Mr. LEGER:

The-reasons advanced for

this legislation do not satisfy me of its necessity. Why cannot a can be made to hold sixteen ounces of lobster? If the present cans are not large enough, why not make larger cans? In the district from which I come lobsters are bought by the pound, and if the *weight in the can is to be reduced to twelve ounces, the consumer will lose two or three ounces on every pound he buys. Furthermore, what consideration is being given to the fisherman? The packers when buying from the fishermen demand sixteen ounces to the pound. It would seem to me that the consumer lias been defrauded of a few ounces on every can he has bought for a great many years. I used to think I was getting a pound of lobster when I bought one of these cans, but now I find I was being cheated out of two or three ounces every time. One would think a lobster was one of the precious metals, which weigh twelve ounces to the pound. I think we should fix a standard weight, and if the cans the packers are now using will not hold a pound let them make larger cans, rather than pass eleven or twelve ounces off for a pound.

Mr. LEGER:

If the committee desire to put fourteen ounces into the can, I would like it to be understood that the fishermen shall get fourteen ounces too.

Mr. LEGER:

The hon. minister says

that the barrel containing 196 pounds of flour might be made to contain 200 or 201 pounds. We never calculate a barrel of flour on more than 196 pounds; it is marked on it.

Mr. LEGER:

I desire to put a question to the Government on a matter of importance. The letter is as follows:

Knotz, Ash., Eng., February 15th, 1919.

*Ml-, the Editor of L'Acadien:-I do not believe I am a grumbler, but when it comes to injustice committed1 towards the French Canadian soldier, I cannot do otherwise than indicate the facts to L'Acadien which is ever ready to defend our rights. Perhaps I will be able to call the attention of some members of Parliament to the injustices which are done to us in the Canadian Army, and have them claim from the authorities the justice and British fair play for their fellow-countrymen.

I understand, by the English papers, that the Canadian troops in France have crossed to England where they will have a leave of eight days to visit their relatives and friends, before coming to Canada. But the French Canadian soldier who asks for transportation to see the land of his ancestors In France, to spend a few days with some friends he has known in his mother country, or even the Canadian soldier who has chosen a lifetime companion amongst the good girls of France, sees himself refused the privilege of going once more into the country for the defence of which he has sacrificed everything. It is said that the transportation is difficult.

Is that fair tpliay, especially when a great number offer to pay their expenses? There is an order according to the Canadian soldiers who have relatives in England, wives, mothers, daughters, the privilege of bringing to Canada the said relatives at the expense of the Canadian Government, the soldier having only to notify the military authorities of the fact. That is also very well. But why is it that the same privileges are being refused to the French Canadian soldiers who have relatives in France?

I know that my assertions are true, such privilege having been refused to a soldier.

Mr. LEGER:

My question is whether the Canadian soldier, before returning to Canada from England, has the privilege to go back to France on a visit.

Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia): I think I can answer the question of the hon. gentleman, and I wish to thank him for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the letter he has just read, which I got only a few moments ago. It appears to be a complaint from a young French-Canadian soldier who was in England, and I may say that I have every sympathy with this young man when he says in his letter that he desires to revisit France for the purpose of visiting the girl who is his choice amongst the good girls of France as his life-time companion.