Mr. OLIVER:
Has the minister or the
Government any information as to any infractions of the law?
Mr. BURRELL:
I could not give my
hon. friend any specific instances. We are continually enforcing our Butter Act; so far as oleomargarine is concerned, I think the law has been pretty well lived up to, because it is known that the department will strongly attack any attempt to contravene the law. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for West Peterborough says, I have no doubt that if we eliminate this section and allow the production of butter substitutes, it would take a whole army of inspectors to prevent fraud.
Mr. NESBITT:
Does the minister know of any oleomargerine having been sold in Canada ?
Mr. BURRILL:
I could not answer my hon. friend on the spur of the moment; I shall be glad to get him that information.
Mr. OLIVER:
What is the minimum amount of water permitted in butter ?
Mr. BURRELL:
Sixteen per cent.
Mr. OLIVER:
Is subsection (c) a new provision ?
Mr. BURRELL:
Perhaps I can make the matter clear by reading section 299 of the old Act:
No person shail mix with butter any acid, alkali, chemical or any substance whatever, which is introduced or used for the purpose or with the effect of causing the butter to absorb water or any part of milk or cream; or manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell, expose or have in his possession fob sale any such mixed butter, any renovated butter or process butter.
Subsection (c) of section 5 of the present Bill makes it quite plain that we can prosecute those who undertake commercially what is known as the process of renovating butter by re-churning and adding more water.
Mr. OLIVER:
There is a difference between grading, mixing the butter and putting it into merchantable shape, and reworking it for the purpose of introducing an extra amount of water. The big dairying establishments have out-stations at which they buy cream and butter from the farmers. The butter is made up into different forms and qualities, but is probably perfectly good butter, though not in mer-
charitable shape. It is brought to the central factory, graded, re-worked, put into merchantable shape and sold. I know that that is a legitimate part of the business of large dairy interests in Edmonton. I have never heard any objection to its being done; it always struck me as being a very proper proceeding.
Mr. BRADBURY:
They closed a factory in Winnipeg for doing the very same thing.
Mr. OLIVER:
Possibly; but it seems to me to be a method strictly in line with the best interests of all parties concerned. It enables the farmer to get a cash price for his butter and enables the dealer to dispose of it to the satisfaction of his customers.
Mr. BRODER:
Re-churned?
Mr. OLIVER:
I do not know whether it is re-churned, but it is re-worked.
Mr. BURRELL:
I think that would be
all right. I understand what my hon. friend means. The trouble is that there has been a definite commercial process of absolute fraud in renovating butter, absolutely rechurning poor butter and adding water, the result being that it would keep for only a couple of days, while the water has been sold for the price of butter so that firms are making hundreds of dollars a day. There would be no desire to interfere with any legitimate process of re-working butter. The desire is to stop the fraud that is now being practised.
Mr. OLIVER:
This section does not
prevent the legitimate re-working of butter? I met a gentleman from Winnipeg who told me that he had been interested in some such enterprise and he had been put out of business.
Mr. BRADBURY:
A firm in Winnipeg composed of men from my own town had a factory in which they invested $15,000. They were buying the cheaper grades of butter and re-working it. I do not know what the process was, but they were not making it out of any other substances than butter made by farmers in the surrounding district. They were put out of business by the late Minister of Agriculture and lost all the money invested. A claim was put in by Mr. D. P. Reid, of Selkirk, who had invested a lot of money, and the late Government promised to compensate him for putting him out of business because when he went into business there was no Act against it. I have always thought that the firm was treated in a very harsh manner, and that
the Government of Canada owe these people about $10,000.
Mr. WEBSTER:
The re-working of butter is permitted. A merchant goes through selections he has gathered, picks out the colour that suits best, puts it into the worker and makes up two or three tubs of the butter. The Bill does not interfere with that practice, but it does interfere with a man who melts butter and adds fresh milk and acid to give it a peculiar flavour which will last for three or four days. I have considered this Bill very carefully, and believe it cannot be improved upon in the interest of the public.
Mr. NESBITT:
The wording of the section, I think, would prohibit that. The butter the hon. member speaks about would be a process butter, re-worked butter.
Mr. WEBSTER:
Process butter is homogenized milk.
Mr. NESBITT:
I do not agree that
re-working butter would not come under this section.