June 16, 1922 (14th Parliament, 1st Session)

LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Paragraph "j" section I of the bill was intended to make clearer what was meant by "dry lobster meat". There was already a definition, and some words are added to it. It was also to give some latitude in the length of time for draining the liquid from a can before the meat is weighed. The time is at present fixed as one minute, neither more nor less. By the new bill we extend it to one minute and a half.
Section^ 2. At present under subsection 1 of section 12 A, canned fish and shellfish are subject to inspection during the course of preparation and packing only. The amendment provides that such fish and shellfish may be inspected at the cannery any time after they have been packed or at the first purchaser's warehouse, if he sc desires. It is also proposed to substitute the word "labelled" for "marked," as being more in line with the intention of the section. The word "fish" in paragraph (a) is the result of a mistake. It is, therefore, being replaced by the word "first" as originally intended-the "first" dealer instead of the "fish" dealer.
Subsection 4 of section 12 A provides for the exemption from the labelling requirements of canned fish and shellfish exported to foreign markets or the markets of the United Kingdom. That is the law as it was. This does not include Australia and New Zealand; it says only foreign mar-

Meat and, Canned Foods
kets and the United Kingdom, hence the change in the wording of the subsection to "markets outside of Canada."
Section 3. Section 12 C, which is to he repealed, provides for the seizure of unsound fish or shellfish before packing, but dees not make any provision for so dealing with unsound fish or shellfish when in the cans. As fish and shellfish found to be unsound prior to canning are amply provided for in section 12 B, the amendment to section 12 C is intended to cover unsound goods in cans. That is, we have the same right even after they are canned.
Section 4. The amendment to section 12 D is intended to fix definitely the size of each of the five sizes of cans at present legalized. They are the same sizes as before. As a matter of fact, it is especially to empower inspecting officers to seize and hold lightweight cans, pending a decision as to their disposal. We have not that right under the law as it stands.
Section 5. Section 12 E at present simply designates the different varieties of. British Columbia salmon. As there has been and still is a more or less insistent call for the official grading of the different varieties of salmon when packed in the cans, the amendment provides for such being done if and when it is deemed necessary. Also, the amended section provides for transferring the naming of the varieties to the regulations, because of anticipated changes when grading takes place.
Section 6. Section 12 F gives the minister sole power to close a cannery in the event of the provisions of the Act not being complied with. That is the section as it was. It sometimes happens that an inspecting officer finds a cannery operating under such a state of filth as to call for the immediate stoppage of operations. Delays in reporting to and receiving instructions from Ottawa allow canning to go on under undesirable conditions frequently for too long a time. The amendment consequently seeks to give power to the officers to take immediate action when such conditions are discovered and, of course, to report to Ottawa.
Section 9. Section 12 G is deemed to be entirely unnecessary and, therefore, apt to lead to confusion. Consequently, its deletion is proposed. All that is provided for by section 12 G is already provided for in other sections.
Section 10. The proposed amendment to subsection 1 of section 12 H, is, in the first
place, to provide that canned fish or shellfish imported into Canada to be again exported must show the name of the country of origin, in order that they may not be mistaken for Canadian goods. In the second place it is to provide that no misleading mark or name concerning the kind or variety of canned fish or shellfish imported for sale in Canada be used. The last provision is intended to stop the practice of Alaska packers sending Alaska red salmon into Canada labelled as sockeye, as this meantime permits them unfairly to compete with British Columbia sockeye, a much superior fish. I think that covers all the amendments.

Topic:   MEAT AND CANNED FOODS
Full View