June 7, 1929

LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

If every farmer whose

grain goes through Moose Jaw exercises his right and says that his grain shall be inspected at Moose Jaw, will the department have to maintain a force large enough to carry out that inspection? We are now asking only that the staff be larger and that it be used 100 per cent to take care of all the grain going through Moose Jaw.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

The hon. member is

raising a hypothetical question when he asks what would happen if every farmer exercised that right. He might as well ask the civic authorities at Ottawa what they would do if all the citizens of Ottawa broke the law at once-whether they would have a police force strong enough to cope with such a situation.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

James J. Donnelly

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DONNELLY:

How many farmers in

the country know that Moose Jaw is not a compulsory inspection point at the present time, and how many of - them are aware that they may exercise the right of inspection there?

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

That is an immaterial

point. The farmer soon finds out, if he wants to have his grain inspected there.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

Hon. members need not be

alarmed at the supposition that all farmers will ask for this. I have tried in the last

fMr. Donnelly.]

two 3'ears to arouse some interest among the farmers west of Saskatoon in regard to this question but they have not even brought it up at any of the local meetings nor even at the convention. The only body who represented them were, I think, at one time the executive of the farmers' union in Saskatoon, but they did not have the sanction of all those whom they were representing, the rank and file back in the country; and the farmers themselves have never asked for it. The hon. member for Willow Bunch made the statement that it would be of great advantage as it would give the farmer time to complain if he were not satisfied with the grain, I have been shipping grain from Saskatchewan since the year 1896 when I shipped my first carload, and I have never had cause to complain of not having time to enter protest if I saw fit. In several cases I have done so, and I can remember at least in three cases having had the grade changed. There is no need for this extra expense, and so far as the grower is concerned it will not benefit him in any shape or form. It will only entail more expense to the grain trade, and I believe we are creating too much machinery now-rather more than is needed in several cases for the handling of grain.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

What has that to do with

it?

At one o'clock the committee took recess.

The committee resumed at three o'clock.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

John Frederick Johnston (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

When the committee

rose at one o'clock we were considering section 31, to which the hon. member for Rosetown had moved an amendment. However, we will revert to section 30, to which an amendment has been moved by Mr. Stewart (Edmonton), as follows:

The car order book and the order for a car shall be in the form D-l, in the first schedule to this act.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

Amendment agreed to. On section 31-Moose Jaw and Saskatoon made order points.


LIB

John Frederick Johnston (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member for

Rosetown has moved in amendment that the words "Moose Jaw and Saskatoon" in the seventh and eighth lines and the words "Moose Jaw or Saskatoon" in the eleventh and twelfth lines, be deleted.

Canada Grain Act

Mr. EVANS' When the committee rose at one o'clock I was speaking with regard to the rights of the grower to have his car of wheat go forward to his own terminal. It was brought out before the Grain Inquiry Commission in Saskatoon last year that certain millers had bargains with the line companies throughout that province by which they were permitted to open cars at the divisional points and divert them to their own mills after having selected those with the highest milling value. When the manager of the Quaker Oats Company was asked if that practice wras followed by his company he answered, "No, we do not consider it right."

If there is one thing that should be done in the interests of the grower it is that his car of wheat should be permitted to go forward to the markets of the world without being mixed, and the crop should not be skimmed of wheat with high milling value. World1 prices should be based on our best wheat instead of on the skimmed grades, and I think perhaps this is the chief reason why the farmer's wheat should go forward to his own terminal. It is very important that we should receive the highest price possible for our wheat, because under present conditions we are hardly able to carry on farming as it is. I would ask the house to consider this amendment from that point of view, having regard also to the expense and delay already mentioned.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

The hon. member for Rosetown has just mentioned the diversion of cars of wheat, but this amendment really has nothing whatever to do with that matter. At present Moose Jaw is what is known as a voluntary inspection point; it was made an inspection point by order in council under section 22 of the grain act. Prior to that, in 1925-26 an amendment was moved to the grain act and unanimously adopted by this house, providing that Moose Jaw should be made a full grain inspection point, and when the government passed the order in council making Moose Jaw an inspection point under section 22 of the Canada Grain Act they thought they were making it a full grain inspection point as was intended by the amendment of 1925-26.

For about a month or so after the point was opened all grain passing throughout Moose Jaw was inspected. No farmer ever objected to that inspection; no farmers' organization ever objected, but the grain trade did take objection. A ruling was requested from the Department of Justice, and they held that to make Moose Jaw a full inspection point an amendment to the act was necessary. Therefore last year in the agricultural committee an amendment was moved to Bill No. 188, and that amendment was adopted in the committee by a vote of about two to one. My hon. friend from Kindersley said that this amendment was adopted the other day by a vote of thirteen to eleven, but I would remind him that it was passed by a vote of something like sixteen to eight in the committee last year when Bill No. 188 was being considered, but it will be remembered that this bill was withdrawn.

The present inspection service at Moose Jaw is now fully staffed and is capable of carrying on full inspection except during the very heaviest run of the grain, which is for about three months of the year. That situation could be met by putting on a few extra men. With regard to the railway companies, since this is a voluntary inspection point they have to set out certain cars from their trains and take on other cars, while with full inspection the whole train would be handled there. At all events, no complete train passes through Moose Jaw to-day; it is known as the grand divisional point of western Canada, and all freight trains are broken up in the yard and other trains are made up to continue east. The Canadian National Railways have every facility there for the inspection of all wheat coming to that point, and they have informed me that it is more of a hardship to have voluntary inspection than it would be to have full inspection. A great many farmers' organizations all over that part of the country have continually petitioned the government to make this change. The pool uses this inspection service at present to the extent of 100 per cent, and together with other members from Saskatchewan, a year ago I was told at the pool offices in Regina that due to the fact that Moose Jaw was an inspection point and they were having their grain inspected and their inspections checked there, over $200,000 had been saved to the farmers.

In this case, so far as Moose Jaw is concerned we are not asking for anything more than they have to-day in Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg. At Calgary and Edmonton ah grain passing through is inspected, whether it is going to Vancouver or Prince Rupert or to the head of the lakes; they are compulsory inspection points. We are only asking that Moose Jaw be put in the same position as Calgary and Edmonton. Surely the province which grows the greatest amount of grain should have the same right as its sister provinces?

Canada Grain Act

One lion, member in the other corner of the house mentioned the fact that this was wanted only by the people of Moose Jaw; that is not the case. It is wanted by all the farmers in that district, as all their grain goes through that point. There is no doubt that a certain amount of work will be done in Moose Jaw because all cars will be looked over when in the inspection yards and a great many leaky cars and care needing repairs will be found, thus saving money for the farmer as well as preventing damage actions against the railway companies. Surely that would not be a detriment to the grain trade, the farmers or the railway companies.

An inspection at Moose Jaw would not mean a further inspection at Winnipeg. When the grain is inspected at Moose Jaw it passes on under a different coloured car seal and the cars are not again inspected. The only grain inspected again would be those cars of which a reinspection has been ordered. Grain going east is inspected upon arrival at Winnipeg, and it is a matter of only a few hours from Winnipeg to Fort William while it requires considerable time for the certificate to get back to the farmer in western Saskatchewan. To-day the grain is inspected in Moose Jaw, the certificate is sent right out, the shipper has it before the grain arrives at Fort William and thus he has an opportunity to call for reinspection if he so desires.

Mr. Chairman, this matter has been passed upon unanimously by the house, it has been agreed to twice by the committee on agriculture, and, therefore, I think this committee should reject the amendment and adopt the section as it appears in the bill.

Amendment agreed to; yeas, 41; nays, 37.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

I would direct the attention of those who are responsible for the acceptance of this amendment to the fact that it will now be necessary to reconsider section 18. The section which has been amended deals with voluntary orders, but section 18 deals with the actual establishment of the inspection point.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

James J. Donnelly

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DONNELLY:

We have not been

voting on the question of the inspection point at all; we voted on section 31 (a) which refers to the order point.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

I move that we reconsider section 18, dealing with the inspection point.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

I object to the committ-ee going back to section 18; it has already been passed.

iMr. J. G. Ross.]

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

A motion to reconsider is always in order.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

John Frederick Johnston (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

It would have to 'be by unanimous consent. Standing order 41, paragraph 318, reads:

There is no such proceeding as a motion to reconsider a decision, in British parliamentary procedure.

It could only be by unanimous consent that we could reconsider section 18.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
PRO

Archibald M. Carmichael

Progressive

Mr. CARMICHAEL:

I would point out

that copies of this bill were not in the hands of the members until we started to consider it. The sections of the bill have been read off rather hurriedly, and in some cases the marginal references were not read. It has been practically impossible for the members of this committee to follow the reading of the bill and know just what each section means. I think it is only fair that reference should be made to section 18 and reconsideration given to that section in view of the fact that the sections have been passed so hurriedly.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

James Malcolm (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. MALCOLM:

Mr. Chairman, I submit that apparently the mover of the amendment did not quite understand the meaning of the section which he moved to amend. I do not think it was the intention of the mover to strike out the order point section at all; I think he had the impression that he was striking out the compulsory inspection point. Therefore, I would suggest that we proceed with the bill and an amendment could be introduced on the third reading. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment can be introduced on .the third reading without going into committee. I do not think 'that my hon. friend has accomplished what he intended to do by this amendment. The privileges of voluntary inspection could be restored under section 31, and then the house could amend, section 18 in the regular way.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
UFA

William Irvine

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. IRVINE:

Would not it simplify matters if we went back to section 18 and dealt with it now, instead of taking it up on .the third reading?

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

June 7, 1929