March 29, 1901 (9th Parliament, 1st Session)

?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

I do not think my hon. friend caught what I said in regard to sections 6 and 7. These sections are not compulsory, they are simply a definition of the grades which we would like to encourage exporters to put on their fruit. If they do not wish to use them, they can put any other brand they choose upon their packages. But, even supposing this grade is put on, there is no reason that the word * N.S.' should not be put along with it, and have it shown that the fruit comes from Nova Scotia, just in the same way as a Quebec or an Ontario man might put the words ' Ont.' or ' Que.' along with their definition of ' A No. 1 Cndn.' Then, in regard to the other point which the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) brought forward, pointing out that the word ' varieties ' was used in subsection b of section 4, and in sections 6 and 7, where they are required to have only one variety, here again clauses 6 and 7 are not compulsory. But, we wish to encourage people who are exporting fruit in large quantities not to mix up varieties of fruit in the same package for the export trade. If a man is sending a considerable number of packages for shipment abroad, it is hardly likely that he would want to put more than one variety in the same package. Therefore, in the definition of what I hope to call national brands or grades, it is required that only one variety shall be put in a package. T may say in this connection, that amongst ' many arguments which have been urged, i both from the old country and in our home ; markets, the desirability of putting only . one variety of fruit in a package has been i strongly impressed upon us. I would not, < therefore, like to see that qualification in' i sections 6 and 7 struck out. While in other ( markets and for other purposes it is neces- I

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-EMPLOYMENT OF CHINESE AND JAPANESE.
Subtopic:   INSPECTION OF FRUIT PACKAGES.
Full View