1934-06-15

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 101, an act respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: I hold in my hand the Montreal Gazette of Thursday, June 13, 1934. On the first page I find this news:
Ottawa relief plan calls for 6 million here. New post office and' custom house in program.
And there follows a report of an interview given by Mayor Camillien Houde to the Montreal trades and labour council and the building trades council in which the mayor is reported as follows:
I understand that most of the items you name are already on the federal program- not the C.N.R. however. In all I think between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 will be spent here.
Railway Act

I would like to ask the government if the mayor of Montreal had authorization from the government to make such a statement.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent from his statement that he had no such authority.
SOCKEYE SALMON TREATY On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as to whether representations have been made to the United States in regard to the treaty passed here in 1930 relating to salmon. My reason for asking that question is that nothing has been done by United States interests, and there are interests in this country that are in doubt as to what further progress can be made by Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I intimated to the house already this session that the matter has been the subject of discussion between the state department and the Canadian minister at Washington. It was hoped at one time that some action would be taken by the United States Senate to ratify the treaty, but no action has been taken up to the present.
PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM On the orders of the day:


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: A day or two ago the Prime Minister mentioned that he was holding back the program of construction of public works until the pending provincial elections are over. Might I ask him if he will arrange to see that the program is presented to the house before the results of the elections are known?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Barring accidents I shall ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) to present it on Tuesday.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-François Casgrain: I would like to ask another question of the government. I was informed some time ago that the representatives of the 
employees of various railways in this country have approached the government presenting a brief and memorandum suggesting certain amendments to the Railway Act, in view of the operations as now being carried on under cooperative conditions. I would like to know if it is the intention of the government to bring in amendments to the Railway Act in accordance with the wishes and representations so made, before the end of the session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is aware, I think, that at the meeting with the representatives of the railway employees it was intimated that it was not probable that we would open the Railway Act this session. The Minister of Railways is not here at present, I think further representations were made to him recently, and I am not in a position to indicate what conclusion he may have arrived at. If it is necessary to open the Railway Act at all, the matters mentioned by the hon. gentleman would be dealt with. I regret that in the absence of the minister I cannot say definitely whether that will take place.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews). Has any decision been handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the tariff board jurisdiction?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: In reply to my hon. friend's question I may say that we received notice this forenoon that judgment has been given on the question submitted. I have not yet received copies of the judgment, but I have before me a memorandum showing the answers returned by the supreme court to the questions submitted. They are as follows:
1.	Has the tariff board as constituted under chapter 7 of the statutes of 1932-33 authority to determine questions of law as distinct from questions of fact?
No.
2.	Has the tariff board authority under said act to determine that the orders of the Minister of National Revenue aforesaid, fixing the values for duty of such goods, under the authority of section 43 of the Customs Act as enacted by chapter 2 of the statutes of 1930 (second session), prior to the enactment of chapter 7 of the statutes of 1932-33, were annulled' and ceased to be effective from the

Tariff Board
date of the last mentioned enactment in respect of goods entitled to entry under the British preferential tariff?
No.
3.	When the tariff board acts under the provisions of part II of the said act, are its decisions as to the value of goods for duty purposes subject to the approval of the Minister of National Revenue?
Yes.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition): In view of the answers just read by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) to the questions submitted to the supreme court might I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if it is the intention of the government at this session to bring in legislation which will help to ensure that the representations made at the time the Ottawa agreements were passed will be given due effect. As I read the answers, they would appear to run counter to what at the time was stated to be the intention of the government with respect to at least one of the purposes of the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, they are not. The
decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada are wholly in accordance with the representations and statements made at the time the Ottawa agreements were concluded.
I am glad to avail myself of this opportunity to clear up misrepresentations-I trust they were not deliberate-with respect to the meaning of the Tariff Board Act, When the statute was before this house I stated and restated that this was to be a fact finding body. No member of this house has any doubt about that; if he has he can consult Hansard. The supreme court has decided that the board had no power to determine questions of law, but only questions of fact. I have never been able to understand just why any other view was entertained. The second question was, "Has the tariff board authority under the said act to determine that the orders of the minister made under the old statute were not binding" and the court held that the statute we passed rescinding section 43 in its operations, as promised, did not operate with respect to orders made before that statute was passed. That is all. I resent even the suggestion that every promise made has not been implemented to the full with respect to those agreements. The promise was that at the earliest possible date consistent with financial conditions we would rescind the power conferred upon the minister to fix the value for duty purposes of goods coming from Great Britain. In 1932-33, by chapter 7 of the statutes of that year, we did pass an act that had the effect of making it no longer possible for the Minister of National Revenue, under section 43, So fix the value for duty purposes on goods imported from Great Britain. There is no power now in the minister to fix the value under section 43 of goods imported from Great Britain; the statute rescinding and destroying that power as it formerly existed was enacted by this house and the Senate and given the royal assent. But there were outstanding two or three orders fixing values, and the tariff board decided that those orders were invalid although they had been passed prior to the date of the amending statute that removed from the minister the power to fix values. The supreme court has decided that those orders were not thus made invalid. That is that.
It is a little difficult to understand why there was any doubt as to the next question. It was merely that the statute provided under part 2, which substitutes the tariff board for the old customs board so that they may not sit in judgment upon themselves, that the same power that was possessed by the customs board should be retained, and that power is still retained by reason of the anstver given to the third question. In other words, unless the statute is repealed or amended by parliament it does not by implication, through the creation of a new board instead of the customs board, result in the amendment or repeal of that section of the statute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister if the impression to whioh he refers was not held pretty generally in England? If I am not mistaken the impression in Great Britain was due largely to remarks made by Lord Hailsham with respect to his understanding of the functions of the tariff board in protecting British exporters and the rights secured to them under the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no right to enter into a debate on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I have seen no statement made by Lord Hailsham that is at variance with what was decided by the supreme court. I do not think for a single moment that he had any idea that there was any doubt as to the fact that this was a fact finding body and not a court of law to decide questions of law, that the customs board had really divested itself of its jurisdiction by statute, and the jurisdiction that it formerly had was thereby * vested in the tariff board. I am not unmindful of the fact that many misrepresentations have arisen in England with respect to the tariff board and other matters, but I am also aware of the source from which such misinformation was disseminated.
Special War Revenue Act


Mr. JACOBS:: May I ask if the decision of the supreme court was unanimous?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that question.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I understand that it was unanimous.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Of course we cannot discuss this matter now, and it is not my purpose to defend the views of the distinguished chairman of the tariff board, who no doubt will avail himself of t'he lecture he received to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not lectured him. I resent that.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend has plainly stated that he cannot understand why there has been any doubt held by anyone as to this interpretation. The chairman of the tariff board held a different view of the matter from that entertained by my right hon. friend.



WATERWAYS TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: I find in the United States press reports to the effect that negotiations are being opened between the United States and Canada for a new treaty concerning international waterways. I should like to know whether there is any accuracy in these reports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not received any information that would induce me to believe that negotiations for a new treaty were in progress. That is all I can say at the moment. I will make inquiries, but I have not been so informed.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 97, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-Stamp tax on postal notes.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Minister of Finance if the bill is based in its entirety on the resolutions which were very fully discussed when the house was in committee?


Mr. RHODES:: This bill deals only with the resolutions which have been passed, arising out of the budget, with the exception of one or two changes which deal entirely with administrative matters. There is no change in substance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there are any new features would the minister direct our attention to them, and in that way possibly save some time.


Mr. VENIOT:: May I ask the Minister of Finance for an answer to the question I raised about affixing stamps to money orders. Is it necessary to affix the 6tamp or to have the stamp printed on the comer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, upon inquiry I have found that this wording is precisely the same as has obtained hitherto. The word "affixing" does not mean that there must be an actual physical addition of a stamp upon a document, but that the printing or embossing covers the ward "affixing."


Peter John Veniot: If it were embossed I would not object, but it is not embossed. However, my reason for asking the question was that I wanted to clear up the matter as to the question of revenue between the Post Office Department and the Department of National Revenue, so that we would be able to distinguish the amount of work done by the Post Office Department entitling it to that revenue. I say now that they are doing no work, and that the revenue should be credited directly to the Department of National Revenue. The printing on the corner of post office orders, money orders or postal notes is not done by the Post Office Department. It is paid for outside the department, and therefore that department does nothing to earn that amount of money. It should be credited to the proper department.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I take no exception to what the hon. member for Gloucester has said. In fact, he might go a little farther and deal also with the question of the use of postage stamps, instead of excise stamps, which run into a very considerable volume of money, and he would portray a picture which is. not accurate with respect to the revenue of the Post Office Department. However that is a larger question which will have to be dealt with later.


Peter John Veniot: It is a false picture.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.

Special War Revenue Act
On section 3-Excise tax on unstamped packages of cigarette paper or cigarette paper tubes.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Section 3 is new, but it is purely administrative, and provides for the affixing of stamps in the event of dealers having goods in hand.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section,? 4 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Drawback.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a new section, but dealing with a purely administrative matter. It is to broaden the payment of drawback on goods exported, and to assist Canadian manufacturers in competition on the world's market. The reason for not exempting fuel is that this is used in the plants to supply heat and power, and it is almost impossible to allocate the division of fuel, first, as between heat and power and, secondly, as between domestic and exported goods. It is thought that to make a provision for drawback in respect to excise tax would meet with considerable controversy as to the correct proportion, and it would be difficult if not impossible to administer. This is a broadening of the item.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Additional penalties.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is new. The only change in this instance is to make it clear that a penalty may be applied to a taxpayer in addition to the interest on outstanding arrears. It has been a question in some quarters whether when such interest is called a penalty a taxpayer who is delinquent in payment may be required to pay any other penalty for default than the interest, and the present section is designed to clarify the point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Officer may make inquiry.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is also administrative. At the present time there is no authority provided in the act for the examination of certain businesses. In order to ensure that the taxes imposed by the act were being properly paid, while there has been no opposition made as to the inquiry upon the part of the department, it is thought wise to have a legislative provision so as to prevent any difficulty arising in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-Penalty for collecting excess sums.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is new, also. In a word, the provision contained in the section is that if any person collects a sum larger than that which he remits to the crown, the additional portion collected must go to the crown.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Time limited for prosecutions.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a new section. It is designed to permit the department to take action against defaulters or those who have falsified records in connection with taxes, under this act, within three years after the offence was committed. Without some similar proviso section 1142 of the criminal code precludes action in a case where the last falsification or fraudulent entry was made more than six months before it was discovered. As the departmental auditors do not audit the records of taxpayers as frequently as that nor is it possible for them to do so, the department is debarred from taking criminal action against defaulters, owing to the section of the criminal code referred to, a section which definitely limits such action to within six months from the time that the matter about which complaint has been made arose.


Peter John Veniot: I think three years is too long. Why not make it two?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would take no exception to limiting the period to two years, except that I may point out that there is a similar provision in the Customs Act which names a period of three years, and there is always the overriding consideration that there can be no injustice done to the honest person.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Definitions.
Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to section 122, coming under part XV. I received a wire this morning stating that there had been certain increases in the mint charges in regard to placer gold. Could the minister tell me what those charges are, or how they have been increased.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There has been a service charge imposed, applicable only to gold other than that with respect to which the premium tax of 25 per cent obtains. The cost of handling of small parcels of gold is much greater per ounce than the cost of handling gold in
Customs Tariff

large quantities at the mint. It is therefore provided that a service charge of one dollar per ounce shall obtain in the shipments of gold of fifteen ounces or less, but where the shipments are fifty ounces or more the service charge is 25 cents.


John Anderson Fraser: Might I ask further if the change in the imposition of this charge is as a result of the tax that was levied on gold, or was it imposed before?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, Mr. Chairman. There has been a service charge since March 19. It does not arise of necessity out of or have any relation to the tax on gold as introduced in the budget, but it is felt to be a fair service charge having regard to the disproportion as between the revenue derived from the shipments of gold which are not subject to the gold tax so called.


John Anderson Fraser: I know I am not exactly in order, Mr. Chairman, but there is one other question I wanted cleared up. Last year we had a good deal of congestion and delay in getting returns for our gold when it was shipped to the assay office at Vancouver. It has been alleged that there were certain reductions made in the staff of that office about the time of the peak of the production, and I should like to know from the minister if there is anything in that charge.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The difficulty does not arise, nor has it arisen, because of any action or lack of action on the part of the department in Canada, but delay very frequently arises through our having to await the assay returns when the gold is sold in the United States. In this connection may I also point out that the service charge of which I spoke a moment ago covers not only the cost of handling so far as the royal mint in Ottawa is concerned but the costs to which we are put on account of shipment charges, insurance, and an assay charge in the United States where the gold must again be assayed before payment is finally made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 98, to amend the customs tariff.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
[.Mr. Rhodes.]
On section 1-"Proof."
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, following the inquiry put to me by the right hon. leader of the opposition, I beg to inform the committee that there is nothing contained in this bill which is not based upon or arises out of the resolutions which have already been passed in ways and means.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 99, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-Income.
Mr. LUCAS:: Some time ago a statement was made before the committee that a certain gentleman was receiving $5,000 per week upon which he was not paying any income tax. I would be glad1 if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) could give us an explanation as to how he evaded the tax and if any amendments are being made to the act to deal with that situation.
Hon. E. N. RHODES Minister of Finance): The hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) will appreciate the delicacy of the question he submits in so far as it pertains to an individual. I may say to him that assuming there were sums received by an individual by way of instalments on a surplus in a company and which were really in effect an income, I believe the amendments which we have in the present bill will be ample to safeguard the treasury and give assurance that there will be no possibility of evading the proper payment of income tax by calling the payments something other than income.
I will indicate that section when we come to it.


William Thomas Lucas: I thank the hon. minister for his statement because I think this instance has created a great deal of ill feeling throughout the country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Surplus distribution taxable.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I ask the hon. member
for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) to look at this section. I may say to the committee that this

Income War Tax Act
section has been devised with very great care and in the light of the experience of years in the department. I have the hope, based upon the assurance which they have given me and the interpretation which has been placed upon this section by the Department of Justice, that its provisions will be ample to cover the case he indicated.


William Thomas Lucas: Will the provisions be retroactive?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, they will not be
retroactive. My hon. friend and the committee will recall full wejl some of the observations which have been made with respect to the retroactive features not only of this act but other taxing legislation. Apart from the injustice per se of retroactive legislation of this character, it involves the opening up of transactions which have been closed and concluded by the department and it creates difficulties of an administrative character which are almost insuperable. Eor these reasons it was thought that it would not be wise to ask for a retroactive feature in this section.


Mr. HANBURY:: I understand that all
legislation in connection with income tax is retroactive to a certain extent. Legislation passed in one year is effective on the previous year's business or income and I assume that this section will be retroactive to that extent and apply to the income either for 1933 or for the expired portions of 1934.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The retroactive feature of which my hon. friend speaks has always been inherent to our income tax legislation since the date of its inception in 1917, and it would be a matter of great difficulty to avoid that feature. That phase of retroactiveness is not disturbed, altered or interfered with in any way by the amendment in question. When I spoke of it not being retroactive, I spoke in the sense that a transaction once having been closed and the tax paid we could not go back and bring it up again. That is an entirely different matter.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister has assured
us that this section 10 which we now have under review has been drafted with a great deal of care. Are we to assume that the other sections have not received the same grave attention from the draughtsmen?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would not want that
interpretation to be taken from my having laid emphasis upon the fact that this section had been drafted with great care. I made that statement in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) who made a particular point and perhaps I laid emphasis upon it by reason of the fact that this is a rather novel phase of income tax legislation. So far as I am aware, all the sections of this bill have been drafted with equal care but at the moment I happened to be dealing with this one particular section.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like to have
one point perfectly clear in my mind in connection with the time to which this particular section will apply. I am assuming that it will apply to the period of taxation since the filing of the last return by the person who might be involved in this particular transaction.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My statement to the committee a short time ago was made after conference with the commissioner of income tax and I believe it is technically correct as it stands. But I did not refer to the variation in the degree of truth as exemplified by David Harum who said there were two kinds of truth, jury truth and gospel truth.


Wilfred Hanbury: Which type is the minister's?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that this,
not having hitherto been regarded as income under the terms of the act, will not be treated as income for the last year upon which income tax will be levied this year. In that sense it does not have a retroactive feature, it will only become operative from the time of its enactment. I hope I have made myself clear.


Wilfred Hanbury: My particular point is this. This legislation is effective now?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Wilfred Hanbury: Assuming that the parties responsible under this particular section file their income tax returns as from the first of January, 1934, will it affect the particular income covered by this clause, from the first of January, 1934, until this date?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, for the reason that this was not income. It has only been made income in virtue of section 10 which we are now passing.


Wilfred Hanbury: That was the point that appealed to me, and that is why I wanted to have it cleared up, because the minister did say that it would be retroactive to some extent and I did not think it would be.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I was interested to hear the minister say that this section would cover such instances as were outlined by the hon. member for Camrose. I would endorse
Income War Tax Act

the thought too that this should be made retroactive further back than the first of January. I remember that what I believe was called the business profits war tax act was passed a year or possibly two years after it was made operative. I recall that the business men in my own town had considerable difficulty making up the tax levied on them as I say, I am not sure whether it was one or two years after the money had been earned and spent. However, they were required by federal legislation to make up the tax to the federal treasury. It seems to me that if the act could be made retroactive in that case, to collect taxes from honest business men, it is only fair that the minister should devise ways and means of collecting the tax from such individuals as have evaded it. The instance has been cited of a person collecting more in one week, and paying nothing to the federal treasury, than many people collect in the entire year, and yet they have to pay income tax.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I take no exception to the desires expressed by my hon. friend from Kindersley but I must point out to him that in the year 1930 this house passed an amendment to the Income Tax Act which not only made it possible but actually extended an invitation to people to evade the income tax, which they did to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars. We are now taking a further step towards trying to repair the damage done at that time. If it were possible to pass an act which would meet an individual case such as my hon. friend no doubt has in mind, well and good; in that event we should be absolutely justified in applying the retroactive feature, in equity although not in strict legal right. Unfortunately however you have to devise a law of general application; it cannot be restricted to individuals; and when you devise a law of general application you run into numerous cases where moneys have been disbursed in conformity with the law and the tax paid to the extent the law called for. These transactions have been closed, the estates wound up, people are dead or have moved away and property is dispersed; so that it would be a physical impossibility to apply a law of that character; otherwise I would endeavour if it were at all possible t,o do so to devise an amendment which would meet the case my hon. friend has in mind.


Mr. HEAPS:: May I remind the minister of the matter I raised a few weeks ago regarding the exemption of those who contribute towards unemployment relief funds. I suggested that amounts so contributed should be exempted from the income tax, the same as

contributions for charitable purposes. The minister said he would consider the suggestion sympathetically and look into the matter to see whether such exemptions could be made under the present regulations. May I ask him what steps he has taken in the matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As a result of the representations made by my hon. friend I went into the matter with care with the commissioner of income tax. I looked over the regulations and found that, although my sympathy went out to him, in view of the object he had in mind, the fact was that if we attempted to devise regulations which would permit the avoidance of taxation to meet the case in point, assuming for the sake of discussion that it was an eminently worthy one, we should open the door to numerous cases of violation which might come technically within ,the wording that we might provide but which would be in effect an invitation to an evasion of the tax. Much therefore as I regret having to do so, I must inform my hon. friend that it is not possible by way of regulation to meet that specific case.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We are assuming now that too many people are dishonest in making out their income tax statements. But there is another point that suggests itself here. These very people to whom I have been referring give a fairly large proportion of their wages to help their fellow members when unemployed, so as to keep them off public relief. This is a voluntary obligation they undertake, and the chances are that another year they will refuse to assume this obligation to maintain members of organizations on relief, with the result that such persons as are helped by these voluntary contributions will hereafter become recipients of public relief. That is another way of looking at the matter. The government has been saving a fairly large sum of money through the amounts contributed voluntarily in this way, and the answer which the minister gives is rather disappointing, because I am afraid it may have the effect I suggest. I believe that had the minister given to this suggestion the same careful consideration that he gave to other classes, he could have found ways and means of exempting these people from taxation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I can assure my hon. friend that I gave just as much consideration, if not more, to the case he has submitted, for the reason that it is one that naturally arouses one's sympathy, which is not so as regards the incident mentioned by my hon. friends from Camrose and Kindersley. I venture to

Tricorne War Tax Act
say however that if the hon. gentleman were in my place, charged with the responsibility that attaches to a ministerial office, he would have come to precisely the same decision as I was compelled to come to for the reasons I have indicated. The statement I originally made holds with respect to this case, but I may point out to my hon. friend that he weakened rather than strengthened his case when in his second remarks he referred to the fact that this was a passing phase that would obtain only for a year or two. It would be very bad legislation to attempt to put something permanent into the form of a statute which was admittedly designed to cover an ephemeral case.


Mr. MUNN:: I have a question to ask
the minister, and while it may not be under this section it has reference to taxation. A year ago an amendment was passed for the purpose of collecting a tax on bearer bonds. There was a regulation to identify the bond, but I have reason to believe that some of these bonds were handed in by different people. For instance, John Brown -I am not referring to our hon. friend here- might take in bonds that belong to some other person. I am told that has been done. I would suggest that while this bill is being dealt with perhaps that point could be covered, have it arranged that not only the bearer of the bond be identified but the absolute owner be identified at the bank.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The case indicated by my hon. friend is clearly one of fraud. The statute must of necessity assume that the law will be properly observed. The case he mentions is one for the criminal court. May I point out that until the department becomes thoroughly experienced in dealing with these certificates some little delay is bound to occur, and possibly a slip here and there. When I say that at the moment there are in the department over two million of these certificates, it will be apparent that the mere physical act of sorting and allocating and computing them involves a tremendous amount of clerical work. I have no doubt there will be instances of the law being evaded, yet slowly but surely the strings will tighten, and the individual who thinks to-day that he escapes will find out one or two or perhaps three years hence that his escape was imaginary and not real; ultimately he will be called upon to pay the full amount of the tax that the law calls for.


Albert Edward Munn: I have been told by tax
auditors that they knew of cases of evasion. It seems to me there might be some tightening up by the Finance department. While I am on my feet I would ask if the minister can give the committee figures or an estimate of what amount of money that little amendment meant to the exchequer of Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The five per cent tax as
a whole brought in somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4,800,000 last year. I have no doubt that that sum will be increased proportionately as the years go by, because there are always difficulties in administering a new act which covers so much ground and involves so much accounting and has so many ramifications. But even that sum is an indication of the merits of the proposals put through a year ago. I may point out that you cannot make a perfect act, you will always find men who are criminally inclined and who can evade almost any law in part. I think for instance of the tax on cheques. At one time cheques below $5 were exempt. One individual of some substance, and who is regarded as a good citizen, when he had a $15 account to pay was at pains to issue three $5 cheques. You will have those cases and it is difficult to legislate so as to avoid them. They do not indicate a weakness in the law, I would rather incline to the view that they indicate a weakness in human nature which we must always take into account.


Albert Edward Munn: One more word. The minister mentioned that it involves a large amount of extra work but he will agree that it gives employment, and the government has been very well paid for it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Oh, yes.


Mr. NEILL:: Would it not save a lot of
that trouble if in future no bearer bonds were issued? Is there any particular reason why there should be bearer bonds? If there were not it would save an infinity of trouble.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That suggestion is worthy
of consideration, but it would tend to a frozen situation with respect to bonds which would make financial transactions very difficult, not being negotiable. I am afraid it would be almost impossible to comprehend a situation of that character.


Alan Webster Neill: Registered bonds are negotiable now, you have only to sign a transfer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are not negotiable in the sense of passing from hand to hand. They require the same formality as any other transaction, an entry both ways. I shall be glad to give consideration to the suggestion but I doubt very much if it would be feasible.
Income War Tax Act


Alan Webster Neill: A man does not pay his debts with a hundred dollar bond. Bonds are only sold through a bank. There would not be as much trouble in transferring them as there is in making out the certificate every time you get a coupon cashed and it would do away with all the chances of evasion.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Advances to nonresident corporation without compensation.
Wilfred Hanbury: I notice that this and many of the succeeding sections refer to people and companies outside of Canada. I was wondering if the minister could make a general statement covering the situation and also advising whether the legislation is reciprocal with other countries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is rather difficult to make a general statement. While these sections are general in effect, I may say that they have arisen because of some cases met with in actual experience, where attempts have been made to evade the law by a subsidiary company lending its money to the parent company without interest; also in connection with the five per cent tax, which was only applicable in cases where the payment was in Canadian funds. We soon found that in certain instances, in order to avoid paying that tax, companies made provision for their payments to be made in foreign funds. We are amending the act to meet that case as well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Nonresidents deemed to be carrying on business.
Wilfred Hanbury: I notice we are going to tax nonresident companies doing business in Canada. The question arises in my mind as to what method we are going to adopt to collect the tax. Assuming that the salesman for a United States company comes into Canada and does business, we now propose to charge them income tax. How we are to collect the tax is what concerns me at the moment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In practically every instance these companies have assets in Canada or have receivables in Canada or they wish to continue in business in Canada. So that in any one of the three cases, or a combination of them, there is a situation which enables the department to ensure that it will receive the tax in precisely the same way as it would in the case of a Canadian company.


Wilfred Hanbury: Does the government
possess any particular information as to what companies are doing business in Canada? Would they get that through the present income tax offices, or would they have access say to the customs department for that information?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The department has a very comprehensive tax roll which pretty well covers the ground. I have no doubt that from time to time an individual or perhaps a company may be found that is not on the list, but sooner or later they arrive there.


Wilfred Hanbury: For example, assume that some companies in the United States are selling lumber in Canada, they may sell a greater or less quantity. Is it the intention of the government to watch the sales of such products coming into Canada and collect income tax on that basis?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If they have agents or an agency or employees in Canada, then the department would apply the tax. I might point out to my hon. friend, who has had experience in these matters, that any business worthy of the name is bound to make its presence apparent, either through office telephones, the receipt of telegrams or in other ways. All these sources of information are available to the department and are combed and watched very carefully.


Wilfred Hanbury: I wonder whether it is
the purpose of the government, where a foreign company has agents in Canada, regardless of the volume of business that may be done by those agents, to have a return filed with the department as to the amount of business done by each agent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, in practice what
happens is this : The department gets in touch with the company and has the company, through one agent or through its own officers at the head office, file the necessary income tax form.


Wilfred Hanbury: I am just a little cloudy as to this feature. Would that result in every foreign company doing business in Canada having to file a return with the income tax department?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, if they have an agency or place of business in Canada.


Wilfred Hanbury: I would point out to
the minister that practically every company doing business in Canada has an agency in some form. It may be a commission or a salaried agency, but they have agencies of some kind; otherwise it would be very un-

Income War Tax Act
likely that any business would result. Just for a moment I am going to ask the minister to visualize every company shipping goods to Canada filing a return with the Canadian government, and the effect that will have on the interchange of business between Canada and other countries. I assume that if this legislation is not reciprocal at the present time it will be only a very short time until that situation results. I feel that it will be only a very short time until all producers in Canada will be filing returns with the various governments all over the world with which they have to do business. To me that is an impossible situation. I believe my opinion of this particular section would be that the cost of procuring the information and of administering the act would be much greater than the income that would be received, but even if that were not the fact I think the interference with international business that this will bring about will create an impression that we in Canada cannot afford to create at the present time.
I do not like to refer to the policies of the government; I realize that they have difficulty in procuring funds, but I do believe the government should very seriously consider or reconsider any suggestion that is going to interfere in any way with the exchange of our goods with the other nations of the world. We have enough difficulties to-day. I am not anxious to see goods kept out of Canada; 1 am much more anxious to see goods go from Canada. I look for reciprocal regulations on the part of other nations when we expect their nationals to file returns with the Canadian government and to pay taxes in Canada as well as in their own country. I believe the minister would do very well to reconsider this legislation before he puts it on our statute books.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is practically a truism that any form of taxation interferes with business; we can start from that promise. It seems to me the only consideration, apart from the necessity of revenue and of fair application of the tax, is to be found in the answer to the query as to whether a tax in itself is fair.
I do not agree with my hon. friend that this form of taxation will interfere with business any more than any other form of taxation. May I point out in the first place that the general principle of this taxation is found in practically every country. Furthermore the occasion which led us, in the first instance, to apply the five per cent tax was that we found foreign countries benefiting through their treasury receiving a portion of the 74726-254
revenue which properly should come to this country. It does not cost the individual company or taxpayer any more to pay five per cent in Canada than it would to pay that amount in some other country. As a result of our taxation of last year we have diverted to the Canadian treasury sums of money which hitherto have gone by way of taxation into the treasuries of foreign countries.
So far as interfering with foreign business is concerned, may I point out to my hon. friend that subsection (3) of section 14 provides :
The governor in council shall have power to exempt from the operation of this section the income in whole or in part of residents of any country which enters into reciprocal agreement with Canada to exempt the income of residents of Canada earned in such country.
The very wording of that subsection will indicate to my hon. friend and the committee that we had in mind the desire not only not to interfere with but to make it convenient to expedite business transactions as between people in this country and people in foreign countries.


Peter John Veniot: This is a revenue tax?


Wilfred Hanbury: I had particularly noted the reciprocal provision in subsection (3) just mentioned by the Minister of Finance. The only interpretation I can place upon this clause is that it is a further attempt on the part of this government to deepen the channel by which they are going to direct business to certain countries and away from other countries. There can be no other interpretation placed upon it. We will enter into reciprocal agreements with those countries with which we wish to do business, but those countries with which we do not wish to do business we will make subject to this income tax. Evidently no consideration whatever has been given to the fact that foreign companies doing business in Canada and selling their products to consumers in Canada, if they are to pay a tax to the Canadian government, must and will add that tax to what the Canadian consumer must pay. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance also if he can tell this house of any precedent for this legislation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the fears of my hon. friend are entirely unfounded. He will be surprised to know that this proposal did not emanate from the government at all; it emanated from the commissioner of income tax. Because of his experience, and because of his advice, which was accepted, the government, of course, is only too happy to sponsor this proposal. -It has no reference

Income War Tax Act

to trade at all; it is purely a question of taxation, and it recognizes a principle which we have recognized hitherto in our own statutes. With all due deference to my hon. friend I must say that I do not understand his apprehension either with respect to the question of trade or that of policy. Certainly when I first discussed this matter with the officials of the department that view was not present in my mind, but the action was taken solely with a view to making our taxation proposals uniform and fair and to bring into the treasury every dollar which could properly be brought in. It was done for those reasons, and those reasons alone.


Wilfred Hanbury: I directed a question to the Minister of Finance which I believe he has answered in the negative. I asked him as to whether or not there was in any other country any precedent for this legislation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The commissioner of income tax informs me that this principle is found in the taxation of practically every country, and so far as it obtains with respect to the principle of double taxation it has been recognized through the fiscal committee of the League of Nations, and has been the *ubject of action by them.


Wilfred Hanbury: I am glad to have the assurance from the Minister of Finance that the commissioner of income tax is the culprit in this particular case because I consider that this is culpable legislation. Under the circumstances I should be pleased if the minister would allow the section to stand.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no objection to allowing it to stand, but I may say that the government will insist upon its passage. When I mentioned the commissioner of income tax I did not refer to him with the intention of evading any responsibility but merely for the purpose of disillusioning my hon. friend from the hallucination under which he seemed to be labouring, namely, that there was some dire purpose in this legislation. Otherwise I should not have mentioned the name of the commissioner of income tax. I assume full responsibility- and so does the government-and unless my hon. friend has some special purpose in asking that the section stand I would ask him not to insist. Of course, if he has reasons I will accede to his request without any hesitancy.


Wilfred Hanbury: As I have not been disillusioned I should prefer to have the section stand.	,
Section stands.
Section 15 agreed to.

On section 16-Transfers to minors.


Mr. BOURASSA:: May I ask the minister if the same principle he laid down with regard to the section dealing with what I may call disguised revenue will apply? In other words, shall this be made retroactive in the sense that the revenues derived heretofore on values transferred in the past will fall under this section?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course my hon. friend is aware of the purpose of the section.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is to prevent evasion, but it will not be retroactive. It will apply only to those instances which happen after the passage of this legislation, in precisely the same manner as was the case in connection with section 10.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is, to transfers made after this is passed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.
Wilfred Hanbury: You have not carried the title yet.
Progress reported.



MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 6, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act- Mr. Duranleau-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose on February 23, we were discussing the question as to whether or not power should be given to constables or fishery inspectors or customs officers not only to seize wrongly or incorrectly labelled canned fish, but also to confiscate them with a right of appeal to the minister in favour of the party aggrieved. Strong objections w'ere made against the provision giving a power of confiscation to the officers and in the light of the discussion a new clause has been drafted to cover the points at issue. I believe the amendment is satisfactory to those hon. members who objected. I shall ask one of my colleagues to move it.


Hugh Guthrie: Move it yourself.


Alfred Duranleau: The section as
amended would read as follows:
27. Any cqn of fish or shell fish that bears any false or misleading mark or that is

Meat and Canned Foods Act
incorrectly labelled or marked and not labelled or marked in accordance with this act, or with the regulations made thereunder, may be seized by an inspector or by any customs, excise or police officer, or by any constable, and shall be confiscated to His Majesty by any two justices of the peace, or by any magistrate having the power of two justices of the peace, if it is found that the label or marking is intended or calculated to deceive.
In other words, we are taking away from the officers the right or power to confiscate, and giving it to two justices of the peace or a magistrate having the powers of two justices of the peace. I move that section 1 in the bill be amended by deleting section 27 appearing therein, and substituting therefor the words I have indicated.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the purpose of the
amendment is quite right but I would point out that the minister has left out the first three lines of the section. If you are going to delete the whole section, and not merely amend it, you will have to put in the first three lines beginning with "Section twenty-seven," or if you are just going to amend it, the amendment will begin with "27."


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, starting from the number "27."


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Would the minister
inform the committee how many prosecutions have been taken in the past under this law. Were there many causes of complaint?


Alfred Duranleau: I think there were
some prosecutions, but the law as it now exists is not stringent enough. As my hon. friend knows, there are many kinds of salmon fish. There are, for instance, six species of salmon: sockeyes, red, pink and white springs; cohoes; steelhead; pink, and chum, and some of these species are worth two or three times as much as others, as my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi is well aware. Hence the temptation to label inferior quality goods wrongly. We think that this legislation is absolutely necessary'. Up to date we have been able to control canned fish retailed on the market in Canada, but we could not do anything with regard to exported goods, and by' this legislation we are seeking to prevent the export of falsely labelled canned fish. I think that is in the best interests of our market abroad.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Are there any special
police officers to enforce this legislation?


Alfred Duranleau: No, our fishery
officers.
74726-254 i


Peter John Veniot: The latter part of this
amendment reads:
-confiscated to His Majesty by any two justices of the peace or by any magistrate having the powers of two justices of the peace if it is found that the label or marking is intended or calculated to deceive.
How are you going to prove the intention? I have no objection to the words "calculated to deceive."


Hugh Guthrie: That expression occurs
in many sections of our criminal code. The justices will have to be convinced there is the intent and that the label is capable of deception.


Alfred Duranleau: And the intent is
derived from the facts, and it is for the justices to decide.


Peter John Veniot: I observe by the explanatory note that you can prevent the retail selling of canned lobsters, for instance, but what about wholesale selling under this bill? If a case of canned lobsters is sold wrongly labelled will that be considered wholesale or retail?


Alfred Duranleau: This enactment will
cover both.


Peter John Veniot: Not according to the explanatory note.


Alfred Duranleau: At the present time
the law provides protection against the retail selling of falsely labelled canned goods, and this enactment is to prevent also the wholesale selling and the export of falsely labelled canned goods.


Peter John Veniot: It will prevent both?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 95, to amend the Roy'al Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 1-Part IV added.
Hugh Guthrie: I might offer a word in explanation of this bill, Mr. Chairman. To sum it up, it is to permit constables of the Roy'al Canadian Mounted Police to make

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
provision for their widows and children solely out of contributions made by them. This will be part 4 of the Mounted Police Act. Part 3 provides that a constable after a certain service shall receive a pension for himself. Part 2 provides that officers shall receive pensions and that on their death their widows and children shall receive one-half the amount that the officers would have been entitled to. But we have no provision whatever in our law with respect to the widows and children of constables, and the proposal is that constables be permitted to create a fund under the control of the government, and that out of that fund pensions be paid to the widows and children in accordance with the table set out in this bill.
The whole amount is contributed by the men themselves. These tables have been prepared by actuaries in the Department of Insurance, and by the officials of the treasury, and the proposal has been reported as actuarially sound and as being able to carry itself. But there is an express provision in the bill that, no moneys shall be paid out of the public funds of Canada in respect of this measure. The fund must carry itself.


Thomas Reid: While my question does not come under this bill probably, it comes under the minister's department. I would ask if it is the policy of the department to pay special officers as well as to allow them to receive moieties of fines? Where an officer is told by his commanding officer to look after the Excise Act, does he receive pay as well as part of the moities?


Hugh Guthrie: The officers do not receive the moieties, they go into a trust fund.


Thomas Reid: I should like to draw the
attention of the minister to a practice which has occurred, I understand more than once in British Columbia. This particular case happened in May. Two officers of the force first sold a man some liquor and then laid an information against him. They were severely reprimanded by the magistrate who called it conspiracy of a most diabolical nature. That may be rather strong language but I think such a practice should be discontinued. We have cases where under cover men are sent out to endeavour to purchase drinks but in this case the officers deliberately tried to sell liquor to a man and laid an information. This incident occurred at Richmond in May of this year, and I think such practices should be stopped.
TMr. Guthrie.]


Hugh Guthrie: The members of the police would receive no part of that fine if an award was made, that would go into the trust fund. I will report the remarks of my hon. friend to the commissioner for his consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 77 agreed to.
On section 78-Minimum contribution.
Peter John Veniot: Do the patrol boats come
under the Department of Justice or the Department of National Revenue?


Hugh Guthrie: The patrol boats in the
preventive service come under the mounted police.


Peter John Veniot: This may be a little out of order but I ask the committee to excuse me while I draw the attention of the minister to something which I think should be remedied immediately. On the eleventh of this month a foreign vessel came into the harbour of Shippigan and called for a pilot. There are two licensed pilots at that port, one of which has a boat and the other has not. The pilot owning a boat made for the steamer to pilot her to the wharf but the patrol boat Vigil came in and took the other pilot who had no boat out to this steamer. I do not think our patrol boats should be used for this purpose. I am giving the name of the boat so the minister can look into the matter and prevent this occurring in the future. It is not fair that boats in the government service should be used for the accommodation of pilots or private individuals.


Hugh Guthrie: I shall have an inquiry
made into the incident and when I receive a report I will submit it to my hon. friend.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Is there any provision whereby a man dismissed from the service will have his contribution confiscated?


Hugh Guthrie: There is a general provision in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act under which when a man is dismissed for misconduct or wrongdoing he loses what he has paid in. If he is relieved for sickness or anything of that kind he gets his money back.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 79 to 85 inclusive agreed to.
On section 86-Payments to and from consolidated fund.
Hugh Guthrie: There is a misprint in
line 39 which should be corrected. The word

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
" may " should be added after the word " made." This clause would then read, " and investments so made may from time to time be sold."


Thomas Reid: Is there any provision to take care of a man who may be taken into the force from a provincial force?


Hugh Guthrie: Under the agreements with the provincial governments there is a provision to cover that.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Is the time served with the provincial government counted towards the pension of a man absorbed into the new forces?


Hugh Guthrie: It is, but he would have to make an adjustment in cash.


William Thomas Lucas: I understand that the pensions received by constables or their dependents come entirely from contributions made by the constables themselves, the state not contributing anything. I should like to know why these constables are placed in a different position to the ordinary civil servants, in connection with whom the state makes a contribution?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that I can answer that question. This scheme was worked out by the members of the force themselves as a self-supporting fund. I could not state why any distinction is made.


Mr. YENIOT:: Does not this affect only the dependents?


Hugh Guthrie: This affects only the dependents.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member was talking about the constables.


Hugh Guthrie: In the case of a civil servant, the dependent receives one-half.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 87 to 90 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 70, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
On section 1-Regulations by governor in council.
Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Chairman, while there has been considerable discussion on this bill and especially in connection with the second amendment, the first
amendment has not yet been considered. It is for the committee to decide whether we shall continue with the second amendment first or take them in order.
Probably it is well to begin with section 1 in the regular order. This amendment makes provision for regulation by order in council to add to or take from those names that appear in schedule A, the number of diseases or symptoms of diseases, and to add to or take from the list of remedies-material it is called there-of various kinds found in the act, such as sera, remedies of a poisonous nature, and so forth. The object of the amendment is to give flexibility to the administration of the act. No doubt from time to time increase in scientific knowledge renders changes desirable, and this amendment empowers the minister to recommend changes in consequence of such developing knowledge.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: When this bill was
introduced the minister explained that the object was to bring the Food and Drugs Act into conformity with what is usually called the P.P.M. Act, that is to say, the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. I have no quarrel with that purpose; indeed, the last time the committee sat I intimated that I agreed with that principle. But I made certain observations that I am now going to repeat, with all deference to the minister, for whom I have the kindliest feeling, and whom I must thank for the courtesy he has shown me in allowing me to discuss the matter with his very efficient officials. To my mind this is not the proper way to proceed at all. The Food and Drugs Act is a very important piece of legislation, and so is the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. We have passed may important measures this session, but this act relates to national health, and I submit that we ought to give this whole matter all the consideration to which it is entitled; not- that I wish to imply that the minister and his officials have not given it proper consideration, but in this committee it should receive greater attention than the procedure which we are about to adopt contemplates.
In order to bring this act into conformity with the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, I suggest that the latter act in its entirety should be revamped. It has not been touched for many years, and the procedure now proposed will not bring the Food and Drugs Act into conformity with the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, because in that act there do not appear any dispositions similar
to 18

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
to those which it is sought in this amendment to introduce into the Food and Drugs Act.
National health is of course of very great importance, and I wish to discuss certain phases of this bill. In the first place, section 1 provides that subsection 1 of section 3 of the Food and Drugs Act shall be amended by:
adding to or removing from the list contained in schedule A hereto such abnormal physical states....
First of all, I would point out that there is no place where I or anyone else can go to determine what an abnormal physical state is; that is something that is purely in the estimation either of the minister or of his officials. There is no definition either in the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act or in the Food and Drugs Act of what constitutes an abnormal physical state. And further by:
-adding to or removing from schedule B hereto such material-
Now, "schedule B hereto" contains no "material;" it is only the nomenclature or description of the abnormal physical states. The hon. member for St. Boniface hands me a schedule from the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, and in that act there is no schedule B. The section reads:
Subsection 1 of section 3 of the Food and Drugs Act, chapter 76 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, is amended by adding thereto the following paragraph immediately after paragraph (h) thereof.
The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act is not chapter 76 of the revised statutes, and in the Food and Drugs Act there is no schedule wherein "material" is defined. In that respect therefore the section is badly drawn. In the second place, there is nothing that defines material. "Such material;" what material? What is material? That ought to be defined somewhere. It is "such material, as may be deemed by the minister to be necessary in the public interest."
I submit with all deference and kindliness that this is going much too far. It is indeed going much too far. I understand it is a matter of national health, and with the general principle of the bill I have no quarrel, but I think we are going much too far afield by giving power to the minister whereby at any time he may remove from or add to or otherwise deal with the schedule listing these abnormal physical states. Surely if an abnormal physical state develops in a certain locality it does not demand immediate medical intervention, it is not a state of war, it does not necessitate that the cabinet sit at once and deal with it, it does not require

that the minister should at once add to or subtract from the list. This proposal means disruption of the whole pharmaceutical trade. People have been in the habit of dealing with certain medical products, and all at once that is to be stopped, with no provision here, although there may be something in a comer of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act to say upon what terms it may be done and what kind of notice will be given or to what interests and what rights will be safeguarded. Suppose the minister finds another abnormal physical state and lists it in this schedule and then prohibits the sale of certain medicines which may be sold to-day for all abnormal physical states not mentioned in the schedule. Then the whole thing is topsy-turvy. So I submit that so far as that is concerned the amendment goes much too far and that that section should not be concurred in.


Murray MacLaren: To which one does the hon. member refer?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I refer to section 1 of the amendment. If the minister wants to insist upon certain things to make this act conform with the other, surely he is going much too far in asking for that power. Not that I fear that he will not administer it in the public interest, but that it will be creating untold hardship for those who deal in these products. To put it clearly, if the schedule goes through as it is-and I hope it will not, because I shall submit certain amendments, and the minister should decide that cancer- to take an extreme case-should come out of the schedule, immediately that would disturb the trade. Suppose the minister should say that grippe should be included in that schedule, there is no notice given to anybody, then all those who have prepared specifics for that ailment immediately fall under the law. The minister, I think quite properly, has given notice that this bill shall not come into force until January 1 of next year. In all kindliness let me say that there is no great rush to put this measure through; why not let it stand until the next session of parliament, and in the meantime notify those interests which may be affected to make representations if they desire? If the minister does that I believe he will get much better legislation than if he tries to put this bill through now, because as I see it there is not one particle of all this that will bring this Food and Drugs Act into conformity with the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. Even if it did I submit it is wrong in practice because the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act should be revamped from top to bottom.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Murray MacLaren: I think the hon. member for Ottawa is unduly exercised in this matter. I do not think his many objections rest on very substantial grounds. There has been no hurry about putting this bill through the committee. It is, I think, four weeks since it was first brought forward, therefore hon. members have had opportunity to read and discuss it, which they have done. Many have taken that opportunity with myself. It has been brought particularly to the notice of those members who are of the medical profession, and one of the pharmaceutical societies. So in fact these amendments have been before the house for a considerable period. Judging from the letters that have reached me the general public is pretty well informed on the matter. I see that there has been some little confusion in the mind of the hon. senior member for Ottawa. For instance the Food and Drugs Act and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act are entirely distinct. Some of the remarks the hon. member has made apply to the Proprietary and Patent Medicine Act but do not apply to the bill now before the committee. In his reference, my hon. friend is applying schedule B to schedule A, which of course, has nothing to do with it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is what I say, it is wrongly worded.


Murray MacLaren: Excuse me, if my hon. friend will read that small two page amendment he may see something there that will help:
The said act is further amended by adding the following schedule thereto as schedule A and by substituting the heading "Schedule B" for the heading "Schedule" in the schedule to the act as it now stands:
As a matter of fact, in printing the Food and Drugs Act some few years ago there was only one schedule, therefore it was not necessary to specify or distinguish one from another. There is a schedule now in the act and under the amendment it is proposed to call it schedule B. My hon. friend is quite correct in saying that in schedule A there is nothing in reference to material. But that is not what we are speaking about; in schedule A we are speaking of these conditions and pathological states, and then schedule B comes with a list of material. I think my hon. friend will admit that there was a little oversight.
As regards conformity, I do not want to stress it too much. The amendment is an endeavour to advance health measures in the country. It has in view the protection of the public so that an individual who happens to
be diseased shall not depend on some so-called remedy that he should not depend on. There is a considerable degree of conformity or uniformity that would be obtained in the event of the amendment passing. It does this; it inserts a similar list of diseases and conditions in the two acts.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the minister point out where those diseases appear in the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act?


Murray MacLaren: I do not have it here.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Neither have I.


Murray MacLaren: You have it there under another act; it is identical in the two acts. Under the Patent Medicine Act the list of those diseases and conditions is established by order in council.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: But where is it in the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act?


Murray MacLaren: It is established by order in council under the act, and I say the list is identical with the list my hon. friend has before him under the other act, I can produce the order in council if necessary.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is no good to me. It may be in the order in council, but no one has the opportunity of looking up all orders in council, and that is what I object to. Under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act there may be a whole series of orders in council, rules and regulations hidden in some corner. There may be efficiency in the department, and I know there is, but there is no uniformity. That is why I plead with the minister to bring forth an act which will enable us to find what we want. The minister knows that any time anything is required you must go down to the department, where you are shown a typewritten list of new rules and regulations, which are not published. Very few people have the opportunity of seeing those rules. If those twenty odd diseases and abnormal physical conditions listed in the schedule had been put in the act, everyone would have known about it, but now no one knows where to look.


Murray MacLaren: My officials state that under the patent medicine act those diseases are enumerated by departmental regulation. I said that was done by order in council. However, whether it is done by order in council or by the minister-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: We do not know where to find them.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Murray MacLaren: My hon. friend could have asked for them. I will see that he gets copies by the first mail.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I was told that this was to make one act conform with the other, but it does not.


Murray MacLaren: My hon. friend will have all the information he wishes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: After the act is passed.


Murray MacLaren: Yes, but very soon after. It is not proper to describe this as a hole in the corner business at all. If there is one thing necessary with regard to public health it is publicity. We are trying to do something in the proper way; our object is to inform the people, and there is no hole in the corner business about it at all. Now, coming back to this point, I say there is a considerable degree of conformity brought about by this amendment, by adopting the same list of diseases and conditions that now exists under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. That is a material gain. What is the reason for all this? It has been found that in some cases when the manufacturer or seller of a patent medicine has been stopped from selling it under the one act he has proceeded to sell it under the other, and we wish to have the same list apply to both acts so that we may have uniform administration. Especially I wish to direct attention to the fact that the amendment explains this situation. When my hon. friend refers to material it does not refer to diseases but to actual remedies which are enumerated there.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I do not see any great cause for confusion in this legislation. The minister has told us that the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act forbids the sale of drugs or remedies having to do with certain diseases, and that certain individuals have been avoiding that law by purchasing or selling these articles under the Food and Drugs Act. I think the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act is absolutely correct in forbidding the sale of stated remedies under label for the alleviation and cure of a great many, in fact most, of the diseased conditions that we find in schedule A, which is a new schedule being inserted into the Food and Drugs Act. On the other hand I do feel that to forbid individuals to purchase certain remedies for more or less trivial conditions is rather an arbitrary stand to take.


Murray MacLaren: What are the trivial conditions? fMr. Chevrier.]


John Power Howden: If the minister will just give me a moment I will run over the list. On the other hand, after looking over this list I find that there is no danger in the world of people seeking to buy remedies, or of others attempting to sell them, for a great many of the conditions set out in this list. There are one or two conditions with which I must confess, though with some hesitation, the regular practice of medicine has had seemingly but slight success, and for which various patent remedies-call them quacks if you like-seem to have been able to afford the relief we have not been able to bring about. I would mention first epilepsy, to which I propose to refer at a little greater length in a moment.
Now let us look over this list of diseases for which no one is permitted to import, manufacture, offer for sale, advertise by any means whatever or sell any remedy which is supposed to relieve or cure the conditions enumerated; let us consider the conditions one by one, starting with alcoholism. The only danger to an individual seeking relief from alcoholism by remedies that might be prescribed by a druggist, who is the only individual who would prescribe remedies, is that he might get rather too heavy a dose of one of the hypnotics. There is an extremely remote danger that he might get a sufficiently heavy dose to put him out, but the danger is very slight. Ordinarily speaking, the remedies the druggist would sell for the relief of alcoholism would cause no great danger. They would not do very much good, nor would they do much harm, so that the person buying the remedy would be no farther ahead and he would be out only the price of the remedy.
We now come to appendicitis. When a person has an honest to goodness attack of appendicitis he does not monkey with it. He is genuinely sick, and of that fact there can be no doubt in the world. He is not going to run to a drug store when the pain in his side is causing him such agony that he can scarcely bear it, and under those circumstances he will not be asking for a cure from a druggist. If the person affected knows he has appendicitis he is certainly not going to bother with a drug store and, believe me, if the druggist knows it is appendicitis he will not offer any relief. He will chase that person to the best doctor to be found, and will have him go as fast as possible. So, as far as appendicitis is concerned this measure is ineffective, and it is all bunkum to assume that anybody suffering from appendicitis will take a chance with patent remedies or common salts.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Then, we come to arteriosclerosis. Well, just how a druggist or a layman is going to know when a person is suffering from arteriosclerosis I cannot guess. It takes a pretty fair doctor to diagnose this disease, which is commonly known as hardening of the arteries. I should not think there would be a great deal of danger of anybody running to a drug store or to anybody else and saying, "here, sell me something to cure my arteriosclerosis." In that respect the legislation is a joke.
Now we come to blood poisoning. Well,
I grant you that the laity, the people generally, have the idea that every little infected wound they may have on their hands or their toes, together with a few streaks running up their arms or legs, constitute blood poisoning. But that is not so. Those conditions are called lymphangitis, or inflammation of the lymph channels, and if very much aggravated or neglected that condition might possibly lead to blood poisoning. But blood poisoning is a condition in which there are live, active, microbe organisms in the blood. For that reason it is a severe and serious disease, and when a person is suffering from it he shakes and shivers in his bed sufficiently to rattle the windows in the bedroom. A person suffering in that way is not going to go to a druggist and ask for relief. That also is a joke; there is no question about it. If a person is suffering from blood poisoning he will employ all the doctors he can afford in order to see what chance he has to live.
The next disease mentioned is Bright's disease. About two-thirds of us have Bright's disease after we reach the age of forty or fifty years. Of course, we may have it in lesser degrees, but if it appears in severe or aggravated form the less medicine that is taken the better, and when a person has a serious attack he does not bother with a druggist. He is panting for life and for breath, and he will call a doctor. The only remedy I can imagine a druggist would dare sell a person suffering from Bright's disease would be Epsom salts, or something like that, and if they did not do him any good they would do no harm. For those reasons I cannot see that this bill can have much effect so far as Bright's disease is concerned.
Then we come to cancer, and at this point we must pause to consider. A person may have a little sore on the corner of his mouth which has been neglected and which may develop into a cancer. The sore may appear at the corner of his eye or he may have had a sudden difficulty with his digestion. All these conditions might come out of a perfectly clear sky. Then, a woman may develop a sore on a nipple, a breast or other places. There is no danger of her going to a druggist. She may go to a quack doctor and have an arsenic plaster put on, or something of that kind. But there would be no danger of her going to a druggist and asking for relief for cancer. It is my implicit belief that if a person knows he has cancer he will not go to a druggist and ask for a remedy but will consult the best doctor he can find or can afford to employ and receive the best advice he can pay for. I believe a druggist would not have the nerve to sell a remedy for cancer. He could not possibly do so.
Now we come to diabetes. It is not difficult to tell when one is suffering from diabetes. We are not giving a medical clinic and we shall not discuss this disease at length, but I cannot imagine anyone with honest-to-good-ness diabetes tampering with his welfare to the extent of going to a drug store for relief. Then, in these days we have the Banting remedy of insulin, and for that reason diabetes is viewed from an entirely different standpoint. There was a time when this disease was considered beyond help, and in drug stores here and there and all over all sorts of patent remedies were sold to effect cures. But because of the scientific advances made in connection with this disease, and the discovery by Sir Frederick Banting, that condition has been stopped. For those reasons diabetes may be scratched off the list.
Now we come to diphtheria-and in this instance we have a case no one should monkey with. Here is a time when no one should monkey with a druggist. This is one disease which could be left on the list, and we could call it diphtheria, sore throat or whatever you like. Just as soon as a child has a real honest-to-goodness sore throat, get a doctor. Call a sore throat diphtheria, and get a doctor, and we would have less deaths. I would say we could include ordinary sore throats, and prevent druggists from selling remedies for infectious sore throats, whether they be diphtheria, tonsilitis, scarlet fever, Ludwig's angina, or anything of the kind.
Now we come to dropsy. Dropsy is a symptom, not a disease and occurs in connection with Bright's disease, heart disease, liver disease and all sorts of diseases in which the limbs, and preeminently the legs, swell up to a point where, by pressure from a finger, pits may be formed. Here, again, if a druggist had the hardiness to prescribe for dropsy, and decided to prescribe Epsom salts which he

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
likely would do, he would probably be suggesting about as good a remedy as he could in any case.
And now we come to the next important one, namely epilepsy. I said a little while ago that unfortunately the medical profession has had no success with epilepsy. We have prescribed all sorts of medicines. We have performed counter depressions on the brain and taken out a piece of the skull. We have done all sorts of things. Here and there we have effected a cure, and here and there our efforts have been fruitless. But there are individuals, quacks if you like-and I do not call them that disrespectfully, because I believe in rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's-who have evidently found means to relieve epilepsy. As a medical man with thirty years' experience I believe in letting people get relief or cures where they can get them. If a doctor cannot give it to them, let them go where they can get it. That is my policy. It might be worth the while of this committee to listen to a letter or two that I have. I have half a dozen, but I shall not read them all. This one is an appeal to the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and it says:
Dear Sir,-
It was brought to my notice that a new Canadian law has been proposed, which will make it impossible for a person to obtain treatment for epilepsy attacks except through a physician. I refer to the bill sponsored by the Hon. Dr. Murray MacLaren, Minister of Pensions and National Health. Now I myself have suffered from epilepsy since 1923. I tried the home doctor and others, spending hundreds of dollars in vain. Then I used the treatment from the Western Medical Corporation of Chicago-
I do not know anything about them personally:
Now I am feeling fine. If this new law comes into force I understand I cannot buy medicines from any concern either in the United States or in Canada. This rvould mean that I cannot get my medicine and would probably mean worse than death to me, as epilepsy works on the brain.
That is true, Epilepsy developing in early years usually leaves a fumbling, feeble brain after the child grows up, and the longer you have epilepsy the foolisher you get.


Murray MacLaren: That is a circular letter is it not? I think I see one or two in other hands.


John Power Howden: I have four letters under individual signatures from four different individuals.


Murray MacLaren: I have that same letter here.


John Power Howden: It is true that a circular letter has been sent from some firm.


Mr. STEVENS:: The one my hon. friend has just read is a circular letter. I remember getting one with the same wording.


John Power Howden: I shall be happy to hand it over to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and read another. Hon. gentlemen around me tell me they have all got these letters. I hope they are not all the same.


Murray MacLaren: Will the hon. member read that letter himself? I think he can read it better than I can, and I have so much to read on the subject already.


John Power Howden: It was to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that I sent the letter so that he could look at it and see if it was a circular letter. Here is another letter addressed to Mr. Olof Hanson. It reads:
Dear Sir,-
I am writing about the new 1 a\v which has been proposed to make it impossible,

They do not sound the same:
-for anyone to buy medicine for epilepsy attacks either in United States or Canada except through a physician.
I take epilepsy attacks myself, and I have been to the best of doctors as far east as Winnipeg, Manitoba, and never had one doctor that could help me in any way. Dr. James in the United States is the only man that could put out a prescription that would stop ray attacks, and if I do not get my medicine in a short time I'll be unable to work. Then what will happen to my wife and family, as I'm a married man? The medicine I get from Doctor James is not a patent medicine. It is a prescription from the doctor himself.
I am asking, Mr. Chairman, that the disease epilepsy be removed from this list. I have two other letters here, and gentlemen behind me and to my left say that they have other letters. I want to say this and I say it in all sincerity, that I have myself endeavoured to the best of my ability to cure epilepsy, and in one or two cases in about twenty I met with success. In one or two cases it cleared up. I have known it to clear up without any medicine at all. For God's sake if people have their lives ruined and racked by this disease of epilepsy-the minister may laugh if he likes, but it is no laughing matter-


Murray MacLaren: Does the hon. member say I was laughing? I was not.


John Power Howden: I was referring to the Minister of Justice.


Hugh Guthrie: I was laughing at the breach of decorum in this house.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


John Power Howden: I have heard of more serious breaches of decorum than that. I am sincere in what I say, and I say in the name of heaven-


Hugh Guthrie: That is better.


John Power Howden: -if people are suffering from epilepsy and can get no relief except through taking medicine or going to quack doctors, let them get it that way. We have no business to deny them relief from this worse than dread malady, and so far we have not been able to give them the relief which they crave. So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that epilepsy be struck off the list, and that these sufferers be allowed to get their medicine where they can so long as they can get relief.
Now as to erysipelas. Erysipelas is something that should not be tampered or fooled with, but I think there is little. danger of one suffering from erysipelas losing much valuable time because it spreads so rapidly and the individual becomes so prostrated with illness in a short time that he will not temporize very long with tomfool measures; he will call in a physician on his own account. There is no need to put that disease on the list.
I do not know what to say about gallstones, kidney stones and bladder stones. No one is likely to go to a druggist and ask for relief from these troubles, or if he did the druggist might take it upon himself to prescribe an opiate, and very likely that is the only thing he would prescribe. But if he has honest to goodness attacks of gall stones, he does not know himself what it is until he sees a doctor-how does anybody know, unless he has consulted a medical man, whether he has	a gall stone, a kidney	stone, or a	stone	inthe	bladder?	If he does	not know	what	hehas, it is not	very likely	that he is	going	toask	someone	other than	a medical	man	for
relief from this condition. I do not see the force of putting those diseases on the list because certainly a person with an attack of gall stone, colic or real colic is not going to temporize with drugs, He will be yelling his head off until the doctor comes along with a hypodermic syringe and gives him some relief.
As to gangrene, a part that becomes gangrenous is intensely painful. It becomes very red at first, then blue, then black. It is usually terrifying enough in its phenomena to drive any person to call in a doctor if there is a doctor to be had. If any person knows he has gangrene he will not seek patent remedies or any light measures to relieve him. There is no question in the world but
that he will by some means or other obtain the advice and assistance of a medical man.
As to gastric and duodenal ulcers, people who are suffering from these would often be safer to stay away from the doctor, because it is not- always certainly known when a person has a gastric or duodenal ulcer, and it is not always certain what is the best treatment. The only symptons would be a very aggravated form of dyspepsia. I suppose anybody with a very aggravated form of dyspepsia might go to a druggist, and if he asked for something for a gastric or duodenal ulcer the druggist might give him a little sodium and bismuth, which would certainly do no harm. But sooner or later he finds his way to a medical man. When he does so he may get a diagnosis or he may receive the relief which he desires. I cannot see any real reason why this should be allowed to remain on the list, except that if a person goes to a druggist or a chemist for a remedy for gastric or duodenal ulcers, the chemist should be forced to send him to a medical man. The same thing applies all down the list.
In the case of goitre, a druggist may take it upon himself to prescribe iodine of potash, or he might prescribe iodine in some form. He may suggest that the goitre be painted with iodine, but that would not do the patient very much good. Iodine of potash might relieve the patient but I cannot see much danger in allowing this disease to remain on the list. If the patient has an aggravated goitre which upsets his nervous system or if his breath is shut off he will soon call in a doctor. Until that time arrives there is no great danger.
Many people have heart disease without knowing it. When the time comes that they realize they have it, there is no question about the matter. They are not going to temporize with either a quack or a druggist, they are going to see a medical man in an effort to get the needed relief.
The next is high blood pressure. The point in connection with the entire list is:	How is
an individual to know he has got blood pressure without consulting a medical man? How is he to know that he has infantile paralysis without consulting a medical man? How is he to know he has lockjaw? By the time he has lockjaw he will surely know it, and a medical man will not be of much use to him. In the case of locomotor ataxia there is no danger, but there may be some in the case of obesity. An individual may temporize with a lot of drugs which would do him no good. The next are pleurisy, pneumonia, ruptures and scarlet fever. I do not see a great deal of danger in any of those but scarlet fever. The averag" individual

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
becomes so sick with scarlet fever that he seeks a medical man. There are a few cases which are so mild that they are not detected and there is great danger of the spreading of the infection. If such a case is not sufficiently severe to make itself known to the individual or to his family, it is not very likely that a druggist would notice his condition. In such a case an individual is not going to go to a druggist or a quack and ask for a remedy for scarlet fever. In the case of severe scarlet fever there will be no temporizing, the individual will call in a medical man.
There is no danger with spinal meningitis, but there is some in connection with trachoma. Trachoma is chronic granulated eyelids and there is danger not only to the individual's eyesight but through the spreading of the disease to anyone who might use the same towel or wash-cloth. Tuberculosis, tumors, typhoid fever-I do not see much danger in connection with any of those. In connection with venereal disease there is a great deal of danger. While it is not very often that an individual will apply to a druggist for the relief of this disease, this is one disease which should be left on the list. It should be underlined with a heavy line. Any druggist who takes it upon himself to prescribe for venereal trouble should be severely punished. Venereal disease is one of the conditions which is undermining the health of the nation and it should receive more attention than it is receiving from the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Eugène Fiset: That is why they cut off the grant.


John Power Howden: I suppose so. This legislation if adopted will create a definite and decided hardship to a class of invalids whom the doctors have been unable to assist, a class of invalids who have been able to get relief by other means, a class of invalids to whom this parliament or anybody else has not the right to deny relief so long as they can find it. For these reasons I appeal to the minister to have epilepsy taken off the list. The class of remedies sold to these people may do them no good, but they do them no harm. We medical men cannot do them any good and for this reason I think epilepsy Should be left off the list.
I have nothing but endorsation for the provision that the minister shall have the authority to add to or remove from schedule B such material as he may assume to be necessary in the public interests. The schedule reads:
[Mr. Howden.1
Preparations of strophantlius, digitalis, ergot and any other vegetable preparations for which biological tests are deemed necessary.
That responsibility might well be placed in the hands of the minister. The schedule continues :
Preparations of pituitrin, thyroid, adrenalin and any other animal tissue preparations.
There is not much danger that any individual is going to submit to a hypodermic injection of something about which he knows nothing. I do not intend to read the balance, but I see no reason why the minister should not have entire control. The absurd part of the bill is this long list of disease conditions in connection with which people are not to be allowed to apply to other than medical men for relief. I do not consider that there is any danger but that ninety-nine per cent of the people suffering from these diseases will appeal to medical men for relief.


Murray MacLaren: Apparently all the different sections of the bill are being discussed and in order to clear the situation I should like to place before the committee an amendment which I propose to move to section 2.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: Is the
amendment to section 1?


Murray MacLaren: To section 2.


Eugène Fiset: I think we are all mixed up. The minister is proposing an amendment to section 2 but we have not yet dealt with section 1.


Murray MacLaren: That is quite correct, but we are not dealing with section 1.


Grote Stirling: Section 1 is before the committee.


Murray MacLaren: I did not want this discussion to continue on the Whole bill until the committee had before it this amendment.


Eugène Fiset: Why does not the minister read the amendment himself and then propose it when we reach the section?


John Power Howden: I was discussing the bill
at large, making a comparison between the two bills. I was discussing the reason this legislation had been brought into the house and was basing my remarks not on any particular section but on the whole intent of the bill.


Murray MacLaren: Perhaps I had better
read the amendment which I shall propose later on:
6a- No person or company shall import, offer for sale or sell any remedy represented by label or by advertisement-

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Those are the two points-by label or by advertisement.
-to the general public as a treatment for any of the diseases, disorders or abnormal physical states named or included in schedule A to this act or in any amendment to such schedule.
That does not exclude the importation of any drugs intended for sale to physicions, nor does it prohibit the advertising of any of these remedies for physicians.


Peter John Veniot: Does it prevent the sale
of these drugs by drug stores?


Murray MacLaren: I cannot reply comprehensively, yes or no. Drug stores can sell these remedies to physicians or physicians can prescribe them through a druggist.


Peter John Veniot: Suppose I have been
treated in the past by a physician who has informed me that a particular medicine will do me good. I go and ask a druggist to sell me that medicine, without telling him precisely what I want it for. Is the druggist permitted to sell it? I am interested in this matter, personally interested, because I am interested in the drug business, and I want to know whether I am violating the law or not. The largest drug store in northern New Brunswick is under the jurisdiction of my son, who is a medical doctor, and of his brother, who is a pharmacist.


Murray MacLaren: You are a doctor yourself.


Peter John Veniot: Not a medical doctor; I
cannot give a prescription. I want to know, in the interest of the business, whether we are violating the law or not.


Murray MacLaren: Whether you are
violating the law if this bill is passed?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: Under this proposed
amendment these remedies can either be manufactured in Canada or they can be imported from abroad.


Peter John Veniot: By a druggist?


Murray MacLaren: By anyone. The point
in regard to labelling is an important one. One of the essential points is the labelling or the advertising of a remedy as a remedy.


Peter John Veniot: For a specific disease?


Murray MacLaren: Yes. These remedies
can be admitted into Canada or they can be manufactured in this country and can be sold by druggists on the prescription of a medical man.


Alan Webster Neill: Only?


Murray MacLaren: Let us take, say, the remedy for epilepsy. If that is being imported or is being sold without the label anyone may buy it, but it must not be sold labelled as a remedy for epilepsy, nor may anyone advertise it as a remedy for epilepsy. It can be obtained through physicians or it can be bought provided the label does not signify that it is a remedy or treatment for epilepsy.


Peter John Veniot: Suppose I go into a drug store and say to the druggist, "I am suffering from a certain attack and I want such and such a remedy for it." I name the remedy and the bottle does not contain a label. Can I get it if I name it to the druggist?


Murray MacLaren: If you name the remedy itself?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: Without the label?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: Certainly, unless it contains a lot of narcotics.


Peter John Veniot: I understand that. Here is another question. Suppose a person is suffering from rupture, and without any recommendation from a doctor or any prescription he goes to a drug store to purchase a belt or whatever the necessary appliance may be. Is there anything in the act to prevent him from doing so?


Murray MacLaren: Nothing whatever. I may point out to the hon. gentleman that this does not deal with any appliance at all. One can scarcely credit it, but from time to time advertisements appear claiming a remedy for rupture; that is to say, there is a certain ointment or something that is rubbed over the area, and that is the treatment.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 100, respecting the St. Clair Transit Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
St. Clair Transit Company
Mr. GRAY:: In view of the fact that this is not a new bill but is merely an amendment to one section of an existing act, and in view of the lateness of the session, I move:
That standing order No. 104 be suspended and that the Speaker do now leave the chair in order that the house may now consider in committee of the whole Bill No. 100, an act respecting the St. Clair Transit Company.


Mr. SPEAKER:: That motion can be made only by consent.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think I can consent. My understanding is that this ought to go to the standing orders committee.


Ross Wilfred Gray: It has been there.


Hugh Guthrie: I know, but under standing order 101:
No motion for the suspension of the standing orders or any rule respecting a petition for a private bill will be entertained, unless the same has been reported upon by the committee on standing orders, and the committee in its report shall state the grounds for recommending such suspension.
I do not want to delay the measure, but I think the course proposed would be irregular. This bill I believe raises the question of an international tunnel or bridge.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The extension of the charter of an international bridge. It has been fully discussed with the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister.


Hugh Guthrie: The committee has plenty of time to consider this in the ordinary way.


Ross Wilfred Gray: No, because under standing order 105 a week's posting is required if I do not get consent to consider it now.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the hon. member briDg his motion u,p on Monday when the Prime Minister is here?


Ross Wilfred Gray: I would much prefer to move the suspension of rule 105, so that the bill might be considered forthwith by the committee.


Hugh Guthrie: Then the hon. member will have to give notice. I cannot agree to it; I would if I could, but I cannot.


Ross Wilfred Gray: It could be referred to the private bills committee; I could move the suspension of standing order 105 so that it would not require a week's posting.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to its going to the private bills committee in the most expeditious manner possible.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Then I move:
That standing order No. 105 be suspended in order that the committee on miscellaneous private bills may consider forthwith Bill No. 100, an act respecting the St. Clair Transit Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 70, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. MacLaren-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 1-Regulations by governor in council.
Mr. CHEYRIER:: May I ask again that the minister let this clause stand until such time as the whole of the act can be reconsidered.


Murray MacLaren: Do I understand that the hon. member asks that the first section stand?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I simply repeat the suggestion I made this afternoon, that in view of the tremendously large powers that are being sought, an opportunity ought to be given to those interested in this matter to appear so that the whole matter may be discussed.


Murray MacLaren: I am not prepared to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Limitations upon recommendations for self-treatment.
Murray MacLaren: It will now be in order to move the amendment I spoke of.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will move it.


The CHAIRMAN:: The amendment reads:
That clause 2 be amended by adding thereto the following as section 6a:
No person or company shall import, offer for sale or sell any remedy represented by label or by advertisement to the general public as a treatment for any of the diseases, disorders or abnormal physical states named or included in schedule A to this act, or in any amendment to such schedule.


Murray MacLaren: I might explain again that this amendment to the amendment meets some objections that have been made. It gives more liberty, is less restrictive. It enables these remedies to be sold on the prescription of medical men. It enables them to be sold provided there is no label specifying that it is a remedy for any of these

Food and Drugs Act
diseases set forth in schedule A. I know it meets with less objection from some than the previous amendment.


Eugène Fiset: I think the minister is making a mistake. Is it not that the amendment he proposes is a substitution for paragraph 6A of section 2? The motion should be "that paragraph 6A be deleted and the following substituted therefor."


Murray MacLaren: Quite so; that is the amendment.


Eugène Fiset: That is not what is being done.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It seems to me the
present section should be struck out and the amendment substituted for it.


Murray MacLaren: Quite so. The motion is that section 6A mentioned in the bill be struck out and the amendment substituted for it.


Alan Webster Neill: No, you are striking out
section 2.


Peter John Veniot: The intention is to amend 6A of section 2. You delete section 2 entirely and put in this new section.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Shall that carry?


Mr. RALSTON:: What is the substitution?


John Power Howden: If I understand the matter aright we objected to this section 6A when it was before us the other day. We objected to the words "manufacture," "advertise," and so on, and in the amendment those words have been deleted. Otherwise the paragraph is very much as it was before.


Murray MacLaren: That is not my interpretation of it. For instance, now it is simply restricted to the sale to the general public. As I understand it the motion is to strike out the addition to the act, section 6A as originally printed in the bill, and substitute the proposed section.


Alan Webster Neill: Section 6A is not a section of the bill.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: All I have before me is:
2. The said act is further amended by adding thereto the following section immediately after section 6 thereof:
Then the amendment proposes the new section 6A:


Thomas Reid: Would you mind reading the proposed new section again?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The amendment reads:
No person or company shall import, offer for sale or sell any remedy represented by label or by advertisement to the general public as a treatment for any of the diseases, disorders or abnormal physical states named or included in schedule A to this act or in any amendment to such schedule.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the matter is quite clear. My motion is to insert a new section in the act. It is to be inserted between sections 6 and 7, and we are naming it section 6A. Nothing is to be stricken out; it is simply the addition of a new section to the act.


James Layton Ralston: If the chairman would just add to what he has read the words "that section 2 be amended by striking out paragraph 6A thereof and substituting therefor the following," we would have the amendment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. gentleman is
right. So far as the original act is concerned it merely adds a new subsection.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the amendment carry?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: No. The amendment
now reads:
No person or company shall import, offer for sale or sell any remedy represented by label or by advertisement to the general public as a treatment for any of the diseases-
And so on. I submit that under the Interpretation Act the words "or company" are superfluous. The amendment should read, "no person shall import" and so on. We want to get at the meaning of this amendment. I take it that bottle must have on it some kind of label. There is nothing in the definition of the Interpretation Act about what a label is. We do not know whether the label must be on the bottle, on the carton or inside the carton quite apart from the bottle itself "-represented by label or by advertisement to the general public." Does that mean that no person or company shall import, offer for sale or sell any remedy represented by a label to the general public, or does it mean that no person or company shall import, offer for sale or sell any remedy to the general public? Apparently that means that on that label there must be no representation or advertisement to the general public. Is that right?


Murray MacLaren: No, it is limited to remedies for those diseases or conditions specified in the schedule.
Food and Drugs Act


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Quite so, but on those remedies that affect any of the abnormal physical states mentioned in the schedule there must be no label or representation or advertisement to the general public. Is that right?


Murray MacLaren: Not representing it as being a remedy or treatment for the diseases specified in the schedule.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Or by advertisement to the general public. What is an advertisement to the general public? I understand that the intention, though it is not expressly stated, is to limit the advertising of remedies used for these specific cases to the medical profession. If that be so where does the general public start and where does it end? How are you going to determine what is an advertisement to the general public? Apparently I cannot advertise in the daily newspapers any remedy that may be used as a treatment for the abnormal physical states mentioned in the schedule.


Murray MacLaren: Of course you can, if you are addressing it to the medical profession.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I gathered that that was the intention, but what is said in this house in the discussion of the bill as to what the intention of the minister may be cannot be used as evidence before the courts. I have to have a clear expression of what the intention and effect of the law may be, so that when I appear in a court the judge, or the person charged with the interpretation of the statute, will know exactly what it means or will have some means of ascertaining the fundamental intention. The minister has said what he means, but the amendment is not clear.


Murray MacLaren: It is stated in the
amendment.


Mr. STANLEY:: Read the amendment from the first.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The amendment reads:
No person or company shall import, offer for sale or sell any remedy represented by label or by advertisement to the general public as a treatment ...
And so on. Now, that is all right, but there is no definition as to what "the general public" may mean. The minister says that I may advertise it to the medical profession, but the amendment does not so indicate. I can advertise to the medical profession in various ways. I understand the minister to mean that I may take to a daily paper in Ottawa an advertisement for one of these remedies advertised as a treatment for some abnormal

physical state and have such advertisement inserted so that I would be advertising to the general public remedies for all of these abnormal physical states, provided that I put at the top, underneath or at the corner of the advertisement the words "This advertisement is directed to the medical profession only." I understand that that is the intention. I understand further that I may advertise in a so-called or genuine medical review which may be directed, as is usually the case, to the medical profession. I may advertise in the Lancet, the English periodical devoted almost exclusively to the medical profession, any of the remedies to be used as a treatment for any one of the abnormal physical states mentioned in the schedule. My own impression is that if I were to advertise in a dental or pharmaceutical review I would not be advertising to the general public. But where is the line to be drawn? What is the determining line? I cannot advertise in the daily press without the insertion of some restrictive words, but if I can advertise in a medical review, then what is a medical review? I have before me one of these reviews; I shall not mention the name of it, but in it appears an advertisement of a uric acid eliminator, a well known French product, and such specific ailments are mentioned, as gout, lithiasis, neuralgia, rheumatism, arteriosclerosis and obesity. If the bill and schedule become law in their present form, in view of the fact that this publication is not an ordinary review but is directed to the general public, the manufacturers of the product in question will have to eliminate the words "arterioolerosis and obesity." Although this remedy is not one used exclusively for these ailments, yet it is a solvent used in a case of arteriosclerosis as a uric acid eliminator and in a case of obesity as another sort of eliminator. I ask the minister this:	If I put
in the advertisement the words, "This advertisement is directed to the medical profession only," may it circulate among the general public as an advertisement for arteriosclerosis and obesity?


Murray MacLaren: If it is directed to the
medical profession, yes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: But I want to find out when it is directed to the medical profession and when it is not directed to the medical profession.


Murray MacLaren: The answer is, when
it says so-that is all.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It would have been
much better if the statute had been made clear. But if the minister states that tomorrow I may go to one of the daily papers

Food and Drugs Act
and advertise a remedy for the treatment of one or all of the ailments mentioned in the schedule, and I can do that simply by putting a line at the top of or underneath the advertisement saying, " This is directed exclusively to the medical profession " that arrangement may be all right, but I suggest it is not a proper way to do business.


George Douglass Stanley: Where will you sell your product?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is why I say there is no reason for the inclusion in the schedule of quite a large number of these so-called abnormal physical conditions. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), differing from other opinions which have been expressed, says that a certain number of these ailments are not abnormal physical states. They should be excluded. The difficulty is that one cannot advertise to the general public any one of these remedies as a treatment for the abnormal physical states mentioned in the schedule. But I want to know where I can do it. I believe I have made myself clear.


Murray MacLaren: Wherever you consider
it to your advantage, that is the answer. There are medical journals without number, and there are periodicals and, if you wish, the press. This amendment is intended not to be extreme but to be a moderate measure, and not to go too far in advance of general opinion. Therefore an advertisement to the profession is allowed or allowable in any form you wish.


John Power Howden: I intimated to the committee this afternoon that I thought this legislation was to a great extent farcical. Many forms of disease are mentioned for which no one would think of advertising cures before the general public. So far as those forms of disease are concerned, I believe we may put them out of our minds; we do not need to go over them again. In the case of quite a number, however, there is potential danger in druggists or proprietary people advertising remedies. All these particular forms of disease I have in mind certainly require the attention of a skilled physician. However, to my mind the whole discussion circles around the one disease which I discussed at length this afternoon and in connection with which we as medical men have had but scant success in the matter of treatment. The amendment states:
No person or company shall import, offer for sale or sell any remedy represented by label or by advertisement to the general public ...
And so on. We know of one firm at least which has been successful in treating by mail a malady in the treatment of which medical men have had very little or no success. A number of people throughout the dominion are suffering from that disease, and at the present time they are apprehensive that this legislation will remove from them the possibility of obtaining the medicine for the relief of their condition. The amendment plainly says that this medicine shall not be advertised to the public. How then shall other victims who will suffer from this disease in the future be relieved, or how will they be informed of the fact that there is a remedy that can relieve them? If the remedy cannot be advertised I do not see how they can learn about it.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Get a good
medical man.


John Power Howden: It is true that there are a lot of good medical men, but there are a few conditions that medical men have not been able to control entirely, and this is one of them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do you want the sufferers to go to quacks?


John Power Howden: I have no interest whatever in any quack company or quack doctor, but if any quack doctor is able to give relief for a condition where I cannot give relief, I say more power to him.


Walter Davy Cowan: Have you ever met one who could?


John Power Howden: I have met many cases,
and for that reason I say without hesitation that if this legislation is enforced it will be positively unfair to a number of epileptics in this dominion. I have no personal interest in any epileptic but I like to see people in any such condition treated fairly and given a chance; for it is well known that if the disease is allowed to run on for a number of years without relief it affects the mind and the sufferer becomes feebleminded.


Murray MacLaren: I had intended to wait until we reached the schedule before saying anything with reference to any of the diseases listed, but I feel I should not delay, and that I should say something about epilepsy.


John Power Howden: Hear, hear.


Murray MacLaren: I have had communications and reports on different diseases, and recently I have received from members of parliament and others a considerable number of letters with reference to the administration

[DOT]1030
Food and Drugs Act

of a certain remedy for epilepsy. So far as I can tell, and I think this applies to all of them, they originated at the request of a medical firm in Chicago, the Western Medical Corporation. I should like to read this communication to the house. It is a letter on the heading of the Western Medical Corporation, and the directing physician is Harry L. James, MU. The letter is dated May 25, 1934, and this particular letter is addressed to a lady. It reads:
Dear Miss,-
Do you know that a new Canadian law has been proposed to make it impossible for you to obtain treatment for epilepsy attacks except through a physician? This means that you could not buy medicines from any concern in the United States or in Canada for epilepsy attacks.
I think that is correct so far as it goes. It is correct if it were labelled; it is not correct if there were no labels on it. The letter continues:
This matter was brought to our attention by one of our Canadian customers who was greatly disturbed at the possibility of not being able to obtain our medicines should the bill be passed. We refer to the bill sponsored by the Hon. Doctor Murray MacLaren, Minister of Pensions and National Health, now in its second reading.
It occurred to me that all of our Canadian patients might not be aware of this impending legislation. Therefore I suggest that if you feel the passage of this bill might seriously affect you because you could no longer obtain medicines from us, it would no doubt be a good plan to write to your representative in the dominion House of Commons

That has been duly done.
-asking that the disease epilepsy be removed from the list. You might also add that you consider it a grave injustice to be forced to go to a local physician for treatment.
Immediate action is no doubt necessary if you are to cause the removal of the disease epilepsy from the list of diseases contained in the bill.
Will you let us hear from you as to what answer your representative gives you?
Sincerely,
Harry L. James, M.D.,
Directing Physician.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
the name of the company?


Murray MacLaren: The Western Medical
Corporation. So far as I am aware, all the letters and copies of letters that have reached me or the department have been sent on the invitation of the Western Medical Corporation through their directing physician.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I never got one.


Murray MacLaren: It was not necessary
in my hon. friend's case.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not suffering from epilepsy.


Murray MacLaren: There, Mr. Chairman,
you have the fons et origo of all this trouble about epilepsy; and the corporation makes its appeal attractive by the distribution of a three dollar coupon to all those who are buying these medicines
I would like to say, for this is rather important, that the formula is on these bottles when they are sold under the act. The remedy is luminal, and for many cases of epilepsy that is probably the most suitable and effective remedy, but I saw a letter not long ago in which the correspondent said he had been taking luminal and it was not useful, and that he got the medicine of this company and it was just the thing. The ordinary trade term for this remedy is luminal, but there are at least two other long scientific names, and if they are used, naturally the general public are not aware that it is luminal they are taking, and yet it is the same thing. The remedy I say is luminal, and it is quite a good remedy as a palliative in epilepsy. But epilepsy is due to different causes. I grant you that in many cases it is idiopathic, that there is no discernible cause for it, but in other cases that is not so. It may be due to arterial degeneration, or to luetic infection, or to injuries. Strangely enough I have a letter before me from a woman who writes that she had received a fractured skull from a kick by a horse, and she was taking this remedy for epilepsy. That was essentially a case for examination by a surgeon or physician, not a case for treatment by correspondence with a doctor a thousand miles away.


John Power Howden: She might have had Jacksonian epilepsy and had the epilepsy as a result of the kick on the head.


Murray MacLaren: I cannot say as to that. I am giving her statement, that she had epilepsy, that she had a fracture of the skull caused 'by a kick from a horse. There is no mystery about these things, and I believe many of them would be wise if they took the same thing. They can go to a druggist and get it themselves if they desire without there being any advertising or anything else. This matter has been brought to the attention of the public in this way. I do not know that one can blame him for following his business instincts, but our Object is to try to protect the public and see that they do not incessantly and continually take something which they may not need. I agree that a cure for epilepsy is not known but sometimes it dis-

Food and Drugs Act
appears although in other cases it becomes worse. I think all cases should receive skilled attention. AH we are saying is that these things shall not bear labels and be advertised. To that small extent we are trying to protect the public.


Eugène Fiset: Would the minister be kind enough to answer one question for me? He stated a moment ago that as long as a product was not labelled for the cure of a disease it could be sold to the general public in any drug store.


Murray MacLaren: Absolutely.


Eugène Fiset: Could a man sell a drug advertised in a manner similar to the letter which the minister read provided the bottle was not labelled? 'Is there anything in the proposed amendment which would prevent a manufacturer from sending out circular letters of the kind which the minister read, provided he does not label his bottle as a remedy for a disease listed in schedule A? This is what the druggist wants to know. I have received sheaves of telegrams from pharmaceutical associations all the way from Toronto down to Quebec asking me to ascertain if there is anything in the present law or in the proposed amendment which would prevent a druggist or a pharmacist or a manufacturer from advertising a product so long as he does not label the bottle. That is the first point. Second, is there anything in the law or in the amendment which prevents a manufacturer or a druggist from advertising a product as long as the advertising or the sample bottle is addressed direct to the medical profession? If the minister can clear up those points, I shall be satisfied.


Murray MacLaren: My answer to the first and third questions is that it would be allowable under the act. As to the question whether or not a druggist could advertise, I should like to know what it is he wishes to advertise. He must have something to advertise.


Eugène Fiset: Suppose it is advertising a product to cure epilepsy.


Murray MacLaren: He could not do that.


Eugène Fiset: But he could do that to the medical profession?


Murray MacLaren: Absolutely.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: How could he do that to the medical profession, in a medical review or in a newspaper?


Murray MacLaren: In both.
74726-255 J


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: He could do that in a newspaper provided he labelled his bottles in some way. I should like to get the proper phraseology in order that there may be no misunderstanding when I advise a client. What phraseology must the advertiser or the manufacturer of a product use in order to protect himself when he is advertising in a daily newspaper?


Murray MacLaren: He could do it, but you are speaking about something that is not done.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There has been no need to do it up to the moment.


Murray MacLaren: It is not done. All these things appear in medical journals, but I grant you it could be donej That is not the way to do it and that is not the way it is done. He could address it to the medical profession and say:	This is the remedy that Doctor
James prescribes for epilepsy.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Let me get this thing right for my own personal information. Here is an advertisement. Under the term of this amendment it could not appear in a daily newspaper because it refers to arteriosclerosis and obesity, and those diseases are referred to in this schedule. Will the minister tell me what phraseology I could use for this advertisement in order to put this product before the general public and advertise it as it is being advertised in this magazine?


Eugène Fiset: Head it "for the medical profession only."


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am asking the minister, and I think he can answer.


Murray MacLaren: The minister will answer with great pleasure. What is the name of the product the hon. member is speaking of?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: This is an advertisement for urodonal. It states that it is a uric acid eliminator. Then it goes on to say what it is good for, and among other things it mentions arteriosclerosis and obesity.


Murray MacLaren: State that it is for the medical profession.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: All I have to do is label it to the medical profession and then the officers of the department would not prosecute?


Murray MacLaren: That is right.


Eugène Fiset: In order to relieve my anxiety I should like the minister to confirm one statement. Should an individual
Food and Drugs Act

advertise, either in a publication or by private letter or even on a bottle label, if that was addressed to the medical profession would he be interfered with by this amendment or by the present act?


Murray MacLaren: It would not touch that.


William Thomas Lucas: I received a letter from a person in my constituency which is somewhat along the lines of the letter read by the minister. It states that one of the family is afflicted with epilepsy and had been unable to obtain any relief except through the remedy prepared by Doctor James of Chicago. These people were protesting strongly against the passage of this amendment. As I understand the amendment, it will mean that anyone troubled with epilepsy must secure this remedy through a prescription by a medical man. I should like to know if a person could import this remedy from Doctor James so long as it came in without a label?


Murray MacLaren: Certainly.


William Thomas Lucas: Supposing it did come in without a label, what would the customs department do? Would they allow it to come in?


Murray MacLaren: Certainly. The difficulty has been in tracing these things once they got into the country, but an individual could order through the customs provided the label did not state it was a remedy for epilepsy. Of course the ingredients would have to be mentioned on the label.


John Power Howden: I was very glad to hear
the minister state quite definitely a few minutes ago that luminal is what this Doctor James of Chicago is sending to his patients. Luminal is a well known hypnotic and we medical men have been using it for -ten or twelve years. Phenobarbital and luminal and a number of other allied products have exactly the same effect upon the human economy. I cannot state definitely that I have ever prescribed luminal for epilepsy but I should think that the medical profession at large has been in the habit of trying all these sedatives and hypnotics in an endeavour to control the malady. This afternoon I had on my desk four letters from different parts of Canada-and hon. members intimated at the time that many of them had also received these letters-in which the writers stated quite definitely that after treating with medical men for a considerable time without any result whatever they had obtained relief from attacks of epilepsy. If relief has been given

through the use of the drug luminal then it is a mighty good thing for us to know, and perhaps Doctor James will lose his business forthwith. But in the event of luminal not giving the desired results, I should certainly hope that this Health department of the dominion would not put it beyond the power of people to obtain the remedy that has brought them relief in the past. I have no other interest in it in the world; I am a medical man and I like to see disease relieved where possible, so that I have no other interest except the relief of sufferers from epilepsy. The minister stated a moment ago that this remedy could be brought in if the label were removed. That I suggest is a roundabout way of getting the remedy to a sick person, but still it is better than no way at all, and if it is possible for these epileptics to obtain whatever will relieve them from their malady, provided the label is removed, that satisfies me for the time being.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Sale, etc., of compound vinegar, etc., prohibited.
Murray MacLaren: The difficulty of distinguishing on the one hand between cider vinegar and vinegar derived from wine and, on the other, acetic acid which may be obtained by distillation of wood and other materials is considerable; hence in different manufactures such as pickles if the synthetic vinegar is used it is very difficult to detect it from the proper domestic vinegar, and this section affords protection, so that people will be assured that they are obtaining cider vinegar. That is the object of the amendment; it is not allowed to be on the premises of manufacturers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule A.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There are a few of these abnormal physical states which in my opinion should not be in the schedule. I fully appreciate, as I have told the minister repeatedly, the fact that in a number of instances people ought to be protected against themselves, and the vast majority of the physical states mentioned in the schedule should remain, I think. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) this afternoon reviewed them, and though I have not the competency to review them all I know some of them. Take arteriosclerosis, for instance. Everyone knows that that is hardening of the arteries, and once they have started to harden there is no cure.

Food and Drugs Act
But certain solvents may be used which will give considerable relief and restore to the arteries a certain degree of elasticity. The minister has said that certain remedies which heretofore could be used only as specifics might, by some side issue, be used for some of these physical states, and that clears up the situation to some extent. I must repeat however that the word "influenza" should be struck out. Ordinary people do not regard grippe and colds as influenza, although many of those who are dealing in matters of this kind like to give these maladies high sounding names; and unless they are advertised to the medical profession, then these remedies may not be advertised. I think another one that ought to come out is the supposed abnormal physical state of obesity. I quite realize there are two kinds. I know that in certain instances people have been led to believe that a certain quack medicine would bring them back to a sort of normal state, but owing to the peculiar cause of corpulency or obesity due to the deficiency of the thyroid gland medical treatment is absolutely necessary; the so-called eliminators would be useful but would aggravate the condition. But inasmuch as there are two kinds of remedies, one based on thyroid extracts and the other based on diet, the distinction should be made so as to enable those who sell certain laxatives and salts to advertise them as a relief for that type of obesity, which does not result upon thyroid or pituitary deficiency and the like. I should like to see the word "obesity" taken out; at any rate it ought to be qualified in some way. If the minister would confine it to obesity that comes within the endogenous class, namely, where there is thyroid deficiency, I would agree with that; but in the other kind, usually called exogenous obesity, which simply results from autointoxication, bad food or bad elimination, the remedies in this class ought to be allowed. If the minister would qualify in some way the word "obesity" then I should be in perfect accord with the bill and I should say he ought to be commended for having to that extent improved the conditions under which the national health of Canada is maintained.


Murray MacLaren: I should like to meet the wishes of my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Chevirier) but I do not see how I can. There are more than two varieties of obesity; there are four or five anyway. The hon. member has referred to thyroid deficiency, but there are forms due to other defective glands in the system. And further, as to the remedies that are used for obesity, the thyroid perhaps we will agree has to be used with considerable
discretion, but there is another that occurs to me, that is what is called nitro compound. It has produced unfortunate results, so much so that its use is not permitted in certain countries. Obesity in elderly people is rather a formidable condition. If one is relying on the exclusion of thyroid and nitro compound and using aperients or laxatives in moderation I am afraid it is something that will soothe them but will do them no good. I think it is proper that the name should be retained.


Thomas Reid: The explanatory note states that the purpose of this bill is to bring these two acts into conformity, and that under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act certain remedies may not be sold. I should like to ask whether in the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act there is the same proviso regarding importation. We are providing here that no person or company shall import, but in looking over the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act I could see no provision regarding importation.


Murray MacLaren: No; that is taken care of by departmental regulation under the act. The list is the same in both acts.


John Power Howden: I should like to urge upon the minister and the department that they enforce the strictest possible measures against the sale by druggists and quacks of measures for the condition last named on the list. It is much more seriously fraught with danger than any of the other diseases mentioned, so far as I can see. The strictest possible means of enforcement should be employed to control promiscuous prescribing for this condition.


Murray MacLaren: I shall make a note of that. As far as advertising is concerned, which is the principal danger, it is being carefully watched.
Schedule A agreed to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have been asked to
move:
That the following be added to the said bill
as section 5:

"This act shall come into force on the first day of January, 1935."


Murray MacLaren: The reason is obvious; it is to meet the convenience of people and allow them to get rid of stock and all that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported; amendments read the first and second time and concurred in.
Canada Grain Act
Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Alan Webster Neill: No, next sitting of the house. There is an important amendment and we have not yet seen it in print.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 53, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 1-Tentative standard samples of western grain.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: As I have a few remarks to make perhaps I may as well make them at this stage. When the committee on agriculture and colonization completed its labours a statement was apparently given to the press indicating that the decision arrived at had been unanimous. That is not quite correct. I know I was agreeable to doing almost anything for the present in the way of getting rid of this question that would improve the situation and improve the bill that the minister had introduced. It had been a source of controversy at home and abroad for the last four years or more. The alternative to doing what we did was to keep up the controversy, and that did not seem to be advisable or in anyone's interest, particularly the interest of the wheat growers of the west. To that extent I was agreeable to the amendments made to the amended bill. The controversy that I refer to was carried on by a number of gentlemen who I think should have known a lot better. One of them was Mr. Short, president of the Canadian Millers' Association, and the other two were Doctor Tory and Doctor Newton. The first remark I would make with regard to the evidence and to the change in the amended bill is that the minister did not carry out the recommendations of his board of grain commissioners in bringing the bill before the house at all, because we find on page 6 of the last report of the board of grain commissioners that the following report was made to the minister by the board on the 8th of January, 1934:
Amendments to the Canada Grain Act
The board has continued to investigate the effect of allowing garnet wheat to be placed in No. 2 Manitoba northern wheat. We are substantially in agreement that garnet wheat should be given an independent classification,

but in view of the present low price of wheat and the difficulties of the wheat producer, we are of the opinion that it might not be advisable to proceed with changes in the classification at the present session.
That is a very concise and understandable recommendation, but the minister proceeded to disobey it and to introduce the amendments to the Canada Grain Act now before us. It was not made apparent at any of the meetings of the committee by any of the witnesses as to just why the minister departed from the recommendations of his advisers, the board of grain commissioners, who are recognized not only as capable but very honourable men who have the whole grain trade at their finger tips. An attempt was made to some extent by the two gentlemen themselves to show why they had changed their minds, though they did not exactly say they had done so. The evidence they produced to warrant a change, however, was very slim indeed.
If the minister was not governed by the advice of the board-as certainly he was not- on whose advice did he act, I wonder? In the Montreal Gazette of March 6 I find an interview given by Mr. Short, the gentleman to whom I have referred. I believe he is reported too fully for me to read the whole interview, but apparently he took a flying trip to Vancouver before he went to Montreal. I have no doubt he went there on business, but so far as the public were concerned his chief business was to carry on propaganda against garnet wheat. I believe we had one complaint about garnet wheat from Vancouver, from the harbour board or someone in that vicinity. Then, as Mr. Short travelled eastward via Calgary, on the Canadian Pacific railway, further convenient and illuminating interviews were given, all derogatory to garnet wheat. He represented the poor downtrodden wheat growers of the south as carrying the northern growers on their backs. As he came on to Regina he emitted more of these interviews, equally damaging to garnet wheat and equally straining the truth and drawing a mighty long bow. He reached Winnipeg and there were more interviews, and I have before me his final peroration on the dangers of garnet wheat:
The over-all average quality of Canadian wheat is materially reduced by the lower grades from the northern areas, which primarily result from the variety of lesser quality and earlier ripening wheats sown, noteably garnet.
A recent article by James McLeash in the Winnipeg Free Press, said Mr. Short, sounds a timely note of warning to Canada in pointing out the steadily developing aggressive agricultural policy of the Argentinian government.

Canada Grain Act
The Argentine government clearly foresees the imperative need of quality standard as a prime essential to successful wheat marketing in the future, and is bending every effort to raise the standard of the crop by the elimination of various varieties of wheat which affect adversely the general average standard.
"There is no doubt," he continued, "that the method of grading in Canada in the recent years, which has developed through the varieties of lesser quality wheats grown, notably the northern areas, has reduced materially the margin of superiority which characterized Canadian wheat compared with other wheats.
Incidentally I may say that is not correct.
Unless some steps are taken to prevent the steady deterioration in the average quality of our crop, our own situation taken in conjunction with that of other countries such as the Argentine, which is improving the quality of its crop, will naturally result in narrowing the margin of superiority of the Canadian crop over its competition to an uncomfortable minimum.
That is not correct, either. I would not like to say how many miles it is from being correct.
It is surely axiomatic that a price premium can be maintained only in strict relation to quality superiority. It is well within the realms of probability that the slow movement of this year's crop in no small measure involves the question of relative quality in respect to relative price. It is a fact that at the present time there are several millions of No. 2 northern wheat at the Pacific coast for which it is extremely difficult to find buyers because of the heavy admixture of the inferior northern grades.
There was no such evidence as that given; the contrary was the case. There was no congestion of No. 2 that could not find buyers. One gentleman said there was, but two or three others challenged the statement.
A definite and aggressive wheat policy is urgently needed, not as a party platform and, in consequence, a political football, but as a national program.
The light is not as good for reading as I would like to have it, but Mr. Short continues on that line, getting worse as he goes on. That interview was given on March 6 and the bill was placed on the order paper on April 9 or 10, just long enough afterwards for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) to have the thought put into his mind by Mr. Short expressed in the form of a bill. The fact that these two events occurred so closely to each other is not proof positive that one was the cause of the other, but at all events we have seen that the minister has not followed the advice of his advisers, his own board of grain commissioners, while he had an opportunity at least of following this other advice. I do not know whether there was some
additional advice from some other source than Mr. Short; all I do know is that the minister did not follow the advice of his very competent board of grain commissioners.
Well, I do not know what they are there for unless it is for that purpose. When that board was appointed in 1929 we thought our problems were over with regard to the Grain Act; we thought we would not need any more commissions, because we had a competent board of practical men who would be able to keep the ministry, whoever they were, in pretty close touch with the requirements of the country in this important respect. I have one or two notes before me. They are not very long, but I should like to point out that we have made the change in the amended act to mean that it was not to go to the standards board to be bandied about a third time by that institution, but that the government was to take the responsibility as they are now doing of grading garnet wheat along the line of statutory grades, and giving it the same status as the other statutory grades, namely No. 1 northern and No. 2 northern. There is a vast difference between that procedure and sending it back once more to the standards board, a body which had already tried the case and adjudicated upon it, once ex parte and a second time with Doctor Newman in attendance to tell his side of the story. The minister had the remarkable audacity after those two experiences to ask this House of Commons to refer this knotty question back a third time to the standards board, thereby escaping the responsibility himself of making the change. The committee thought otherwise, and this amended bill is the result. But in order to avoid further propaganda by these experts in the propaganda and plagiaristic line to whom I have referred-I have named the three gentlemen- I do not know what assurances we are going to have that as soon as this bill has passed further propaganda will not be set up by Mr. Short and others to drive garnet out of No. 3 northern. According to the recommendation of the committee there will be No. 1 C.W. garnet, No. 2 C.W. garnet, and the lower grades will come in their respective regular grades. There is nothing to hinder Mr. Short from waking up some morning with the determination to drive garnet off the map and out of the country, and to start up another hallabaloo. He knows how to do it. I feel like taking my hat off to any person who does a thing well, even if I do not approve of it. I must say I have never seen a more successful propagandist than
Canada Grain Act

Mr. Short, unless it be Doctor Tory and his satellite colleague, the other gentleman to whom I referred.
So it would seem that we are not altogether out of the woods, unless the minister can do something with two of these gentlemen who are officials of his and servants of the crown. In many respects they are very good servants but they have a mania for promotion, propaganda and limelight. I suppose that is a prevalent disease. It seems to me that sometimes it is quite contagious, and we have to take great care lest we contract it ourselves. I will say this, that if the action of the government and of the committee results in driving garnet out of the country-and I anticipate it will; I have never had any illusions about that-then a great wrong will have been done our prairie northern hinterlands and its people. No wheat has yet been found which was graded outside of the regular Manitoba grades and lived more than three or four years afterwards. That is a serious contemplation. One gentleman has been knighted-I refer to Sir Charles Saunders- for establishing and setting up garnet along with three other varieties of wheat. Is someone going to qualify for knighthood by killing it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: He did not set up garnet.


William Richard Motherwell: I beg the minister's pardon; that is the claim.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, he did not set up
garnet. He discovered it, put it on the shelf, but did not issue it. When his successor came in and found the wheat, he issued it.


William Richard Motherwell: That is exactly
where Sir Charles Saunders found marquis.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but he did not issue it, and my hon. friend knows that very well.


William Richard Motherwell: I know more about the whole thing than my hon. friend does.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know that, too.


William Richard Motherwell: The whole question was discussed in the newspapers on the day Sir Charles was knighted. He was given credit for establishing marquis, ruby, reward and garnet wheats.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He never issued garnet.


William Richard Motherwell: It is there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On the shelf.


William Richard Motherwell: That 'is exactly
where he found marquis-on the shelf.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.
CMr. Motherwell.]


William Richard Motherwell: He cannot claim
both ends of the deal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, his successor found it on the shelf.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a continuity about all this cereal research work ever since the late Doctor William Saunders came to Canada. He was the originator of all this breeding and development of Canadian wheat, and the real one, too. He has done a great work for Canada. At any rate, the minister should not feel snuffy about it because it may be that if he succeeds in killing this wheat which Sir Charles established or, at least, had something to do with, then there will be possibly one person knighted for establishing it and another, possibly the minister or Mr. Short, knighted for killing it. That seems to be contradictory.
I would suggest to the minister that he should bring this whole question of the recent conflict between the staff of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce to the attention of the cabinet. That was the chief reason which actuated the efforts and decision of the committee, namely to put a stop to the everlasting bickering between the officers of those departments, not to mention their respective ministers, to the discredit of the government and the discredit of us all. They are all good men, but what can we expect when we have a hydra-headed department of agriculture presided over by two ministers? You cannot expect anything else; so long as there are two capable and strong minded men you are bound to have not only friction between them but friction between their respective staffs. If the government wish to follow up some of their reforms, and especially the reforms in connection with price spreads, mass buying and business ethics, they might very well consider the ethics of the departments of Agriculture and Trade and Commerce, and the conflict going on between those departments, one which has not been engendered by themselves alone, because it is a legacy handed down for the last thirty years. As a matter of fact, for the last fifty years the Department of Agriculture has been presided over by two heads. For thirty years it has been controlled by the ministers of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce, and for the preceding twenty years the Minister of Inland Revenue had a hand in it. As a matter of fact, it was the Minister of Inland Revenue who in the first instance introduced and sponsored the Grain Act in the House of Commons. That was the department which had to do with tobacco, whisky

Canada Grain Act
and so on. So that in Ottawa for many years the Department of Agriculture was just a minus factor in this respect in this social and political centre of Ottawa, and that is where it stayed during all those years. I believe, Mr. Chairman, if we are to cure the present difficulty and avoid similar difficulties in the future, the sooner we get all of agriculture under the Minister of Agriculture, the better it will be. I do not know of any country in the world, and particularly other countries on this continent-and they would be more comparable, particularly the United States-where there are two heads to the Department of Agriculture. I will say that that condition is not the fault of the minister, and I will say further that neither he nor the Minister of Agriculture is in a position to agitate for a change, because they would be open to the charge of having created a commotion within the ranks of the cabinet. That is why, being outside of the cabinet, I take this opportunity to make the suggestion, a suggestion which I hope will not be unpleasant or unwelcome to the government.
I should be surprised if the government were not aware of the fact that this embarrassing situation should continue for as short a time as possible. Such a condition does not promote good results, but develops the opposite. We know about the flair that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has developed for agriculture. We know about his little venture in connection with the Yorkshire geldings, for instance. We hear about his other venture when he took a shot at a bunch of dairy cows, and conceived the idea that it would be a good idea to send them tcf Australia. We hear about the Per-cheron mares, and about his raising Ned all around. These are substantial reports which come to me and seem almost as authentic as the famous "Yorkshire geldings."
If the Prime Minister were here I would ask him to suppress this state of affairs in the interests of agriculture. This is not the first time that we have had bickerings and backbiting at the heads of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. I will ask you, Mr. Chairman, if there would have been any trouble about garnet wheat if there had been only one head. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has been opposed to these changes all along, and no wonder because about two-thirds of his constituents are garnet growers, so you can quite understand his anxiety about the matter. It is very creditable to him: for the sake of seeming harmony he and his staff decided to compose their differences with the Minister of
Trade and Commerce and his staff by adopting this bill as a substitute for the other one which the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought down. The Minister of Trade and Commerce looks half cross at me, but if he wants to say anything 'he will have lots of chances after I am through. But those are the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, under which I at all events would agree to anything almost for the present rather than have constant haggling and scrapping between the ministers, both of whom are no doubt trying to do their duty in their respective spheres, with their staffs also doing their duty in their spheres. This condition of affairs, where there is constant haggling and scrapping, should not be tolerated for one minute longer than it is necessary to change it.
I have nothing to add further if the bill is as it left the committee, and I presume it is. There is a chart here that would be very useful if the minister distributed it. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, how we are going to deal with this bill properly unless it is reprinted. This chart that I have here shows the grades, and if there are no other charts for distribution I should be glad to pass this around.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: Are these charts
showing the grades attached to the bill, Mr. Chairman?


Grote Stirling: They are attached to the bill.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 9.40 p.m.
Monday, June 18, 1934