Suppose a farmer unloads 1,100 bushels of grain at the elevator, and asks that it be put on the track as soon as possible The elevator man puts it in a car on the track and says to the farmer, "What are you doing with it?" "I want this sent to the Mutual Elevator, Fort William," the farmer replies. The elevator operator-it may be the Grain Growers'-may say, "We do not countenance
that elevator. If you ship there, it will be at your own risk as to grade and
12 noon weight." The elevator man assumes no responsibility for the shipment. It is true he will sign an affidavit, but he is not liable. He can load 1,000 bushels into that car, and, of course, it will weigh 1,000 bushels when it gets to its destination. The farmer will say, "I have tickets for 1,100 bushels. The car you shipped out is 100 bushels short." Then the elevator man may say, "I told you you sent it to that terminal at, vour own risk," and the farmer is out tha' 100 bushels. He cannot collect on it from the elevator.
I think the point my hon friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) is making will be evident to the committee, but his statement hardly covers all the facts in connection with it. There are four methods by which a farmer may dispose of his grain:
First, he may sell it by the wagon load to the elevator buyer, in which case his grade and price is established at once. He gets cash tickets and the transaction is closed.
In the next case, he may special bm his grain, that is, secure a bin in the elevator, put his own grain into it, and the identity of that grain is maintained. In order that there may be no juggling with the grain by the elevator operator, provision is made in the law whereby a sample may be taken from each load delivered and placed in a tin receptacle, and the farmer delivering the grain has the key and padlock to that receptacle. He has a right to it if he wants to use it.
The next method is this: The farmer may bring in his grain. Perhaps he cannot get a special bin. He and the elevator operator may agree on the grade of the grain, and a graded storage ticket is issued to him for the weight and grade mutually agreed upon between them. That grain is then binned with grain of a similar grade by the elevator operator.
Another method is open to the farmer when he brings his grain to the elevator. He and the elevator operator may not be able to agree on the grade, so he gets a ticket that is called a "subject to grade" ticket. Provision is made for securing samples of the grain, and the samples are forwarded
Canada Grain Act
to the inspector. The inspector gives an official grading on the sample, and that grading governs the "subject to grade" ticket.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has mentioned the case where the seller and the buyer cannot agree as to the grade, and he says that samples of that grain are taken and sent to the inspector. I want to know what they do in the meantime with those loads of grain that are waiting for inspection. It must be mixed with other wheat, and put somewhere else. That provision is not very much use.
friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) has fully considered the matter. If he had, he would have seen the position. In the case where the grade is not agreed upon and a "subject to grade" ticket is issued, the elevator operator takes the grain in and puts it with other grain that he thinks corresponds with it in grade, and he accepts the responsibility. But the actual grade is determined by the sample that is sent to the inspector, and it is the inspector's grading that governs, so far as the price to the fanner is concerned.
In the case of the farmer who brings his wheat to the elevator, and who is not able to agree with the elevator man as to the grade, and takes a "subject to grade" ticket, does he have anything to say as to the quality of the grain with which his grain is mixed?
methods by which a fanner may dispose of his grain when he brings it to a country elevator. Now we come to the clause we are considering. When the grain is loaded out on track, the elevator company, under the law, is responsible for delivery at a terminal point, if the farmer so chooses, of the amount of grain and the quality of grain that his tickets call for. The elevator has no option in the matter. If the farmer comes to the elevator and says, "I want my grain-quantity, quality and grade as called for by the ticket you issued to me-delivered at Fort William, then they must deliver that to him at a terminal elevator. The point urged by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie is this: If the farmer wishes, he should have the right to get that grain at a country point; in other words
he could say to me, "You put my grain in a car at an elevator, the amount that my tickets call for, and the quality, and give it to me and you are done with it." But 1 reply, "I am not done with it at that point-, because I have an interest in it to see tha: it is graded and weighed, in order that my interest in the obligation to you may be protected"; consequently the clause provides that I have a right to say where the grain shall go that I may protect my interest, and that is a fair and just proposal. If the farmer says, " I am going to Send the grain out of the country, to Timbuctoo, or Hong Kong"; I say, "All right, if you are going to do that I will give you an affidavit as to the weight and grade but you relieve me of any further responsibility." Is that not perfectly fair? If the grain legislation did not provide that the country elevator operator had to deliver the grade and weight at the terminal, then the argument of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie would be perfectly legitimate; but it is not legitimate, under the circumstances, because I have certainly an interest in the grain in protecting the grade or the dockage that my operator may have given in the country. For instance, it is put into a bin. The elevator operator at a country point who takes in the grain of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie puts four per cent dockage; it comes down to the inspector, and he says, "That is six per cent dockage." Have I not a direct interest in checking that up with the inspector and seeing that my interest is protected by showing that he has put on too much dockage?
Should there be any difference, so long as a car goes to a point where there is efficient weighing and inspection? Should not the inspection at one point be equal to the inspection at another point, and the same with the weighing?
Grain Growers and practically every other company maintain their own inspection office? It is to check the work of the inspection department, so far as their grading is concerned. There is not a day when changes are not made in the grades. When inspection is going through at the rate of twenty-five hundred cars a day there is a possibility of errors, and if I am deprived of
Canada Grain Act
my right to protect my interest in the grade it is an injustice to me. The clause recognizes that I have an interest in the grain and may follow it and protect my interest in it until I deliver it to the owner at the terminal elevator.
member for Mhrquette (Mr. Crerar), that the elevator certainly has a great interest in this, and would like to see that it goes to the terminal where they would receive proper we:ghts and have proper inspection also; but I submit humbly that the farmers also have a reasonable interest in this, as they have produced it. The hon. member for Marquette is speaking in the interests of the elevators, which is his undeniable right, and I am speaking in the interests of those who grow the grain. I maintain they are both interested. By this clause you are taking away the right of the farmer who produces the wheat to say where it should go and the terminal elevator it should be put into, and you are giving to the elevator man the right to dictate that this grain must be unloaded and reloaded at a certain place.