1929-03-20

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved:: That the Auditor General's report be referred to the public accounts committee.


Mr. ROBB:: My recollection is that that
report was referred to the committee some weeks ago.


Mr. BENNETT:: That is my memory of
it.

Agriculture and Colonization


Samuel William Jacobs: I was not aware of that fact, and I will ask permission of the house to withdraw my motion.
Motion withdrawn.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: During the last few weeks we have been discussing the budget, and at the outset of the debate I introduced a motion to the effect that discussion on the budget should have precedence over all other business save routine. The spirit of that motion, if not the letter, was to the effect that no debate on some new subject should be precipitated into the middle of the debate on the budget. A motion was brought in yesterday to have the house concur in the third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and it is apparent that a debate has arisen out of that motion which may be of considerable length, and, as I gather from the different views offered in respect of the matter, it may be contentious in its character. It would be rather unfortunate if the conclusion of the debate on the budget were to be prolonged indefinitely as a consequence of a debate on some other subject intervening. It is I believe, the hope of members of the house pretty generally that the debate on the budget may be concluded before the Easter adjournment. The government does not wish to restrain in any way the right of any hon. member to speak on the budget or on any other matter, but I would suggest that having discussed the budget at the length we have it might be advisable if the matter can be effected by arrangement, to try to conclude that debate before the Easter adjournment. The government does not for a moment ask that the debate on the motion brought in yesterday should be discontinued, but only suggests that the debate on the budget be first concluded and then that it be understood this motion should be considered the next order of business. If any hon. member is going to be prejudiced as to his position in the matter, because of the fact that one member has already spoken, I presume there is nothing to do but to allow the debate on yesterday's motion to continue. But I believe I am expressing the general wish of the house that the debate in that particular be shortened as much as possible so as to permit if possible completion of the budget debate before the Easter recess.

I gathered that the purpose of yesterday's motion was nothing more than to give to the committee wider powers than it now possesses so that when its report comes back 10 the house many of the questions which would arise in the course of the debate would be anticipated, and the hon. members would be in a better position intelligently to discuss the final report. It may be that some arrangement could be arrived at whereby the committee could obtain that increased power and some of the debate on the question be avoided thereby at this stage. May I say again that it is not the wish of the government to shut off any debate on any question, but it is part of the duty of whoever has the responsibility of leading the house to endeavour so to arrange matters that its business may be conducted in the most expeditious manner. I believe the house feels that having been discussing the budget for two or three weeks, it is advisable to conclude that debate before entering upon one pertaining to another subject.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the main I am wholly in
accord with the observations of the Prime Minister. There is no doubt, however, that the motion that was adopted by the house according precedence to the budget debate excepted questions and motions, so that technically the motion of yesterday was wholly in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not motions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is no question about the fact that neither questions nor motions were included.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Notices of
motions. Routine motions remain, but not motions which are debatable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The debate yesterday
arose out of a routine motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By standing order No.
38. a motion for concurrence in the report of a standing committee is debatable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I regard
as a routine motion. That being so, yesterday, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) asked for an adjournment of the debate, I imagine, that he might be enabled to get his papers for the purpose of making such defence as he saw fit with respect to an official of the department under his supervision, and probably because he might desire to make his reply to-day, in which event I gather one of my hon. friends to my left would desire to proceed with the discus-

Grading of Grain-Mr. Malcolm
sion, it occurred to me that he might adjourn the debate so that no time would be lost and we would proceed with the budget. But that is wholly in the hands of the group led by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) and not a matter in which I can assist the Prime Minister. I fully agree that it is desirable that a debate of this character should be terminated without too much interruption, but we all know in parliamentary life interruptions will occur even in connection with commonplace motions such as a motion for concurrence in a report. We accept that as being so, but if the matter can be carried out in the way I suggest, that would meet the situation.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: The house has made great progress since we first met. We took only a very short time in debating the address in reply to the speech from the throne and we saved1 the house a good deal of time in that regard. At that time hon. members did not take the opportunity of discussing problems of importance to the constituencies they represent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has suggested that it is desirable that we should try to conclude the budget debate before the house adjourns on Friday night. I should like to assist him as far as possible, but at the same [DOT] time there are in this corner of the house many members who wish to debate the budget thoroughly in view of the fact that they did not take the opportunity of debating the address. I would regret it very much if any influence were used for the purpose of curbing debate at this time.
Coming to the question more presently before the house, namely, the motion to concur in the third report of the committee on agriculture, I should like to point out that this question as affecting western Canada, and, I believe, eastern Canada also, is one of the most important that will come before the house this session. Of that I am convinced.
I know of no other question that has stirred the farmers and producers in western Canada to such an extent as has the administration of the Canada Grain Act. In view of the fact that the debate proceeded for some time yesterday afternoon, and remembering also that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) desired to adjourn the debate primarily for the purpose of securing his papers so that he would be able to take part in the discussion, it would be improper if we were now to curb the debate in any way. I hope, however, that the debate on this question will not continue to any great extent, but I would not suggest to my colleagues
that if they have anything important to say on the matter, they should curtail their remarks in any way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I presume the next order is to proceed with this discussion ; but may I suggest to hon. gentlemen that what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has just put forward as a means of trying to meet all parties concerned, is something that should appeal very strongly to everyone, and I hope will appeal to my hon. friends, namely, that it be distinctly understood that there is to be no curbing of the debate on this particular question, but that one of each group address himself to it, and that the debate be then adjourned, to be taken up, when the debate on the budget is concluded, and to be then taken up at any length and with due regard to its great importance.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I might say, speaking for a number in this section of the house, that certainly more than one would expect to speak in this debate, and it would therefore be impossible to come to any such arrangement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The suggestion was not to limit the number to one from each group, but rather that the minister might make his defence to-day with respect to the official concerned in his department, and then one of my hon. friends to my left could make his speech and adjourn the debate so that tomorrow another speech could be made and the budget debate finished. It was not my suggestion to curb the debate.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: The most important thing for us to understand is that the house will deliberate on this question and come to some definite action in good time this session. If this guarantee is given, I do not think we need worry much about the hour.



GRADING OF GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kay for concurrence in the third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the
problems arising out of the administration of the Canada Grain Act are, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) says, of

Grading of Grain-Mr. Malcolm
such magnitude that one naturally hesitates to comment thereon except after one has been very thoroughly and fully informed on every phase of the subject. Personally I do not think much will be gained by debate in the house at this time, but if the house would grant the request of the chairman of the committee on agriculture for an enlargement of the reference, these matters which are contentious could be investigated before the committee by calling witnesses and taking evidence. The committee would then be assisted in making recommendations to the government and to parliament for changes in the Canada Grain Act which would correct the evils complained of if they were found to exist.
Early in the session I consulted with various western members of parliament on both sides of the house, and learned of the seriousness and the variety of complaints that were lodged against the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Board of Standards in regard to the administration of the act. I told all of those members-and they agreed with me- that the government would grant a reference to a committee so that all these matters might be thoroughly gone into and reported upon to parliament. Most of the members with whom I consulted felt satisfied that if the reference were broad enough, nothing would be gained^ by discussion in the house, until the committee had reported, and I had hoped that the request of the chairman of the committee on agriculture for an enlargement of the reference would be granted by the house so that the committee could proceed with its work. The reference which is before the committee arose out of a resolution by the hon. member for Qu Appelle (Mr. Millar) stating that proteins should be considered a factor in the grading of grain.
But there are on the order paper two other resolutions, one by the hon. member fcr Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) contending that the mixing of grain is an evil and that mixing should be eliminated, and another resolution which stands in the name of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans), criticizing the action of the Board of Grain Commissioners in permitting the use of a certain ticket which contained additional words-words which weTe not prescribed in the actual ticket given in the Canada Grain Act. Under these circumstances I do not feel that the chairman of .the committee on agriculture and the members of that committee could have done anything else but ask for an enlargement of their reference, so that the whole three resolutions, which I chink cover the major points of criticism, 
might be dealt, with and fully reported upo-n. To endeavour to discuss any one of these points at the present moment before the evidence is heard is in my opinion futile. To discuss charges against the Board of Grain Commissioners when the board have not had an opportunity to give evidence as to why they ruled or failed to rule in a certain way, I think is unfair. So far as I am concerned, I have found the Board of Grain Commissioners at all times anxious to assist in the administration of the act in the interests of the producer. Whether they have made mistakes of judgment or not will be brought out in the evidence produced before the committee. Mr. Boyd has been acting as chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners since March of 1917. I have had no reason to criticize Mr. Boyd, and I do not propose to pass judgment until evidence is adduced and he has had a chance to reply. Therefore it seems to me. Mr. Speaker, that it would be very much out of place for me as a minister of the crown to join in any comment on a public servant, nor do I think that anything can be gained by this debate. I think I am quite right in saying to the house that much evidence will likely be adduced in the committee, and the report [DOT] of the committee can, and no douibt will be fully discussed in the house. I think this matter can be very much 'better handled by having the discussion take place in the tight of the evidence which will be taken before the committee. I can therefore only recommend to the house that this debate be as short as possible, that the chairman of the agriculture committee be granted this reference, and that the discussion when the committee's report comes before the house be as full and as free as parliament may wish.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who have preceded me in one remark, and that is as to the importance of the question that is before the house at this moment. When hon. members take into consideration the fact that the greatest single wealth-producing commodity in all Canada is wheat, they will begin to realize what it means. When they consider further that it involves annually hundreds of millions of dollars of real new wealth created by the producers out of the soil of the country, they will begin to realize something of its importance. When they further consider the fact that there is not a single financial institution, not a single manufacturing institution, and hardly an individual in the Dominion that is not interested directly or indirectly not only in the proper handling of wheat but

Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
in the price received by the producer for it, the importance of this question will be realized.
The Canada Grain Act came into existence in 1900 as a result of widespread agitation among the farmers of western Canada, who at that time were suffering under serious injustices at the hands of the organized grain trade and the railways of Canada. In 1912 it was found necessary to place the administration of the act in the hands of a board of grain commissioners. That board was supposed to be an independent board, an efficient board, one above reproach and criticism, and in order to be sure that it should be that kind of board, we provided that the chairman should receive a salary of $10,000 a year, together with many perquisites in regard to such matters as stenographic assistance, office buildings, office fittings, a special car for travelling, and much else. The two assistant commissioners receive the sum of $8,000 a year, and also participate in these perquisites.
We believed at that time, those of us who were here and interested in the trade, that this was a splendid step forward and would protect the interests of the farmer. After all, what was the object in the appointment of the board? The primary object was to administer the act so that the rights of the farmers would be preserved and protected at all times. Let me emphasize that. Professor Patton, in his well-known work on the " Growth of Grain Cooperative Marketing System," says:
The first grain commissioner-
Referring to the chairman of the commission:
-is the attorney general for the grain growers.
He is the man at all times expected to prosecute any offenders against the act, any men or companies who violate the rights or privileges of the farmers under the act. The Turgeon report also recognizes the importance of this body. At page 154 of the report of the royal grain inquiry commission, headed by Chief Justice Turgeon, which was filed in the house in 1925, these words are found:
The Canada Grain Act, 1912, created the Board of Grain Commissioners to administer the act. The importance of the proper exercise of its functions can scarcely be overestimated. It is of vital concern to Canada.
Chief Justice Turgeon, chairman of the royal grain inquiry commision, was satisfied of the transcendent importance of the proper administration of the act and the proper discharge of the functions of the board.
Let us examine the situation as we have it to-day. In the year that has just passed we have had more dissatisfaction in western 78594-71
Canada than at any other time since I have been there. We have had a more pronounced uprising of definite antagonistic opinion against the board than ever before and if the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in criticism of the Board of Railway Commissioners were justified, then I say to this house that a condemnation more damning than any ever pronounced by him would be justified as applied to the Board of Grain Commissioners. The Board of Grain Commissioners has utterly and completely lost the confidence of those whom it is supposed to protect in western Canada. Of that there is no question. All one has to do, if he seeks evidence of that, is to study the hearings of the royal commission which was appointed by the Saskatchewan government last year, and which has been travelling during the entire grain-moving season through the province of Saskatchewan, and which I understand is about to hold sittings in the province of Alberta. At the most minute rural points, places through which one could pass and find only a round dozen or so of individuals, in the most outlying country districts you would find the hall jammed with two, three, four or five hundred disgruntled, irritated, antagonistic farmers. Something was behind all this dissatisfaction; there was something wrong. This government surely must have known that there was something wrong. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) should have been apprised of the seriousness of the situation, and I am going to say this much: So far as I know, the moment his attention was called, towards the beginning of this session of parliament, to the need' for action in a certain direction, he took action. I will come to that in a moment.
I say that so far as the producers are concerned, the board apparently has failed to function satisfactorily and has lost their confidence. Now I ask this question: Is there any use under heaven in this government persisting in continuing the personnel of a board, irrespective of how worthy they may be, if they have utterly lost the confidence of those whom they are supposed to serve? I do not wish to criticize the individual members of the board, and I have nothing of a personal character against a single member of the commission. Let me further state at this stage, for fear I may forget to do so later, that so far as I am concerned, and I think I am speaking for those in the group around me, there is no intention at any time to attempt to make political capital out of this situation. It is too serious a matter for

1122	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
politics to be permitted to enter into it. I think the western members as a whole, whether they sit in the ranks of the Liberals opposite, or in the group around me, or the odd one or two in the ranks of the Conservative party to my right, are satisfied that some solution must be found of the difficulties facing the grain growers in the west, and that some settlement of the differences that have arisen between themselves and the board and other concerns must be found if we are to attempt at all to remedy the deplorable situation which now confronts us. When you come to a point where a question arises which may involve the loss, not of a million or two, but of tens of millions of dollars to the wheat growers in Canada, the people who produce from the soil real wealth, then surely it is time that the Department of Trade and Commerce, in fact the government itself, take recognition of the situation that has arisen and courageously cope with it.
The board has utterly failed to function. I make that definite pronouncement, Mr. Speaker, fully realizing the seriousness of the Statement. The board has failed to function because it has not recognized several factors. These are: first, the immense increase in area of wheat growing since 1912. Why, at that time we never thought of producing wheat in large quantities in the Peace river country; we never dreamt of the western movement via Vancouver of grain to the proportions which it has reached to-day, with new and extensive problems involving terminals, inspection of cargo shipments and all the other diverse problems affecting the trade. At that time we did not dream-we did dream, it iis true, but we had not immediately in front of us the problem of a northern outlet, which is another phase now to come under the attention of the commission. The production of wheat has more than doubled in that period. The capacity of elevator space in country houses and terminals has more than doubled in that period.
The problems have also increased almost proportionately during that period, and in latter years an added and very distinct problem has arisen. As long as the handling of wheat continued in the old channels it is true there were difficulties, but those difficulties have been enormously emphasized lately by the institution of the growers' own marketing system. This has brought an entirely new factor into the handling of wheat. The Turgeon commission even as far back as 1925 recognized that the commission itself must be assisted to function more efficiently, and it reported definitely:

We do strongly recommend that the board should be supplied with sufficient expert technical and clerical assistance to enable it to accomplish its routine duties and at the same time to have opportunity to give a large part of its attention to its general functions of supervision, discipline and control over the grain trade.
The Turgeon commission was satisfied that the grain commissioners were not giving proper supervision, were not exercising proper control, were not properly disciplining the trade at that time; and the commission's report recommended definitely that steps should be taken to supply the board with all possible necessary assistance.
Why did the Turgeon commission do that instead of recommending an increase in the personnel of the board? Because the Board of Grain Commissioners themselves have consistently and persistently resisted any proposal to increase their number; and so this way out was discovered and proposed.
Now, since 1925 I must presume that the Board of Grain Commissioners have been supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce with all the technical assistance, all the technical stenographic and clerical help that they required to function properly. If not, somebody else will be held to account. But we must presume that this has been done, for we are paying the bills. The other taxpayers of Canada are not called upon to pay one dollar in connection with the administration of the Grain Act. We pay for it utterly and completely out of the proceeds of the grain we ourselves sell. Therefore, the Turgeon commission having made this recommendation, we must presume that the government recognized the situation and supplied the board with all the necessary facilities. Yet, Mr. Speaker, during the past year, when as never before at almost every point in western Canada disturbances in connection with the Grain Act had arisen, when as never before the farmers were protesting against the injustices they were suffering at the hands of the country elevator operators, at the hands of the organized trade itself established at Winnipeg, at the hands of the terminal elevators, there was not a single investigation undertaken by the Board of Grain Commissioners until more than 80 per cent of the grain crop had moved. In spite of the fact that affidavit after affidavit had gone into the board at Fort William, in spite of the fact that hundreds of appeals-not -ten, not a dozen, but hundreds-had been made to the board for an adjustment of differences as between the farmers and the trade, the board failed to hold one single investigation
MARCH 20, 1929	H23
Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
in western Canada until late in January of this year after 80 per cent of the crop had moved.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is that functioning? In all the years that have passed by ever since this board was established there has not been one single check-off by the board of country houses. There is not a grain-growing farmer in this house who does not understand some of the abuses that take place there. There is not a farmer who does not know that mixing is practised in country houses. The evidence before the Brown commission in Saskatchewan brought out clearly again and again that mixing is practised in the bins of the country elevators. Why, sir, there is evidence to show that elevator agents at country points, having, say, ten bins at their disposal for special bin purposes, have actually had as many as thirteen, fourteen and fifteen farmers hauling grain to special bins and only ten to put them in.
These are the things that have cropped up. I will give another illustration. We find in the little town of De Winton a Chevrolet truck being used to haul wheat-an isolated instance perhaps, but it may be found in other places also. This Chevrolet truck is weighed empty every day after the wheat has been hauled, and there is a variation of over 900 pounds in the weight of that empty track during thirteen days of hauling; and there has not been a drop of rain in the country in the meantime. Nine hundred pounds variation in the weight of an empty Chevrolet truck in the town of De Winton. I have all the facts in connection with this case and I believe sworn to in an affidavit. An appeal was made to the Board of Grain Commissioners to adjust the discrepancy. What do you think the board did? Did the board send out an inspector at once to check off the scales secretly and quietly? No, the board refused to act and wrote to the complainant: If you will send in an affidavit we will consider the matter. What is the result? The company is notified that Mr. Tom Jones, of De Winton, filed an affidavit with the board to-day that the scales must be out of order, that there is a deficiency of about 900 pounds. The company writes back to the board: We have had a report from our agent that this is not true. The Board of Grain Commissioners having supplied the brass band to warn the elevator agent, now sends an inspector to investigate. Do you think the elevator agent is going to leave his scales untouched? The board defends itself solely on the ground that a clause in the act provides that an investigation shall take place if an affidavit be filed. But in no section of
78594-71^
the act does it say that the board has not power to check off at country elevators. As a matter of fact the Turgeon commission in its report says this:
The board has the power to license elevators and to revoke licenses.
And will the house kindly note this:
We believe that there follows from this power the obligations to exercise some measure of inspection of the way in which the operators of elevators and other licenses deal with the grain producers.
The Turgeon commission further recommended that there should be surprise checkoffs at country elevators, otherwise they never can check up on those problems or difficulties, they never can find out what the elevator agent is doing. If you are going to compel the farmer to send in an affidavit with every complaint, and if the correspondence with the farmer is to be made open to the companies before any investigation is held, you might as well not have the grain act at all for any good it is going to do. If you warn the company beforehand of the action about to be taken, they are certain to safeguard their own interests.


Mr. FORKE:: Was that an isolated case
or was it an habitual thing? Because a variation of 15 bushels in a load could not often happen without something being heard of it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have
stated there was a variation of 900 pounds in the weight of the empty truck.


Robert Forke: Could it not have been for
once a mistake? We have all seen that happen in country elevators.


Edward Joseph Garland: I presume
the board could, have found it out had they been interested enough to inquire, but apparently they were not. Let me mention this case. A gentleman named Morrison, down in the constituency of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), sends in a complaint to the board in writing. The board does not even bother to reply to the complaint; it has not even the courtesy to reply. Mr. Morrison takes the matter up with the member for Macleod. The member for Macleod is quite surprised to find that twenty-nine days have elapsed since the letter was sent and so he wires to the board. The board sends the hon. member a reply by wire but no reply to the man himself, so that the hon. member suggests that the board might have the courtesy to reply directly to the farmer who made the complaint; whereupon the board replies, thirty days after receipt of the com-
I124	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
plaint in writing from the farmer. Now is that an efficient functioning? Is that an efficient administration of the grain act? Is that acting as attorney for the grain growers? Is it acting in the capacity of protector of their interests and their rights? A board of this character, Mr. Speaker, is of no value whatever unless it keeps in close personal touch with the growers all the time. A board stationed in Fort William is useless, even though it be a good board, even though it be able to perform efficiently its routine functions. To be effective the board must be itinerant at least during 'the grain moving season. That was recommended also by the Turgeon commission; it was recommended in most emphatic terms. The Board of Grain Commissioners has always resisted the idea of itinerancy of the character suggested by Commissioner Turgeon. I will not mention any names, but one of the commissioners will make the statement to you, "I have travelled thirty thousand miles during the last year." Yes; but I submit that they do not travel to many of the points where they are required. They do not visit the points where controversy is arising. I say to the government, therefore, that if they wish to have the act efficiently administered it will be necessary for them to allow the board-indeed, to compel the board-to be itinerant, to move from point to point throughout the prairie provinces during the grainrfnoving season, so that at any time when a little cancer spot appears they can administer the proper remedy, and administer it speedily. I am satisfied that there are hundreds of complaints that have been really of minor importance and that could have been readily disposed of through personal attention on the part of the board. But instead of that, these complaints have been allowed to rankle, to canker, to grow and spread into the whole community until a situation has arisen such as I stated at the outset, namely, that the board has utterly lost the confidence of the farmers of western Canada.
There are many other points which one feels called upon to discuss in connection with this particular matter, but I come now to the most important factor in arousing the ire of the farmers of the west during the last year. I refer to the question of the so-called hybrid ticket. It Is not necessary for me to go into the whole history of the question. It is sufficient to say that obviously it was the will of the committee of parliament and of parliament itself that- the grower of wheat should have the right to determine the destin-

ation of his wheat after he had grown it. No one disputes that to-day. No one disputes that it was undoubtedly the will of parliament, and the wish Of the pool through whom the grower handles a good deal of his wheat today, that he should have the right to determine where it Should go. After the act is amended the grower gets the right to determine the destination of his grain, and then somebody does something with the schedules to the act. The old ticket is submitted for change, not to parliament but to the governor in council, and a change is brought about by order in council, taking out of the act almost all of clause 150.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: On whose recommendation?


Edward Joseph Garland: On the
recommendation of the board-and it is inserted into the ticket itself. As Mr. Milliken, the legal counsel for the Saskatchewan pool, has said, where five words would have sufficed-


James Malcolm: My hon. friend has mads the statement that on the recommendation of. the board there was passed an order in council which takes out of the act practically all of section 150. What does he mean by that?


Edward Joseph Garland: I did not
say that. At least, I should have said they copied out of the act on to the new ticket almost all of section 150, and left certain other words. So far as that particular change was concerned, although much of it was unnecessary, five words would have sufficed, as Mr. Milliken said; but instead of that forty words odd are transferred from the act, having the effect, as they appear on the ticket, if not of abolishing the rights of the grower, at any rate of permitting the abuse of the ticket. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) shakes his head. Well, I say this to him definitely. While the wording provided for by the order in council would in itself have caused no harm, if the wording of tne ticket as authorized by the order in council had not been such as it was, the addition of the other words would not either have caused any harm. In his evidence before the committee the other day Mr. Milliken so stated There is no necessity-


Mr. DUNNING:: Does my hon. friend mean to say that taking a section of an act which embodies a contract and putting that into the form of the contract makes it possible to break the contract which the act provides for?

Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)


Edward Joseph Garland: When additional words are inserted.


Charles Avery Dunning: Additional words were
not put in by the order in council, as my hon. friend knows.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister is setting up straw men to have the pleasure of punching their noses, and that does not do any good because the hon. gentleman heard me clearly. I have made myself clear in the matter. I have stated definitely that the wording of the act copied into the ticket did not of itself create a situation which would result in a violation of the grower's rights.


James Malcolm: The previous ticket was copied from the act. Did not the board do the proper thing when they asked that the ticket be reprinted so as to bring it into conformity with the act as amended at the last session of parliament?


Edward Joseph Garland: No; and I will tell you why. To have properly recognized the intention of parliament, they should have taken into consideration other clauses in the act as well as that particular one, and instead of putting in the words, " the grain is deliverable to the person on whose account it is taken in the store," the intention would have been more clearly indicated had they said that the grain should be deliverable to the person who owns the grain-the owner of the grain.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend surely does not imply that the board should recommend putting into the ticket something which is not in the act. The act provides distinctly that the ticket shall indicate what the act itself states.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister says that this question of ownership is settled in the act. There is no question about that, and if that were recognized by everyone else, if everybody understood the act as the Minister of Trade and Commerce understands it, no problem would have arisen. But unfortunately the organized grain trade took advantage of the situation and added certain other words, the effect of which-and, I presume, the deliberate effect-was to take away from the pool men their rights under the grain act so far as the destination of the grain was concerned.
Now, note this point. In October, 1927, the pools asked the board to stop the use of this ticket, stating that it was not prescribed by the act. I make the further assertion that
at no time, either by order in council, by act of this parliament or by any other legal method was this hybrid ticket legalized in any shape or form.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is quite right, yet the Board of Grain Commissioners recognize it as an ordinary ticket for handling purposes; the Board of Grain Commissioners not only permit its use but use the wording of the ticket to compel farmers to accept the diversion of their grain by private grain companies. Can I make my words stronger that that? The Board of Grain Commissioners, knowing all that was meant by the addition of those words and seeing the effect in actual operation, permitted the use of an absolutely illegal ticket which only had the result of taking away from the farmer his right to name the destination of his own grain. Hon. gentlemen may raise the question of contracts until they are black in the face; they may cite the pool contract with the trade; they may cite the grower's agreement with the pool, but that has nothing whatever to do with the Board of Grain Commissioners or the administration of the grain act, and no one recognized that fact more clearly or more distinctly than the Minister of Trade and Commerce when his attention was called to it.
Just at this point I would like to quote to the house the position taken by the minister in this matter. A dispute had arisen between the firm of Thompson Brothers and the Home Grain Company in the little town of Rowley, which resulted in an investigation being held towards the end of January of this year. After the hearing had been completed Mr. Boyd, chairman of the board, decided that since this involved an interpretation of the contract he was not in a position to give any ruling on the facts, and suggested that a court case be started. It was not Mr. Boyd's business to suggest that; his business was ten administer the act and to say, "We rule that in order to give the farmer justice under this act you must divert his grain to the terminal of his own choice." He did not say so, however; he said "We must have the court's interpretation before we can give a ruling." This decision was communicated to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and in giving the house his reply I ask hon. members to notice how clearly the minister recognized the-situation and how willing he was to meet it. I have no blame to attach to the minister at this time; my attack is entirely on the Board of Grain Commissioners because of their fail-
1126	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
ure to function. I quote the telegram sent by Mr. Malcolm to Mr. Boyd under date of January 28, 1929:
Further replying your message from Calgary twenty-fourth instant re pool contracts. Parliament amended law to assure producer's right to determine destination of his own grain. Board should take position that no contract between pool and grain trade should deprive producer of that right. Government approves board's recommendation that board bear expense of court action to sustain grain act in this regard.
That was the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I applaud him for it, but why hiave not the Board of Grain Commissioners taken that identical position ior the last two years? There is only one obvious answer; either they are stupid to the point of idiocy or they have turned their sympathies directly to the trade instead of to the producer. There is no other possible explanation of their actions. I have before me the entire correspondence which passed between the Board of Grain Commissioners and the farmers of Alberta, and in case after case the board have used the hybrid ticket and the acceptance of this hybrid ticket by the farmer even though unwittingly or even under protest as an excuse by which they can suggest to him that he is in a difficult position and had better abide by the situation. What an amazing thing! In some cases they have succeeded in " coaxing," as Mr. Miliiken said, the grain trade to recognize the situation and to give the farmer his right; they have succeeded in doing so by coaxing, but in no case that I know of have they attempted to enforce the provisions of the act under the powers given them. They have the necessary power; there is no special need for them to come to parliament and say they have not this power. It is true that the enforcement might create a momentary difficulty or some local dissatisfaction, but one or two cases of the exercise of their powers would quickly bring the trade to terms and compel1 them to recognize the rulings of the board.
Why, Mr. Speaker, I have heard one of the commissioners stand before a convention of several hundred farmers and farm women and tell that convention in eloquent language that he had no more power and the Board of Grain Commissioners had no more power to enforce the act than any delegate present at the convention. Just imagine a situation of that kind. Speaking at the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta, at Edmonton, Mr. Robinson said:
.... something evidently overlooked by the U.F.A. board or the spokesman for the board, and that is the Board of Grain Commissioners has no more authority to carry out any of the

provisions of this act than any delegate in this room. They have unlimited scope as to making regulations but they have no authority to enforce them.
As a matter of fact, they have the authority to revoke the Licenses of the companies; they can close up the warehouses, but as I said a moment ago that might create a temporary difficulty especially to the producers of wheat. This is just an illustration in passing. Note the delicacy of the situation; here are the members of the Board of Grain Commissioners, appointed at handsome salaries and pretty handsome perquisites, to administer the grain act. That board has been in existence since 1912; all the present members have not been on it long but it has been in existence since then. In all the years that have passed these problems have been arising, and if you ask them they will frankly admit that during those years they have made rulings at times which have been utterly ignored by those against whom the rulings were made. Yet in all those years I do not know of a single case in which they have come back to this parliament and said, "We cannot enforce the act; we have no power to enforce it." So they have waited until the year 1928, when a situation has arisen which threatens utterly to overthrow them and dismiss them from office; now they turn around and tell the farmers at a meeting attended by hundreds of the organized group of the province of Alberta that they have no power to enforce the act and that in effect they have been receiving money under false pretences since their appointment to office. What an amazing situation; what a criminal situation, to find any board accepting handsome salaries annually to administer an act when the rulings which they may have to make as a result of that administration have no weight and they have no power to enforce them! Have they ever asked for power from parliament at any time? I know only too well that a few years ago parliament readily would have agreed to any enlargement of powers the board might have requested; we would have given them the necessary policing powers if they had sought them. I do not think there is any doubt but that this parliament is as anxious to do what is right for the growers of wheat and to see that the act is justly administered as are any of the growers in western Canada.
Here is another peculiar situation. Apparently this year, when a serious matter arose, the Board of Grain Commissioners would not undertake any investigation unless affidavits were sent in. I know of many cases in which

Grading of Grain-Mr. Vallance
such affidavits were sent in; as a matter of fact I helped prepare one for Thompson Brothers in Rawley. What did the Board of Grain Commissioners do? They dropped a little note to the grain company concerned and said, "Here, we have this complaint from Thompson Brothers; make a reply to it." The only reply sent in by the company was an ordinary statement not made under oath and not conforming in any way to the rigid regulations enforced by the board with respect to the growers. That is absolutely unfair, and I am informed that cases have arisen in which the board have called up the company on the telephone and said, "We have this complaint against your company; kindly pay attention to it." They deal with the trade on the one hand by accepting ordinary documents, letters signed by a general manager or by a solicitor for the company, but a farmer must file a sworn affidavit. I have no complaint to make with regard to that except that in many cases it is an unnecessarily rigid and stupid regulation and prevents the proper functioning of the board and the proper administration of the act. The Board of Grain Commissioners should be intelligent enough to know they should not enforce that peculiar affidavit form of filing complaints in all cases. It is quite true it does apply to some cases, but it was passed upon by the board and used by them as a means of delaying rather than assisting in clearing up any difficulties which might arise.
There is much more to be said on this subject, but I am sure others will follow me, and in closing I simply wish to say this: that the organized farmers of my province at annual convention assembled, and after full consideration of this situation and having heard a member of the commission in his own defence and in defence of the board, passed a resolution, with one dissenting vote, in which they asked for the dismissal of the present board and the appointment of a board consisting of five members, one of whom should be a resident of Alberta and one of Saskatchewan. I suppose the residence of the other members would depend upon the will of the members from other parts of Canada. We specifically asked for that in order that there might be a personal contact between the grower and the representative of the commission. It is not fair to us to have a board, the principal work of which is done in Winnipeg or Fort William, operating so closely with the trade and practically never coming in touch with the growers. I would ask the government to take into consideration the dismissal of the present board of grain commissioners.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the hon. member in favour of or opposed to the motion before the house?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am in
favour of widening the scope of this resolution. As it reads at present it does not include the term "administration of the Grain Act." If that term were included in the resolution so as to make a full investigation possible, it would relieve my mind of a great deal of worry.


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), and it is quite easy for those of us who have some knowledge of marketing conditions and farming in general to follow him. Until quite recently there was a resolution upon the order paper standing in the name of the hon. member for Rose town (Mr. Evans), and I had been a little afraid that we would not reach that resolution (because I realized that it would have caused considerable discussion and probably argument. I agree with all the hon. member has said, but I think we should have a short resume of what happened prior to this last year and the conditions which prevail to-day. This would assist the hon. members who come from other parts of Canada and who may not be acquainted with the conditions prevailing.
For a number of years the farmers of western Canada were obliged to market their grain through the Northwestern Grain Dealers' Association. It was the common practice for the farmer to ship his wheat through a line elevator to the commission house he desired to deal with. The farmer believed, rightly or wrongly, that he had that privilege up until 1924-25, and then he suddenly realized that he did not have that right. At that time we had created one of the greatest cooperative marketing organizations which this world has ever seen, and in order to make that a success it was absolutely necessary that we should have physical control of as much of our crop as possible. At that time the pool did not have the local facilities with which to handle their wheat; they were forced to depend upon the facilities belonging to the Northwest Grain Dealers' Association, and if we had not the right to designate the terminal to which our wheat should go we were going to lose a great deal of the benefit from that cooperative organization. In the session of 1925-26 this house passed what is commonly called the Campbell amendment, but owing to the dissolution of the house it did not find a place on the statute book. During 1926 we again considered this matter and the amendment passed. We had the right to put our grain

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Vallance
through any line elevator and ship it to the pool terminal. Those of us who were privileged to be in the house at that time well remember the lobby which was put on by the Northwest Grain Dealers' Association in opposition to this amendment. They realized that if this great cooperative organization obtained the right of designating the terminal, they would then lose the whip-hand over the farmer. However, it went through and, as we thought, we had that right.
In 1927 the pool still found that they had not facilities to take care of all their wheat. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly), there are three ways in which a farmer can market his grain. He may sell it on what we call the street, that is, sell it to the elevator companies; he may grade it to store; or he may store it in a special bin. The member for Bow River mentioned the agreement which was entered into between the pool and the Northwest Grain Dealers' Association. I think it is only right that that agreement should be mentioned in this debate in order to clarify the situation which exists to-day. There was an agreement entered into between the pool and the Northwest Grain Dealers' Association whereby the association were to be allowed to take all street wheat and ship it to their terminal, but it was stipulated that any rights which the farmer had under the Canada Grain Act were to be retained. The so-called hybrid grain ticket has come about through the interpretation of that agreement. The grain trade interpreted the agreement to mean that they had the right to designate the pool wheat going through their local elevators to their terminals. The pool contended, and contended rightly, that they had not that right. This agreement was presented to the Board of Grain Commissioners for adjudication, and I am absolutely in accord with the member for Bow River when he says that they should not have considered it in any way. They have no right to consider any agreement entered into by any group or individual; their function is the administration of the Canada Grain Act, and I think the board have realized the mistake they made.
A condition exists in western Canada today which has never existed before. At this juncture I would like to read a portion of .a letter I received the other day, which I think will explain the conditions which exist in western Canada. This letter is written from Davidson, Saskatchewan, and reads in part as follows:
What I want to talk to you about in particular to-day is .the grain situation. There
[Mr. V&Lkuice.l
is no use in disguising the fact that the thing is very serious out here. This, in spite of the fact that you may or may not have heard anything to the contrary which I know nothing about. The thing has not fully exploded yet but it is just sizzling, and when it comes it will be a hurricane. So far as I am concerned, I have no grievance other than 'where the thing has been an injustice done my fellow man, and, of course, can only talk of the thing from the standpoint of the fellow who has been wronged.
I might interject that the writer of this letter is not a wheat pool contract signer.
The trouble that I refer to is the regulation whereby the line elevators were allowed to deny to the shipper the right to designate the place his wheat was to be shipped to after he had it in the elevator, which, of course, was aimed at the pool, and it surely landed hard. They . are just getting wise to the full import of what that did to them, but when they all wake up, there sure is going to be something doing.
Now, I don't belong to the pool, and, of course, it did not hurt me. I am going to be absolutely honest with you, and tell you that I know nothing at all about this thing so far as its being brought about is concerned, except what I hear. The first intimation I had that there was a nigger in the wood pile was last fall when room was hard to get in the elevators-
Now I want you to mark this.
-and I made a protest to the elevator man that the pool people wrere getting better service at the line elevators than the non-pool men, and pointed out to him that it was poor business for them to take care of that wheat that they got no commission from at the other end, and turn down wTheat that they derived all the benefits of handling from. He told me then that all pool wheat this time went to the company's terminal and not to the pool terminal. You can see at a glance, without further elaboration on my part, just why my wheat lay on the ground a month while he threshed nearly
8,000	bushels and hauled it to the elevator right from the machine and never put one solitary bushel through the pool elevator.
I think the condition as revealed in the letter which I have just read has been prevalent throughout the west. We find a line elevator company giving all their facilities to the pool and denying to the non-pool1 farmer the same facilities. We have an instance in this letter of S,000 bushels of non-pool wheat lying on the ground in order that they might take care of pool wheat. If this proves anything, it proves that there must be a great deal of profit at the other end and it is that which the farmer to-day feels he is losing. Further on in this 'letter the writer says, mentioning the name of his friend:
.... has now found out that he lost over $100 by not being able to designate his terminal, and I will say, in the mildest terms I can, that he is sore.
Someone may ask: How did he lose $100? The pool have been in the habit of paying two cents a bushed to all pool members who

Grading of Grain-Mr. Vallance
ship their wheat through their own facilities, so that if an individual cannot diip his wheat through his pool facilities, he does ruo.t share in that distribution of two cents a bushel. It may be asked: But how can ,the grain trade or the line elevator companies help this state of affairs? There are many ways. I think I might as well read t'he whole letter, the writer continues:
The next question that calls for an immediate answer is this. How did this thing come about, and who was responsible? I do not know myself, for, as I said before, I did not pay any attention to it, but they tell me that this thing was finally put up by someone to the Department of Commerce-
He means Trade and Commerce.
-and an order in council was made allowing this nefarious thing to he done.
I might state that I disillusioned his mind on this point.
If that is so, it has made a nice mess for us to clean up.
He goes on to discuss the whole matter. After listening to the speech of the hon. member for Bow River I have reached the conclusion that this grain commission has been very inefficient in the administration of the act. It occurred to me, while he was speaking, that if they have proven inefficient in the administration of this act which means so much, not only to our farmers, but to Canada as a whole, it might be possible to devise some other ways and means whereby we could administer the act more efficiently.


James Dew Chaplin: The commissioners might be changed.


John Vallance: I do not know that that would do much good. While the suggestion of the hon. member for Bow River has been received with a great deal of, shall I say, happiness in the west, namely that there might be five commissioners instead of three, and that they might be given deputies so that they could move about and keep in close touch with the farmers, it seems to me, because of the importance of this particular branch of industry, it would not be a bad thing for a department of government to be set up under a responsible minister to administer the grain act, in the same manner as the great transportation companies move the freight. While they may be responsible for the freight while it is in transit, they have no interest in it other than to transport it. Therefore I suggest that we set up a department of government under a responsible minister, and I think not only would the matter be more efficiently handled, but we could clean the trade of many of the evils that exist today. I think we could eliminate mixing. The
department would stop all mixing after the grain leaves the farmer's hands, until it is out of the country or in the hands of the millers. If they want to mix it, let them do so, because they have to bear the consequences-the farmer through the inspection department, and the miller through the manufactured product-and it will hurt no one but themselves. Let the government take all overages to help defray the expenses of the undertaking. This is a steal that has no justification other than the sanction of someone who did not have the interest of the producer at heart. The pool is the only one which has been honest enough to give us some light on the subject, and its report of 1928 (Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited) shows that in handling 106,374,576 bushels it had an overage of 627,032 bushels. That was shrinkage at the initial elevator, but at the terminal it took on the more honourable name of overage. In fact it did not perform the thing they intended it for. I will admit that in the pool the farmer evidently gets it back in some way, but why take it from him at all? What about the line companies who handle approximately the other 50 per cent of the wheat? I would not even think they would be guilty of taking less than the pool, so that if the pool takes, out of what it handles, more than 627,000 bushels, there must be about 1,500,000 bushels of overages every year.
I am in sympathy with the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). I think his suggestion was a good one. I think that the Board of Grain Commissioners should be allowed to appear before the agriculture committee. I think it is only British fair play to give them that opportunity. I have had the opportunity of meeting the board on a previous occasion. I think it would be only right and proper for the group that met the Board of Grain Commissioners on that occasion to draw the attention of the house to something that happened at that time. Hon. members will remember that on the evening of February 22, 1929, the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly), rising in his place in this house on a question of privilege, drew attention to an article that had appeared in the Mail and Empire of Toronto. It has already been put on Hansard, but I think perhaps I had better read it, because it contains some statements and there have been statements made in answer to it which need clearing up. The article is from the pen of T. H. Blacklock, written, I suppose, from the press gallery. It says:
Did Hon. James Malcolm, Minister of Trade and Commerce, break faith with the western

Grading of Grain-Mr. Vallance
farmer members not officially supporters of the government? They assert that he did and that the conference with the grain commission was restricted solely to western Liberals after Mr. Malcolm had promised the western farmer members would have an opportunity to discuss the grain trade with the grain commission.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there are a few western farmer members sitting on the Liberal benches. The hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young), the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. McLean) and many others were at that gathering including myself, but apparently this writer does not identify us as western farmers, probably because we are supporting the Liberal government; I do not know. The article goes on:
A few days ago western farmer members waited on Mr. Malcolm to discuss the abuses of the Grain Act during the marketing season for last year's crop. It is claimed by them he placed the greater responsibility for the abuses _ on the wheat pools, which was suggestive that the western farmer members better not raise the question or the wheat pool would suffer. Finally, it was agreed they were to meet the grain commission.
Yesterday, certain members of the government and the official prairie Liberal members met the grain commission, but the farmer members of Alberta and Saskatchewan were not invited. One of the reasons advanced for this exclusion is that members of the government and western Liberals made statements about the wheat pool which would have been resented by western farmers.
I pause, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to that statement. I want to deny right here that there was anything said in that conference with the grain commisison which was detrimental to the wheat pool.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. This matter has
already been the subject of debate in this house, and the hon. member must not refer to a past debate.


John Vallance: It was not debated.
The point of order raised by the hon. member for Willow Bunch was not allowed.


Hewitt Bostock: Exactly. Because it was
not allowable.


John Vallance: Have I not the right to refer to it?


Hewitt Bostock: No.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: That matter was not under debate at all; it was not debated.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is
referring to a debate which took place in the house during the present session, and that is against the rules.


Malcolm McLean: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


John Vallance: If I am not privileged
to draw the attention of the house to something that has already been before the house-


Hewitt Bostock: I might remind the hon.
gentleman that the matter before the house is a motion to concur in a report of the agriculture committee. The question is a very simple one, and hon. gentlemen should not roam so far from its subject matter. I have allowed a certain freedom in this debate, but really the hon. gentleman is going beyond the bounds.


Malcolm McLean: On a point of
order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it is somewhat late in the session to take that attitude in connection with this question after so much latitude has been allowed on every other question that has come up.


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. gentleman
finds that my ruling is not to bis liking, he may appeal it.


Malcolm McLean: I have no desire to appeal.


John Vallance: I have no objection to
your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The only objection I have is, why should it be applied to me?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what every man says.


John Vallance: Other hon. gentlemen
have wandered further afield than I have. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Caban) rose on a question of privilege the other day-


Hewitt Bostock: Which was a question of privilege.


John Vallance: I might at least be
allowed to state this in connection with the article to which I have referred. There was no member of the western Liberals who attempted to do anything detrimental to the pool. I was one of that handful of men in the city of Saskatoon who were responsible for bringing Mr. Aaron Sapiro to this country Mr. Blaeklock in the next article that appears over his signature says that he got the information from an independent member of the Progressive group.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the hon. member to name the independent member? So far as I am concerned, I repudiate the charge. I deny it categorically. Mr. Speaker, this is really a question of privilege affecting the honour of members on this side of the house, in this comer at least. I

Grading of Grain-Mr. Bird
personally have no knowledge of this matter. The hon. gentleman is imputing somewhat dishonourable actions to us, and I ask him now to name the gentleman to whom he refers.


John Vallance: I would refer the hon.
member to the individual who wrote the article, T. H. Blackloek.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is not an answer. The hon. member must take responsibility for the statement he makes in this house.


John Vallance: I take responsibility
to this extent, that some member of the press gallery known as T. H. Blackloek had an interview, according to his own statement, with an Independent member of the Progressive group who gave him certain information. He does not name the member, but says an Independent member of the Progressive group, and if the members of that group are not responsible, it is up to them to clear their own skirts. I am trying to clear mine. I suppose some of the hon. members think that one day I did wear skirts. So I did, and I am not ashamed of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is highly relevant
to this discussion.


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind the hon.
gentleman who has the floor that Bourinot says, at page 326:
Nor is it, in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside the house, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member, or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


John Vallance: I agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker, that this question should be referred to the agriculture committee, that the scope of the reference should be enlarged, and that all individuals who are interested should have the opportunity of appearing before the committee, either voluntarily, or if the committee desires their attendance, that they be called. In view of the conditions that exist in western Canada to-day, I think possibly the best thing that could have happened was for this discussion to take place.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker,
I have not spoken on the budget, and after these few remarks it is not my intention co take part in that debate.
I do not agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that this is not the place to bring this matter to the attention
of parliament. When a public scandal occurs of the magnitude of this I think the floor of parliament is the first place where it ought to be aired. The agriculture committee will be none the worse for knowing how seriously the farmers of the prairie provinces are viewing this question.
The hon. member who has just preceded me (Mr. Vallance) very clearly and accurately gave the history of the Campbell amendment.
I shall not repeat his remarks except in so far as may be necessary to emphasize the fact that in 1927-1 hope the noisy individual sitting in the back row on the opposite side will restrain himself a while-I say that in 1927 the so-called Campbell amendment passed this house. Our memories, I am sure, are long enough to recall the circumstances and also to remember that that amendment gave to *the wheat producer the right to determine the destination of his grain. That is a very elementary right. It is astonishing that the night of the wheat grower to control his own property until sold could ever have been called in question. That right was reinstated by the so-called Campbell amendment.
The history of the amendment is significant. Properly speaking, the name of Mr. Turgeon ought to be connected with the amendment as well as the name of the member for Mackenzie, because its wording originated with Mr. Turgeon, who was the chairman of the grain commission that prior to the session of 1925 took evidence throughout the west. Its report was submitted to parliament that session, and its recommendations were embodied in a bill which came before a committee of this house. That bill contained the Campbell amendment in the very words in which the member for Mackenzie introduced it to this house in 1926 and 1927. The reason for it was obvious, as the last speaker has very well pointed out. A change came over the outlook of the wheat growers of the west in 1924, when the establishment of the pool gave them a new interest in the control of their product, and when representations were made to the Turgeon commission that the provisions of the grain act giving to the farmer the right to choose his terminal were so obscure that advantage was being taken of the obscurity by the grain trade to deprive the farmer of the right to control his commodity. The Turgeon commission determined to remove that obscurity and to state the farmer's right in words that would leave no doubt as to what was intended.
Now, as I say, that recommendation came before this house in a bill which was introduced in the session of 1925. We all know

Grading of Grain-Mr. Bird
how it failed to pass. All the forces at the command of the grain trade were brought to 'bear upon this house, and that elementary right of the farmer, which only the year previously had begun to assume some kind of value to him, was denied. In 1926 we all know what occurred. After the election the government met parliament minus a majority. At the beginning of the session the Progressive members came to an agreement with the government that certain legislation should be passed. Prominent among that legislation was the Campbell amendment. In pursuance of the agreement it was passed through the committee, but we all know of course that it, with other legislation, fell by the way. The following session, after another election, the Campbell amendment was once more introduced, and a good many of us remember very clearly the effort which the grain trade again made to prevent the farmer from regaining this elementary right. I was not on the committee 'to which the amendment was referred, but I attended its sittings regularly, and I remember the high priced legal advice sent down from Winnipeg to instruct the committee on the rights of the grain trade. I remember distinctly an address by one of those legal stars. He almost shed tears over the prospects of the grain trade in Winnipeg if this right of the farmer was reestablished in law. I am certain that one of those legal gentlemen actually did become moist around the eyes when he thought of what was going to happen to the Winnipeg grain trade if this simple amendment became law. There is a saying that corporations have not any emotions, and therefore do not shed tears. I think it was some great English writer who asked, whoever saw a corporation shedding team. Well, we pretty nearly saw it on that occasion; we saw a great deal of emotion displayed in committee over the frightful injury that was going to be done the grain trade by reestablishing in law this simple elementary right of the farmer. But the grain trade did not get its way. The government of the day may take credit to itself for honouring its promise of the year before. Anyway, this simple provision became law in 1927 and has since been known as the Campbell amendment.	.
Now, Mr. Speaker, although the grain trade were foiled in parliament, they were not at the end of their resources. What they had failed to do in parliament they immediately .sought to accomplish outside. We sometimes hear about the audacity of elected members, but their audacity is timidity itself compared with the audacity of these representatives of

high finance, who when foiled in parliament by the representatives of the people immediately turned around and tried by other means to defeat the law. In the olden days they spoke of running a coach and horses through an act of parliament. The grain trade, in less than a year after this amendment was passed, ran whole trainloads of grain through that act of parliament. How did they do it? Very simply. They issued a form of warehouse receipt which was contrary to the act passed the same year. A copy of that receipt I have in my possession. The grain trade, I say, in order to defeat parliament, issued a warehouse receipt in a form contrary to the express statements of the act. The Campbell amendment was put into words which as we thought were perfectly clear and definite, and the resources of parliament were drawn upon to make the meaning of that amendment unequivocal beyond a doubt. Yet within a few months there was issued a document which in plain words is a forgery. A document was issued that destroyed that act of parliament, and this was done by the simple means of introducing three short English words, one noun and two prepositions-" on account of." By inserting these words into this document the grain trade of Canada proceeded once more to rob the farmers of the west of a valuable right which was theirs and which should never have been held in doubt. Talk about changing the landmark of your neighbour. This is the modern form of changing your neighbour's landmark. In the old times they said, cursed be he that changes his neighbour's landmark; and to that all the people said, amen. Here is the grain trade
o.f Canada changing a landmark which had been erected by parliament only a few months previously for the purpose of protecting the grower of wheat from the grain trade itself. This false form, this form in its forged state, was issued in spite of section 225 of the act, which expressly forbids anyone, under penalty, to do anything of the sort.
Every person who uses any form other than those in the first schedule to this act, or those authorized by the board with the approval of the governor in council, shall, in case any such forms are applicable, be guilty "of an offence under this act, and shall he liable to a fine or forfeiture of license.
Here is the grain trade defying parliament and defying the government. Here is a private trade, whose object is private profit, shattering to bits an act of parliament passed so recently, and then snapping its fingers at the government whose right it was to superintend the issue of these tickets.
Now the farmers of the west, with ironic humour, have called this a hybrid ticket.

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Bird
It is an interesting research sometimes to try to find out why the popular mind should originate a nickname of that kind. Why call this forged document a hybrid ticket? It seems to me quite obvious that it is the fruit of an unnatural union between the brains of the grain trade and what is in the place of the brains of the grain commission. It seems to me that a document of this kind could not be possible except by the subterranean processes that have gone on between the grain trade on the one hand and, on the other, this body that was supposed to stand in defence of the farmers. That is the origin of the idea of the hybrid ticket.
I want to say-it has already been said but I wish to say it more emphatically if possible-that the grain trade committed these crimes against the elementary rights of the producers and were condoned in so doing by the Board of Grain Commissioners. I do not see why the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) should want all this extra evidence when we are faced with a fact so elementary in its character, the fact of a responsible body, deliberately and without excuse, pandering to the demands of the grain trade in face of an act of parliament which had been passed only the previous session. It is not necessary to quote them, but we have documents to show that as early as the same fall in which the Campbell amendment was passed the pools of western Canada protested against this very warehouse receipt. They sent their protest to the Board of Grain Commissioners. We have on record the replies which were given by the grain commission to these protests, and in these replies the board say that these forged warehouse receipts are in harmony with the grain act. How do they harmonize this document with the grain act? Well, there is only one explanation, and it is this. When the grain commission considered the subject they did so with their eyes not on the grain act, where they ought to have been, but on a private contract. The grain commissioners when they wrote that reply had regard not to the document which was their official guide but to a document which did not concern them in the slightest, a private contract that was supposed to be in the vaults of the grain trade association and of the pool. These grain commissioners in making their weighty decision which nullified the eSect of the Campbell amendment were concerned about enforcing a private contract when they ought to have been concerned about enforcing an act of parliament for which they were paid and, as has been well pointed out, paid by the farmers themselves. If only these gentlemen had read this part of that contract
with a sympathetic mind they would have seen that, as well as the human language could do so, these very rights were safeguarded, the rights which this forged ticket has taken away from the farmers. Yet they allowed that document, that private contract, to poison their judgment and divert their concern from the farmer to the grain trade.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this is not a matter of the personal character or personal concern of the Board of Grain Commissioners. In considering this question let us put the board on the one side and let us put on the other the hundreds of thousands of farmers and their families in western Canada; let us try to look at this question in its true proportion. Here are the farmers of the west, who feel that the handling of their wheat is the most vital question in their lives, and you cannot wonder at farmers being suspicious when the very thing which they have put into the hands of the grain commission means almost life and death to themselves and their families. The proper administration of the grain act is more than a technical matter with farmers; it comes right down to their standard of living.
I am disappointed with the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this respect; I do not think he apprehends the seriousness of the situation; I do not think he is looking at it from the standpoint of the man who is growing wheat and whose whole life depends upon the proper and honest handling of that wheat. The minister is looking at this matter too much from the point of view of the Board of Grain Commissioners, but he must not look upon these men in the light of ordinary government employees. The members of this board stand in a peculiar relationship not only to himself but to the farmers of Canada, and I would like to say that the whole value of a commission, whether it be a grain commission or a railway commission, depends upon the nature of the discipline which a government is prepared at any moment to hand out to it, when the government thinks it has been biased in its decisions. I think a commission like this is a danger and a menace to the people concerned if the minister, through a mistaken sense of fair play or tenderness on his part, allows this commission to go unpunished for a minute.
I want you to put in the other balance these hundreds of thousands of farmers and their families in western Canada. These commissioners are human; they are not supermen. When you select ordinary human beings and appoint them to a commisison, by that act you do not make them more human

Grading of Grain-Mr. Bird
beings. They are still like the rest of us; they still possess the same susceptibilities. The only difference between them and the rest of us is that they have been elevated to a position where the exposure is ten-fold, yes, a hundred-fold more severe, where their rectitude is put to greater tests than ever we can know. If that is the case, and of course it is the case, then what is the duty of a government? The duty of a government is to be beforehand and not behindhand in disciplining these people.
I want to say that the members in this corner of the house always have been very generous to the grain commission. There was a time when the members of that board needed increased salaries, and where do they get their support? The support came from western members; it was through the initiative of western representatives that the remuneration of our grain commissioners was raised. Why was that done? It was done because the representatives of western agriculture knew that these men were in exceptional circumstances, with great responsibilities resting upon them, and they knew it to be important that these men should be sufficiently well paid to put them in a position where outside influences would have the least effect. The representatives from the west supported that increase unanimously.
I think the grain commissioners were abundantly thankful at that time to the western members; shortly afterwards I remember walking into the room of an hon. member upstairs, and in the middle of the floor was a packing case. The hon. member handed me a letter and said, " What do you think of that; shall I accept this?" Here was a token of gratitude from the grain commissioners to a member of parliament for the part he took in raising their salaries. I said to that member, " If I were in your position I would not un-nail that packing case; 1 would send it back to where it came from and tell these commissioners to express their gratitude by giving the farmers of the west a square deal." Have they done so? If I had known what I know now of the fidelity of the grain commissioners of the west certainly I would not have let a misdemeanor like that pass without investigation.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was in it?


Thomas William Bird: It does not matter what was
in the case; it might have been worse instead of better.


Malcolm McLean: I would like to ask the hon. member if he did investigate the matter.


Thomas William Bird: No, I did not investigate it,
but I would like the hon. member to remember my advice in the circumstances.


Robert Forke: It seems to me that is
rather a serious charge to make against the board.


Thomas William Bird: I make no charge.


Robert Forke: Pardon me; I will repeat
your words and if I am wrong you may correct me.	.


Thomas William Bird: I wish to correct the hon.
gentleman now; I was making no charge.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend said a package was on the floor of the room of a member of parliament, and with it was a card saying this was sent in recognition of services rendered in a particular way. Were not those the words my hon. friend used, and was not that an attempt to bribe that member of parliament?


Thomas William Bird: I am leaving the hon. gentleman to put his own construction on it; I introduced the incident for another purpose.


Robert Forke: The hon. gentleman is casting a very serious reflection on the personal integrity of the grain commissioners.


Thomas William Bird: I am not concerned about the seriousness of the reflection.


Robert Forke: I desire to be just, that is all.


Thomas William Bird: Does my hon. friend say I am not being just? Am I not taking the responsibility for that statement? I do not say these things without deliberation. Now let me put a question to my hon. friend:	What
objection has he to my making that statement? Does he believe I am making it without responsibility? That is a fair question.


Robert Forke: All I have to say is that the hon. member said either too much or too little.


Thomas William Bird: That is a very free and easy
kind of a phrase to bring into a dispute; my hon. friend copied it from the Minister of Finance who never has anything else to say in a difficult situation. I have said neither too much nor too little; I have said the exact truth, which I can substantiate by at least two other members of the house. I introduced the incident quite legitimately, in order to prove that the members of the commission are human and to indicate what the members on this side of the house expected a few years ago when they were 100 per cent behind the grain commission. They sup-

Grading of Grain-Mr. Millar
ported the grain, commissioners at that time because they thought that an increase in salary would incite those men to give the farmers of the west a square deal.
I do not think there is anything in this debate which the government or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or even the Saskatchewan Liberals, can regard in a political light. So far as the last speaker from that side of the house is concerned there can be no possible doubt but that he with others has been just as eager as we on this side of the house that this matter should be considered.
I am sorry that the last speaker (Mr. Val-lance) has thrown out the suggestion that some independent member had given an interview to a member of the press gallery, without indicating who he was.


Mr. KENNEDY:: It is not a case of too
much or too little.


Thomas William Bird: I happened to be one of the
four members who interviewed the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that particular time, but I am not going to say that I was not the member referred to, because if I said that it would be a reflection upon my colleagues. If the hon. member has any idea just who it was he should tell the house and not leave a general suspicion hanging over the rest of us. He has had sufficient experience in the house to know that the members of the press gallery are experienced men. They have means and methods of gathering news which are not always obvious to the individuals from whom they obtain the news.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: All the member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallanoe) said was that the statement appeared in the press announcing that members on this side had said a certain thing; that that was denied, and the next day the press correspondent came back with the statement that he would not retract what he had said because he had obtained his information from a member in that comer of the house.


Thomas William Bird: I did not understand it in
that way; I thought he had said that himself.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I have the article here if the hon. member wishes to see it.


Thomas William Bird: I am perfectly willing to take
back what I said in so far as it reflected upon the hon. member. I understood that he himself had made that surmise, but if the statement was made by the press I am perfectly satisfied. However, I will say I am just as much surprised at the press as I was surprised
at the hon. member when I thought he had made the statement. It is not fair to the members of parliament that such a statement should be issued which causes innocent members to come under the suspicion of their friends in the house.
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'AppeMe)): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the discussion which has taken place on this matter. I agree with wthat has been said as to the magnitude of the grain trade and the fact that the system has fallen down, but I think it is most unfortunate that this matter should come up in this house before it is dealt with in committee. When the chairman of the agriculture committee made a motion in the house which asked for the broadening of the reference, I was rather surprised to see the objections to that motion coming from the southeast corner of the house.	We tried to arrange this matter in
the committee so that the reference would be broad enough to enable the matter to be discussed in committee; the merhber for Bow River (Mr. Garland) asked the chairman very pointedly if it would be interpreted in that way, and he received an answer in the affirmative. I was therefore rather surprised to see objections offered to this motion from that corner of the house. We have the situation of the three men composing the Board of Grain Commissioners being charged with the most serious blunders and not having the opportunity to defend themselves or offer an explanation.
One of the matters was discussed with the board in a committee of which I formed a part, but only one. It may be that other members of the house met the members of the board at a different time to discuss other matters, but they would be very, very few. In a general way the members of the Board of Grain Commissioners are being charged in the House of Commons with most serious offences; in fact insinuations of bribery are made. The newspapers of Canada will be full of this sort of thing and it will be two or three weeks before the members of the board will have an opportunity to offer a defence. I think that is very unfortunate and very unfair; it would have been better to have had this matter taken up in the agriculture committee where the members of the board could have appeared and given their explanations. The members of the committee could arrive at a decision and then report 'back to the house where the matter could be discussed. In that way, there would have been no undue publicity in the public press.

Grading of Grain[DOT]-Mr. Millar
I should like to say a word here with regard to 'the commissioners. It has been stated toy those who have already spoken that there is no desire to accuse the commissioners of, I think the expression was, "dishonesty." I submit that the commissioners are being treated in a way which is equal to being charged with dishonesty; a serious stigma has been placed upon them 'before they have a chance to defend themselves. I believe I have known one of the commissioners longer than any other member of this house, except the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell)-for some thirty-five years. I would like to speak first of Mr. Snow. He was a farmer near the town of Wolsely, and I believe he was present at the very first meeting of the grain growers' association. A little group of about twenty-five met and organized a small association. That association was jeered at and laughed at for years; it had all sorts of difficulties to meet and contend with; and it had to fight its way up. Those men spent their own money and sacrificed their time in driving around the country through storms and all kinds of weather. That little group depended more upon the advice of Mr. Snow than of any other individual, with the exception of the Minister of Agriculture. What would have happened if the infant organization had not been well and truly nurtured during those early days? We probably would not have 'had any permanent farmers' organizations to-day. It was very important that the foundations of the organization should toe well laid, and I believe 'they were. I know of no one, outside of the Minister of Agriculture, who played a greater part in that work than did Mr. Snow. He was later appointed, on the recommendation of the farmers themselves, to the position of deputy to the Warehouse Commissioner, Mr. C. C. Castle. He travelled through the western country for years, investigating every complaint which was received in writing. He adjusted many differences, and I know of no period in the history of western Canada when the grain trade ran as smoothly or as satisfactorily. Are these things all to be forgotten? Is there no such thing as gratitude?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a lively hope for favours yet to come.


Mr. MILLAR:: That may be my hon.
friend's conception, but it is not mine. I have known these three men for many years, and I know of no time in their history when they could be accused of an act that was dishonourable or ungentlemanly. I admit they made a mistake. They made a mistake in regard to the hybrid ticket, and I have no 
hesitation in saying to them that in that they were wrong; they blundered. But if the men who are attacking the commission, as they are, wish to be consistent, they will, as contract signers of the pool, be almost compelled to ask for the resignation of the directors of the pool, because this was caused by two things, first, the action of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and second, the action of the directors of the pool.


Edward Joseph Garland: What under heaven have the pool directors or the pool contracts to do with the administration of the grain act?


John Millar: If my hon. friend had
waited a moment I would have come to that point. I admit they had nothing whatever to do with the administration of the act. In arriving at the decision they did, they were wrong, but the difficulty that has arisen and the loss that has been sustained were caused as much by the action of the directors of the pool as by the action of the Board of Grain Commissioners. If either had been absent, such a condition could not have occurred.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
hon. member explain that? It is not clear.


John Millar: I do not think it needs any explanation.


Robert Gardiner: It certainly does.


John Millar: If they had not signed the contract, the loss could not have occurred.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the
hon. member read the contract?


John Millar: I have heard parts of it
read.


Edward Joseph Garland: IS the hon. gentleman aware that under clause 13, I think it is, the contract carefully provides a full safeguard that the grower's rights under the Canada Grain Act are preserved to him?


John Millar: I am aware of all that. I have heard that clause read.


Edward Joseph Garland: In what way are the pool directors responsible?


John Millar: The hon. member has had his forty minutes and, I have only the same length of time.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member has made a mistake and cannot get out of it.


John Millar: They both blundered and
it was an act of injustice.

Grading of Grain-Mr. Millar


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: May I
ask a question?


John Millar: No, I have only forty
minutes.


William Russell Fansher: Then let the bon. member prove his statement that they blundered.


John Millar: There is widespread dissatisfaction, tout the situation is simply this: that the grain trade has grown to enormous proportions and our machinery for handling the trade has not grown in proportion. Trade practices have changed; new trade practices have grown up and the machinery is not sufficient. The board was simply undermanned and I should like to ask those who have been making the attacks on it: If they were placed in an important position and found that the jab was enough for five men, whereas there were only one or two to do it, would it be just to blame the one or two men for failure to do five men's work? It is a little unfair, it seems to me.
The dissatisfaction that is rife in western Canada to-day may be placed in three classes: mixing, diversion of cars and a lack of a proper system of grading. The difficulty is that the farmers themselves have not been united. Let us take the matter of mixing first: can anyone claim that there was such a crystallized public opinion on the matter of mixing that even a government which was prepared to go ahead and pass legislation was in a good position to do so? What happened in 1925? The pool officials who were present in the committee at that time when the matter was being discussed, represented a body who were not themselves a unit. One of them stated in the committee that the pool was mixing and did not wish that privilege taken away. I am not blaming the pool for that. They had not come to an agreement. There were differences of opinion, and that is and has been the case up to recent months, all through the country. Mainly because of the work of the committee last year public*opinion has now been crystallized, and there is a strong majority of opinion in favour of stopping mixing entirely. But that has been brought about only within recent months.
In the case of diversion of cars, has there been united public opinion? That is one of the greatest evils. The railway companies and the elevator companies gave consent to the opening of cars and while I cannot see that this is illegal, it certainly has caused the farmer a great deal of loss. But on that point 78594-72
there has not been crystallized public opinion^ there has been a difference of opinion. When those interested as much as the farmers themselves were not a unit on the matter, I cannot see how the grain commission could reasonably or consistently go ahead and prevent the practice of diversion of cars.
I am free to confess that a reorganization is necessary but I think it would be unfortunate that the course suggested should be taken, namely, that the three commissioners should be discharged. Men against whom no proof of dishonesty can be brought should not be treated in this way. If, on account of any other cause such as ill health or physical disability, it is found that they are not able to fill the bill; that they are not the big . men we want, for any such cause I would say that a reorganization should take place, and new men should1 be appointed. But it is only just, that as regards men who have served the country as faithfully as they have, and, as I said before, against whom no charge of dishonourable conduct can be made, it should be left to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the government to bring about a reorganization just as the head of any large business concern would do. That would be far better than the method of attacking the Board of Grain Commissioners without giving them a fair opportunity to defend themselves and suggesting that they should be publicly discharged, to that discharge of course being attached a certain amount of disgrace. It takes a long time to build up a good reputation, and some of these men are probably as jealous of their good names as any members of the house. No matter what hon. members say about their good intentions towards these men, and what they personally think of them, if this course is taken of publicly attacking the members of the commission and publicly discharging them, their names are gone; they are blackened. For instance, a man like Mr. Enow who is nearly seventy years of age, a man to whom the country is very greatly indebted, will be cast off with a blackened name and a destroyed reputation. I do not think that is good for the welfare of Canada. If men are going to be attacked in this way, where will you find good men who will take their place? Good men will be very shy about accepting this job if men such as the ones we have now are to be attacked in this way and discharged in the manner suggested.


Milton Neil Campbell: When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon made efforts to prevent or to curtail this debate, I think he failed

1138	COMMONS
Grading of Grain*-Mr. Campbell
[DOT]to realize the vital importance of the question to the farmers of western Canada. As a western member himself, he did not realize, I think, how very important this matter is. During the eight sessions that I have been here as a member in this house, with the exception of one other matter, this is the most important question so far as the interests of the farmers are concerned that has come before parliament in that time; that one exception was the Crowsnest pass rates case in 1922.
May I give a brief summary of the history of the grain act, particularly with respect to the special bin ticket, since 1900. The first grain act, known as the Manitoba Grain Act, was passed in the year 1900. That act provided for three forms of ticket-the cash ticket, the regular storage ticket, and the special bin ticket. It is the special bin ticket around which the whole controversy rages to-day. The particular section of the 1900 act with which we have to deal in this connection says that wheat, if in carload lots, was deliverable to the party upon whose account it was taken into store. But the ticket set out in the schedule of the act said that the grain was deliverable " to the abovenamed or his order," and the farmer's name, of course, would appear at the top of the ticket, and so it referred to that particular farmer. Section 225 of the Canada Grain Act, the present act, makes it an offence for anyone to use tickets other than those set out in the schedule of the act.
In 1912 the whole act was redrafted, and section 159 of the new act said that the grain was deliverable to the person upon whose account it was taken into store, while the ticket read " to the above-named or his order," just the same as it did in the old act of 1900.
In 1925, the act was again revised, but you find that same provision in the act, and those same words on the ticket, and that continued up until 1927, so that for twenty-seven years there was no change so far as those words in the act, and on the ticket issued under the act, are concerned.
The amendment of 1927 made some fundamental changes in the act. It gave to the producer the right to determine the destination of his grain. Some of us claim that the producer always had that right, but the amendment placed it beyond a doubt that the individual farmer had the right to say to what terminal point and to what terminal elevator his grain should be delivered. This change in the act of 1927 necessitated a new form of ticket because it altered the right of the parties as to the terminal destination of
[Mr. Campbell.1
their grain, although it did not in any way alter the section as regards the particular words that we have been considering. Section 150 of the amended act of 1927, says that the grain is deliverable to the person on whose account it is taken into store. So in twenty-nine years there has been no change so far as that particular wording is concerned. But the new ticket that was issued by order in council P.C. 807, dated May 4, 1927, provided that instead of the grain being deliverable " to the above-named or his order," as had been the case since 1900, the grain was deliverable to the person on whose account it was taken into store. That is the crux of the whole matter, and that is the point to which I wish particularly to refer.
May I say that this provision was made in the bill which was drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon, and the amendment of 1927, so far as this particular phase is concerned, brought the act back to 'the exact form in which it was when it was introduced in this house. As hon. members know that act was amended in the agriculture committee and went through the house in its amended form, and the amendment of 1927 was simply putting back into the act the exact words that were in the bill as originally drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon. So therefore I think I am perfectly right in saying that the ticket drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon to come into conformity with the act is the one that we should have at the present time, and the one that should have been covered by the order in council to which I have referred. That particular form of ticket will be found on page 82 of the act. It says that the grain is deliverable "to the person above-named or his order," and that is what we should have at the present time. This is where all the trouble began. This is where we find something wrong in the wording of the ticket.
May I point out that while it would appear fairly obvious on the surface that the grain interests made some representations, I do not know to whom, whether to the Board of Grain Commissioners or the cabinet, ii* connection with the drafting of this ticket, the pools were never consulted in this matter, although they control fifty per cent of the grain, and they knew nothing about this ticket or about its form until months after when it was in use. I contend, and the minister will bear me out in this for he is on record as taking the same stand, that any agreement existing between the grain pools and the grain trade has no bearing on the act, that no private agreement can over-ride the act. Nevertheless, because a

Grading of Grain-Mr. Campbell
certain agreement has been brought into the discussion, I shall make a brief reference to it.
In the handling contract between the pools and the grain trade, clause 15 reads as follows:
The pool agrees that all pool grain, of whatever class, forwarded to terminal points, shall be handled through any elevator the company desires.
I think that is quite plain. It goes on:
Provided that nothing in this clause contained shall take away from the grower any rights he may now have under the Canada Grain Act.
That also appears to be perfectly plain, and it appears to me that there could not be any misunderstanding about it. The grain companies, however, immediately claimed that a pool grower had now no rights under section 150 of the act, as those rights had been assigned to the pool as an organization, and they claimed that pool grain delivered into a line elevator was taken into store on account of the pool. That is where those words "on account of" become of such vast importance. We can see the bearing which the change in the ticket has on the whole matter under discussion. The pool officials claim that under the arrangement which they had with the grain trade all the street wheat would, of course, be taken to the company's own terminal. They further admitted, after a long discussion with the grain trade, that so far as they were concerned they were willing to allow any pool grain to go to the company's own terminals unless the grower expressly reserved his right under the Canada Grain Act; and to place the matter beyond all doubt they had this particular clause which I have just read inserted into the agreement. That is their contention.
In section 25 of the same agreement there is another clause to the effect that the company guarantees that in the conduct of their business they will not in any way discriminate between the growers who are members of the pool and those who are not. Now, if the company's contention is right, if they are right in saying that this agreement waived on the part of the growers the right which they had under the Canada Grain Act, then they are violating this other clause in that same agreement, because they do not dispute the right of a non-pool farmer to determine the destination of his grain, while they do dispute the right of a pool farmer to do so. Therefore this other section, No. 25, has been violated by them; that is, if they are right in one case they are wrong in the other.
In addition to this new form of ticket which was covered by the order in council, which
78594-72J
apparently was not sufficient, the trade brought out the other ticket which has already been referred to and is known as the hybrid ticket. It reads that the grain is received from John Smith, say, on account of the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. We find1 after "on account of" the particular pool name added; sometimes it is inserted with a rubber stamp, at other times it is printed right in the ticket, although no such provision is made in the original form. Our contention is that the grain trade had no right whatever to change the original form of the ticket. They claim that under this hybrid ticket grain delivered by a pool farmer to the elevator is not subject to his order, that it is taken into store on account of the pool. It is quite obvious that they could not have done this had it not been for that particular form of ticket which was authorized by the order in council that I have quoted, because it is stated to be taken into store on account of, instead of-as it should be-"to the above named or his order." I see no reason whatever for this form of ticket being authorized. The form should be similar to that suggested by Chief Justice Turgeon, because the clause in his draft act is exactly the same as the one that appears in the present act.
I have under my hand sessional paper No. 141 covering correspondence between the board, the pool, grain trade and the complaints of farmers in connection with this matter. May I read telegram No. 41. It is in reply to a telegram forwarded to the board by the Saskatchewan pool asking the board's opinion on certain provisions of the act. It reads:
Winnipeg, October 25, 1927. To the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Ltd.,
Saskatoon, Sask.
If Arrand is owner of the grain delivered by him to State elevator, until said grain is handed over to pool at terminal he has a right to order his grain shipped as he desires.


Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker, is
the hon. member in order in view of your ruling given a short time ago?


Milton Neil Campbell: The signature is "M.
Snow," grain commissioner.


Hewitt Bostock: What is the substance?


Milton Neil Campbell: It is in reply, Mr. Speaker, to a telegram despatched to the Board of Grain Commissioners by the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, and gives the board's decision on the point referred to.
1140	COMMONS
Grading oj Grain-Mr. Campbell
Now, this decision is very important, because it bears out our contention in full. In the first place, the board rule that the grain does not become the property of the pool until it has arrived at the terminal. , That is covered by the agreement between the pool signer and the pool organization. In effect the grain does not pass over to the pool. In fact I may read clause 5 of the contract between the grower and the company:
Wheat shall be deemed to be delivered to the association within the meaning of this contract so as to render the association accountable for only when the storage and bills of lading, warehouse receipts and. so forth shall have been transferred and delivered, properly endorsed by the growers to the association.
That is our contention, and in this decision the board bore us out. They state very definitely that the grower has a right to say where that grain shall be shipped. On November 11, 1927, there is another telegram to the Saskatchewan Cooperative Wheat Producers, Ltd., Regina, signed by F. J. Rath-bone, secretary of the board. It reads:
.... board directs me advise if pool member delivers grain to non-pool country elevator with instructions that grain is delivered on account of pool and accepts tickets issued accordingly, grain is then deliverable to person on whose account taken into store, and if tickets read "on account of pool" grain is then deliverable io pool in accordance with tickets.
New, sir, that alters completely the original [DOT]decision; it is an entirely different decision. This decision is that if the grower puts his grain in the pool and takes out what we call a hybrid ticket, the grain then becomes subject to this contract and the grower has lost control of it. On another point they state:
Under grain act any farmer, pool or non-pool member, delivering grain either to pool or line country elevator can demand tickets in form as provided by the grain act.
This is another important decision. In this case they do decide that the grower, if he is not satisfied with what we call the hybrid ticket, can demand the regular ticket. So even a pool farmer would not be under any great disability, he would simply have to refuse the other ticket. May I read another telegram, No. 62 in the file:
Fort William, Nov. 15, 1927. To the Manitoba Cooperative
Wheat Producers Limited,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Answering your wire, have advised Canadian Flevator Board of opinion that if when grain delivered agent was advised same was on account of pool, and if tickets so issued, under grain act grain is deliverable to pool on whose account taken into store.
F. J. Rathbone.
There you have an entirely different de-

cision. In fact these three decisions that I have quoted are at variance one with the other. In this case the board rule that if the farmer brings in grain and says it is pool grain, and the tickets are issued that way, he has no alternative. Let me read No. 65 in the file. This is another telegram: This is a question put to the board by the Manitoba pool. It reads:
Winnipeg, Nov. 17, 1927.
To Board of Grain Commissioners,
Fort William, Ont.
We stated your yesterday wire not clear. Consequently still don't know your opinion. Advise definitely board's opinion as to whether or not Canadian Elevator Company obliged to bill this grain to pool terminal if grower instructs.
Manitoba Cooperative Wheat Producers Ltd.
The reply of the board is No. 67 on the file. It reads:
Reply your wire, reference Canadian Elevator case, board will consider question fully just as soon as full board able to meet. Full board not in Fort William.
F. J. Rathbone.
There you have an evasion again instead of giving a decision on the point referred to them. About this time the board referred the matter to the Department of Justice, and may I quote from the opinion of the department which was given on January 11, 1928:
It is contended on behalf of the pool that the intention was that the company should have control of the shipment unless the grower should elect to exercise his right under section 150; that that is the effect of the proviso of clause 15 of the agreement mentioned above. . . .
Owing to the fact that the parties have failed to express their intention clearly, I entertain considerable doubt as to whether the grower may, if he chooses, elect to divert the grain to a terminal of his selection. I should think he probably can, if he has not stored the grain in the country elevator on account of the pool, but Mr. Boyd has not asked advice upon this point.
This opinion is not definitely expressed because the questions were stated in an indefinite way, but so far as the opinion goes it does rule that the grower would have the right to refuse a hybrid ticket; he may choose what he will accept. I wish to read again from letter No. 93 on the file. This is from Fort William and is dated January 16, 1928. In part the letter reads:
While the Canada Grain Act provides that the shipper may select the terminal point and the terminal elevator to which he desires his grain to be shipped, the board understands that the pools have entered into contracts with line elevator companies authorizing them to ship to their own terminals any pool grain received by them.
There is a remarkable thing. After the rulings they have given, they now invoke

Grading of Grain-Mr. Campbell
this particular agreement and in effect say to the farmer that because of this agreement he has lost his rights under the grain act. May I refer again to the telegram despatched by the minister to Mr. Boyd, No. 618 on the file, in which t'he minister points out clearly to that gentleman that the agreement should not be invoked. The telegram is dated Ottawa, January 28, 1929, and reads in part:
Parliament amended law to assure producer right to determine destination of his own grain. Board should take position that no contract between pool and grain trade should deprive producer of that right.
The telegram is signed James Malcolm and shows clearly that the Board of Grain Commissioners in this case were in conflict with the minister so far as the ticket was concerned. Let me refer again to the letter, No. 140 in the file. This is dated October 18, 1928. It is addressed to the Western Elevator Company Limited, Winnipeg, in relation to a letter from Mrs. F. J. Kernen, with regard to a car from Sutherland, Saskatchewan. The letter reads in part:
The board is informed that ordinary storage tickets were issued against this car, and if so, it appears to the board this party would have a perfect right under the grain act to give instructions as to what terminal this car should be shipped to.
There is a clear and unequivocal decision as to what would happen when the ordinary tickets were delivered; yet in this particular case, and in many others following, where the regular tickets were delivered, the board took no action whatever to enforce it. On November 20 the board drafted a circular letter, numerous copies of which exist. They seeim to have sent out this circular to any farmer who made complaint, and in it they say:
Many informal investigations and numerous conferences were held by the board with interested country elevator' companies with the hope that the elevator companies would honour the tickets issued by them in the name of the individual by shipping the grain to the terminal elevator designated by the holder of the tickets in accordance with the provisions of section 150 of the Canada Grain Act. However on discussing these particular complaints with the elevator companies it is pointed out by them that although tickets were issued to the farmer in his own name it was subsequently discovered that the farmer is a pool member and in view of certain contracts which had been entered into between the grower and the pool, and the elevator companies and the pool, they are justified in treating the grain delivered by you as pool grain, and under the terms of their contract with the pool they have the right to ship such pool grain to their own terminal elevator.
There again we have an entirely different decision, the board acting as parrots for the
grain trade and simply repeating the opinion of the trade and passing it on. We have entirely contrary decisions on the part of the board, who apparently were taking their legal advice from the grain companies. As each different case is submitted to them they shift their ground and fall back upon some other decision altogether. And that the companies themselves were not entirely sure of their ground is proved by the fact that in many cases when complaints were made to them they did agree to concede to the farmer the right to which he was entitled under the grain act. Let us take the case of the North Star elevator of Louis Heinz, Saskatchewan. This car was loaded contrary to the shipper's instructions, and in a letter dated January 25, 1928, the company admit the farmer's right in the matter and agree to send another car in its place. In case after case, company after company I find agreed, when the circumstances were submitted to them, to send the grain to the terminal of the farmers choice, showing clearly that they were not sure of their own ground. In these particular cases the farmer had received the straight ticket and not the hybrid ticket. Let me now refer to leltter No. 278 on the file This is from Messrs. Hudson, Ordimond, Spice & Symington and is addressed to the secretary of the board. It has reference to the case of H. L. Stutsman and Pioneer Grain Company, and reads in part:
This grain was originally shipped to a terminal of the company's selection because it had come to the knowledge of the agent that it was in reality pool wheat and was in his judgment, therefore, under the pool contract.
Here the regular ticket was given to the. farmer. He gave instructions according to his right and later they found it was pool grain inasmuch as he had asked to have it shipped to the pool; yet without any right whatever -and it is lawyers who are writing-they take it upon themselves to handle the grain through their own terminal. In such cases the board deliberately ignores the act, taking no means to have the law enforced.
With regard to this so-called hybrid ticket, may I refer to a memorandum drawn up by the pool's solicitor at Winnipeg. The memorandum gives some data of an interview between the board and some of the pool's officers at Winnipeg in December, 1927. I quote:
The board said it had not included the words "on account of Manitoba Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited" when drafting new ticket for use under Campbell amendment. Those words had been subsequently added by the grain trade but the board had approved of their so doing because they considered it necessary to indicate on the ticket the person-on whose account the grain was received.
1142	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. Campbell
Further on in the brief they point out that Mr. Snow, speaking for the board and in the presence of other members of the board, stated that the board had not included the objectionable words. Let me read what is said:
He said that the new wording had been added by the grain trade, but that the board had approved of the trade so doing, because the board considered it necessary to indicate on the ticket the person on whose account the grain was taken into store.
Previous speakers have reminded the house that no ticket is legal unless it is prescribed in the act or by order in council, and this particular form was never covered by any order in council, so that it comes directly into conflict with the act. May I quote from a letter written by the secretary of the board to the attorney for the Saskatchewan pool. This is dated December 14, 1928, and appears as No. 162 in the file. In part, it reads:
With regard to your observations while travelling with the Saskatchewan grain inquiry commission as to the form of tickets which are used by a number of elevator companies contrary to the wording of the Campbell amendment, I am directed to say that this is the first intimation the board has received that country elevator companies are not issuing tickets strictly in accordance with the above amendment.
It seems rather remarkable that a year after the complaints were made and a year after, according to this memorandum, they admitted having approved of the ticket, they claim to have no knowledge at all of it. The letter goes on:
The board further directs me to say that if any elevator company has issued tickets which are not in accordance with this amendment, it will do everything in its power, under the provisions of the act, to have the elevator company concerned honour the tickets in the manner in which they have been issued.
However, sir, there is nothing in the file, no copy of a circular letter or anything to prove that they ever took any action of that kind.
Now may I again read a letter which is number 211 in the file, dated January 6, 1928, from Mr. Snow to R. Cameron, Aberdeen, Saskatchewan:
A great many complaints are reaching the board in connection with the use of the ticket you complain of, but the elevator companies claim that under an agreement they have with the Saskatchewan pool a party delivering pool grain must state it pool grain-
This is about the sixth time the opinion of the board has been shifted.
-and that they have the right to select the terminal elevator that this grain can be consigned to.

Further on it says:
At the present time the board is unable to compel the country elevators to consign pool grain to any other terminal than the one they select.
That is a remarkable thing, because under the act they are given the power to discharge elevator operators, or to take away the license of any country elevator, but now they state they have no power whatever.
Again may I refer to two cars of grain shipped by John Hill of Lake Valley, Saskatchewan; this is a case of grading. Mr. Hill took samples from these two cars, which cars graded No. 4 at Winnipeg; the samples, both at Moose Jaw and at Winnipeg, graded No. 3, and when he called for a re-inspection only ten days later he was told that the samples had been destroyed. However, there is a letter from the chief inspector to the board stating that these samples were kept for thirty-one days. I quote this to show that they have not been checking up in these matters as they should.
I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 21, 1929