Mr. COCHRANE.

IIow much do the gentlemen get who are under him 1

One of them, Mr. Alexander McNeil, gets $1,000 a year. Mr. Lick gets at the rate of $1,000 a year, but is not engaged for the whole year. Sir. Vroom and Sir. Burke are also engaged at the rate of $1,000 a year.

Sir. COCHRANE.

Where do they reside ?

Sir. McNeil comes from the western part of Ontario. He has had great experience in institute work, in fruit growing on his own farm, and in lecturing on that subject. Sir. Lick is also from the province of On-Mr. COCHRANE.

tario. Sir. Vroom is from Nova Scotia and Mr. Burke from Prince Edward Island. Then, I have 7 other inspectors who are temporarily engaged at $100 a month.

Sir. GILSIOUR.

Where are they stationed ?

It is rather difficult to say that they are stationed anywhere. Two or three are stationed at Montreal most of the time, but are liable to be called elsewhere. Others travel from place to place. Sir. Burke and Sir. Vroom have been in the maritime provinces all the time. Sir. McNeil and Sir. Lick have been mostly in Ontario, but one was sent to the Fruit Growers' convention of Nova Scotia to give them an address on the Act and on fruit growing generally. The chief inspection has been in the port of Montreal for the export trade, but we have not confined ourselves entirely to that. There has been inspection anywhere else. The Act says that apples may be inspected anywhere that they are found, and consequently we have been obliged to have inspectors travelling a good deal of the time ; we think it is wise that they should, so that the shippers may not know just where an inspector is going to light on their shipment.

Mr. SPROULE.

Have you any account of the number of inspections made and the number of prosecutions ?

I have the number at Montreal, but I do not think anywhere else. We have only had, I think, 9 prosecutions.

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).

Has the chief inspector made a report to the minister of what has been done during the last season ?

We have had constant reports from the chief inspector and from all the inspectors from time to time. Those reports will all be made into a general report which will appear in the departmental report of next year. The season was hardly advanced enough to get it into the report that was laid on the Table at the beginning of this session, although there is in that report something about the enforcement of the Act. But that report only comes up to the 1st of November, by which date there was hardly time to have had a real experience of the working of the Act. But we have all the reports of this work in the department, and Professor Robertson will collate them into a comprehensive report on the working of the Act, which will appear in the annual report of the department next year.

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).

Will the names of the delinquents be published ?

I do not know that it would be well to

publish those at present. Of course, when a prosecution takes place, it is usually reported in the newspapers, and the names of the parties appear there. I have not yet thought out whether it would be best to put the names into the annual report of the department or not.

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).

I think it would.

It might be best to do so. I may say that this Act is chiefly deterrent in its character. Its object is not so much to punish as to prevent this kind of thing going on-to try to secure honest and proper packing, and the supply to our people of just what they buy. If it should be necessary to hold the whip of publicity over the people who are thus packing, we may have to do it, but I am in hopes that the means adopted already will be sufficient, and rapidly improve the trade.

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).

Has the hon. minister made arrangements with the shippers to see that, the perishable products are protected or properly shipped ?

1

am working that with the ship-owners as much as possible.

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).

Is the\ minister aware that there is an incongruity between the Ontario and the Dominion statutes with regard to the punishment of delinquents in the dairy business ?

I have not any knowledge of it at the moment, Will the hon. gentleman state to what particular discrepancy he refers ?

Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).

Under the Ontario Act respecting butter and cheese no one can be found guilty of an offence unless it can be shown that he committed it knowingly or wilfully, but under the Dominion Act such knowledge is not made an element of the crime, but on the contrary the lack of such knowledge is no defence. That appears to me very unjust. Perhaps I had better read the statutes for the information of the hon. gentleman. Here is the Ontario statute-chapter 251 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario page 3,091 :-

6. No person shall sell, supply, bring or send to a cheese or butter manufactory, or the owner or manager thereof, to be manufactured, milk diluted with water, or in any way adulterated, or milk from which any cream' has been taken, or milk commonly known as ' skimmed milk,' without distinctly notifying, in writing, the owner or manager of such cheese or butter manufactory, that the milk so soli, supplied or brought to bo manufactured has been so diluted with water, or adulterated, or had the cream so taken from it, or become milk commonly known as 'skimmed milk,' as the case may be. 51 v.c. 32 s.l; 55 v.c. 53 s. 1 (1).

T. No person who in the course of his business agrees to sell, supply, bring or send to any cheese or butter manufactory, or the owner or manager thereof, to be manufactured, the milk of any cow or cows, shall, in the course of such dealing and business, keep back any part of the milk of such cow or cows, without distinctly notifying, in writing, the owner or manager of such cheese or butter manufactory what portion of the milk be has so kept back.

8. No person shall sell, supply, bring or send to a cheese, or butter manufactory, or the owner or manager thereof, to be manufactured, any milk that is tainted or partly sour without distinctly notifying, in writing, the owner or manager of such cheese or butter manufactory of or such milk being tainted or partly sour.

The said sections 6, 7 and 8, shall not apply where the person charged with the offence proves to the satisfaction of justice or justces of the peace that the commission of the alleged offence was without his knowledge or privity, and contrary to his wish and intention, and that he was not aware thereof.

Chapter 43 of the Dominion statutes 52 Victoria provides as follows

1. No person shall sell, supply or send to any cheese or butter or condensed milk manufactory, or to the owner or manager thereof, or to any maker of butter, cheese or condensed milk, to be manufactured, milk diluted with water, or in any way adulterated or milk from which any cream has been taken, or milk commonly known as skimmed milk.

2. No person who supplies, sends, sells or brings to any cheese or butter or condensed milk manufactory, or to the owner or manager thereof, or to the maker of cheese or butter or condensed milk, any milk to be manufactured into butter or cheese or condensed milk, shall keep back any portion of that part of the milk known as strippings.

7. For the purpose of establishing the guilt of any person charged with the violation of any of the provisions or sections one or two of this Act, it shall be sufficient priiua facie evidence on which to found a conviction to show that such milk so sent, sold, supplied or brought to a manufactory as aforesaid, to be manufactured into butter or cheese or condensed milk, is substantially inferior in quality to pure milk, provided the test is made by means of a lactometer or cream gauge or some other proper and adequate test and is made by a competent person; provided always, that a conviction may be made or had on any other sufficient legal evidence.

In the one case a man who does not know that the milk was adulterated cannot be convicted, but In the other case it matters not whether he has any knowledge or not, he may be convicted. I think it is the duty of the minister to see that this mattter is made straight so that we will have but one law.

The only thing we can do is to change our , law. The Ontario law requires knowledge ' on the part of the person who is charged [DOT] with the offence. Does he wish to make L our law the same ?

| Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin). I am not intro. ducing a law hut asking the minister if he is aware of the fact.