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
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.
Subtopic: INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.