1925-05-27

OCEAN SHIPPING RATES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome) presented the fifth report of the special committee appointed to consider the resolution to give the government of Canada control over certain ocean rates.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Who christened the committee by that name?


Mr. McMASTER:: That question has been asked befo.c in the House and replied to. I invoke the Speaker's aid to prevent useless reiteration.



LIBRARY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER presented the report of the secretary of the joint committee on the Library of Parliament.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 151 to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
He said: The purport of this bill is simply to amend the act in order to give us authority to exact licenses from foreigners going into the Northwest Territories. As the House well knows, a number of explorers and traders are going into the northern waters, and we do not appear to have authority to exact licenses from them and thereby assert our soverugnty over that territory. It is in
[Stage Direction]
Questions
order to make that perfectly clear that I am asking for the amendment to the act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What was the total exportation of potatoes from Canada into the United States of America, during the respective months of January, February, March and April. 1925?
2.	What was the customs tariff rate applied to such exportation by the United States?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1. Exports of potatoes from Canada to the United States:
Months	Quantity	Value
1925	Bushels	
January.. ..	.. .. 2,197	$ 1,385February... .	. .. 9,679	3,590March	. .. 67,972	49,124April	.. .. 16,791	11,335
The above were all Canadian produce.
2.	The United States rate of duty on potatoes -'m-ted from Canada is fifty cents per one ______j-cunds.


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Was the Pelagic Sealing Treaty signed at Washington, July 7, 1911?
2.	Was it provided under article twelve (12) thereof that Russia should at the end of each season deliver 15 per cent gross in number and value of the total number of seal skins taken on the territory subject to the jurisdiction of Russia, to an authorized agent of the Canadian government?
3.	Has this been complied with, and if so, what was received in each of the years since?
4.	Under article thirteen (13) of the same treaty, was a similar agreement made on the part of Japan, only in her case to the extent of 10 per cent?
5.	Has this agreement been complied with, and if so, what payments were made in each of the succeeding years ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, for the years in which killing of seals for commercial purposes took place.
3.	A close season for five years as provided for by the treaty was enacted by Russia during the years 1912-1916. Since that time until 1920, Canada received the quota of skins provided for by the treaty. Since 1920 no information is available as to whether seals have been taken. The following net amounts were received in the years stated from sales .of Canada's share of the skins taken, but they

represent proceeds from skins taken in
previous years:
1919	
$3,501	601921	
2,178	641923	
80	50

Less expenses, freight, etc.. 544 69

4.	Yes, for the years in which killing seals for commercial purposes took place.
5.	Yes. No killing took place in 1916 and 1917, as the number of seals visiting the islands in these years fell below the minimum specified by the treaty. The following net amounts were received in the years stated from the sale of Canada's share of the seal skins taken, but they represent the proceeds from skins taken in previous years:
1917	
$2,620	361918	:	
962 311922	
1,333	561925	
448	08


$5,364 31 LORETTEVILLE-SITE FOR PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works, in 1912-13, purchase a parcel of land in order to erect a public building at Loretteville, County of Quebec?
2.	If so, from whom was this land purchased, and at what price?
3.	Was there another parcel of land purchased in 1923-24?
4.	If so, from whom was the latter parcel of land purchased, and at what price?
5.	Why was a second parcel of land purchased?
6.	Was the Post Office Department consulted in -connection with the purchase of said parcels of land ?
7.	Did the department approve of the latter parcel of land in preference to the former?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Jos. Renaud for $2,250.
3.	Yes.
4.	Mr. A. Savard for $4,800.
5.	Renaud property not suitably located for post office purposes.
6. Yes, as to property purchased in 1913 and were well acquainted with details as to property purchased in 1923.
7. Yes, as site was recommended by the federal representative and the mayor and councillors of Loretteville.


RAILWAY EARNINGS
Mr. HUDSON:: What were the gross and net earnings by monthj for the year 1924, (a) of the Canadian Pacific Railway; (b) of the Canadian National Railways?

Questions


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: (a)
Canadian Pacific
	Gross	Net
January	$13,104,635	$ 709,012February	12,866,055	938,618March	14.526,728	2,332,072April	13,482,057	1,497,607May	14,256,040	1,629,361June	15,102,307	2,462,890July	14.849,956	2,339,116August	14,397,356	3,280,707September	15,465,582	4,581,104October	19,274,212	7,690,615November	17.943,756	6,122,251December	15,527,360	4,554,048(b)	_Canadian	National	Canadian and U.S. Lines	Gross	NetJanuarv	$18,328,491	$ 449,417February	17,784,518	Dr. 187,041March	20,669,619	2,293,066April	19,051,093	1,255,694Mav	19,350,770	Dr. 255,323June	19,678,067	Dr. 926,383July	19,986,670	585,251August	18,323,938	713,683September	19,311,459	2,147,456October	22,840,698	4,693,843November	20,946,123	3,714,304December	19,316,737	2,760,283


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Under the treaty of 1911, between Great Britain, United States, Japan, and Russia, what compensation has been paid to, (a) Russia; (b) Japan; (c) Canada; (d) United States?
2.	Has the treaty and subsequent arrangement theie-under of July, 1911, been officially published in Canada, and if so, where may these publications be found?
3.	Under article 16 of the said treaty, has any notice been served by any of the four signatory powers that the said Treaty will be terminated ?
4.	Has there been any accounting given for the seals killed at Robben Reef, Japan and Commander island, Russia?
5.	Has Canada received payment of 15 per cent under articles 12 and 13 of the said treaty?
6.	Has pelagic sealing been carried on at Okhotsk sea since the treaty was entered into?
7.	Have the United States authorities reported on the status of the sealing herd? If so, what steps have been taken to check the accuracy of the said reports?
8. Did the experts, at the time of the Treaty, estimate that its effect would bring the herd up to about three million?
9.	What is the total number of seals killed on the Pribiloff islands since 1900?
10.	Is the government aware that the number killed since 1910 on the said island, is about double the total catch by Canadian sealers prior to 1910?
11.	Did W. T. Hornaday, the seal expert, estimate that the herd numbered to-day about three million seals ?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Passed as an order for return.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Speaker, I think the
question requires but short answers and could better be dealt with as a question than as an order for return. It is not a matter of political expediency, but rather one of very great interest to certain sections of the country, and I would respectfully suggest that the question should stand for answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my desire
to have it pass as an order for return is because it is not one question but eleven and will involve a good deal of investigation before it can be answered. However, if my hon. friend prefers to have it remain on the order paper until answered, I have no objection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no objection to
that course being followed, but I should like to have the question answered; I do not want it to remain on the order paper indefinitely.


STATUS OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Has the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) any statement to give to the House regarding certain discussions that are going on in London with the imperial government looking to the altering of the status of this "colony" of Canada, under the direction of the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not any statement
to make to the House on the matter at the present time.


WRANGEL ISLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Is the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) prepared to bring down the information regarding Allan Crawford who died on Wrangel island?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior):: Has there been an order for a return?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) some time ago requested the minister to bring down the information and I think the minister promised to do so.
Business oj the House


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
very sure; I believe I promised the 'hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River that I would bring down the papers when the estimates were under consideration. I have a faint recollection however that an order was passed for the production of papers relating to the matter. I am having them prepared in order to make the necessary explanation.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister would
try to have them brought down before the appropriate estimate comes up for discussion it would be better for the House.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a Canadian Press despatch reproduced pretty generally in the press which I think demands a word of explanation if not also of comment. It is published in this morning's Citizen under the following title:
Blame Premier for Empire Day sitting: Dominion convention of the Orange Young Britons passes resolution.
The despatch is dated Peterboro, Ontario, May 26, and reads:
The following resolution was unanimously passed by the Dominion convention of Orange Young Britons in session here to-day:
Whereas the House of Commons of Canada adjourned on Ascension Day, a Roman Catholic holiday, and on the direction of the Prime Minister of Canada the same House of Commons sat yesterday, May 25, the day set apart for the commemoration of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, be it resolved that this grand lodge of Orange Young Britons place itself on record as condemning the unpatriotic and unprotestant attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada in thus permitting the Roman Catholic hierarchy to control and dictate his actions which violate every principle of British imperialism and a free Canadian government.
So far as the House not sitting on Ascension Day is concerned, parliament on this occasion has but followed the practice which has been observed from the days of confederation up to the present time, implementing a pledge given in this House directly with respect to the employment of civil servants and indirectly with respect to the sitting of the House of Commons itself on that day. The pledge to which I refer was given by the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden when he stood in the position which, at the moment, I occupy. If hon. members will refer to Hansard of June 26, 1920, at page 4262, they will find the record of a discussion which took place in this House at that time with reference to the observance of certain religious holidays. Speak-

ing particularly of Ascension Day as one of those holidays, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden is reported as follows:
I have said two or three times that so far as these days of religious observance and religious duty are concerned, the whole matter has rested on custom and convention.
A little further on he says:
I hope hon. gentlemen will accept the assurance on behalf of the government that this custom and convention which has prevailed in the past will continue in the future.
I think my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Meighen) when he was Prime Minister followed the same practice in asking the House to refrain from sitting on Ascension Day, as being a day of religious observance so far as a large number of hon. members of the House are concerned, and in accordance with the custom which had prevailed, I understand, from the days of confederation.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order.
If this is to be made the subject of such lengthy explanation and argument it should be brought up on some other occasion and not on the orders of the day, especially in view of the fact that no notice has been given anyone. The Prime Minister should not take this opportunity under those circumstances to quote authorities extending over years. It is hardly fair to those who may take a different view.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very
much surprised at the position the right hon. gentleman takes. I should have thought that the leader of the opposition would be the first to endeavour immediately to remove any false impression of a character such as this resolution conveys.


Arthur Meighen: Bring the matter up in
the proper way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the proper
way?


Arthur Meighen: And at the proper time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The proper
time after the publication of such a resolution is immediately the House assembles. I cannot understand my right hon. friend's objection nor the point of it.


Arthur Meighen: I am raising a point of
order and I should like to have a ruling upon it. If the Speaker rules that the Prime Minister is proceeding in the proper way I am satisfied.


Mr. SPEAKER:: No lengthy explanations,
declarations and statements are permissible

Narcotic Drug Act
on the orders of the day, and I think that the right hon. the Prime Minister has now stated his point fully. He has explained the custom of the House and the attitude of governments since confederation as regards the sitting of the House on Ascension Day, and that I think closes the incident.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But I am also referring to V ictoria Day, Mr. Speaker; the article has reference to both. I would respectfully submit that there is not a phrase in the explanation I have so far given the House that is not essential to a proper statement of the government's action in this matter. With regard to the sitting of the House on Victoria Day, I took the trouble of communicating with the High Commissioner for Canada to ascertain what the practice of the British government was with regard to the sitting of the British parliament on that particular day. I was informed that the British parliament would sit on Victoria Day and I felt that if the British parliament considered that a proper way to observe Victoria Day we should not be any less loyal if we observed the day in the same way. I should perhaps add that I had nothing to do with this House not sitting on Ascension Day; it was hon. members of the House of Commons themselves who, by unanimous resolution, agreed not to sit on that day. I merely brought before parliament a resolution to the effect that when the House adjourned on Wednesday, May 20, it should stand adjourned until Friday, the 22nd instant. That resolution was adopted unanimously by the House, so that it was the House itself that decided not to sit on Ascension Day. With respect to Victoria Day, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) asked:
What is the intention of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister with regard to sitting on Monday, May 25?
I replied, as reported at page 3168 of Hansard :
The government thought it would be meeting the wishes of the House generally if we sat on the 2oth May in order to get through the business as soon as possible.
No exception was taken to that statement; no hon. member asked that Victoria Day should be observed in any other manner than that indicated. Had there been any exception in any particular I would have told the House then, what I have just said, about the practice in the British House, and left it to the House itself to discuss the matter further.


Arthur Meighen: The point of order I
drew to your attention, Mr. Speaker, was merely that when a subject of this kind comes up in this House-and there have been
frequent instances-it should come up when the debate upon it could be conducted under fair terms. I want to say that personally I have no objection whatever, and never had, to the suspension of our proceedings over Ascension Day. The day was observed by the late government, and I repeat, I have no objection whatever to its observance at any time. As to Victoria Day, my understanding is-I speak subject to correction- that it is not a public holiday in England at all; it is in Canada. That distinction is worth drawing attention to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to
my right hon. friend, I would say that in Canada, as in England, the House of Commons itself determines the days of its sittings,



OWEN SOUND ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MATTHEW R. DUNCAN (North Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention
to a statement made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) with reference to the elevator at Owen Sound. According to Hansard he said, "It is only a distributing point." In this the hon. gentleman is mistaken, as both the Canadian National and ,the Canadian Pacific carry wheat from this elevator to the seaboard. I wonder where the hon. member got the information, and I would ask him to withdraw ihis incorrect statement.
Mr. WARD:: Mr. Speaker,-


Hewitt Bostock: Orders of the day.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT 1923 AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 46 to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Mr. BELAND:: I do not think this section needs any explanation, Mr. Chairman, it being simply an amendment of the interpretation clause dealing with the definitions of the words, 'physician," "veterinary surgeon" and "dentist."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Minister may issue licenses, make regulations therefor, and prescribe fees.
[Stage Direction]
Narcotic Drug Act
Henri Sévérin Béland: This amendment is for the purpose of making it clear that a license granted to any person to engage in the manufacture, sale or distribution of narcotics is good only at a stated place. The underlined words are new. There does not appear to be any objection to the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON:: With regard to the
phrase "a stated place", must a person have his place of business for the selling of drugs at a stated address?
Mr, BELAND: It applies only to the case of those who may have branches in different cities. They would have to secure a license in each place.


Robert King Anderson: For each branch?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 1-Unlawful possession.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This amendment is necessary by reason of a decision handed down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, that section 4 (d), as it stands, creates two distinct offences where a person is charged with possession, and has been held to be bad law. Section 4 has been subdivided into two subsections to get over the objection raised by the courts.
The underlined words in (d) are new. Paragraph (f) as added is in the words of the old (d). The words "with or without hard labour" are inserted in the penalty clause.


Arthur Meighen: The explanations here
are very brief. There is no explanation given of subsection 2. I could not get any connec-iton between the minister's words and subsection 2 of section 2. What is the effect of putting in the word "each"?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It means that every
manufacturing establishment, even though it be a branch of a main factory, will have to secure a license.


Robert King Anderson: Is there any change in
the fee?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No. I am informed that
there is no change at all in the practice. It makes the law clearer.


Robert King Anderson: What is the fee?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Twenty-five dollars.


Robert King Anderson: If that applies to each license, then there would be a doubling or trebling of fees.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In some cases, yes.
	,


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I understand that
the minister had something to do with the conference on the drug traffic. Are our laws being directly' related to the production of the drug and to its international control?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, this is purely local;
it does not deal with production of the raw material. As a matter of fact there is no production of the raw material in Canada. The bill refers particularly to traffickers and dealers who may sell or handle cocaine or morphine.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It hardly seems
reasonable that we should try to control the drug traffic here and make it illegal to have possession of these drugs unless at the same time we are doing something to prevent the production of drugs and the making of profit from them in other parts of the empire.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Perhaps I might in a few
words outline the efforts that have been made internationally to limit or restrict the production of their drugs, especially at the last international conference at Geneva. The idea was to reduce the production of opium and the coca leaf to the medicinal and scientific requirements of the world. As was to be expected, strong objection was made to this proposal because, as can be understood, many interests are at stake in this connection.


James Shaver Woodsworth: By what parties or nations were these objections to the restrictions made?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I was just coming to
that. The objections in some instances were qualified. There is an economic problem at the bottom of the whole question, arising out of the fact that a large number of peasants and agriculturists in various countries derive an income from the cultivation of the poppy in the case of opium, and the cultivation of the coca plant in the case of coca leaves. Probably millions of persons obtain a living through the cultivation of the -poppy in India, Persia, Turkey and China, and perhaps some other countries, and the cultivation of coca leaves in South America. In India opium is used in the form of what is called prepared opium-chiefly for mastication-which is entirely different from the opium used for smoking purposes, although British rule has during the last quarter of a century accomplished a great deal in restraining its use in that country. The idea prevails in India that some almost supernatural power attaches to opium; it is a family remedy which many of the natives of that country look upon as having the power to cure all ills, moral, mental or physical. So that if you prohibit the use

of prepared opium in India you meet with very serious objections on the part of people who claim that their individual liberty is being interfered with; that opium has come down to them from their ancestors and that the right to use it should by no means be taken from them.


Mr IRVINE:: The minister has put forward the idea that economic interests are the reason why the production of opium and its derivatives should not be interfered with in India. If the legislation which we are now considering, and which is to be paralleled in other countries, is effective, will it not have exactly the same result on the opium production in India as if it was prohibited at its source, and if Canada has a voice on the international board dealing with that matter, would it not be more effective to deal with it there than by legislating here?
Mr. BE'LAND:	We are mainly concerned
in Canada with the use of derivatives of these raw products I have mentioned. The derivatives are commonly known as salts. My hon. friend perhaps is aw*are that morphine, for instance is a derivative of opium, and so is codeine and heroin; cocaine and its salts are the derivatives of the coca leaves. I was dealing presently with the raw products, and I was about to mention that whilst opium is used as a chewing or masticating material in India, in China it is used for smoking purposes. There, again, you will run up against prejudices which are very deeply rooted in the minds of the population.
My hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg asked what was the use of making a law in this country to prohibit the use of narcotic drugs if you do not go to the very root of the question and stop production. Well, there is the difficulty, and it was that difficulty which caused the United States to withdraw from the conference at Geneva last winter. The United States submitted that all contracting parties should undertake to reduce the production of opium and coca leaves to the strictly medicinal and scientific requirements, and a limit of ten years was set by the United States. Very strong objections were taken to that by some countries, principally by Great Britain; not that Great Britain was willing to allow this evil to continue any longer than was necessary, but because of certain practical difficulties which were in the way. Hon. members will perhaps have noticed that Lord Robert Cecil at that conference submitted a proposal the sense of which was that Great 230
Narcotic Drug Act
Britain would undertake to limit the production of opium in India and in any other British territory within ten years to run from the date when an international commission would certify that no contraband could take place from China. China is at the present time politically in a state of disorder; it is very unstable, and the illicit exportation of opium to other countries is very large. This proposal of the British delegation did not meet with the approval of the American representatives, who stuck to their proposal of doing away with the excess production of opium and coca leaves within ten years, claiming they had attained this end in the Philippine islands, which are under their administration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Was it not two
years ago, on the initiation of Mr. Wellington Koo, Chinese representative on the council of the League of Nations, that the effort was made to prohibit the opium traffic in China, and was this effort not defeated by the League of Nations?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not in a position to answer my hon. friend with any degree of accuracy in that connection. It is I think due to China that we should mention that as far back as 1908 the government of China undertook to pass legislation of a most drastic character in order to stop entirely the cultivation of the poppy. So drastic was this law that peasants who ran contraiy to it and indulged in the cultivation of the poppy were simply executed. That was shortly before the revolution in China, which did away entirely with those provisions. Since then other efforts have been made by other governments in China, but they have not amounted to very much. The country is so extensive and the population so immense that it must of necessity be very difficult to keep under strict control the contraband from China. So much for the problem which my hon. friend said we should deal with first.
The international conference has dealt with the traffic in opium and manufactured drugs as completely as is feasible under the circumstances. The conference in its convention provided for the creation of a central board of control, with its seat at Geneva, to be composed of eight members, of whom one will be appointed by the United States and one by Germany, and the other six by the League of Nations. Now the powers of that board are defined in a convention, and I do not suppose, Mr. Chairman, that you want me to go into very great detail in this connection. However, let me point out briefly that this board wili

Narcotic Drug Act

have the supervision of the world traffic in opium and coca leaves, and all derivatives of these two main raw products. Every contracting party-that is every party that has signed a convention

undertakes to submit to this central board before the end of each year an estimate of its medicinal and scientific requirements for the following year. That is the first condition. The second condition is that every contracting party will have to submit within three or five months after the end of each year the quantity of drugs, that is opium or coca leaves or drugs manufactured from these products, imported during the year within their territory, the quantity of drugs manufactured in their territory and the quantity of drugs consumed in their territory for medicinal and scientific purposes, the quantity left in stock, and the quantity exported. If this is done by every contracting party it is assumed that it will be possible for the central board to keep a close supervision of the traffic in drugs amongst the countries which are signatories to the convention. There is also a provision in the convention requiring an import and export license in the case of every import and every export. There is also a provision that every contracting party shall enact laws in order to control as closely as possible the mnufacture of drugs. Each manufacturer requiring a license to import must at any time be ready to allow his premises to be inspected by the governmental authorities in order to ascertain what quantity of the drug he has imported in a raw state or in a manufactured form, what quantity of the drug he has manufactured himself, what quantity he has disposed of, and what quantity remains in his possession. All these points have been covered very closely by the different committees of the conference. I think this explanation covers pretty well the subject which was raised by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to ask what attitude Canada took at this conference; whether this country through its representatives endorsed the attitude of Great Britain and the Indian delegates?
Mr. RELAND-: As far as Canada is concerned we are somewhat in the same position as the United States; we do not produce opium, we do not produce coca leaves, and we do not manufacture, to any great extent, any of these drugs. No measure appeared to the representatives of Canada so drastic that they could not support it; but they were aware that it rvas absolutely useless to attempt
'Mr. Beland.]
the impossible-that there was a possibility, of running up against some practical difficulties which would not tend to bring about the desired solution. As regards the control of the production of the raw material; the control of the exports and imports from and to every country concerned and the manufacture and distribution of these drugs in every country interested, the representative of Canada was ready to adopt any measure however drastic it may have been. But in the last few days of the conference the representative of Canada, who during that time -was Mr. Riddell, agreed with Great Britain that the proposal of Lord Robert Cecil was acceptable. This was to the effect that the production of opium and coca leaves should be limited to strictly medicinal and scientific requirements after ten years, that period to run from the day upon wdiich the international commission would have been in a position to declare that there "svas no danger of contraband from China.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister used the word "medicinal and scientific purposes." I should like to ask whether he was a party to the change of that phrase to "legitimate purposes?" I believe that the Americans stood for the words which the minister has used "medicinal and scientific purposes", but that the phrase was changed to "legitimate purposes." I should like to know what attitude the minister took in that regard?


Henri Sévérin Béland: In substance there is no
change that I can see. "Scientific and medicinal purposes" would be considered legitimate and "legitimate," I think, would be applicable only to medicinal and scientific purposes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to ask the minister whether the masticating process which he has described is legitimate?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It depends upon the country which passes the law. It would be legitimate, I suppose, to smoke opium 4 p.m. in China, or rather it is not legitimate but it would be if the law allowed. But in certain of the provinces of India the natives are allowed to masticate and eat opium.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would submit
that if it is legitimate to smoke opium in China and chew opium in India the advance made really does not amount to very much. I thought we were getting somewhere when the restriction to "scientific and medicinal purposes" was proposed.

Narcotic Drug Act


Henri Sévérin Béland: If I said it was legitimate
to smoke opium in China I immediately corrected the statement. The practice is not legitimate or permitted in China; but in India the use of opium is permitted in many provinces. I am not thoroughly conversant with the conditions in India but I was informed, and so also was the conference, by the representative of India that in that country not more than 13 millions of people are addicted to the eating of opium out of a population of over 300 millions. This is the declaration that was made by India's representative at the conference. Whether accurate or not it was contradicted by many people, but there you are.


Mr. IRVINE:: Is it not the case that the
words "scientific and medicinal" were dropped and the word "legitimate" substituted in order to meet the situation in India?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That may be.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are a few
remarks I should like to make. The minister has said that the production of opium is very extensive, and that it must not be interfered with on account of the welfare of the peasants of India. I should like to call attention to the fact that facing a deficit in 1923 the Inchcape Retrenchment committee report, after carefully considering the opium revenue, warns against any reduction of the price paid to cultivators, lest they turn to the growing of other crops and, to use the words of the report, that "this important source of revenue" will be endangered.
We must face the fact that very large financial interests are involved in this matter. 1 note that as late as 1923 the directors of the North Borneo Company acknowledge in their report a fear lest to introduce measures for the suppression of opium smoking would restrict the inflow of Chinese labour, which is "vital to the progress and development of North Borneo." Still more recently the British Malaya Opium committee declared that:
Any check on a free flow of labour from China would have disastrous effects on the economic position of British Malaya.
And in their memorandum supplied to the conference, the Netherlands government offers the same excuse for the non-abolition for opium smoking in the Dutch East Indies. Foreign Affairs of November, 1923, states:
In reply to Mr. Arthur Ponsonby who asked in parliament last session for details of the amount of revenue
230 i
received by various colonies from sales of opium, the Colonial Office supplied these figures:
Proportion of revenue from opium per cent
Hong Kong	 22.4
Straits Settlements	 45.5
Federated Malay States	 16.8
Sarawak	 14.0
Ceylon	 0.75
Johore	 34.25
Kedah	 38.3
Pertis	 44.3
Kelantan	 23.5
Treuggann	 37.7
Brunei	 14.9
M. Bornes	 12.3
As long as large and important British colonies derive such a large percentage of their revenue from the production of opium, it is almost hopeless for us to attempt effectively to restrict the traffic. These bills that we discuss here and the penalties that we inflict upon local dealers in these drugs are very ineffective so long as we do not resolutely attack the main problem itself in the production and in the large revenues derived from the production of this commodity. It was stated as far back as 1891 by the British House of Commons that "the system by Which the Indian opium revenue is raised" is "morally indefensible." That statement still stands, and we in Canada ought to have sufficient courage to stand against that system, even though this may mean that in this regard, we must remain apart from some other portions of the British Empire.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Perhaps a word of explanation is in order. I do not think it is entirely fair-I say this in all due deference to my hon. friend-to convey to this committee the impression that the British government is deriving benefits out of the cultivation of the poppy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister suggest that those figures given on the floor of the British House of Commons are not correct?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not suggest anything
of the kind; but if I am at all. conversant with the situation in India, I do not think the British government is deriving any revenue from the cultivation of the poppy. The matter is so regulated in India that each provincial government has complete control of whatever revenue there is. I am conveying to the committee only some information; which was given to the conference by the eminent, representative of India, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell, in the face of forty-one representatives of the different nations of the
Narcotic Drug Act

world, stated emphatically that the government of India or the government of Great Britain did not derive a single cent from the cultivation of the poppy. If that was untrue, does my hon. friend not think that out of the forty other representatives there, objection might have been raised as to the accuracy of the affirmation of Mr. Campbell?
My hon. friend has said: Of what avail will it be to legislate in this country if we do not deal with the production of opium, especially in India? My hon. friend is, perhaps, not aware that not ten pounds of Indian opium are imported into the United States or Canada. The quality of opium raised in India is inferior, containing less than 5 per cent of alkaloids. The opium which is mainly used in the United States or in Europe for the manufacture of drugs is opium which is cultivated or raised in Persia and Turkey and which is a good deal richer in alkaloids than Indian opium. Therefore, even if we stopped entirely the cultivation of the poppy in India, that would not make any difference as regards America, because manufacturers in Europe would have their source of supply entirely in Persia and Turkey. I do not think my hon. friend is completely fair when he intimates that an immense revenue is derived by the British government from the cultivation of the poppy in India.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not say the British government. I said that the various colonies were deriving revenues from this traffic, not the British government itself.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is all right. No doubt in some of the provinces in India some revenue is derived from the cultivation of the poppy, and this may be true also of some other colonies of the empire in the Far East.
There is still this further objection in the way of those who want to suppress entirely the cultivation of the poppy. The conference was never animated by any desire to protect the revenue of any of those small countries, and I have not heard the British delegation or any delegation from the Orient claim that they should be protected as regards their revenue. Such a claim was never advanced during the conference. Some claims were made on behalf of the peasant cultivators, and some persons, such as the Persian representative, were of opinion that the big powers, the civilized nations, the European and American countries, should provide a means whereby those peasants could find a living if we stopped them from raising the poppy.

Mr. WOOiDSWORTH: Is it not true that Persia was willing to renounce any revenue which it might derive in that way?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, but at the same time the representative of Persia pointed out that that could not be done without compensation from some source. He went so far as to intimate that the United States, having almost all the gold of the world, should come forward and disburse something.


Robert King Anderson: What effect has the -
present act had on the control of the traffic in narcotic drugs in Canada?


Henri Sévérin Béland: This act improves the conditions to a certain extent. We are providing for instance that no foreign doctors shall prescribe drugs in any quantity. In future they will have to be registered under the Canadian acts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Written orders for drugs to be signed and dated and signature verified.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This is an important
amendment. It is only fair that when, a man presents himself to the bank a cheque made to his order he should endorse it and satisfy the bank that he is the person to whom the amount is payable. And when a person goes into a retail drug store with a prescription signed John Smith, M.D., it is but reasonable to expect that if the druggist does not know the physician whose name appears on the prescription he should take steps to ascertain whether the signature is genuine or not. He should take every precaution to see that he does not fill a prescription signed by a bogus physician. The section carries out this idea.


Robert King Anderson: This provision would
not be always fair, especially to a physician who has newly set up in a strange city. How would the druggist satisfy himself as to the identity of such a physician? I do not think it would be reasonable that the druggist should refuse to fill such a prescription.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No doubt in some instances this might work a hardship. My hon. friend might go to Winnipeg where he might have relatives and if he prescribed it might happen that some druggist would refuse the prescription. But that would happen iii very few instances inasmuch as it is always possible for the party interested to satisfy the druggist who the doctor is. On the other hand, if a druggist is going to accept any prescription at all, anybody could sign a prescription and enable an addict to secure drugs in this

way. And the illicit use of drugs is carried on to a very large extent in this way. I think my hon. friend will be well advised to support this provision; the prescription should be signed and dated, and either the signature should be well known to the druggist or it should be verified in some way.


Robert King Anderson: Would the druggist be
entitled to fill the prescription if he found the name appearing on the prescription registered in the official list ci the province?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It would hardly be sufficient that the name appearing at the bottom of the prescription should correspond to one registered in the books of the province; that would open the door to forgeries. I am informed that there are thousands of prescriptions filled in Canada in the course of a year which are mere forgeries. For that reason we should try to make the law reasonably drastic.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Penalty for unlawful prescription.	,
Mr. CARROLL:: I agree with the minister that the law against the use of narcotic drugs should be made as drastic as possible, but I think that everybody should be treated alike. I notice that section 5 amends section 6 of chapter 22 of the acts of 1923 and it deals specifically with physician-s. Now, in all cases of indictment there may be an appeal from the verdict of the jury to the Court of Appeal. That is all right. Brtt section 24 of the original act of 1922 provides under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 4 that there shall be no appeal in the case of anyone importing into Canada or having in his possession any drug, without lawful authority, or of selling to a minor. There is no appeal in these particular cases. On the other hand, if a phj^sician sells drugs illegally or if he has drugs illegally in his possession and is prosecuted before a jury he may appeal. That is not dealing fairly as between one class and another; it is class legislation. Indeed, it is more than class legislation, inasmuch as the doctors of this country undoubtedly know much better than the man in the street who sells drugs the extent of the harm that may ensue. This refers also to cases tried before justices of the peace. An appeal may be taken from a judge and jury on questions of both law and fact, but if a magistrate tries certain cases defined-and sixty out of every hundred magistrates have no legal training-there is no appeal. This is more or less of an insult to the
Narcotic Drug Act.
judges of this country; why should there be an appeal from the decision of a duly c^n-s'.ituted court when there is no appeal from the decision of a magistrate in cases similar in their nature ? I can understand some of the reasons why there should be no appeal in some cases under such an act as this. Take the cases that occur in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver; in these cases a man might appeal and be granted bail of $500 or $600. It might very well pay that man to lose his bail and so escape imprisonment. My only object in bringing this to the minister's attention is to urge that we should have a uniform law for both the physician and the trafficker. But I do not think we can make *the law too drastic against those who deal illegally in drugs.


Mr. EVANS:: Does section five or six regulate the amount that a doctor may prescribe for has patient?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Anyone_who receives drugs from his physician must be treated by that physician in, the usual exercise of his profession. For instance, a man could not walk into a doctors office and receive a prescription for 100 grains of cocaine; it would be unlawful for the doctor to hand him such a prescription.
Replying to my hon. friend from Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll), I have already pointed: out the reason for the difference in the law. Usually, after securing his liberty by lodging an appeal, the trafficker disappears; but it is to be assumed that the regular practitioner has a well-established place for carrying on his profession, and it would be an exception indeed for him to run away. Of course, in the administration of this act a good deal of discretion must be exercised. It sometimes happens that a physician prescribes narcotic drugs in such quantities as would lead one to believe he is doing so for an unlawful purpose, and in such cases proper care is exercised not to injure his reputation. It seems to me that we should have no mercy at all for the drug trafficker, many of whom are making immense fortunes from their illicit trade.


William F. Carroll: You are more merciful
to the doctor than to the trafficker.
Mr. [DOT] BE'LAND:	I agree with my hon.
friend, but I think we are safe in assuming that the great body of our medical men are not indulging in the unlawful prescription of narcotic drugs. From reports we receive periodically from the wholesalers of the
Narcotic Drug Act

quantity of drags sold to the retail druggists, and of the quantity sold' by the latter on doctors' prescriptions, we are able to satisfy ourselves that our medical practitioners generally do not prescribe more than is necessary in the course of their practice. If it should appear that undue quantities are being prescribed, as we found in one particular instance I have in mind, we interfere immediately and arraign the doctor before the courts.


William F. Carroll: I have no objection to
the section carrying, but I think my objection should be brought to the attention of the minister's department. I want to see the trafficker in drugs punished, and punished severely, but I do not want to see an innocent- man convicted by a magistrate who is not well trained in the law, and who indeed may be profiting by the conviction, as is frequently the case. Such a magistrate may think there is sufficient evidence to convict but as a matter of fact there may not be a scintilla of evidence to justify conviction. Why should not the man so convicted be given the right to appeal? I do not say that our doctors are trafficking in this business, but if a doctor is convicted by a judge he has a chance to appeal.


Arthur Meighen: By virtue of what section is there no appeal?


William F. Carroll: Section 24 of the act of 1923, applicable to the ordinary trafficker under (a), (d) and (e) of section 4.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, the right of appeal is especially denied by virtue cf legislation passed a year or so ago, except in the case of disputed law?
3Mr. CARROLL:	Unless the magistrate
*goes beyond his jurisdiction you cannot raise any point of law by certiorari.


Mr. MacLAREN:: The hon. member (Mr. Carroll) suggests that some magistrates may have had but little experience in the judicial function. But the greater number of prosecutions in this connection have taken place in such large cities as Montreal and Vancouver, and it is a fair presumption that the magistrates in those centres are men who have a large amount of legal work before them.


William F. Carroll: We had an appointment in Ottawa a few years ago as police magistrate of a man who had never had any legal training.


Murray MacLaren: Well, I presume that magistrates in cities .like Montreal, for in-

stance, would have cases before them every day. I agree that we should be logical in the framing of laws, but if practical reasons arise uffiich prevent the carrying out of even a logical law, then we must meet conditions as they are. The minister has made a strong case, it seems to me, for having what may be regarded as an inconsistency in the law, as respects traffickers and as respects members of the medical profession. I do not suppose my hon. friend w*ould want to include the medical profession with the traffickers.


William F. Carroll: I certainly would.


Murray MacLaren: I did not suppose he would take that view.


William F. Carroll: Not generally, of course.
I will explain that.


Murray MacLaren: As the minister has
said, the medical man is not so elusive as the trafficker. The trafficker is not a man of substance, and occasionally the medical man is. In any case the medical man cannot fly about the country, because his living depends on his reputation and his practice in a given community. The trafficker is in quite a different position. So I do not think it would be wise to change even what is apparently an inconsistency unless a better arrangement can be proposed to take its place.


William F. Carroll: I do not place doctors in the same category with traffickers, but I would put in an even lower category the doctor who, knowing the effects of drugs on the human system, administers them contrary to the law. And surely our laws are not to be so manipulated that the man "of substance," as my hon. friend expresses it, is to get more favourable treatment than the poor fellow who has no substance. If we have come to that- stage in the administration of our law, I am afraid we have gone backward as compared with the conditions of a century ago.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is a legal point which I confess I am not competent to deal with. But the main reason is that when traffickers who are prosecuted enter an appeal they disappear, whereas in the case of the doctors we are almost sure to be able to find them.


Arthur Meighen: The minister could get over that by providing that an appellant should remain in gaol.


William F. Carroll: Exactly so.


Arthur Meighen: As it is the judge has the right to deny him bail, and if he does grant it he has the right to fix it as high as

Narcotic Drug Act
he likes; I do not think there is any limit. He certainly can keep the man incarcerated and thus overcome that objection.


Mr. BEL  AND@: Could we take away from the judge the power to grant bail? I am simply asking for information. .


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The practice has been to grant bail in almost every instance. This has been found to be the only means by which we could meet a difficult situation.


Arthur Meighen: I remember considerable comment on the ready releases given by the Solicitor General, but I never heard complaint against the judges that they got these people out by the bail route.


Murray MacLaren: What percentage of the accused have disappeared upon bail being granted?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Before the law was changed, seventy-five per cent of the men granted bail disappeared.


William F. Carroll: Will the minister say
that he will put this matter before the Minister of Justice, pointing out what the leader of the opposition has said, and what I have said, before the third reading?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That will be satisfactory to myself and to the department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Burden of proof and defence.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Can the minister
say what will be accepted as a reasonable amount which may be furnished under this provision, or will the department settle that?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think there is
any limitation as to the amount. This section [DOT] simply divides into two classes those who are seeking drugs. First there is the drug addict who is ill and who requires medical attendance ; in his case the physician may prescribe any amount that he thinks proper. The other case is that of the drug addict who is not otherwise ill, in which case the physician may not prescribe.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not think
there is very much to it, because a physician can always find reason if he wants to. He may have a number of cases who require it constantly, and he has the choice of issuing say half a dozen or a dozen tablets or of giving say a small bottle. I do not think the department should leave the provision as indefinite as this, resulting possibly in annoyance to physicians who have to use their common sense or judgment in the matter.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We do not do that. I can assure my hon. friend that the department is very, very careful in those circumstances. The officials realize that it might interfere very much with the practitioner's reputation if he was not guilty, and action is taken only after mature consideration, and after having satisfied ourselves that the practitioner is indulging in illegal practices.
Mr. R'OSS (Kingston):	What I mean is
that the medical man of reputation does not want to be bothered when he uses common sense in prescribing for a patient who requires a drug. The ordinary practising .physician is not charging for this script any more than he charges for another kind of script. I do not agree with what some have said in regard to the physician. In most cases the physician who is trafficking in these drugs is some young fellow who has not a practice and who can jump out at any moment, but the regular physician resident in the locality has his practice, and he will issue only what he thinks is a reasonable prescription. I know the department might question the amount in my own case sometimes and say it was a little bit large, simply for the reason that I would not charge for that script . any more than the other. To prohibit a patient who has for years been using a certain amount of a drug would be just as hard as to say even to some members of parliament that* you cannot have a chew of tobacco when you want it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I see the point raised by
my hon. friend. It is a very difficult matter to deal with. We may make the law as complete as we choose, but in the administration of it we find something lacking in its provisions. We have, for example, traffickers who are themselves drug addicts, and who go to seven or eight different physicians and secure a prescription, getting ten grains from this one or ten grains from that one, and ten grains from another, without these physicians knowing that this addict is securing drugs from other physicians. We are trying here to make a distinction between the doctor who prescribes for a man who is under his supervision and who he thinks requires the drugs, and the other man, and we say:
It shall be no defence to a physician charged with an offence under section six of this act that he did give, sell or furnish any drug to such addict or habitual user for self-administration.
Supply-Health

The doctor will have to prove that this man is really under his care. As I said a moment ago, we have to use a good deal of discretion. If an addict comes to me to be treated, and I feel that I should prescribe something for him in the way of morphine or cocaine, and I do prescribe, I do not think I should be brought before the court for that, or for prescribing as often as I think the man requires the drug, because he is a diseased man that I am prescribing for, but I think I should be subjected to the rigour of the law if I prescribed any quantity of drugs for selfadministration to any man who might come to my office and ask me to prescribe say fifty grains of morphine, a man who would come every month to my office and get fifty or a hundred grains, without satisfying myself that he was using the drug himself and that he required it for his own use. I think some discretion should be exercised, not only by the department, but by the physician. But as I said a moment ago, it is a difficult law to administer, and it is a difficult problem to meet.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Department of Health-the administration of the acts respecting food and drugs, honey, maple products, opium and narcotic drugs and proprietary or patent medicines, $95,800.
Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no increase in this item. The Department of Health, as the House is aware, is supposed to expand. It was created in 1919, and the first minister I think was the Hon. Mr. Rowell. At that time it was foreseen that the activities of the department would increase from year to year, but on account of financial conditions it has been the endeavour of my predecessor and myself to restrict as much as possible the expansion of the Department of Health. It is more or less a co-ordinating department, co-ordinating the activities which were previously carried on by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Immigration and some other departments. The work that is carried on under the Food and Drugs Act is the combating of the adulteration of food and drugs, honey and maple products. Our inspectors secure samples from the dealers all over Canada and examine them, and see that the buying public is not defrauded.

As far as the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act is concerned, while we have the same administration, except perhaps that the supervision is more strict, our activities in this regard are perhaps increased, though we do not ask for any more money. During the course of last year we think we have performed some good work in the suppression of the illicit traffic in drugs. It is a difficult problem to deal with inasmuch as the narcotic drugs which are smuggled into this country and sold illicitly can !be earned in a very small compass indeed.	*
As far as the Proprietary or Patent Medicines Act is concerned, we issue licenses, and we derive some revenue from that source, also some revenue under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, and under the Food and Drugs Act administration. This branch is not self-sustaining, but a substantial revenue is derived. A proprietary medicine is a medicine which carries its own formula. It is not required to be licensed as does a patent medicine inasmuch as t'he formula of that medicine is supposed to be a secret. The department is in possession of the patent medicine formula, however, and submits it to its advisory board which board decides whether the sale of the medicine can be permitted without harm to the public. Proprietary medicines, of course, must otherwise comply with the provisions of the act. The amount is the same as last year.


Mr. BOYS:: To what extent was the appropriation used last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: To the extent of $93,000
odd.


William Alves Boys: And to what extent is the
administration self-sustaining?


Henri Sévérin Béland: About $30,000 is collected
in revenue.	.


Robert King Anderson: How many officials
have you around the country looking after the enforcement of this particular act?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have twenty-five inspection districts in Canada, and there is one inspector in each district, excepting Montreal where there are two. We have food and drug laboratories also in five different cities: Ottawa, Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver.


Robert King Anderson: How many officials are there looking after the various activities of this department in Ottawa?

Supply-Health


Henri Sévérin Béland: Eighty-two. Information
of that character would come more appropriately a little later under the estimates of civil government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pollution of boundary waters, $5,400.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This is the same amount
as last year. It had been represented that this service should be somewhat increased in view of the importance of maintaining the purity of t'he drinking and culinary water used on the ships plying on the Great Lakes and other inland1 waters. We have an agreement with the United States in this connection, and this appropriation is for the enforcement of the regulations concerning the character of the water used for drinking and culinary purposes on these vessels. We have only one sanitary engineer, Mr. Ferguson, who is paid a salary of $3,600 and travelling expenses, and he managed to do the work last year by great personal exertions. It was thought hardly possible for him to do it all, but we have refrained from giving him any help so far. The work is more important than the item would indicate. I 'have not got the exact figure but I think about 900 ships were examined during the season of navigation, and no doubt a great amount of disease has been prevented by the inspection of the drinking and culinary water used on these vessels.


Robert King Anderson: In what way does this
official look after the pollution of these boundary waters?


Henri Sévérin Béland: He has free entry to all
the ships, and can satisfy himself that the reservoirs and tanks used for storing the water for drinking and culinary purposes on every ship are in a sanitary condition. He may, and does take a sample of the water on each ship, and analyses it. Then he makes whatever recommendations are necessary in order to ensure that the requirements of the law shall be observed.


William Alves Boys: Does this item correctly indicate the purpose intended? I cannot quite see why the water that is used on these ships is called "boundary water"?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is the water on
boundary-water ships.


William Alves Boys: I can undertsand that all
right, but that is not what the item says.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine hospitals, including burial expenses of destitute deceased mariners and grants to institutions assisting sailors, $140,000.
Mr. CLARK:: What amount was spent last year? And what is the reason for the increase?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is an increase under this heading of $20,000. The purpose of this vote is to defray all expenditure incurred in connection with the treatment of sick and deceased mariners, in conformity
5 p.m. with the provisions of part 5, chapter 113, Canada Shipping Act. It comprises the maintenance of marine hospitals owned by the government of Canada, salaries to medical officers; board and medical and surgical treatment of seamen at local and designated hospitals; grants to seamen's institutes, and so forth. The department operates two marine hospitals, one at Sydney and the other at Lunenburg. At other ports provision is made as far as possible for the treatment of sick sailors at contract rates at various local hospitals. Where there is no marine or designated hospital, provision is made for their treatment at private residences, in some instances, or public boarding houses. The expenditure is generally approximately the same as the revenue derived from the collection of sick mariners' dues. The dues are two cents per ton for every call of the ship, as long as the ship in question does not call more than three times a year.


John Arthur Clark: No ship pays more than
three times?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No. All sick, injured and distressed mariners employed on ships on which this duty has been paid are eligible to gratuitous treatment. There has been a marked increase in shipping activities as instanced by the large increase in the payment of sick mariners' dues, consequently a corresponding increase in the expenditure is necessary to give the increased number of sick sailors the modern hospitalization and treatment which is demanded. This, I may say, is a self-sustaining branch of the government; everybody would wish that all branches of the government service were in the same happy position; the dues cover the wrhole of the expenditure, in fact it has been pointed out that we might reduce the charge made from two cents to one and a half cents a ton. But after due consideration of this subject, this has been found impossible, because in that case we would not cover our expenditures. It is true that the amount collected is larger than the amount expended. We expended more than $140,000. We collected last year $184,000. Apparently there is a surplus of about $40,000, but this is covered by other expenditures which do not come under this item.
Supply-Health


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister give the details of those other expenditures?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course, this is only an estimate as my hon.. friend will see. For instance, we have in civil government a medical man who is in charge of ports for the treatment of sick mariners. I have not his salary before me; it will appear under civil government. His salary and the salaries of his staff in the department at Ottawa are not paid out of this item. The following will show approximately the estimated annual expenditure not charged to this appropriation:
Salaries of head office for superintendent of marine hospital service, stenographer, and
part of the accountant's branch	 $ 8,500
Travelling expenses	 3,000
Additional salaries for 168 collectors of customs, at say an average of $60 for collecting dues, issuing permits, directing patients for admission to hospital and making returns to
to the department	 10,080
Total	 $21,580
This apparently leaves a balance of about 818,000, and that is considered a fair margin. If an epidemic were to break out in any port amongst the sailors, the government would be called upon to defray all expenses connected with it. We might in this instance run short of money. As I said before, if we reduced the dues by one-half cent, we would fall below the amount that we actually spend. Therefore, for the present year, it has been found preferable to leave the dues as they are.


William Alves Boys: Is 820,000 not a very large item to administer $184,000?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The administration is very much involved. We have a man who travels almost constantly from port to port. He goes from Vancouver to Halifax. He has to travel from one end of the country to the other, because seagoing ships, of course, call at both coasts. His salary is provided for under civil government.


William Alves Boys: I can understand that, as a professional man, he should get fair compensation, but $20,000 to administer a branch which spends, all told, only $180,000, a large proportion of which is in fairly substantial grants, I suppose, to marine hospitals, seems a large sum of money.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend would be quite right if I did not give the explanation. In this $20,000 I gave an estimate of what the collectors of customs would be or are probably paid for the functions they perform beyond the functions that are assigned to them by the Department of Customs and

Excise. For instance, dues are collected in every port by the collector of customs. When the salaries of these men were fixed by the Civil Service Commission, I presume all those duties were enumerated, so that they receive to-day a salary which is adequate to cover all the functions they perform. The Department of Health does not pay $10,080. That is an estimate. We have 168 collectors who collect sick mariners dues for us, and we say that an average of $60 per annum, or about $5 a month, is not too much for that. Therefore, we figure that we do not collect more than we should.


William Alves Boys: Of course $60 per annum for
an officer does not sound very much; but on the other hand, if you take the percentage, I think the minister will agree with me that for all that has to be done, five per cent on the total ought to be a fair allowance for collecting and it would not come to what is being spent. I do not quite see the justification for its costing $20,000 to administer a branch collecting and disbursing, if you will, $184,000. I understand it does not disburse as much as it collects. The minister pointed out that it collected $40,000 more than it disbursed. But even if we assume that this branch collected and disbursed the whole amount of $184,000, does the minister not think $20,000 is a great deal to administer that?


Henri Sévérin Béland: But we do not actually pay out that money in the department.


William Alves Boys: It does not make any difference to the country whether it is spent in this department or another.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not mean to say that we charge more to the shipping companies than we should, but all this amount is covered by the dues. The government is not paying out any money under this service. It has a favourable balance of some $18,000. Apparently we collect about $40,000 more than we expend, so the claim has been made that we should reduce the dues from two cents to one and one-half cents. After studying the whole question, we found that if we reduced the dues by 25 per cent, we would not have enough money, especially if we took into consideration what we have to pay to our superintendent and his staff and probably what the collectors of customs are receiving for this work.	.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister give the
details of the collection of $184,000 by provinces, and could he give the expenditures at the same time?

Supply-Health


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am giving my hon. friend the figures for 1923-24. I will give the revenue
first:
Nova Scotia	 $43,492
New Brunswick	 18,536
Prince Edward Island	 471
Quebec	 46,039
British Columbia	 64,511

Less refunds	 732 40

The expenditure was:
Nova Scotia	 $36,784
New Brunswick	 13,505
Prince Edward Island	 1,659
Quebec	 34,497
British Columbia	 25,436


Mr CLARK:: What Was the total expenditure last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It was $144,000.


William Alves Boys: Will the minister give a list of the marine hospitals which the goveru-iment supports, with location and amount granted to each.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have only two operated by the government, but we have an arrangement with local hospitals in every part of the country, and where no hospital accommodation is available we have arrangements with boarding houses.


William Alves Boys: Has the government only two hospitals in the whole of Canada?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Only two owned by the government. But there are a number of institutes to which we give grants:
Nova Scotia: Halifax, the Navy League of Canada; North Sydney, the Seamen's Institute.
New Brunswick: St. John, Seaman's Mission Society.
Quebec: Montreal, Catholic Sailors' Club, Montreal Seamen's Institute; Montreal Sailors' Hotel.
British Columbia: Esquimault, Esquimault Sailors' Club; Vancouver, Vancouver Sailors' Home; Victoria, Victoria Seamen's Institute.
These are given $200 each, or a total of


John Arthur Clark: The minister gave the expenditures by provinces, totalling $111,881.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is for the previous year.


John Arthur Clark: And the total he now says is $144,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is, for the year just ended March 31, 1925. The figures I have given are taken from the annual report, which of course goes only to March 31, 1924.


John Arthur Clark: Can the minister not give the amounts expended this year in the various provinces?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have not the expenditures by provinces for this year; I have only the total.


John Arthur Clark: What was the total collected and what was the total spent the year before?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The total collected was in round figures $184,000.


John Arthur Clark: As I understand it, that is
for the year just closed. I want to know what was the total amount collected in the previous year of which the minister gave the details by provinces.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In 1923-24 the net amount collected was $172,319 and the amount expended1 $109,793. I have not the figures by provinces.


John Arthur Clark: The minister has given some details by provinces for that same year, and I gather that the expenditure was $111,881. Now we are told that it was $109,793.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This discrepancy is
accounted for by a small refund made of an amount that was over-collected.


John Arthur Clark: I want to point out a very serious discrimination that exists against the province of British Columbia in the matter of sick mariners' dues. It is most unfair, and it has been brought to the attention of the department for a good many years and to the attention of the present minister for at least three or four years. The minister will note that the total collections in British Columbia are $64,511 and next to that is the total in Quebec of $46,000. On the other hand, the expenditures in British Columbia amounted to $25,436 whereas those in Quebec amounted to $34,497.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think that the
difference is as large this year. A statement was sent me from British Columbia showing that this year it is not so great.


John Arthur Clark: I do not know what the
figures for this year are, but I know that there has been a discrepancy during the past few years and it has been enormous.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is true.


John Arthur Clark: The unfairness lies in this.
There is a tax of two cents a ton for every call of a ship up to three calls in a year. The ships on the Atlantic will make many more calls in the course of a year than those on the Pacific coast, where there are great distances to cover. It is most unfair that ships on the Pacific, which may only be able to make at most three calls at a Pacific port, should be taxed at the same rate for a lesser
Supply-Health

service whereas ships on the Atlantic are similarly taxed for a service which is much greater. It may be that the latter will make four or five times the number of calls, and yet they are taxed only two cents a ton. A more equitable distribution of this tax could be made, and the facts are so clear that I think action should be taken immediately by the government by way of fixing a lesser rate for ships on the Pacific, or a lesser rate to apply to every call, irrespective of number. If the ship is getting service every time it calls at a port, why should it not pay for that service at an equitable rate?


Henri Sévérin Béland: This matter has been
brought to my attention before by the Vancouver Board of Trade, and perhaps by my hon. friend himself. I recognize that there is a larger difference between revenue and expenditure with respect to the port of Vancouver than exists with iiespect to Halifax, for instance. Unless we make a difference in the amount of dues to be collected at the ports on the two coasts, it is very difficult to see how we can remedy the situation. There is no question it would be more equitable if we made the rate collectable four times at a cent and a half, but I do not yet see my way clear to advise this change. I think perhaps we might wait another year before taking action. .


John Arthur Clark: What would be the objection to a smaller tax assessed against a Ship for every call, irrespective of number?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have consulted some of
the officials and some people outside, and I am not sure that I have not had a conference with representatives of the Vancouver Board of Trade on this subject. If we reduce the rate to one and a half cents to be collected on four trips, it will be the same of course as a rate of two cents for three trips, it being understood that ships will call at least four times, as they did before, at the eastern or the western ports. It is pretty difficult to say by how much that would reduce the revenue.


William Alves Boys: But the complaint is not so
much that as the inequitable collection and distribution of the money. I am not familiar with the figures, but listening to my hon. friend (Mr. Clark), I understand his point to be that $60,000 odd was collected in Vancouver where only $25,000 was spent.


Henri Sévérin Béland: You must not take the
collections of this year and apply them to the expenditure of last year. I have not the figures, but the difference between the

revenue and the expenditure this year is not so large as it was the year previous, although there is a discrepancy still.


William Alves Boys: Why is there that difference?
Is it because there is some change in the administration, or is it a mere accident? If the latter, we do not get any further, because the point raised is: why should a large sum of money be collected, we will say, on the Pacific coast, and a small sum expended there, while elsewhere a smaller sum is collected and a larger proportion spent. That is the proposition. It does seem to me it ought to be an easy matter to find a way out of it. A mere reduction of 25 per cent in the cost of call would not rectify the inequitable collection and distribution of funds.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It would in a certain
measure, because many of the ships do not call more than three times at Vancouver on account of the distance, as was pointed out by the 'hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark), and many of them call only twice. In the latter event they would pay three cents at the rate of one and a half cents per call. On the eastern coast the ships call more often, at least four times, and they would pay six cents. So to a certain extent that would adjust matters. Many reasons may be assigned why we ^pend so little at Vancouver and collect so much, one being that the sailors are more healthy and therefore require less treatment.


John Arthur Clark: Or get less.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think they get
less treatment if they require it, but the climatic conditions may be more favourable on the Pacific than on the Atlantic-


John Arthur Clark: Then assess them less.


Henri Sévérin Béland: *-and therefore less money is expended. The amount collected is so large because more ships call there and the tonnage is greater. This may be compared to the Post Office Department; some offices show a large surplus, others a deficit, but still the service must be carried on. A partial remedy I think would be to distribute the collection over four calls instead of three, and make the rate one and a half cents instead of two.


William Alves Boys: The minister said representations had been made to him by the Board of Trade of Vancouver. I suppose also by the shipping companies? One would think that, being familiar with the data, -they would have gone into the matter fully and have made concrete suggestions for a proper remedy. Can the minister give us any light on that?

Supply-Health


Henri Sévérin Béland: The people interested have submitted that they should be taxed a little less; they are in the position of the taxpayer generally. They would be very pleased if we collected only twice instead of three times at two cents, and in some cases they have suggested that we make it one and a half cents for four trips instead of two cents for three trips-knowing very well that most of the ships call there only three times.
Mr. BOY'S: That would take care evidently of the expenditure in British Columbia, but perhaps it would not elsewhere


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: To what ships does this tax apply?


Henri Sévérin Béland: To all ships coming from foreign ports.


John Arthur Clark: Not coastal at all?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


John Arthur Clark: It is perfectly obvious to me that over a period of years, including last year, the collections on the Pacific coast have been out of all proportion to the expenditure, and in view of the representations that have been made from time to time it seems to me that a solution should now be attempted. Various organizations on the Pacific coast have made concrete suggestions.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I interrupt my hon. friend to give him some information which has been handed to me? I think it might be of interest to him. This is a statement from 1919-20 to 1924-25 .showing the net expenditure and the net surplus or deficit for Vancouver. I will give simp'y the last three years. The net revenue for 1922-23 was $26,213 and the net surplus $5,888. In 1923-24 the net revenue was $37,211 and the net surplus $21,420. In 1924-25 the net revenue was $32,193, net expenditure $27,781 and the net surplus $4,411.


John Arthur Clark: I have no doubt that in certain years the expenditures have been larger than others, but if the minister will take a period of ten years he will find that the average paid on the Pacific is out of all proportion to that paid on the Atlantic. He might well amend the law so as to ensure that the same proportion will be paid in respect to ships calling at the Pacific ports as at Atlantic ports. I take it that more ships come to Montreal from foreign ports than come to Vancouver.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The number must be larger, I should say.


John Arthur Clark: And the tonnage must be greater as well. Yet for the whole of Quebec the total collections were only $46,000, whereas in British Columbia the amount was $64,511 for the same year. It is true it is for the whole year round, but that does not alter the fact that even for the short season there are more ships and greater tonnage from foreign ports calling at Quebec ports than at British Columbia ports.
Mr. BELAND Month by month, yes.


John Arthur Clark: During the whole period of the year.


Henri Sévérin Béland: For the year? I do not think so.


John Arthur Clark: I think I am correct. I suggest that the minister average it up over a period of years and make an adjustment of the tax so that ships which can only make a limited number of calls in a year and can only obtain a limited service will pay rate-ably the same as foreign ships that come to the eastern ports. A very simple amendment would meet that situation and bring satisfaction to the Pacific coast on this matter. They have been exercised over it for many years.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will undertake to look into it further and see what can be done.


Robert King Anderson: How many mariners
are treated in these hospitals at the various ports?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I can give the total number. The information as to ports can no doubt be easily obtained from the Auditor General's report. The number of seamen treated in one year was 2,745.


Robert King Anderson: I notice in the Auditor General's report that there are quite a number of physicians at the various ports in the employ of the government to look after these seamen. Would the minister give their names and salaries?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have in every port
what we call a port physician. Unlike other employees of the government, the port physicians receive a very small remuneration. We have a long list of port physicians in Nova Scotia, the salary ranging from $150 to $400 per annum, for the most part, there is one who receives $1,300, and one at $550. But they are all small salaries. Of course many of them are not called frequently to treat seamen, but this is given them as a retaining fee. In New Brunswick the salaries range from $150 to $600, and in Prince Edward Island from $100 to $400. In Quebec there
Supply-Health

are six, receiving salaries from $300 to $450, and in British Columbia three, receiving $600, $600 and $400 respectively.


Robert King Anderson: I am rather surprised at the number of physicians in the employ of the government. What are their duties? They must be mostly in small ports where there is no sea-going trade.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They go on board all vessels that call at the port and any seaman who requires treatment may get it from the port physician. A sick seaman is taken to hospital if necessary, and for that service we pay a flat rate per day. If there is no hospital he is taken to a boarding house or a private residence.


Robert King Anderson: That would be in connection with coastal trade, not trans-Atlantic trade, would it not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, the small vessels are eligible.


Robert King Anderson: You have none of that character on the Great Lakes, in the boundary waters there.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Robert King Anderson: I did not expect to find there were so many physicians in the small ports in the pay of the government. I was more interested in the pay of those in the larger ports, Halifax, St. John, Quebec and Montreal. I should like to know the physicians who are at these four ports, and what their salaries are.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The seamen in these ports are sent to the hospital, and we have a rate with the hospital which includes medical attendance from the hospital physicians and surgeons in those ports.


Robert King Anderson: Has there been a change made in the act recently? The last Auditor General's report shows that the physicians in these various harbours are in the pay of the government, and I presumed they were on annual pay.


Murray MacLaren: Those are quarantine
officers.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Those are different.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not objecting to the two hospitals at all. They may be quite necessary. I know nothing about the conditions, but I do know that hospitals now are very expensive. You maintain and equip a marine hospital at Sydney. Is there a necessity for that .now that you have general hospitals where these men can be taken care of, without maintaining special hospitals?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand there were
a good many more hospitals than we have now. We have closed one marine hospital in Pictou, and one in Quebec was closed some years ago. We have only two left-, and these are maintained, I suppose, on account of the large number of fishermen who go to sea. It is optional for the shipowner to contribute the dues and have -their seamen treated at these hospitals.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not objecting, but the minister knows as well as I do how costly.it is to maintain a hospital, and perhaps it is not as well to have two or three different kinds of hospitals in one place as to have one large one. I forgot quite about the necessity for the fishermen. Is that the particular reason for maintaining these two hospitals?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am informed that would be the reason.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quarantine-salaries and contingencies of organized districts; Public Health in other districts; Tracadie and Bentinck Island Lazaret-toes, Leprosy generally and Public Works Health Act, $215,000.
Henri Sévérin Béland: There is a decrease of
$25,000 in this item, because we have made some changes, especially at. Quebec where we have been able to dispense with the cost of a boat plying between Grosse Isle and Quebec, as well as making some other retrenchments. We have moved all our minor cases to the city of Quebec, instead of treating them at Grosse Isle, where it was more expensive. The shipping companies have been advocating the change also on account of the fact that it does not delay the ships. As a matter of fact, I believe there was not a single .major case disembarked at Grosse Isle during last season; so the ships were not delayed at all. The appropriation provides for the maintenance of all quarantine stations, eight in number.


Murray MacLaren: Could the minister give us some particulars regarding the lazaretto at Tracadie, more particularly as to the number of patients?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are now ten patients; we had eleven; one died during the year.


Murray MacLaren: Did those cases originate locally?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There was one Chinaman
sent there from Montreal; the other cases,
I am informed originated in the maritime provinces.


Robert King Anderson: Would the minister
give us some information with regard to the quarantine facilities in Halifax and Quebec?

Supply-Health
What provision is made there for the receipt of the immigrants, and -what is done for the comfort of immigrants who are kept in quarantine?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The quarantine station
at Quebec is located on an island which is known as Grosse Isle, about twenty-five miles below the city of Quebec. It is an old station and is provided with all the facilities we would require for the treatment of major diseases. As I said, the minor cases are taken off the boat at Quebec and treated in some hospital there, thus saving some money, and saving a good deal of time to the ships. In some seasons the quarantine station at Grosse Isle is quite idle, but it is a necessity; we must have it. One ship may come in with ten major cases, and we may have to take off all the contacts there; we may have at one moment, without any notice at all, five hundred people on the island. We must thank God that does not happen, but if it did happen, and if we did not have the facilities for handling these cases the reputation of the whole country would suffer, and the government, whatever government was in power, would be open to very serious criticism. At Halifax the station is at Lawlor's Island. I have never visited it, but I understand that it is in the immediate vicinity of the port, and the same facilities are afforded there for the treatment of major cases.


Robert King Anderson: What are the prevailing infectious diseases brought in from Europe and elsewhere?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The major diseases are
cholera, smallpox, typhus and yellow fever. We had not a single case at Grosse Isle during the last season of navigation. At Halifax there was one death at the hospital during the year-a child being held for deportation at the immigration building as a Mongol imbecile, developed chicken pojq was transferred to the quarantine hospital where it died of septicemia. One female passenger was detained for vaccination purposes.


Murray MacLaren: What number of infectious cases was treated at the quarantine hospital at St. John during the year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: At St. John the station
is located on Partridge island. It is pretty well equipped but I grant the committee that the equipment could be better.


Murray MacLaren: I am asking for a
statement of the number of infectious cases treated during the past year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am asking my official
to find that for me in the report. The figure is so small that it did not interest me as something that could be quoted except in a satisfactory manner.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


Robert King Anderson: No, Mr. Chairman,
this i3 rather an important item. It is nearly six o'clock and I suggest that the item had better be held over.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does my hon. friend want
the vote for quarantine stations held over?


Robert King Anderson: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are a few more
items to be passed, especially one for immigration medical inspection. I can assure hon. gentlemen that all information will be given on the items.


Arthur Edward Ross: There are two or
three questions that arise in connection with the present vote.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not objecting at all;
my only desire is to advance the work of the session. If my hon. friends wish this vote to be held, all right.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is information
I am looking for.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I want to give all possible information.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, May 28, 1925.