February 6, 1912 (12th Parliament, 1st Session)


George Eulas Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).

In reference to section 107, there is, as far -as I have understood, -a pretty unanimous opinion that -a -change -should be made in the denomination -of -these grades, that instead of having -the word ' Manitoba. ' in the -grades, the reading should be changed to ' Can-a-d-a hard-.' ' Ma-nito-ba hard wheat ' was the den-omin-ation, I suippos-e, which was given when Manitoba was the grain

grower of the west, but Manitoba is no longer the only grain grower of the west. Saskatchewan and Alberta, notably the fanner, are increasing by leaps and bounds in their production of grain. The idea, then, that I wish to present to the House is that the time has come when ' Manitoba ' as a denomination for hard wheat should give way to a broader name, and the name that is suggested is the word ' Canada.' There is no reason that I can see on general principles why hard wheat raised anywhere in Canada should not be hard wheat and should not get the grade, or that the name of a section should prevail rather than the name of a whole country. The grade of the wheat essentially will be exactly the same. It will be simply a change of name, and it would seem as though it would give greater prominence to the country, that is to the whole country, Canada, and give greater backing to the grade itself by having the denomination of the whole country than to confine it to a scot-ion which is now far outstripped by the adjoining sections and by the whole of Canada in the production ol this grade.
The only objection which could be urged against it-and I inquired particularly of dealers and millers-was this: That when you give a distinctive name to a grade it becomes known by that name on the market, and sometimes it is known as a grade even after all the significance in the name itself has passed away. Those interested in the production and milling of grain, who have conferred with me, are of the opinion that that would not militate against the market currency of the wheat in this case. If there was any chance that it would, it could be cured in the first years of its currency by putting in brackets in our certificates after the word ' Canada,' the word ' Manitoba,' to show that ' Canada Hard Wheat ' took the place of the former name, and was identical with the Manitoba Hard Wheat, and also by regulating that it should not come into effect until the first of September, 1912. With these safeguards it is generally agreed that no ill consequence would follow, and it is an idea which all seem to catch that it would be -a good thing to give the general name of the country to the wheat

Full View