Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
I do not know very much about the apple trade, and I do not profess to know anything about the relative merits of Nova Scotia apples and Ontario apples. But I happened to notice in the report of Prof. Robertson of last year or the year before, the statement that apples from Nova Scotia are sold by the name of Nova Scotia apples in London, although they are, of course, just as much Canadian apples as apples from Ontario or Quebec, which are sold as Canadian apples. If the apples from my own province have a reputation by that name, I think it is well that the advantage of that fact, whether it is little or great, should be preserved. Would the Minister of Agriculture
permit me to bring to bis attention a matter which does not seem to be very definitely dealt with in his Bill, though I am perhaps mentioning it a little out of its order ? By sections 6 and 7 it is provided that the apples of grade A No. 1 Canadian shall have certain characteristics; and then by section 8 it is provided that ' no person shall sell or offer, expose, or have in his possession for sale, any fruit packed in any package upon which is marked any designation of size, grade or variety which falsely represents such fruit.' The difficulty I see about the Bill is this. The hon. gentleman has defined what No. 1 Canadian shall be, but he does not make It necessary that the brand No. 1 Canadian shall be used by any person. Suppose the apple-growers of Ontario see fit to mark their apples No. 1 Ontario, and the Nova Scotia growers No. 1 Nova Scotia, you have not any provision stating what apples so marked' shall be. Would it not be desirable to have in this Bill, a general definition of No. 1 apples, such as is given of No. 1 Canadian in clause 6 ? Unless you have such a clause, it will be easy for any one to avoid the provisions of the Act without exposing himself to any penalty.
Subtopic: INSPECTION OF FRUIT PACKAGES.