July 10, 1908

LIB

Edward L. Cash

Liberal

Mr. CASH.

We have to handle this subject pretty carefully, for this reason. I know that the farmers of the west very generally want an order point at Winnipeg ; but if you pass such an amendment as this, you are going to do away with the possibility of an order point. There is no doubt that five-sixths of the grain of the Northwest is mixed in elevators. The elevators have not the capacity necessary for maintaining the identity of any man's grain. There is no doubt also that the grain is inspected in Winnipeg in carload lots. The hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) has the idea that the grain is put in an elevator to be inspected, whereas any western man knows that it is inspected while in the car. The samples are taken from the car and inspected, and the grain passes on to Fort William.

1 do not know what percentage of that grain is sold in Winnipeg or passes through the elevator there, but a very small per cent. It is unfortunate that the special privilege should be accorded to elevator men in Winnipeg to buy grain and mix it, whereas the same privilege is not accorded at Port Arthur or Fort William. As I understand this business-and I have been at all the conferences except one-there is an elevator man at Port Arthur who makes a specialty of cleaning, drying and scouring grain. The grain is inspected in the elevator and it is inspected out again. The inspector at Winnipeg inspects that grain ; and when it goes Into the elevator at Port Arthur it is mixed, so that its identity is not preserved, except so far as it Is No. 1 scoured it would go into a bin of No. 1 scoured, and it is inspected out as No 1 scoured, and is sold as that particular grade. Therefore I think it would be most unfortunate to allow the mixing of grain in this elevator. I know that the owner of that elevator thinks that when he scours the grain it is bettter than it was before-better than No. 1 bard. He also thinks that No. 1 damp is better after he has dried it than the other grain which was not damp at all. If that is his opinion, and lie mixes the grain, it will have a very unfortunate effect. The main object of the farmers in asking for this legislation is to prevent the mixing of grades and also to have an order point in Winnipeg ; so that if their grain goes above No. 2, though it will not grade No. 1, or if it grades between No.

2 and No. 3, they will get the benefit of the increased value of their grain ; and the only way they can get that is by having an order point at Winnipeg where the grain can be sold on a sample. The buyer in Winnipeg will have the same privilege as the miller from Ontario or the old country of buying that grain. If a dealer buys it, he may mix it in the Winnipeg elevator, because it has not been graded. The farmer is then more likely to get the value of his grain. After the grain is once inspected, no more mixing should he allowed. If you

are going to have an inspection at Fort William, you will require the same force of men there as you have at Winnipeg ; it would require a duplication of the entire force. It seems to me thaFyou should have one point for inspection, I do not care whether you make it at Winnipeg or at Fort William.

iMr. LAKE. The hon. gentleman's argument in regard to a sample market at Winnipeg is quite correct after you get to the 15th December ; but up to that time the farmer is at his disadvantage as compared with the private grain dealer, that he cannot have his grain mixed and cleaned before inspection, while the private grain dealer can do so in the Winnipeg elevator.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Richard Stuart Lake

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LAKE.

Because the farmer has not an elevator ; that is the reason. Now, we have been told that possibly 5 per cent of the grain which passes through Winnipeg goes into the Winnipeg elevators ; that is to say, the grain dealers mix the grain together and form a grade which is just as close as possible to tlie line between the different grades and themselves reap the benefit of that mixing, while the farmer cannot do so. 1 hold that it is better not to allow any mixing at all. All the grain when it arrives at Winnipeg should be inspected and graded. I am strongly in favour of preventing the mixing of grain at Winnipeg,, more especially as we do not permit that to be done at Port Arthur, and in this way are discriminating against the farmer who have to use elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

James Conmee

Liberal

Mr. CONMEE.

I would be in favour of grading the grain into its proper class on its merits as they do in Minnesota, but I find I am in a minority. But the Winnipeg elevators have the same machinery as Mr. King has and so have nearly all the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. There is no necessity for singling out Mr. King's elevators, because the others have the same machinery, whether they use it to the same extent or not. At Winnipeg they have the facilities for doing everything Mr. King can do at Port Arthur. I have an amendment here which I would like to read because perhaps hon. gentlemen who are supporting the other amendment first moved might possibly prefer this one. If any one will look at the first section of the proposed amendment, it will be seen that it is proposed to change the interpretation clause. In the old Act

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

What does the hon. gentleman mean by the old Act.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

James Conmee

Liberal

Mr. CONMEE.

I mean the present law the Manitoba Grain Inspection Act, chapter 88 which we are now amending. The interpretation of clause 8 of that Act provides :

Public terminal elevator includes every elevator located at any point declared by the minister to be a terminal and doing business for compensation, in which grain is stored in bulk or the grain of different owners is mixed together or in which grain is stored in such a manner that the identity of the different lots or parcels cannot be accurately preserved.

A terminal elevator, in the provisions of this Act relating to terminal elevators and warehouses includes a warehouse.

That is changed in the proposed amendment and the reason is obvious. A mail might say, mine is not a public elevator, I am handling oul.v my own grain and not grain for compensation, and I have the right to mix when I choose. The minister's amendment reads :

' Public terminal elevator ' includes every elevator located at any point declared by the minister to be a terminal, and ' terminal elevator ' in the provisions of this Act relating to terminal elevators and warehouses, includes a warehouse.

This takes some ambiguity out of the old section. There was a doubt as to whether the minister could declare an elevator a public elevator, the owner of which would divide it into two, at Winnipeg or elsewhere, and say this half is public and the other half private, and in the private portion I can do as much mixing as I like. The gentlemen controlling elevators at Winnipeg are not subject to the Act. They are not public terminal elevators and are not under the regulations to which the public terminal elevators everywhere else are subject. They may be private elevators or elevators of any other kind, they do not come under the operation of this Act. I propose this amendment which I think will meet the objections of some hon. gentlemen and be perfectly fair :

Provided that all elevators at Winnipeg and St. Boniface in which grain is stored, cleaned or mixed and from which grain is shipped east of the said ports shall be deemed public terminal elevators.

If that be adopted all these Winnipeg elevators that do that kind of business will be on the same footing as other terminals as to the mixing and other conditions. In my opinion mixing is the proper thing. If you clean the grain, you enhance its value. You get a better grain and it realizes more money. The reason the farmers cannot do it is because they have not the machinery. But it is unfair to discriminate against that class of farmers, whose grain is not inspected at Winnipeg1, but goes to the terminal elevators for treatment. They ought to have the same privileges that they have in Winnipeg.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Laurence Schaffner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SCHAFFNER.

I beg to withdraw my motion in favour of that of my hon. 1 friend. , i

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

I cannot accept the amendment. In the first place it is not necessary because at any point declared a terminal by the minister, all elevators are subject to the control of the Act. It is quite competent for the minister to bring into operation all the provisions with regard to the Winnipeg elevators. Therefore this legislation is not necessary. The only difference is that my hon. friend proposes that where-ever a terminal point is declared all the elevators shall be public elevators. There is no difference in the authority of the minister to declare any point a terminal.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir. STAPLES.

This parliament should decide and not leave it to the minister.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

If my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) is correct, then the farmers and everybody interested in the appointment of tlie Royal Grain Commission were under a mistake. He has argued for the mixing of grain in transit. It may be that he is right and all the rest wrong, but he is on one side and all the rest on the other side. The change he suggests appears to be a dangerous one. There must be mixing of grain in the ordinary commercial handling of the crop, because the farmer cannot ship his individual load of grain all the way to the British market and preserve its Identity. Winnipeg is the great converging point for grain in carlots, the grain must be brought together somewhere, and that coming together must take place before the grain reaches Winnipeg or in Winnipeg, as at Winnipeg it receives its final grading. To prevent that grain coming together and constituting grades in Winnipeg would unquestionably be to the detriment of the farmers. To say that there shall be no mixing in Winnipeg is to say that there shall be no dealing on sample in Winnipeg. The whole idea we have gathered from the farmers is that they wish to reap whatever benefit is to be derived from making Winnipeg an order point. In the country elevators there must be mixing, you could not legislate to prevent it.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

I contend that the grain should go out of the Winnipeg elevators on the same grade as it goes in. This sample grain should go forward in carlots the same as other grain.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Samuel Jacob Jackson

Liberal

Mr. S. J. JACKSON.

The farmers claim it would be a great advantage to have a sample market in Winnipeg.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Samuel Jacob Jackson

Liberal

Mr. S. J. JACKSON.

Suppose we have a sample market. Then if a farmer has a No. 2 which is nearly a No. 1, he can reap no benefit from it unless the man who purchases it can mix it with other grain and make a No. 1.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

I agree that the establishment of a sample market in Winnipeg or the west would be one of the finest things that could take place.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON
LIB
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

But it should be purchased as sample and go forward as sample wheat, not under any particular grade, then it has its intrinsic or commercial value wherever it goes. If you allow it to be mixed and to go out under grade the benefit is a question.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

James Conmee

Liberal

Mr. CONMEE.

The point under discussion does not touch the question of sample market. If the Winnipeg elevator operators are permitted to clean and mix grain they and not the farmers would reap the benefit of the enhanced value of that grain due to its cleaning at Winnipeg.

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Richard Stuart Lake

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LAKE.

It is thoroughly understood that in order to derive the full benefit from a sample market owners at Winnipeg must be permitted to mix to grade after December 15, but before December 15, I submit there should be no mixing at Winnipeg terminal elevators or anywhere else.

Amendment, Mr. Conmee, negatived.

Section as amended agreed to.

On section 19,

Topic:   MANITOBA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink

July 10, 1908