible for the number of copies of publications that it receives, and Trade and Commerce pays for the balance. My hon. friend will remember that by order in council in 1920 all departments of the public service are obliged to pay for all publications they receive. In 19211922 the cost was $89,000; 1922-1923, $103,000; 1923-1924, $114,000; 1924-1925, $87,000; 19251926, to February 28, $86,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite understand the printing of departmental publications, but what are you printing for parliament?


James Alexander Robb: I will give my friend the list.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But for parliament?


James Alexander Robb: The Bureau of Statistics;
sixth census of Canada, Canada Grain Act; commercial intelligence service; Canada Year Book; electricity and gas inspection; weights and measures and miscellaneous.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade and Commerce-Weights and measures inspection, including International Bureau of Weights and Measures, $310,000.
Robert Rogers: This simply covers the
wages incident to the employees?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. The estimates for
salaries of the staff is $205,475; contingencies, including rent, travelling expenses of the director, his staff at Ottawa, district inspectors

and inspectors; postage, stationery, et cetera, $104,125; International Bureau of Weights and Measures, $400. This department showed a deficit in 1920-21 of $803.73; in 1921-22 it was $14,028.53; in 1922-23 it amounted to $1,596.21; in 1923-24 the deficit was $3,265.76. In 1924-25 it showed a surplus amounting to $9,065.18, and for the year ending March 31 last the surplus amounted to $22,460.49. Apparently it is now on a profitable basis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The fees were
increased some time ago.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Mr. McCLENAGHAN:: Before this item
passes I would like to say a few words on behalf of the grocers and small traders who have complained many times of the charges made for examination and inspection of weights and measures. They claim that this inspection is for the benefit of the public, and that the public should pay for it. We passed a large item to-night to cover the expenses of grain inspection, because it benefits the grain growers and enables them to get more for their grain, but the grocers and small merchants are charged for the benefit of the public. The Department of Agriculture sends out inspectors, and the department pays the whole cost. One of the nuisance items in connection with the inspection of weights and measures is the fact that when your inspector goes into a store he charges $1 for the transportation or cartage of the weights. The average store on Bank street has a frontage of about twenty feet; the blocks are about 200 feet long, which means ten stores to a block. That means the cartage people will get $10 for lifting a few weights from one door to another. At every convention of the retail merchants a great many complaints are heard regarding this fee; they feel they are paying too much to have the weights carried fifteen or twenty feet in the same block. I have in my hand the record of one of the inspections conducted at a store on Rideau street. The inspection and adjustment fees amounted to $8.35. and the cartage to $1, or a total of $9.35. Every year they have to pay this amount and the merchants claim it is not for their benefit. The great majority of people receive the benefit of this work and the merchants feel that the government should pay for that inspection because it is for the protection of the people; and particularly do they complain about this $1 charge for cartage. I think the department would be well advised to look into that matter and see

Questions
why a block of ten small stores should have to pay $10 for the cartage of these few weights. I hope this will receive very serious consideration and that this charge may be done away with.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend would give the officers of the department the name of the inspector who made that charge it will be very carefully looked into, because that is not the method followed in cities.


Stewart McClenaghan: This was done at a store on Rideau street.


James Alexander Robb: The inspection of grain is a
charge on the business.


Stewart McClenaghan: But the grain
grower gets a better price for his grain because it is inspected. In the inspection of weights, however, the benefit is to the public.


James Alexander Robb: I think my hon. friend is
wrong. He might be giving out correct weight while his neighbour might have a scale not quite correct. This inspection is for his benefit as well as for the benefit of his customers.


Stewart McClenaghan: In the year ending March 311, 1924 there were 570,764 'inspections, of which 561.022 were verified and 9,742 rejected, which is a small percentage of incorrect measures compared to the number of inspections.


James Alexander Robb: But these shops were in competition with the men who had correct scales.


Stewart McClenaghan: It is for the benefit of the public, and we claim that the people who get the benefit should pay for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that
-winds up the business for to-night.


James Alexander Robb: Unless my hon. friends, who
have been very good would allow me to put through the civil government estimates in one block; I will not insist upon it, but there is only one increase in the whole business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.28 p.m.
Monday, June 21, 1926