May 12, 1953

CCF

Hazen Robert Argue

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved

the second reading of Bill No. 362, to amend the Canada Grain Act (right of producer to sell or store grain subject to sample grade).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring this bill to the attention of the house at this time

Canada Grain Act

because I feel that section 112 of the Canada Grain Act as producers have known it in the past is of great importance, and because recent statements and opinions by members of the board of grain commissioners have, to say the least, cast some doubt upon the interpretation of this section and upon whether producers are protected in the way they had thought for many years.

The amendment proposed in this bill would spell out in clear terms the right of a producer to deliver his grain to an elevator and, in case of a dispute with the elevator agent, be guaranteed the right to choose either to take a storage ticket or an interim cash ticket. We had considerable discussion on this question in the agriculture committee and at times the opinions expressed by the different commissioners were in conflict one with the other and seemed to cast doubt on section 112 as we understood it.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
LIB

Frederick Hugo Larson

Liberal

Mr. Larson:

On a question of privilege, I

admit that the report of the agriculture committee along with the evidence have been officially tabled in the house, but the meetings concluded on Saturday and the printed evidence is not in the hands of hon. members. I submit it is rather unfair to discuss the proceedings of the agriculture committee when hon. members have not seen the evidence.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

The report has been tabled.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

The rules of the house provide that once a committee has reported and the evidence has been tabled, an hon. member may discuss the proceedings of the committee and refer to the evidence.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Hazen Robert Argue

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Argue:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fairness I want to say that I believe we made some progress in the committee in connection with this section. It seemed to me that the board of grain commissioners were inclined toward the end of our meetings to agree with the proposition we had advanced, that if storage space was available in the elevator the farmer has the right to unload his grain, to have a sample sent to the chief grain inspector of the board of grain commissioners at Winnipeg, and then on the basis of the final report to have a cash ticket made out. Or as an alternative, as provided in the act a farmer, provided there is room in the elevator, has the right to an interim cash ticket pending receipt of the final grade from the chief grain inspector.

However, as I said there seemed to be a difference of opinion between the commissioners. It was certainly difficult for members of the committee to get a clear understanding of the rights of a farmer under the

Canada Grain Act

act when there was an apparent difference of opinion as between the two commissioners who were before the committee. I asked the following question on Saturday morning:

But I have a question I would like to ask Mr. McKenzie. If I heard him right, he said to this committee when he made his statement that there was no obligation on the part of the elevator company to buy grain. My question I think is a simple one. Have I the right as a producer or has any producer the right to take his grain to the elevator and if there is a dispute dump his grain, and demand a storage ticket, and demand the sample be sent to Winnipeg, and when the results come back demand a cash ticket?

A. Sure.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
?

Mr. Vallance@

No.

I pursued the matter a little further and asked:

Q. Is he (the elevator operator) compelled to issue a cash ticket after receiving the report of the chief inspector as to the official grade?

A. I would question it very much but I would suggest this to you. Do you know of any single case where they refused to buy it under these conditions?

The producers have understood that under the act they had the right to have their grain sold subject to grade and dockage, and when the official grade came back to have a cash ticket based on the report. The whole purpose of this bill is to have a discussion on this question in the house in order that this point may be clarified, and in the hope that the producers will be given the right which they have believed for many years they had under the Canada Grain Act.

I noted in the proceedings of the committee a report of assistant commissioner Mr. J. Rayner in regard to the Kreutzweiser case. I pointed out that that report contained two paragraphs which conflicted one with the other. The first paragraph referred to the agent's statement that there was no bin in which the complainant's grain could have been segregated. That seemed to suggest, as I said in the committee, that in order for a producer to have his grain sold or stored, subject to cartage and dockage, there must be a separate bin for the segregation of the grain. The next paragraph reads as follows:

The complainant refers In his letter to his rights under section 112 of the Canada Grain Act. This section of the act does give the person delivering grain the right to an interim cash ticket or interim elevator receipt if there is disagreement as to grade, but this right only exists if as provided in section 108 of the act there is in the elevator available storage accommodation for grain of the variety and grade of such grain and of the character desired by the person by whom the grain is offered.

That second paragraph says that a producer has the right of protection of sections 112 and 108, if there is room in the elevator for the grade of grain that the farmer says his

grain happens to be. In other words, if a farmer comes into an elevator with a load of wheat, and if there is room in that elevator for No. 2 northern and the farmer claims his wheat is No. 2 northern, then even though the elevator agent should say it is No. 3 northern, I would judge from the second paragraph of Mr. Rayner's report that the elevator company must accept that grain in storage.

As I have said, the first paragraph suggests there needs to be a separate bin. The second paragraph suggests the farmer has a right to deliver his grain as long as there is room for grain of the grade that the farmer claims his grain to be. It is because of various interpretations that can be placed on the reports of the assistant commissioner and because of conflicting evidence that came out of the agriculture committee and because of the ruling of the board in the Kreutzweiser case that I have moved this bill this afternoon.

The ruling of the Kreutzweiser case contains this statement:

The provisions of section 112 requiring a sample to be taken and placed in the receptacle only apply, in the opinion of this board, if an agreement had been arrived at between the operator or manager and the person offering the grain for sale that the grain be purchased.

In other words the statement here is that before the farmer has the protection of section 112 the elevator company must agree to purchase the grain. If that is what the statement says, therefore, the farmer's protection is largely non-existent because, according to that ruling, the elevator company can refuse to purchase the farmer's grain.

The committee decided to recommend to the government that the Canada Grain Act be studied by the agriculture committee at a future session of parliament. The C.C.F. members on the committee had hoped that the report of the agriculture committee would suggest to the government that the Canada Grain Act should be submitted for study to the agriculture committee of this House of Commons at the next session of parliament. To say that the Canada Grain Act should be considered by the committee on agriculture at a future session of parliament leaves the whole thing open to postponement, and does not guarantee that the committee on agriculture will hear a submission on this very important question at the next session of parliament.

I had hoped that recommendation would be made, and that whatever government we may have after the next election, whatever minister may be in charge of the administration of the Canada Grain Act and have under

his department the board of grain commissioners, they would have a clear recommendation from the committee on agriculture that the Canada Grain Act be studied at the next session of parliament. If that recommendation had been made, then I for one would have felt that the important question involved in the bill I have presented might be postponed until that committee had an opportunity to meet. But since the recommendation still leaves it open to postponement I have felt, Mr. Speaker, that I should move this bill for consideration at this time.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
LIB

René Jutras

Liberal

Mr. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):

I should like to say a word on Bill No. 362. I listened to what the mover of the bill had to say, and also to the references he made to the proceedings which took place in the committee on agriculture. Before dealing with the bill I should like to refer briefly to the remarks made by the hon. member, particularly to his reference to the evidence before the board of grain commissioners.

In all fairness to the commissioners, I should point out that they made a very valuable contribution to the committee in their explanation and review of the situation. I do not think it is quite fair to say that their position changed in any degree or that they were, as the hon. member has just implied, more or less conflicting in their remarks toward the end of the proceedings. What happened really was that all of us on the committee got to understand the point involved and the whole situation a little more [DOT]clearly toward the end, and we were able to come to some understanding of the whole question involved in section 112 of the act.

It is not fair to say that there were apparent differences or conflicts in the evidence given by the commissioners themselves. Just as all hon. members realize, the interpretation of section 112 is highly technical and difficult, and there was a great deal of confusion in the minds of everybody there in the discussion particularly of that section.

With respect to the Kreutzweizer case, I think it is agreed by everybody at this stage, at least, that there is no great disagreement, no great dispute as to the facts involved in the case itself. The evidence is quite clear, and so is the ruling of the board of grain commissioners. However, the wording of the ruling of the board of grain commissioners created a fear in the minds of many producers that all the producers' rights were being destroyed or taken away, or that the ruling of the commissioners made it clear that the producer had no rights under section 112.

Canada Grain Act

As one member of the committee I was very pleased that this was explained and made clear by the commissioners. It was definitely established that the rights of the producer still exists under section 112, and that the ruling does not take away any of those rights. Therefore the rights that existed before under section 112 of the Canada Grain Act still exist. We were definitely assured by the chief commissioner that the effect of the act is the same as it always was.

To return to the bill itself, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) started out by saying that he was proposing this bill, as he put it, to spell out in clear terms what the position is. In the explanatory note he says:

The purpose of this amendment Is to assure to producers the right to an interim cash or storage ticket, pending receipt of the official grade, or grain offered to an elevator company for purchase in the event of any disagreement as to grade between the elevator operator and the person offering the grain for sale.

I have gone into the wording of the explanation and of the amendment, but I fail to see that the wording which is added by this bill changes the situation to any degree. As a matter of fact the pertinent part of the amendment is exactly the same as the wording of section 112 and I think it would be wise to place that wording on the record as it is found in the amendment itself. Section 112 (2) reads:

Pending the receipt of a report on the grading of such sample the operator or manager of the elevator shall issue in respect thereof an interim cash purchase ticket or interim elevator receipt.

Those exact words are to be found in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He adds the words: at the prevailing price for the grade offered by the operator or manager of the elevator, or interim elevator receipt, whichever the person offering the grain for sale may request.

I submit that after all if the purpose is the compulsory feature, the wording of the amendment leaves the situation the same as it is in the act now. Also, if the situation is not clear under the act as it is now, the amendment makes it no clearer. As a matter of fact, it could be very well argued that instead of clarifying the situation the amendment confuses the situation, bringing in more detail and more conditions. All I can see is that the effect of the amendment is only to change the form of the interim cash ticket. That is about all it does, and that would necessitate rewriting and printing new cash ticket forms.

Therefore the point at issue is not affected in any way, shape or form. There is merely a change in writing out the interim cash

Canada Grain Act

ticket; and the right to the cash ticket is not affected one iota by this bill; but the purpose of the bill is stated as being to assure the producer the right to an interim cash ticket or storage ticket.

It is quite clear from the wording of the Canada Grain Act, section 112, and from the wording of the proposed amendment, that the amendment does not in any way affect the crux of the matter, the right or otherwise to an interim cash ticket.

It is difficult to see how the bill improves the situation, that is with respect to a change in the actual form of the cash ticket. I am sorry the hon. member did not touch on this vital part of his amendment because, after all, this is the important part of it. As far as I can see the change, the only change there is presupposes that the grade offered by the agent or the elevator company will inevitably be lower than that received from the inspector of the board of grain commissioners. The way the form is set out now in the Canada Grain Act, the interim cash ticket might be made out to No. 1 hard, basis Fort William, subject to grade and dockage that will come back later from the inspector. The only change this amendment would make would be to place the purchase on the basis of the grade which the operator or the elevator agent thinks the wheat is, instead of on the basic grade subject to the spread, as determined by the chief inspector.

As I said, that presupposes that the grade offered by the agent will be lower than the grade which comes back later. There would be no difficulty under this amendment in that case. However, the local agent may offer a better grade. That happens sometimes; I have seen it happen myself. The official grade which comes back from the board of grain commissioners is not always a better grade, and sometimes producers are quite disappointed in that the grain comes back graded lower than the agent said it was. In such a case there would have to be a settlement the other way.

It is difficult to see the merit of this amendment, because to me the best way is to have both parties agree on the basic grade and then, when the report comes back from the chief inspector, both parties will accept that grading and settlement is made with the producer on that basis. I would like to hear a great deal more about the merits of changing the form of the interim cash ticket, because I have certainly never heard any complaints about it or about the matter of the basic grade.

It would seem to me that the basic grade would be as good a basis to work from as what is suggested here. After all, even though these things are called interim cash tickets, they are not cash tickets in the sense that they are negotiable. They are no more negotiable than a storage ticket. As far as the producer is concerned the interim cash ticket and the storage ticket have the identical effect. Neither can be converted into money, but he can get an advance on either one.

I submit that the only difference between an interim cash ticket and a storage ticket is purely a technical difference. In the case of the interim cash ticket the company purchases from the producer, subject to all the conditions outlined on the ticket. In the case of the storage ticket no purchase is involved. The producer simply leaves the grain in storage, and it is presumed that when the report comes back, if he should wish to do so, he has the right to take his grain out of there and try some other place.

I am thinking of ordinary conditions, and not conditions as they exist today with all the requirements of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Should those provisions not be in effect, should we be considering the matter purely in the light of the Canada Grain Act, then presumably the producer would have the right to ask that his grain be returned to him for sale to somebody else. In a case where an interim cash ticket is granted there is presumed to be a sale between the two parties and the farmer would have to accept the price, grade and dockage as set out by the return from the inspection department of the board of grain commissioners.

Actually this amendment does not touch the crux of the matter in any way. It is not going to accomplish what the hon. member intends it to accomplish. It does not introduce any, compulsory purchase feature. If someone had wanted to put in a compulsory purchase provision, I submit that it would have been easy to do since he would just have to spell it out in the act. I have consulted quite a few legal experts on this question, and they all seem to agree that it is questionable whether it is desirable to include a compulsory feature either in section 112 or in the Canada Grain Act as a whole. I must say that there is a great deal of support for that idea, and they put up a very strong case.

Referring to this amendment once more, I say that it does not touch the problem because it only concerns a dispute or disagreement on grade. It was stated that the

ruling of the board in the Kreutzweiser made it clear that the producer, under this section, had no right to an interim cash ticket. It is unfortunate that we have not the evidence of the committee before us, and we are not in a position to refer to it. I recall asking the chief commissioner a straight question, and although I have not the exact wording before me I think I recall it well enough so I can convey the same thought. I said, if I go to the elevator with a load of grain and agree with the agent that we shall abide by the decision of the inspection branch of the board of grain commissioners then have I the right to demand an interim cash ticket? To that question the chief commissioner answered that I definitely had the right to an interim cash ticket.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Wright:

Is that not, in effect, compulsory purchase?

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
LIB

René Jutras

Liberal

Mr. Jutras:

No, but I admit that there

is a rather technical difference and the line to be drawn is a very fine line. In this case do not forget that I said we had agreed to accept the grade, so there is a degree of agreement. From then on I have the right to an interim cash ticket if I want one, or a storage cash ticket if I prefer to leave the grain in storage.

This is the part of the Kreutzweiser case to which there is continual reference. You will recall that if Mr. Kreutzweiser had agreed to abide by the decision of the board of grain commissioners inspection branch, then he would have had the right, I believe, to an interim cash ticket. However, in the Kreutzweiser case, as I understand it, he drove into the elevator and asked to have No. 2. The elevator agent suggested that so far as he was concerned this grain was No. 3 and not No. 2.

Mr. Kreutzweiser asked to have a sample sent to the inspection branch, but he did not commit himself to the extent that, should the grain turn out to be No. 4, 5 or 3, that he would sell at that grade. He was still of the opinion that it was No. 2, and he was going to try to get No. 2. He was willing to send a sample to find out if he were wrong. Perhaps, in fairness, I should say that there was a heated argument, and that part of the argument was not made clear in the evidence, but at any rate it was established that he did not agree to abide by the decision of the inspection branch.

It was on that basis, and on that basis alone, that the ruling of the board of grain commissioners was made. Even if we attempted to put a compulsory purchase feature into the Canada Grain Act, after all the discussion I have had it would appear to me

Canada Grain Act

to be very doubtful if the Canada Grain Act would be the place for it. I would be inclined to believe that if a compulsory purchase feature were placed anywhere, the place for this compulsion should be in the Canadian Wheat Board Act and not the Canada Grain Act. Consequently, I believe such a feature should be placed there.

I believe the necessity for this arises out of the peculiar situation you have due to the quota and permit system. A man is not allowed, during the same season, to switch from one elevator to another. It would appear, therefore, that cases might arise in which there would be ground for compulsory purchase. I submit that, since this would be as a result of the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, such a feature should be incorporated in that act or in the agreement between the wheat board and the elevator companies.

After all, under our present set-up the elevator companies do not buy the wheat on their own account but merely act as agents for the Canadian wheat board. I can visualize that, if we were to put this mandatory clause in the Canada Grain Act, we would have to spell out a list of the exceptions to this rule which are contained in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The elevator companies, acting as agents of the Canadian wheat board, can only take from the farmer the amount of wheat specified in the act. If the elevator agent takes more or takes from farmers outside of the conditions specified in the act, he can be prosecuted. The agent is not allowed to accept wheat from a farmer unless he has a quota and unless he can produce his permit, and there are five or six other exceptions in the act which spell out the conditions under which the agent can accept grain. If one desired to place a blanket compulsory feature of this nature in the act, one would have to qualify it to such an extent that the qualifications would create more confusion than clarity.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say-and I repeat it-that although this bill is intended, as it says, to assure to the producer the right to an interim cash ticket, I submit that, from the evidence in the committee on agriculture, the producer has a right to an interim cash ticket as stated in the act. I submit that this amendment does not change the situation one iota, and that the wording is exactly the same as it is in the bill. It simply repeats it. The only change it would bring about is a minor one which is questionable, and which definitely may not be improvement but may confuse the issue still further.

Canada Grain Act

I just want to add that I should be pleased at any time in the future to undertake to go through the Canada Grain Act as a whole. It has not been reviewed for a great many years, and it is an extremely involved act. We have had a clear demonstration that there are a great number of technicalities involved. In view of the great change that has taken place in the harvesting and marketing of our crops, in respect of delivery and so on, possibly we could do a good service by reviewing the whole act. At least we would all understand it a great deal better afterwards, and we might improve it somewhat.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):

Mr. Speaker,

the hon. member who has just taken his seat talked for some 35 minutes and he completely missed the intent and purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to reinstitute section 112 of the act in the form indicated in the bill. As to the present section 112, in view of the recent findings of the board of grain commissioners there is a good deal of doubt with respect to the interpretation of it. All the bill does is place section 112 back in the act, as the hon. member has said, in practically the same words, with some added safeguards or at least with what we believe to be some added safeguards in it.

The fact that the agriculture committee saw fit to recommend to this house that the whole Canada Grain Act should be gone over at as early a date as possible indicates that the committee believed that in the Canada Grain Act there were certain sections that needed strengthening and that might need changing. Hence what we are doing, or what the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) is trying to do, is to clarify just one section of the act, namely section 112, until such time as the agriculture committee of the house can deal with the whole act.

That work is going to take some time. I think it will require the calling of a great many witnesses and may take more than one session of parliament, unless it happens to be a long session. I believe it is necessary that it should be done. I think the general agreement-in fact I may say the unanimous agreement-in the committee was that the time had come for a thorough study with a view to amendment of the Canada Grain Act.

I now want to deal with an incident which happened in the agriculture committee. In that committee I made a certain statement. On the board of grain commissioners we have three men, namely Mr. McKenzie, Mr. f.Mr. Jutras.l

Vallance and Mr. Milner. Two of those men were present while the committee was sitting. The other man, Mr. Milner, who is also transport controller, was not present. As everybody knows, there was a strike out at the coast. He had been out there settling that strike. The strike had been settled, but no doubt he was there endeavouring to get grain moving in that area.

I said nothing about Mr. Milner on the general item of the board of grain commissioners. But there was a special item in that report dealing with the transport controller, and it was my opinion that Mr. Milner should either have been before that committee when that particular item was being discussed or should have had the courtesy to notify the committee that he was engaged somewhere else and was unable to be there. He having failed to do that, I felt that I was justified in making a criticism of that particular member of the board. I do not think a member of any board should be able to get around criticism by simply being absent from a meeting of a committee. I do not propose to say that was Mr. Milner's objective in being away at all, but I do say that I was justified in criticizing Mr. Milner at that time.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Hows:

Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend mind telling the house what the criticism consisted of?

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Wright:

Yes. The minister need not worry. I am going to do that. I am going to put it on the record. I stated at that time that I did not believe Mr. Milner had the interests of the producers of western Canada primarily at heart; that he having been a member of the grain trade for a number of years, his interests were otherwise. I made a comparison. I said that placing Mr. Milner on the board of grain commissioners was something like putting a weasel in a chicken coop to look after the custody of the chickens. I said it in these words-

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
LIB

William Alfred Robinson (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):

Order. I do not think the hon. member would be in order in referring to the exact language used in the committee if it does not appear on the record.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Wright:

The report has been tabled, Mr. Speaker. I think I am entitled to quote from a report which has been tabled in this house. Perhaps I am not entitled to do so, but I leave that matter with you.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson)-

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Robinson): It is

quite in order to read from the report, but to refer to the words which an hon. member used in committee is something which I think is out of order.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Wright:

Then I will read from the report. Here is the relevant part. I had stated, as I said, that I did not believe Mr. Milner was primarily interested in the producers. I say:

Quite frankly I do not think he is. He is something like the weasel in the chicken coop. He is interested in the chickens but he is interested in the chickens for what he can get out of them.

Those were my words. The Minister of Trade and Commerce came to the committee, uninvited and-now that I have read what he stated in that committee-I think made a scurrilous and unjustified attack on me. These are the words he used. He said:

That is a cowardly and criminal charge which was made in the absence of the man charged and I want to have it withdrawn immediately or it is going to be followed up.

Later, when I refused to withdraw the charge, he stated:

All right, there will be a criminal action here. You are not in the House of Commons at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house for 16 sessions. I am not in the habit of making-nor have I ever made-charges with respect to which I had to have parliamentary immunity because of the words I used. I do not think I require parliamentary immunity at this time. I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had any right to come to the committee and make such an attack on me. If he believes what he stated, namely that there is reason for a criminal action, he has the right and the duty in this house to have me called before the bar of the house and lay a criminal charge against me.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

It is just nonsense.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Wright:

He should either do that or withdraw. I say that either one action or the other should be taken. I criticized Mr. Milner in that committee. I have read the words I used. I want to tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce through you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to continue to criticize Mr. Milner as long as he is a member of the board of grain commissioners.

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
LIB

John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott

Liberal

Mr. Sinnolt:

On a point of order-

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink
CCF

Percy Ellis Wright

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Wright:

I do not believe-

Topic:   CANADA GRAIN ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION TO SELL OR STORE GRAIN SUBJECT TO SAMPLE GRADE
Permalink

May 12, 1953