1929-03-21

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
_.	Ottawa, March 21, 1929.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mr. Justice Duff, acting aa deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber this day at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on public accounts.-Mr. Casgrain (for Mr. Jacobs).

Death of Marshal Foch

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that at this time and in this place mention should be made of the sorrow with which Canada, in common with all parts t>f the British Empire, and in common with the nations which were allied and associated with France in the Great War, learned of the loss which the world has sustained in the death of Marshal Foch. It is unnecessary to review either the noble life of Marshal Foch or the incidents of his great career; they are known to all. Suffice it to say that never before in the history of mankind was the fate of so many nations entrusted so completely to the judgment of one man. That so great a trust was wisely reposed, is everywhere acknowledged. In expressing, therefore, to France our sympathy in her national bereavement, we give expression as well to a sense of world loss in which we also share.
It was my privilege, on the occasion of the visit of Marshal Foch to Canada in 1921, to extend to him, on behalf of the Canadian people, a welcome to the capital of our country. May I be pardoned if I venture to repeat to the house, from the report of what was then said, words with which I concluded my remarks, and which, if they possessed aught of appropriateness at the time, have an added significance in the existing circumstances of to-day. They are repeated in the belief that a word of just appreciation to the living is worth many eulogies upon the dead. Seeking to express the feelings of the Canadian people I said to Marshal Foch:
"It is, however, not alone because in the hour of supreme conflict in the world's greatest of wars, millions of warriors looked to you as their leader, or because a war swept world hails you to-day as a deliverer, that we most honour you. Rather is it that in your singleness of vision and humility of spirit we perceive the secret of all guiding genius worthy of the name.
Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he
That every man in arms should wish to he?
-It is the generous Spirit, . . .
Who, doomed to go in company with Pain,
And Fear, and Bloodshed, miserable train!
Turns his necessity to glorious gain; . . .
He labours good on good to fix, and owes
To virtue every triumph that he knows.
In Foch, the man, we discern the character of the happy Warrior. He who, whether amid adversity or triumph, loves mercy, seeks to do justly, and walks humbly with his God. To have had among us one who is truly great, a hero with a hero's soul, is to inspire within our country more of reverence for the source
of all true greatness. For this inspiration, which we shall ever hold in remembrance of this visit, we thank you, too, with all our hearts.
As Canadians, we honour your illustrious name; your immortal fame we shall ever cherish. May the light that never faileth lead you on!"
That prayer, Mr. Speaker, would appear to have been answered. We are told in the press despatches that among the last requests of the great soldier was that he might be moved into the sunlight. That wish has been fulfilled, not with the aid of his physician, but by the hand of the Creator.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that the government has given instructions that the flag which flies over these parliament buildings shall be flown at half mast during the time of the funeral of Marshal Foch, as a mark of national respect to the memory of this great and good man.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we who sit to
your left desire to associate ourselves with the very moving observations that have been made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), for we realize that in the passing of Marshal Foch there has departed from this world one of its very greatest citizens. He was great not only as a military genius, not only because in a moment of great peril, when he was entrusted with grave responsibilities, he discharged them in a manner wholly satisfactory to those who had reposed their confidence in him, but he was great because of the possession of those qualities which one of our own great writers has referred to as the earmarks of true greatness. He was a man of great humility, with a high sense of duty, a fine regard for his obligations to his fellow-men, and above all, with a true respect of his obligations to his Creator. We are told that at moments of the direst stress and strain, when the fortune of armies hung in the balance, it was his custom to repair to a little chapel and there to offer his devotion through Mother Church to his Creator. For one possessed of such power and occupying such a high and responsible position, to be mindful at moments of great crisis of his obligations to his God was characteristic of this great soldier and truly great man.
We do indeed grieve and sympathize with France in the death of her greatest soldier, one whom we have reason to regard not only with the highest esteem, but more, with almost affection because in a great crisis of the war it was to the Canadians he turned
Death of Marshal Foch

as the spear head of his attack, realizing that in their valour, in their bravery and their courage, he had the instrument best suited to accomplish the purpose which he had in mind. That in itself was a wonderful tribute paid by a great soldier to the valour and courage of our Canadian soldiers.
We grieve to-day with practically the whole world. It is an odd circumstance but it is a fact that the deceased marshal had never heard a gun fired in anger, until after the Great war broke out. Until then he had had no military experience in the field. He had been simply a student of war, and his two military textbooks are perhaps the two greatest books on war that the world has seen, for he applied to modern conditions the science of Napoleon, and in so doing made victory possible.
I remember having heard in England that a number of soldiers were regretting that Field Marshal Earl Roberts was not acquainted with the German language, and was therefore unable to appreciate the great works that had been produced by some of the masters of war in the German empire. But Earl Roberts remarked that he did not think it essential that he should be thus qualified because there was a colonel on the staff college of France whose works he did understand, and who he believed in the event of there being a great war within a limited number of years must be the man in whom the armies of many nations would repose their confidence. The foresight that characterized the view of Earl Roberts at that time was amply justified by the result.
The affection in which the late Marshal Foch was held in Great Britain is evidenced by the fact that our sovereign conferred upon him the Order of Merit, and indeed Foch was a Field Marshal of the British army at the time of his death. No greater honour could have been conferred upon a man who was not a British subject than was conferred upon Marshal Foch by the sovereign of the British Empire.
It is fitting that we in this parliament of Canada, the oldest and the greatest of the overseas dominions, should associate ourselves with the citizens of the great republic where he was bom and of which he was such a distinguished citizen, associate ourselves also with the motherland and the other overseas dominions and with the other nations who were associated and allied with us in the Great war, in their grief at the passing of one whose, genius, whose foresight, whose steady nerve, whose devotion to duty, whose calmness in the great moments of the war
[Mr. Bennett.}
enabled him to snatch victory where defeat seemed imminent, and made the path of duty the path of glory, as was said by one of our own great poets when speaking of Nelson. And so to-day we associate ourselves with the right hon. the Prime Minister in the tribute that he has paid to this great figure which has just been removed from amongst us. We grieve with his native land, but we rejoice that a soul so great has passed to his eternal home.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, we in this part of the house wish to associate ourselves with the sentiments that have been expressed by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in their tribute on the death of a world hero. In Marshal Foch the world had a hero, not one of the foolhardy kind, but one whose courage was born of faith and of the guidance sought from the One in whose hands the destiny of all nations lies. Being a man of faith, he was also true to duty. He came forth at a time when the allies needed somebody in whom they could place their trust. Marshal Foch was a patriot of the first order, not one that sought glory particularly for himself or even for the French nation, for he had the cause of humanity at heart.
In considering the life of Marshal Foch let Canada to-day, with her two races, learn the lesson of cooperation, as our parent nations did in the time of their anguish when they made common cause in the task of winning the war. The name of Foch will go down in history, not particularly as that of a French patriot but as one who made humanity's cause his own. It is at times like this that the significance of all our actions and the eternal bearing which they have is brought home to us. Perhaps we can do nothing better now than to look back over the years leading up to the war, and in a national way do some real heart-searching and thus strive to find out if we can whether we were, either personally or nationally, in any way responsible for that great struggle which took away so much of the cream of humanity. To-day we mourn the death of a great and a good man.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I trust the house will allow me-being one of its oldest members-*to thank, on behalf of the Frenchspeaking people of Canada, the right bon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the distinguished leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), for the so well deserved tribute paid

Grading of Grain-Mr. Campbell
to the great field-marshal Foch. If the citizens of English origin in this country manifest both admiration and veneration for the memory of this distinguished man and illustrious soldier, such admiration and veneration are doubly felt by those in whose veins flow the same blood as that which flowed in the veins of Ferdinand Foch.
We, of French ancestry, have always sought the "entente cordiale" between Great Britain and our former motherland. We most anxiously hoped for this entente, under Edward VII-the great arbitrator of peace in Europe-and we finally realized it with the great world war of 1914. We were doubly honoured on that Sunday morning in December, 1921, when Ferdinand Foch visited Ottawa to officially thank the Canadian people for its participation in the war. He had then gloriously crowned his victory, and had what is more the very great satisfaction of having prevented further carnage the moment that honour had been vindicated.
The hon. leader of the opposition has just told us that Field-Marshal Foch was mindful of his obligations to his God, and that, in the midst of the greatest battles, it was his custom to repair to a little countryside chapel and there invoke the aid of his Creator. He gave us a beautiful example of piety, that Sunday morning in December, 1921, when in leaving the railway station, he drove to the Basilica to hear holy mass, kneeling in the choir beside His Grace the Archbishop of Ottawa. He performed this religious duty previous to receiving the welcome tendered to him by the people. We have a vivid recollection of his visit to the University of Ottawa, the seat of French culture, and furthermore he duly paid his respects to the representative of our Sovereign in Canada.
No more need be said. I think it was but proper that a French voice be heard in this house so as to thank those wh'o paid tribute to the great departed soldier. What we are saying to-day will be re-echoed in France, in Paris. Even at present, the government of the French Republic is making arrangements to pay the late Field Marshal Foch the supreme honours paid to her great men, to those who have well served their country.
I wish to thank the leaders of the three parties-since there are three parties in the house-for their participation in this display of sincere friendship and bonne entente we have shown to-day, by paying tribute to the great generalissimo who has just passed away.



GRADING OF GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kay for concurrence in the third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: 
Mir. MALCOLM:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. gentleman a question. He has made a charge-


Milton Neil Campbell: I have only a few moments at my disposal.


James Malcolm: I think, Mr. Speaker will give the hon. gentleman extra time. He has stated that in his opinion the Department of Trade and Commerce has failed to administer the grain act. I want him to substantiate that charge with some evidence.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is unnecessary for me to go over again the facts that I placed before the house yesterday and the facts that were adduced by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). Surely those facts prove that the grain act has not been properly administered.


James Malcolm: The hon. member for Bow River stated yesterday that his criticism was directed against the judgment of the Board of Grain Commissioners. He quoted a telegram addressed by me to the board, and he distinctly stated that he heartily agreed with the opinion therein expressed.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I read the very same telegram yesterday afternoon. Surely the minister will admit that the Board of Grain Commissioners are a part of his department; therefore their failure properly to administer the grain act is a failure on the part of the department. He cannot possibly separate the responsibility of the Board of Grain Commissioners from the responsibility of his department.


James Malcolm: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman admits that the moment the question referred to was called to the attention of the minister, the minister wired the commission his opinion, which is satisfactory to the hon. member, bow can he argue that my department failed in carrying out the act?


An hon. MEMBER:: Older.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that we do not want opinions; we want action from the minister. The Board of Grain Commissioners failed to act when the minister expressed his opinion-and by the way that opinion was not expressed until IMr. Campbell.]
nearly eighteen months after the trouble began-and if that is all we are to expect from his department, I think I have proven my case.
The farmers are demanding, first of all, a change in administration. And that is fundamental; if we have a proper change in administration, then everything else will follow as a matter of course. Secondly, they are asking for a change in the ticket covered by order in council P.C. 807-the ticket that made all this trouble possible. We are asking that the ticket drafted by Chief Justice Turgeon for the very section of the act under which we are operating to-day be put in its place. Lastly, may I say once again that the farmers are asking for a fearless enforcement of the law in the interests of the producers.
Mr. THOMAS F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):	Mr. Speaker, I do not at this time
intend to delay the house with any long discourse on this motion. This is neither the place ntor the time to discuss it. I do not believe that any such discussion would result in our reaching any conclusion as to what really should be done. In my opinion the place to discuss this matter is the agriculture committee. Therefore I associate myself with the chairman of the committee (Mr. Kay) in asking that the scope of inquiry of the committee be enlarged and that this whole subject be referred to it for investigation. Before that committee we can take evidence, we can hear from the men who are being accused, and we can decide what are the best measures to adopt in order to remedy the evil we are complaining of. I do not think that the order of reference asked for by the committee on agriculture is quite wide enough; it seems to me that we should also include the administration of the grain act itself as well as the question of mixing, storing and marketing of wheat.
I wish to associate myself with those members who have already spoken in regard to the claim that the west considers this a very serious question. I fully agree with them when they say that the prairies are on fire and that the western farmer is expecting some redress from the wrongs from which he is suffering at the present time. The whole problem is a serious one to western Canada; the western farmer's bread and butter, his livelihood, depends upon the proper solution of this problem. I say therefore that he is expecting some redress. At the same time I wish to correct a false impression which prevails not only in this house but in the press of the country, namely, that

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Donnelly
the only evil in respect to which the western, farmer is asking for redress 'is in connection with what is called the hybrid ticket. This is a slight wrong; it is an injury, but it is not so grave as is made out, it is not the great evil which the farmers are anxious to have removed. In my opinion it is but of minor importance compared to many other questions. I held meetings throughout my constituency last year, from one end of the district to the other, discussing the wheat question, and only at one of those meetings was the hybrid ticket introduced or spoken of. The press of the country seems, however, to be under the impression that the hybrid ticket is the only matter that calls for consideration. For instance, I read in this morning's Citizen an article in which the following appeared:
The great denunciation, however, was over this hybrid grain ticket, by which it is claimed the farmer is double crossed and his wheat, destined to a pool elevator, gets to one of the private trade.
I say, however, that 'this matter is of comparatively slight imipoiltance. Let me show just how important it is. The other day in the committee we took up the matter of the Alberta pool. We were told that the pool had under its control only 50 per cent of the wheat of that province, while just 20 per cent of the wheat was handled through loading platforms and other public elevators, ithe other 30 per cent being handled by pool elevators. Now, not more than 10 per cent of that 20 per cent would go through private elevators under special bin tickelts. I doubt whether more than 10 per cent would go through private elevators iu that form; and of that quantity not more than half, that is to say, 5 per cent would come from farmers who are asking to be relieved from the hybrid ticket. So that when we analyze it we find that the complaint in regard to the hybrid ticket has reference to just 5 per cent of the people who are marketing wheat in Alberta. As I say, therefore, the question of the hybrid ticket is not of such great importance to the western farmer; it is not the only evil from which they are seeking relief. Personally I represent not only the pool but other farmers in my constituency outside the institution. I belong to the pool myself and have been made one of the victims of the hybrid ticket, and I do not believe in it. I aim speaking not only for the men who are in the pool but also for those who are outside it, and I want to see justice done. But the point I wish to emphasize is that the western farmer is suffering from many evils other than that of the hybrid ticket. I agree with those who say that the act should 'be better administered. What is (the use of having good laws if they are not administered properly? They serve no purpose in the world. But we do not pretend that the law embodied in the grain act is by any means perfect; far from it. I do not agree with the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) when he says that we do not want any more legislation but that we want only the proper administration of the grain act. What we need is not only the efficient administration of the act but the amendment of the act itself.


Milton Neil Campbell: I was referring to one specific thing and not to the whole grain act.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Well, that is what you said, and I took it for granted you knew what you were saying. I cannot help that. I repeat, we do not want merely the proper administration of the grain act; we want to have the act itself amended in many forms.
Now, you may ask, what is the cause of all this trouble? Where did it originate? Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a long tale, and it puts me in mind of these lines from one of our noted English poets:
A lamentation and an ancient tale of wrong
From an ill used race of men who cleave the soil,
Sow the seed and reap the harvest with enduring toil.
Yes, it is a long tale of wrong, and it began away back in 1912 when members of the opposition were in these seats. In the session of 1912 they passed an amendment to the grain act making a partial sample market possible at several of the inspection points. They instituted a partial grain sample market, with the result that immediately after that we found men interested in private elevators going to our inspection points, looking over samples, taking out the tops of each lot of grain, having them diverted to their own mills and mixing elevators, and mixing them there. And this grew from bad to worse until at the present time we find all our mills throughout the country diverting wheat at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Fort William, Kenora, Vancouver and throughout the country. These people break the seals, look at the grain, and if it is satisfactory to them they take it, sending it on if it is not suitable. In other words, the cream of our wheat is taken. But it is taken not only by our own mills and mixing elevators at the head of the lakes, but even American millers are coming over and picking out millions of bushels of the best wheat and shipping it across the line, where it is mixed with their product, milled and the flour sent [DOT]out to compete with our own flour. This is
1148	COMMONS
Grading oj Grain-Mr. Donnelly
one of the evils from which the farmers are asking to be relieved. I said the trouble originated away back in 1912. But the evil, which has increased to such an extent, was actually legalized in 1925. At that .time the house passed legislation making legal the practice of mixing.
That illicit practice of mixing went on from bad to worse, from year to year until last year we saw in this house reports brought in from England indicating that our standards had degenerated and were not as good as they used to be. Complaints came from all parts of the country. The Prime Minister himself received a letter from the corn exchange in Liverpool complaining of our standards, and the question was asked everywhere: What is the matter with your wheat? What is wrong with it? It is not as good as it used to be. Is it any wonder the farmers in the west became alarmed and were up in arms? They said, "Here is the one product which has built up western Canada. Here is the one thing which has made western Canada what it is, the one thing on which the whole Dominion depends. Yet we find these men degrading our wheat, spoiling it, making money out of it while we are doing the work." Yes, Mr. Speaker, the farmers said, "The ox that treads the corn is still muzzled, and the grain trade is bound to keep him there." That is the cry throughout the west to-day. Last year someone or other-I do not know who it was; I do not know whether it was the inspectors or the grain commission, though evidently it must have 'been the grain inspectors, with the consent and knowledge of the grain commission-said, "We will have different standards; our standards %t present are not good enough." And so they raised the standards of their own accord!; this they did last fall. Let them deny it if they will. Yesterday I was sitting in the committee and I saw standard samples from 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927 brought right up to date. We looked over those samples and any man could see that the standard this year was at least one grade higher than that which prevailed before. Mr. Newman who gave evidence, testified that the standards were one grade higher than they were last year. Someone did it, and what -was the result? When the farmer began to send his wheat to Fort William or when the man back in the country sold his wheat to the country elevators, he found a big change. I saw hundreds of these elevator men throughout the country last year, and they told me they bought the wheat under the old standards but when they sent down the first two or three carloads they were told that the 
grades rvere not holding up. Wheat which they bought as No. 1 was graded No. 2 and No. 3; wheat they had graded as No. 3 was graded No. 4 and No. 5 and so on, and they were told they would have to grade harder. They were told to tl&row away their old standards and to grade harder, because the standards were changed. No wonder Doctor Birchard, when he examined the samples, when he ground and tested them by the milling and baking tests, said that the standards this year were better than ever before. He said he could get better flour and more flour out of No. 2 and No. 3 wheat than ever before. No wonder he could, because this year when he was grinding No. 3 wheat he was grinding what was No. 2 wheat last year; when he was testing No. 4 wheat this year it was equal to No. 3 wheat last year, and so on. That is the reason he found the flour so much better and why the baking and milling tests were so much more satisfactory.
Then what happened? When the wheat reached the old country it took the buyers there until the middle of November to realize that the wheat they were getting this year was better than it ever had been, and they were willing to pay a higher price. They tested the wheat and when they found it was so much better this year they paid a better price and the spread between the grades closed up. In the meantime, however, half the wheat had passed out of the hands of the farmers into the hands of the grain trade, and the trade made the extra money. I do not know how many millions of' dollars the farmers lost; no one will ever know. No doubt it will run into tens of millions of dollars just through that simple act of raising the standards. And who raised them? The standards must have been raised by the inspectors.
Then we are told that when the Grain Standards Board met on October 9, to look over the grain, they lowered the standards; they decided the standards were too high and lowered them by half a grade. I had the experience personally of having wheat graded after October 9, and I got a better grade than I had been given in September; all the farmers experienced the same thing. So I contend that the grain commission should have known of this condition; if they did not know of it they should have found out.


James Malcolm: Will my hon. friend
permit a question? I hope he will explain to the house that the standards are set by the standards board and not by the grain commission and that 50 per cent of the representation is from the producers.


James J. Donnelly: I am saying that the
standards board lowered the grades on October 9.


James Malcolm: The grades were too
high.


James J. Donnelly: Yes, someone raised
them before that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman know who set the first standards?


James J. Donnelly: They are supposed to
be set on the standards of the year before, which continue until the standards board meets. For some reason, however, in the early part of the year someone raised the standards, and when the board met on October 9 they lowered the standards by half a grade. Still the grades were higher than last year, indicating an irregularity of some kind in connection with the setting of the grade standards.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Who
was responsible for that?


James J. Donnelly: It should be under the grain commission; they are responsible, of course. The raising of the standards in this way was one of the chief causes of the unrest in western Canada, but there is still another reason why the prairies are alarmed. To-day the farmers are better educated than ever before with regard to the marketing of wheat. They are learning about these things; they have found that they not only have to grow the wheat but they must learn how to market it. The directors of the pool travelled all over the country, holding meetings and discussing with the farmers their difficulties and needs, and the farmers are beginning to learn some of the evils of which they have been victims. Last year the agriculture committee of this house summoned several witnesses, from whom we obtained a good deal of very useful information. After the session was over we had thousands of copies of that evidence printed; we went west, held meetings throughout the province and scattered these reports everywhere. The farmers read the evidence, and when they found out what was going on in connection with the marketing of their wheat they became alarmed, and that also has had a good deal to do with the present condition of affairs. Those are the two chief causes of the present feeling in the west.
Then what are the farmers demanding now? There are minor issues here and there, of course, but there are three main demands which they make: First of all they demand
Grading of Grain-Mr. Donnelly
that the mixing of grain in private terminals be discontinued at once, or in other words that all private terminals be done away with and that all terminals at the head of the lakes be made public terminals. They demand that our straight grades, from No. 1 to No. 6, be stored in separate bins, that we have officers who will go into these terminal elevators and enforce the law against mixing and that a fine be provided commensurate with the crime, a fine of $2,000. $5,000 or $10,000, if necessary, in order to enforce the law. They demand that there be no mixing at the seaboard, transfer elevator or on the way to market overseas, that any mixing be done when the grain is in the hands of the consumer, either the old country buyer or the old country miller, that the mixing be not done in this country at all and that the wheat as sold by the farmer should reach the consumer without being mixed in any way That is their chief demand.
Someone may ask what of the off grades, the grades mixed with seeds, which have to be cleaned. We would say that those grades should be stored in public elevators also; let them be cleaned under proper supervision; let the seeds be taken out and sold and let that grain be put in the public elevators. All other grains such as wet grain, damp grain, smutty grain and so on, should be cleaned and sold as such out of hospital elevators and should not be sent to the markets of the world as straight grades.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does the
hon. gentleman recognize any problem at all with regard to the mixing of grain in country houses?


James J. Donnelly: We recognize that such mixing is almost impossible to control, as it is impossible to control mixing by the farmer, but we demand that once the grain is inspected and passed on to the terminals it should not be mixed at all.
Another thing the farmers of the west demand is the proper administration of the Canada Grain Act; they realize that at present this act is not being properly administered under the grain commisison. The commission say it is impossible for them to enforce the act. Our grain trade has increased by leaps and bounds during the last few years; the area devoted to the growing of wheat has multiplied five, six or seven times. A few years ago we shipped our wheat only from Fort William and Port Arthur; to-day we are shipping out of Vancouver and Prince Rupert and soon we will be shipping through Hudson bay. We say that under these conditions a small commission of three
1150	COMMONS
Grading oj Grax.i-Mr. Donnelly
men located at Fort William is not capable of looking after this great business and of administering the grain act as it should be administered. We believe the whole grain commission should be renovated; it should have more assistants, more clerks, and the number of commissioners should be increased. It should be scattered all over the prairies so that it could look into the numerous diculties which the farmers have to contend with and be able to adjust them in a proper manner. That is their second demand. They have a third demand, and it is this: that the diverting of wheat which goes on at the present time from Winnipeg, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver be stopped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. member
amplify that? There are many members from the east who have no knowledge of these matters, and it would assist them if the hon. member could give a little further information in that regard.


An hon. MEMBER:: Your policies are
wrong in the east.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the government
that is wrong.


James J. Donnelly: I will explain what I
mean by this diverting of wheat and the skimming of the cream off the different grades. First let me explain just how the different standards are set. Specimens are drawn and they are set as the standards for the different grades. Everything that goes into No. 1 grade must be as good as or better than the standard sample. Let me put it this way: Suppose 90 is the standard for No. 1; anything that goes into No. 1 must range between 90 and 100.


Mr. HAY:: Are those standards set by
the board, or designated by parliament?


James J. Donnelly: The statutory grades
1,	2 and 3 are set by law. The samples of wheat which are drawn to represent those grades are taken by a body of inspectors. Grades 4, 5, 6 and feed, which are not statutory grades, are set by the Grain Standards Board, a body of men who are chosen every year, I think. They meet in the fall of the year and draw the standards for those several grades.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The producers are represented on that board?


James J. Donnelly: That board is made up of representatives of the producers, the millers and the grain trade. These men meet about the first of October in Winnipeg and set the standards.

I will explain further what I mean with regard to this diverting of wheat. Of necessity, some of the wheat in No. 1 grade will be right down on the line at 90, and will range up to 100. When the wheat comes into Winnipeg, or into the Grain Exchange building to be inspected, it first goes into the room where the inspectors are. The grade is fixed on the sample and it is then put in an adjoining room where it is available to everyone. Suppose we have a sample which runs as high as 100. A representative of some milling firm from across the line comes in and sees that sample classed as No. 1. He realizes that it is right at the top of the grade, and he says, "Send that ,to my mixing elevator," and the car of Wheat is sent to the elevator to be mixed, or possibly sent to some mill to be milled. The result is that they have bought the cream and there is nothing left but the wheat which is just on the line. Then again, you may have a wheat so near the border line that the inspectors are unable to decide whether it should be graded No. 1 or No. 2. It is put in No. 2 and when the expert comes along he sees that it should probably be No. 1, and he buys the car to be sent to the elevator to be mixed with other grades of wheat.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: He buys it as No. 2?


James J. Donnelly: He pays the price for
No. 2, but he is getting practically No. 1 wheat. Not only do they do. that, but during the past season, as has been brought out before the royal gram commission sitting in Saskatchewan at the present time, they have gone through the railroad yards accompanied by inspectors and have broken the seals on cars and picked out the best grain. This procedure has taken place at Kenora, Calgary, Saskatoon and all over the country.


Mr. HEAPS:: What authority have they to go in and take the cars out of the yards?


James J. Donnelly: You will have to ask the grain commissioners. They are the ones who say what shall and what shall not be done.


Edward Joseph Garland: Have they any authority?


James J. Donnelly: No.


Mr. IRVINE:: Was that done under any
authority?


James J. Donnelly: Apparently not.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Who actually affixes the seals?


James J. Donnelly: The railway companies.
MARCH 21, 1929	H51
Grading I Grain-Mr. Carmichael


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If the railway companies
put them on. has anyone the right to take them off before the car reaches its destination?


James J. Donnelly: Only with the consent
of the railway company.


Mr. V ALLANCE:: The inspection department.


James J. Donnelly: The inspection department have the consent of the railway companies to break the seals to inspect the grain.
These are questions which can be brought out only in the committee, and that is why I think the whole thing should be sent to the committee to be dealt with there. These are questions which interest the farmers, not only in western Canada, but over the whole of the Dominion, and I think the matter should be sent to the agriculture committee to be looked into with the view of enacting remedial legislation.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I should find it necessary to make any apology for continuing thiie debate. I consider this matter to be one of major importance, in fact, I am not so sure but that it transcends in importance even the debate upon the budget. Therefore, not having any intention of taking part in the budget debate, I feel quite clear in my conscience when I take some part in this debate.
I say this matter transcends in importance the budget debate, more particularly for financial reasons. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) brought down this budget and announced that he was saving the tax-payers of Canada approximately $26,000,000, because of certain reductions in taxation, that fact was received with approval throughout the length and breadth of Canada. Twenty-five million dollars is a large sum of money; it is more than moat of us have ever seen or are likely to see. But I want to make this statement: Because of the unscientific grading of our 1928 wheat crop and the ineffectual administration of the Canada Grain Act in relation thereto, the farmers of western Canada have 'been deprived of an amount seven times as large. I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) draws a big sigh.


James Malcolm: One hundred and seventy-five million?


Archibald M. Carmichael: I hope this will get under his skin sufficiently to cause not only a little perturbation of feeling, but some action, for that is what we are looking for in western Canada. He may be inclined to
question the statement I am going to make, but I intend to prove it with figures.
The wheat crop of the prairie provinces for the year 1928 amounted to 511,444,000 bushels in round figures. Let us take the average price received for the four years during which the wheat pool operated in western Canada, namely 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927. I do not intend to take the maximum price, but only the average price as given in the January, 1929, monthly Bulletin of Agriculture Statistics. The average price received during the year 1924 was $1.21 per bushel.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: What was the yield for that year?


Archibald M. Carmichael: I will come to that later. The average price for the year 1925 was $1.25 per bushel; and for the year 1926, $1.08. During 1927 there was considerable wet, damp and tough grain. The weather conditions were very adverse in our province during that year, and the average price received was only 97 cents per bushel. We will not take any one year, but we will add the four of them together and take the average of the average prices of the four years. The total is $4.51, and dividing that by four we get an average price of $1.12f for the four years during which the pool operated. The same publication tells us that the average price of the 1928 crop was 77 cents a bushel.


Malcolm McLean: How does the hon. member know?


Archibald M. Carmichael: My hon. friend will have to ask the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Malcolm McLean: Who is the
author?


Archibald M. Carmichael: I shall have to refer my hon. friend to a department of the government for the authority. It is printed by F. A. Acland for the Department of Trade and Commerce.
The average price over the four-year period was $1.12$ and in 1928 the price was 77 cents. The difference, which is 35$ cents per bushel, represents the loss on the 1928 crop. If you take that on the total crop of 511,444,000 bushels, you have a figure amounting to more than $175,000,000.


James Malcolm: Does my hon. friend attribute the loss in price on last year's crop to the administration of the act, or does he give any credit to the frost of the season and a lower grading on account of the frost?


Archibald M. Carmichael: If the minister had caught my remark, I attributed the loss to two things: first, the unscientific grading of
1152	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. Carmichael
our wheat, and, second, the ineffectual administration of the Canada Grain Act. Those two factors are responsible for the loss of $175,000,000 to the farmers of the three prairie provinces. That is seven times the amount that we will realize from the so-called, much approved Robb budget of this year.


James Malcolm: Does my hon. friend argue that we could devise a method of grading-the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) spoke of protein content- that would give an additional $175,000,000 to the farmer for a frost-affected crop?


Archibald M. Carmichael: According to the evidence produced before the agriculture committee I am quite satisfied that a method can be devised whereby the value of the wheat will go to the producer thereof, rather than to the milling interests or to the commission men, who are the middlemen in between the producer and the consumer. This is such a serious feature that I attribute a great deal of importance to it, much more so than possibly the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) does. He tried to give the house the impression that the matter was of rather minor importance. It is of a great deal of importance and it is the chief cause of unrest in western Canada.
I should like to deal for a short time with the matter as it appears from the viewpoint of the farmer under perhaps three different headings: his lot and condition prior to the operation of the pool; his situation under the four years of pooling grain, and his situation during the 1928 crop season. I will deal more particularly with my province of Saskatchewan-the pool operated in Alberta in 1923, but the quantity of grain handled was so small that it did not have any appreciable effect on world prices. In 1924 we had really the inauguration of wheat-pool marketing on a large scale. Let us take the year 1923 and consider the lot of the individual farmer during that year. According to this publication the statistics were as follows:
Total world production. 3.818,000,000 bushels.
Western Canadian crop, 454,000,000 bushels. Price realized

Manitoba, 67 cents per bushel.
Saskatchewan, 65 cents per bushel.
Alberta, 65 cents per bushel.
When the individual farmer came to reckon up his accounts in the fall of the year, and pay for the expanse of handling the crop, the cutting, twine, threshing, hauling, different interest accounts and store accounts, he found that he was behind. He found that it cost him more to handle his crop than he realized from it, and in my particular section of Sas-

katchewan there was a great deal of unrest among the farmers. It was freely stated there that it cost in the neighbourhood of $1 a bushel to market that crop. I am not going to take that 'because it might be considered an extreme figure. An hon. member in this corner of the house told me that he kept close track and he found that it cost him 93 cents a bushel to handle that crop. Supposing we take the figure of 90 cents a bushel, which is well within the mark, and the farmer realized 65 cents; that is, he lost 25 cents on every bushel he produced. If he produced 2,000 'bushels of grain that year he lost $500. If he produced 3,000 bushels, he lost $750. If he produced 5,000 bushels, he lost $1,250. The more bushels he produced, the more he lost. Is there then, any reason for wondering that the farmer was very much discouraged? The morale of the fanner at that particular time was exceedingly low. In fact, many of them who were able to get out of the farming business did so. But those who had the desire to1 stick there were instrumental in bringing about the formation of the wheat pool which began operations the next year, 1924. Let us glance at the operation of the wheat pool during those four years. In 1924 the total world production was somewhat less than in 1923, less by 349,000,000 bushels and the western Canadian crop was less by more than 200,000,000 bushels. Some would be prepared to say that that accounts for the enhanced price. We will let them say so. These are the prices during the crop year of 1924:
Per bushel
Manitoba	$1	24Saskatchewan	
1	21Alberta	
1	20
That is quite an advance over the prices of the previous year. Let me give the figures for the next year, 1925:
Bushels
Total world production.. ..	4,030.000,000
Western Canadian crop.. ..	372,000,000
That is, the total world production was con* siderably more than that of 1924 and also more than that of 1923, and the western Canadian crop in 1925 was considerably more than that of 1924. But how dto we find the prices?
Per bushel
Manitoba	$1	22Saskatchewan	
1	25
That is four cents over the price of 1924.
Alberta	 $1	19
Let us take the next year, 1926:
Bushels
Total world production.. ..	4,178,000,000
Western Canadian crop.. ..	385,000,000

Grading of Grain-Mr. Carmichael
Both greater than that of the preceding year. Yet when we look at the prices, they are as follows:
Manitoba	$1	09Saskatchewan	
1	08Alberta	
1	05
It will be noticed that the price is still keeping up even though the world production is increasing each year. The figures for 1927 are
as follows:
Bushels
Total world production..	..	4,204,000,000Western Canadian crop..	..	457,000,000
Both greater again. That was the year of adverse weather conditions, and yet the prices were as follows:
Per bushel
Manitoba	$1 06
Saskatchewan	 97
Alberta	 98
We can see that during those four years the farmer was receiving considerably more for his labour than he did during the year 1923. As a result, his morale improved considerably, and his financial standing in the community was enhanced to no little extent. This was all brought about by the orderly marketing of his crop through the wheat pool, and by the elimination of the middle man.
I would like to point ou't that the enhanced prices given to the farmer were partly brought about by the pool method of marketing, and with all due respect to what my hon, friend from Willow Bunch has said about mixing, considerable profit did accrue to the pool members through the mixing of grain at the head of the lakes.
Here is another point that we who are interested in this matter should notice. There are approximately 5.000 country elevators scattered over the three prairie provinces. Approximately 1,000 of these are owned and controlled by the three western wheat pools, leaving 4.000 owned and controlled by the grain trade. In the province of Saskatchewan the wheat pool handles about 60 per cent of the wheat. There you have a rather peculiar situation. The pool handles about 60 per cent of our Saskatchewan wliea-t, and yet we have only 20 per cent of the elevators through which to handle it. They handle the larger part of the Saskatchewan crop through a small number of elevators at country points. Knowing the importance of having the wheat go through their own terminal elevators, every effort is made to get every pool member to ship his grain through his own pool elevator to his own pool terminal. I do not think I need amplify that point.
Hon. members know that at the head of the lakes the mixing privilege prevails. Con-78594-73
siderable mention has been made of mixing.
I need only to refer to what is called the Price, Waterhouse report of 1918 to give you some idea of the large profits that are made by the terminal elevators a.t the head of the lakes. In opposition to what one hon. member said as to the unimportance of this point,
I would like to emphasize its importance, and that is that pool wheat, in the opinion of pool members, should go through pool country elevators and go to pool terminals.
There is another advantage to be gained. In the 1927 crop year, we were paid li cents a bushel for every bushel we shipped through the pool elevator. If a man shipped 10,000 bushels of wheat through a pool elevator, he would get a cheque for $150, which is a nice little sum to get from the profits of these elevators. That makes the farmers naturally want to have their wheat go through their own elevators, but here is the unfortunate situation. There are not sufficient elevators to handle all the wheat which the pool members wish to market. In my own town last year the pool elevator was plugged to the roof practically all through the shipping season. Millions of bushels of pool grain must go through other elevators to get to the head of the lakes if it is to get there at all during the crop year. That brought about a situation where the pool had to make an agreement with the grain trade, and they did enter into an agreement whereby pool wheat would be handled by their country elevators, but on the strength of the 1927 amendment to the Canada Grain Act such wheat could be sent to pool terminals if the grower of the grain so desired. That is where the whole trouble comes in, That is where we have our quarrel with the administration of the Canada Grain Aclt. I am not particular whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce gets into the quarrel and takes the responsibility or not. The responsibility rests upon the Board of Grain Commissioners, and the board being a part of Ithe department, I do not see how the minister can very well entirely evade all responsibility. I have covered the four year period. Let us now look at the individual farmer during the 1928 crop year.
In the year 1928 also we had a large world production of wheat. I have not the complete returns, but the figure I have is that the world production, excluding Russia and China, was 3,780,000,000 bushels. If the totals from Russia and China are included, the world's production would probably be greater than in 1927. Our western Canadian production was over 513,000,000 bushels, but our price in Manitoba was 92 cents, in Saskatche-

1154	COMMONS
Grading oj Grain-Mr. Carmichael
wan 77 cents, and in Alberta, 75 cents. Let us see what that means. The 1928 Saskatchewan price was 44 cents per bushel less than the 1924 price, 48 cents a bushel less than the
1925	price, 31 cents a bushel less than the
1926	price, and 20 cents a bushel less than the 1927 price, when we had a great deal of inferior grain which had to be reconditioned and put through the drying elevators. That represents a tremendous loss to the agriculturists. I pointed out earlier in my remarks that it represents an average loss to the farmer of 35f cents a bushel on the movement of the 1928 crop. Bringing it down to the individual farmer, I have figured it out on a basis of 90,000 pool farmers, with an average production of a little over 2,000 bushels, and taking this loss of 35J cents a bushel means a loss to each pool member, and by the way, that is the farmer I am particularly interested in in this connection, of over S700 for the 1928 crop year. Now if we apportion the $25,000,000 saving as outlined in the Robb budget among the 90,000 pool farmers, do you know, Mr. Speaker, what it would amount to? It would amount to just a little over $13 a year to each one of these pool farmers who had stood a loss of over $700 in the movement of the 1928 crop. How long a time, then, and how many more of the so-called beneficial Robb budgets would we have to have for the pool farmer to make up his loss in one year? It would take just about fifty-five years, and that is a little too long for most of us to wait.
The hybrid ticket has been mentioned, and it is not necessary for me to dwell on that The intention of the 1927 amendment to the Canada Grain Act was to give the producer of grain the right to designate to what terminal elevator his grain should go. The grain trade seemingly has been able to circumvent that intention. Thus far they have been enabled to do so by means of the agreement which they were able to force-[DOT] I might almost use that expression-from the pool officials. I use the expression "able to force " from them, because the agreement was not consummated until just before the movement of the 1927 crop began. Here were the farmers throughout the country with grain to move and no agreement consummated between the pool and the trade. The trade was able to say: Here is what we will give you; take it or leave it. In that way they forced the agreement on the pool authorities, and after getting them in that corner the trade tried to make it a six-year agreement. It was finally adjusted on a three-year basis, which means that the agree-

ment operated for 1927 and 1928, and will operate for 1929, when it terminates. I presume that if during that time the trade realize as much out of our grain as they did in the 1928 crop year, they will be able to lie low for a while thereafter. I hope, though, before the movement of the 1929 crop we will have some action.
The Board of Grain Commissioners are coming in for a share of criticism to which they are certainly entitled. They are a body of men well paid, and apparently well qualified to administer the Canada Grain Act. And yet they have failed to administer it properly. Resolutions have been passed by at least two of our farm bodies in t'he west. I have before me such a resolution passed by the Saskatchewan section of the United Farmers of Canada assembled in annual convention last month. The resolution reads:
Whereas the present board has demonstrated its inability to supervise in any manner the operations of country elevators, and for all practical purposes has ceased to fulfil the purpose for which it was originally appointed;
And whereas the producers of grain have lost confidence in the present board;-
Omitting part of the resolution I direct the attention of the house to the following words:
Be it resolved that this convention demands the removal of the present Board of Grain Commissioners.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the almost unanimous opinion of the farmers of western Canada today; they are demanding the removal of the Board of Grain Commissioners. They are not charging them with dishonesty; neither has any member of this house, so far as I know; they are simply charging them with failure to carry out what they were appointed to carry out. In a word, the commissioners have failed to administer the Canada Grain Act property. The public of western Canada has lost confidence in the board, and no matter what amendments might be proposed to the act, no matter how far in the agriculture committee we might investigate the board, it is my opinion that we cannot bolster up that public opinion any longer to tolerate the administration of the act by the present board. The demand is insistent that a change be made in the personnel. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce wishes to be fair to public opinion in the west and to what,
I believe, he knows to be fair himself, I think he will agree with me that it is time that the wishes of the agriculturists of the prairie provinces should be considered and the required change made.

Grading of Grain-Mr. Dunning
The motion before the house is, of course, that this report be concurred in. The report calls for enlarged powers in order that the committee may consider and report on the subject of storage, shipping, mixing, inspection and grading of grain. They are all very good, they all should be considered. But from that report has been left out the most essential part so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned; there is no mention of the committee taking into consideration the administration of the Canada Grain Act. I am of opinion, Mr. Speaker, that this omission should be made good, that the committee should investigate the administration of the Canada Grain Act. But I am not prepared to admit that the action which we are looking for by the Department of Trade and Commerce should be deferred until such investigation is made. No matter how much investigating may be carried on, no matter how dense a smoke screen may be thrown around the activities of the Board of Grain Commissioners in the course of the investigation by the committee on agriculture, I am of opinion that this investigation would not restore public confidence in the present members of the Board of Grain Commissioners.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the hon. member
think a smoke screen will be thrown around the investigation before the agriculture committee?


Archibald M. Carmichael: My experience has
been that more smoke than screen is thrown around whatever we undertake to investigate. Such a dense cloud of smoke is thrown around the real issue that it becomes more or less obscured as the investigation proceeds.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does not the hon. member think that some good suggestions may be made?


Archibald M. Carmichael: Yes, I think possibly some good suggestions may be evolved through such an investigation. But the best suggestion made in the course of this debate, and it has been emphasized over and over again, is that the board should be quietly but very definitely relieved of the position which it now holds, and another board, possibly of five members, put in its place.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, I regard the Canada Grain Act as a unique piece of legislation. Nothing akin to it is to be found on the statute books of any other country, so far as I know. It has been evolved 78594-734
gradually out of a desire on the part of succeeding parliaments, without regard to which party was in power, to surround the marketing of the major raw product of this country with email safeguards as will ensure fair treatment of the producer by those engaged in the business connected with his product or in the transportation of it.
Legislation of this character is invariably difficult to administer, for the reason that in a measure it deprives men of the right to make the usual contractual relations with each other in connection with the ordinary buying and selling of commodities. I think it is correct to say that since there was first the Manitoba Grain Act-as it was originally called-down until to-day succeeding governments of whatever party have adopted the position of trying to find out so far as possible what the people of the three provinces particularly concerned thought should be done with respect to this act or to any amendment of it as the case might be. I think too that it may well be said that every government has shown a willingness to respond to the united judgment of the representatives of those three provinces with respect to the development of the act from time to time.
The act does show historically a development resulting from careful thought and careful study by the farmers themselves who are primarily affected, and by their representatives in this house, to whatever party they might belong. Furthermore, the act bears upon its face an historical record of the effect of investigations by, not one but by at least five royal commissions appointed either by federal authority or by the authority of one of the provinces primarily concerned. I had the privilege of serving as a member of one of those royal commissions some years ago. It was also my duty as an agent for my fellow-farmers to handle a great deal of grain during a considerable period of years, and I do deprecate in the very strongest terms the use of extreme statements and arguments which overshoot the mark, in attempting to secure redress in connection with a matter of this kind. Particularly do I deprecate the use oi figures such as those advanced by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) a few moments ago, when he stated in the plainest of terms, on the basis of some hypothetical calculation which he made, that, given a proper grading system, it would have been possible for the farmers of western Canada to have received $175,000,000 more for the 1928 crop than they did receive.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I did not put it that way.

Grading of Grant-Mr. Dunning


Mr. DUNNING:: My hon. friend in answering a question made it clear that it was his intention to convey that impression. However, if he wishes to correct it I am quite prepared to let him do so.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I took the average
price of the four year average and showed what the total amount would be from the 1928 crop, deducting the price of the 1928 crop from that average.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; but my hon. friend said in reply to a question that in his opinion the difference was due to two things and two things only-unscientific grading and faulty administration of the grain act. Let me say to him that I have a great deal more faith in the western Canada pools than to believe that they would permit for a moment to exist a situation which if removed would allow them to get $175,000,000 more for the farmers of the west.


Archibald M. Carmichael: That is why we are doing so much talking.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not
speaking for the pools any more than I am, and I am satisfied of this: Having sold personally, or under my personal direction, more grain; for the western farmers than any organization outside the -pool, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that if there is any means of getting any such sum for the farmers of the west it is quite within the power of the wheat pool, and within the power of any other large organization controlling such a volume of grain, to get that sum in spite of any grading system. And the pool officers would be the first to confirm this statement. Why? If it is possible to get any such spread as that it is not only within the power of the pool to get it, but I am sure they would do so in a moment. They can ship that grain over, in spite of any grading system, and dispose of it in sample cargoes, without obtaining a certificate from the Board of Grain Commissioners. Normally it does not pay to do so-and why? Because there is in fact no such wastage as that depicted by my h-on. friend. That there is wastage and loss no one denies; I would be the last to deny it. In connection with varying types of damage to which the western crops are subject from time to time; with the necessary variation in standard samples from year to year; with slips in administration; with the ever present desire of -the grain trade to make as -much as they can: with all these things to contend with, undoubtedly there are, and always have been from the very inception 
of the grain act, losses to farmers individually. But to take an average set of conditions over four years, disregarding, as my hon friend did, average world prices for the same four years, and merely to rest a case on the argument that we should have as much this year as our average of last year-[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no; he did not say
that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will correct that-that we should have at least as muoh this year as the average.of the past four years-


Archibald M. Carmichael: I do not want the
minister to represent me as saying something which I did not say. I repeat, I did not make any such statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said, the average of
the average.


Charles Avery Dunning: Very well, the average of the average. I presume my hon. friend will take the leader of the opposition's word for it, that what he said was that we should have as much as the average of the average for the past four years; that is to say, the average of the average of our receipts for the past four years. But the hon. gentleman disregards entirely the average world prices for those years. May I point out, however, that when we come to deal with figures in that way, taking an average of an average over a period of four years, no farmer has yet lived on an average. The fellow who has No. 6 wheat this year cannot be comforted by the reflection that the average of the average of the last four years was No. 4, with therefore a higher price and a higher intrinsic value. He does not live on the averages he gets; he gets what he can out of the wheat which he has just then, and the average of what went before does not do him very much good.
I do not want to spend a great deal of time on this question except to say this. While I agree with my hon. friend that losses do exist, to build up any such 'fantastic total as $175,000,000 of a loss to western farmers on this year's crop is tremendously to overstate what could possibly be accurate, and it is not doing justice to the intelligence of the farmers of western Canada or of the management of the pool, who of course could easily avoid such a stupendous loss if there were any danger of its being incurred.


John Evans: May I ask a question?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have only forty minutes.

Grading of Grain-Mr. Dunning


John Evans: Did I understand the minister to say that the pool could ship its own wheat through all the transfers and terminals and maintain its identity to the European market?


Charles Avery Dunning: Undoubtedly.


John Evans: How can they do it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Only one year ago the head of the pool came to me as Minister of Railways, responsible for the operation of the Port Oolbome elevator, which handles more grain than any other elevator in Canada, and asked whether special arrangements could be made for transfer at that point from the larger vessels travelling on the upper lakes to the smaller boats going through the St. Lawrence, and I said that I should be delighted to make special bin arrangements so that the shippers might be sure of the identity of their own grain during transit- so far as that particular elevator was concerned at any rate-on the one condition that they used the full bin space allotted them, and did not merely keep a few thousand bushels at the bottom of the bin, monopolizing the whole space of the bin. That has not yet been made use of. But there is no doubt at all that the wheat pool to-day can ship its own grain from the prairies, through its own terminal at Vancouver, loading into boats chartered by itself and delivering in Europe, exactly as it pleases. That is the situation, and I do not wish to be betrayed into appearing to criticize the pool management. What I am saying is that if there were any such loss as that represented by the hon. member for Kindersley then the wheat pool undoubtedly would be at fault in selling the crop for 8175,000.000 less than it was really worth; because I am sure of the ability of the men managing the pools to handle the situation with sufficient care to see that no such tremendous loss would occur.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The pool does not handle all the crop.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, take half of it; let us say the loss to the pool members was $90,000,000, taking my hon. friend on his own ground. I repeat, I have more faith in the management of the western pools than to believe that.
With regard to the grain act, I am of the opinion, as the minister stated at the outset, that these matters could be more effectively discussed in committee. I have spent twenty-six or twenty-seven years in the west and I do not remember a year in which the grain act and the marketing of grain has not been under discussion by the organized farmers of
the west. It was my privilege as one of them to come to Ottawa from time to time and to go to other places as well to recommend specific changes to deal with specific matters which in our judgment would improve the marketing of grain. And the act has been built up gradually just in that manner. That it is perfect no one will contend for a moment. Indeed, one of the reasons why the Canada Grain Aot is not perfect to-day is the fact that the farmers of western Canada have not always beer agreed to what constituted perfection in connection with some important parte of that legislation. I know that my own views are not necessarily the views of the farmers of the west; I never arrogate to myself the privilege of speaking for all the farmers. Many of these matters have been matters of dispute-friendly dispute, it is true-over a period of years within the farmers' organizations themselves, as my hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) knows. Let me say however that the description used here of the hybrid ticket is not a correct description as applied to the ticket under discussion, but is a correct description as applied to form B-l in the existing grain act. Form B-l was used for many years before it found a place in the grain act. And what is it? It is a true hybrid. And what is a true hybrid? It is neither one thing nor the other, but a part of both. Form B-l is a graded storage ticket but subject to inspectors grade on 'dockage. It is not a special bin ticket. In big black type in the form of ticket in the act itself the words appear, "This is not a special bin ticket." I will not criticize my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) and others for the view they have expressed in this regard, because the practice is general throughout the west and has been for many years. The grain trade had been representing that ticket for the last fifteen years as a special bin ticket. It is not. And why not? Because it involves no obligation upon the elevator company to preserve the identity of grain delivered; it only imposes upon the farmer the obligation of seeing that the identity of the sample of that grain is preserved. The special bin ticket on the other hand, form C, imposes upon the elevator company the obligation of maintaining that grain in its identity and of delivering at the terminal that identical grain. The graded storage ticket, which is not a hybrid, involves the obligation that the farmer shall deliver his grain, and the elevator company guarantees the grade and states plainly on the ticket what the grade is. The principle of the old grain act was that the elevator coin-

Grading of Groin-Mr. Dunning
pany must guarantee to the farmer one of two things. Either they must guarantee the grade of his grain 'to be delivered at the terminal or they must guarantee to preserve the identity of the grain delivered to them and deliver it to the terminal. That did not suit the grain trade of that day, so they instituted this cute thing which finally found its way into the Canada Grain Act, and we must remember that it found its way there with the consent of western farmers. The line elevators instituted this ticket, which relieved them of the responsibility of guaranteeing either the grade or the identity of the grain. They use first a graded storage ticket, but across its face was stamped " Subject to inspectors, grade and dockage"; t'he elevator company could do what they liked with the grain, but they were supposed to forward a sample to the chief inspector, paying the farmer later for, or delivering to him at the terminal, the grade set fby the inspector on the sample. As a result of years of experience and as a result of repeated fights before the Board of Grain Commissioners in connection with ithe matter I have no hesitation in saying that not in 20 per cent of the cases where this 'hybrid ticket was used were samples ever sent to the chief inspector for grading. I make that statement, and the records of cases before the Board of Grain Commissioners will bear it ouit. As the hon. member for Rosetown well knows, I was in the unfortunate position of leading a minority fight against that ticket for a long period of years. I say I led a minority fight, because the great majority of the farmers in western Canada did appear to be deceived inito the belief that this was a special bin ticket and that they were receiving the advantages of separate binning.
Mine was a losing fight, so much so that in 1925 that particular ticket was placed in the Canada Grain Act and to-day I may inform my hon. friend from Bow River that under this thing which is generally called a special bin ticket and which by law is not such a ticket, an elevator with only ten bins, as he put it, can and does receive grain from fifty farmers if necessary. That is how it is done, and that is the true hybrid ticket. In my personal opinion, which I do not hesitate to state to-day as I stated it years ago, the great mixing evil depreciating the quality of Canadian grain starts right there, because the great majority of western farmers who are using line elevator facilities are doing so under that B-l ticket, which is a hybrid and' which involves a guarantee neither of grade nor of identity by the elevator company but the forwarding of a sample to the

chief inspector. I suggest to this committee if it sits, although I am not a member of it, that they find out how many samples have been forwarded this year to the chief inspector under ticket B-l, for determination as to grades. I venture to say they will find that the condition which existed a number of years ago exists to-day and that in practice samples are not forwarded in more than 20 per cent of the cases in which this ticket is used. However, I must say again that the system was started with the consent of the farmers; I must admit that whether I like it or not. Some of us protested strongly, but I must admit that until this year the farmers have appeared to 'be satisfied with that system. Although I am not a lawyer it is my opinion that the addition of the words mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River would constitute an illegal addition, but I am prepared to hear evidence on that point and I suppose lawyers will try to convince judges that this was a perfectly proper addition. However, it is only carrying one step further what was done over a long period of years wuth respect to this hybrid thing which is neither one thing nor the other.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just to
make the record clear, I would like to ask my hon. friend if it is not true that ticket B-l is not a special bin ticket and never was such; that it has stamped upon its face the words " This is not a special bin ticket." And is it not true that ticket C is a special bin ticket and that most of the discussion has been about that ticket?


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
say that most of the discussion has been about ticket C? I will venture this assertion, and I hope the committee will investigate its accuracy, that ticket C, the special bin ticket, is not issued by a line elevator in western Canada as a general practice at all; they issue ticket B-l, as they always have done, calling it a special bin ticket, and in spite of the words stamped on the face of the ticket the farmer is led to believe that he is getting a special bin.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman does not mean to say that the farmer is so lacking in intelligence as to be unable to read what is on the ticket.


Charles Avery Dunning: As a result of long experience in dealing with these matters I state that as a matter of fact the farmer does not study the ticket he receives when he is getting his grain from a threshing machine. I have made that statement at scores of
MARCH 21, 1929	H59
Grading of Grair^-Mr. Dunning
farmers' meetings in past years, and it is a question of fact. The practice which I am now outlining, that of issuing this ticket and describing it as a special binning, has been carried on in western Canada for more than twenty years; I will leave it to any farmer here who has studied the question, and I will be content to leave it to the investigation of the committee.
Now I want to pass on to another important point, and here I wish it made plain that I am merely offering criticism of a system rather than an argument in answer to my hon. friend from Bow River; I am trying, from an experience covering a number of years, to place on record some things which may be worth investigation by this committee in the general interests of the farmers of western Canada. I refer to the mixing evil, and here again my position has been rather that of a lone wolf. I believe to-day, as I believed twenty years ago, during the period when I had some familiarity with this matter, that the practice of permitting the mixing of the various grades of grain in terminal elevators or in private elevators operated to the detriment of the producers of grain in Canada. To-day I believe that just as strongly as I ever believed it; if hon. members who are familiar with western farmers' organizations will let their minds go back a few years they will remember, in connection with the losing fight on this very question, when the farmers were offered the glittering bauble of a sample market if,only they would permit unlimited mixing, and the majority of the farmers agreed to that proposal. At that time I made a statement; sometimes I am mistaken but in this case I was right, when I said, that if unlimited mixing were permitted there would not be one public terminal at the head of the lakes within five years from that time with the exception of a government elevator. Has that statement been borne out? To-day there is not one public terminal at the head of the lakes with the exception of the government elevator operated by the Board of Grain Commissioners, and which receives just the rag-tag and bob-tail which none of the private houses will take. That is the position, and it has been brought about because the majority of the farmers in western Canada, no matter what their Shade of politics-and I am not discussing this on a political but on an economic basis-consented to it. Mixing was legalized then; it is legal to-day, and in my opinion we never will get back to a place where the wheat of western Canada will take its proper place in the markets of the world until we eliminate the mixing of the straight grades of grain.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friends from
Alberta applaud that statement. It is only fair to say that as far as I can judge from the public records, the farmers of Alberta today are in about the same frame of mind with regard to that matter as the farmers of Saskatchewan were ten years ago; that is to say, the farmers of Alberta to-day appear to be satisfied that there is some advantage to the producer in mixing. There is evidence of that in the attitude of the official organizations. It is only during this year that one is able to say with any degree of confidence that the farmers of Saskatchewan are convinced that mixing is a real evil. They were more or less deluded previously by the -argument which was used so frequently: You had better not give the Britisher a better article than he is paying for. That is the stock argument with respect to mixing; that it is an advantage to skin the grain down in grading, so low that it will just come within its grade. From my experience in selling grain to European buyers, I am convinced that the European market will respond in price to the quality of the run of cargoes received. This phase is in the mouth of every grain trader in Liverpool, London, Amsterdam or Rotterdam. If the run of cargoes of our No. 3 shows evidence of having been skinned to the limit of that grade, then the quotations for No. 3 northern coming from the other side will be depreciated1 in consequence. If, on the other hand, the run of cargoes of No. 3 shows that it is the average of the grade, then that fact will be reflected in the prices quoted. We should have a public terminal system where the grain would be binned only with grain of its own grade. The certificate which the buyers receive, bearing the guarantee of this government as to quality, should be bona fide. They want us to live up to that certificate; that is what constitutes our great advantage in the markets of Europe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not that where the
responsibility of the government comes in?


Charles Avery Dunning: The responsibilty of the manner in which this whole matter has been handled is the responsibility of this parliament, regardless of party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the government of
the day that is responsible.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, and no one
seeks to evade that. I hope my hon. friend will not try to make political capital out of that fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government should
be held responsible.

Grading of Grain-Mr. Dunning


Charles Avery Dunning: The administration of
this act is committed by this parliament to a board of three men appointed for a period of ten years. If I wanted to make political capital out of the matter, I could say that my hon. friend's party was responsible for two out of the three present commissioners, but I do not fault them for that, not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only one.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know who appointed Mr. Snow, but my recollection is that he was appointed during the regime of my hon. friend's party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) appointed him.


Charles Avery Dunning: In any event, Mr. Snow was in a veiy high official capacity for a long period of years in the service of the warehouse commissioner and the Board of Railway Commissioners. It was a natural promotion for a man with his experience. I am not faulting my hon. friends for their appointment of the chairman. I knew Mr. Robinson many years ago as director of .the Grain Growers organization, and later as vice president of the Cooperative Elevator Company in association with myself. I do not know a more honest, fair-minded man, nor a man who works more honestly and conscientiously, as he sees it, in the interests of the farmers whom he represents. Mr. Snow's name has become synonymous with the gradual development of the Canada Grain Act from the time it was administered by the warehouse commissioner down to the present time. Western Canada farmers know him very well. My acquaintance with the chairman is not so great.
These men are admittedly honest, and their judgment has been complained of, as far as I can learn, only in connection with one particular phase of the administration of the act.
I do not intend to discuss the merits of the case for, after all, it is a matter of legal opinion, and I am not qualified to say whether that is right or wrong. I have my belief, and I do not mind expressing it-with due deference to the lawyers present-that the -addition of those words was not legal. I .argued .that with respect to the addition of the words "subject to inspector's grade and dockage" many years ago before the -act was amended, and I take the same stand to-day regarding the new addition. I admit that the legal authorities said I was wrong before, and apparently beat me on the issue. They may beat me again, but I have a right to my opinion.
(Mr. Bennett,]


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has since become a better lawyer.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I have no aspirations in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been a gradual
evolution.


Charles Avery Dunning: While I have the greatest respect for the legal profession, and particularly for the opinion of my hon. friend in connection with legal matters pertaining to grain, -because he lias had very considerable and very creditable experience in that regard, I am not usually regarded as being a friend of that leam-ed profession.
I was discussing the matter of the mixing evil. I think it is correct to say that the farmers of western Canada, taking the three provinces as a whole, are not agreed that mixing should be abolished. The root of the whole trouble, so far as grain grading is concerned, and so far as the intrinsic value of our product on the other side is concerned, lies, in my opinion, in the wide extension of mixing which has been made legal since the grain act was amended in 1925. That amendment was passed after full investigation although not agreed to by the whole representation of the fanners, notably the hon. member for Rose-town and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote).


Richard Bedford Bennett: Particularly the president of the grain growers organization.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not intend to attach any blame to anyone in that regard, because they were representing, as they saw it, the wishes of the people who sent them here and the people who were mostly concerned with it. There are difficulties connected with the elimination of this mixing evil. We have been told that we have something like 140 grades of wheat, and have been asked how we can find room for all these grades. If we could only ensure that the six straight grades of wheat would be all binned separately and not with each other, I would regard that as the greatest possible step forward. If we are to have private elevators, let them be placed in the position which they were in under the old grain act; that is, as hospital elevators existing for the purpose of treating grain which required treatment. Some grain requires treatment by way of cleaning of a special character, separating from impurities of one kind or another, wild oats, weeds, and so forth, which exist to such a degree as to prevent the wheat being allowed in the straight grade. That grain is rejected for those reasons, but with the special machinery which is now in

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Dunning
existence, to a far greater extent than ever before, the special cleaning will result in the wheat coming out of the cleaner equal in quality to wheat of the straight grade, because the only reason for its rejection in the first place was the presence of those impurities. It might be thought necessary to admit that wheat back into the straight grade bins. But take wheat which is tough, damp, smutty, or requiring special treatment, although we find that the rejections for dampness or the presence of impurities-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They can dry it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not agree with my hon. friend that the mixing of dried No. 3 with straight No. 3 does not depreciate the quality. I know it is argued that it does not, but I have tried it and have found that it depends too much upon the human factor. If the temperature of the drier is regulated with hairline accuracy, then it is possible for the wheat to come out of the drier having an intrinsic quality equal to the average of the grade, but unfortunately, depending as it must upon the human factor, the millers have complained and complained with justice that there has been too much moisture extracted and the chemical content of the kernel affected thereby, or, on the other hand, there has been a cooking process rather than a drying process.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In Vancouver, where they have a mild climate, they have met with considerable success in drying wheat.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is another calculation which has to be taken into consideration in this drying process. The same thing is true of the climatic conditions in Liverpool. The same is true in Liverpool also, but it is too much of a chance for us to say in law that grain which has been treated by means of drying can at all times thereafter be admitted into the public bin of the straight grades. If that were done, it would tend toward depreciation. To my mind the greatest problem we now have to face in connection with the question of grain is to restore in the buying countries full confidence in the integrity of Canada's grain standards. That confidence has been impaired right from the farm itself whereby, following after strange gods in the matter of new varieties of wheat, there has been a tendency-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is rather hard on
the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). He is a strange god!


Charles Avery Dunning: I might put the leader
of the opposition in the deity class, but I never dreamed of putting the Minister of Trade and Commerce there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the strange
god the hon. member meant was the new Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I was saying, there have been, to an increasing degree during the last number of years, attempts at growing new varieties of grain, some of which have not maintained the characteristics essential to keeping up the standard of quality for Canadian wheat. In some districts we have grown white wheats, starchy wheats and spotted wheats. The result of that is inevitably to produce from time to time, mixed samples, mixed cargoes, and from that is bound to result a loss of confidence in the standards specified in the act for Canadian grain, which standards declare plainly that the grain must consist of a certain percentage of hard, red, vitreous kernels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, the statutory
grades, commercial grades.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The same is true of the measure of these set from time to time by the grain standards board. I do not think many farmers yet appreciate how difficult is the work of that board. I am not speaking particularly in defence of them, but it is proper that farmers should have an appreciation of the difficulties which their representatives have in connection with this matter, because it must be borne in mind that the Grain Standards Board is set up under the authority of the act. The Grain Standards Board is not responsible to the Board of Grain Commissioners; it has specific duties assigned to it by the act, and the membership is defined by the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the Board of Grain
Commissioners are really responsible for the appointment of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, but their appointments must be made in conformity with the conditions set out in the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the responsibility is
theirs.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend surely
does not suggest that a better method of appointment can be devised than for the board to ask the Minister of Agriculture of each of the provinces concerned to nominate its members, thus getting to the point where the Grain Standards Board contains more than 50 per cent of the producers' representatives.
Grading of Grain-Mr. Dunning


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the responsibility
must be that of the Board of Grain Commissioners, because the statute imposes upon them the duty of appointing the Grain Standards Board. The Minister will remember the section.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are restrictions
placed around the board in the matter of appointment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: Whoever the members of the grain standards board may be, I do not think there is a sufficient appreciation of the difficulties they have to face. They have to deal with setting standards for damaged grain, grain damaged in varying degrees and with varying types of damage. Unfortunately they cannot commence their work until sufficient of the damaged grain is available to make it possible for them to know just what type of damage predominates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Otherwise they have no job.


Charles Avery Dunning: Otherwise they have no job until the grain comes forward. In any year, and particularly during the past year, with the increased use of combines and more rapid harvesting, by the time the grain standards board can get samples of a particular crop, a great quantity of that crop has already moved forward and been graded, if the law is carried out, in conformity with standards set for the previous year's crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the "if" that causes the trouble.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite correct. I believe, however, it is possible to have the grain standards board meet earlier, provided that the Board of Grain Commissioners, instead of being tied up as they are by law at the head of the lakes, had an office in each of the provinces producing the grain. I am not saying that they should not have an office at Fort William, but they should have one in each province producing grain, if for no other reason than to see that the first grain threshed is submitted to Winnipeg in order that the grain standards board may function as early as possible, instead of waiting for carloads of wheat to come forward which are invariably accompanied by many other hundreds of carloads which are being graded in conformity with a standard which existed the year before. An improvement can be made in that connection. The point I started out to make was the difficulty with which the grain standards board is confronted, no matter who

the men may be. The type of damage to western Canada's wheat crop in one year may and frequently does differ entirely from the type of damage which existed the year before. Everyone who studies the matter at all knows that the intrinsic value of wheat is affected quite differently by rust from what it is affected by frost; that it is affected quite differently by frost which comes a month before harvest from what it is affected by frost which comes a week before harvest. All these factors create a different intrinsic value in that particular year's wheat crop as compared with the wheat crop of any other year. It is one of the worries of men who are responsible for handling large organizations for the farmer to know just what intrinsically is going to come out of the particular damage they know may have occurred through rust and frost, to name only two things, and there are more types of damage as the years go by.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman's
time is up.


Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to speak in the house on this question because, in my opinion, it is a matter that could better be disposed of in committee, and had I been a member of the committee I would not now be taking up the time of the house in discussing the question. Unfortunately, however, it has come into the house from the committee and we must deal with it. I am not opposed to dealing here with the matter of amendments to the grain act, but I do not think this is the time at which that should be done.
Much has been said about the discontent in western Canada in connection with the crop of last year. I do not think the discontent has been at all exaggerated, but I believe the causes of that discontent have been in many cases misstated and understated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Understated!


Malcolm McLean: Certain causes
have been understated. For instance, I have not heard much yesterday or to-day as to the true cause of the first trouble and first loss in connection with the crop of last year. That was during the week in which the twenty-second of August fell last year and it was a week of almost intermittent frost. There was not a week of frost every night in any one district, but over a period of a week there was frost in different districts every night. On the twenty-second of August I happened to be on the train going from Winnipeg to Regina and shortly after daylight, on looking out of the window, I saw the potato tops were as black

Grading of Grain-Mr. McLean (Melfort)
as my boots. A portion of the crop of Manitoba had been cut by that time, but the great bulk of the crop of Saskatchewan and probably all the crop of Alberta was still standing. That was the first cause of loss, and anyone who thinks that a frost of sufficient severity to turn potatoes black will not damage grain before maturity should look into the matter more closely. It certainly caused a tremendous loss. I am of the opinion-I am not going to guarantee this, because I am not as scientific, or as dogmatic, at least, as was the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) a little while ago-that that week of frost cost the farmers of Saskatchewan between $75,000,000 and $100,000,000, owing to the deterioration in the quality of the grain and the loss of weight. An early wheat that was nearly matured would not lose so much in quality and would not lose nearly so much in weight as the later wheats. These later wheats, which were still fairly green when the frost came, lost tremendously in weight and quality.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Tremendously in weight.


Malcolm McLean: They lost tremendously in weight; there is no question about that. On the other hand, the farmers who were fortunate enough to have their crop matured and cut at that time, some men who were fortunate enough to have grown garnet wheat, which matured fairly early, and had it cut a few days before the frost came, in many cases had the best year in their farming history because there was an immense crop on the ground, and garnet ripened early, graded high, and sold at a comparatively fair price.
I should like to say this further, so far as discontent in western Canada last year is concerned. While the frost did do a tremendous amount of damage, much of the crop, which was graded low, was still a high quality wheat for the simple reason that it was nearer to maturity before frost came. I say, much of it, but not all of it. Later on, due to various factors, prices were low on the world's market, and just here I would refer for a moment to the statement made by the hon. member for Kindersley, who, as I understood it, said that in his opinion unscientific grading caused a loss to the farmers of $175,000,000. That point has already been dealt with by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), and I shall not spend much time on it, further than to say that the pool should pray to be saved from their friends and their advocacy. The price was low because of the production on the
world's market, not because of unscientific grading. To illustrate that, let me say that before a single bushel of grain was cuit or threshed or graded, the -price was down on the world's market. Even before the frost came the price was down. I remember getting a telegram from one of my friends in eastern Canada a -little while before that, asking my opinion as to the likelihood of a rise for a quick turnover in the grain market, and I remember that I replied to 'the effect that there was absolutely no warrant for any bullish feeling in the west ait that time so far as I could judge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The price went up after the frost.


Malcolm McLean: The price may have gone up a little, but nothing in proportion to the damage done. I think I know the reason for that. The farm newspapers, pool officials probably, and certainly trade officials, when asked their opinion as to the dam-age done by the frost said -that it -had done a certain amount of damage, but not excessive harm; and- we all try to believe that frost has n-Ot done much harm until the grain is actually threshed and we cannot get away from the fact.


Mr. WARD:: Is it not true that there was a report broadcast all over Canada that we were likely to harvest not less than half a billion bushels?


Malcolm McLean: It is -true, I think, that we harvested half a billion bushels. There was a tremendous crop in the ground. Speaking of the damage done by frost, I remember that away back in 1907 there was a frost in July or early in August, and meeting an old farmer friend of mine I asked him what damage the frost had done. It did not appear serious, and I remember very well that he replied, "I have never yet seen a frost come during the ripening season which did any good to the crop." That crop of 1907 was probably the worst in the history of western Canada in this century, and the crop of last year and of -the year before would have repeated that experience had it not been for the early -maturing varieties of wheat which had been developed-largely due to the policy of the Department Of Agriculture at Ottawa, which has been Striving for the past thirty or forty years to produce earlier-maturing wheats. In 1927 we were saved from the loss that came in 1907 through the early freezing of late-maturing grain.
The fact remains that the loss last year was not due to unscientific grading, but to crop damage and a low price on the world's
1164	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
market. The hon, member for Kindersley took the average prices for four years, one of which was 1924, a very low-yield year in western Canada, and he averaged the price received at $1.12. Then he said that the 1928 crop would sell for only 77 cents a bushel. That statement is almost too ridiculous for me to attempt to refute it. Who knows what the 1928 crop is going to sell for? No one knows yet What it will sell for.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The bulletin here
will tell you.


Malcolm McLean: We are not
paying any attention to the bulletin.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is issued by the government.


Malcolm McLean: Which government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government of this
country.


Malcolm McLean: It was not the government of this country that said that, and I challenge anyone to prove it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are the official
figures in the bulletin.


Malcolm McLean: How does he
know they are right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know.


Malcolm McLean: And he does
not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is paid to know;
I am not.


Mr. GOTT:: I think the hon. member
ought to take the word of the hon. member who quoted these figures.


Malcolm McLean: When I want
to address myself to the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott), I will do so.


Eccles James Gott: I expected a sarcastic reply
from the hon. member.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was
addressing himself to me, for Which I thank him.
The serious part is this, Mr. Speaker. A report goes out from this house attributing this statement to the hon. member for Kindersley, and where he is not known and where his way of reasoning is not generally understood-I know he is absolutely sincere and that he believes he is right, but his reasoning is absolutely wrong-people will say: This was said on the floor of parliament

by the hon. member for Kindersley, and everybody knows he is a truthful man, so they will think it must be so.
It seems a waste of time to attempt to refute such a ridiculous proposition as was put forward by the hon. member for Kindersley, but let me just add this: The pool in the last four years set their initial price at $1 a bushel, and the farmer pays the freight to Fort William. This year they set the price at 85 cents a bushel. Later on, just about this time of the year, the pools make a payment on account. This year they made a payment of 12 cents a bushel. The total payments on No. 1 northern in store at Fort William up to March 20, 1929, amounted to 97 cents per bushel. In other years the payment by this time would come to around $1.25, and that much at least was expected this year. The pool is not to blame for that. They set their initial price low to protect themselves and protect their farmer members. Why say that unscientific grading had anything to do with the price when the price was set before a bushel of wheat was graded? The price was based on the world's production and demand. I am not going to say any more about that.
The question of mixing was not touched on very much in the earlier part of this debate, but it has been dealt with to some extent to-day. To my mind this question of mixing is far more serious than the question of the hybrid ticket, which was dealt with yesterday. The first frost caused discontent in the country, and a tremendous economic loss; there is no question about that. The low price on the world's market, and the low payment in western Canada based on that low price, caused another great loss and a great deal of discontent. The question of mixing is probably the most serious one facing the western farmer to-day. The best organized farmers are most vehement in their condemnation of that practice, and of that I shall give evidence in a little while. Unfortunately there are two kinds of mixing: One that could be controlled by legislation and the other that probably could not. As evidence of the type of mixing that is hard to control, I propose to quote from an article published in the Regina Leader of April 22, 1928. It is headed:
Aiming at Fewer, Better Wheat Varieties, Pool backs Zoning System.
And proceeds:
Realizing the necessity of maintaining uniformity in the standard of pool wheat, the directors of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool have been actively investigating ways and means of

Grading oj Grain-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
encouraging the production of fewer and better varities in the province and have actively associated themselves with the promotion of a zoning system.
"One of the factors making for lack of uniformity," said a wheat pool official yesterday, "is the great increase in wheat varieties that has developed since the introduction of Marquis in 1903. It is true that great advances have been made in the production of wheat by cross breeding and selection by different agencies such as experimental farms and prominent seed growers, but with no restriction on the number of varieties licensed the result has been that a large number of varieties have been produced, not all of which have proved superior to the existing varieties.
"In many cases the new wheat varieites are higher yielding or have greater rust resistance but are lower in milling or baking qualities than the previous standard varieties.
I have read sufficient for my purpose. That is a situation that can be hardly dealt with by legislation, but it has been extremely expensive to the farmers of western Canada. There is, however, a type of mixing that can be controlled by legislation. In a return handed down last session in reply to a question by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) it is stated that in the crop year 1920-21 twelve million bushels of No. 1 northern wheat, were taken into store and eleven million bushels taken out-a little less; ten million bushels of No. 2 were taken into store and sixteen million bushels taken out; sixteen million bushels of No. 3 were taken in and nineteen million bushels taken out. Coming down to 1926-27, we find the situation worse. The practice is legal, but it is bad. In that year fourteen million bushels of No. 1 northern were put into store, and eighteen million bushels shipped out; thirty-two million bushels of No. 2 were put into store, and forty million shipped out; fourteen million bushels of No. 3 were put into store, and twenty-seven million bushels shipped out. My hon. friend from Kindersley stated, if I heard him aright, that the higher price paid by the pool was due largely to profits made on mixing. Well, if that kind of mixing can be any more profitable than the other kind I cannot understand it.
Objection has been taken to the grading system. Overseas it was complained that the grade was gradually getting lower; for two reasons; one, that the quality of wheat was gradually changing, new varieties being introduced and new areas being brought into cultivation that did not produce as high a quality of grain as the older land; the other reason for the decline in grade was the mixing. Under these circumstances it was inevitable that there should be a lower standard of grain delivered on the old country market.
There was considerable discontent, and last year apparently efforts were made to tighten up the grades. The grade delivered to the Alberta pool out of the crop of 1926, which has been quoted as a fairly high-grade crop, was as follows:
2.6 of the wheat handled was No. 1; 8.2 per cent No. 2; 17.3 per cent No. 3; 10.6 per cent No. 4; 10.9 per cent No. 2 tough; 20.5 per cent No. 3 tough; 11.1 per cent No. 4 tough.
Those were the grades that year. The balance is not divided into grades, but doubtless there was damaged grain that had to be hospitalized before it could be placed on the market. Probably last fall there was a gradual tightening up of grades- The standard grades set. by law should not have been changed. I have not heard very much direct evidence that they were changed. But there was quite an apparent difference in the commercial grades, and that again I think was for two reasons; one, that the wheat last year while it graded low-it was certainly frosted-was of unusually high quality. There had been a spendid growing season and until frost came the growing conditions had been almost perfect, and after the frost they continued almost perfect over the greater part of the west. Not since 1924, when we had a good deal of wet, cold weather, have we had such favourable conditions. Complaints were coming from the old country of the degrading of grain in previous years, and an effort was made at. tightening up the grades. That was the state of affairs when the Grain Standards Board met. As described by the Minister of Railways, it is a thoroughly representative institution. That board set the standard so high that Dr. Birchard, the chemist of the Board of Grain Commissioners, protested, and the standard set was lower than it would otherwise have been. I cannot understand why the board should be' condemned for that action of their chemist. It is unfortunate that the Grain Standards Board met so late in the season, but this point has already been dealt with by previous speakers. The reason may be better understood if I quote from the evidence given by Mr. Plumer, representing the president of the Alberta wheat pool, at the sittings of the agriculture committee on the 13th instant. I am quoting from page 18 of the report of the committee of that date.
He said:
We asked a few years ago that the setting of the standard samples be arranged at a date when our Alberta friends could be represented in them more fully than they had been up until that time, and since then we have had some better satisfaction than we had prior to that time. It is unfortunate that the samples can-
1166	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
not be set definitely until nearly the middle of October usually in that a large percentage of the Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan grain has moved. At that time there would be a possibility of a slight change in the standard sample.
Now, it is only natural that -there should have been a change last October if, after a series of years of low-grade commercial standards, there came a year of high-grade commercial standards. But the standard was set late in the year and apparently higher than usual. If the standard was deliberately lowered- in previous years because of weather conditions affecting the grain, it is natural that that lower standard would be reflected in lower prices in the old country according to the world market at the time. An effort was made to get it back as quickly as possible to the high standard that obtained before. I do not think the -commissioners should be very much condemned for that. It was not of their doing.
These are three of the reasons -that have caused a great deal of discontent in western Canada during the past year:	Frost-low
price-mixing of grain. The mixing gave rise to the greatest discontent. The tightening up of the grades also caused discontent.
A good deal has been said about the diversion of cars after inspection of the grain. I think that to some extent a wrong impression has been created by those who have discussed the question. There is only one legal way in which carloads of grain can be diverted. If a farmer ships his grain to an agent, whether to the pool or otherwise, and gives him authority to handle it to the best advantage for himself-the farmer-and the agent gets an offer at Winnipeg or elsewhere, and decides to sell the grain, and sends the car to the mill or the elevator people who are buying the grain, I do not see how that practice can be legally stopped. The hon. member for Kindersley said that -he was not interested in any but the pool farmers. This house cannot take that narrow, parochial view; we must be interested in the welfare of all the farmers of western Canada so far as grain growing is concerned. I do not see 'how we can legislate to compel a man to ship his grain right through to the terminal without liberty to sell it while in -transit. Ever since western Canada commenced to grow wheat there has been a degree of diversion and I expect it will continue to some extent. If, however, there has been an illegal diversion of cars by agents of milling companies or of purchasing companies, who break the seals and order -the cars diverted, without the authority or -permission of the owners or of the agents representing the 
owners of the grain, then of course it beeomes -a criminal offence and should be taken to the proper authority. It should not be laid at the door of the Minister of Trade and Commerce but should be taken to the Minister of Justice or to the police department, inasmuch as it is -a criminal action. To my mind the matter could be easily settled.
There is another ca-use of discontent-in my opinion a very minor cause-and that is the so-Oal'led hybrid -ticket. In the discussion in the -house yesterday we heard of nothing else but the hybrid ticket. But if the hybrid ticket, is the whole cause of the trouble why did we -not hear about it a year ago? That ticket was in use -by the grain trade in the handling of -the crop of 1927. In my opinion it is a wrong that should not be tolerated; I do not think it should -be used. I do not believe that the grain 'trade is living up to the spirit o-f the agreement it made with the pool. But I do -think that they are going to put up a fight-at -any rate they are likely to attempt-to prove -that they have a legal right to do what they are doing under the contract entered into by them with the pool. As I say, however, -that hybrid ticket was in use in 1927, and we heard little about it. The pools themselves were not very sure whether that agreement into which- they had entered might not bind them to some extent. As a matter of fact, -there enters into the matter a question -of considerable legal importance. The legal question involved is, I -take it, as to the time at which the ownership of the grain ceases -to lie with the grower and becomes vested in the agency to which he is sending it. Now if the pool were buying the grain, which it does n-ot do, and paying for it as soon as it was in -the elevator, there would be no question about the fact that the pool would own the grain and the farmer would not be able t-o direct shipment of it to any particular terminal. But if he were not able to ship it to any particular terminal elevator, neither would he be able to order the car in Which to ship it. If therefore he is able legally to order the car in which to ship the grain I am firmly convinced that he has a right under the law as it stands to ship to the terminal of his Choice.
The chairman of the- royal commission which investigated the subject in 1925, Mr. Justice Turgeon, has been quoted by some hon. gentlemen in this -house; and I notice that 'his opinion was quoted by a member of the house in the debate that took place three years ago. I will not take -the time now to read at any length from Mr. Justice Turgeon's statements, but this was his argument : " According to -the agreement entered

Grading oj Grain-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
into by each producer who joins the pool, the grain remains his own property until sold by the selling agency, and the producers are virtually doing their own mixing." It was in reference to mixing that he was speaking at that time, but the same principle applies. If the owner of the grain, the grower, is only sending his grain to the agency to be dealt with afterwards, then by no stretch of the imagination can it be said to be the property of the agency; it is the grower's own property until delivered. Although I have no knowledge of law, I think I am on pretty sound ground in making this statement. The amount of grain which is handled in this way is extremely small. I do not know what the percentage is in Saskatchewan, but in Alberta, according to a statement made the other day, the pool in that province handles 50 per cent of the grain; and of that 50 per cent 60 per cent is handled in their own elevators and 20 per cent of the total crop shipped through line elevators and handled under graded storage receipt, special binning, and so on. Posibly not more than 5 per cent of the total grain of that province is handled through special bins in line elevators for the pool, and I think it is no exaggeration to estimate that not more than half of the farmers whose grain goes into these special bins and is there by the line companies consigned to their own terminal elevators have entered any objection to the hybrid ticket. You would have heard more aibout it if they had. So that probably not more than 2 per cent of the growers were at all dissatisfied with it. Yet we find in this house, until this afternoon, that nearly 100 per cent of the objection to the motion now under consideration is represented as having to do with the hybrid ticket. I do not think this is the wisest way to deal with the matter.
As evidence that I am giving more than my own opinion I may say that last fall I received from many branches of the farmers' organization in Saskatchewan, which province produces more than half the grain of all western Canada, many resolutions asking for assistance in doing two things. One was to have the mixing evil eliminated in order that the high standard of Canadian wheat on the world's markets might be retained. This organization resolved that the standard for grading out of private terminals should be equal to the average of the same grade at inspection points. Technically that is difficult to secure, but that was their desire. There was another resolution dealing with the transfer of the administration of the grain act from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Agriculture.
I intend to deal with that later on. But what I want to point out at the moment is that there was no suggestion in any of these resolutions in regard to the hybrid ticket; it was not recognized as causing any particular trouble. It may be that there is a difference between the situation in Saskatchewan and that in some of the other provinces. An hon. member has referred to one difference, and it is this, that in Saskatchewan opinion against mixing is almost unanimous at the present time. The members from the province of Saskatchewan in this house, and who were in the province at that time, were invited to confer with the authorities of the Saskatchewan pool before coming here. This is coming to be an annual practice, and it is a wise one. We attended that conference and heard many matters discussed, and the so-called hybrid ticket was among them. It was also discussed the year before to some extent. At that gathering an understanding was arrived at that a written statement would be sent to the members from Saskatchewan in this house setting out the reforms which the pool was really anxious to secure and was fighting for. I hold that statement in my hand; I received it from an officer of the pool. I find that it deals first with mixing in general, the great evil which is recognized to-day by all the farmers of Saskatchewan; and regardless of what anyone says, mixing is the first evil. Damage from frost and other natural causes is an important consideration with which we cannot deal, but mixing is the paramount evil in respect to which immediate relief is asked. Another trouble is in regard to the definition of No. 3 northern wheat; a better definition is desired. The situation there is rather confused because of changes that have developed since No. 3 was first dealt with. The memorandum also covers such grades as amber, durum, No. 1 and No. 2 Canadian western, and so forth. But there is nothing at all in the memorandum about the hybrid ticket. I say therefore that it is not fair for some hon. members to make such a fuss about the grain commission in reference to this ticket.
I must hurry on because my time is getting short, and I am not so much interested in rehearsing the difficulties of the farmers in western Canada as in trying to find a remedy for those troubles; because no matter where farming is carried on, the history of agriculture throughout the world teaches us that the farmer is always just one jump ahead of disaster. In the semi-tropical zone in the southern states the citrus crop is just a little ahead of frost; a little further north the cotton crop is faced with the same diffi-
1168	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. McLean (Melfort)
culty; and the same is true of corn, wheat and other products. I presume that the farmers in the rich province of Ontario are also pursued by trouble from time to time. However, in my opinion it is better to improve conditions than to talk about them.
Now in connection with the administration of the grain act I will admit that there are inequalities; there are certain difficulties that must be overcome. Let us look for a few moments at the history of the Manitoba Grain Act and its administration for the past thirty years. That act was secured after a hard fight by the organized grain growers of western Canada; they came down here and put up a good battle and finally had the act put through. That battle stirred up and interested every farmer in western Canada, so that when the act was passed almost every farmer in the west knew exactly what its provisions were, what it meant to him and all about it. During this time the population of western Canada was small; farming was carried on in a small area, aver which the soil was very much the same and the climatic conditions very similar. The organized farmers were familiar with the 'law. In addition to that the warehouse commissioner, the administrator of the act, was located in Winnipeg, and his deputy was in the field. I refer to Mr. Snow, who has been so maligned here, in my opinion without adequate oause. However, the farmers of the west were thoroughly aware of their rights, privileges and responsibilities under that act; the deputy was in the field all the time, settling problems, meeting farmers who had grievances or who were dissatisfied or who wanted information, and in those days with a small territory involved'it was possible to keep things running smoothly.
To-day, however, conditions are different. The territory involved has increased to twenty times its former area; the yield of grain has increased ten times; there are twenty or thirty varieties of wheat now where formerly there was one, and there are thousands of farmers who are not so familiar with the act. Some may doubt that; the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked the Minister of Railways a few minutes ago if it were true that the farmers did not know their rights and privileges under the act. It is extremely difficult for them to do so, as is shown from the debates which take place in this house in connection with different pieces of legislation. There are times when we are in doubt as to the provisions of certain acts, so we cannot wonder that the farmer is uncertain also. The facts remains that many farmers in the west are not thoroughly familiar with their rights and privileges, and that is only natural.

I happened to listen to some of the evidence given before the royal grain commission when, it sat in Saskatchewan last fall. That commission was very helpful, not only through the information it gathered from the farmers but bv means of the information it was able to give to them. Many farmers appeared before that commission, gave their evidence on oath that they had done so and so, that they believed they could be compelled to do so and so and that they did not know they had power to demand certain other things. The chairman of the commission or one of his assistants had no difficulty in showing the farmers their position under the act, but before that many had not known of them. That is a very different situation to that which existed twenty-five or thirty years ago, when the farmers knew pretty well what was in the statute.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING

A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1930.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by the request from the Deputy of the Governor General that this house should attend him in the senate chamber, I was dealing with the means which, in my opinion, should be taken to improve the handling of grain under the Canada Grain Act. A request was made last fall by the organized farmers throughout Saskatchewan for some action on this matter, and the following resolution was passed by many branches:
Whereas we believe the administration of the Canada Grain Act should be under the control of the Department of Agriculture, as it deals

. Grading o/ Grain-Mr. Coote
with the grading and the movement of the most important agricultural product in Canada, and further the Department of Agriculture, having a wide knowledge and sympathetic interest in and understanding of agricultural problems, is the logical department to administer the said act;
Therefore be it resolved we request the Dominion government to remove the administration of the Canada Grain Act from the Department of Trade and Commerce and place it under the Department of Agriculture.
When the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) was speaking this afternoon he made the statement that we would be expressing a lack of confidence in the Minister of Trade and Commerce through the passing of this resolution. It is a matter not of expressing a lack of confidence in the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but rather of expressing confidence in the Minister of Agriculture and asking that the administration of this act be placed under that department, in which department probably ninety-eight to one hundred per cent of the farmers have confidence. It would be an expression of confidence in the organization back of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), which organization has a wide knowledge and sympathetic interest in and understanding of agricultural problems. It is agreed that the Department of Trade and Commerce is the logical department to help the farmers sell their products, but in the handling and shipping of their grain, and the solving of other problems which might arise, the farmers of western Canada need the assistance of such men as Doctor Grisdale, Mr. Newman, and Mr. Clark. Those are the men who have developed marquis, garnet and other varieties of wheat which have so greatly benefited the country. The farmers believe that such an organization back of the minister would naturally be more sympathetic than would be an organization of salesmen. They would be more effective in their own sphere, and so the request has been made that this matter be transferred to the Department of Agriculture.
I should like to see this resolution carried out to the fullest extent. I am not a member of the agriculture committee and, therefore, could not urge my views upon that committee, so I desire to move that the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words,
"and also the administration of the Canada Grain Act."


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I am afraid the hon. member will have to redraft his amendment. The motion before the house, moved by Mr. Kay, reads:
That the third report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization be concurred in.
The motion which had been previously moved by the chairman of the agriculture committee was ruled out of order, and the amendment suggested by the hon. member would not attach itself to the motion under debate.


Malcolm McLean: Would Your
Honour be good enough to give me an opportunity to put it in order, and advise me as to how it could be done? Hon. members may laugh, but I remember a case not very long ago in which the Speaker himself saw to it that sufficient time was given to an hon. member to draft a motion and obtain a seconder.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why do you not ask the
Minister of Trade and Commerce?	(


Malcolm McLean: There was a minister of
trade and commerce for a short time in this country, under the "shadow government," whom I would not care to consult.


James Dew Chaplin: You might have avoided
your trouble.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, the report which is being discussed by the house deals with a matter which is of very great importance to Canada generally, and to the grain producers of Canada particularly. Parliament also is greatly interested in this matter, and rightly so. During the years 1921 to 1927 the government has received a surplus of revenue over expenditures under *the administration of the Canada Grain Act amounting to over $2,500,000. I have been asked 'by members of this house why it is necessary to have the grain act at all: why it is necessary to have grading and inspection of grain. I think that question can be answered very readily:	It is because of the
immense volume of grain which has to be handled in a short time. It might be enlightening to members of this house to know that during one week in the year 1928, the week ending September 23, fifty-one million bushels of grain were delivered at country elevators and loading platforms in western Canada. During that same week 47,000,000 bushels of wheat alone were delivered. During one week last year over 24,000,000 bushels of grain arrived at Fort William and Port Arthur to be unloaded at the terminal elevators. From the few figures I have given I think the members of the house will readily see the necessity for the Canada Grain Act, and the necessity for efficient administration of that

Grading of Grain-Mr. Coote
aot. I think it is putting the case very mildly to say that the producers of grain in western Canada are very much dissatisfied with the present situation, and with very good cause.
I am not going to attempt to-night to deal with the questions of grading, mixing, storing, handling, et cetera, of grain, as I think these phases have been covered very fully by previous speakers. Several members of the house seemed to take the attitude this afternoon that the grain act had been very well administered, and that we were not justified in asking that the Board of Grain Commissioners should be removed from their present position. One bon. member said that we should not question the honesty of the commissioners; that it is not fair to do so. Personally I am not questioning the honesty of any member of the Board of Grain Commissioners, [DOT]and I do not think any hon. member has done so during the debate, none at any rate, that I have heard; but we d'o question the efficiency with which they have administered the Canada Grain Act. We think they have been very remiss in their duty. Surely we can discuss the administration of the act without bringing into question the honesty of the men who are administering it.
While I said that I would not deal with the question of grading or mixing, I should like to make just one reference to a statement made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) this afternoon in regard to the special bin ticket; that is, the ordinary "C" ticket. On our own farm I have been in the habit of receiving this ticket for many years; I have signed hundreds of them and I know positively they were the special bin ticket. It may be that in many cases a graded storage ticket is being given to the farmers m lieu of the special bin ticket. I should not like to make a very positive statement in regard to that, but in our own case I know we have been receiving the regular special bin ticket.


Charles Avery Dunning: From an ordinary line
elevator company?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, because until last year
we did not have the pool elevator at our point. At the last annual convention of the United Farmers of Alberta, the question of the administration of the Canada Grain Act was discussed at considerable length, and after that discussion the following resolution was passed' practically unanimously by the convention. I think it is my duty to place it on Hansard.

Board of Grain Commissioners
Whereas the Canada Grain Act was passed for the protection of the farmers, and
Whereas the Board of Grain Commissioners was appointed to insure to the farmers the protection intented to be extended to them by the Canada Grain Act, and
Whereas, in the opinion of this convention the present Board of Grain Commissioners have failed to function in such a manner as to give to the farmers the protection that parliament intended them to have, and,
Whereas, the farmer has, as a consequence, lost confidence in the personnel of the present board, and
Whereas since the creation of the board (comprised of three commissioners) the production and shipment of grain has increased enormously, and
Whereas, _ export of grain through Pacific ports has since been developed, and
Whereas, the extension of the area from which grain is produced in large quantities makes it impossible for a board of three commissioners functioning properly, to give the farmjer the protection the Grain Act was designed to extend to him.
Be it resolved:
(a)	That this convention demand the removal of the present grain commissioners;
(b)	That this convention request parliament to amend the Canada Grain Act to provide
(1)	A board of five commissioners, one of whom shall reside in Alberta and one in Saskatchewan.
(2)	That the duties of the board be defined and extended and that power be given to the board to enforce its orders.
(3)	That the board be given power to investigate and be charged with the duty of investigating on its own initiative, every operation incidental to the movement of grain from the time and place of its being threshed to its final destination, whether in or out of Canada;
(4)	That the board be charged with the duty of holding sittings throughout the three prairie provinces, each year, during the period from the first of. September to the end of February next for the purpose^ of enquiring into the operations of the various facilities operating under license and regulation under the Canada Grain Act and to hear all complaints;
(5)	That the foregoing provision be given effect by the increase in number of commissioners and not by the appointment of inspectors.
(6)	That parliament provide funds to pav to commissioners salaries sufficiently large to make available for the office, candidates of outstanding ability, industry and integrity.
That resolution is very definite. There was no question in the minds of the delegates at that convention as to what should be done. Although the resolution does not say so, I think I might add that it was the opinion of the United Farmers of Alberta that the appointments to the board should not be made because of political considerations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date of that resolution?


George Gibson Coote: January 15, 1929. Practically every corner of Alberta was represented at

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Coote
that convention; in other words, the convention was quite representative of the producers of grain in that province.
This might be a good time to place before the house a little news item copied from one of the daily papers published last month. I am sorry I have not the name of the paper. The heading reads:
Grain industry is loosely organized. Decision reached by commission after hearing 250 witnesses.
The despatch is from Davidson, Saskatchewan, January 16, and it reads:
After 250 witnesses from all parts of the province have testified before the royal commission concerning the various phases of the grain industry one factor stands out as the dominating feature of the entire situation. That is, that the entire system is loosely organized from the moment the grain is being selected for seed up to the time it goes into the terminals at Winnipeg and Vancouver. The Canadian Grain Act has been amended and reframed frequently always with a view of facilitating the movement and marketing and giving the producer the best opportunities indicated by experience and their wishes for securing the best price level afforded by world market quotations.
But evidence is accumulating that many of these so-called privileges for which the farmers and their political sympathizers fought for years are dead letters for one reason or another.
It would be interesting if we could find out just what those reasons are.
Evidence of well-informed farmers before the commission suggests that the mass is not informed as to just what these privileges and the law applying to shipping and merchandise and grading are.
I have another quotation also taken from the press. It is presumed to be a statement made by Commissioner Brown, Chief Justice of Saskatchewan and chairman of the grain commission:
Someone playing fast and loose with the farmer.
There is no doubt about that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the hon. member
state the authority he is quoting there?


George Gibson Coote: I am quoting just from memory. I will make it very plain that I think that statement was made by the commissioner. I remember seeing it.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend read from some authority. What is the authority?


George Gibson Coote: That is taken from one of the daily papers, and is a press despatch from Davidson, Saskatchewan, dated January 16. I am sorry' I have not the name of the paper. It is possible I can find out and let the minister know.
78594-74J


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not wish to object, but my hon. friend knows it is quite out of order to read anything of that sort without stating what it is.


George Gibson Coote: I think it was reported in practically all the papers. This is only one of a great number of statements that have appeared in the press in reporting the proceedings of that commission.
In the short time that I have left I do not think I can do better than deal with one case in the province of Alberta which will bring very clearly before the house the manner in which the Board of Railway Commissioners have been administering the act. Several members said this afternoon that most of the complaints had been in regard to the so-called hybrid ticket. In the case to which I shall refer the hybrid ticket is not dealt with at all; the regular ticket was issued. This is the case of Mr. Randle, of High River. I shall quote from sessional paper No. 115B, which was recently brought down.
The first correspondence in the case is a wire from Mr. George E. Randle, of High River, to the Board of Grain Commissioners, dated October 19, 1928, and reading as follows:
Car one three nine three one two C.P. billed to government elevator Calgary re Bawlf Grain, High River, was in special bins. Tickets in my name. My billing instructions were to bill to pool terminal, Vancouver. He refused to do so. I offered to pay the handling charges. I demanded my tickets. He says he has cancelled my tickets and offered me so-called pool tickets. Can you give this your attention before this car is unloaded? I want my original storage tickets in my own name. I have another carload of wheat in this elevator. Wire me collect.
I hope the house will notice that this man claims that he had special bin tickets. Next is a wire from M. Snow, Winnipeg to Mr. Randle, High River:
Your wire received. Taking this matter up with the Bawlf Grain Company at once.
That wire is marked "Collect." Next is a wire from Mr. Snow to the Bawlf Grain Company, Calgary, dated October 19:
Wire from George E. Randle, High River, re car thirteen ninety three twelve, billed government elevator Calgary, claims agent cancelled tickets made out in his own name, changed to pool tickets. Demands original storage tickets restored and car billed pool terminal Vancouver. Answer.
The answer is given in a telegram dated October 25, from the Bawlf Grain Company

Grading of Grain-Mr. Coote
to the Board of Grain Commissioners, Winnipeg:
All tickets issued to George Randle who is member of wheat pool. He did not notify us at time grain was being delivered that it was pool wheat which is contrary to clause twenty-one of our agreement.
That is the most outlandish statement that I have yet seen in this correspondence, that it was contrary to a section of their agreement with the pool that Randle should bring wheat to this elevator company and not notify them that it was pool wheat. I continue to read:
Request our Winnipeg office quote you wording of clause twenty-one.
For nerve, I think that telegram certainly is the limit.


Milton Neil Campbell: If the hon. member
has the contract there, would he mind reading that particular clause?


George Gibson Coote: I think I have it somewhere, but I do not know whether my forty minutes will allow me to read it. I may do so later.
Next is a wire from M. Snow to the Bawlf Grain Company:
Board understands tickets issued R. Randle's name. If so, on what authority did your agent change tickets to show grain delivered account of pool. If agent did this board believes Randle had right to receive original tickets and give shipping instructions.
The board seemed to be very definite that if this man had the tickets he should have the right to direct the shipment of liis grain. Next is a wire from the Bawlf Grain Company, dated October 20, to Mr. Snow:
Referring your wire re Randle, High River, would quote clause .twenty-one of our contract with pool. Is not this our proper procedure?
What, possible clause could be put in the contract which would allow the grain company, after issuing regular tickets to a man, deliberately to cancel them and issue what they call a pool ticket?
Next is a letter from Mr. George Randle, and may I draw the attention of the house to this: Mr. Randle complained by wire on October 19, and he does not get any reply from the board, except an acknowledgment of his telegram. On November 5, after waiting sixteen days without a reply, he writes to the board as follows:
High River, November 5.
To the Board of Grain Commissioners,
Fort William.
On October 19, I sent you a wire in connection with a car of wheat No. C.P. 139213, shipped from High River, and unloaded in Calgary. This wheat was put in a special bin and the tickets were made in the name of Geo. R. Randle, as I did not belong to the pool at that time.

I hope the house will notice that the tickets were issued to Randle when he was not a member of the pool. He goes on:
I was busy threshing and did not go and get my tickets. By the time I was in turn for a ear the price of wheat was off a good deal, so I joined the pool.


Charles Avery Dunning: No comment needed on
that.


George Gibson Coote: Comment is unnecessary.
He goes on:
When the car was loaded I asked the Bawlf elevator man to not bill the car as I would attend to that, but when he found that I was going to bill the car to the pool terminal at Vancouver, he flew into a rage and .... me-
There is a blank space there where some word has been omitted. I suppose it was not parliamentary language:
-so I asked him for my tickets, and he said that he had cancelled my tickets and offered me some so-called pool tickets, which I refused to take.
Is not that a most outlandish thing for any elevator company to do, deliberately to cancel this man's tickets?


Charles Avery Dunning: May I point out that
while that is outlandish, the first outlandish thing that happened in connection with that case was that the farmer did not take his tickets when he delivered the grain, but left them in charge of the elevator operator-a most foolish thing to do.


Edward Joseph Garland: But very
commonly done.


Charles Avery Dunning: Unfortunately, yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Unfortunately, I agree.


George Gibson Coote: May I interject that this
man was very busy running a threshing outfit? I hope that we shall be afble to get these elevators run in such a way that if a man does neglect to come in for his tickets for a few weeks, the tickets will still be there and the elevator company will not dare to cancel them and issue new ones.


Charles Avery Dunning: You cannot depend on
that under any administration.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Randle continues:
There is about two thousand bushels more of my wheat in the Bawlf elevator at High River.
May I pause to point this out: If the board had taken prompt action in this case, the next car might have been shipped to the pool terminal. Mr. Randle's letter continues:
Now when I sent you that wire I was under the impression that as an individual I had some rights under the Canada Grain Act, and

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Coote
that the Board of Grain Commissioners were appointed to help enforce, impartially, the rights of the Canada Grain Act, but it seems I was completely mistaken. According to the way the line companies are acting with the farmers we have no rights or title to our grain all because we have signed a pool contract, and I have also learned that the decisions and commands of the Board of Grain Commissioners have been disregarded and ignored by some of these same grain companies.
As I 'said in my wire, I would like to have my original storage tickets in my own name, and if I have no right left to me, to have my own tickets and to bill out my own grain, 1 sure want to know it, so 1 may be able to act accordingly at any future time.
It is not to be wondered at that this man, after waiting for sixteen days, would like to know whether he had any rights or not.


Francis Wellington Hay: Would there not be a pool
ticket issued for the grain, and should not the pool direct the shipment of the grain rather than the farmer?
Mr. GARLANb (Bow River): No.


Francis Wellington Hay: He says he joined the pool.


George Gibson Coote: This man delivered wheat
to the pool before he was a member of the pool, and certain tickets were issued to him.


Francis Wellington Hay: Would not the elevator company be bound to take the pool's instructions rather than instructions from the farmer?


George Gibson Coote: They had already issued a
ticket for this grain. By what right could the elevator company officials tear up the man's ticket and write other tickets?


Francis Wellington Hay: They could take instructions
from the pool.


George Gibson Coote: They had no such instructions. The next communication is in the form of a letter from the Board of Grain Commissioners at Fort William to Mr. Randle at High River. It is a circular letter that, I think, was sent to every farmer who had1 had difficulties of this nature with the grain company. The letter reads in part:
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.
The board do not interpret the contract; they state the objection of the company.
As it now appears that the board is nnable to obtain an amicable adjustment of the complaints filed with the hoard without the necessity of holding a formal investigation as required under the provisions of the "Canada Grain Act", it has been decided to hold such an investigation of a specific complaint, upon completion of which the board will then be in a position to decide, in view of all the circumstances connected with this matter, what further proceedings may he taken to determine whether the holder of tickets issued in his own name has the right to ship his grain to a terminal elevator selected by him in accordance with section 150 of the Canada Grain Act.
That is a very strange attitude for the board to take-to find out whether parliament meant what it said. On December 3, a long while after Mr. Randle made his complaint, the board wrote to him suggesting that if he wanted his claim further investigated he should file an affidavit as required by the Canada Grain Act. Then we find the affidavit submitted by Mr. Randile. It is dated December 13, 1928. It is a statutory declaration setting forth the steps which Mr. Randle took in connection with this grain, and with the consent of the house I will place it on Hansard. The information is practically the same -as that contained in his first letter to the board. This is the affidavit:
Canada, Province of Alberta, to Wit:
In the matter of the "Canada Grain Act" and in the matter of complaint by George E. Randle of the town of High River, in the province of Albert, farmer, pursuant to the said "Canada Grain Act" and sections 108 and 166, thereof.
I. George E. Randle, of the town of High River, in the province of Alberta, "Farmer", make oath and say:
1.	That I am the complainant herein.
2.	I delivered about three thousand (3,000) bushels of wheat to the Bawlf Grain Company's elevator at High River. I was busy in the field running a threshing outfit, and this grain was delivered by truck, and I was never into the elevator until the day when a carload of this grain was loaded out, car C.P. 139312. I was not a member of the wheat pool when this grain was delivered to the Bawlf Grain Company, but there were no cars to load for some time and the truck was delivering wheat to the pool elevator and I did sign, a pool contract a few days before this car was loaded. I never received nor saw any tickets for this grain.
3.	The elevator man told me they were special bin tickets in the name of George E. Randle. I had told this man that I was going to sell this grain. The day he loaded a car I sent my father-in-law, a Mr. Bower, over to the elevator with a signed cheque to pay the charges, and to instruct the elevator man to bill this

Grading of Grain-Mr. Coote
car to the pool terminal at Vancouver. He refused to do so. I then went over and took a Mr. A. L. Clemens as a witness.
4.	I asked the elevator agent why he did not bill the oar to Vancouver. He flew into a rage and said he did not want me coming around there trying to run their business, and also that they did not want any more of my grain to handle, so I asked him for my tickets. He said he had cancelled my tickets and he offered me some "so-called" pool tickets, which I refused to take. He billed the car out and I understand it was unloaded in the government elevator in Calgary.
5.	I do not know what they have done with the balance of my wheat when the settlement for this car No. 139312 came to High River, this elevator agent goes and deposits it in the bank to my credit, and they charge me eighty-nine (89) cents remittance.
6.	Now I deposit all my grain cheques in a Calgary bank. The Alberta pool make all payments at par in Calgary.
7.	The Bawlf agent in Oalgary refuses to refund this charge.
8.	I wash steps to be taken through you or otherwise to have this car of wheat in the government elevator diverted to the pool terminal at Vancouver, also to instruct or require the Bawlf Grain Company to make the initial payments at par in Calgary to me.
Sworn before me at the city of Calgary, in the province of Alberta, this thirteenth dav of December, A.D. 1928.
Signed-Geo. E. Randle. (Signed) J. C. Brokovski,
A Notary Public.
The Board of Grain Commissioners forwarded a copy of this affidavit to the Bawlf Grain Company and requested a reply. The reply of the company to the board is as follows:
Calgary, December 21, 1928. Replying to your favour of December 15 regarding a declaration filed by Mr. George E. Randle, of High River, we have investigated this case and have the following to report:
Mr. Randle delivered his grain to our elevator as non-pool wheat, and after it had oeen stored for some time he decided to join the >ool, without notifying us to this effect, which s contrary to clause 21 of our agreement with the pool,-
Contrary to clause 21 of their agreement with the pool that George Randle did not advise the elevator company he had joined the pool. The letter continues:
-as bad we known that this wheat was to be shipped to the pool we would ha\-e issued the regulation pool ticket in the first place. I
I should like to know what the regulation pool ticket is.
As Mr. Randle then refused to accept tickets which were offered him, his wheat was shipped out and handled in the regular manner.
The stand which we take in this matter is that Mr. Randle would not have the right to change the status of his wheat without first giving us a chance to change the class of tickets 
which had been issued against this grain any more than he would have the right to demand one northern graded storage tickets for grain after we had stored same, for instance, as three northern.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the most colossal piece of nerve on the part of an elevator company that I have ever witnessed.
We will be glad to have you advise us on this matter, stating as to whether or not in your opinion this grain was handled according to the proper procedure.
On January 9, nearly three months after Mr. Randle had sent his wire to the board, they wrote to him the following letter, of which I will omit the first paragraph as it contains nothing of importance:
Mr. W. R. Bawlf, president of the N. Bawlf Grain Company, Ltd., interviewed the board yesterday and was advised that in the opinion of the board, as their agent issued storage tickets in your own name, you had the right to give shipping instructions which should be carried out. Mr. Bawlf, however, pointed out to the board that accordihg to instructions received from the Alberta Cooperative Wheat Producers, Ltd., they were compelled to ship all pool grain to Fort William or ito the Canadian government elevators at Calgary and Edmonton. He further stated that at the time your grain was shipped to Calgary it was impossible for you to obtain permits. Under these circumstances Mr. Bawlf has instructed their Calgary office to interview	representatives of	theAlberta	Cooperative	Wheat	Producers,	Ltd.,with a view of determining whether under these circumstances your grain should not be shipped	in accordance with	the instructionsreceived from the general manager of the Alberta	Cooperative	Wheat	Producers,	Ltd.
Immediately Mr. Bawlf receives a report from his Calgary office as to the result of the interview with the Alberta pool he will advise the board, when they will be glad to communicate with you further in connection with this matter.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any further correspondence between these interested parties; I have not been able to find any on this file. The net result is that after almost three months the board decided that Mr. Randle should have been allowed to name the terminal to which his grain would be shipped; but that does not seem to help Mr. Randle very much.
In my opinion, the case boils down to this. What use is the Canada Grain Act to the farmers of western Canada if we have not the right kind of men on the grain board to enforce its provisions? The present board has,
I think, made scarcely any effort to enforce the penalties on companies for disobeying the shipping instructions of these men. In almost every case on this file when the men had the regular ticket, after they filed affidavits the company settled with them, or at any rate the board told the companies that

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Brown
they should obey the shipping instructions; but in nearly every case that was too late to secure redress. It may be that we need some amendments to the act, but these cases certainly point to the need of a larger board.
I think it should be composed of five commissioners.
I think the resolution which we are discussing is not complete. Several suggestions have been .made, and some hon. members have expressed a wish to enlarge the referenec to the agriculture committee to allow investigation of the administration of the Canada Grain Act. To-day I spent considerable time endeavouring to frame an amendment that would effect this purpose and yet be in order. I hope the hon. member for Meffort (Mr. McLean) will not thin'k I am attempting to forestall him in presenting this amendment. I bag to move, seconded by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas), that the following words be added at the end of the question:
on condition that the said committee be hereby given power to investigate the whole administration of the Canada Grain Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Carried.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I shall not take up much time, because in my judgment this matter would have been better dealt with by the committee before this long discussion was entered upon. However, there is a possibility that if the farmer members of Manitoba remained silent at this juncture their silence would be misconstrued. I am in full sympathy with any movement that has been made or can he made to improve the condition of the wheat producers. Perhaps longer than any other member of this house, not even excepting the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), I have been associated with movements for the benefit of the farmers.


Mr. FORKE:: Question.


John Livingstone Brown: Well, as long ago as 18S4 I was connected with the organization which then undertook to remedy grievances that existed in the grain trade, and from then down to the present time, with the exception of a very few years, I have been in close touch with the farmers' organization. I make this statement because the impression might go abroad that we from Manitoba have not been as anxious in some of these matters as the representatives of other provinces. _ The statement has been made that this is one of the most important questions that have been brought to the house. That is true. The statement has been made also that the western farmers are greatly excited in
this matter. Possibly that also is true. It is not to be wondered at that they are excited, that the heather is on fire, in view of many speeches that have been made and such extreme statements advanced as those we have heard from the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) this afternoon. Perhaps it might be just as well to say this: that we who have been posing as leaders in the farm movement ought to be reasonably moderate in our statements and to make sure that at least they approximate to the facts.
I do not know that I have ever heard a more absurd statement than the statement that the farmers of the western provinces lost $175,000,000 in their wheat crop in the past year because of weaknesses in the grading system. I do not propose 'to discuss the particular grievances of which the farmers are complaining. The first occasion on which this matter was brought to my attention- that is, the demand for the discharge of the grain commissioners-was at a United Farmers of Manitoba convention in Brandon this winter. I happened to be on the resolutions committee, and while we were preparing resolutions for the convention we received one asking for the dismissal of the grain commission. I intimidated to some of those who were with me on the committee that I should probably have to oppose it. That was carried to the president of the Manitoba wheat pool, who came to me afterwards and said, " I understand you are opposed to that resolution." I replied, " I am not necessarily opposed to it, but I do want evidence as to why they should be dismissed, and if such evidence is not forthcoming at the convention I shall certainly oppose the resolution." The resolution was introduced on the floor of the convention and neither the mover nor the seconder offered the slightest reason why the commission should be dismissed. All that was said was that the Board of Grain Commissioners had lost the confidence of the farmers; but nothing else was said that would warrant the convention in taking a step of that kind. And I am still in the same position: I want evidence given to show why the board should be dealt with in that drastic manner. Now I submit that this evidence would properly be given before the committee on agriculture. When the resolution came before the convention I quite naturally opposed it for the reasons I have stated; and when this ecommittee meets, as it will meet, we shall expect that evidence to be adduced. And upon that evidence we will take action.
I am satisfied that the board is not above criticism in this matter, but at the same time it would be well for us to consider the ques-
1176	COMMONS
Grading of Grain-Mr. Fansher (Last Mountain)
tion calmly and judicially, and not in a spirit of hysteria; and when we meet and receive the evidence we shall act accordingly. In the meantime I am heartily in favour of accepting the report of the committee, as moved by the chairman of that committee, and heartily in favour also of having added to it the words that have been proposed by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). Indeed, had he not moved the amendment in the words he has submitted, I had the very same words under my hand and intended to move the amendment. I still hold that the cause would have been better served had we deferred this discussion and taken action in the committee. Had we done so, we might have saved time and advanced the cause better than we have done so far.


William Russell Fansher: It is not necessary for any member to apologize for taking up a few minutes of the time of the house to discuss this question. When we realize that the grain trade of western Canada amounts in the aggregate to approximately three-quarters of a billion, it means something to the other industries throughout the rest of Canada.
A great deal of technical evidence has been given us by different members who have participated in the debate and it will not be necessary for me to go into that phase of the situation. But some remarks have been made which probably deserve a little more than passing attention. Yesterday, speaking in the house, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) had the idea that if we as westerners were demanding the recall or dismissal of the Board of Grain Commissioners,' the directors of the pool should also be requested to resign. I inferred from' his remarks that he was implicating the directors of the pool through the contract which they were able to make with the grain trade, as we call it. It has been said time and time again that the board have a particular function to perform. Their appointment, as set out in the Canada Grain Act, requires that they shall see that the provisions of that act are carried into effect. We have had a great deal of substantial evidence brought before us to the effect that they have been very neglectful of their duties, and because of that and because they have completely lost confidence of the people of the-west, the demand for their recall or dismissal has been made.
I cannot understand why any part of a contract with an organization which may have been set up by the farmers to market their wheat should be said by any member of this house to be connected with the

administration of the Canada Grain Act. The interjection of that argument into the debate brings about a peculiar situation which should be cleared up. It is generally supposed when this argument is advanced that a contract between the grain trade and the pool overrides a contract which the ordinary wheat producer has signed, called a pool contract. Both these contracts state very plainly that notwithstanding any of the provisions of the contract nothing shall interfere with the rights of the grower as set forth in the act, and T think it has been amply proven by different speakers that the grain act does give the farmer the right to determine the destination of his own grain. I will read part of clause 15 of the contract made between the pool and. the grain trade:
The pool agrees that all pool grain of whatever class, forwarded to terminal points shall be handled through any elevator the company desirra: Provided thait nothing in this clause contained shall take away from the grower any rights lie may now have under the Canada Grain Act.
Then it goes on to state the charges. That clause was inserted by the grain trade for the express purpose of handling street grain; there was no other way in which they could handle that grain, but the grain act specifically sets forth that a farmer or a producer of wheat who has a carload lot is entitled to demand the delivery of that wheat in a car at that elevator, and he can determine the destination of that car; he can determine to which terminal elevator that car shall be shipped. Now I want to read clause 5 of the pool contract, which will show exactly when the grain becomes the property of the pool and when the farmer gives up his right to determine what shall become of that grain. Clause 5 is as follows:
Wheat shall be deemed to be delivered to-the association within the meaning of this contract so as to render the association accountable therefor only when the storage tickets, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, shipping bills therefor or other documents of or evidencing title thereto shall have been transferred and delivered, properly endorsed by the grower to the association.
I think that sets out fully the situation which has been somewhat beclouded here by some of the speakers.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Then it follows that
although a man has a pood contract his wheat does [DOT] not go to the pool unless he endorses the ticket?


William Russell Fansher: It resolves itself into this: If I wish to put my wheat through what we call a line elevator at the initial point, according to the grain

Grading of Grain-Mr. Fansher (Last Mountain)
act I have the right to demand delivery of that wheat in a ear on track. When that wheat is delivered in the car on track the bill of lading is made out in my name; I have the privilege of endorsing that bill of lading back to the line elevator company, if I wish, or to the pool elevator or to any commission firm; 1 have complete control of that bill of lading and of the tickets which are issued. It cannot be contradicted that clause 5 of the grower's contract is the clause under which he has that right which has been disputed by some hon. members of this house.
Now I wish for a moment to direct attention to some remarks which have been made with reference to drawing the members of the Board of Grain Commissioners into this debate in a personal way. I can assure hon. members that it is not now and never has been my intention in discussing this subject to refer to the grain commissioners in a personal way. I do not think it was the intention of any hon. member to question the honesty of this board, but we seriously question whether they have been fulfilling the office to which they have been appointed. They have not been functioning as they were intended to function and as they have functioned in previous years. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), and others have quoted from returns to this house in order to show that in some cases thirty days have elapsed before any action has been taken when action was demanded. I may have a good piece of machinery; I may have had it for a number of years. If it becomes worn out and does not fill the bill I do not take it to pieces and say this part is no good or that part is no good; the machine simply does not fill the bill. I need a new machine, and that is what we are demanding now. In connection with the marketing of our next crop we want something in which we will have more confidence.
There was a suggestion made by the hon. member for South Battleford1 (Mr. Vallanee), that we needed a new government department, but with that suggestion I cannot agree; it seems to me that we have enough ministers in the government now to carry into effect all the legislation passed by this house. But there is a demand that the Board of Grain Commissioners be enlarged because of the changed conditions in western Canada. A very much larger area has been brought under cultivation in recent years, and I heartily agTee with the resolutions which have been read in this house and with the demands
made by other hon. members that the membership of the board be increased to five and that they be distributed over the various provinces interested in this trade. We have heard read the resolutions passed by the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, and the United Farmers of Alberta, and it is not necessary for me to read them again.
I also have in my hand a similar resolution from the Canadian Council of Agriculture, which I received only to-day, demanding that the present board be replaced by a new board of five members.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) this afternoon discussed the question of mixing. If I understood him correctly he suggested that mixing be stopped by law, and he also left the impression with the house that, the western farmers were not unanimous and that they had arrived at no definite decision in regard to this question of mixing. Representatives of the three western pools appeared before the agriculture committee and presented to us a resolution which had been unanimously agreed to by the three organizations. This resolution covered the mixing of grain, and I believe the remedy they proposed for this evil is even better than the stopping of mixing by law. It has not been mentioned before, but there is a possibility of still skimming the grades even though we stop mixing by law. When samples had been taken and the wheat graded, any companj' would have an opportunity of looking it over and taking the low of that grade and designating it to certain terminals. It is quite true that this would have to be done under the jurisdiction of the Board of Grain Com-* missioners, and might not necessarily be mixed with other grades, but it would be the low of that particular grade. Other cars which were at the top of the grade could be put in other terminal elevators, and all the cars of the high of the grade could be segregated and put in another terminal elevator. The low of the grade would be setting the price of that particular grade, while the wheat which was at the top of the grade and worth more money could be offered at a premium, the same as premiums are being asked for at the present time. Those large organizations in western Canada, representative of the majority of the farmers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, were unanimous in their agreement of this particular measure being incorporated into the Canada Grain Act. They felt that it would effectively deal with the evil of mixing. They requested that the standards for outgoing cargoes be made up of 75 per cent of the Winnipeg averages-the average of the high and low of the grades going through
1178	COMMONS
Grading oj Grain-Mr. Fansher (Last Mountain)
Winnipeg-and 25 per cent of the standard set up for the graders by the inspection department. It can be seen quite easily that a standard so set up would be so near the average of the grade that it would be practically impossible for any company, no matter how much they would desire, to flout that particular clause. If we had an efficient Board of Grain Commissioners it would be practically impossible for them to get a grade of wheat out of the terminal elevators which was below the average of the grades. In that way there would be a more even distribution of the price of the wheat, commensurate with the quality, back to the growers of the product. If we had the Winnipeg averages, as we call them, as a standard for the out-turn cargoes it might happen that, unless there was a certain leeway, it would be rather difficult to get out a wheat which was below the average of the grade going into any particular terminal elevator. In my opinion, it is necessary that there should be a slight leeway, and that leeway is supplied by the particular clause which the western organizations requested should be incorporated into the Canada Grain Act.
I have received a great many copies of the resolution which has been passed requesting that the administration of the Canada Grain Act be placed under the Department of Agriculture. That resolution does not cast any reflection upon the Department of Trade and Commerce, and it is not a personal matter so far as I am concerned. Many members of the house have attended the meetings of the agriculture committee and they have seen the work of some of the experts of the department in connection with the grading of grain. In every case where the grading of grain was under review, technical men of the Department of Agriculture were present. Mr. Newman, who followed Doctor Saunders, was present, along with other members of the department. We all know the wonderful work which Doctor Saunders performed. He gave us marquis wheat, which was one of the greatest wheats the world had ever known at that time. We have another wheat now, the garnet wheat, and it is meeting with some favour in the old country and on the continent. In order that this wheat may be put on the market in its proper form the Department of Agriculture, along with the Department of Trade and Commerce, is shipping to Europe some 10,000 bushels of it. Who will go over with that wheat to see that it is correctly milled and put on the market in the proper shape; to see that the bakers know how to handle it, and so on? It will be the technical 
men from the Department of Agriculture When we desire information regarding the quality of wheat, the grading of wheat, milling and baking, and so on, where do we go? We go to the Department of Agriculture to obtain the advice of their technical men. It is true the Board of Grain Commissioners maintain a laboratory in Winnipeg where they have a chemist who can mill and bake, and so on. He is there for the guidance of the inspectors, because occasionally a certain wheat comes in and they want to know what it is, and that information can be secured readily through that laboratory. But when it comes to testing, the propagation of new brands of wheat, setting them out and giving them to the farmers to test, all this work comes under the Department of Agriculture, and because of that it seems to me that the only logical place for the administration of the Canada Grain Act is under the Department of Agriculture.
There is one thing more in connection with the grading of grain which I think should be mentioned in this debate. There is a need for considerably more specific knowledge in the setting of standards by the Standards Board. In my opinion, the visual grading of wheat has become obsolete, and when this matter comes before the committee it is my desire, and I am sure it is the desire of many of the members, that the committee should consider this question. When the Standards Board meet they should take into consideration the advisability of having milling and baking tests made before they finally set the standards of the grades.
There have been so many points brought out during the course of this debate that it is very difficult not to repeat some of the arguments which have already been put forward. But when it comes to the administration of the act I think we are all agreed that it is very important that tha/t should be carried out in a proper manner. We may have an act which is as near being one hundred per cent perfect as it is humanly possible to make it, but if there is lax administration of the act, it renders it null and void.
I am pleased indeed to associate myself with the amendment which has been moved by the member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), and I hope the agriculture committee will give this matter their fullest consideration when it comes before them.
Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose). Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the house at any considerable length, because this matter has been fairly well debated, but I should like to make a few remarks in order

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Lucas
to clear up one or two points. It has been stated on the other side quite frequently that the proper place to debate this question was in the committee. With that I am quite willing to agree, but the reason the question has been debated in the house is that we were not able to get the amendment moved by the hon. member for McLeod (Mr. Coote), dealing with administration, embodied in the report of the chairman of the committee to the house.


John Livingstone Brown: Will the hon. member give the reasons why it was not embodied?


Mr. LUCAS:: I will give this reason. We
met in the committee one morning and spent the most of the session debating this very question of widening the reference to deal with the whole matter. A motion was first moved asking for a widening of the reference very much along the lines of the third report presented by the Chairman of the agriculture committee. To that resolution was added an amendment asking that the word "administration" be included. That was passed by the committee at that sitting. Personally I have never heard any reason why that resolution as amended was not presented to the house.


John Livingstone Brown: Was the reason not that
the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) would not withdraw his resolution?


William Thomas Lucas: I do not know why the
chairman of the committee refused to bring before the house a motion that was passed by the committee instructing him to do so. I hope, however, that the amendment mow before the house to have the order of reference amended will be accepted and we shall then be able to debate the question in the committee. The chairman of the committee agreed that we might- discuss the question in the committee, but we were afraid that while we might discuss -it to our heart's content, *when we came to make the report to the house, we would not be able to make any recommendations regarding administration unless we had the word "administration" added' to the reference.
In regard to the administration by the present board, the remarks I have to make are not to be taken personally. After coming to the house I met these men and, so far as I know them, they are all very fine men, but that in my opinion does not excuse them from not carrying out their official duties. When a farmer delivers a load of grain to the elevator he receives a receipt for it, and in order that there may be uniformity in those receipts and that every elevator may
not provide a receipt of its own, the Canada Grain Act definitely lays down the form of receipt that shall be used. Moreover a penalty is attached for any violation of the form or the use of any other receipt. Section 225 of the Canada Grain Act reads:
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 be liable to a fine or forfeiture of license.
I have under my hand the orders in council and the recommendations to the governor in council asking for two changes in these forms, and while I have no particular complaint to make in regard to the changes that were asked for, I should like the house to pay particular attention to this important fact: On May 18, 1928, a letter was addressed to the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce and signed by the secretary of the Board of Grain Commissioners, as follows:
Under the provisions of subsection 3 of section 170 of the Canada Grain Act, the board recommend for the approval of the governor in council, that the wo-rd "graded" be deleted from the first line of the "subject to inspector's grade and dockage" ticket, (which is designated B-l on page 82 of the Canada Grain Act) for the reason that this form of receipt was never intended to be used as a graded storage receipt but simply as a receipt that grain, which was later to be subject to the inspector's grade and dockage, had been received into the elevator.
Note this part:
As new supplies of tickets are about to be printed by country elevator companies, it would be appreciated if the minister would recommend this change to become effective as soon as possible.
On Friday, May 25, 1928, order in council P.C. 871 was passed, as follows:
The Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and pursuant to the provisions of subsection 3 of section 170 of chapter 86, R.S.-C. 1927 "An Act respecting Grain", is pleased to order that the word "graded" be, and it is hereby deleted from the first line of the "subject to inspector's grade and dockage" ticket, which is designated B-l on page 82 of the said act; the Board of Grain Commissioners having reported that this form of receipt was never intended to be used as a graded storage ticket but simply as a receipt that grain which was later to be subject to the inspector's grade and dockage, had been received into the elevator.
E. J. Lemaire, Clerk of the Privy Council.
The point I want to make is this: that the Board of Grain Commissioners found it necessary, in order to delete one word, to ask the governor in council to pass an order for that purpose. If that was necessary-

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Lucas
and the act states that the only way in which these tickets can be changed is by order in council on recommendation of the board-how in the name of common sense could the Board of Grain Commissioners, without getting an order in council, recognize a new form of ticket containing several additional words that meant a great deal to the producers of western Canada? That is a very important point to keep in mind. If the board found it necessary to have a new form of ticket along the line of what is known as the hybrid ticket, it was their duty so to recommend to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to ask that the ticket be authorized by order in council. When they did not do so, and when they recognized the use of that ticket in the grain trade, to my mind they certainly violated their trust.
The farmers of western Canada are not asking for a board to give them any special favours, but they are asking that the Board of Grain Commissioners administer the law as they find it. If the law is not as it should be, then it is up to this parliament to change it, and in the meantime we expect the board to carry out the law as parliament lays it down.
While I am on my feet I should like to endorse the suggestion that has already been made with regard to transferring the administration of the Canada Grain Act from the Department of Trade and Commerce to that of Agriculture. I want to assure the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that it is not that I do not feel he is thoroughly competent to administer his department, because in my opinion the Minister of Trade and Commerce is one of the most competent ministers on the other side of the house; but I believe that the Department of Agriculture is the one best fitted to administer this great business of handling our grain. Why should the most important product of the farm be administered under the Department of Trade and Commerce, when all the other products of the farm which enter into the trade and commerce of the country are administered under the Department of Agriculture? Take our dairy products, for instance. We have an exportable surplus of dairy products amounting to $40,000,000; meats and meat products, $61,338,000; poultry, $875,000; fruits, $5,683,000; potatoes, $7,338,000; or a grand total of exportable agricultural products of $115,234,000. All these products are graded, inspected and administered by the Department of Agriculture. I was particularly struck by this fact the other day in the agriculture committee where we had technical men from the Department of Agri-

culture before us dealing with such questions as the different varieties of wheat and the baking -and milling qualities of wheat. We found that Mr. Newman, who is in charge of that work at the experimental farm, has been giving practically his whole time to the introduction of new varieties of wheat and the testing of them for milling qualities. He told us that he had been to Europe and called on various millers there; he follows the wheat from its growth in the soil right through to the milling end. All this work is done under the Department of Agriculture, which I believe is the proper department to undertake it. I hope that this question will be carefully gone into, and that politics will not enter into it at all, because it is a very important question and should be dealt with strictly on its merits. When the committee reports and brings in its recommendations I am sure that the house will pass -them, and I hope that they will fend to 'bring about- -a more satisfactory condition in the production and marketing of our grain, which is the most important product produced in Canada.


Mr. MILLAR:: May I ask the hon. member a question? With regard to his remarks as to the action of the chairman of the committee in failing to submit a motion prepared by the committee, is it not a f-a-ct that wh-en the chairman reported back to the committee the reason he had failed to present that motion, and a new one was prepared, it passed the committee unanimously? Did not the bon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) ask most pointedly of -the chairman whether he would or would not rule that an inquiry into the administration of the Canada Grain Act should be permitted under that new motion, and was not the answer in the affirmative? Was it not the understanding of all members of the committee that this matter would be wide open, and was not every member of the committee satisfied?


William Thomas Lucas: I think that what the hon.
gentleman says is quite correct, but the fear in the minds of a great many members of the committee was that while we might be able-


John Frederick Johnston: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that in discussing wh-at happened in -the committee he is clearly out of order.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, while I have the right to speak on the amendment, I would not have taken the floor at this time but for an allegation made by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). It seems that -he accuses me of some motive in not withdrawing the motion on the order

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Evans
paper. I want to inform the hon. gentleman that I was never asked to withdraw it, and I had no motive in keeping it there. While I am on my feet, I wish to say that the government could have prevented this debate going on had they taken this corner of the house into their confidence.


John Millar: Did not the hon. member
for South Battleford (Mr. Variance) ask the hon. member if he was willing to withdraw the motion?


John Evans: What goes on around the
corridors or is whispered from one to another,
I do not wish to recognize here. I was never asked by the committee to withdraw that motion. Had I been asked, I would have stated my reasons and woiild have expressed my willingness to do so. I had no motive in keeping the motion there. I wanted to do the very best thing. Ail I wanted was for the government to act, and they never said that they would act, and that is the reason the motion was placed on the order paper in the first place.
I wish to answer one or two statements that have been made by the hon. member for Qu'Appel'le (Mr. Millar). He has stated that the pool! was in favour of mixing. I do not think that the hon,. gentleman can substantiate that statement. That the pool did mix I do not deny, but was the farmers' organization to send out grain in its purity when they would get nothing for that higher quality, because all the prices are based on the prices of the lowest grades for which any company can get a certificate? Would it be fair to ask the farmers' organization to ship that grain into the markets of the world at the same price as the grain companies and those who mix down to the very lowest point were getting?


John Millar: Is it not a fact that Mr. Murray, one of tire representatives of the pool, made the statement in the committee in 1925 that as a pool they were mixing, and did not want that privilege taken from them?


John Evans: Mr. Murray made the statement that he did not want that privilege taken from the pool because the others were allowed to mix; but had there been some guarantee that mixing would be stopped, the pool certainly would have stopped it. The pool never asked for it, and never did want it.
The hon. member for Qu'AppeMe also made another statement on the .same page of Hansard regarding the breaking of seals and the diversion of oars, and added, "I cannot see any illegality in it." Let me ask, why are
cars sealed? Why even is a shipping bill used? Why does the railway company give a receipt for the contents of the car? Is it not for the reason that the shipper must have the assurance that the quantity and quality of the contents of the car shall be sent to its designated destination? It is done for no other reason, and we have a right to expect that.


John Millar: Has not the railway company the right to break its own seals at any time it sees fit?


John Evans: They seal the car and give
a receipt to the shipper, and nio man has a right to break that seal until the car arrives at its destination.
The Minister of Railways this afternoon said there was some doubt whether or not the hybrid ticket, so-called, was illegal. I understood him to say that.


Charles Avery Dunning: H my hon. friend will permit me, I did not state that as my own opinion. I did state that I expected the lawyers would do in regard to it the same as they did with respect to the old hybrid ticket; they would argue that the addition of those words did not constitute an illegal ticket. But I expressed my own opinion, as my hon. friend will remember I did in regard to the old ticket, that the addition of those words, or indeed of any words, is a contravention of the act.


John Evans: I should like to ask what, according to the Grain Act, legalizes the use of any ticket? Is it not this? First of all, the ticket must be approved by the Board of Grain Commissioners. In the next place, it must be also approved by order in council.
Mr. DUNNING': That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


John Evans: If there is any doubt as to the illegality of this ticket, will the minister say that the Board of Grain Commissioners authorized it, or was it approved by order in council?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


John Evans: I do not think he will.


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend -is not trying to quarrel with me? I refuse to dispute with him. I am in agreement with his view; not in opposition.


John Evans: But why cast any doubt on the illegality of the ticket?
' Mr. DUNNING: I am not.

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Evans


John Evans: There is only one way in which the ticket can be made 'legal, and that is by order in council. That is all I have to say.


John Vallance: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans)' a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Vallance: Why not? I understand the hon. member for Rosetown stated that he was never asked to withdraw his motion. Did he make that statement?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker, am I in
order?


John Frederick Johnston: Order. The hon. member is quite within his rights. He spoke on the main motion; now he is entitled to speak on the amendment.


John Vallance: I understand that the hon. member for Rosetown stated that he was never asked to withdraw his motion.


John Evans: By the committee.


John Vallance: A sub-committee was
appointed by the committee on agriculture. That sub-committee was composed of three members, the chairman, the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) and myself. We discussed the possibility of both the member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) and the member for Rosetown withdrawing their motions in order that we might ask for the enlargement of the scope of the committee's-work. If the hon. member-


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is discussing the work of the committee.


John Frederick Johnston: If the hon. gentleman is discussing the proceedings of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization, he is out of order.


John Vallance: I am not discussing the committee on agriculture, but the subcommittee. The hon. member for Rosetown was approached by the member for Willow Bunch and myself, after I had approached the latter and asked him to withdraw his motion. As I say, we approached the hon. member for Rosetown and asked him if he would withdraw his motion. So if he now states that he was never asked.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Vallance: While I do not wish
to say that he is wrong, I have positive proof that he was asked to do so by the hon. member for Willow Bunch and myself.


Mr. SPENCER:: Mr. Speaker, may I
correct the statement made by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) ? The hon. member for Rosetown distinctly said that he was not asked by the committee on agriculture, and that any request made to him by individuals he did not consider seriously.


John Millar: That was not his first
statement.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


John Vallance: The committee on
agriculture appointed a subcommittee, composed of the chairman, the hon. member for Last Mountain and myself. As a member of that subcommittee I asked the hon. member for Rosetown-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I offer no apology for participating in this debate. No question more vital to the welfare of Canada can engage the attention of this parliament than the orderly marketing of the product which constitutes the greatest new wealth of this country from year to year.
The administration of the Grain Act is the most important matter concerning the marketing of wheat and grain at this time or at any other time since the act was passed. After listening to the observations that have been made by hon. gentlemen, principally from Saskatchewan, which is our largest wheat-producing province, it is quite apparent that there is a very grave state of affairs in that province with respect to the administration of the act. It is equally true with respect to Alberta and Manitoba, as hon. members from those provinces have made perfectly clear in their addresses during the course of this debate.
But to my amazement I find an endeavour being made by those who sit to the right of the Speaker to divest the government of all responsibility and to fix it upon the unfortunate commission; they are to be the scapegoats for this grave situation. My understanding of responsible government is that the government yonder must accept responsibility for the administration of the Grain Act. I think yesterday the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) suggested there might be some analogy between the grain commission and the railway commission. Let me point out that the railway commission is a court of record under the statute creating it, while the grain commission is merely a commission under the Department of Trade and Commerce of this government. One is a

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Bennett
court that is not responsible to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning); the other is a commission over which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) is supposed to exercise jurisdiction and control, and to see that it properly functions in accordance with the provisions of the statute in that regard. And if it does not do so we will hold the government responsible for its failure.
There are two counts in the indictment made against this government. The first count is the inactivity of the grain commission; the second is that it has entirely failed to discharge its duties when called upon to do so. The one count is inactivity; the other inattention. It is suggested as a result of the indictment that the members of the grain commission should be removed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose for a single moment to discuss the question as to whether or not there is evidence upon which the grain commissioners should be removed. That is not my purpose at the moment. But I desire to read the section of the statute in that regard, in order that there may be no misapprehension as to what exactly is meant when hon. gentlemen ask for the removal of the present members of the board. Section four of the grain act provides that:
There shall be a commission, to be known as the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, which shall consist of three commissioners appointed by the governor in council.
Each commissioner shall hold office during good behaviour for a period of ten years from the date of his appointment, but he may be removed at any time by the governor in council for cause.
I need hardly say to this house that this means that the Governor General may, upon the report of the responsible minister-not remove those gentlemen, but remove them only for cause after they are afforded an opportunity to be heard in their own defence. That is elementary. The other day, it will be remembered, an injunction was granted by Mr. Justice Eve to restrain the Salvation Army Council from removing General Booth unless he was given an opportunity to be heard; and it is within the minds of most members of this house that only last year the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) issued a commission to deal with a judicial situation in Manitoba in order that the accused person might have an opportunity to be heard. Where an appointment is made by the governor in council for a period of years, and that period has not elapsed, the incumbent may indeed be removed, but only in the terms of the statute for cause; and that cause must be established before the tribunal that hears the evidence when the accused have an
opportunity to state their defence. This House of Commons is not the place in which that matter can be determined. We may indeed discuss it, but these gentlemen cannot make their defence, and I do not propose to- * night to enter into any consideration as to whether or not they have violated1 the conditions under which they hold office, or whether or not they have made themselves liable to dismissal. I do not propose to discuss that question. But I say thsft the committee on agriculture is not the committee to hear that complaint, beeause it is a committee set up by this parliament. It is for the governor in council to set up a tribunal which will hear and adjudicate upon the charges made against these gentlemen, and then they may have an opportunity to be heard-that opportunity which is the right of every person who is charged with the commission of any offence under o-ur statutes, whoever he may be.
I repeat, therefore, that I do not intend in any sense to discuss the question whether or not they have, for the reasons given in this house, made themselves liable to be dismissed. That is a matter that must be determined by the administration, and this house will hold the government responsible for such action as it may take. I need hardly say further that this is a case in which a grave reflection has been made against a member of the administration. It is in essence the statement that the Minister of Trade and Commerce of this country (Mr. Malcolm), is unfit to discharge the duties of his office. It is a charge which is supported to-day, with a wealth of authority, by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean), who closed his illuminating observations by contending that the matter should be taken entirely out of the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and handed over to the benign influence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). I have no doubt that those who sit to my left-


Malcolm McLean: I know the
leader of the opposition does not wish to misquote me. It was not for that reason at all-that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was unfit to hold his high office-that the suggestion was made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad that it was not because of the benign influence of the Minister of Agriculture that it was suggested that he should take charge of the matter; because those who hear the calm, judicial way in which he disposes of every question -"What are you going to say about it?"-

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Bennett
can understand how greatly conditions would be improved if the administration of the grain act were left to the Minister of Agriculture rather than to his colleague. But, sir, [DOT] there is a much more serious matter involved. A minister of the crown is charged here in terms, by name, as having been derelict in his duty, as having neglected to discharge the obligations of his office and to look after his department as he should; and I say to this house that it is perfectly clear that what the gentleman had in mind when they made that representation was what transpired when the customs inquiry was instituted to determine the culpability of the government with respect to the administration of the Customs Act. It will be in the memory of most honourable members of this house that the report of the committee which investigated matters in relation to the Department of National Revenue was amended and adopted by this house by a majority of ten. The resolution, which in terms censured the administration, disclosed that:
Ministerial action has been influenced by the improper pressure of political associates and friends of the minister, or acting minister, administering the department...
And, further that:
The Prime minister and the government had knowledge for some considerable time of the rapid degeneration of the Department of Customs and Excise, and their failure to take prompt and effective remedial action is wholly indefensible.
These words have indeed a deep significance in relation to the matter now under discussion by this house. It has been charged in this chamber, by gentlemen who produce evidence to support their contention, that the grain act has been interfered with by the action of the governor in council in approving of a certain form of ticket, and by the elevator companies, without the approval of the governor in council, utilizing a certain form of ticket to the injury of the farmers of the west. These charges have been abundantly substantiated and supported. And, what is more, it is shown that great loss has ensued. It is perfectly clear that in May, 1927 

bear in mind the month and the year- the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, gave his approval to a form of grain ticket, which grain ticket is not in accordance with the provisions of the statutes of Canada in that regard.


James Malcolm: That has not been shown.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I have the ticket and I have the statute. However, since the minister suggests that it has not been shown

I will show it to him now so that he may have no doubt as to the accuracy of what I am saying. I suggest that he turn to the grain act and look at form Bl, which is printed at page 1970 of volume II of the revised statutes of Canada. There he will find that the ticket begins in these words:
Received into store from .... bushels .... pounds .... subject to inspector's grade and dockage.
And the ticket that was approved provides this :
Received into store from .... subject to inspector's grade and dockage .... on account of-
-naming one of the pools.


James Malcolm: No; that ticket was not approved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The substance of that
ticket was approved in the first instance, and this is the ticket from which I am reading. There are two tickets now; let us have no misunderstanding. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) shakes his head. In May 1927 a certain form of ticket was approved. That form contained the provisions as set out in the statute. The minister will find, at page 1971, that these words occur:
Will be delivered, within the time prescribed by law, to the person above named or his order.
Those are not the words that appear in the approved ticket. That is point No. 1. No. 2 is that the grain elevators, instead of relying upon that ticket, changed the ticket to read as I read it a moment ago-the form of ticket to which I alluded, containing the names of the pools of the various provinces. That is beyond peradventure the fact. Now, sir, I ask you this question: is it not within the knowledge of this house that in October of that very year 1927-October, mark you-a complaint was made to the administration with respect to the kind of ticket that was being used. That was stated the other day in the committee on agriculture from which this reference comes. So that as long ago as October 1927 this administration had knowledge of the fact that the grain business of the country was being transacted in a manner and form contrary to the provisions of the statute in that behalf, and that loss of money to the farmers was being incurred. I now ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce: What did he do about it? What did the grain board do about it? And remember that, as the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) has said, no ticket was valid unless approved by the governor in council. When, therefore, it came to the knowledge of this government

Grading of Grain-Mr. Bennett
r-and it did come to their knowledge, as was shown in the committee-that that ticket was being used, why did not the government take action? Why did not the minister do something to protect the growers and producers of this country in order that they might secure the benefit of the statute in the form in which it now stands? The Minister of Trade and Commerce might say, "I was new to the department, I was feeling my way and gathering information as I went." But that excuse is not open to him. We heard this afternoon from'his colleague the Minister of Railways, who observed that he probably knew more about the grain business than any other member of the house-a statement with which most of us will agree. Then why did he not tell his colleagues about it instead of telling parliament now? That is the point.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is only fair to myself and my colleague to say that on the occasion when he learned of this practice and consulted me about it, I advised him to the best of my ability and along the lines my hon. friend is now contending, which reseulted in the telegram which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) was generous enough to read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was on January 17, 1929. But what happened in between?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was the first I knew
about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Railways says it was the first he knew about it. But in the meantime he made journeys to the west and he was aware of the condition; he knew the feeling of the people with respect to that form of grain ticket. He knew it, and so did the Minister of Agriculture whom my hon. friend from Melfort is now going to promote. They both knew about it because they were journeying to and fro. The expense account with respect to private cars shows that, if nothing else does. Then I say, sir, that iif these gentlemen, with the knowledge they have and which they have had, as they will not deny, had made the speeches to one another which they made in this house this afternoon, this trouble would have been remedied and the difficulty would not have occurred. If in 1927 the Minister of Railways and Canals had told his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce what he told the house this afternoon, do you think this could have continued? Certainly it could not. Then why this exhibition of knowledge this afternoon in this house when it might have been made quietly and directly to his colleague and the injury remedied?


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend
does not dispute my word when I say that my first knowlerge of the use of the words complained of was when the Minister of Trade and Commerce came to consult me about the matter, and to the best of my recollection that was during this winter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That makes it worse
than ever. In the winter of this year the Minister of Railways and Canals heard that the words complained of were inserted in the ticket without the authority of the government. The Minister of Railways and Canals is a very astute gentleman; I am bound to accept his statement and his recollection of the facts, but all I can say is that in the province of Saskatchewan he heard many things much more clearly which he should not have heard and failed to hear the things he should have heard. That is all I can say in relation to that matter, but I fancy most members of this house must be struck with the fact that with two members of the government from Saskatchewan, a gentleman from Ontario administering the statute which comes within his department looking to them for guidance, for wisdom and for the assistance that one colleague would expect from another, finds one silent and the other blind. That is an amazing state of affairs.


James J. Donnelly: May I ask my hon.
friend a question? As a representative from western Canada did he hear anything in the . west in regard to this hybrid ticket?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say to the hon
gentleman, in answer to his inquiry, that I certainly did hear that it was the subject matter of much discussion, and until I came to Ottawa I assumed that the ticket had been approved by the governor in council or it would not have been used. That is whac I assumed, and my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (iMr. Stevens) tells me he heard of it also. Is it possible that only those who should not hear do hear and that those who should hear are deaf?


James J. Donnelly: May I ask what time
my hon. friend heard of it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry I cannot fix
the exact hour and second to gratify the very laudable curiosity of the medical gentleman, but I am satisfied that his diagnosis of the situation will not be assisted by any knowledge he might obtain in that regard'; in fact I am quire certain that his diagnosis would entirely coincide with that of his colleagues and of those gentlemen who sit to the right



Grading of Grain-Mr. Bennett
of the Speaker, who are so anxious to divest themselves of responsibility as far as the government is concerned anid place it upon the poor unfortunate grain commission while they avail themselves of the attacks made by the gentlemen who sit to my left.


James J. Donnelly: My conviction is that
you did not hear of it until last fall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, while the
hon. gentleman, if he were amenable to the rules of this house, would have remained in his place and withdrawn that observation, he has indicated his training sufficiently by escaping from it. It is unnecessary to say that that form of tactics is not unknown but is rarely practised in parliament.


James J. Donnelly: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I was just returning to my own seat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Willow Bunich (Mr. Donnelly) was not the gentleman to whom I referred at the moment. He was just getting to his own seat; I am glad he succeeded in getting there, and I trust that the hon. gentleman, having arrived at his seat, will now conform to the rules of parliament and be the honourable gentleman I know he is and withdraw the observations he made. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to exercise the power which rests in you as the chief commoner of this country, and see that this is done.


James J. Donnelly: I understood the hon.
gentleman to say that after I made a remark I withdrew from the house; I only withdrew in order to reach my own seat. Perhaps I misunderstood him.


Charles Avery Dunning: What remark should be withdrawn?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says I told an untruth, that his conviction was that I did not hear of it until this fall.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the point of order, with all due deference to my hon. friend I did not gather that he made any statement as to the time at which he heard the news in question, and I understood my hon. friend from Willow Bunch to say that it was his belief that the leader of the opposition had heard it last fall. Is there anything wrong in that?


Mr. STEVENS:: He must accept the statement which was made.


Charles Avery Dunning: If a statement to the contrary is made he must accept it, of course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The apology made by the Minister of Railways and Canals for his dutiful supporter from Willow Bunch does credit to his desire to protect him and is in keeping with the tactics resorted to by the hon. gentleman himself. So we will leave it at that; I am perfectly content that the ideas of parliamentary decorum are being observed, and I have nothing further to say. The honour of parliament is in the hands of the Speaker and of the administration, not in mine; for the moment the leadership of the house apparently is in the hands 6f the Minister of Railways and Canals and so we will leave it at that.
However, Mr. Speaker, I was suggesting that it would be 'highly desirable for one who is so experienced in the working of the grain act as was indicated by the Minister of Railways this afternoon, one who proudly boasts of his wide experience in the cooperative field as manager, director and otherwise, instead of making his speeches in parliament and railing against those who are endeavouring to place their position before this country fairly, to direct his attention to his colleague who, under the law. is responsible for the administration of that act.
So it appears that there is only one excuse, only one suggestion that possibly can be made in this respect; it now appears that there is to be a great contest as to who is to administer this act. Whether or not the contest is for the purpose of insuring the orderly marketing of grain or the orderly securing of votes does not yet appear; whether or not it is to be for the purpose of advancing the interests of the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who happens to reside in eastern Canada, has not been determined, but from the observations made this afternoon by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) it is quite apparent he is all for the Department of Agriculture because they grow wheat. It might be equally true that there are those who sit opposite who are for the Minister of Railways and Canals because he 'has an elevator at Port Colbome and because he has to do with the transportation of grain. In the meantime the Minister of Trade and Commerce is to be left out in the cold, and someone else is to take from him the powers he has heretofore exercised because he has not done so in such a way as to be able to satisfy the claims of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken. That is the position at the moment, and it does indeed throw a very great illumination upon the situation as a whole; it shows that in this contest for power and control the interest of

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Dunning
the producer has been forgotten; it shows that the only concern in the minds of hon. gentlemen is whether the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Railways and Canals or the Department of Trade and Commerce shall undertake the administration of this act.
That is the position at the moment, and in the meantime orders in council are being violated and there is no complaint; the provisions of the grain act are being laughed at and no one is concerned; the committee on agriculture and colonization has been considering many phases of this matter from several standpoints, but now the whole concern is who is to administer the act. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not exactly the spectacle one would expect to see; it is not exactly the reason one would expect to be given in answer to the charges which have been made.
As I said before, I am not going to discuss the question of the responsibility of the grain commissioners; they must have a chance to be heard. However, I will say that it is perfectly apparent to anyone who has listened to this debate for the last two days, as I have, that any agreement which might be made between the pools and their customers cannot possibly affect the administration of that act. It is equally clear that any agreement which might be made between the line elevators and the pool cannot affect the administration of that act. It is equally clear that it is the duty of the minister to see that that act is administered, and if he fails-he fails if his commission fails-the government fails. In the telegram he sent he gave his benediction and approval of certain actions which the board was about to take, and he spoke of the board as being one over which he had power and control. The very essence of it, as distinguished from the railway board, is that one is a court and the other is not. One is a body which merely administers certain statutory provisions; the other is a court charged with certain duties and responsibilities which it must administer as a court and not otherwise. These distinctions are clear.
I will not labour the matter further, except to direct the attention of the house to the fact that this is a much graver situation than some of the hon. members would seem to think. It involves the failure of a minister, charged by some of his own supporters with unfitness, to discharge his duties. It is a case of ministerial responsibility. It is something more than asking whether the law shall be administered under the control of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Railways, 78594-751
or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When this committee meets it will have to sit and hear evidence and determine whether or not this minister, who has been charged by his own supporters with unfitness, is indeed as unfit as has been alleged. One could not have, listened to the defence which was made by the Minister of Railways, conversant as he-is with the terms of the act, without realizing' that he agreed at least in part with those who-complain about the administration of the actt All I can say is this: When the proper tribunal is set up under the statutes for the purpose of hearing evidence and determining whether or not the grain commissioners have done their duty, they will have an opportunity to present their defence and it is not for me to prejudge them or to determine the truth or validity of the defence which they shall make.
It is an entirely mistaken idea to consider this matter as touching only western Canada. It is vital to every manufacturing interest in Quebec and Ontario; it touches the economic life of the whole of Canada, for if the grain crop does not bring the maximum sum it should to those who produce the grain, under the sanction and with the support and approval of the law, there is just that much less new wealth in this country for the purpose of keeping the factories busy and developing the trade and commerce of Canada. I have less knowledge of the technical side of this statute than those who have spoken, but I would venture to direct attention to what I conceive to be the questions which must be determined and settled. These questions involve the fitness, not of commissioners, but of a minister of the crown responsible to this parliament, and under him the right of the government to maintain office in face of the charges which are made by their own supporters against the administration of the Canada Grain Act.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, I
desire to address myself for a few moments to the amendment in order to correct, if possible, some of the statements which have been made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He stated first that the speakers in this debate have unanimously condemned the administration of the grain act by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). I have paid very dose attention to this debate and I think it has been plainly characterized by the universal expression of the view that- the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not being charged as the leader of the opposition says he was. I do not recollect a single speech in this deb*+" during

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Dunning
which any member charged the Minister of Trade and Commerce with dereliction of duty in the slightest degree, but I do recall that several speakers very specifically and generously accorded to the Minister of Trade and Commerce his d*ue in that regard. My hon. friend was not generous enough to do that in his own remarks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker-


Charles Avery Dunning: I desire an opportunity
to answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Allow me to correct any misapprehension; I charge now that the responsibility rests with the minister, although the charge is against the commission. That is what I desire to make clear.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will let Hansard
speak for itself in the morning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman asserted that members of this house had charged the minister with a dereliction of duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say so, yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: He used also a lot of
other phrases, which we will all read and understand at the proper time.
The second statement to which I desire to direct attention was that I had boasted of knowing more about the grain business than any man in this house. I leave that to the members themselves who heard my remarks this afternoon, and who will also have the opportunity of reading Hansard in the morning. My only desire this afternoon was an endeavour to contribute something of a constructive character, and there was no political colour of any kind in my utterances. I endeavoured merely to speak in a somewhat informative fashion of things of which I had some knowledge, without arrogating to myself that superiority of knowledge of which the leader of the opposition spoke, and which he exhibits so very often.
I am pleased to note that my hon. friend apparently believes that when a public officer, who under the law can be discharged only for cause, is accused of any dereliction of duty, that officer has the right to be heard in his own defence before he is discharged for cause. I believe I am correct in saying that whatever cause may be assigned for dismissing the Board of Grain Commissioners, at least no charge of dishonesty has been made; indeed I doubt whether it could be said that the charge has gone as far as inefficiency. The charge seems to be rather of a lack of judgment in a particular case, and so far as that is 
concerned, the Minister of Trade and Commerce can speak with greater authority than myself.
The third misstatement on the part of the leader of the opposition to which I wish to refer was his reference to the contest between three departments of this government for the control of the Canada Grain Act. He knows as well as I do that the first mention of any possibility of that act being administered by the Department of Railways came from himself on the floor to-night. No one else has referred during the course of this debate to any such possibility, and my hon. friend simply invented it in order, that he might have something to talk about, being rather short of material with which to make a speech.
I take the attitude which I took this afternoon, and without seeking in any way to evade the proper responsibility of the government, I repeat it:	The Canada Grain Act
has been built up by a succession of parliaments rather than a succession of governments. Committees of this house have suggested from time to time amendments in this rather unique statute, and the government of the day, as I said this afternoon, has endeavoured to carry out the desires of the producers as represented on those committees. There have been difficulties in the administration of this act, and there will be difficulties in the future. The bon. leader of the opposition put his finger on one of them when he said that the Board of Grain Commissioners is not a court of record, or a court in the ordinary sense. Many of the members who have spoken have rather ignored that fact-perhaps they have not caught the full significance of it. They seemed to expect the Board of Grain Commissioners to take the place of the courts of the land with respect to matters pertaining to grain.
Some hon. MEMBERS'. No, no.


Charles Avery Dunning: But in any case that
cannot be hoped for. The only features of the law which the board is empowered to enforce and to exact penalties for, involve either a prosecution by the board in the ordinary courts of the land or a revocation of license by the board. That is one point which, I think, might well be considered by the committee.	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Power to dismiss officials.


Charles Avery Dunning: They may, of course,
dismiss officials, but I have not yet heard any complaint against a particular official working unider the board. They are given no power,

Grading of Grain-Mr. Malcolm
for instance, to deal otherwise with the Grain Standards Board than the law provides, and I do not think much complaint is being made with regard to the Grain Standards Board. The demand is rather whether the existing machinery cannot be improved in the light of circumstances that have developed in the last year or so. Everyone knows that the functions of the Grain Standards Board are far different in 1928 or 1929 from what they were in 1907, 1908 or 1910. I simply plead with members on both sides to attempt to approach these difficult matters connected with the marketing of grain in the same non-partisan manner as parliament has endeavoured to deal with this question throughout the whole history of the Canada Grain Act. In that way we can do more constructive work for the people of western Canada than by attempting to play politics with a matter of such great importance.


James Malcolm: Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he rose to speak made a statement which I very much resent. He intimated that the government or the Minister of Trade and Commerce was endeavouring to hide behind the Board of Grain Commissioners and shoulder the responsibility onto them.
Mr! BENNETT:	Undoubtedly.


James Malcolm: There has never been
said by any man in the house before that the minister in any way shirked responsibility or was not willing to take full responsibility for the administration of his department. It has not been shown by any bon. member that the Board of Grain Commissioners are guilty of any crime. Just a few days ago, and for the first time in history since the pools were inaugurated, the government had the unanimous advice of the three presidents of and the three lawyers for the pools, gentlemen who came to us in the most honourable fashion to tell us for the first time what was the joint opinion of their members who represented fifty per cent of the producers of western Canada. We were glad to meet them and to receive the benefit of their advice. These men pointed out to us that certain changes in the act would be an improvement in the handling of grain. They pointed out to us what they thought would be advisable in the way of legislation in order to make the act more suitable. But not once in the whole interview did they make or infer a single charge against the honesty or even the judgment of the Board of Grain Commissioners.
We have heard a great deal of discussion in the house about a ticket, and my hon. friend tries to attach a certain amount of blame to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am quite prepared to assume full responsibility for anything I have done in connection with this ticket. Certain amendments were made to the grain act and I think some hon. members understand them much more dearly than the leader of the opposition does if his remarks are an indication of his knowledge of the matter. The amendments made to the act call for a change in the form of ticket. The Board of Grain Commissioners recommended to the minister that a certain form of ticket should be used to bring it into conformity with the act. My hon. friend says that the order in council did not bring the new ticket into exact conformity with the act. There may be a point in what he says, and I will come to that in a moment. That ticket was put into use in May, 1927, and it has remained in use ever since. The criticism of the Board of Grain Commissioners is not that they authorized anything or that an order in council was passed for anything, but rather, that they permitted the line companies to insert certain additional words in the ticket. When those tickets were first used the line elevator companies added 'the names of the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta wheat producers associations. It was called to the attention of the board that these words were in direct violation of the act in that they were not included in the ticket as prescribed by the act. Mr. Murray, counsel for the pools and counsel for the trade, who insisted they had the right to insert those words, argued before the board and counsel of the grain commissioners on the effects and legality of the use of the words. The counsel whom the Board of Grain Commissioners engaged to advise.them was Mr. Fisher, and his advice was that the use of these words on the ticket did not change the form of the ticket, as they merely constituted a statement of fact. Not satisfied with that-and I want my hon. friend to realize this, when he talks about maladministration or neglect of duty-the Board of Grain Commissioners came to Ottawa and, as he well knows, consulted the Department of Justice. The Deputy Minister of Justice gave them his advice and a ruling on the addition of the words in question, stating that he did not think the addition of the words materially affected the form of the ticket. Therefore when my hon. friend criticises the Board of Grain Commissioners, and when any other members criticize them for permitting the use of the ticket, they are also criticizing the judgment of th" department of Justice.

Gradintj oj Grain-Mr. Malcolm
My hon. friend says .that I knew of this long ago. Quite so; I did know of it and I take responsibility for knowing of it. I knew the grain trade who had the handling of certain grains desired to have some specific words on the ticket to indicate the grain which they were handling for pool members as distinguished from the grain which they were handling for their own customers. I know the Board of Grain Commissioners did not want the ticket used, and took advice as to whether they could legally stop the use of it or not. They did not authorize the use of it. The Deputy Minister of Justice advised them he thought the ticket was within the meaning of the act. Very well; a whole session of parliament passed. Did we hear any complaint last year from members about that ticket? Not a word. A whole year -passed; the first complaint I recall receiving was last fall, and very late in the fall, from one of our own members, -the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Johnston) to the effect that there was grave complaint in the west against the use of this ticket. Hon. members talk about millions of dollars, as if -they were as common as the sands of the sea. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that when the grain trade was handling under -contract certain grains for the pool where -the pool did not have the country facilities to handle it, the loss that came to the farmer was a loss brought about by one set o-f conditions alone. The profits of the pool terminal elevators are divided among the members who have the opportunity to use the pool terminals. Therefore it is desirable -that a member of the pool should, if possible, get his grain to a pool terminal, -resulting in two or three cents -a bushel profit therefrom. That is perfectly justifiable. You cannot blame a man for wanting to ship his grain to his own terminal. Under section ISO of the Canad-a Grain Act, long before the so-called Campbell amendment, every member of the government claimed that the farmer had that right. It was said that the Campbell amendment was unnecessary, but the house agreed to the amendment as hon. members felt -that it would strengthen the act. When my hon. friends from the west wanted the amendment, parliament enacted it practically unanimously. The loss that occurred was simply the loss to those farmers who lost their share in the profits of the pool terminals. I do not know how much grain went through the pool terminals or how much grain could have gone through the pool terminals. I do not know whether the facilities of all the pool terminals were taxed to the utmost or not, but -the only loss that could have occurred to the farmers of western 
Canada w-as if the pool terminals were not used to their capacity, because they could only distribute the total profits of capacity occupancy. That is all the profit they could have made, -and if the pool -terminals were not used to capacity, there would have been the two or three cents a bushel loss which other farmers -received who shipped their grain through the pool terminal. That is the situation with regard to this hybrid ticket. The Board of Grain Commissioners wanted to discontinue its use. They -asked the Justice department for an opinion, and the Justice department said that they believed the ticket was within -the law, so that if any criticism is coming to the board for not stopping the use of that ticket and allowing the use of the words, -the board have the opinion of the Justice department to back them up.
When we heard the complaint that was made this fall about the matter, I immediately began to investigate to see how wide-spread it was, and I discovered that the board, on every occasion when it had been called to t-heir attention, told the farmer-the telegrams are on record, and the board will have the records for their defence-that he had the right to apply for a ticket under section ISO, and the line companies were informed that they had to give that ticket. The board never denied the right of the farmer to get the ticket under section 150, the ticket prescribed by . law. Certain elevator companies probably were guilty of refusing to give that ticket, and I think the board are able to show that they were quite willing in every case to prosecute the grain company for their refusal to give that ticket. Every time they attempted to prosecute, the company gave the ticket, and they were ordered' to give it on many occasions.
I am not a man who has such a high opinion of himself as to refuse to accept the opinion of trusted and tried officers of my department. When I -came into the department I believed that Mr. Boyd, who had been chairman of the Board1 of Grain Commissioners for twelve years, was a good public servant and that he had done everything he could to administer the grain act in a proper manner in the interests of the producers for whom it was designed. I knew that Mr. Boyd had served under half a dozen different ministers since May, 1917, and when the term of his office expired I was quite willing, having regard to his experience, that his term should be renewed and his services continued. These men as far as I know have been competent men, and I have laid no charge against them.
I want the leader of the opposition clearly

Grading of Grain-Mr. Malcolm
to understand that I am not trying to hide behind the skirts of anybody. The Board of Grain Commissioners are competent officers of my department. They have been there for many years adiminisitering the act. The officers of the pool, in consultation with members of the government the other day, suggesting changes to the act, made no1 charge against the board. A lot Of members of parliament have charged the board with incompetence, and a lot of resolutions have been passed, but up to the present time I do not think one single specific charge has been laid in this house against the honour of this board, nor do I think such a charge could be proven. I do not think anything can be said about the board unless it can be shown that their judgment was faulty in permitting the use of a ticket after they had received the advice of the Department of Justice in regard to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know the minister does not want to be interrupted, but I think the advice which was given him by the Department of Justice is hardly what he suggests. It reads:
It is contended on the other hand that the grower in such circumstances has no right to control the shipment of grain because the pool, being fully authorized as his agent to do so, waived the statutory right given by section 150 (2). Owing to the fact that the parties have failed to express their intention clearly, 1 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 on this point.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is perfectly right. We never asked advice on that point. We never denied the right under section, 150.
There has been so much said about the question of the loss in value in the different grades that I think it is worth while for me to make a few remarks on that subject. Under the Canada Grain Act there is a standards board set up each year, "which board shall meet and take samples of the year's crop and thereon set the commercial grades." The standards board is composed of fifty per cent producers, and on it are such men as Dean Rutherford, of the university of Saskatchewan, some officers of the pool, and officers of the producers' organizations. The other members of the standards board are millers and grain dealers. The Board of Grain Commissioners also has a representative of its own on the standards board. Someone has charged that the Board of Grain Commissioners did not
see that the standards were proper this year, but the very evidence brought out here tonight shows that the Board of Grain Commissioners did all they could to assure that they should be proper, for the standards were accepted unanimously by a board set up of fifty per cent producers, and the only one who protested that the standards were too high was an officer of the Board of Grain Commissioners, Doctor Birchard, their chemist, who said that the lower grades of this year's crop had a higher milling value than in previous years, and as a result this should be considered.


William Russell Fansher: Did not a representative of the pool, Mr. McCrea, object strenuously to these standards?


James Malcolm: I never heard of it. The board unanimously accepted the standards, and when Doctor Birchard pressed his point he was told that the samples he had taken to ascertain the milling and baking qualities of the lower grades were unfair and that he should take other samples from the head of the lakes. He milled and baked further samples, which proved his contention that our lower grades this year have a very substantially higher milling value than in other years. Immediately the standards were set and Doctor Birchard had ascertained the high milling value of the lower grades, the Board of Grain Commissioners notified the Liverpool corn exchange and the corn exchanges of Europe that this year our low grades had an exceedingly high milling value, and in consequence closer prices have exist ed between the grades this year. To say that in so far as the setting up of standards is concerned the Board of Grain Commissioners did not function or did not assist is to state something that is not true. Mr. Boyd, Doctor Robinson, Mr. Snow and Doctor Birchard have not control of setting the standards. That is in the hands of the Standards Board, but so far as they could through their officer and chemist they tried to influence the opinion of the board that the wheat this year of the lower grades was of an exceptionally high milling value.
Another matter has been referred to with which the Board of Grain Commissioners have nothing to do; the law entirely decides the matter. There is a great diversity of opinion as to the benefits and evils of mixing. Many men in this chamber have shown that the farmers have lost a very great deal of money through mixing, that their wheat has been bought on the maximum of the grade and shipped out on the minimum, that they
1192	COMMONS
Grading of Gram-Mr. Malcolm
have not received the profits therefrom but that the intermediate handlers have reveived the profits. So far as the cooperative organization is concerned no great losses can occur, because whatever profit is made by mixing goes to the members, but in so far as the private seller is concerned it is quite possible that mixing might take from him some profit which would be made by the mixing house. If the pool operating their own mixing house make money on mixing, the one question for parliament to consider is, does mixing lower the standards of our grades on the markets of the world and thereby reflect on the quality of our wheat? But, Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the discussion on mixing, in spite of all the discussion in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba on mixing, farmers by the thousand claim that they are being defrauded' by mixing. Is not that true? I think every hon. gentleman from the west will agree that there is much complaint against mixing, but I would ask the house what in the name of goodness can the Board of Grain Commissioners do to prevent mixing when parliament made it legal in the statutes, and when, I, with the board, have to administer an act which says that mixing is legal? So all this pile of criticism of this evil which some of my hon. friends want to centre on the Board of Grain Commissioners, a board which I as minister will defend until something specific has been proven against them, all these things are not things which the board can direct. You can appoint any five men, or any fifty men, and even if they be supermen .they will not be able to give satisfaction to the grain producer on the question of mixing so long as the Canada Grain Act permits the practice.
There is another point, Mr. Speaker, to be dealt with. Before parliament was called this session I did my very best to secure the fullest information as to the seriousness of the complaints referred to in this debate. I found that in Alberta, in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba there was serious complaint against the use of the. ticket to which I first referred, and that the board were charged with making a very grave mistake of judgment in not immediately prohibiting the use of the ticket, it being charged that by their failure to do so they had allowed the grain trade to deprive the farmer of his rights under section 150. Undoubtedly if the board had prohibited the use of the ticket litigation would have followed. But I need not argue the point; I have no fear on that score. I found out also that very grave dissatisfaction existed on the question of mixing and on the question of grades.
[Mr. Mslcoflm.j
Immediately parliament assembled I called the members from the west into my room and discussed the matter with them. I found they were very desirous of cooperating with me to improve the grain act. They made certain charges against the Board of Grain Commissioners for allowing the use of this ticket, but their principal desire was to endeavour to improve the legislation so that it could be better administered.
Sly hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) brought this question to the fore by his resolution to dismiss the board. Thereupon I said that I had no other course open to me than to allow the committee on agriculture and colonization to hear any evidence that might be submitted pertaining to the board's action. And now my hon. friend the leader of the opposition says that this is not a case for the committee to hear. Let me say that throughout this debate, although there have been complaints that the Board of Grain Commissioners have not administered the act in the interests of the wheat producers, no proof has been submitted to show derelic-' tion of duty, as he expresses it; not one word of proof. I make that assertion after having listened to the whole debate and after a careful perusal of Hansard. No hon. member has proven the Department of Trade and Commerce was derelict in the administration of the act. Therefore I submit it is the easiest matter in the world to deal with the respective resolutions of my hon. friends from Rosetown, Willow Bunch and Qu'Appelle by giving to the committee on agriculture and colonization the widest possible powers to investigate the problems which arose during the past year. I venture to say that in the investigations of those problems, and the placing of the board in the hands of the committee to explain their actions, the net result will be that no man will be able to substantiate any charge of inefficiency that he may prefer against the board.
I can assure my hon. friend the leaner of the opposition that so far as I am concerned I am not going to hide behind the fact that I am a new minister and have had only two years' experience in my department, because I believe that when I took office I had to deal with a body of commissioners which knew the Canada Grain Act reasonably well, men who were honourable and clean, and who gave me the best advice of which they were capable. Up to the present time I have had no reason to distrust these men. If they have failed in matters of judgment, that is only a human failure. Whether or not they have failed I do not know, but I do know that their

Grading of Grain-Mr. Stevens
action which is criticized the most, has been sustained by counsel and by the Department of Justice.
There is nothing further, Mr. Speaker, that I can add. I think the house should let the matter go to the committee on agriculture and colonization for investigation, and I think that during the investigation many of the remarks that have been made in the course of this debate will fall to the ground.


John Millar: Mr. Speaker, before the debate is closed I desire to make a correction. The hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans), perhaps unwittingly, misrepresented what I said yesterday. His statement was to the effect that I said that in 1925 the pool were in favour of mixing; also, that Mr. Murray, one of the members of the pool, before the committee of 1925 simply stated that the pool were mixing because the others were mixing. Now, neither of those statements is correct. I should like to quote my exact words. In endeavouring to make plain to the house that there was a division of opinion in 1925 in regard to mixing I said:
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 were mixing, and did not wish that privilege taken away.
My first; statement that the pool were not a unit is quite different from the statement attributed to me by my hon. friend that the pool were in favour of mixing. The latter part of my statement I still stand behind. I have the printed report of what Mr. Murray said, and it bears out my statement rather than the statement of the member for Rosetown.


Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the mover of the resolution (Mr. Kay) closes the debate, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word or two. This question is usually looked upon as peculiar to the interests of hon. members from the three prairie provinces, and as a consequence it is generally accepted as desirable that they should be the ones to debate it. Therefore I hope I shall not be considered an intruder.
Some ten years ago we had perhaps what may be termed a rather intense discussion of this subject, out of which grew the grain act as it was amended in 1919. I should like to bring to the attention of the house what I think is at the very root of almost all the complaints regarding the handling of grain.
First, mixing is the term that is used as being peculiarly objectionable to the producer. But what is it that inspires a desire to mix grain? A former leader of the Progressive party and a former minister of agriculture, the Hon. Thomas Crerar, in the session of 1919 gave a very clear statement of the reasons why mixing occurs. I have not his speech under my hand, but I can send for it. It will be found in Hansard of that year at about page 3000 or 3100.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my representation of what he said is questioned I will send to the library and get Hansard. Indeed, I may as well send for it now, seeing that apparently there is some question. However, what he said was this: that a superintendent of an elevator-he was speaking then of public terminal elevators at Fort William-knew perfectly well that he could not weigh out of an elevator exactly the same amount of grain as he had weighed in because of an invisible disappearance or shrinkage in the handling of the grain. In other words, he was bound to have a certain amount of shrinkage. He said further that if there was a shortage at the annual weigh-up in that particular grade of grain he had to go on the open market and buy the grain and replace it. Therefore, he said, all superintendents used every conceivable means to maintain the quantity of grain in the elevators-always; because the superintendent, knowing that he would be held responsible for shortages and shrinkages, invariably did a certain amount of mixing in order to maintain his quantity of the higher grades. And to do this he would mix a lower with a higher grade so as to keep the quantity.


Malcolm McLean: Shrinkage is provided for.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A very small shrinkage is provided for in the act-30 pounds to the car, if I recall rightly. That is allowed in the act, but it is not enough and is known to be not enough. My contention in 1919 was this-and I hold it is good to-day-that no public terminal elevator handling grain of other people should be allowed to mix one grade with the other and thus make more money from the outgo and out of the overages than they would make if they handled the grain strictly in conformity with the act. The evil of mixing has, I think, been demonstrated in this as well as in previous debates, and there is one simple fact which the house ought to face. It is this. It has been demonstrated over a long period of years, whatever

Grading oj (Jr am-Mr. Slevens
may be the reason for it, that the farmer usually gets the short end. of the deal in the handling of the annual grain crop of the country. Reasons may be assigned here and there, but the long -and short of it is that the farmer pays the piper, to use a common ' expression. Surely then parliament ought to address itself primarily to -the importance of protecting the interests of the farmer. I am not saying this simply to curry favour with the farmer; I make the statement in order to indicate what is the primary principle that should be observed in the whole discussion of the problem Parliament ought to address itself to the protection of the farmer's interests, the interests of the producer of the grain. Now, if by the introduction of these tickets, or if by any action of the grain commission or any action on t'he part Of the operating companies, the farmer or the producer-I will use the latter term-feels that he is noit getting full value from the sale of his crop, then parliament ought to give the matter immediate attention.
Now I have Hansard and I will quote the exact words of Mr. Crerar. Referring to some observations I made regarding overages at the head of the lakes, he says:
Every man. . . knows this fact, that you cannot operate a terminal elevator or a country elevator or for that matter any other elevator, where grain is handled in bulk, and have your outturn correspond identically with what you put into the elevator.
H'e laid that down, and I lay it down, as a primary principle in the handling of grain: You cannot expect to take out of the elevator the same quantity as you put in of any grade. He goes on:
I have stated also that the owner of a terminal elevator warehousing grain is responsible for every bushel of grain that goes into that elevator. Not only so, but he is responsible for every bushel of grain of a particular grade that goes into that elevator.
That was the second proposition laid down by Mr. Crerar. Further on, having discussed the eventuality of a shortage, he says:
In that event I have to go into the open market and buy the grain necessary to make up the deficiency. . . Now, how do the overages arise? Naturally, when the superintendent of an elevator is conscious of the fact that his elevator is short on any grade at the end of the season, or it is short on the total amount of grain put in, and his company has to go into the market to buy that grain to make up the deficiency, he uses every precaution to insure that his elevator comes out right.
If you will take the annual reports as published previously I notice that the 1927 report does not cover this particular phase of t'he subject-you will find set out a record of the weigh-ups of the various elevators, and in 
these weigh-ups you will see that invariably the overages occur on the higher grades and any shortage that takes place is in the lower grades. What is the explanation? It is a simple one. If an elevator found that it was a little shout on No. 1 it fed into No. 1 bins a certain quantity of high grade No. 2, thus not only maintaining but increasing No. 1. And a high grade No. 3 was slipped in with a good grade No. 2. The result is, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) mentioned a moment ago, that out of these elevators there invariably comes the minimum of the good grade instead of an average grade. Now this has been going on year after year and very little has been attempted in the way of a remedy. The question may be asked: Wha-t can be done? Before I answer that question I want to go a step further. Some hon. gentleman a moment ago spoke about the pools. I will not dteal with the pools because I have not looked into the matter since the pools have had charge. The cooperative groups-that is to say, the Saskatchewan Cooperative and the Grain Growers' Grain Company of Manitoba-commenced operations some fifteen years ago or thereabouts, and they did exactly the same thing that the private elevators do, because they realized that they would also be faced with shortages in the various grades. Under the act which I have here they are allowed to - take, for impurities in the grain, up to 3 per cent dockage.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is set by the inspector.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was fixed in the old
act. However, I will accept the minister's word.


Charles Avery Dunning: For dockage the inspector sets the amount.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Dockage was allowed.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is referring to shrinkage.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I am referring to
dockage. However, I will not quarrel over the point. In any case, we will put it this way:	They are allowed to make a certain
dockage. Invariably that dockage exceeds what is necessary to allow for the impurities in that shipment. In other words, it would be impossible to fix it exactly, so a small margin of safety is allowed; but mark you, in every instance the elevator gets the protection rather than the shipper of the grain.

Grading oj Grain-Mr. Stevens
I have just had placed in my hands some observations made in 1925. I refer to the Grain Growers' Grain Company, and according to Price, Waterhouse and Company's report in 1916-1917, their earnings were $446,000, made up from elevator operations, $238,000; screenings, $51,000; and overages, $157,000. I do not cite this for the purpose of reflecting on this company, because the pressure of business forced the grain growers, the Saskatchewan cooperative and I believe the pool, to do exactly what other elevators had been doing. In 1919 I argued in parliament against allowing the principle of overages at all, but I remember that Mr. Crerar and others from the west opposed that idea, so it was fixed by statute that one-half of one per cent would be the maximum allowance for overage.


Charles Avery Dunning: Was it not one-quarter
of one per cent?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, one-half of one per
cent; that was fixed by statute. We must remember that one-half of one per cent of the western crop is an enormous amount; it is a heavy toll to levy on the crop. It is my opinion that overages should not be allowed, and I believe the agriculture committee should take this phase of the question into consideration, because after all it lies right at the very root of the whole trouble; I believe that an elevator should 'be given fees for the services rendered and that the shipper should get the full return on his shipments. In the case of grain containing impurities, instead of making an arbitrary dockage of two per cent or three per cent, which is a heavy toll, in my opinion the grain should be cleaned before it is weighed and graded for distribution. By following these processes I believe very much could be done to lessen these difficulties.


John Livingstone Brown: I think if the hon. gentleman looks into the matter he will find that the allowance is one-quarter of one per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am told by my leader
that the hon. gentleman is right; it was fixed at one-quarter of one per cent in 1925, buit previously it was one-half of one per cent.


John Livingstone Brown: I believe it always was one-quarter of one per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will look up the resolution which was presented to this house in order to have it clearly before us. The resolution says:
.... if a surplus in any grade of grain is found in excess of one-half of one per cent of the gross amount of the grain received in
the elevator during the crop year, such excess surplus shall be sold annually by the Board of Grain Commissioners	
I understand that was amended in 1925 to one-quarter of one per cent.
The first point I wish to make in these observations is that in all the questions we have been discussing in connection with the handling of the grain crop and in every decision which has been made, the handler of the grain has received the benefit rather than the Shipper. That is the basis of our complaint, and I think the time has come when our primary objective should be to give to the shipper of the grain a maximum return for his goods; I will leave it at that.
I have before me the annual report of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada for the crop year 1927. I ask the minister if there is any explanation why we have not had the report for the year 1928 in our hands long before this. Nine months have passed since the end of the crop year, which was on August 31. 1928, but as yet we have not received that report. As a matter of fact, the section of the act is as follows:
The board shall, within thirty days after the close of each calendar year, make to the minister a report respecting,
(a)	all such matters as appear to the board to be of public interest in connection with the inspection, weighing, storage and transportation of grain; and
(b)	such matters as the minister may direct.
In the first place, I want to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the statute calls for a report to be made by January 30, and it should be printed and in the hands of members of parliament immediately after the opening of parliament. In the second place I want to draw attention to the fact that the reports now do not contain a statement of the annual weigh-up, so far as I have been able to see, and the annual weigh-up is of immense importance. For instance, there should be shown very clearly what additional overages there are in each elevator for each year, and out of what grades those overages come. That may be in the report, but I confess that in looking through this report I have failed to find it. I direct the attention of the minister to that because if we have not that information we cannot properly gauge the merits of the act or the outcome of the administration of the act.
I am not going to detain the house longer; I want the minister to feel that I am quite certain there is no desire to impugn his personal capacity or his personal honour, nevertheless the fact remains that on his shoulders rests the responsibility for the administration of this act, and if the act is not being
1196	COMMONS
Canada-Newjoundland Trade Agreement
administered satisfactorily parliament must look to him for the explanation. That is really the point we all desire to make very clearly. I agree with my leader that the Board of Grain Commissioners should not be judged without being heard; if they have not properly administered the act then they should be censured, but in the meantime we in parliament must hold the minister in all cases responsible for the proper administration of these acts.
Amendment (Mr. Coote) agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.



COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS


Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont) moved:: That the petition of 1'Alliance Nationale, presented. this day, praying for an act to amend the charter of that society, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


Hewitt Bostock: It must be by leave of the house.



RESIGNATION OF MR. LOUIS M. AUGER

Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house I wish to read a letter which was delivered to me this evening:
Ottawa, March 21, 1929.
To the Honourable the Speaker,
The House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
I, the undersigned, member of parliament for the county of Prescott, hereby tender my resignation as representative of the said counity in the House of Commons.
Dated at Ottawa, this 21st day of March, 1929.
Louis M. Auger.
Witnesses:
J. M. Dale, Raoul Mercier.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 22, 1929
Motion agreed to.
Mr. F. W. BOWEN (Durham) moved:: That the petition of George King, presented this day, praying for an act to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and Jessie Georgina King, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders, for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he has any statement to make to the house in connection with the report that the trade agreement between Newfoundland and Canada had been terminated, or that notice to that effect had been given.