February 13, 1911

CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

If I were to give a definition of politics, it would put my hon. friend where he rightly belongs, and show that he is not an independent member of this House, but a radical supporter of the government. I would expect better things from an hon. gentleman representing a western constituency. When the hon. member for Red Deer posed as a farmer from the west, I looked up his record to see what stand he took on a proposition introduced by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in respect to bettering the condition of western farmers with regard to the meat industry. My hon. friend must know that the farmers in the west are not well treated in respect to the meat industry, that the prices to the western consumer, as to the eastern consumer, are very high. The consumers in the city of Winnipeg and other large centres of Canada are paying at this moment high prices for meat; hut when we make an investigation, we find the farmers of western Canada are receiving very small prices for their meat.

^ My hon. friend frbm East Grey (Mr. *Sproule) introduces a resolution to better that condition. What does the hon. member for Red Deer do?-on his feet, as he always is, in opposition to it, and records his vote against that proposition in the interests of the farmers of the west. My hon. friend from Souris has made out a very clear case with respect to the large wheat industry of western Canada, pointing out that the farmers are engaged extensively in the production of wheat, producing the best wheat that is to be found in the world, that when they send that wheat on its road to the English market they are confronted with the mixing of grain, the resultT of which is the cheapening of their product, and the farmers are not getting a proper price for their grain as they otherwise would if the condition with regard to elevators were correct. When this proposition was introduced to correct it, to direct the government's attention to a better condition of things, asking the government, who are responsible for legislation - in the interest of the people, to turn their attention to this very important question the first man on his feet almost in the House is the hon. member for Red Deer, saying: Oh, no, and not declaring himself in tlie interest of the western farmers, but in opposition to the proposition of my hon. friend from Souris. Therefore, I think that the hon. gentleman had better have a little searching of himself rather than that he should be directing attention so much to this side of the House and on every question giving, a lecture to 111

this side as if the members of the opposition were not able to discuss these questions or to take any interest in the affairs of western Canada at all. I am not going to discuss it farther only to say that in future I hope hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will not bring politics into discussions of this kind. The people of western Canada will be very much surprised that when a proposition was put forth in the interest of the west, as this was by my hon. friend from Souris, these hon. gentlemen, instead of facing it as it is and discussing it on its merits, introduce party politics into the discussion and declare themselves to be the saviours of the western farmers. I am only going to make these few remarks. I shall not enter into, the discussion. The question has been very fully discussed by my hon. friend from Souris, and other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, representing western constituencies will discuss it more fully as the debate goes on. I only wish to express my sympathy with the western farmers as they have to face grievances, and as this dilatory government are not taking care of their interests, in order to show the government and to show the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his supporters, that whenever any proposition to help the people in the west to better their condition is presented to this House they_ can always rest assured that from this side of the House they will receive a ready and willing support.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CROP YEAR 1910.
Permalink
CON

George Henry Bradbury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk).

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up the time of the House. This question was be fore the House two years ago, and at that time I placed myself on record with regard to it. I want to congratulate my hon. friend the mover of this resolution (Mr. Schaffner), and to say that I think the House is indebted to him for the facts which he has placed before it. I am not surprised at the attitude of some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House-representing constituencies in the west. They took the same attitude two years ago practically saying that the policy of the government was the proper policy, and that it should at least be given a fair trial. That policy has been in operation for. two years, and while elevators have been operated under government supervision we find by the facts laid before the House by the hon. member for Souris to-day that' the owners or operators of these elevators have been caught practically robbing the farmers of the west. Some of these men have been punished, as the hon. member for Souris has pointed out, but not sufficiently. There is no punishment under the present Grain Act sufficiently severe to stop the outrageous conduct of these men. With regard to

the attitude which the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has taken regarding the question of reciprocity, I would just like to say to that hon. gentleman and to some other hon. members from the west that when the time comes to speak on this question we will be able to answer them. Perhaps the attitude of the hon. gentleman and other hon. gentlemen from the west regarding this measure that is before the House can be explained in this way. The hon. gentleman realizes that if the reciprocity arrangements, as proposed by the government, are adopted there will be very little need perhaps for terminal elevators in Port Arthur. They realize that a great deal of the wheat trade will be diverted to Duluth and that it will not matter so much who operate the elevators at Port Arthur. As far as I am personally concerned I believe that the motion moved by my hon. friend from Souris is one to command the support of every man from the west. There is no question that in so far as the handling of the wheat is concerned, as has been pointed out by the farmers year after year, after the wheat leaves the farms it does not reach the markets of the world in the condition in which it left the farms;. The identity of the wheat has been lost entirely. There is no question that the wheat has been mixed at different points and that the farmers and the country have been the losers to a great extent by the lowering of the grade. I did not rise for the purpose of taking any lengthy part in this discussion, but I do wish to place myself again on record as intending to support the motion of my hon. friend from Souris as I had hoped that every hon. member from the west would have done. In face of the many complaints that have come from the farming associations and the Grain Growers' Association I cannot very well understand the attitude of these men on questions of this kind when they come before the House. We had a question up here not very long ago regarding cold storage, a matter of vital importance to the cattle raisers of the west. As has been pointed out every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House coming from a western constituency opposed the resolution that was moved by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Every man on this side of the House coming from the west supported that resolution strongly as we have supported every motion I know of that has been brought up in this House from either side that contained any proposition to better the condition of the western farmer. I regret exceedingly that it seems impossible for any motion to be moved from this side of the House in the interest of the western farmers that will elicit the support of members on the other side of the House from the west.

Mr. BRADBURY

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CROP YEAR 1910.
Permalink
L-C

John Herron

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. JOHN HERRON (Macleod).

Mr. Speaker, I take a good deal of pride in having my name coupled as seconder with this resolution which has been introduced by my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner). When this question was before the House two or three years ago I spoke in favour of a resolution along similar lines. I have not changed my mind from that time to the present; in fact, from the evidence that has been presented to me, from what I have seen and from what I understand about the way things have been going from that time to the present, I am more strongly of the opinion to-day than I ever was that there is only one way of remedying this evil that has been robbing the western farmers of their just dues and that is the proposition which has been presented in the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Souris this afternoon.

I understand that the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner), is precisely in line With the views of the western farmers who waited on the government in December, and surely the farmers who have made a practical study of this question for years and who are men of great intelligence, best know what their needs are. I was rather surprised to heaT this afternoon some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House complimenting the government wheat inspectors for discovering . that fraud and swindling had been going on in the elevators. Why, the very idea that 75 or 90 inspectors in 12 or 13 elevators permitted this fraud and swindling to go on to the extent it did before they discovered it, is proof positive of the failure of the system, and very strong evidence that these men were either incapable or were negligent in the performance of their duty. That circumstance does not give us much reason to hope for relief from the system of government inspection. We were told by the hon. member (Mr. Schaffner), that nearly half a million bushels of one grade of wheat were sold from the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William at a higher grade than it entered, and as there is no means of knowing what was done with respect_ to other grades, this shows that the swindling was of enormous magnitude. Again, it was proved that the elevators had actually sold hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat for delivery in Europe, when it was reported to be in the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William, and all this remember, under the eyes of the inspectors. What stronger proof is required of the incapacity of these men and the ^failure of the system of government inspection. I understand also that when some of those people were brought up for wrong-doing, the local magistrate held the trial behind closed doors,

that the defendants pleaded guilty and were fined $500 for each offence, or '$5,000 in all, and that in this way the evidence was precluded which would have afforded us some information as to the extent and duration of this fraud. That, I think, was not as it should be in the interests of justice. One of the strong reasons advanced by members on the other side for opposing government ownership, is the cost of acquiring these elevators. My idea is, and I submit it for what it is worth, that if the government experimented by acquiring in some way, the terminal elevators to the extent of 25 per cent of their capacity, we would be able to test by experience, whether government ownership would prove successful or not. I believe the elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur have a capacity of 30,000,000 bushels, but that the greatest quantity ever in storage at any one time was about 19,000,000 bushels, and this season only 10,000,000 bushels. Now, suppose the government acquired by leasing, or expropriation, or otherwise, a capacity of 8,000,000 or about 25 per cent of the total, the expense of the undertaking would not be great and we would know in a few years whether it would be wise for the government to take over the elevators or not. Of course, if the farmers in the west could get justice thmugh private ownership of the elevators, it probably would be the better system, but so. far, we have not been getting fair play in this matter, and it would seem to be incumbent on the government to own and operate them. Certainly, if any advantage is to accrue to the farmers of the west from government ownership, then government ownership should be undertaken at once. That is my view of the situation, and I think that probably it would prove a solution of the difficulty without entailing great expense. I am strongly in favour of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner), which, as I say, is in line with the demands of the farmers of the west.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CROP YEAR 1910.
Permalink
LIB

William Henry White

Liberal

Mr. WM. H. WHITE (Victoria, Alberta).

As a western member, I do not wish to go on record as being opposed to this resolution, which, in its opening paragraph reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of operating terminal and transfer elevators is detrimental to the interests of the western grain producers.

I think every one in the west will agree with that. But, in my view of the explanation given this afternoon by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), as to the Bill presented by the government in the Senate, I am rather inclined to the belief that while there is nothing wrong with 1111

the resolution, the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely), is perhaps at the present time, more in the interests of the farmers of Alberta. In my district we are not at present, growing grain very extensively, although no doubt in the future the industry will be engaged in, to a very large extent. When the time comes, what we will be interested in is a western outlet for the product. If the government is going to take over and control the elevators referred to in this resolution, we, of course, would urge that they should control the elevators on the Pacific coast, at Prince Rupert, Vancouver and elsewhere, and, when the Hudson Bay railway is built, we would desire them to also take charge of the elevators there. On the whole, as I understand it, there is not much difference between the Bill presented by the government and the proposition in the resolution, and, for the present, I think the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Humboldt, is possibly the more desirable.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CROP YEAR 1910.
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Henry White

Liberal

Mr. WHITE (Victoria, Alberta).

No. I take my knowledge of its provisions from the statement made by the hon. member for Humboldt.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CROP YEAR 1910.
Permalink
CON

Glenlyon Campbell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GLEN L. CAMPBELL (Dauphin).

Mr. Speaker, there is not very much left, to diseuss in connection with this resolution; but as a representative of farmers, and a farmer myself, I feel it my duty and my pleasure to say a few words congratulatory to my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) on his presentation of this case. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), in dealing with the steal at Fort William and Port Arthur last spring, and the prosecutions in connection with it, congratulated the government on their system of supervision at those points, under which they employed from sixty to ninety men at a cost of some $60,000 of the people's money, I think his argument was very weak when he said that to employ high-salaried commissioners would be beneficial to the farmers of the west, in view of the fact that the government had paid out $60,000 to sixty or seventy officials to watch those wheat thieves who own elevators at those points, and the fact that in the neighbourhood of half a million bushels of wheat was raised one and two grades from the time it went into the elevators till the time it went out, thus enhancing the value of that wheat to the extent of a little over $20,000. When it takes seventy officials at a cost of $60,000 to the people, to rob the farmers to that extent in one season, it would be adding insult to injury to them to appoint any more officials for that work. It is perhaps somewhat irregular to discuss

the Bill now before the Senate; but if this House saw its way to pass the resolution which has been brought before us so ably by my hon. friend from Souris, it would give a pointer to the Senate that it was the feeling of this House that some plan for the conservation of the people's wheat and money ought to be effected, and that a clause should be inserted in the Bill providing for the ownership and operation of the elevators by and for the people. For years the farmers have been agitating for the protection proposed in this resolution; for years they have been laughed at by this government, and only within the last year or two have the government offered their sympathy in words to the farmers of the west, and for a very good reason, namely, that the farmers are beginning to organize and will be an important factor in the next election. There are two principal reasons why the farmers have been agitating in this matter. One is for their selfprotection from the stealing of their wheat by low grading and mixing, which has been shown to-night to have amounted in one season to $24,000. A further reason is their great desire that the quality of their grain may be properly taken care of, and That is a more than sufficient reason, because northern Canada is the only place in the world where No. 1 hard wheat can be produced. The fact is that under the conditions that have prevailed, even in years when the government has had this very costly system of supervision in operation, no man who saw the wheat go into the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William and saw it afterwards in the market in Liverpool would recognize it as the same wheat, so mixed was it with inferior wheat. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on every member of this House who represents a western constituency to loyally support this resolution. I intend to vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) because, like all amendments brought on that side of the House against _ anything good proposed on this side, it is merely in the nature of a quibble and evasion.

Mr.-J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac). Mr. Speaker, while this question appeals more directly to the members from the west, anything that affects the western provinces necessarily affects the eastern portion of Canada as well, and anything that can be done to cement the provinces together should be done. There is undoubtedly a very strong feeling amongst the western farmers on this elevator question. When the deputation of farmers was here some time ago, I had the privilege of conversing with some of the gentlemen from the west, and I found that this question of elevators appealed to them more strongly than any other presented to the government. There does not seem to be very strong opposition Mr. CAMPBELL.

to this resolution on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite except for the reason that it has been introduced by a member on this side of the House. The hon. member for Victoria, Alberta (Mr. White), seemed to agree with the spirit of the resolution, but found fault with it because it made no provision for elevators on Hudson Bay or on the Pacific coast. It seemed to me that if the principle of the resolution was right, we might very well wait until we have the long-promised railway to Hudson Bay before we put an elevator there. I was under the impression that the hon. gentleman and other hon. gentlemen opposite were very much concerned at present with the probable shipment of grain south of the line rather than east and west; and I just want to give one reason to them as coming from a source which I know will appeal very strongly to every member on the government side and with special force to the right hon. the Prime Minister. The reason I am about to give is the opinion of no less a personage than President Taft. Speaking at Columbus a few days ago, referring to the shipments and the prices of wheat he said that wheat on the American side of the line was 9 or 10 cents higher than in Winnipeg and the reason he gave was this:

The difference does not arise from a difference in the cost of production in favour of the Canadian farmer but from the disadvantageous conditions under which he is compelled to market his wheat, due to the high cost of transportation, the expensive elevator charges, and the absence of those carrying and warehouse facilities which the American farmer enjoys.

I commend that statement of a very near and dear friend of this administration to their careful consideration, because in it President Taft clearly puts upon the shoulders of the government the blame for not having provided those elevators and transportation facilities which the farmers of western as well as eastern Canada have been clamouring for.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CROP YEAR 1910.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).

It will be admitted by every one that there is probably no question of greater importance to the western country generally than that of the handling of its great wheat crops, so that no time spent in intelligent discussion of this subject is by any means wasted. I do not think that any fault can be found with anything that has been said to-day on either side of the House. I wish, however, to draw attention to one feature of the question which appears to me not to have been touched. The resolution calls for government operation both of the terminal and transfer elevators, and the amendment asks the House to support the measure which the government is bringing forward in the

Senate. That measure has been described by some speakers as providing for government operation in the last resort, when operation by ordinary commercial methods with government inspection has proved a failure. But there is another way of putting the case and it is this: If the government should under** take without consideration or preparation to take control of the operation of both terminal and transfer elevators, it would assume a responsibility which I think it would not be justified in undertaking. It is an easy matter to sit down and figure out that certain results will follow certain actions; but in a question which concerns the whole product of the western country and the handling of that product, which involves interference with the ordinary channels of trade and investment, it behooves any sane government to move carefully and only after the fullest possible consideration. No government would be wise to assume, without further preparation, the tremendous responsibility of the ownership and operation of elevators, through which the grain trade of the west passes. What the Bill introduced in the Senate provides for, is a commission which will have full control of the grain trade from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and this commission will have power, when the funds are supplied by parliament, to acquire and operate such elevators as in its judgment should be so operated in the public interest. It seems to me that such a proposition is eminently reasonable. It is not necessarily an experiment in socialism, nor is it a rejection of the principles of socialism. It is a businesslike way of dealing with a matter which is of great business interest not only to the west but to every part of Canada. In my _ opinion the government would be ill-advised to rush unwittingly and lightly into such a responsibility as this resolution demands. Instead a measure has been prepared which will be first considered in the Senate and then by this House, which will provide for the appointment of a commission that will have the power of informing itself as to possibilities and requirements, and in due course have the fullest authority asked for by the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) to deal with any difficulties that cannot be settled otherwise than by absolute government ownership and operation. It has already been pointed out that the system of government inspection which has been followed so far, had not proved a failure, but rather a success. The fact that improprieties have been located and those guilty punished, is evidence that inspection does inspect and that the law is being enforced; and I have no doubt that that inspection and enforcement of the law will have due effect in the future management of elevators. However, the government is fully aware of the importance of the question and of the necessity to deal with it thoroughly; and the fact that legislation is in the course of preparation which will embody, as far as possible, every means for settling this question, is surely evidence that the government is willing and able to deal with it to the satisfaction of all interests concerned. The government, therefore; ask the support of the House to the policy which is embodied in the measure brought down.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CROP YEAR 1910.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Chisholm

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM (East Huron).

I have listened carefully and with great interest to this debate. I am interested in the subject as an eastern member because there is a great elevator being erected in our county town, Goderich, and we are very much interested in having the wheat trade of the west continue to flow eastward through its present channel. Consequently, I look upon this debate as of great importance to me as a representative of the county of Huron. I congratulate the hon. member for Souris (Mr.Schaffner) on having brought forward this resolution. And it is hard for me to understand how hon. gentlemen on the other side who represent western constituencies can reconcile their attitude on this subject with the best interests of their constituents. They say that this resolution is exactly in accord with some Bill which is to be brought in shortly but which we have not yet seen. If this resolution and the Bill are in accord, then certainly the resolution is simply an endorsement of the Bill. Are we being deceived or are our friends opposite prepared to vote down the very principle of the Bill that the government is to bring before us? I would like to know how our western friends on the other side will maintain their positron when they meet their constituents. The grain growers of the west came to this Chamber and asked of the government sternly and firmly, that the government should own and operate terminal railways at Fort William and Port Arthur. The hon. member for Souris has had this resolution on the order paper for a long time ; it was on the paper before we heard anything of this Bill that is coming from the Senate, and for weeks before the western farmers came here to ask for government ownership and operation of terminal elevators. Why, then, should we vote the resolution down. I fear that hon. members from the west who vote against this resolution will have some very awkward questions to answer when they come before their constituents.

Now, there is no doubt there is a grievance. The grain growers when they were here stated distinctly that wheat was bringing from 8 cents to 10 cents a bushel more

[DOT]on the United States side of the line than [DOT]on the Canadian side-exactly the same [DOT]grade of wheat. Hon. members will recollect that when the grain growers were here I got up at that very point in their argument and said I would consider their argument was irrefutable if they would give us some positive proof of their statement. And they said they would leave that proof with the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). If they left that proof with the Prime Minister, then it is established that wheat is bringing 10 cents more a bushel on the United States than on the Canadian side. As I happened to ask the question, some of these gentlemen came to me after the meeting was over and showed me affidavits made by three man who had sent samples of wheat to be graded and priced in Minneapolis and in Winnipeg. That sent to Winnipeg graded No. 2 Northern, and that sent to Minneapolis graded No. 1 Northern. These affidavits satisfied me, and no doubt the Prime Minister was satisfied if they submitted to him the proofs which they offered to submit. Now', if the Canadian farmers are losing 10 cents a bushel on their wheat, there is a grievance, and that grievance should be remedied this year. A loss of 10 cents a bushel means an aggre-gae loss of $10,000,000 to the farmers of the west this year. Is it right that there should be any delay or any humbugging about this thing? I think that, of course, a part of this is dus to grading. The term ' Red Fyfe ' is not in the Minnesota Act ; they use the term ' hard varieties.' We have other hard varieties of wheat besides Red Fyfe, th? Marquis and others that are almost as good as Red Fyfe. But they cannot be graded as ' hard ' because ' Red Fyfe ' is named in our Act. It would appear that those who grade the wheat in the west, and those who manage the terminal elevators are in combination; and they have been taking $10,000,000 a year out of the pockets of the western farmers toy manipulations carried on. We may talk of socialism or anything else, but what we want is justice. That is what our western farmers want ; that is what they came down here eight hundred strong to ask for ; and that is what we are going to vote for tonight, for this resolution of the hon. member for Souris is in favour of granting them the justice that they ask. And it is against that that hon. members on the other side will vote. I would like to see the names of these hon. gentlemen lined up and see the excuses they will make to their constituents. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) spoke of what happened in 1909, as if that year had been the last one in which the farmers were robbed. He seemed to think there was no evidence in regard to 1910. I have here the report of the Elevator Commission of the province of Saskatchewan, issued by the Lib-Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron).

eral government from the very province from which the hon. gentleman comes, and I propose to read a few items out of this report. I would like to put them on ' Hansard ' to show how things were in 1910 in the province whose representatives are going to vote against this resolution. Hon. members on this side will not vote against the Bill if it is in accord with the resolution, and if it is not in accord with the resolution they will b? perfectly right in voting against it. I wish to trace the wheat from the time it leaves the farmer until it leaves the terminal elevator :

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CROP YEAR 1910.
Permalink

CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESENT SYSTEM.


Against the initial elevators. 1. Weights. That they give lower weights than the farmer is entitled to. 2. Dockage. That they take too large a percentage as against cleaning the grain to grade and too large an amount to protect the elevator against shrinkage in handling the grain. . , 3. tirades. That in buying the gram they give lower grades than the grain is entitled to. . 4. Prices. That they give too low prices even for the grade allowed. 5. Cleaning. That in many bases they have no cleaning apparatus, that in other cases they refuse to clean the grain, and that the farmers not only lose the screenings, but are also forced to pay freight upon them from the shipping point to the terminals. 6. Special binning. That they refuse to special bin grain on the ground that they have no vacant bins. . 7. Substituting Grain. That they often give the farmer inferior grain, taking his superior lot instead. . , . . ,, 8. Mixng. That they mix the gram m the bins so that the grades are skimmed, that is, that the grain shipped in any one grade is, on the lowest line of that grade, good enough to receive that grad© at the hands of the inspector, but not a good average of that grade. 9. Shipping. That they try to ship stored grain to their own firms even when the owner desires to ship it elsewhere. It is not charged by many that the elva-tor operators receive explicit instructions from their superiors to do these things, though this charge is made by some, but that the operators are under pressure to make the elevators pay, and that such practices are almost inevitable results of the system. And it is pointed out that the farmers who suffer most .from such practices are the homesteaders, the small producers, and in general those whose (financial conditions constrain them to sell in wagon loads to the elevators, and more especially, such of these classes as live ten miles and upwards from the nearest shipping point.


AGAINST THE BANKS.


1. That by restricting or refusing credit to many farmers, they force these to put their grain upon the market as soon as it is threshed, depriving them of the opportunity to hold it for a rise in price, and compelling them to sell when the market is glutted an.l the price tends to be lowest. To get the best price the farmer should be in position to market his grain leisurely, offering it step by step with the milling and export demands. The banks make it impossible for the farmers to do this at present. 2. That in giving lines of credit for moving the crops they favour the larger companies, and at times favour a few such companies, thus giving these a virtual monopoly of bank credit, and assisting them in monopolizing the grain business.


AGAINST THE RAILWAY COMPANIES.


1. That through leaky cars and other conditions, grain is lost or damaged in transit, and the loss is too frequently put upon the shipper. 2. That they construct loading platforms as if the object was to render the use of them by the farmers as difficult as possible. 3. That in the past they helped to create elevator monopolies and assisted them, and that at present they favour the large milling and elevator companies as against the farmer whenever they can, and especially at points where there is no competition between the railways themselves.


AGAINST THE TERMINAL ELEVATORS.


1. That they take too much dockage as against the shrinkage of the grain in handling. 2. That they do not pay the farmer for the screenings which they take out of the grain when cleaning. 3. That they do not clean the grain as the inspection requires, but sell it dirty, thus increasing their surplus 4. That they mix the different grades of grain, selling grain of lower grade at the price of the higher grade, and that, the grain being dirty and lowered in grade by mixing, export prices are lowered and the prices paid to the farmers are also lowered. 5. That at times they loan stored grain to themselves as dealers or to others, while the owner believes he is holding his grain for an advance in price.


AGAINST THE GRADING SYSTEM.


What I say is that these charges made toy a commission named by tlhe Liberal government of the province of 'Saskatchewan appear clearly to indicate a combination with the elevator system to rob the farmers of their just rights. 1. That the grades do not represent the different values of the grain for milling purposes. 2. That good grain in any one grade gets the grade price only, and that selling by grade enables the millers and elevator companies to lower the quality of each grade, and so to fix the export and home prices upon the basis of the lowest level of each grade. 3. That the existing grading system is unfair to grain which though slightly bleached, smutted or frosted, is nevertheless of good quality for milling purposes. 4. That mistakes are made in sampling and grading.


AGAINST THE LARGE WESTERN MILLING COMPANY.

February 13, 1911