April 29, 1918

CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE 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.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

James Alexander Robb

Laurier Liberal

Mr. ROBB:

What explanation has the

minister for this discrimination between those who put up foodstuffs and those who put up cement?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE 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.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Isaac Ellis Pedlow

Laurier Liberal

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.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
?

Sir GEORGE POSTER@

That is an unworthy assumption.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. 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?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

Oh, no, the hag remains, to put the cement in.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

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

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

Certainly.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. 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.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

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

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mt. 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.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Simon Fraser Tolmie

Unionist

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?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

Absolutely clear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. 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?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE 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?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I do not know

how far that practice goes.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. 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.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. 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 ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

Yes.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink

April 29, 1918