Mr. SCHELL.

This is a point that I have noticed. Suppose I am in a section of country where the fruit is not up to the grade, and I may know it, still I may brand that fruit No. 1 Canadian. I may sell that in the old country as No. 1 Canadian, and they may claim that it is not No. 1 Canadian. There should be some way of providing that an impostor would not be able to use that brand for his own benefit at the expense of the honest shipper.

Of course the Bill can only apply to Canada. Take for instance the cheese trade. We have a well-known brand called the * Finest Canadian cheese,' branded or stencilled on a great many cheese sent out of Canada, and even those that are not stencilled are sold as finest Canadian. It is a well-known grade in the trade, and when a man buys by cable Canadian cheese he expects to get what is known as finest Canadian, and if, when the cheese arrives In England, it is not up to the grade, he complains and cuts on the price. That must obtain in regard to fruit or anything else. Our grain trade is in the same way ; what we consign to England has certain brands upon it, and when it arrives in England, if it is not up to the quality which is understood in the trade by that brand Mr. FISHER.

or grade, there is a complaint and difficulty about payment. I do not think it is possible to overcome that difficulty. It is the universal law of trade, and I do not believe that we can make any provision in a Bill which can overcome difficulties that may arise in that way. But by creating certain definitions of grades we may facilitate the trade, and prevent misunderstandings which, in the past, have been more frequent than they would be under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. SCHELL.

There is this difference. In this Bill there are penalties provided.

Those only apply to Canada.

Mr. SCHELL.

Suppose they do, the fraud cannot be followed back in the old country. Now, in the brand, ' Finest Canadian cheese,' the minister speaks of, there is no government measure in reference to it. These matters are established usages of trade. But in this Bill you propose to impose pains and penalties and create a criminal offence, whereas the other way is the usual custom of trade.

Mr. CLANCY.

I was going to ask tne Minister of Agriculture if he cannot see his way to fixing some standard. Clause 4, I think, is meaningless as to attaching any penalties to a Canadian who sends fraudulent packages to England. There is no punishment for inferior apples in section 4.

Section 9 provides for punishment.

Mr. CLANCY.

For instance, a man puts up apples under section 4, according to the grades which may be marked. But there is something still lacking. When the variety is stated there is no provision that the apples should be a good class belonging to that variety, they may be wanting in size, because the size does not require to be stated. Therefore, no punishment is provided for packing wrongfully apples in any other manner than is provided for in section 4. Section 8 does not provide a penalty, because there is no provision as to the size required. I am told that the majority of the whole bulk of the fruit shipped from Canada must go under section 4.

Section 8 applies to it also.

Mr. CLANCY.

Section 8 applies so far as the class of fruit is designated. No size is mentioned in section 4, no standard is fixed. If you fix a standard of one, two or three, then that will mean something.

I would say that while there is no definition of grade in section 8, the words ' or in which the faced or shown surface gives a

false representation of the contents of such package,' coyer all cases of fraud.

Mr. CLANCY.

There may not be fraud at all.

Improper packing ?

Mr. CLANCY.

It may not be improper packing according to clause 4.

I do not agree with my hon. friend. The point of this Bill is to see that in a closed packing the package is marked so as to avoid those cases in which large fine apples are put at the ends of the barrel, while the middle is filled with poor and inferior fruit.

Mr. CLANCY.

Suppose the fruit is uniformly of an inferior grade, and is marked X ?

That is a different case. Then it would be for the inspector to say, or in case of a suit it would be decided by the evidence of witnesses, whether the brand was fairly indicative of the contents of the package. 1 grant, frankly, that there is a certain looseness in the provision, and that it would be better to have sections 6 and 7 applied to the whole trade ; but, I have felt very strongly the representations of the men engaged in the trade, and I did not feel that it was advisable to insert in this Bill provisions which might operate unjustly, or hamper the trade unfairly. My hon. friend from South Wentworth (Mr. Smith), who was a member of the committee of fruit-growers who were consulted in regard to the drawing of this Bill, and who was present when I met a large representative gathering of fruitgrowers and shippers in Toronto, and discussed the whole matter with them, understands why it is that the Bill to-day does not contain the requirements which it contained last year, when I introduced it first, and when I undertook to propose such a law as my hon. friend is now indicating, but which, after further consultation with those engaged in the trade, I believe now. would be unnecessary and inadvisable.

Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).

I submit that the supposititious case proposed by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) will never occur. He assumes that a man would ship apples to the old country marked X, representing nothing. No man would ship apples expecting to receive a reasonable price for them, if "they had no mark or a mark representing nothing. He would naturally use some mark indicative of the contents of the barrel.

Mr. GILMOUR.

If there were any known grades of apples, we could understand that it would be possible to designate those grades. But there are no known grades.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE There is no doubt there is that looseness in the Bill, which is entirely due to the requirements of the trade. If my hon. friend would move that there should be a definite legal grade, and that no other mark should be put on the packages, no doubt the committee would consider that; but, I am not prepared to move it at this stage.

Mr. GILMOUR.

I am speaking of what might be considered a grade, but the use of which would not render a man liable under section 8.