1918-04-29

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FIRST SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT 8-9 GEORGE V, 1918 IN TWO VOLUMES

Volume I:: Pages 1-1192	Volume II:	Pages 1193-2560



VOLUME CXXXIII


[Stage Direction]
J. de LABROQUERIE TACIlE,

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 29,. 1918.

[Stage Direction]
A return containing copies of letters and telegrams between the Dominion Government and the Provincial Executives concerning the Order in Council of December 22, 1917, respecting the sale of securities by provincial, colonial, or foreign governments, municipalities, or other bodies.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.
A return showing payment to certain newspapers since October 1, 1917.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.
A return giving the names of the officers employed on the staff in Military District No. 5, the salaries paid to them, services performed, etc.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.

[Stage Direction]
Mr F. H. KEEFER (Port Arthur and Kenoral moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 68, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
He said: The object of the Bill is to enable labouring men on railways at the divisional points to have their votes registered on election day. In my own riding, where there are so many terminal railway points, a very large number of railway men are disfranchised because they have either to neglect their duty and lay off to vote, or proceed on duty without going to the polling place. The principle of the Bill is one, I am sure, that will commend itself to, and enlist the support of all the members of the House. I hope the Government will, if not during the present session, at *any rate during next ses51' ""pose a measure and press it through Parliament, which will enable the most representative class of Canadians: to have a voice in the election of members to this Parliament thoroughly workable. The Bill as I have framed it is more especially adapted to conditions in my own riding, and I am
afraid it would not work in this part- of the country, where a railway man starts out and before his run finishes gets into another riding. This Bill simply provides for conditions in my awn riding where a man can cast his vote so that he will not be disfranchised.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first
time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 69, to amend the Criminal Code. He said:
The Bill propoises to amend certain sections of the Criminal Code. The first of these amending sections deals with offences against morals. It is proposed to amend section 211 of the Criminal Code as it now stands by making it a criminal offence to seduce or have illicit connection with any girl of previously chaste character, of or above the age of sixteen years and under the age of eighteen years. As the law at present stands this offence consists in having illicit intercourse with a girl over the age of fourteen years and under the age of sixteen. By the change the age of the girl against whom such an offence may be committed is raised.
The section further provides that proof that a girl has had on a previous occasion illicit connections with the accused shall not be deemed to be proof that she wag not of previously chaste character; and by a subsection of the section it is provided that no male person under the age of 21 shall be prosecuted for an offence under its provisions. In view of the raising of the age of the young woman, it was considered that there should be some protection for the young man.
The second provision of the Bill proposes to amend that section which now makes it an offence for certain classes of employers, or persons in authority, to have connection with young women, so as to extend it to all persons occupying the relation of employer,
[Stage Direction]


or being in positions analogous to those presently dealt with.
Mr. BUREAU:: What are the classes under the present section?


Mr. DOHERTY:: There are ' different
classes of employment specified, hut the principal class are girls employed in factories, or workshops and business establishments of that kind. The proposed amendment extends the classification so as to cover any person occupying the position of employer of the girl whom he might be oharged with having seduced or having had illicit connection with.
The third section makes it a criminal offence to have illicit connection with, or carnally know any girl under the age of ten, and above the age of fourteen, not being his wife and where he (believes her to be above the age of sixteen years, Thi6 change, in effect, raising the age of consent from fourteen to sixteen, and making it an offence to carnally know any girl under fourteen years of age. To the several pei>
alties that are provided for that offence it is proposed to add a subsection making it an offence to carnally know any girl between the age of fourteen and sixteen, but subjecting the offender to a penalty not so severe as in a case where the girl is under fourteen years of age.
The next provision is to introduce a section to be known as 221A, making it a criminal offence for persons not being married to register as man and wife at hotels, lodging houses, boarding houses, or places of public resort.	*
Another provision introduces into the Criminal Code, a section which has been enacted in. the Juvenile Delinquency Act of the province of Ontario, land has. been found to be exceedingly useful there.
The courts, however, have recently held that it was in substance legislation of the nature of criminal law, and the enactment as contained in the provincial legislation was, therefore, not effective. We have been asked to give effect to it by making it a section of the Criminal'Code, thus making it an offence to contribute by indulgence in sexual immorality, in habitual drunkenness. or in any other form of vice, to cause a child to be in danger of being or becoming immoral, dissolute or criminal, or to tend injuriously to affect the morals of a child or to render the home of a child an unfit place for such child to be in.
It provides a penalty not exceeding $500, or imprisonment not exceeding one year. It introduces bodily the provisions of the 
Ontario law into the Criminal Code. There are definitions of what shall be a child for the purpose of the section, that is a boy or girl under the age of sixteen years. There is a further provision that it shall not be a defence that the child is of too tender years to understand or appreciate the nature of the act complained of or immediately affected thereby.
The next proposal is to amend Section 226 of the Criminal Code so as to make come within the definition of a common gaming house any place where the whoie or any portion of the stakes or bets or other proceeds at or from such games is either directly or indirectly paid to the person keeping such house, room or place. This is to meet ^n abu^e which is said to exist, or, at least, we have heard more complaint about it from the province of British Columbia.
The next proposal is to increase.the penalty presently imposed by section 285B of the Criminal Code for taking motor cars for the purpose simply of using them and then abandoning them for the purpose of what is generally called joy-riding. The present penalty is $50 or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days. It is represented that the offence is becoming exceedingly prevalent, and oftentimes considerable damage is done to the motor car, and it is suggested that the possibility of a heavier penalty would operate as a more effective deterrent.
The next two proposals are to amend sections 985 and 986 of the Criminal Code which provide what shall be prima facie evidence that a house is a gaming house. As the law stands at present it is provided that the presence in the house of instruments used in any unlawful game shall constitute prima facie evidence. It is proposed to substitute for the words " any unlawful game" the words "any game of chance or any mixed game of chance or skill." A similar amendment in section 986 substitutes for the words " unlawful gaming " in the eighth and ninth lines the words " playing any game of chance or any-mixed game of chance and skill."
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



THE WAR.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DuTREMBLAY:	I wish to ask if
it is the intention of the Government to

organize a French Canadian Brigade under the new Military Service Regulations.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The Minister of Militia and Defence will give a reply at some later date to my hon. friend. I do -not think there is sufficient material available just at present to organize a brigade. A suggestion has, however, been made as to more units at the front of distinctively French Canadian personnel. That matter is under consideration.



CANADIAN WAR MEMORIAL FUND.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: made to the Canadian people in the celebrated portrait of Wolfe, and I feel that I may assure him that the thanks of this House and of the people are accorded to him for his magnificent generosity. I have already expressed the appreciation of the (Government, and I am now enabled to express, on behalf of the Parliament and people of Canada, their thanks for the splendid gift and their appreciation of the spirit which prompted the Duke of Westminster to present this (great historic painting to the people of Canada.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Bill No. 37, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company. -Mr. Morphy-in committee.
On section 1-short title:
Mr. CURRIE [DOT] This Bill is one that caused some trouble in the Railway Committee, and the Minister of Railways was to make a .statement in the House as to whether this was a Government Bill or not. I should like if he would present that statement now.
(Mr. J. D. REID: This Bill is merely for the purpose of extending the charter of the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company, a subsidiary company of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. This company is owned and controlled by the Dominion Government through the Canadian Northern Railway system. In the Railway Committee, representatives of the city of Toronto did raise some objections, until they understood that the clause in the extension of 1916 covered all their objections.
Mr. RICHARDSON:: Any value that this has will accrue to the Government.


Mr. J. D. REID:: About $1,200,000 has been expended on this road in purchasing right-of-way, making surveys and so on. Any benefits that will arise in so far as this railway is concerned, belong to the Dominion Government.	.


Mr. CURRIE:: This railway company, I understand, owns the right-of-way from Toronto to Niagara?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


John Allister Currie: On that right-of-way,
there are two power lines. Is that right?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know about that.


John Allister Currie: I want to know if they have bought any additional right-of-way during the last couple of years, because since the Electrical Development Company has put two power lines over this right-of-way, there is no room for a railway, and the railway company has leased to the Development Company the right to put power lines on that right-of-way.


John Dowsley Reid: The stock of this subsidiary company is vested in the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and on October 1, 1917, five-sixths. of $60,000,000 of the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway was vested in the Dominion Government. Prior to that we had $40,000,000 worth of the stock, so that practically the whole stock of the Canadian Northern is owned by the Dominion Government.


John Allister Currie: But what is the relationship between, this railway company and the Electrical Development Company, which is not owned toy the Canadian Northern, but which is owned by the Toronto Street Railway Company, and which has put two power lines over the right of way of this railway company, and, is the Government in a position to state the rental paid for the use of the right of way?


John Dowsley Reid: I never heard of that
before. That question was never raised before. At all events, whatever may have been the rights of the Canadian Northern in this railway company at the time the Canadian Northern was taken over, they now belong to the Dominion Government.


Mr. CAHILL:: In what position is the Government of Canada with regard to the Canadian Northern Railway Company? Have we anything to say in the management at the present time?


John Dowsley Reid: The stock of the Canadian. Northern Railway Company has been vested in the Dominion Government in accordance with an Act of Parliament passed last session. The question as to the value of the stock taken over by the Dominion Government is now being determined by a Board of Arbitrators sitting at present in Toronto. The arbitrators, as I understand it, will complete their work some time soon, and afteT they have made their report the Dominion Government will take over the absolute control and operation of the railway.	*


John Allister Currie: Does the minister intend to make a general statement to the House in regard to the railway situation, and if so, when, so that we may know if it is going to be defeated or not? It has been the custom to make such a statement.


John Dowsley Reid: It has been the custom for the Minister of Railways every year to make a statement as to the general railway situation at the time he takes up his Estimates, and it is my intention to do so when the Estimates of the Railway Department are taken up.


Frank S. Cahill: If the Estimates are not
taken up very soon, we shall have a lot of new railway legislation passed. As I understood the regulations passed last year, they did not provide that the Government should wait until the arbitration was settled before taking over the management. Is the position now that the country own the stock of the Canadian Northern railway, but that until the arbitration is decided, we have nothing to say as to the management?


John Dowsley Reid: When the stock was
taken over, it was understood and arranged with the present Board of Directors that they were not to undertake any new work or enter into any negotiation other than to continue the operation of the road until the new Board of Directors had been appointed. It was expected the arbitration would have been completed long before this. In the meantime, until their finding is made nothing is being done by the Canadian Northern directors except to operate the road.
,Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the Government debarred by any understanding it has with the Canadian Northern from proceeding to take over the road and appointing a board of management such as Sir Henry Drayton and his associates suggested?


John Dowsley Reid: The Government are not debarred in any way. It was expected that the arbitration would only take about five or six weeks. As soon as the award is made the Government will take charge of the road and it will be under our absolute control.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The minister must see that even when the award has been made it may not be accepted either by the Government or by the company, and the present status might continue for weeks and months, and, perhaps, for a year. I think, under the circumstances, it would be very dangerous to have it go out to the country that the Government is going to wait before taking any action regarding the
operation of the road until the award has been finally settled.


John Dowsley Reid: I said that as soon as the arbitrators have made -their award, that is final so (far as the Government is concerned. We will then take over the road.


Mr. EULER:: Does this legislation contemplate the granting of additional powers, or merely the extension of powers formerly possessed by the company, but which have now lapsed?


John Dowsley Reid: It does not add to the powers at all. The original charter of this company has not been changed at all.


William Daum Euler: This is not a r-oad against which protests were entered by the hydroradial people of Ontario?	.


John Dowsley Reid: The Hydro-Electric Commission objected to the extension of this charter itwo years ago for the reason that the road, when built, would parallel a line the commission proposed to build from Toronto to Niagara Falls, but in the committee the other day the Hydro Commission did not object to the extension of this charter because this railway now belongs to the people of Canada and is -subject to the control of this Parliament.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Administered by the people of Canada?
iMr. J. D. REID: It will be administered by the people of Canada from now -on. Anything that is done in connection with this railway will he done by the Government, and we shall first have to ask Parliament to vote the -money.


William Daum Euler: They have withdrawn their objection?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, because the Government has taken over -the Toad. The same objection was taken two years ago by the city of Toronto; they felt their rights would not be as well protected by the Canadian Northern railway, Which then had control over this road, us they would be when the road was under the control of Ibis Parliament.


John Allister Currie: Will the minister be in a position to make a statement on the third reading of thik Bill to-morrow as to whether the right-of-way is so fully occupied by the Electrical Development -Company, that there is -actually no room left on the right-of-way where a railway could be built? He *might also inform us whether the company has purchased -additional land -along the

right-of-way on which this proposed railway could be built.
iMir. J. D. REID: I shall certainly be glad to give the hon. member any information be desires in regard to this matter. We are simply taking over the rights of this company. A lot of money has been invested by the Canadian Northern in the purchase of a right-of-way through the city Oi Hamilton, for instance, and through all the territory from Toronto. As the Canadian Northern has been taken over by the Government this right-of-way will now belong to the people, and if this road is never [DOT]built there will be a certain amount of [DOT]money coming to the people of this country in return for that right-of-way.


Wilfrid Laurier: The request that was .made by the hon. member for [DOT]Simcoe seems to me to be very reasonable. He wants to know if the right-of-way has been fully occupied by the Electrical Development 'Company, and the only answer he gets is that the right-of-way belongs to the 'Canadian Northern. That is all the more reason why we should have this information. The minister has not answered my hon. friend's question at all.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the information with me but I said I should be very gla'd to give him .all the information he desired on the (third reading.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let the Bill [DOT]stand until you get the information.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member did not ask that the Bill stand, but that I bring down the information on the third reading.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to me that this is the proper time to have the information.


John Allister Currie: Apparently the minister has not the information available at present. As I understand it, on the right-of-way of this railway company whose charter we are proposing to extend, the Electrical Development Company originally built one pole line, with the intention of building a railway line along the right-of-way, but within the last two years, owing to the extension of electric power, another power line has been built along this right-of-way some distance from the first one, and the whole right-of-way is now occupied. I am informed, however, that the railway company had purchased additional right-of-way so that they could build a railway if necessary, and I wanted to know whether it was [DOT]a fact that they would have a right-of-way 
not cluttered up with the poles of the Electrical Development Company. Otherwise, the Government would have to bring down a Bill later on to take over the Electrical Development Company, who would undoubtedly make a kick if the railway was built along their right-of-way. I think we should know the exact situation before this Bill passes the House as to the rights that have been granted to the Electrical Development Company, what was paid for them, and all that sort of thing. It might turn out that we were taking over a worthless charter here which would be capitalized, if at all possible, by the company when it appears before the arbitration board in Toronto, and without giving full information in respect to the right-of-way. I think this is a very important matter, but I have no objection to the Bill being proceeded with, if the minister will bring down the information on the third reading. If that is satisfactory to me, I think it will be satisfactory to the House.


Jacques Bureau: I was not in the Railway Committee when the question was discussed on the last occasion. Is this the same question that came up last year, when the Hydro-Electric representatives objected to an extension of the charter, or is this another railway company?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The city of Toronto in regard to which we had the trouble about two years ago. I think the extension was for two years. The two years are up and the charter has to be renewed. Representatives of the Hydro-Electric Commission were before the committee a few days ago.


Jacques Bureau: Is it the same question that was discussed on the last occasion?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The city of Toronto was represented and the objections were withdrawn when it was explained that this railway and all its rights and benefits belonged to the people of Canada through the Canadian Northern System. It was also explained that the clause protecting the city of Toronto was in the charter that was being extended, and that, before anything would be done in connection with the [DOT]carrying out of the completing of this line, the people of Toronto would be consulted by the Dominion Government, if the Government decided to proceed.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I think the information asked for by the hon. member for Simcoe ought to be furnished. I have information

from Toronto that all the money that had *been spent on the right of "way by the Canadian Northern has been spent in Hamilton, that they had an arrangement with the Electrical Development Company by which they were to lease the right of way upon which the pole lines are now standing. The hon. member for Simcoe says-and I think he is quite right-that there is now not sufficient room upon that right of way for a railway. I discussed the matter with the Hydro-Electric officials in Toronto, and they gave me the information I have just given to the House, that the company does not own any right of way from Toronto to Hamilton, but that they have spent their money in Hamilton. If that is the case we ought to know it, or if they had a separate right of way contiguous to the pole line, we / should know that. I am sure the minister will provide the information asked for by the hon. member for Simcoe.


John Dowsley Reid: Before moving the third reading, I will give a detailed statement of the situation.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Was it in connection with this Bill that an article appeared in the Financial Post of Toronto attacking Sir Adam Beck-a most viallainous attack upon Sir Adam Beck-because, they said, he was a German? I could not help thinking that if Sir Adam Beck was a German, the King of England was a German. Sir Adam Beck was bom in this country, and the work he has done for the people of Ontario in connection with the HydroElectric reflects great credit on him. I think it my duty to rise in this House and enter a protest.


Mr. PROULX:: Does the hon. member
happen to know if that article refers to this particular Bill?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The Financial Post does not favour me with a copy, and I am not a subscriber, I therefore, have not read the article.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am not a subscriber either.


Mr. MORPHY:: The Minister of Railways having assured hon. members that he would give all necessary information, and the hon. member for Simcoe having stated he was willing to let the Bill be reported and to stand for third reading, I would be quite content to acquiesce. It seems to me that many objections are being urged to this measure, which would not he urged if Sir Adam Beck were here. He appeared
before the Railway Committee representing the Hydro-Electric. The city of Hamilton delegation and representatives of the Union of Canadian Municipalities also appeared before the Railway Committee and they all said they were perfectly satisfied with this Bill. There is one feature of it which ought to he put before this House, if this Bill becomes operative, and. the line of railway built. I understand the franchise has been valued by the Board of Arbitration sitting in Toronto, not as the road will he, but as it was when it came before the Board of Arbitration, and it was stated that $1,700,000 had been put into this charter. No doubt it was valued at that sum, if not more. This Government has taken over the road on behalf of the people of Canada. They will take over the operations of the road when the time comes. The object of the Bill is to form a connecting link between the Niagara frontier and the city of Toronto, so as to link up the lake ports of Ontario, and all that territory in the United States east of Buffalo, with the various United States roads that send freight through Canada, and have it sent through the Canadian Northern, connecting lines at Toronto, and thence to the Pacific Coast. It has been estimated, in the hearing before the Board of Arbitration, by experts who have studied the question closely, that this road is worth $5,000,000 a year as it stands to the Canadian Northern system, and as the Canadian..Northern system will be expanded and extended no doubt the value of this road will be a great deal more. Whether there are conflicting interests or not, having read the evidence carefully of all the men who have spoken about it, I fotmed a pretty strong conclusion that if this Government ever operated the Canadian Northern Railway, the link provided by this Bill will be worth $5,000,000 a year to the people of Canada, I merely want to put that matter before the Committee, so that hon. gentlemen wonlld not be under a misapprehension on account of what has been stated by the hon. member for Simcoe and the hon. member for Springfield. I do not want the House to get the impression that there is anything wrong about it, or that there is anything to hide. I make this statement merely 'because the Bill stands in my name.


John Allister Currie: As the hon. member from North Perth has made a statement as to the value of the road to the country, I would like the minister to bring down some information, which no doubt he can obtain, as to

the amount of securities issued by the Company >
the stock and bonds, the amount of money realized to the Company by the sale of these stocks -and bonds, and how the money was disposed of. If the Toad is worth $5,000,000 a year to the Government, we want to know it. We do not want to take from Mackenzie & Mann property worth $100,000,000 -and not give them something for it. We want to know how much money was obtained and spent by the company.


John Dowsley Reid: I think all that information has been given to the Board of Arbitrators in Toronto. I will try and furnish all the information asked for.
Bill reported.



[Stage Direction]
CONSIDERED IN ODmMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
Bill No. 44, respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 47, to confirm an agreement made between Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and Northern Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Crowe.
Bill No. 45, respecting The Nipissing Central Railway Company.-(As amended).- Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 36, respecting Ottawa and Montreal Transmission Company, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.	,
Bill No. 46, respecting United Grain Growers, Limited, formerly The Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.-Mr.' Buchanan.
Bill No. 24, respecting The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.- Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 67, respecting The International Bridge and Terminal Company.-Mr. Manion.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks).
Customs officer at river port, n.s.

[Stage Direction]
-Sir SAM HUGHES:
1.	Is John Fraser the Auditor General of Canada? If so, what is his salary?
2.	Is A. A. Fraser employed in the Auditor General's Office? If so, what salary? Is he a son of the Auditor General of -Canada?
-3. Is Ethel Fraser employed in the Auditor General's Office? If so, at what salary, and is she a daughter of the Auditor General of Canada?
4.	Has A. J. Fraser been paid -any amount through the Auditor General's Office fo-r services in connection with the recent election, or were there any amounts due him on this account? If so, how much, and- is he a son of the Auditor General of Canada?
5.	Is W. A. Fraser employed in the Agriculture Department? If so, at what salary, antd is he a son of the Auditor General- of Canada?
6.	Is H. J. Fraser employed in the Post Office Department? If so, at what salary, and is he a son of the Auditor General of Canada?
7.	Is R. J. Fraser employed in the Naval Department? If so, at what salary, and is he a son of the Auditor General of Canada?
8.	What amounts of public money have been paid- each to John Fraser and A. A. Fraser for travelling expenses during the two years ending December 31, 1917?
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) $5,000 per annum.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) $125 per month in connection with the payment of election accounts. He is a practising barrister of ten years' standing, (c) No information in the records of the office.
3.	(a) Yes. She was appointed by the Civil Service Commission in 1911, after having obtained the highest standing in open competitive examination; (b) $1,250 per annum; (e) no information in the records -of the office.
4.	(a) Yes; (b) $30 as enumerator in the recent election, and $205 for counting and recording soldiers' votes. Account certified by the General Returning Officer; (c) no information in the records of the office.
5.	(a) Yes; (b) salary $2,100 per annum; (c) he is a son oif the Auditor General.
6.	No.
7.	(a) Yes; (b) $1,700; (c) yes.
8.	John Fraser, 1916,	$720.44;	1917,
$1,537.03, authorized by Order in Council. A. A. Fraser, 1916, $245.40; 1917, $135.25.


IMPERIAL MUNITIONS BOARD.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Has the Minister of Militia or any member of the Government, or any official of the Militia Department any knowledge or information in regard to the staff of the Imperial Munitions Board copying during the months of November and December, 1917, lists of the names of soldiers.' wives and soldiers' dependents which were in the office of the Assigned Pay and' Separation Branch of the Department of Militia?
2i If so, who gave instructions for these lists to 'be handed over to these stenographers and typewriters in the Imperial Munitions Board?
3.	Who supplied' the money which paid for the staff of the Imperial Munitions Board for copying these lists?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL (for the Minister of Militia):: 1.	The minister has now been informed that some members of the staff of the Imperial Munitions Board did such copying after office hours, and the lists were made available for the purpose. No public money was paid therefor.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


EGG INSPECTORS.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many Egg Inspectors does the Minister of Agriculture propose appointing?
2.	In what newspapers are notices being inserted that all applications should be sent to the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, and that all appointments will be made on the basis of competitive examinations?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Five.
2.	An advertisement has been inserted, according to regulations, in the Canada Gazette and copies distributed to the total of fifteen hundred (1,500) to post offices public libraries, Y. M. C. A. buildings and other public buildings throughout Canada. The advertisement states that all information can be obtained from the Live Stock Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, or from the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, and it further states that the appointments would be made upon the results of a special competitive examination.


PENSION ALLOWANCE TO COL. LABATT.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What pension does Col. R. H. Labatt of the Pension Commissioners draw annually?
2.	On what date was this1 pension granted?
3.	Was it before or after Union Government was formed?
4.	Does the Board of Pension Commissioners grant a full disability pension to soldiers who have an income from the Government or otherwise of $2,000?
5.	Have all soldiers been granted full disability pension whose disease has been diagnosed as valvular disease of the heart?
6.	Is there a case on record in the Office of the Pension Commissioners where a soldier who had an income of $5,000 was given a full disability pension?
7.	Has Col. Labatt any other income except that provided by the Pensions Board?
8.	Is Col. Labatt related in any way to any member of the present Government?
9.	If so, what are the names of the members to whom he is related?
10.	Do any of Col. Labatt's children draw pensions? '
11.	If so, what are their names, ages and amount of pension each draws?
12.	On what date was the pension granted to his children?


Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	$1,890 per annum, plus allowances amounting to, in all, $240 per annum for his two children aged 13 and 15.
2.	October 16, 1917.
3.	Pensions are not granted by the Government, and the granting of pension in any particular case does not in any way come before the Government. This pension, as all others, was granted by the board constituted for the purpose. The present Union Government was formed on October 12, 1917.
4.	The income of the person entitled to a pension is not considered in determining the award.
5.	In all such cases pension award is made in strict accordance with the Pension Regulations as approved by Parliament.
6.	Yes.
7.	No information.
8 and 9. No. But he is connected by marriage with Major-General the Honourable S. C. Mewburn and the Honourable 1. D. Reid.
10 and 11. Answered by No. 1.
12. Answered by No. 2.


MANUFACTURE OF OLEOMARGARINE.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What are the names of the 15 companies who made application to the Government for license for the manufacture of oleomargarine?
2.	On what grounds were all except the Harris Abattoir Company and the Swift Canadian Company refused license?
3.	Did the Government inquiry, of which Mr. George Henderson of Ottawa was Commissioner ascertain what percentage of stock Sir Joseph Flavelle held in the Harris Abattoir Company?
4.	If so, what was the percentage?
5.	Who are the owners and shareholders of the Swift Canadian Company, Ltd.?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	P. Burns & Co., Ltd., Calgary, Alta.; W. J. Bellingham, 376 Claremount Ave., Westmount, Que.; Canada Maple Exchange, 22 Vallee St., Montreal; Household Products Co., 2230 Chateaubriand Ave., Montreal; W. P. Downey, 88 Grey Nun St.,

Montreal; Bel-Air Display Co., 603 Ontario St. E., Montreal; Canadian Oleomargarine ivtfg. Co., 57-59 Blvd. Langelier, Quebec; Pure Food1 Products Co., St. Joseph and Crown Sts., Quebec; J. W. Gorham & Co., 236 Hollis St., Halifax, N.S.; Lambton Produce Co, Petrolia, Ont.; Harris Abattoir Co., Ltd., Toronto; Mandus Margarine Co., Toronto; Swift Canadian Co., Ltd., Toronto; National Broom and Brush Co., 25-29 Latour St., Montreal; M. And-resen, Squirrel Cove, B.C.
2.	All except the Harris Abattoir Company and the Swift Canadian Company, Limited, of Toronto, were refused licenses at the time of their application because their establishments did not conform to the requirements of tne law as laid down in section 4 of the regulations passed on November 17, 1917.
3.	The report of the commission of which Mr. George F. Henderson, J\.C., of Ottawa, was chairman does not deal explicitly with me points covered by questions 3 and 4, but statements in the report as to the proportion of stock held by Sir Joseph Flavelie in the Wm. Davies Company, Ltd., and as to the proportion of stock held by the Win. Davies Company, Ltd., in the Harris Abattoir Company, would indicate that the interests of Sir Joseph Flavelie in the Harris Abattoir Company were on May 12, 1917, approximately twenty per cent. The report in question has been tabled.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	No information.


MILITARY SERVICE COUNCIL.
*Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What are the names of the barristers or advocates employed by the Military Service Council and their respective salaries?
2.	What is the basis of the difference of salaries?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Military Service Council docs not employ barristers or advocates. If the hon. gentleman desires, as possibly he may,-to ascertain the names and salaries of lawyers employed by the registrars throughout the country, and if he will modify his question accordingly, I will be very glad to get the information. As the question stands now, the answer is that the Militray Service Council does not employ barristers.


MR. W. F. O'CONNOR, K.C.
Mr. MORPHY:: 1.	What positions during the twelve months preceding April 15, 1918, has Mr. W. F. O'Connor occupied under the Government?
2.	How much has he received from the Gov-
[Mr. Burrell.!
ernment in remuneration or salary during the twelve months preceding the 15th April, 1918, for each of the said positions?
3.	What is the total amount he has received from the Government during such period of twelve months?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	(a) Law Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General; (b) Examiner under Order in Council P.C. 2777 of November 10, 1916 (Cost of Living Regulations); (c) General Returning Officer for Canada for General Elections, 1917.
2.	(a) Salary as Law Secretary, $5,000; (b) additional salary as Examiner as aforesaid, $2,000; (c) General Returning Officer, nil.
3.	$7,000.


RENTAL FOR FRASERVILLE BUILDING.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Militia and Defence to continue paying rent to Madam S. C. Riou, of Fraserville, Quebec, for the building which was occupied until recently as Headquarters for recruits under the voluntary system, in the districts of Kamouraska and Rimouski?
2.	What rent has been paid to date for said buildings?
3.	What amount has been paid to date for repairs of all kinds in order to use this building for such headquarters?
4.	What does the Department intend to do at the expiry of lease, with the costly repairs made to said premises and by which -a considerable increase in value has been realized?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL (for Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	Yes.	[DOT]
2.	$3,600.
3.	$2,211.55.
4.	Repairs remain as part of the building.


THE DENTAL CORPS.
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What is the present strength of the Dental Corps in Canada?
2.	Are special arrangements being made in
the large centres for dental treatment of returned men?	[DOT]
3.	At what centres will the large hospitals be placed?
4.	Have any promotions been made in the Dental Corps where officers have been granted the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel?
5.	How many have been given the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel west of the Ottawa River, and how many east of there?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL (for Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	457 all ranks.
2.	Yes.
3.	The large hospitals (Class A) will be placed in the following centres: Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.

4.	Yes, five.
5.	(a) Five west of the Ottawa river; (b) none east of the Ottawa river.


AGRICULTURAL, IMPLEMENTS, DUTIES AND DRAWBACKS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN F. REID:
1.	What, is the percentage of duty charged Canadian Manufacturers on raw materials imported and entering into the manufacture of agricultural implements?
2.	What is the percentage of drawback allowed to Canadian Manufacturers on imported raw materials manufactured into agricultural implements for export trade?
3.	What is the percentage of drawback allowed to Canadian Manufacturers on imported raw materials manufactured into agricultural implements for domestic trade?
Hon. Mr. SIFT'ON:
1.	The full duty as specified in the Customs Tariff.
2.	99 per cent of the Customs duties on imported materials is allowed to Canadian manufacturers when such materials are manufactured into other articles and are exported.
3.	The following are the provisions of the Customs Tariff respecting drawback on materials manufactured into agricultural implements for domestic trade:
Item No.	Goods.	When subject to drawback.	Portion of duty (not including special duty or dumping duty) payable as Drawback.1002	Rolled iron, rolled steel and pig iron	When used in the manufactureof mowing machines, reapers, harvesters, binders and attachments for binders.	99 p.c.

[Stage Direction]
iMr. ARTHURS:
1.	Are certain clergymen in Canada paid as Immigration Agents, or for services in connection with Immigration or Repatriation?
2.	If so, for how many years have such payments been made?
3.	Does the Government intend to continue to employ these men in the service mentioned?
Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Since December 15, 1911.
3.	They will be retained unless when reorganization of Department of Immigration and Colonization is made it is found advisable to dispense with their services.


Mr. BLAIR:: 
Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Rev. J. B. H. Giroux, Grouard, Alberta, (headquarters at Montreal); Rev. J. A. Normandeau, Edmonton, Alberta, (resigned April 30, 1917); Rev. J. M. BoucheT, St. Albert, Alberta, (headquarters at Montreal).
3.	Rev. J. B. H. Giroux:	.Expenses.	Salary.	Total.1914-15. .	$1,534 72	$600	$2,134 721915-16. .	1,784 31	600	2,384 311916-17. .	1,549 77	600	2,149 771917-18. .	1,305 31	600	1,905 31Rev. J.	A.	Normandeau:	Expenses.	Salary.	Total.1914-15. ,	$1,891 13	$600	$2,491 131915-16.	1,604 30	600-	2,204 301916-17.	. 1,466 38	600	2,066,381917-18.	136 04	50	186 04Rev.	J.	M. Boucher:	Expenses.	Salary.	Total.1917-1S.	, $1,493 75	$504 84	$1,998 594.	Clergymen and priests will be continued in present work unless when reorganization of the Department of Immigration and Colonization is made it' is found advisable to dispense with their services.


&quot;THE PARASITES&quot; PROHIBITED.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Government suppressed, or forbidden, the circulation of a book written by Arthur Mee, on Temperance, called "The Parasites" ?
2.	Did fee said book contain the picture of one of the present members of the Union Government?
3.	If so, was the said book printed with official sanction, and at the public expense, in the first instance?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.


VICTORY LOAN ADVERTISING.
Mr. MURPHY:: Referring to the item of $2,919.60 contained in the Return brought down on April 24, 1918, as the amount paid the Toronto Globe for Victory Loan advertising,-

1.	How much space in lines or inches did the said advertisement occupy in the Toronto Globe?
2.	Did the said advertisement occupy the same amount of space in the columns of the Toronto Star and the Toronto World as it did in the Toronto Globe?
3.	If so, why was the Star paid only $2,757.40 and the World only $1,946.40?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	32,440 lines.
2.	Yes; Toronto World Sunday edition, ,1,400 lines extra.
3.	Payments to each paper were made on the card rates respectively: Toronto Star rate 8Jc a line, Toronto World rate 6c a line, Toronto Globe rate 9c a line.


Charles Murphy: Referring to the item of $1,615.95 and the item of $1,6113.17 contained in the Return brought down on April 24, 1918, asi being the amounts respectively paid to the Ottawa Citizen and! the Ottawa Journal-Press for advertising the Victory Loan,.-How much space in lines or inches did the said advertisement occupy in each of the newspapers mentioned?


John Dowsley Reid: Ottawa 'Citizen, October 3,055 lines, November 1,990 lines, December 100 lines. 'Ottawa Journal, October 2,215 lines, November 28,648 lines, December 100 lines.


Charles Murphy: Referring to the item "News Editorial and Feature Service, $5,762.38," contained in the Return of amounts paid! for Victory .Loan advertising,

To whom was the said amount paid, and what services were rendered therefor?


John Dowsley Reid: Paid to Canadian Press Association Incorporated for news editorial
.and feature service as follows:
'Salaries	$ 829.00
Special articles, cartoons,
etc	 1,693.25
Printing	 778.00
Stereos, .mats, account British & Cblonial Press,
Limited	 530.97
Outside stenographic work " Might Directories * . *	251.72
Rent of office-Dominion Bank Bldg., Oct. 10 to
Dec. 1, 1917	 101.40
Winnipeg Newspaper Union
List	 260.00
Dominion Press Clipping
Agency	 200.00
Office supplies	 57.05
Miscellaneous	 131.44
Travelling expenses of Advisory Board of Publishers 929.55


Charles Murphy: Referring to. the item "Service Fees of the following Advertising Agencies, A. BVEcKim, Gibbons, MoConnelll and Ferguson, Norris and Patterson and Desbarats, $16,452.01," contained in the Return of amounts paid' for Victory Loan advertising,.-*
1.	What portion of the said amount was paid to each of the agencies mentioned?
2.	On what basis was the amount so paid in each ease calculated?
3.	Why was the work in question not done, as formerly, by the staff of the King's Printer,
at the Printing Bureau?


John Dowsley Reid: (1)
A. McKim, Limited	$3,222.51
J. J. Gibbons, Limited .. 3,423.90 M'OConnell & Ferguson.... 3,399.58 Morris & Patterson, Ltd... 3,588.49 Desbarats Advertising Agency	 2,817.53
Total	$16,452.01
(2)	10 per cent on advertising.
(3)	Victory Loan Organization handled all advertising.


WAR-TAX-FARM IMPLEMENTS.
Mr. MACNUTT:: 1. What total revenue has the Government derived yearly from the imposition of the Ti per cent. War Tax to date?
[DOT]2. How much from the importation of farm implements?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1. Total " War Tax."
5 p.c.	"i p.c.	Total.
1915.	$ 402,182.87 $ 2,236,290.16 $ 2,638,413.03
1916.	3,442,072.70	21,814,715.19	25,256,787.891917.	4,733,3-68.23	33,097,059.16-	37,830,427.391918.	4,024,896.14	40,993,666.13	45,01S,562.27
2'. War Tax on " Farm Implements and
	Machines."		
5' p.c.	7J p.c.	Total.1915. ..	. . $157.35	$ 17,554.57 $	17,711.921916. ..	. . 773.55	246,3-92.70	247,166.251917. ..	, .. 910.45	546,063.9-0	546,974.351918. ..	. . 32-5.55	939,845.77	9 4*0,171.32Farm	Implements	and Machines	included
above are:-
Cultivators and weeders and parts of; drills, seed; farm, road or field rollers ; forks, pronged ; harrows, and- parts ; hay loaders; hay tedders; hoes; -horse rakes; knives, hay or straw; knives, edging; manure spreaders ; ploughs an-d parts of; post hole diggers; potato diggers; rakes, n.o.p.; scythes; sickles or reaping hooks; snaths; spades and shovels of iron or steel, n.o.p.
Parts of agricultural implements, n.o.-p. paying 12>J p.c., 17 J p.c. -and 20 p.c. All other agricultural implements, n-.o.p:

Fanning mills ; grain crushers ; hay presses; fodder or feed cutters ; horse powers, for farm purposes; portable engine with boilers in combination, and' traction engines for farm purposes ; threshing machine separators; threshing
[Mr .Murphy.]

machine separators, parts of; including- wind stackers, baggers, weighers and self-feeders therefore and finished parts thereof for repairs, when imported separately.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Has the King's Printer a special department to contract for any supervise newspaper advertising for different departments connected with or controlled by the Government?
2.	What part, if any, of newspaper advertising is handled through the Director of Public Information?
3.	Is newspaper advertising ibeing placed by departments or Commissions independent of these two offices ?
4.	If so, to what extent and under what circumstances ?
5.	What outside firms or advertising agencies handle this, and on what terms?
6.	What are the amounts paid to these agencies, and what proportion of these amounts was paid to the newpapers carrying the advertising?
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOE PAPERS. Mr. CASGRAIN:
Copy of all Orders in Council and instructions given by the minister in charge in connection with the work of Mr. M. E. Nicholls, Director of Public Information for Canada; along with a copy of all telegrams1, letters, statements and articles sent out iby Mr. Nicholls since assuming the position of Director of Public Information; and 'also copy of the mailing list of the individuals or companies to whom this information was sent.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Copy of all correspondence between the city of Quebec, the Quebec Board of Trade and the Government with regard to the claims of the city of Quebec for terminals of the National Transcontinental Railway and other matters.


Jacques Bureau: Return showing, (a) whether the Canadian Government Railways Employees Magazine, published at Moncton, NjB., is owned by the Government; (b) if so, the names of the Editor, Business Manager, Advertising Solicitor, and of other persons engaged in connection with the magazine and the amounts of salary or other remuneration paid to them, respectively, since its establishment;	(c) the positions,
if any, such persons also occupy in the Canadian 'Government Railways Servioe, and what salaries they receive in such servioe; (d) the revenue and expenditure in oonneotion with the publication of the magazine from its inception to December 31, 1917, showing separately the amounts received from advertising, subscriptions, and from other sources respectively; also separately the amounts disbursed for personal service, printing and' other expenses of publication; (e) the sums of money paid by the Government or by the Canadian Government Railways in connection with the publication of the magazines with dates and amounts showing for wihat purposes such .payments were made; (f) a copy of the correspondence between the Minister of Railways and Canals, and officials of that Department, particularly
the Purchasing Agent, .the General Manager and other officials of the Canadian Government Railways and any officials or employees of the Magazine and of alii correspondence from the minister or from any officials of the Department or from any officials of the Canadian Government Railways for the- purpose of inducing manufacturers and others to advertise in the magazine; and (g) whether the Post Office Department has admitted the Magazine to second-class postal privileges, and if so, on what date, and whether such privileges extended only to copies sent t6 bona fide subscribers or if they include copies supplied gratuitously to Canadian Government Railways officials and1 employees.


THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 21, to amend the Penitentiary Act.-Hon. Mr. Doherty.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George Foster, Bill Noi. 62, to amend the Insurance Act, 1917, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER; The other day there was confusion, in names attached to Bills, one being on the Order Paper over the name of the Minister of Finance which should have ibeen over the name of the Minister of Justice. I made the mistake of thinking that the present Bill was the Bill of the Minister of Justice, whereas it turns out that it is not. The present Bill is over the signature of the Minister of Finance and has to foe put through by Mm. However he ie not here, consequently I move that the .committee rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
*On, the motion of Sir George Foster, Bill No. 19, to amend the Inspection and Sale Act (vegetables, eggs, food containers, firewood and cement) was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 1-Vegetables may be sold by the pound.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: A careful inspection of the Inspection and Sale Act shows that there is nothing in that Act at the present time to prevent vegetables being sold by weight, so that this section is not necessary fo,r enactment, and I move that it be dropped.
Section dropped.
On Section 2-Weight of dozen eggs.


George Green Foster: It transpires that with reference to ithfe sale of eggs and the

regulations for their grades and size, in pursuance of an Act passed last year, I think, the Agriculture Department has made somewhat elaborate regulations for the grading and marking of eggs, fwhich regulations have passed council within a very short time, and seem to cover the situation to the extent that it is not necessary to enact this clause. I am not going into an explanation of what has been arranged for under those regulations by (the Department of Agriculture, but am simply stating the fact, and, on account of that, it is not necessary to pursue any further legislation with regard to (the weight or grading of eggs. I therefore move that the amended section shall read:
2. Section three hundred and thirty-nine of the said Act is hereby repealed.
The whole business of regulating the size and grading of eggs under the Inspection and Sales Act has gone through these regulations I have spoken of into the hands of the Department of Agriculture.


Wilfrid Laurier: How does Section 339, which we are repealing, read?


George Green Foster: Section 339 of the present Act reads:
When eggs are described as sold by the standard dozen, the dozen shall means one pound and a half.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is repealed?	'


George Green Foster: Yes.


Mr. STACEY:: Have these regulations
been made from the standpoint of the producer or the dealer or the consumer?


Jacques Bureau: Or the layer?


Frank Bainard Stacey: Because it is o? vital importance to a very large section of some portions of Canada, and it will tend to allay any fears that may exist in their mind if they were assured that the interests of these three parties, or at least two of them, the producer^ and the consumers, were taken into consideration?	*


George Green Foster: I have no doubt at all that the Department of Agriculture has taken a wide survey of the whole question and has acted in the best interests, I should say, of the producer and the consumer. The Minister of Agriculture is not in the House, but, as a matter of fact, at the present time these regulations are in force. They cover the grading, weight and soundness of eggs, in fact, everythin j about eggs that one csfn think of. They deal with
fSir George Foster.]
rhe marking of the cases in which eggs are packed for export, how they shall be packed, the number of eggs they shall contain, their inspection before exportation, the sanitary condition of warehouses or rooms in which they are stored, and there is a caution to Collectors of Customs throughout Canada that they shall not allow any Canadian eggs to be shipped for export that are not marked in accordance with these regulations. The regulations come into force as soon as they are published in the Canada Gazette, and in so far as they affect shipments from one province to another, they shall come into force on June 1, 1918. That is all extra information that I am giving of what has been done by the Department of Agriculture, but it does not affect this legislation at all. If my hon. friend will apply to the Minister of Agriculture he will get full information.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: May I ask when these regulations were made and under what authority?


George Green Foster: 
Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand, these regulations only affect interprovincial trade?


George Green Foster: Export trade, and. after June 1 next the regulations also affect shipments from, one province to another province.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then the
regulations are in force now so far as interprovincial shipments are concerned?
Sir 'GEORGE FOSTER: They come into force on the 1st of June next. I am not able to say whether these regulations are in force in any sense, but I just find, in my explanations, that with reference to interprovincial trade they come into force on June 1, 1918.


Frank Bainard Stacey: Can the minister say
whether provision has been made for the selling of eggs by weight, irrespective of their size?
Sir 'GEORGE FOSTER:	I gather from
these regulations, a digest of which I have here, that eggs, as graded, must satisfy certain conditions of size, weight, cleanliness and soundness of shell. Those seem to be the different factors which enter into the grading.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Those regulations
are, I understand, applicable only to eggs for export? They will not govern transactions as between local buyers and local shippers? I understand the Food Control Board has made regulations with the view of eliminating the waste in connection with the egg trade; that is, they have regulated the quality of eggs that can be offered for sale, limiting to one per cent the number of stale eggs which can be offered for sale by anyone. Is legislation included in this Bill covering that action of the Food Control Board, and do those regulations1 govern anything except the export trade?
Sir *GEORGE FOSTER: My hon. friend is asking me somewhat of a double question. He is asking me a question as regards the legislation and regulations which are carried out by the Department of Agriculture. I am not in a position to. give him full information in re. spent to that, but I find here that class 1 includes fresh gathered eggs which have not been held under artificial refrigeration or subject to artificial preservation, and that all of this is preceded by this sentence:
Eggs for domestic consumption or for export, but not including eggs intended for incubation, \s hall be classified and graded as follows:
That, I think, gives as full information as I can give in regard to the matter. If my hon. friend has any more questions with regard to that, he must fire them at the Minister of Agriculture and not at me.


Orren D. Casselman: I just made the suggestion because the Agricultural Department is apparently regulating the egg trade, and the Food Control Board is also passing regulations with regard to that trade. It would be well if the -whole of the legislation in regard to this commodity were embodied in one Act. There is a good deal of confusion in the country over many of these new regulations, and the idea should be to simplify legislation as much as possible so that confusion need not arise. Here are two bodies regulating the same article. The one, I think, governs export, and the other governs transactions locally.


George Green Foster: I think they intermingle too, but my hon. friend may rest assured that the Department of Agriculture and the Food Board must be working very closely together. There is also one fact which makes it impossible for us +o do by legislation what is done from time to time by the regulations of the Food Board. Your legislation is made, and it is
fixed, and it cannot be changed again until another session comes round, but the circumstances of the war make it necessary for the Food Board to make, from day to day, and from week to week, regulation after regulation with regard to foods, so that it is impossible for them to go on exactly formal lines. I do not want the committee, on my Bill which does not have anything to do with eggs, to get into a discussion on the regulations of the Minister of Agriculture. Cannot we dismiss eggs and go oni with the rest of my Bill?


John Albert Sexsmith: The minister has
stirred up some questions about which the House and the country have a right to have some knowledge. Do we understand that the House and the country are not to know anything further about those regulations until they are published in the Canada Gazette, and that it does not matter how radical they may be, the public have to abide by the regulations which the Department of Agriculture has seen fit to make law? I never was and I am not now ini favour of leaving too much power in the hands of a department to make regulations.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear. Sound doctrine !


Mr. SEXSIMIITIH:: It is a great mistake
to carry this principle to the extent to which it has been carried in the past. The Department of Agriculture, if they see fit, may say that a dozen eggs shall weigh one pound or two pounds or five pounds, andi they may make one hundred different regulations in regard to marketing eggs. Perhaps they may have something to say even as to the eating of eggs. Those regulations become law the minute they are published in the Canada Gazette. Surely the 'committee has a right to know something about them.


George Green Foster: I shall ask the Minister of Agriculture to give all the necessary information, and again I put in a plea not to be pestered in regard to this business about which I do not know anything from personal administrative know! edge. '


Wilfrid Laurier: While nobody wants to interfere with the passage of this Bill, the point just brought forward by my hon. friend (Mr. Sexsmdth) is worthy of attention. As I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce, those regulations are now law. They have been published in the Canada Gazette. The Canada Gazette is a paper which is not generally read
#

\
'by the public. I doubt if there is one man in the House who knows the regulations. I doubt if the minister himself knows them. The minister may proceed with his Bill if he promises that, say to-morrow, the regulations will be. laid upon the Table so that we miay have a look at them.


John Albert Sexsmith: My reasons for speaking and making objections are that we have so many regulations. We set a price on bran and shorts, and what was the result? My information is that the farmer cannot buy any bran or shorts at $40 a ton, but the big milling trusts of the country grind the bran a little finer and mix it, along with shorts, with a little barley or screenings, and sell that mixture under a different name at $64 or $65 a ton. That is an example of the results of the regulations made by our boards and commissions.. Such [DOT] regulations are very detrimental to the country and to the farmer. Men have been asked to produce more bacon. I hardly dare go home because, if I go near the farmers of my constituency, they are after me at once. They cannot now buy a pound of bran or shorts, whereas previous to the fixing of the price they could secure them. The setting o:f that price has been a detriment rather than a benefit. We should have some knowledge as to what the regulations are going to be.


The CHAIRMAN:: This discussion is not in order. The clause under discussion is to repeal section 339 of the Inspection and Sale Act, and I would ask bon. members to confine themselves to this clause, particularly as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has promised that all information desired will be given when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are before the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has told us he is withdrawing section 339 because certain regulations have been substituted for it. Nobody knows what those regulations are, .and I think it is quite germane to the clause under discussion to inquire about them.


George Green Foster: Any information that can be -given by the Minister of Agriculture with reference to- the regulations that have already been passed has really nothing to do with the legislation I am trying to put through. I am- simply withdrawing isecti-on 339 of the Inspection and Sale Act because the matter it deals with has been disposed of by the Minister of Agriculture in another way.
[.Sir Wilfrid Laurier.]


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Agriculture has done that by substituting regulations, and I think it would be quite iu order and simplify matters very much if we could be acquainted with the causes that have led to the withdrawal of this section.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is it because the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce found there was such antagonism to this section that they realized it could not possibly be put through the House and thought the matter had better be dealt with by way of regulations by the Minister of Agriculture?


George Green Foster: That is an awful insinuation, to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture and myself, two Christian gentlemen, have been conspiring to fool the House in that way. That has not been the case.


John Albert Sexsmith: I hope not, but it looks very suspicious.


Mr. GLASS:: The minister said that the object of this Bill was to benefit the producer as well as the consumer. Now the producer will not be benefited unless similar standards are established in the export market. For instance, one man might send a dozen eggs to the export market weighing two pounds and another man a dozen weighing one and one-half pounds. There is that difference in the weight of eggs because the hon. member for Wentworth told me two days ago that in order to satisfy himself he went into a store and had several dozens of eggs picked at random from the different baskets lying around and weighed, and he found that on account of the difference in weight there was a variation in price from 44c. to 80c. a dozen. This is certainly an extraordinary variation in the price of eggs that are marketed in the ordinary commercial way through the country stores day by day. If the man whose fowl produces an egg that weighs two pounds to the dozen gets no better price in the export market than the man whose fowl produces an egg that weighs only one pound and four ounces to the dozen, there can be no possible advantage to the producer. Our standards should, conform to the standards adopted in the export market.


Mr. ROBB:: The minister is proceeding to duplicate his tactics of last week. Then he brought in a Bill to amend the Hay Act and immediately began to move amend-

ments so that the Bill left this House practically useless. It looks to me as if the minister to-day after bringing down this Bill is proceeding to cut out clause after clause, and I think he ought to tell us at once how many clauses he intends to cut out.	'


George Green Foster: I am going to make two or three amendments with the consent of the committee. I know my hon. friend's regard for system and order, and I think we will get along better if we deal with each clause as we come to it.


Jacques Bureau: Section 339 of the Inspection and Sale Act was enacted by this Parliament as a protection for the consumer. The Minister of Trade and Commerce now proposes to do away iwith that section and to- give entire control to the Minister of Agriculture to make regulations by Order in Council as to the weight of a dozen eggs. This is not the first time I have risen to protest in this House against that sort of thing. Why should we repeal this clause which has been enacted by Parliament and give the Minister of Agriculture power to go ahead and make regulations without consulting this House? Certainly the minister is not taking this action without first having consulted with the Minister of Agriculture, and I should like to know what reasons have led the minister to withdraw this section, which I think was passed in the interest of the consumer. They must surely have deliberated over the matter and have arrived at this_ conclusion after mature consideration. I want to know why it is proposed to repeal legislation enacted by this Parliament and to put in the hands of one man power to regulate these matters by Order in Council.


George Green Foster: My answer is
this: Parliament last year passed certain legislation giving certain powers to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture and his department, after giving their best thought to the matter, have matured certain regulations with respect to the grading and weight of eggs. That being the case, we certainly should not have any conflicting legislation in the Inspection and Sale Act, and it would certainly be improper for me to follow those regulations with duplicate or correlative legislation.


Jacques Bureau: That is no answer. We have given power to the Minister of Agriculture to pass regulations, but those regulations were to be subject to the laws on the Statute Book at that time. We never
intended to give the Minister of Agriculture power to annul legislation which had been enacted by this Parliament.
My understanding of giving power to any minister to make regulations is that he may pass these regulations subject to any law enacted by Parliament and in force at the time that the power to make regulations was given. What do we see now? We see the Minister of Trade and Commerce asking us to repeal a statute because it might interfere with the Minister of Agriculture, and he says, " You have given this poweT to the Minister of Agriculture to make regulations." I say, certainly we have, but subject to all regulations and restrictions imposed by law at the time the power was given to make the regulations. I consider the answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is no answer to my objection. I am not satisfied with it, and I would like to know if there is anything besides what he has stated that influenced them, in their joint wisdom, to come to the conclusion that, in OTder to give a freer hand to the Minister of Agriculture, he has to repeal statutes already enacted by Parliament.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: I will ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce-and I see the Minister of Agriculture is also present-if the new standards which they purpose to put in force are the standards adopted at the Third Annual Convention of the Canadian Produce Association held at Guelph, January 11th and 12th, 1915, where they adopted the following definitions of grades:
Specials:-Eggs of uniform size weighing over 24 ozs. to the dozen or over 45 lbs. net to the 30 dozen case ; absolutely clean, strong and sound in shell; air cell small, not over 3/16 of an Inch in depth; white of egg to be firm and clear and yolk dimly visible; free from blood clots.
Extras:-Eggs of good size, weighing at least 24 ozs. to the dozen or 45 lbs. net to the 30 dozen case; clean; sound in shell; air cell less than | inch in depth ; white of egg to be firm and yolk slightly visible.
No. l's:-Eggs weighing at least 23 ozs. to the dozen or 43 lbs. net to the 30 dozen case ; clean ; sound in shell; air cell less than h inch in depth; white of egg to be reasonably firm ; yolk may be quite visible but mobile, not stuck to the shell or seriously out of place; air cell not necessarily stationary.
No. 2's:-Eggs clean ; sound in shell; may contain weak watery eggs and eggs with heavy yolks, and all other eggs sound in shell and fit for food.
Is that the regulation that is intended to be put in force if this section is repealed? This matter is under the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. CRERAR:: The regulations the hon. gentleman has read were promulgated by



*the Department of Agriculture under power given by an Act passed, I think, at the last session of Parliament, entitled, The Live Stock and Produce Act.


Joseph Read: That is this standard that I have read.
Mr. CRERAR. Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: What are the regulations now in force passed by the Department of Agriculture in regard to the sale of eggs?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I could read them to the House. There are three pages.


Joseph Read: It would be well to have them on Hansard.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Shall I read them?


Wilfrid Laurier: These regulations have been published in the Gazette, and nobody in the House seems to know what they are. Publications in the Gazette do not reach many people. If they were placed on Hansard, we would be able to read them.


George Green Foster: Place them on the Table.


Jacques Bureau: Do the regulations in any way come in conflict with the legislation which existed in the Inspection and Sale Act with reference to eggs as to the weight per dozen?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am informed not.


Jacques Bureau: Does the hop. minister deem it necessary that we should repeal the former section of the Act, in order to give him a freer hand in the making of his regulations, and if so, why?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not followed the discussion, but does my hon. friend's question refer to this Act under consideration for amendment? Because these regulations have been promulgated under another Act altogether.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that, but today we have' the Bill before the committee. This Bill amends Section 339 of the Inspection and Sales Act, and that has reference to the weight of eggs. This is amended to make twelve eggs weigh a pound and a half. Not only is the existing section repealed in this Bill, but they take advantage of the Bill to, repeal the section in the Inspection and Sales Act, doing away with all control whatever by this Parliament, or taking away from this Parliament the regulation which is there established as to the weight
	/
of eggs. I want to know if the Minister of Agriculture suggested that, and if so, why?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The suggestion did not come from the Minister of Agriculture.


Jacques Bureau: Then why does the Minister of Trade and Commerce desire to repeal Section 339 of the Inspection and Sales Act?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is in an asking mood to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is not in an informing mood.


Jacques Bureau: We have to be in an asking mood if we want to obtain information.


George Green Foster: I find in my notes that it is suggested by the department that Section 339 should be repealed, inasmuch as the regulation with reference to the grades, standard weights and colours of eggs, has been provided for in the legislation passed last year, under the Inspection and Sales Act, and the regulations have been promulgated since by the Department of Agriculture. On looking into the matter, I do not see any very great reason why Section 339 should be repealed, if the House wishes to retain it.


Jacques Bureau: I think we should keep it.


George Green Foster: No Prussianism is being introduced into the House. An Act of Parliament is passed by the consent of the House, and the repeal of an Act can only be accomplished by the consent of the House. The committee can determine whether it should be repealed or not. I looked over these regulations as they came to me, and I saw that they were very explicit, and that they provided, as I have said, for the different grades, the weights of the eggs, and all these other particulars that I have already explained to the House.


Joseph Read: You have got to repeal that section.


George Green Foster: It does not appear to me that we require two pieces of legislation in regard to the grading and packing of eggs.


Joseph Read: If the Government is going to adopt the regulations which have been already adopted by the Canadian Produce Association


George Green Foster: The legislation
I am proposing in this Bill does not adopt these. That matter is already settled by legislation on the statute-books.


Joseph Read: The minister will
have to repeal the 'section in the former

Act, in order to enact the provision in the Bill before us.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says he
can only do this with the consent of the House. That statement is correct. But the House will not .assent without sufficient information. Why not drop this section of the Bill, and let the former section stand?


Joseph Read: I will tell the hon. member why; because the new regulations call for a dozen eggs of a different weight than that provided in the section which is being repealed. The old Act gives the weight of a dozen eggs .as a pound and a half. The Bill the Minister of Agriculture has introduced calls for different weights, according to the grades of eggs. Extras are eggs that weigh 24 ounces, and No. 1 weighs 23 ounces. So that, unless you repeal the clause the Minister of Trade and Commerce is proposing to repeal, you will have a contradiction in the law. One calls for a dozen eggs to weigh 24 ounces, and the other calls for ,a dozen eggs to weigh 23 ounces.


George Green Foster: There is that view and I have no doubt it was responsible for the recommendation that that section be repealed. We will take that matter into consideration. We will let this clause stand and go on with the other clauses. I shall look up the matter and see whether there is a clash or not, and on that will depend whether this will be pressed to repeal or not.
Section as amended, allowed to stand.
On section 3-Packages of food and containers to be marked:


George Green Foster: I want to make some explanation and to suggest some amendments which have been rendered advisable after further consideration. The object of this section is to. assure the consumer that when he makes a purchase of something, his purchase is based upon the standards of weights and measures. The old system by which .an article was measured, or weighed out, from bulk has been modified of late years very largely by the practice of putting up in containers or cartons different articles of food. These are not marked at present with the weight contained, or with the measurement, if it be other than weight, within the carton itself. This opens a very large field for fraud against the consumer. When a purchaser goes in and (buys a certain quantity of commodities of different kinds, he knows
m
the price per pound and he knows what he is getting if it be measured or weighed out to him. If it be placed in a carton or a container, he is not buying, in fact, 'by standard weight or by measurement; he is buying by the package. It has been shown that buying food in this way is an expensive method. A number of apt illustrations have been given in different exhibitions and in different ways in Canada where they have been placed side by side with what you get as a pound, or the measure in weight or capacity, when the article is measured or weighed out to you from the bulk, and what you get in comparison in (buying the- same .commodity when put up in the cartons, or containers. The disparity is very marked. It is therefore an extravagant method of buying food and it also facilitates! fraud in not giving the proper amount as to weight or measurement in the carton. Nothing is promised, and therefore there is no contract. You buy a package and pay so much for it. This provision is simply to make it necessary that every container shall bear upon it legibly tne net weight or measurement of the article that is contained therein. It is also made necessary by this legislation that the name of the packer or person who puts up the product, or of the person for whom it is put up, shall be marked on the container. There is an amendment I wish to make to the latter part of paragraph (b) which will make the meaning a little clearer. I beg to move:	,
That after the word "standard" in line 11, there be inserted these words "avoirdupois weight or the measure in Dominion standard".
The clause will then read:
"The name of the article or articles of food or other commodities in such container, and the net weight dn Dominion standard avoirdupois weight, or the measure in Dominion standard capacity measure, or the numerical count of such food or other commodity."


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Suppose the contents were half water, although the can contained the proper weight?


George Green Foster: It is whatever is contained within the carton if it is well and properly packed outside of the weight of the carton itself.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Suppose that in a can of tomato there was a large quantity of water, what protection has the public?


George Green Foster: It would have the protection of having the name of the

packer upon it and if a packer proposed to put in a little piece of tomato peel and the rest water, he would not do much business.


Jacques Bureau: That is an extreme case.


Mr. FIELDING:: That is all right as far as the name goes, but I intended to ask a question similar to that asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy). Take a can of fish: only part of the can is solid fish, and part is water, brine, pickle, or whatever is used as a preservative. Will you know the amount of fish in the can, or merely the weight of the contents of the can?


George Green Foster: It means the contents of the can.


William Stevens Fielding: These are difficult things to deal with, but it is just as well in the interests of all that these difficulties should be expressed. If it is the contents only, it does not mean the amount of food that is in the can, and it does not give an assurance to the public that they are getting value in the amount of fish contained in the can; they are not getting value because the contents are largely water.


George Green Foster: I do not see any other way by which we can attempt^ to make an improvement. At the present time there is no check and the same objection exists in reference to cans or cartons unmarked. These are additional checks. The desire of the maker, to put up standard goods and to continue to do business, acts much more strongly under these safeguards than it does now.


James Alexander Robb: Will the minister define
what is meant by human food? For instance, milk and cream are delivered to houses in small bottles, and other .commodities such as maple syrup, butter, bread, come to the consumer'^ house in wrappers. la it the intention that# the farmer who furnishes that milk or . cream should go to the expense of having printed labels put on the bottles, and is it also to be required on the wrappers of butter, cream, maple syrup, delivered to the consumer's house?


George Green Foster: The definition
in the clause is as conclusive as can be given. A succeeding clause defines what is excepted, and it is necessary to take that into account as well in appraising the full meaning of the enactment. Paragraph 358D mentions the exceptions:
The provisions of this Act shall n>t apply to,-
(a) any article manufactured or packed for export.

As the section reads it also goes on to state:
or imported into Canada.
I propose to ask the committee to delete those words and make the section apply to imports into Canada as wellbut the onus of proof such article is manufactured or packed for export from Canada shall rest upon the owner or holder of the container.
It does not apply to goods sold in bulk or broken packages, and it does not apply to fresh fruits or vegetables. It is proposed also to add certain other exceptions. The Bill is not to apply to any article held in stock by a wholesale or retail dealer prior to the coming into force of this Act. That is to enable him to get rid of the stock that he has in hand before the Act comes into force. Then there are the fallowing other exemptions to which the Act will not apply:
(e)	To packages containing two avoirdupois ounces, or less, which packages shall be exempt from marking in terms of weight;
(f)	To packages containing the fluid ounce, or less, -which packages shall be exempt from marking in terms of measure.
That refers to very small packages, which are however largely sold:
(g)	to any article the sale of which as regards the weight of marking thereof is al ready provided for under other statutes.
In the Inspection and Sale Act there are a great many articles enumerated and this does not apply to such articles. Special provisions are made for those. That takes in, for instance, fish, flour, potatoes and vegetables of different kinds. To continue the exemptions:
(h)	those food commodities which may at the time this Act comes into force, or which thereafter may be subject to any regulation or order of the Canada Food Control Board as respects the weight of such commodity or the weight or proportion of ingredients used in the manufacture of such commodity.
(1) those food commodities held in stock at the time that such regulations of the Canada Food Board referred to in paragraph (h) become inoperative.
These are the amendments which it is considered necessary to make under the present disturbed conditions. For instance, the Canada Food Board is making regulations from time to time and these have to vary; you cannot make them subject to a fixed law. So that while the present conditions hold, and the Food Board is making its regulations from time to time, those regulations' will be operative and are excepted from, the workings of the Act. It is

a very difficult subject to legislate about, as my hon-. friend quite understands, but the object is to make a ooimtmencement, along what is considered to. be the right line, for the protection of the consumer, to go as far as we possibly can, and make way gradually.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not see that there
is much protection for the consumer in the language used here unless the minister protests against the use of water or other preservatives. For instance, one may have fifty per cent tomato and fifty per cent water. It is not fair to the public that they should be forced to buy wiater, although it is expensive enough in this city. Now the ramifications of the law extend over the whole country, and it seems to. me that the minister could insert in the Bill some such provision as this:
That such container shall have within it at
least ninety per cent of solid material, free from all other liquids except the natural juice of the fruit or vegetable.
Or require in the case of canned fish and all other commodities "the necessary ingredients." Give the purchaser, who- all over the country goes looking from day to day for food products, no cause for complaint. I do- not know whether anybody in this House puts up shrimps, but a can of shrimps has vastly more water in it than a can of lobster or a can of salmon, either of which is perfectly dry. It may be that the shrimps must be preserved in some -way by an inordinate quantity of water, but unless the public knows that, the tendency would be to suspect fraud in the putting up of the commodity. The proportion of liquid in such a case- is entirely out of proportion to- the size of the can, and I think there should be in the Bill some safeguard for the protection of the consumer. A person who buys by retail a can of this, or a can of that, suffers, and iwhille it does not seem to that individual worth complaining about, the practice has within, it the element of fraud. The whole country is suffering from, it in a moderate way, and the producer of the goods ie practically robbing the whole country to the extent of his trade. It does seem to me that there- should be some settled quantity fixed, not only for fish, hut -for tdmatoes, corn, peas, -etc., and the phrase "net weight," to my mind, rather tends towards encouraging fraud) than preventing it.
Net weight might mean three-quarters of the article, or three-quarters of water. I ask the minister to consider carefully putting something drastic in there to protect
the people when they are paying forty or fifty cents for a can of food, especially in these days when everything is so. high. There is no Teason why water within the container should take the value of the food article. I would like the minister to- ask his officers if they cannot find some provision to insert there in fairness and equity to the consuming public.


Jacques Bureau: Is it not already covered in the Bill by the term " net weight?"


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think it is. There is nothing to prevent the contents being half water. It is the weight of the contents of the container which is referred to. The minister has, said that the only remedy, as I understand, if the public find there is three-quarters of water in any line of canned goods, is to quit buying those goods.


Jacques Bureau: If water is not part -o^f the food it should not be counted. But if the interpretation given to that section means that waiter is a part of the food, as ini the ease df the juice of the tomato, why not force the packer to put the exact contents of the package on the label, and if the exact contents are not as represented, then fine the packer?


William Stevens Fielding: It does provide for a fine, but it also specifies net weight of the contents.


Jacques Bureau: Or of the food in the package?


William Stevens Fielding: present exists, how we can do that completely without going back, framing up the particular ingredients that go into each food, say canned fish or canned tomatoes and then having a thorough inspection system to see that these goods are packed accordingly. I quite agree with my hon. friend that we have not got at the bottom of this whole matter through this legislation. All that I am contending is that we do to a certain extent put an instrument into the hands of the consumer by which he is protected very much more than he is at the present time.


Mr. HENDERS:: Is it the intention that this Bill shall apply to packages put up by farmers, say pound packages of butter, and cartons of a dozen eggs, and that they should be marked as provided in this Bill?


George Green Foster: That is not the intention -at aJll. I do not think the Bill covers that.


Mr. NICKLE:: Before we leave this question, I do not want to embarrass the Minister, as he has had considerable criticism to deal with but I believe there should be a provision excepting bottled milk. The section reads: "Every can, carton, bottle, and so on shall have the name of the person on whose behalf the container is filled, and also the weight of the article of food. Certainly you cannot put the weight of a bottle of milk on every bottle of milk, because the weight of milk will vary in proportion to its richness. Does this legislation apply to milk?


George Green Foster: Milk comes under paragraph (b) under the term " the measure in Dominion standard capacity measure."


William Folger Nickle: That clause does not contain the name of the article?


George Green Foster: It divides them into classes by weight,' measure or count.
Subsection as amended agreed to.


Mr. KAY:: With reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kingston, we on this side were not favoured with the explanation which the minister gave to that hon. member. But I might point out that the farmers often bottle milk and sell it themselves, and it would be almost impossible for them to label the bottle explaining that it is milk or that it is cream, and to have the net weight stated. They would require to have different bottles for milk and cream, because these weigh a different amount per gallon or per quart. Would the minister tell us if he has any intention of exempting

bottled milk from the provisions of this Act?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend did not catch the explanation that I made to the hon. member for Kingston.


Jacques Bureau: It was made with the soft pedal, we could not hear it.


George Green Foster: It is not proposed' to apply the test of weight to milk. That is a measure of capacity, and the quantity contained, the net contents are given in the section in three ways, by the avoirdupois weight, or the liquid measure standard, or the count, whichever it may be. This Bill is not meant to cover packages of butter that are brought in by farmers and disposed of on the streets or in the market-place. It refers to what may be called standard goods, and methods of disposing of them in containers of different kinds without breaking the bulk. The farmer makes up a dozen pats of butter, brings them into the market and sells them a pound here and a pound there, that is, in the broken package; those are not cartons under*the meaning of this section. The amendments which I am proposing here are quite numerous, and I did not propose to pass the Bill through committee at this time, but rather to go through the sections and propose the amendments. Such of them as we can carry, we will do so. Others may be allowed to remain till the committee has a chance to look them over. My object is to make progress with the Bill to get it to the stage where we can finish it up later on.


William Frederic Kay: I think the minister should have the exemptions specified in the Bill.


George Green Foster: That may be.


William Frederic Kay: Line twenty-one of section 358A, reads; "containing human food or any other commodity manufactured, produced, sold or offered for sale in Canada." It appears to me that these words cover not only food but everything that is manufactured or sold in Canada. They give very wide powers.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has to read this in connection with the exceptions that are made. He will be able to do that better when he sees them all in print.


William Folger Nickle: The explanation of the minister covered the first point I was endeavouring to make; but he should have the attention of his officials drawn to the

fact that, if this Bill goes through in its present form, it is, in my judgment, going to necessitate the destruction of tens of thousands of milk bottles throughout the country, because those milk bottles are not as a rule stamped with the name of the man who uses them. They are supplied in huge quantities. Some of them have just the quantity marked on them, such as quart, pint or half-pint, and they are used interchangeably for milk or cream. There are thousands of bottles that do not have on them the name of the man using them, and those bottles will all have to be destroyed. Some exception should, therefore, be made in regard to milk. I cannot speak in regard to other articles, because I do not know as to them. It can hardly be the intention of the department to require, from one end of the country to the other, the destruction of all the milk bottles in use, and there could not be a more unfortunate time than this for such a regulation, because as glass is scarce and the price is increasing, this would mean a substantial increase in the cost of milk to the consumer. The cost of milk is high enough now.
Mr. .T. M. DOUGLAS: The hon, member will note that, with regard to milk, a little ' pasteboard cover, with the name of the dairy company and the quantity on it, is put into the top of the bottle.


Jacques Bureau: That is not part of the container; you throw that away.


Mr. HALLADAY:: That applies to larger cities and towns, not to the rural districts.


James Alexander Robb: The minister intimated that * he had a number of amendments. He should read those amendments so that we may know what they are. That would facilitate the passage of the Bill.


George Green Foster: I have read them.


James Alexander Robb: The minister must, sometimes, become a little annoyed at the staff of his department, because every time he brings in a Bill, we have to proceed to mutilate it, and when it passes this House, it is scarcely recognizable as being related to the Bill introduced.


Joseph Read: Does the heading
"fresh food and vegetables" include potatoes? Potatoes are put up, in Canada, in eighty or ninety pound bags, and, in the [DOT] United States, in 100 pound bags.


George Green Foster: That is included in the Act itself, and is one of the exceptions. It is not the intention that
this legislation should apply to sales of milk as they are carried on in country places or in towns. A man comes in with a can and he goes around and supplies his customers with milk from that can. Another man supplies his customers with milk in bottles. It is not intended to apply this Act to transactions of that kind. An amendment may have to be made expressly to exempt certain lines of that kind. We can make that later. As regards the taking out of use of cartons and packages, the Act is not to come into force immediately. Time is given so that those changes can adapt themselves gradually without destroying either cartons that are in use or packages which have already come into the trade.


Mr. BOYCE:: Is any change to be made in regard to milk bottles?


George Green Foster: It is not the intention of the Act to interfere with the customary system now prevailing.


George Boyce: If it did, it would create a great hardship.


William Frederic Kay: Is it the intention that this legislation shall apply to milk dealers in cities?


George Green Foster: In that respect there would be no difficulty in making an amendment which would effectually protect that business.


John Albert Sexsmith: I can easily understand how the objection raised by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) can be got over. The dealer or seller can have his name and so forth put on the pasteboard cover that is put into the mouth of the bottle, and some already do that. All such matters, however, tend to increase the price of milk. This winter I was speaking to a milk dealer -who supplies some 300 or 400 bottles of milk a day to a village. I asked him if the war affected his business. At that time he had on hand boxes containing one or two hundred bcttles. He told me that the bottles themselves practically doubled in price, but he said: This is where the war has affected me; this little bit of pasteboard has gone up in oriee over 600 per cent. If the Government is going to make regulations so that that piece of pasteboard will have to pass through a printing press so as to have printed on it the name of the dealer and the quantity of milk contained in the bottle, that is going to increase the price still further. This man who has thirty or forty cows and who is by himself, as both

of his sons have gone overseas, has a big enough job a$ it is to fill three or four hundred bottles of milk. If he has to separate out his covers in accordance with the size of his bottles, and if his name and the quantity of milk have to be on each of these covers, it is going to mean a great deal more work for him, and more expense, and he will accordingly have to charge more for the milk.


Mr. PELLETIER:: How will this legislation operate in rural districts where a farmer is doming into a oity or town or village with four or five or six dozen eggs, or ten or fifteen pounds of butter?


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: It does not affect such transactions at all.
iMr. PELLETIER: What about a dealer who receives butter from a number of different farmers through the mail, and who puts that into a large receptacle such -as a tub? Has that to be marked? The dealer does not know where this butter comes from. It is made up from butter from fifteen or twenty farmers.


George Green Foster: All he has to do is to sell it out as required,* by the pound or in packages, as he pleases. That is a broken package.


François Jean Pelletier: Suppose he were to ship it, what is the result? He would take the responsibility of marking the container.


George Green Foster: If he exports or sends it away in large lots in containers, then he comes under this legislation. If he, after buying butter from different places, puts it into containers or packages, he has to put his name and the weight on them.
(Mr. KAY: The minister should, before this clause passes, let us know what exceptions he is going to make.


George Green Foster: The exceptions are:
Any article manufactured or packed for export, all goods sold in bulk or broken packages, fresh fruit and vegetables, all articles which are provided for elsewhere in the Inspection and Sale Act, all articles held in stock by wholesaler or retailer prior to the coming Into force of this Act, packages containing two ounces avoirdupois or less, which packages shall be exempt from marking in terms of weight, packages containing one fluid ounce or less, which packages shall be exempt from marking in terms of measure, any article the sale of which as regards the weight or marking is provided for under other statutes, food commodities which may at the time this Act comes into force or which thereafter may be subject [Mr. Sexsmith.l
to any regulations or order of the Canada Food Control Board as respects the weight of such commodity or the weight or proportion of the ingredients used in the manufacture of such commodity, and all food commodities held in stock at the time such regulations of the Canada Food Board referred to in paragraph (h) become inoperative.


James Alexander Robb: I want to emphasize what has been said by the hon. member (Mr. Sex-smith) that all these regulations have the effect of increasing the cost to the consumer. The regulations passed from time to time by the Canada Food Board ever since its organization have done nothing but help to increase the cost to the consumer. They have recognized themselves that some of their regulations are so foolish they have withdrawn them two or three weeks after they have been passed. Let me give an instance. The Food Board some time ago pointed out that the expense of putting up goods in cartons was excessive and passed regulations that no retailer should sell less than twenty pounds of oatmeal, rolled oats, or flour in a carton. It was ridiculous on the face of it, because in many families twenty pounds of oatmeal would spoil before it could be used, and many other families could not afford to 'buy so much at a time. The Food Board recognized that eventually and withdrew those regulations. The minister comes here to-day at the request of the Canada Food Board and attempts to pass regulations which one of his supporters points out is going to increase the cost to the consumer. I endorse that view, and I think the minister should carefully consider before .impo'smg further restrictions which will have the effect of increasing the cost of living.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will admit that food boards and all other people have to learn by experience and that we all make mistakes. I dare say my hon. friend, looking back over his own business career, can see where he has made mistakes. I deprecate wholesale criticism of the value of the work of the Food Board. It is almost impossible to protect the consumer without adding something to the expense, but you have to take into .account the ultimate gain to the consumer, which is far and away above the small additional expense entailed. It is with that purpose that this legislation has been introduced. My bon. friend will admit that there has been great imposition upon the consumer in respect to carton and container sales, and it is impossible to rectify that without taking some measures of precaution, and

though labels and the like of that -add somewhat to the expense, the expense is trifling compared with the benefit that accrues to the consumers as a body because of these precautions.


James Alexander Robb: Take the case of milk. Are the bottles going to contain any more milk than they do at present. They are filled now; you cannot get any more into them, and if less be put into them the people will not 'buy. How is the label going to give the consumer any more imiilk?


George Green Foster: It gives the consumer a guarantee as to the quantity he is getting. He knows he is getting what he pays for, whereas if there is no label he does not know.


James Alexander Robb: The minister loses sight of
the fact that most housewives have a measure into which they dump these articles, and they can tell whether they are being fooled or not. If they are being fooled they quit dealing with that man,.


George Green Foster: There may be
housewives shrewd enough to do that, but I think the majority of them do not take that trouble.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3I58B-penalty for not marking:
James Alexander Robb: Who is going to prosecute in these cases?


George Green Foster: Any one may
prosecute.


James Alexander Robb: Not the department?


George Green Foster: Inspectors have not been appointed for that purpose.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I understand the minister is going to except milk.


George Green Foster: Yes, in some way protect it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 358C-containers not marked, etc., [DOT] to be seized:
James Alexander Robb: That brings out the point
raised by the hon. member for Kingston that some of these containers may be seized and destroyed.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: To make the Act thoroughly effective we must have the power of seizing the illegal instrument. It does not say that it will be destroyed.
'Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 5 SI.)-exceptions :


George Green Foster: I desire to
amend this clause so that it shall apply
to imports. It does not seem to be just to our packers, dealers and consumers unless this is done. If we compel our own people who are putting up foods, for instance, in cartons to put on their names and the weight or the measure, whatever it may be, it would then be unfair to, allow similar goods to be imported into this country, wihich might be done up in exactly the same kind of carton, but would not have the weight, the capacity marks or the name of the packer upon them. Sufficient time is given in the Act for these changes to be brought about by the importers of any such goods into this country. The Act'will not go into force for a year, and these changes can be brought about by persons who are ijnporting that class of goods into this country.


William Stevens Fielding: You retain the right
to cheat the farmer, if you wish.


George Green Foster: I do not understand my hon. friend.


William Stevens Fielding: It does not apply to
export. Therefore, we can cheat the farmer if we are smart enough, and he is dull enough; I merely want to understand the Bill.


George Green Foster: The man, for instance, who is exporting goods into Russia or Germany-if we ever get on peaceful trade conditions with Germany-or the man who is importing into any other foreign country, does not want the Canadian weight marked upon them. He wants them marked in his own way, with his own weights and measures. In fact, it would destroy the export business to foreign countries in the vast majority of the articles if we insisted upon marking them, according to the terms of our own Act. We had to make an exception in regard to barbed wire and various other things.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Op section 358E-Variations of weight, etc., allowed.
George Green Foster: After more
thorough consideration and conference with the business men, it has been found advisable to change the clause. Discrepancies in weight or measure due exclusively to differences in atmospheric conditions and so on, will occur, and some provision must be made for them. The provision we had at first was calculated on a percentage of the original weight, but that works very unfairly. In some cases


Mr. CROWE:: Most of the wood sold in my district is sold by the load. It is largely mill refuse or slabs. People bring in cord-wood and resaw it in stove lengths of 16 inches, and sell it in competition with the mill refuse. Will'the people who bring in the wood and sell it in competition with the mill refuse have to sell it by the cord?


George Green Foster: The matter of firewood is difficult to legislate upon. A great many complaints have come to the department, and especially in the last few years, as to the impositions in regard to the sale of wood, and a very persistent demand has been made that there shall be some standard fixed :by which wood shall he sold or bought, or may be sold or bought. It is proposed, therefore, to make the cord the standard of measurement. From that there is exempted mill-scrap, kindlings and other mill refuse, and from that there will also be the exemption which I propose to move later on, that notwithstanding anything in this Act, wood may be sold other than by the cord, unless the cord be stipulated at the time of purchase. This, therefore, practically fixes a standard by which

wood may be sold with the exception of mill-scrap, kindling and other mill refuse; so that, if a person wishes to contract to deliver wood, and another person wishes to contract to purchase that wood to be delivered by the cord, the standard is set and the measurements have to be made, and the quantity delivered by the cord or fraction thereof.
But, if agreed between the purchaser and the seller that they will conduct their tperations on the basis of the load or in any other way, then it becomes a case in which the standard does not apply. It is a matter of agreement between the purchaser and seller. For all those whs wish to know that they are doing it upon a fixed basis, where measurements can he applied, the standard to be named a cord, is made the standard for such transactions. In that way it will not inflict any hardship on the trade and will protect in a good many cases the buyer where now there is absolutely no protection. Cases have been brought to the attention of the department where wood, purporting to be sold by the cord, has been very much below the cord. There is some remedy, I suppose, but unless you have a standard fixed it is difficult to apply the remedy.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: You are protecting the
man who buys by the cord, but you are not protecting the man who buys by the load. Most of our fuel is bought by the load. The mill refuse is cut up into sixteen-inch lengths and sold by the load. There is no protection for the buyer. If the person who is selling that wood were obliged to have a standard size for a load, or if he were required to inform the purchaser how many cubic feet there were in the load, there would be some protection. But, there is no protection here. I repeat that you are protecting the man who buys by the cord, but you are not protecting the man who buys by the load.
Si? GEORGE FOSTER: You are protecting the man who buys the most expensive kind of wood but it would be almost impossible to fix a standard for kindling wood, mill scrap and the like of that.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is it not a fact that wood has always been sold in Canada by the cord? If I ordered a cord of wood, and a man brought it to my place, would I not exact from him 128 cubic feet?


George Green Foster: Yes. If you had made your contract in that way.


John Albert Sexsmith: They said a great d^al about this in the newspapers last winter, and what I saw astonished me. A man would go down to the maxket square in Peterborough and say: I will give you $10 for your load. When the load was delivered and it perhaps was not just a cord the purchaser commenced to kick. The law was not at fault, nor was the man who sold the wood? When I order a cord of wood I want to get 128 cubic feet and if I do not get it 1 should not be required to pay for it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: I am in favour of this
clause, but I think that when legislation is being framed to meet the case of people buying cordwood, something should also be done with respect to those who buy wood by the load. I would suggest that the minister frame an amendment to the effect that when wood is sold by the load, there be marked on the bill which is given to the purchaser the amount of the contents of that load in cubic feet, or that the quantity should be marked on the outside of the wagon when the wood is delivered. The purchaser would then know exactly how much wood he was receiving.


George Green Foster: There would be
some difficulty in doing that I am afraid. However, I shall be very glad to take the suggestion into consideration', and the next time we proceed with the Bill see if we can arrange a clause that will meet the hon. gentleman's wishes. I move an amendment to section 359A, to add, after the word "contents," the words "of a cord or the requisite fraction thereof." This will bring the section into unison with the cord standard.
Mr. SEX'SMITH: Why exempt the mill-men who sell mill, scrap, kindling, and so on? In my opinion, if there is any reason at all for complaint in this matter of wood, it is more about the way the millmen sell their scrap than about the method of the ordinary wood dealers. The millmen run around little loads of wood on wagons in villages, cities and towns, and charge so much for it. In such cases there is no thought of the quantity sold, and they charge practically any price for it that they can get. I think that is one of the main reasons for the kicking that has been done throughout the community.


Samuel Francis Glass: I think there should be a distinction between mill scrap and slabs that are sawn off in a sawing mill. The ordinary mill scrap, or kindling, which is generally used for lighting fires, is not a matter of very material importance, because it is sold at a very low figure any way. But in many mills in small towns where large timber is sawn, slabs are taken off the sides that are cut into ten and eighteen-inch wood and delivered for fuel, and the same regulations should apply to wood of this character as to ordinary cord-wood. One great difficulty in forming an idea as to what the contents of a load should be is that often the load is thrown-in loosely and without piling. If the woodman were required to pile his wood on the wagon, it would be a very easy matter to estimate, and estimate very closely, the actual cubic contents of the load, but where the load is thrown in roughly, without piling, it is a cause of deception to the purchaser and a very serious loss to poor people who have to buy their wood in that way.


George Green Foster: The difficulty in making any 'standard for that kind of scrap, or of fuel, is this: The millmen sell the wood out- as they can, and it is generally picked up by all kinds of small dealers who take it into their yards, and it goes through the summer process of being dried out to some extent, and afterwards sold to the consumer. There is no exact measurement; it is delivered in all kinds of packages. The difficulty is to get a standard which will suit every place without being burdensome to any; you cannot do it. However, I am going to see whether or not we can frame an amendment which will reach to some extent the difficulty which has been spoken of.


Samuel Francis Glass: There would not be so much difficulty in dealing with slabs from large logs.


George Green Foster: There, would be less difficulty than in the case of mill scrap and small chunks of wood, but, as my hon. friend sees, it is very difficult to fix a standard that could be applied all through the country.


John Albert Sexsmith: My reason for mentioning the matter is, that there are hundreds of small portable mills operating throughout the country which cut thousands and thousands of cordis of slabwood into two-foot or four-foot lengths, which wood is hauled into the villages and sold at so

much a load. If some provision is not made under this Bill to meet the case of such sales, the men selling that wood would be exempt; they could bring their wood in in any shape they please, and sell it, of course, to the best advantage.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The punishment provided in this section seems rather severe. A person selling wood may have a very small [DOT]quantity on his sled, perhaps not more than one-eighth or one-tenth of a cord, and may in good faith think he has more. Now if the quantity turns out by exact measurement to be less than, that required by the law, and if the seller is not guilty of intentional deception, he ought not to be hastily dealt with. A man who wrongfully or fraudulently represents the quantity in a toad of wood is properly liable to punishment. But this legislation does not say that the wood-seller's action must be wrongful or fraudulent; if the load turns out to be even a fraction less than he thinks it is he incurs a penalty of $25 or $50. I would suggest that the penalty be applied if there is fraud or intention to deceive. As the clause is now drafted, a magistrate before whom an offender was brought would have no discretion at all, and could not inquire whether or not he acted in good faith.


George Green Foster: What does my hon. friend suggest?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There should be something to show that there has 'been a fraudulent intent in imposing upon the buyer something that is to the knowledge of the seller improper. The words "wrongfully tries to pass off as a larger quantity of wood a smaller quantity," express my idea. The minister might send the Bill back to whoever drafted it, and he will understand exactly what I mean when I say there should be something to show to (the court that it is not the intention of the law to punish a man unless he wilfully misrepresents his goods. It should also be made clear that the magistrate shall have option as to the amount of the fine. The present Bill provides a penalty not exceeding $25 in the first instance and $50 in the second. The court should have discretionary power as to how much the fine should be.


George Green Foster: There is something in the point which my hon. friend raises. We do not want to go so far as to render the clause nugatory by .allowing the real offender to get off. If there is a very small disparity in the measurement, done

without wilful intent, it seems rather hard to0put the full penalty upon the seller. I have made a note of that suggestion, and I will see if the clause .can be modified.


Mr. FORTIER:: I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) that there should not be a fixed penalty, so that the magistrate may fine, according to the circumstances, as low as one dollar if he sees fit. I think that this Bill is going too far, as. at seems to have been the intention of the party who drafted it to make it compulsory to sell wood by the cord. I am of the opinion that the seller .should be permitted to sell wood by the load. Moreover, I do not think there is any reason for passing any legislation upon this matter. I think the Government, in restricting the selling of wood to cord measurement to be consistent should impose a penalty for selling food or other commodities not up to similar definite standards.
It may be argued that the Bill aims to establish what should be the content of a cord of wood, but that has been dione already by previous legislation. I submit that the clauses concerning firewood should be struck out.


John Albert Sexsmith: I quite agree with the hon. member (Mr. Fortier) that this legislation is quite drastic. In the district I represent, and, I think, throughout the province of Ontario, a custom has grown up where wood 20 and 22 inches in length is accepted by the consumer, and in fact, requested, by him. I was discussing this matter last winter, and one man in the wood business instanced to me where he sold 20-dnch wood. If that wood had been 18 inches, he could have sold it without difficulty, because the people of the town, had been in the. habit of getting wood that length, which suited their particular stoves better. In fact, 20 and 22-inch wood has been asked for and accepted for quite a long time. Several dealers, told me last winter that they would be satisfied to give 128 cubic feet, but they would have to charge a little extra, but that the demand to-day is for wood cut not longer than 18 to 22 inches. One would think from reading, some of the newspapers of the country which have been discussing this matter that it was the man who sold the wood who was to blame for the shorter length. That is not so at all. There is a demand for 20-inch wood, and people are willing to take that wood in -preference to a 24-inch length, 'as. it is more convenient for their use. As wood has become very expensive, people are commencing to kick

about the measurement, and that is one of the reasons, I suppose, why we have these provisions in this Bill. It has always been considered that 128 cuibie feet constitutes a cord of wood, and if it is found on actual measurement that a cord of wood does not contain that cubic quantity the seller is liable. I think that law has been in force during all my lifetime. If a man sold me a cord of wood, and claimed to de-, liver a cord of wood, I would expect him to deliver me 128 cubic feet, unless I said to him that I would accept 22-inoh wood as if it were 24-inieh. It , is the consumers, not the dealers, who have requested their wood cut a certain length. I have never had any experience myself as a dealer in wood, hut I kndw that it is not the dealer who is to blame. It is what the consumer actually has been getting in the way of length that has probably been the cause of all this disturbance. To impose a penalty such as is provided in these clauses will put some people to great inconvenience, and perhaps get them into trouble, because through the newspapers publishing articles advising people to go out and cut wood for next year, thousands of cords have already been cut in the bush all over the country of 20 and 22 inches. I have no doubt that the dealers in that wood will he absolutely satisfied to sell 128 cubic feet, but they will ask a little more in price, so the consumer will get no advantage.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
George Green Foster: I wish to add the following section as 359 B.
Notwithstanding anything in this Act wood may be sold other than by the cord, unless the cord he stipulated at the time of purchase.
That is to say, agreements can be made to buy and sell wood in any quantity, by the load or in any way at all, provided such is the agreement between the buyer and the seller.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On sections 360, 360A and 360B-Portland cement:
Sir GEORGE FOSTER- We have had a good deal of correspondence with reference to these three questions in respect to Portland cement. Objections have been taken on several grounds and have been very carefully considered, and the opinions of experts, engineers and others, have been obtained by the department. As a result of all this, I purpose .making certain
amendments. Section 360 as it stands in the Bill reads:
Every bag of Portland cement sold or offered for sale in Canada shall contain ninety-four pounds net weight, and four such bags shall constitute a barrel.
I wish to substitute,, for that this section :
All Portland cement shall be sold by weight, and 94 pounds shall constitute a bag, and four
such bags shall constitute a barrel.
That establishes that cement shall be sold by weight, and that the standard container shall contain 94 pounds. The bag, or something corresponding to the bag, is used as a cdntainer, and four of those bags constitute a barrel of 376 pounds. This principle has, with few exceptions, been practically agreed to. These changes have been canvassed by a comihittee of four of the Council of the Society of Civil Engineers-a cement manufacturer, a cement consumer and two engineers. As a result of their joint deliberations, I have the agreement of all the members of the committee, with the exception of one, and in accordance with that view, T have introduced this substitute clause. Objection is made that the present hag holds somewhere about 871 pounds, and that if you now make a 94-pound standard weight, you cause a great deal of trouble and possibly a good deal of waste in connection with bags which are already ordered or which are on hand being used for putting up the cemenit at 871 pounds to each bag. There is also a second objection, that other containers than bags are 'being used. Section 360A in the Bill reads:
Every bag in which Portland cement is flMed and delivered shall be made of good strong fibrous material closely woven and in good repair when filled, and shall have plainly marked thereon the brand and name of the manufacturer and the net weight.
I think we can get over that difficulty, almost entirely, by substituting a section which I propose, as follows:
Every container in which Portland cement is offered for sale shall be made of suitable protective material, in good repair wben filled, and shall have plainly marked thereon the brand and name of the manufacturer.
I understand that paper bags are being more and more used as a container for cement. It is also proposed that this Act shall not come into force until one year after it has, received the signature of the Governor General. That will be sufficient time to make any adjustments that are necessary in the way of hags. The present bag, which is running at 871 pounds to the bag, is, in most instances, sufficiently large to hold 94 pounds. Only
/
[Stage Direction]
about 64 pounds would have to be added. That fact, coupled with the year's grace in the coming into operation of this legislation, will almost entirely avoid the waste of the bags.
Section 360B imposes a penalty. It is proposed to leave that penalty out for the present. Cement, I understand, is bagged by machinery, and it is very difficult, in bagging by machinery, to have the exact weight in each bag; there is sometimes more or sometimes less, so that what will be done by the Bill, if it passes as I propose, is to affirm the principle that cement shall be sold by weight; that the bag shall ultimately contain 94 pounds and that the barrel shall comprise four bags. This is in exact accordance with the conditions and the law in the United States. For a number of years the United States standard bag of cement has been 94 pounds, and the barrel, four bags or 376 pounds. Taken altogether, that is about the best solution we can find for legislation with regard to cement. I, therefore, beg to move the amendments I have stated.
Hugh Boulton Morphy: My information is that the United States standard bag- of cement holds 864 pounds.


George Green Foster: That statement, which was made to the department, was thoroughly investigated. I have the Act, and I have also the assurance, obtained by wire just the other day of the department at Washington, that that is the standard; that it is in force, and that there is no intention of putting it out of force.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is section 4 to be dropped from the Bill?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Then I understand it will be lawful for a man having eight or nine thousand sacks on hand to continue using them until they are worn out?


George Green Foster: As long as they are usable.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The question is one of sale by weight?
' Sir GEORGE FOSTER: Yes. The manufacturer or dealer will find that, in a great many cases, he can easily get 94 pounds into the bag. If .so, he comes' up to the measure more quickly.	[DOT]


George Green Foster: I wish to represent to the minister on behalf of a number of 'manufacturers that this legislation will mean a very heavy loss on account of thou-

sands of sacks which they have on hand at present. The minister says that, by packing down the cement, you may possibly get 94 pounds into the bag.
I understand that it is not possible to get the quantity of the new standard in the sacks. The old standard was 864, and the new standard is 94; you are changing from the less to* .the greater quantity. I do not know that there have been any strong representations, except perhaps from architects .and' builders, that the standard should toe changed. Previously four sacks constituted a barrel but now you have to change the standard of your barrel to meet the difference in the sacks, and that will cause some difficulty until the machinery is set up to turn out the standard-sized barrels. This means considerable to the man manufacturing barrels and to the man manufacturing sacks. The large manufacturers in the West spoke to me about it, and I advised) .them to have a conference with the minister. Whether they have made representations to him I do not know, but they certainly appeared to have a grievance, It is immaterial to the architect or the builder whether the standard is 87 or 94 pounds, but it is of consequence to the producer who is turning out hundreds of thousands of barrels. We are not so very much concerned about .the standard on the other side of the line, because the great majority of the cement we use is our own product, and we should therefore not be guided) by the size of the standard sacks or 'barrels on the American side. I should like to know whether representations have been made to the Government as to the very great loss the manufacturers may sustain.


George Green Foster: 
George Boyce: I have used a few barrels of cement for a number of years. My experience has been that there w;H be no

trouble in getting 94 pounds of cement into the sacks we are now using; I think there is room- fox 10 pounds more.


Orren D. Casselman: I suppose that the
object is to have a sack of uniform 6ize as between 'Canada and the United States?


George Green Foster: It is well to have uniformity.


Orren D. Casselman: I can see that uniformity is desirable, as we are getting closer and closer to the United States in trade and other matters. I am told that a short time ago the United States endeavoured to have the weight of a sack of cement raised to 100 pounds, but the opposition was so strenuous that the idea was abandoned. I am also told that the tendency in the States now is to reduce rather than increase the size of a sack of cement and that there is an agitation on in the United States with that object. The larger the sack the greater the waste, on account of sifting; the cement comes through the pores of the sack. In the early part of the discussion the minister spoke of the necessity for marking packages with the name of the maker and the weight, but this amendment will make it unnecessary for those details to be placed on the container. The cement will be sold on the basis of a sack of 94 pounds or a barrel of 376 pounds. The old sacks, so long as they are used, will only hold 87J pounds. The price will be based on a sack of 94 pounds, and the price to a buyer will be eighty-seven ninety-fourths of the price of a bag of cement. When it is remembered that there are fifty thousand retail merchants in the Dominion of Canada handling cement, it can at once be seen what annoyance and confusion would result if this became the law. I repeat, in the earlier clauses of the Bill the minister is providing that the weight shall be marked on every container, but in this particular instance the weight need not be specified. The uniform weight was 87J pounds, but now it is proposed that a container can hold any amount .and the weight need not be specified at all. That is inconsistent. I am told that the present sacks will not hold 94 pounds, and if that is the case the small sacks will have to be thrown into the discard ultimately. I understand that cement sacks in use at the present time are valued at $2,000,000 and at this time when everybody is being urged to do everything he can to save and conserve, it seems to me that by this change we would be foisting a tremendous loss upon the people of Canada, and the lose would ultimately fall
upon the consumer and nobody else. I would suggest to the minister, in all humility, that he withdraw the whole Bill. If the Bill were reprinted as it now stands, with all the erasures and the amendments and the amendments to the amendments, I doubt very much if the minister would recognize it. The modern tendency is to simplify business: this Bill complicates business. I would further urge upon the minister that Bills of this kind-legislation compelling people to do things they do not like, or restraining them from doing things they want to do; legislation seeking to cure only minor evils-should be avoided. Almost every day a new order is issued by the Food Control Board. I am not criticising that board in its entirety, because T believe it has done a lot of good. I can point to an instance in which the Food Control Board has saved in one branch ot Canadian trade and industry the whole amount paid in salaries to that board.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would the hon. gentleman apply the same freedom of treatment which he is now laying down to the merchandise we use, or to the Coinage Act?


Orren D. Casselman: I would have to consider that. I am not familiar with the Coinage Act, but I have a knowledge of the cement trade, and the produce trade of Canada, and I am speaking from that knowledge. When so much new legislation is necessary, I say that legislation only curing minor evils should be avoided; and I would, in all humility, suggest to the minister that he withdraw this Bill.


John Allister Currie: What line of business does the hon. gentleman refer to, when he speaks of that great saving?


Orren D. Casselman: The egg trade.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I agree entirely with the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Cassel-man), as he understands this business, and if he says we are going to throw away $2,000,000 worth of bags-


George Green Foster: That is not so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would not undertake to say that is not so, but if the hon. minister makes the statement I suppose the hon. member for Dundas will accept it. I do not wish to join issue on the question of fact. The hon. gentleman has made a statement-and he appears to know something about it-that we are going to forfeit bags to the .value of $2,000,000, and if the statement be true, it is a matter for the

very serious consideration of the minister in war time. I received a little courage from what the minister did in regard to section 360B, which he is dropping out altogether. He says, in effect, that the millionaire who is selling carload upon carload of cement can do so with impunity and have short weight, but he is not to be punished. This is another case where the big influence has found its way to the power house somewhere. I would not suggest for a moment that the minister would be influenced in that way, but some parties who have the power of switching and turning and twisting this Act have been influenced, so that where the big interests are concerned they are not punished, but the poor man who comes along with an ox load and half a cord of wood has no protection and no back road to the power house; nobody cares whether he loses his ox or not. I can isee the greatest possible chance of this poor man, who has half a cord of wood and an ox team, walking home.


George Green Foster: You are behind the times.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And if it is a second offence, he will have to go home and get the other ox to pay the balance of the fine; the wood, sled and oxen will have disappeared, and the man will be left with nothing, simply because he happened to be half a stick short in a cord of wood. I am sure that in a moment the minister will see that he has let the millionaire out. He can come with half or three-quarters of a bag of cement and call it a bag, and there is no punishment. I feel confident that when the minister sees he is letting the millionaire out he will be only too happy to apply the same principle to the poor man with the ox team and half a cord of wood.


Richard Coe Henders: I am quite prepared to accept legislation that will give sixteen ounces to the pound to the millionaire and the poor man. As I understand the amendment to this Bill, provision is made that the law as to marking the number of pounds on a sack does not apply. I venture to say that about twenty-five per cent of the cement made use of through the country passes into the hands of men who have no opportunity of weighing it. They have to take the weight as it comes to them. It is a generally understood thing that the sack will contain iso many pounds. They accept that as being a law and are governed by it. If there is no marking on the sack,
['Mr. McKenzie.]
they are simply at the mercy of the man at the other end. The fact that a certain quantity of sacks are now in use does not seem to me a justification for not marking. If they have decided only to put 87 pounds *in these sacks, it is not a difficult matter for them to mark 87 pounds on the isack, and then no matter where they go each bag carries its character on its face, and everybody will get fair play. I therefore think it would be well to reconsider that amendment with regard to the weight. The same thing would obtain in regard to the cordwood. I am not in favour of doctoring up the law so that one man will be subject to one law and another subject to another law governing the handling of the same article. If 128 cubic feet is the right measurement fOT a cord of wood, then let it be so provided, and let it apply to mill woods and every other kind of wood. If I buy a half cord of mill wood I expect to get half of 128 cubic feet, and if I buy a quarter cord I expect to get a quarter cord. The same rule should obtain With regard to cement. Let it be enacted that 100 pounds, OT that 94 pounds, shall constitute a sack, and let it be shown on the sack how much it contains.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. minister has dropped the words " net weight."


George Green Foster: The difficulty in putting in the net weight is that it is all done by mechanical packing, and it is impossible to have absolute uniformity in the weights. If. you are packing the cement by hand in a bag and fill the bag to 94 pounds capacity, put the bag on a scale, and find that there is 94 pounds there, you can .mark	that	weight
on it, and you are	sure of it.
When cement is machine-bagged and bag after bag passes under the machine, sometimes a little less goes in and sometimes a little more; it is impossible to get a uniform weight. You might say: Go over every one of these bags, weigh each one, fill in the deficit of one, and take out the surplus of another so that each will contain 94 pounds, and then mark your net weight. That is mechanically and physically impossible; it cannot be done. But you have the name of the manufacturer on the bag, you have the standard of 94 pounds to a bag and, if it is not a 94-pound bag, you pay the fraction of the price, whatever it may be.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The Minister will realize the position in which he is going to put the public. Cement is sold by the bag.


George Green Foster: It is sold by the weight.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: A farmer comes in to get a bag of cement, and there are two kinds of bags. He does not know about the law making a bag of cement 94 pounds. Such a bag is sold at a certain price. A merchant, with a little quirk, or trick,-and there are some of that kind-sells a bag of cement and the farmer thinks he is getting a 94-pound when he is only getting an 87J pound bag. Is it not a fact that the weight has been stamped on cement bags in the United States at 87J pounds, and have they not been found in this country? If that be so, where does the difficulty come in? If they have done it once, they can do it again. I think it greatly in the interest of the public that the weight should be put upon a bag of cement, the same as it is put upon a bag of flour. The sacks are stamped with the number of pounds they contain. It is quite true that it may put a little more work on the manufacturer, but supposing it does, the public are assured of proper weights. Will not the minister look into this and ascertain if the weight is not stamped on the bags in the United States?


George Green Foster: I do not think they are marked, but I am not certain about that. I will make enquiry, and let my hon. friend know before we pass the Bill.
Mr. PBDiLOW: I would like to call attention to one, feature of the discussion that has been referred to by the minister, and that is measuring and weighing. I happen to have had considerable experience in both. When done mechanically, measuring or weighing is much more accurate than when done by hand. When the human element enters, the result depends largely on the temperament of the individual at the time the operation is performed.


George Green Foster: To a certain extent I think my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) is right, but against that is the actual fact, borne out by the testimony of manufacturers and dealers in cement, and architects, that under the mechanical system of bagging cement you cannot get a uniform weight in each bag. Whether it is mechanical temperament or human temperament, it varies.


Mr. OLEMIEUX:: Has the minister consulted the manufacturers of cement on this question?	.


George Green Foster: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do they approve of this change?


George Green Foster: Some of them do. The whole of the opposition offered by the manufacturers of cement has been based on the idea that they would be subjected to loss and particularly to loss in bags. I beg to assure my hon. friend that under this legislation the bags are not a loss in any way. The bags may hold 94 pounds, or they may not hold quite 94 pounds; or they may hbld 100 pounds, yet the bags can be used until they are used up. I am told that a very large proportion of the bags in use will hold sufficient to reach the 94-pound standard.


James Alexander Robb: The minister has argued at
considerable length in support of the view that cement, being bagged mechanically, the manufacturers were unable to insure a uniform weight, and that therefore it would not be fair to impose a fine, and I understand that the provision for a fine has been eliminated. Before six o'clock, in the very same Bill, the minister passed certain clauses providing that food products be stamped with the name of the packer and the net weight, and he provided for a fine if the weight was not as>
indicated on the package. I am sure the minister knows that most of these food products are packed in identically the same way as cement, by machinery, and if it is wrong to impose a fine on the manufacturers of cement, what justification has he for imposing a fine on those who put up foodstuffs, putting them up in the same way and with identically the same machinery? This automatic machinery is probably made in the same factory as that in which they make scales for weighing cement. The minister could not have been right this afternoon and also right now. He was either right then, and wrong now, or he is right now and he was wrong this afternoon.


George Green Foster: I do not think that follows at all. I might be right this afternoon and right now. My hon. friend has toad an experience of that kind, I am sure.


James Alexander Robb: What explanation has the
minister for this discrimination between those who put up foodstuffs and those who put up cement?


George Green Foster: The only explanation I have is the difference in the method of bagging and- in the machinery. You have machinery arranged for mechanical work along Certain lin^s which acts just as definitely and certainly as the human hand and even with less fallibility, but



that is not characteristic of all mechanical bagging machines. I am told-and I take my facts from those who seem to know- that it is impossible in bagging cement >to get a uniform filling.
With reference to the other articles with which we dealt to-day and in regard to which we have imposed a penalty, it must he remembered that there was an allowance made for discrepancies.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Would the minister give us his authority for that? I have had a long experience in both measuring and weighing and I know whereof I speak. I have measured and weighed for forty years, and in the light of that experience I assert that mechanical weighing and measuring is much more accurate than any weighing or measuring done by the human hand. That being the case, I fail to understand why allowance should now be made for bagging flour or vegetables, or canned stuffs of any kind. The underlying principle is the same in every case, and it would apply in one case the same as in another. My hon. friend sitting beside me says that it is a matter of political efforts. I shall not illustrate or elucidate that statement.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: That is an unworthy assumption.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that section 360 provides that cement shall be sold by the weight and that you are doing away with the bags. Is that right?


George Green Foster: Oh, no, the hag remains, to put the cement in.


Jacques Bureau: But cement is not bought by the bag, it is bought by weight.


George Green Foster: Certainly.


Jacques Bureau: What weight is going to he fixed? Will it he the weight when sent out by the manufacturer or the weight that the cement will scale when taken off the cars? I do not think the bag is going to cut any figure. Cement will be said at so much a ton or so much a hundred pounds, just the same as coal.


George Green Foster: It is provided in the Bill that there shall be a proper bag to hold the cement.


Jacques Bureau: You cannot control leakage from a bag. Why force a man to pay so much for a bag of cement when the weight, not the bag, is the measure of the transaction? I repeat my question: What weight is to he accepted? Is the purchaser

to pay for the weight of the cement when it reaches its destination, or for its weight when it left the manufacturer? If there is any discrepancy where is the purchaser's remedy? I suppose it will be a matter of contract as to whether the purchaser buys the cement f.o.b. at the place of manufacture, or delivered at a siding; and if the cement is short in weight the manufacturer will have to make it good? But as regards the marking of the bags I cannot see any necessity for it when the cement is bought by weight.


Mr. TOLMTE:: I understand there is something like $1,680,000 worth of cement sacks now held by the cement companies, and it is a very difficult matter indeed for them to get new sacks at the present time. Therefore, I want to know if it is made perfectly clear in the Bill that the sacks now on hand will be permitted to be used?


George Green Foster: Absolutely clear.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister in a specific and undoubted way certain statements contained in a letter written to me by a gentleman who thoroughly understands the cement business. The first statement is as follows:
What is mystifying to those of us in the cement business as the underlying cause for what appears to us a perfectly foolish piece of legislation. Who stirred it up and what actuated at? Where was the demand that Sir George acceded to? It certainly did) not come from the manufacturer. It surely could not have come from the consumer, because the 87 J lb. sack comes nearer filling in a rule of thumb way specifications for the use of cement than any other way could possibly do. Why is there to be a 94 lb. sack in Canada and an 87i lib. sack all over the United States? Are contractors who take contracts here and in the United States to toe faced' with a different sack weight in making their mix?
The writer speaks of the matter in other respects. He is a gentleman who is in the cement business in a large way, and his statements are very specific. I would like to ask the minister where he gets his authority for the statement that the 87J-pound sack is not the standardized sack in the United States, but that the 94-pound sack is?


George Green Foster: I got it from the circular of the Bureau of Standards, which, on inquiry, was sent to me. I got it also in answer to a telegram sent to the Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce, in Washington. The answer to that telegram was this:
Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce, advise that the weight of toag and

barrel of cement is indicated on page 10 of their circular No. 3'3, January 18th, 1917; re legal weights at present in United States.
Witli that was sent a copy of the Bureau of Standards and on page 10 there is the regulation No. 9:
The cement shall he delivered in suitable bags, or barrels, with the brand and name of the manufacturer plainly marked thereon, unless shipped in bulk. A bag shall contain 94 pounds net. A barrel shall contain 376 pounds net. _
There is no doulbt at all that that is the legal standard in the United States, and has been for years.
'Mr. MORPHY:	Will the minister say
that it is not the practice throughout the whole of the United States to use 874 pound bags?


George Green Foster: I do not know
how far that practice goes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I will tell the 'hon. minister tsomethimg more about the mattes and have it put on Hansard for guidance.
'Sir GEORGE POSTER: If it is as stated by the hon. member it does not affect the principle of the standard being 94 pounds to the 'bag and 376 .pounds to the 'barrel.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The minister will readily see the difficulty that will be created by a change in our law, if the cement manufacturers in the United States and in Canada are using an 874 pound bag. As a matter of fact I understood the minister to say that one reason for the introduction of the present Bill was to assimilate the standards ?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But this legislation is
going to change the practice .apparently. If the Bill is merely for the purpose of fixing a standard which is not going to be used, I do not see very much necessity for such legislation. Now, to quote from another letter:
When you realize that the consumer has every mix regulated for an 87J lb. sacp and he tells a gamg of Dagoes bow many sacks to put in a mix, you can see what it will mean to allow for 6J lb. extra in each sack, particularly if you remember that the 87J lb. balances the cubic footage upon which all formulas are based better than any other weight, and again remember that the mixers of cement are frequently labourers who come from the United States and, for that matter, go from 'Canada to the United States, and are used to the 87J-lb. sack all over the Continent.
Now, if .that is so the minister is hinging the merits of the Bill upon a practice that
784	'11
does not exist, and taking an academic standard from some Bureau of Standards in the United States which has not 'been followed by the practical workers in dealing with cement, so hi,s justification for the Bill absolutely falls to the ground. I think, therefore, the .minister ought to consider the suggestion made here and hold the Bill until he finds a little further about the existing practice.


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: I vill inquire
what the practice is.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: *ter is absolutely right in trying to standardize cement, because anybody with common sense knows that if a manufacturer of cement wished to palm off 86-pound bags as '87J pounds, which is the prevailing standard, there is nothing to prevent his doing so. For that reason I think it is well that 'this legislation should pass. But I would suggest that the word " standard " be inserted, because that is used in legislation in other countries. When you buy sheet iron, standard gauge, for instance, you know exactly the gauge thickness you are going to get, and when you buy 1-inch bar iron standard gauge, you know it will be a standard inch, and the same applies to boiler plate, sheet iron, tin and everything of that description, which are .all standardized now. There is, therefore, no reason why cement, which is an article of common, every-day use, especially by farmers who have no means of weighing it, or who do not generally know what quantity a bag should contain, should not have a standard assigned to it. I agree with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Hender,s) in that respect. The consumer should be protected; the manufacturer can take care of himself. It has been argued that the weighing machine cannot take care of the weight. The machine will weigh these bags, if it is anything like the automatic weighing machines that I have seen in operation. Without a standard, manufacturers may be tempted to put their hand in the bag and palm off a smaller quantity of cement, just as a hen will turn out a light-weight egg and ask the same money for it. Insert the word " standard," then if a man does not specify a standard bag or barrel of cement, and gets. a light weight package, the manufacturer can, say: " you did not ask for a standard bag or barrel." I hope the minister will see his way clear to accept my suggestion.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that there is no complaint about the way things are being carried on with the present standard of 87J pounds. The proposed change will he rather confusing. The minister says that cement shall be sold by weight, 94 pounds to the bag and four hags to the barrel. If we are going to wrangle over it, why not drop the clause. We are told that these are war times. We on this side do not want to be accused of bringing war into Parliament for the sake of a few pounds weight in .a hag of cement. I would not object to dropping these clauses, or in fact of dropping the Bill. We have already
fMr. Currie.]
dropped several sections under various pretexts and I would suggest that the law be left as it stands, as both consumers and manufacturers seem to he perfectly satisfied with it.


Orren D. Casselman: Before the clause
passes, I wish to protest again that this is a retrograde move. It is making a complicated system in what is now a simple system of handling cement. I agree with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that there should be a standard weight for a hag of cement. There is a standard weight of 87J pounds, which has been the weight of a bag of cement ever since cement was manufactured in Canada. If the minister can offer one single reason why that weight should be changed to 94 pounds,, other than that our bag should weigh the same as that in the United 'States, I may change my mind. The minister gave such a reason, for the Daylight 'Savings Bill. I can see a reason why our time should be the same as that of our neighbours across the line, and I agreed with him1. But I do not know why we should change the weight of a bag of cement in Canada because out American cousins have a larger bag, particularly when the tendency there is to decrease rather than to increase the size of the hag. We have a standard now-


George Green Foster: It is a standard of custom.	'


Orren D. Casselman: Yes.


George Green Foster: But we have no legal standard.
Mr. CASiSELMlAN:	Then make it 87*
pounds as it has always been, and stamp the bag. If you cannot have uniformity in the weight of each hag, this is what will happen: When, a carload of cement is shipped to a dealer-'and most of the cement goes through the hands of dealers-he will have to weigh that whole carload to see that he is getting his. correct weight. Then he puts it in his warehouse, and as he sells it out to consumers he will again have to weigh it. The custom now is to load on twenty-five or thirty bags,; you sell cement by count. The Bill makes a complicated affair out of what is a simple affair; and, further, there is not one single clause in it which will remedy any real evil. During this time we should, not have legislation of this, kind, and I would suggest to the fninister that he withdraw the whole Bill, and we can consider it next year perhaps when we have more time.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the purpose of
changing the -weight from 87j pound's to 94 pounds'? I have not heard that explained.


George Green Foster: The purpose is
to have a standard by which cement can be sold.


Frank S. Cahill: Eigihty-seven and a half
pounds ie the standard now?


George Green Foster: There is no legal standard now. A legal standard establishing the weight of 94 pounds fixes also the standard for a barrel as 376 pounds, equal to four bags. If what is delivered to you does not come up to that, then you do not pay that much. In all this legislation under the Inspection and iSale Act, we have standards. If we do not need any standards in the country at all, you might just as well abolish your weights and measures. I cannot see why there should be any objection to establishing a standard in cement, and as the standard in the United States is 94 pounds, it seems fair to us to establish the same standard here. If there could be some method devised by which in the bagging of it you could have a uniform amount in each bag, and then stamp that on each bag, th.ere would be no great difficulty, but I am told that that is impossible, and that therefore you cannot stamp thei correct weight on the bag unless you submit it to manual test after you have done the mechanical work.


Orren D. Casselman: Bags have been uniform before.


George Green Foster: There is no standard with which to compare it.


Mr. KNOX:: 
George Green Foster: There must have been some good reason why the Bureau of Standards, which is an institution in the United States which fixes all their standards of weights and measures, has adopted this standard. I do net know much about the mixing of cement, but I am informed that, in proportioning concrete, a bag of cement of 94 pounds net can, for all intents and purposes, he looked upon as a cubic foot. The usual mixture ror concrete is one cubic foot of cement, two cubic feet of eand and four cubic feet of gravel.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says: "For all intents and purposes," but my hon.

friend (Mr. Knox) says that 87j pounds is an actual cubic foot of cement.


George Green Foster: But it is not.


Jacques Bureau: It is for all intents and purposes. It is not an actual cubic foot. It may answer the purpose of an actual cubic foot. My hon. friend (Mr. Knox) says that 87j pounds is an actual cubic foot of cement. The minister says that he wants to standardize this measurement. Who is going to be benefited by this legislation?


Frank S. Cahill: The United States.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think it will benefit them all. What does the Customs Department do now? Supposing a bag of cement goes across the border, does the Customs Department charge for 87J pounds, or 94 pounds, to the bag, or is there any standard by the bag, or is the duty charged according to the actual weight?


George Green Foster: The Customs Department, I suppose, imposes a tax upon the cement which is imported according to its weight.


Jacques Bureau: It will not make any
difference whether our bag is 87J or 94 pounds. If we are going to imitate the United States, we shall just continue a process that has been started. When our cement goes to the United States I suppose, it is weighed. I understand from hon. members who have spoken to-night that $2,000,000 has been invested in bags that are marked "87J pounds."


George Green Foster: Not marked.


Jacques Bureau: Well, which contain 87J pounds. They certainly will not hold 94 pounds, or if they are made to hold 94 pounds, they will be packed so tightly that there will be a danger of explosion.


George Green Foster: There is a difference of opinion on that.


Jacques Bureau: That is the fate which I would like this Bill to have to-night. Let it explode and let us be done with it. If this Bill was to serve any purpose of the consumer, or even if it were to aid the manufacturer himself, we could feel that at least it was going to be of service to somebody. The minister is asked: why make the weight 94 pounds? He replies: To make a standard. Why not make the standard 87i pounds?


William Frederic Kay: The United States.


Jacques Bureau: ilf you jump at a cnasm you do not have to go a mile beyond. Let

us leave the United States alone for a while, and let us save money to our people by allowing them to use these sacks. Let us either drop this section or take a vote in regard to it. I move that- the clause as amended be dropped.


John Allister Currie: I hope that the hon. member will not press his motion. He has given a long argument endeavouring to prove that no good purpose is served in having this standard weight. The Bureau of Standards have certainly given this matter great consideration. One reason for this standard is that in the United States there are a great many text-books used by engineers-
, 'Mr. BUREAU: Are we legislating here under the President of the United States and to please the United States, or are we legislating for our people?


John Allister Currie: We are not legislating
under the president of any cement company, as my hon. friend wants us to do; we are legislating for the people of Canada. The text-books that are published in England and the United States are used by cement companies and they are used by engineers in estimating the cement work they do. There are some engineers here .who know that very well. There are certain specifications laid down for certain work. There are buildings erected of cement; even ships are being made of cement. The American text-book says that you must make a cement of a certain standard, and that when you use so many barrels of cement to so much weight of sand and so much weight of gravel, you get a certain specified product. When you put that in a wall or an arch, you put a certain strength there that will stand up to a certain weight; but if you have only *87i pounds instead of 94 pounds to the bag, your work will not stand up. The inspector will come along and pick out a piece of concrete to see how much cement is in it, and he will say; You have not the correct quantity. The result is that your work is condemned and you lose a great deal of money.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am told on very good authority that, notwithstanding anything in the text-books about standards, the common practice throughout the whole of the United States is to use a standard bag of 87J pounds, not 94 pounds. Will the hon. member dispute that statement? The minister will not.


John Allister Currie: Nothing of the kind occurs. The standard text-book in the United States is Trautwine & Kent's text book, and Trautwine & Kent are the authorities used by every young engineer or old engineer, and the standard there is 94 pounds to the bag of cement.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am not speaking about what is written in a text-book. I am asking the hon- gentleman if he will deny that the practice throughout the United States is to work to the standard of an 87i-pound bag, and not a 94-pound bag?


John Allister Currie: That may be the practice on sidewalks and other work in which it is not necessary to have standard cement, but throughout the whole of the United States the standard laid down in the text-books is the standard laid down by the Bureau of Standards, and that is the weight laid down in this Bill. The two parties who are going to suffer on account of short weight in cement are not the hon. gentlemen who want to have this section thrown out, they are the public and the dealer. If I ask a dealer to sell me five barrels of cement, I shall certainly insist on getting that weight, but the cement companies will short-weight the dealer five pounds to the sack. Is that fair to the dealer? I say, it is not. A man who does not know enough to weigh his cement will suffer, and not the dealer. The reason for standardization is apparent. We have standardized in almost everything now, and there is no reason why cement should not be standardized. Why should one company which plays the game honestly, which manufactures cement and puts it into bags to the proper weight, have to compete with a concern which is shortweighting everybody? Short-weighting in cement should be stopped so far as the farmers and the rest of the people are concerned. It means a great loss. The people do not get full value for ten per cent of the cement that is sold.


Jacques Bureau: 
Simon Fraser Tolmie: The question was asked
some time ago why it was necessary to have a standard of 871 pounds. I have a letter here from the managing director of the Portland Cement Company of Victoria in which he states that the present weight of a sack of cement is pounds, and that 87* pounds is as near a cubic foot as any weight that couild be specified. As cement is all used by measurement, this writer says that there is a lot to be said in favour of retaining the 87*-pound sack.


George Green Foster: There is some other business that we want to do to-night.
I have listened carefully to everything that has been said and have made notes of the various suggestions. I still am of the opinion that we ought to have a standard weight; I think that would be in the interest of the consuming public. I do not' see any force at all in the argument of my hon. friend from Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Mr. Bureau), whom I respect very highly, when he takes as his two premises that there would be a loss of $2,000,000 if this legislation went through, and, secondly, that there would be no gain to the consuming public, who have made no request for this legislation. Two premises like those do not heighten my respect for the conclusion he has" drawn, because neither premise is correct. There will be no loss on the bags, and there has been a widespread demand for this change. The idea of having a standard for our products in this country is an absolutely .sound one. That was the reason why this clause was inserted in the Bill. I now beg to move that the committee rise and report progress. I shall take into consideration the suggestions that have been made, and in a day or two shall come to the committee with my conclusions.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-THE FLAX INDUSTRY.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) for Committee of Supply:
['I will trespass on the patience of the House for just a short time to make', u"a few observations on the subject which the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) has introduced to the House this evening, and which he has covered so fully in his discussion. The matter doubtless is one of very great importance, and of particular importance to Canada at the present time. In normal times, I understand, the flax fibre which enters into the manufacture of all cordis and linens which have largely been the product of Ireland and other European countries, has come largely from that portion of Russia which is now under the control of Germany, also from Belgium, and largely from Ireland. Naturally, the dislocations in this industry caused by the war have been very great, with the result that the fibre which has, in the past, been essential to the industry, is largely lacking, and consequently Ireland and Great Britain, in which the factories and industries have, in the past, been thriving, must look to new fields for their raw material. The question of the development of this industry in Canada has beer) very fully sketched by my hon. friend. The difficulty that has existed in the development of this industry in Canada has been referred to by him-the lack of cheap labour. Russia, which nominally produces from seventy-five to eighty per cent of the fibre supply of the world, had, of course, an abundance of cheap labour, and as this material for the purpose of being utilized for fibre, up to very recently, has had to be pulled by hand, it was very evident that in this product the country with a supply of Cheap labour had the advantage over countries in which labour was more expensive.\nI am of the opinion that the successful development of the industry in Canada will depend, in a very considerable degree, on the discovery, shall I say, of suitable machines for handling the flax; in other words, on substituting the work of the machine for the old method of hand labour. It is rather encouraging to find that, within the last few years, machines have been and are being employed that promise excellent success, particularly in that portion of the work that deals' with the pulling of the plant from the ground and the preparing of it for the other processes that follow. If we can reach success in that respect in Canada there is an excellent prospect that the industry can develop to considerable proportions. /\nThere is no doubt whatever that our soil and climate are admirably adapted to the growing of flax for fibre purposes. That has\n\nbeen proved by years of successful growing in certain localities in which in the earlier days of the country's development the settlers found it necessary to grow flax in order to supply* themselves with a good deal of the clothing they required. Impressed with the importance of the industry in Canada, the Department of Agriculture several years ago undertook certain experimental work in respect to it. That experimental work covered practically the whole development of the industry from the growing of the flax to the manufacture of it into twines. In carrying on this work the department have grown experimental plots of flax in practically all of the experimental farms and stations in eastern Canada. They have found, as the hon. member has mentioned, that it can be grown very successfully, and I believe that the records show that the Gaspe peninsula produces perhaps the best quality of fibre . grown in Canada. Flax has also been grown in western Canada. It cannot, however, be grown so successfully there for fibre purposes; the climate appears somewhat against it. The experimental farms have carried the work further. They have, on a small scale, quite an up-to-date set of machinery for carrying on the various operations that the hon. member for East Middlesex has outlined. In that way we are endeavouring to ascertain, first, the districts from which the best fibre can be secured, and second, the relative cost of turning it into the finished article in each district. That work will be of great advantage to the farmers of Canada who will be growing this flax later on. That the minds of our farmers have been turned to the growth of this plant for fibre purposes is evidenced by the fact that the acreage planted for fibre purposes is steadily increasing. In western Canada we have grown flax in quite a large way for seed. The flax crop of western Canada has run in yield froth fifteen to eighteen and twenty million bushels per annum, and the results have been very satisfactory.\nThe hon. member referred to another matter that, in my judgment, is of the greatest importance, particularly to the farmers of western Canada. Experiments have for several years been carried on with the ripened straw that results after threshing out the seed. This straw ie ripened, and it has never been considered of any practical value for fibre purposes. Experiments, however, have proven beyond any question of doubt that it can be converted into -twines. I have in my office in this building\n\nseveral samples of twine that have been, manufactured\tin the city of\nRegina from, fibre taken from' flax straw. The product varies from fine hard twine, quite suitable for harness-making and similar work, to coarser twine suitable\tfor replacing ordinary bindertwine. Last year the crop of flax straw in western Canada amounted to about 1,500,000 tons. Experiments have shown that each ton of flax straw will produce about 270 pounds of twine in its various forms. If all that flax straw were converted into twine, it would produce something over - 300,000,000 pounds of twine. Canada annually uses something like 60,000,000 pounds A binder-twine. Our source of supply is w\xb0m two countries, the Philippine Islands and the province of Yucatan, in Mexico, and if those sources of supply for the raw material, the manila and the sisal, were cut off, it would leave the farmers of Canada, particularly those of western Canada where they are engaged in grain growing on such a large scale, in a bad position. Consequently it is a matter of the very greatest importance-and in this the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) who discussed it here this evening has brought up a very important subject-to consider how this at present wasted material can be utilized to ensure an adequate supply of twine to bind our crops. And, of course-and this particularly applies to Canada at the present time-if we can convert waste material into useful product, we are simply getting that much further ahead in an economic way. That phase of the question, in my judgment, is one of very great importance. I think if we survey the whole field again we shall find that probably the successful growing of flax for fibre purposes in Canada depends upon the cheapness of the labour we can secure. If we can replace manual labour by mechanical power, by the discovery and development of machines that will pull the flax, we certainly have all the natural facilities for a splendid development of this industry. I see no reason why that should not be achieved. The memory of living man easily goes back to the time when practically all our grain, for instance, was bound by hand. It would be impossible to follow that method now in harvesting our immense grain crops. In that case the ingenuity of man was equal to the production of a machine to meet the increased need, and I feel, particularly in this age of invention, that a way will be found to develop machines of the various types that are\nnecessary to replace hand labour in the carrying on of this industry.\nI may add that the officers at the Experimental Farm who are carrying on these investigations are paying particular attention to that phase of the question, and I can assure the hon. member for East Middlesex that the whole question is receiving the close attention of the Government. It is only within the last few years that the department has seriously taken up the question with a view to studying it carefully in all its phases, and already good results are coming. The question is one of vast importance, and I again assure my hon. friend that it is receiving and will continue to receive the careful consideration of the Government. I shall be very glad indeed to take into careful consideration all the suggestions he has made here to-night, and I trust in view of that he will see his way clear to withdraw his amendment.\nAmendment withdrawn.\nMain motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Sifton the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.\nTuesday, April 30, 1918."]
Samuel Francis Glass: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move in amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" in the main motion toe struck out and the following substituted: therefor:
"In the opinion of this House, in view of the universal world shortage of flax and other fibres used in industry, resultant from the devastation wrought in those countries which have hitherto been the world's largest producers, and in view of the peculiar adaptability of the soil and climatic conditions in many parts of Canada for successfully growing flax and

family of Hebert some three hundred years ago. The habitants throughout these many years, and the settlers in many other parts, scutched out, heckled and spun as well as wove their yarns into linens, and some of the linen is to be found in the homes of these people to this day.
Flax, therefore, it is proven has been grown and manufactured in this country ever since the country was first settled. Before the invention of the cotton-gin cheapened the production of cotton fabric, flax spinning and weaving was a common household industry. The older generation of the present day can remember the spinning wheel and distaff wound with flax in the corner of the country kitchen.
The importance of the industry was early recognized and in the United States was carefully fostered by legislation. As early as the year 1640 the Massachusetts General Assembly passed an Act to encourage the production of flax, which was followed by similar action by other states, including rennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. In. the year 1719 a large immigration of Scotch-Irish from Londonderry improved colonial knowledge of the cultivation and manufacture of flax. Encouragement was given to its manufacture in a household way, and in the year 1791 it is recorded that in the tw.o states, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 25,265 yards of linen were manufactured in the homes, and that in the year 1810 the production in families throughout the United States was 21,211,262 yards, the flax being mostly grown by the families who made the linen. Experience, however, later showed the invention of the cotton-gin and the consequent cheapening of cotton cloth, to a large extent destroyed this household industry in the United States as well as in the Dominion, but by no means killed the linen industry. For certain purposes linen is indispensable. In strength, beauty, and durability it so far surpasses cotton that it maintains its place in spite of all competition. It is significant that at the time of the civil war in the United States the production of flax was less than five million pounds. To be accurate, in the year 1860 records show the production of fibre to have been 4,720,145 pounds, and ten years later this had jumped<|J,o 27,133,034 pounds. By 1880, the production had shrunk to 1,565,546 pounds. In 1870 thirty-two states of the Union were producing flax fibre, so that it was shown the soil and climatic conditions were favourable in many parts, though the statistics also showed that 26,484,319 of the

amount was produced in nine -states-Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Of this amount Ohio produced 17,880,624 pounds. But the real reason why, on this continent, flax has not occupied that foremost position amongst the fibre and weaving industries that it formerly held is due primarily to the disadvantage under which we are in this country with regard to labour. We are in competition with the cheap labour of Russia, Belgium and other countries.
Flax, although grown in a rotation, and although grown like any other field crop, is rather complex and difficult to handle and the labour cost of production is very much greater than that of any other crop. Flax has to go through various processes in order to produce a marketable article in the -shape of fibre. The people on this continent have not given serious consideration to the proper tilling and preparation of the soil necessary to produce the best results. Very frequently it has been considered that an old pasture which has to a certain extent played out is a suitable field on which to grow a crop of flax. Besides, wh-ere it has been grown -that serious attention has not been paid to fertilization which is given to other crops, and consequently the yields have been dissappoint-ing. It has been reported that in the West, where, flax is largely grown for -seed, the yield per acre runs from a ton to a ton and a half. On the other hand it is quite a common thing in Belgium, France and Germany to produce a crop of three and a half tons, and even as high as four tons per acre. I think, however, that a fair average crop in those countries where flax has been successfully grown is about three tons to the acre.
In this country the method of encouraging the culture of flax has been something along this line: Certain groups of men, who have established flax mills, say to the farmer, "We want you to grow so many acres of flax each year; we will give you the seed free, you plough the land, put the seed in and deliver the crop; we will provide all the necessary labour, after fur^ nishing the seed to you." After the flax is grown the process has been to pull it by hand, but that is only possible profitably where you have cheap labour. In western Ontario we have used a great many Indians. Sometimes boys and young girls have been able to earn a little money in this calling; but whereas in days gone by a field of flax could be pulled at a cost of

about $4 per acre the price has rapidly advanced and at the present time it costs about $15 per acre for hand pulling, which is a very great detriment to the development of the flax industry in this country, because if as high as $15 per acre has to be paid for pulling the flax it is not possible to compete with the countries where it costs only $4 per acre for pulling.
As the flax is pulled it has got to be cured. It has to be de-seeded and in the absence of a mechanical contrivance it practically means that all this work has got to be done by hand. When the deseeder has removed the seed the flax is laid out on the ground again and exposed to the dews and the rains until, in a very short space of time, the outer woody substance which must be separated from the fibre itself before it can be used, has retted. Now after the retting is done the flax has to be dried again and then gathered up and taken to the mill. I am pointing out the disadvantages under which we have suffered from the standpoint of hiring labour. The flax is delivered by the farmer to the mill and the miller then takes charge if it, but nearly all the processes within the mill have been, to a more or less extent, of a primitive nature and have not enjoyed that, development in mechanical devices which almost every other industry of a similar character has experienced. Therefore it has been a costly commodity to manufacture. The different processes which flax has had to undergo on the way to the spinner have been of the old-fashioned character, and as a result the cost has been so great that it has not been, up till recent years, so attractive a proposition. for the farmer who is the producer, or for the miller who produces the fibre. It is an old-fashioned saying, however, that necessity is the mother of invention, 'and when we discussed this subject two years ago in the House we weTe in this position: There had been no machine discovered which could suitably pull that flax in the field. The old method of hand labour went on, and until last season old methods weie still in vogue:	The flax was pulled
by hand and retted on the ground. Two years ago we had a man in the city of Ottawa who had been working for .some years on a machine, and who devised one that in a way did-not altogether effectively by any means, for it was not mechanically perfect -in an imperfect way perform the work of pulling flax. In the year 1916 I visited the flax fields in western Ontario during the harvest season and the most astonishing thing to me w'as that there was a machine
invented in 1837, and bronght into the country in the year 1857, and sixty years after its introduction into Canada was still working in the fields of western Ontario and in a way doing the work of pulling flax. Notwithstanding that the inventor of that machine knew the principle and the idea called for, human ingenuity and the skill of scientists had failed to evolve a perfect machine whereby flax could be economically pulled to meet the competition of cheap labour.
But, as I have said, necessity is the mother of invention, and I am glad to say that now-I have it on the authority of the flax producers of western Ontario-that a gentleman who formerly lived in Mont- . real, Mr. J. H. Tombyll, has perfected a machine which effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily performs the work of pulling flax. If such is the case that machine will be of incalculable value to our flax growers and to our farmers, because it will solve once for all the problem Of cheap labour in connection with the pulling of flax. The countries of France, Belgium and Russia will never in all likelihood hereafter have the same opportunities of cheap labour that they have enjoyed in the past, but even should this anticipation prove to be unfounded we have now in Canada a satisfactory method of meeting their competition. The best evidence that the machine in question is satisfactory is that it worked in the fields most successfully last year. One western Ontario grower has bought sixteen of the machines for operation next year, and another has purchased eighteen.
I have it from men who are producers and growers in that part of Ontario that the machine is working satisfactorily. Therefore, I figure it is safe to assume that we have practically solved the difficulty of pulling flax economically. I am also told, strange as it may be, that almost concurrently with the development of this device in Canada they have perfected a machine of the same kind in Ireland, and that they have not only perfected a pulling machine but also a scutching machine. The very need which has been pressed home upon growers in Ireland, just as it has been pressed home upon our growers here, has driven them to a solution of the problem which has disturbed them and which they had not been able to solve for a period of hundreds of years back. Had we nothing else to encourage us at the present time in developing the growth of flax than the fact that we have solved the problem of cheap labour for the har-

vesting of it, it would still be a great incentive and encouragement for us to go on and develop the industry in this country, because the product of flax outrivals in value per acre at the present time any cereal that we grow.
I am at liberty, I presume, to make that statement here, because I visited the Experimental Farm the other day, and toid Prof. Grisdale that one prominent grower in western Ontario, who is a very large producer, Mr. Howard Fraleigh, of Forest, told me that he had sold his flax fibre this year at the rate of $1,400 a ton, and his average production on the ground he cultivated was 400 pounds of fibre to the acre. The average production of seed was from eight to nine bushels to the acre. That seed of western Ontario to-day has established such a reputation in Great Britain and Ireland that it is practically the only seed being used for the fibre they are expecting to produce for their aeroplanes next year. Now, Prof. Grisdale told me, when I thought that was an extraordinarily good price, that they have samples of fibre from Quebec, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, and practically from all parts of Canada sent from experimental farms and stations where they have been grown to be put through the appliances for scutching and heckling in the flax mill at the Experimental Farm, Ottawa, and to be put in shape for the market. Here is fibre, drawn from all the districts of Canada, making a conglomerate collection of various qualities no doubt, and grown under different conditions, yet the total product of all that fibre this year has been sold by the farm at the price of $1,400 per ton. I do not know how far that goes. I would suggest, however, that the product of this year gathered at the Central Experimental Farm would mean that the overhead cost of operation had been almost covered by the sale of fibre this year. I hope that is a condition which doeis prevail, because it would be a justification for what has already been done, as well as a substantial reason why the Department of Agriculture should even go further than they have gone.
I said that the seed grown in the province of Ontario to-day is practically the only seed that is being used in Ireland in the production of fibre with which the British Government next year propose to construct their aeroplane wings. I understand it is also used in the body of the machines. Two years or so ago, at a large world fibre show held in Ireland, flax grown in Ireland from Canadian fibre seed won first prize

against the competition of the whole world. In Ireland last year or the year before, it is stated-and I have it vouched for by those who have seen it- that if you go through the country in the districts where this commodity is grown, the reputation of Ontario flax seed has made such headway that along the farms on big signboards you will see in strong outstanding letters the words "Flax Fibre from Canadian Seed." In Ireland at the present time the value of Ontario seed for fibre is $10 a bushel. I submit that we have established a reputation that it is our duty to carefully guard and protect against the inroads of other countries and of other seeds which may be brought into competition with ours.
Just here I want to draw the attention of the minister to a certain matter, and I have no doubt he is fully apprised of it and may have taken action. The British Government have found difficulty in getting seed. Notwithstanding that in Ireland they produce a very good quality of fibre, I am told that they cannot allow the straw to mature sufficiently so that the seed will be sufficiently ripened to be used for another crop. For that reason, in the past, Ireland has largely depended for her seed on Holland. We in Ontario, or in Canada, have been using Dutch seed; we have grown it here, for the general practice has been to continue its growth in Ontario for a period of four years, and experience has shown that it gradually runs out, and must be replenished with new seed. Now, the seed we have sent to Ireland is a Holland seed we have grown for one year in this country, and then shipped to Ireland to meet the needs of this year. Were it not for the seed supplied by Canada, notwithstanding the need for fibre in the armies next year, there would not have been seed available in any part of the world to meet the need. To that extent we have helped the Mother Country and the Empire, and we can well congratulate ourselves and the department on our foresight in stimulating this industry, so that instead of growing the few thousand acres we did in 1916, our increase for last year was practically equal to almost double the product of two years ago.
Now, Great Britain was bringing over from Japan, or some one was bringing from Japan, a large amount of <seed, whioh came across from Vancouver as far ae Montreal. I am speaking of this as reported' in the papers, and: a6 the press shows it by advertisements, about which I- am going to

say something later. Of this seed, some 400 tons got as far as Montreal, where it was put into the British war stores. Owing to the fact thait it could not come forward, in time, and that when it did come forward Canadian seed had already preceded it to the old country, and as therefore the need of it was not so great in the old country, it was held in Canada, as well as for the reason that transportation for it could not be procured. Now, the British Government has sent out to Canada-I would like the House to pay careful attention to this, for I think it is a matter of vital importance that must be protected-Col. Wayland, of Winnipeg, who represents a Winnipeg firm, to arrange for the distribution of this seed amongst our farmers, not for fibre, because the straw and fibre goes to the farmer, but for the purpose of reproducing seed which they are going to grow in Ireland and Great Britain next year for fibre. I do not know what this seed is; I do not know whether the Government knows what it is; I do not know how good and substantial it may be for fibre. But these aTe the terms on which it is being peddled out to the farmer to grow this year inCanada. Col. Wayland comes here under the authority of the Home Government, and he has a department at work in Toronto under the direction of Col. Pratt, who has put double headline columns in the papers advertising the distribution of this flaxseed. If the farmers of Canada grow this flax this year, they get the seed free; the only condition is that from the crop grown they shall return bushel for bushel advanced them for seeding; any crop over this they are guaranteed a market for at a fair price of $4.50 a bushel. That seed is being grown in the province of Ontario and in western Canada. I do not know, but I think, it is being grown practically wherever farmers will take it and grow it. I submit to the minister most respectfully, that wherever that seed goes it should he carefully earmarked. Now that we have established the reputation in Ireland for producing a seed from which a fibre of the highest quality can be produced, and which commands the price of $10 a bushel in the home market, there is an opening for an immense amount of injury to ourselves and to the grower at home if these seeds I have referred to become mixed with our owii, which can quite easily be done unless they are carefully marked.
I do not pretend to suggest how the interests of Canada will be protected, but it might be in this way. If a farmer should grow seed from Canadian flax seed which has been demonstrated to be sound and good for fibre, and for which the British Government is prepared to pay ten dollars a bushel, that seed should be kept separate from any other seed that is grown, and used as seed for next year, because, if our production increases in the same ratio as during the past-two years, we shall likely have a hundred thousand bushels of fibre seed for export instead of forty or fifty thousand. There is, however, the possibility of this other seed going to Ireland as Canadian fibre seed and, grown there, being found to be absolutely unfit for fibre. In that case, the reputation which we have built up over these years is going to be seriously damned. We must guard our interests in that respect.
I do not think it is necessary to point out the difficulties that present themselves any further than to suggest to the minister and the department that this matter should be very carefully watched.
I want to tell my hon. friends from Quebec that, on my visit to the Experimental Farm the other day, while I had always been under the impression that the farmers of Ontario had the' reputation of growing the best fibre on the continent of America, I was told by the fibre expert at the Experimental Farm and also by Professor Grisdale that the best fibre produced under experimental conditions in Canada last year was that grown in Gaspe, Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We are far ahead.


Samuel Francis Glass: I was also told that in Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, a quantity of flax not second to that grown in Quebec, was produced.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The old Acadians-the same thing.


Samuel Francis Glass: We grow a large quantity of fibre in Ontario. I do not know what success my hon. friends would have if they put in a large crop. I can appreciate how a few acres properly tilled and cultivated might produce much better results than a large area of several thousand acres. We, however, envy the people of Quebec the reputation they have made, and they can be close competitors with us in developing this industry which in the future, will have great bearing upon the economic conditions of our country.
dn many of the provinces of Canada it has been demonstrated that we can produce fibre of excellent quality. That is true of the lower provincee, of Ontario, and of British Columbia. I am not prepared to say just how far the western provinces produce a high-grade fibre, but even in those provinces very great improvement could be made if an honest effort were made

Doubtless there are many prejudices in connection with the growth of flax. The farmers have the idea that its growth exhausts the soil, but the experiments carried on by the Department of Agriculture during the years 1906-1908, the results of which appear in Bulletin No. 59, show that this view is unwarranted1. The Bulletin asks 'the question, does flax exhaust the soil? This question is usually answered in the affirmative, but this opinion does not appear to be warranted' by the chemical analyses which have been made of this crop, showing the principal elements of fertility taken from the soil during the period of its growth. The results which have been obtained tby chemical examination have furnished the following figures, which represent approximately the plant food removed from the soil by flax, wheat and1 oats.
The figures mentioned to this (to quote Professor Saunders) :
It will be seen that the grain in the case of wheat crop, takes up a little more nitrogen; nearly one-third1 less of phosphoric acid; and about one-eighth less of potash. The difference^ however, in exhaustive effect of these several crops on a rich soil would scarcely be perceptible, and would not justify the opinion that flax is a very exhausting crop.
Another eminent authority, Dr. A. W. Thornton, of Bellingham, state of Washington, who edited a new book, entitled, " The American' System of Flax and Other Fibre Culture " only last year which gives considerable information on this subject, says:



[Stage Direction]
Right here it may not be out of place to refer to a very generally held), though erroneous notion, that flax is very exhaustive on the soil. In this connection I cannot do better than quote from C. R. Dodge, report No. 10, on Flax Culture, in the United States, published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, in which Mr. Eugene Boss, a leading authority on the subejct, states as. follows: "There is a strong prejudice among some people agiainst the culture of flax, they say flax is hard1 on the land. I am painfully impressed in regard to the wisdom of those who advocate such an untrue thing, because of their ignorance of the composition of the plant, its habits and needs. Yes, the flax is hard on the land; when the farmer plows his land shallow, sows it thinly, and allows the weeds too much room to fill the space, then it is not the flax that ruins the land, but that very rapacious enemy, the weeds. Plow the land shallow, and you do not let the plant follow its natural course. You force its roots to feed on the surface, and there lies one of the reasons why flax, as commonly cultivated, remains short and dries up instead of ripening naturally. The moisture it so much requires is too quickly absorbed.
It is true I have seen fields1 of pretty long flax that have been sown on very shallow land, hut 'that land was very rich or very open, with a propitious season. I deny that flax is harder on land than wheat, rye, oats, or barley, when similarly cultivated, it wants a deep soil,
10 or 12 inches at least, thoroughly pulverized in order to allow its main root to go straight down into the earth and find there most of the elements essential to healthy growth.

He goes on in this way, and his comments on the article show that he is entirely opposed to the theories generally prevailing among the farming community as to the exhaustion of the soil. So much for the flax which we have been growing in Ontario and several other provinces. There is another side of the flax question which is of very great interest to the people of western Canada, and I desire to draw the attention of the House to the developments and the investigations that have been going along in that direction. It is generally understood that farmers of the West have not produced a class of fibre which can be spun into yarn and from yam woven into high grade linen. The invention and perfecting of a flax puller 'by the Flax Harvesting Company, Limited, of Brantford, Ont., which is the same machine known as the Tombyll already referred to-has provided a simple, effective and proven puller, promises to be an immense stimulant to farmers throughout the country, and if used by the farmers of the West will add many thousands of dollars of value to the straw product. Indoor retting under the Feuillette system has been in operation for some years, and in France six years ago a substantial grant was made by the French Government to the inventor. A machine for deseeding flax straw -has been perfected, the work being done without breaking or tangling the straw, and is now on the market. Bulletin No. 669, published by the Department of Agriculture, Washington, also shows the quantity of linen fibre produced.
The company known as the Flax Fibre Development Association, under the management of Mr. F. L. Van Allen, of Regina, Sask., encouraged by the provincial government, have made, they claim, substantial progress in methods of utilization of western flax straw. They claim to have produced on a commercial basis, yams binder-twine, heavy commercial twines and fine commercial twines, all from fibre [DOT] of western flax straw. The seed is threshed, but must not pass through the blower. The fibre is extracted! from the straw by mechanical process, treated by their own methods, which can be carried out under cover without regard to climatic conditions, the fibre then being, drawn, spun, and twisted on standard soft fibre machinery. As the problems affecting western straw are vastly different from those in the East, they have had to be solved by scientific research. The objects of the company have been defined as follows:	To separate and extract

fibre from flax straw by purely mechanical means, and without having to resort to what is commonly known as retting, and to manufacture the product into various articles of merchandise. It is estimated that throughout the Canadian West some 2,000,000 tons of flax straw are 'burnt annually. The flax plant there being grown solely for its seed (linseed).
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have been told that the western flax for fibre is not a success and that there is no long fibre in it.


Samuel Francis Glass: That is correct; that is my information, and that is confirmed by those who are in a position to kno-w. In the West flax is grown entirely different from the way it is grown here. It is not grown for the fibre, but for the seed, and the methods of growing flax and feeding the soil are quite different from the methods used in Ontario. They grow a short plant that develops a large amount of seed, but a very short straw, and the process of pulling is not in vogue there. The straw is cut by the ordinary harvesting machine, so as to get the seed. Very little value is attached to the straw for fibre purposes. It has been wasted, but research and investigation have shown that this straw can be devoted to a very useful purpose lin industry. In the past, however, from the standpoint of purely fibre production, it has not been a success. Notwithstanding the enormous amount of seed grown with which to make linseed oil, and any one who has had occasion to use that commodity under present conditions will realize that its advance from 50 cents a gallon to about $2.50 a gallon, shows the enormous world increase in the demand for that commodity of linseed oil.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is the reason the flax industry has ceased to be successful in' 'Canada?


Samuel Francis Glass: ll think that question is answered by my observation a few minutes ago. Our experience here was the same as that of the United States. The old fossilized methods of pulling and handling flax and of treating it from the time it was pulled in the harvest field to the time it was manufactured into fibre were so crude and expensive that it could not compete with the cheap labour of Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany, Russian or, in fact, any of those European countries, where fibre was grown. Our labour was too expensive to compete with them.
Having solved the problem of pulling flax, we have in a large measure put ourselves on a par with those countries, so far as the future development of the industry in this country is concerned. It is costing $15 an acre to pull this flax by hand. By the use of this machine, and under most improved methods of pulling by the machine, I understand that, at the present time, it can now be done for $2,50 an acre, and this may, in course of time be further reduced. In separating the seed from the plant by ordinary means of the thresher, the fibre in the straw of the West is sacrificed, and' when recovered shows a length of from one to three inches only. The fibre has nevertheless a commercial value as a raw material for paper, pulp, felting, insulating, .quilt, etc. Where the flax straw is threshed without its being broken the fibre when separated shows a length of about ten inches. This is a very valuable fibre and .can be used in the manufacture of oakum and for cordage purposes. World wide shortage of fibres, especially line fibre, and all other fibres in sympathy, have necessarily forced substitution. The linen fields of the world have been the Baltic provinces of Russia, Northern France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain, Ireland, Holland, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Portugal and North and South America.
Of these countries, Belgium and Russia supplied the greater proportion of the world's supplies prior to the war, but these fields are completely under German control. With decreased production there has been increased demand, and at the present time the contingencies of war practically demand the total supplies in vietw, or ,in the near future possible of production. The first order of the American government for airplanes required a supply of over three and three-quarter million yards of line. Besides linen, the coarser fibres are short in supply. It is said that Canada alone can consume annually ten million pounds of twines. Increased shipbuilding will make an increased demand on cordage, and the movement for greater production is bound to have its influence in increasing the demand for binder twine. With this condition ahead, new sources of supply must be found for the standard fibres, or else suitable substitutes must be found in quantities sufficient for the needs. Will the vast fields of the West- solve this problem? Can this substitute be found in the waste flax straw of the western prairies? Some think it can, and that the world's needs may be found and can be recovered from this waste
REVISED edition
m2


Samuel Francis Glass: I did not say that it did not come in; but that I thought it should come in free of duty. I was in hopes that the Department of Customs, or whatever department has charge of this matter, where a man was importing hemp seed for the purpose of seeding, would remit the duty. This man is importing it for experimental purposes, not for ordinary commercial purposes, and is doing the work that the Department of Agriculture might well do on its own farms at its own expense. This seed was imported by him direct from the shipper in Kentucky. Is it not reasonable- that under those circumstances a man Should have the same right to free entry as one who might be importing seed for growing? Now, hemp seed in the ordinary sense as we have known

it, is a commercial seed used for bird seed, and as such it comes in subject to a duty, but it is an entirely different product from this seed which is brought in for fibre purposes. A man who is willing to take the * chance to -grow it and experiment with it should, in my opinion, be entitled to consideration. Mr. Fraleigh has been three years at this, and each recurring year has been presenting his case to the department, and I think the Customs Department might be liberal enough to decide that, under the ordinary tariff for seeds, this commodity brought in for that specific purpose should come in free. I may say that Mr. Fraleigh tells me further that the hemp fibre he has produced from this seed has been sent to the Smith and Dove Manufacturing Company of Andover, Mass., and they have said that the fibre is of as high a quality as has been produced anywhere on this continent. His fibre is a fibre of the very highest quality, and is being used at the present time in combination with linen, and a union linen is being made in these mills by the use of this hemp fibre and the flax fibre in conjunction.
Mr. Fraleigh also pointed this out to me a few weeks ago when I was there, that a hand scutcher is an experienced mechanic who cannot be trained in a day or two or in two or three years, and several of his men have already gone overseas. He says that he cannot get men for that purpose, and that each of these scutchers who has left could each week scutch enough fibre to make a complete aeroplane. I point this out to show that in view of the increase in our acreage of flax this year it is highly undesirable that any further depletion of our scutchers should be permitted.
I understand that a department of scientific research for flax or fla^, fibre has been established. .1 do not know just who comprise the special committee, who are devoting their attention to flax. 1 understand that Professor W. C. Murray, of the University of Saskatchewan, is chairman, .and that Dr. Ruttan of M cG ii 1 University, Dr. F. T. Shutt of the Experimental Farm, Dr. Ferd. Van Bruyssell and Professor Grisdale comprise the committee who haVe under advisement these matters regarding flax.
I believe that the Government would make no mistake if they added to this committee a man like Howard Fraleigh. The Minister of Agriculture told us two years ago when he went over to Washington and skimmed the whole territory of the United States to get information 'concerning this .subject,
that when he got to the man who was supposed to ibe the chief authority there, he gave him the name of two men, one Mr. Summers of Port Huron, Mich., and then he added:	"You have in Canada
one of the best posted men on this subject on this continent in Howard Fraleigh." That was his tribute to this man. Mr. Fraleigh is a man who lives and dreams this subject all the time; his whole soul, heart and interest are in making the best success of the cultivation of flax. I would suggest to. the minister that, in forming advisory committees, or in taking the advice of men who .are capable to give advice in connection with flax development, I believe Howard Fraleigh would make a valuable addition to any council that may be appointed.
There is much, Mr. Speaker, to be said on this subject, so much, in fact, that I regret it got started at such a late hour. I do sincerely urge on the minister this one thing: so far as the industrial end is concerned some encouragement is necessary to establish the spinning of flax fibre in Canada, and so to connect up the producing industry to the weaving industry in this country. So long as we remain in our present position, we will be "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for the other fellow. We do all the hard labour in connection with production and with the delivery 'of the fibre, and when we get that done we send the fibre out of our country to be spun into yarns, then our weavers have to bring the yarn back into this country to be made into linen. The mill in Guelph, which represents an Investment of three-quarters of a million, ships its linens to the United States, showing that it has the best market in the world at its disposal. This proves that their product js worthy of Canadian industry, and is a tribute to the equipment they have for manufacturing linen. I do submit that it is a matter of vital importance to have this industry developed here, that we may retain within the bounds of Canada the full economic value of the fibre produced. It is necessary, by whatever means can best accomplish the purpose, that the spinning industry should be connected up, and, in my opinion we can do that by giving encouragement to the spinning industry to connect- up the manufacture of the raw fibre with the weaving of the cloth.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will trespass on the patience of the House for just a short time to make