Mr. CASH moved:
That the Bill he not now read a third time, hut that it he read this day six months.
He said: My reason for making this
motion is that the western Liberal members have honestly tried to have this Bill put in such shape that it would accomplish that for which the grain growers have been striving for years, and which I think is essential to an honest and fair conduct of the grain business, and they have tried to do this without regard to politics. I cannot say as much for the Conservative members from the west, as it seems to me that their efforts have been directed more towards supporting the minister than to advancing the interests of the grain growers. The House was assured early in this debate by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that his endeavours would be along
the same lines as outlined above, but what has developed? Why that the minister is playing the game in the interests of the manipulators and not in the interests of the grain growers? I do not think it will take many words to demonstrate this. There are three very essential things the farmers contend it is necessary_ to have in this Bill in order for them to get a square deal. These are: complete separation of the interests of the grain dealers from that of the terminal and transfer elevators. No mixing of grain whatever after government grading, and equal distribution of cars; and third, the distribution of cars.
I am aware that Bill (Q) of the Senate had its origin with the late government. We all recognized, however, that it was a long way from being perfect and required amendment, which we proposed to make when in Committee of the Whole. The opposition at that time, however, refused to allow us to get into committee with the Bill.
The most objectionable features of that Bill are embodied in the present Bill, and yet the minister refuses to allow us to amend the measure. I refer now to clauses 57, 123 and 207. Amendments to these three sections were suggested by the hon. members from Qu'Appeile, Moose jaw and Dauphin. I am particularly afraid of this Bill, as so much depends upon the sentiment of those who administer the law. We had a sample of this in the case of lumber. A government that is friendly to the grain growers interests would probably interpret this Bill so that it would not injure the grain growers, but in the case of lumber, we find that where there was any excuse to interpret that Bill to benefit the western settler, that it was so interpreted by the Liberal government, but now that the Conservative government is in power, we find that interpretation changed so that at present it is construed and administered in favour of the lumbermen. Therefore I think we should be very careful as to the form in which the Bill is allowed to pass, more especially as the present Bill is so full of opportunities to construe it in favour of the manipulator of grain. I think that it would be safer for the grain growers to have the former Act in force than the present one. I think this Bill should have been made short, plain and effective to protect the interests of the grain growers, upon whose success the prosperity of Canada depends, instead of being cumbersome, ambiguous, and in some instances plainly in favour of the manipulator.