April 29, 1918

UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. 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.

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

Sir GEORGE POSTER@

I vill inquire

what the practice is.

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

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. 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.

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

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. 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.

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

Orren D. Casselman

Unionist

Mr. 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-

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

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

It is a standard of custom. '

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

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE 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.

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

Frank S. Cahill

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CAHILL:

What is the purpose of

changing the -weight from 87j pound's to 94 pounds'? I have not heard that explained.

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

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

The purpose is

to have a standard by which cement can be sold.

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

Frank S. Cahill

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CAHILL:

Eigihty-seven and a half

pounds ie the standard now?

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

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE 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.

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

Orren D. Casselman

Unionist

Mr. CASSELMAN:

Bags have been uniform before.

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

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

There is no standard with which to compare it.

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

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE 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.

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

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. 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.

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

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

But it is not.

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

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. 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?

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

April 29, 1918