Mr. Charlton:

This section does not mention anything about reshipment at all, as I see it.

Mr. Howe:

The elevator definition is as I just read it. An eastern feed mill is not a work for the benefit of Canada and does not come under the grain act.

Mr. Charlton:

I do not think that is a satisfactory answer because there is nothing in the bill which says it is confined to grain in transit, western grain or eastern grain. The words "eastern elevator" are used in section 6. If this is discrimination against an eastern elevator that is buying feed grain and has to accept grade 3 grain in lieu of grade 2, which it ordered, I do not think it is right. .

Mr. Howe:

Which would my hon. friend consider discrimination-to have it declared a work for the benefit of Canada and subject to the jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners, or otherwise?

Mr. Charlton:

I am not saying anything about that.

Mr. Howe:

My hon. friend spoke of discrimination.

Mr. Charlton:

As I see it the discrimination is right in this section of the bill.

Mr. Howe:

Does the hon. member want the feed mill to be a public elevator or not?

Mr. Charlton:

It is right in the bill. He must accept the grain regardless of whether it was what he ordered or not. That is the discrimination I am speaking of.

Mr. Howe:

No. A feed mill in eastern Canada is a private institution. The owner of the mill does not have to accept any grain unless he wishes to.

That is what makes these eastern elevators entirely different from western public elevators which have to accept grain under the regulations prescribed under the Canada Grain Act.

He does not handle the public's grain. I do not know of any feed mill in eastern Canada that handles public grain.

The section was agreed to. I submit there is a very great question with regard to whether or not the minister is interpreting the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act properly. I submit he should re-examine his position in this regard very carefully and I suggest that ordinary eastern feed mills and elevators should be exempt or that the legislation should be declared to be not applicable to them.

The Chairman:

Shall clause 5 carry?

Mr. Starr:

Mr. Chairman, in view of what has been said by the hon. member for Middlesex West I think it is only proper that the Minister of Labour should clarify the position. It would seem that the matter of whether feed mills in eastern Canada come under federal jurisdiction is now in dispute and I think the minister should clarify that point.

The Chairman:

Order. Before the minister replies to the argument advanced by the hon. member, I should like to renew the suggestion made a moment ago that the type of argument made by the hon. member, which related very specifically and directly to the

application of the act, should be considered under clause 3. If the hon. member wanted to give effect to the argument he has just made to the committee by moving an amendment, certainly no such amendment could be relevant to clause 5. It would have to be moved under clause 3. I would suggest that what the hon. member has now proposed should be specifically considered by the minister when we reach consideration of clause 3.

Mr. Thomas:

May I ask for direction? How is it we are on clause 5 if clause 3 has not already been disposed of?

The Chairman:

It was allowed to stand back in the month of October. Shall clause 5 carry?

Mr. Starr:

I think the minister wishes to propose an amendment.

Mr. MacEachen:

We have an amendment to clause 7 that I should like my colleague, the Solicitor General, to move. I should explain the amendment before I ask my friend to move it. In consultation with certain industries we found that clause 7 was quite rigid and did not take into account in particular the case of ships' crews who by custom and necessity have to work seven days a week for a period of time, and by custom have their days of rest at the end of a particular voyage or trip. If this clause were applied rigidly it would mean the cessation of operations on these particular days. So the purpose of the amendment really is to take into account this particular difficulty and to provide that regulations may be developed to prescribe hours of work that will take into account this particular situation. If it meets the convenience of the committee, I should like my hon. friend to move the amendment.

Mr. MacNaughl:

Mr. Chairman, I move:

That BUI C-126, an act respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses, be amended by striking out line 33 on page 4 and substituting therefor the following:

''7. Except as may be otherwise prescribed by the regulations, hours of work in a week shall be so scheduled"

Mr. Ricard:

Do we also have the French version?