March 18, 1920

UNION

Newton Wesley Rowell (Minister presiding over the Department of Health; President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

The further legislation of 1911-that is the chronological order. The Conference at Shanghai recommended the calling of an international conference to consider the framing of an international convention which might result in the suppression, in very large measure, of improper use of opium, morphia and cocaine. That Conference met at The Hague in December, 1911 and January, 1912 and agreed upon the Convention which is now to be put into force. This legislation is to enable Canada to carry out fully the provisions of the Convention.. It is not as necessary for Canada to enact legislation as it is for some other countries because the Acts of 1908, of 1911 and of last session went a long way towards complying with the provisions of the Convention, but they did not fully carry out the Convention. As we are obligated to pass the necessary legislation within a year after the Convention goes into force, this resolution is introduced upon which will be founded a Bill to carry out the Convention.

So that the members of the House may appreciate just the reasons for the proposed legislation, may I draw attention to the terms of this Convention. By the way, it is of passing interest to note that the Convention to which we are now to give effect by legislation contains among the names of the parties to it those of several who have passed from the scene as rulers among the nations of the world. It indicates the remarkable changes politically which have taken place since this Convention was signed. Among the parties either to the Convention or who signed it are the Emperor of Germany, the Czar of all the Rus-sias, and the Emperor of China, while one of the parties who proposed to adhere to it but did not sign it was the Emperor of Austria. All these four emperors have gone. The Hohenzollern, Romanoff, Hapsburg and Manchu.dynasties have all passed away and republics have taken the places of their empires between the dates when this Convention was prepared and signed by some of the parties and the date when it actually comes into operation. The Treaty deals with raw opium, prepared opium, medicinal opium, morphine and cocaine, and special provisions are made with reference to each one. With reference to raw opiuiq, the contracting parties agree to enact effective laws or regulations for the control of the production and distribution of raw opium unless laws or regulations on the subject are already in existance.

In article 2 they provide:

Due regard being had to the differences in their commercial conditions, the contracting Powers shall limit the number of towns, ports or other localities through which the export or import of raw opium shall be permitted.

That is the reason of the provision in the resolution authorizing regulations to be made covering this point. Then by article 3 it is provided:

The contracting Powers shall take measures

(a) To prevent the export of raw opium, to countries which shall have prohibited its entry, and 0b) To control the export of raw opium to countries which restrict its import.

Therefore the provision in the resolution, and in our Bill, controlling export. Article 4 declares:

The contracting Powers shall make regulations requiring that every package containing raw opium intended for export shall be marked

in such a way as to indicate its contents, provided that the consignment exceeds 5 kilo.

That explains the proiiision in the resolution and in the Bill to be founded upon it, which requires the marking of these packages. j 1 I

Nolw, article 5:

The contracting Powers shall not allow the import and export of raw opium except by duly authorized persons.

That explains the reason for the provision that licenses shall be taken out by those who are to import or to export. Then we come to the prepared opium.

Mr. McKENZIE r Before the minister leaves that point, might I ask whether there is anything on our statute hooks to prevent the shipment into this country, or through this country, of raw or prepared opium?

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   THE OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Newton Wesley Rowell (Minister presiding over the Department of Health; President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

Yes, there is at the present time. In addition -to the legislation of 1911 we passed in the early part of 1919 two Orders in Council requiring that licenses should he taken out for the import or export of opium into or from Canada. We did that as a result of certain communications received from other countries which indicated that an illicit trade in these articles was developing and the available -supplies were needed for medicinal and army purposes, and it was necessary to control the handling of it. Last session we put those Orders in Council into legislative form and under -that statute we have been regulating the import and export of opium. Perhaps it will be of interest to the House to learn the result of that legislation. I am glad to say one result has been a very important diminution in the amount of opium imported into Canada. I cannot at the moment lay -my hand upon the figures, 'but it indicates a great reduction in the amount. However, I will give the House the figures a little later.

Then, dealing with prepared opium, almost identical provisions are made for controlling its import, export or -manufacture, as follows:

Article 6. The contracting Powers shall take measures for the gradual and effective suppression of the manufacture of, internal trade in, and use of prepared opium, with due regard to the varying circumstances of each country concerned, unless regulations on the subject are already in existence.

Article 7. The contracting Powers shall prohibit the import and export of prepared opium; those Powers, however, which are not yet ready to prohibit immediately the export of prepared opium shall prohibit it as soon as possible. .

Article 8. The contracting Powers which are not yet ready to prohibit immediately the export of prepared opium-(a) s-hall restrict the number of towns, ports," or other localities through which prepared opium may be exported ;

(b) Shall prohibit the export of prepared opium to countries which now forbid, or which may hereafter forbid the -import thereof;

(c) Shall, in the meanwhile, prohibit the consignment of prepared opium to a country which desires to restrict its entry, unless the exporter complies with the regulations of the importing country.

The, result will be that when concurrent legislation has been passed by the different countries which are parties to this Convention, no opium can be exported, say, from England or the United States to Canada, except in conformity with the regulations passed pursuant to our legislation which permits the importation into Canada by certain permitted persons for certain specific purposes.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   THE OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
?

Mr. BELAUD@

When was the first Opium and Drug Act passed by this Parliament?

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   THE OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Newton Wesley Rowell (Minister presiding over the Department of Health; President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

The Act of 1908 was the first one we had; the next was the Act of 1911; and the third, the Act of 1919. (Reading) :

(d) Shall take measures to ensure that every package exported, containing prepared opium, bears a special mark indicating the nature of its contents;

(e) Shall not permit the export of prepared opium except by specially authorized persons.

Chapter 3 of the Treaty deals with what is described as medicinal opium, morphine and cocaine. I shall not take up the time of the House by reading those provisions. I shall only point out that in principle they are similar to the provisions I have already read with reference to raw opium and manufactured opium. Then Article 15 provides :

The contracting Powers having treaties with China (Treaty Powers), shall, in conjunction with the Chinese Government, take the necessary measures to prevent the smuggling into Chinese territory, as well as into their Par-Eastern colonies and into the leased territories which they occupy in China, of raw and prepared opium, morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts, as also of the substances referred to in Article 14 of the present convention. The Chinese Government shall, on their part, take similar measures for the suppression of the smuggling of opium and of the other substances above referred to from China to the foreign colonies and leased territories.

In other words, as hon. members will see, the object of this article was on the one hand to protect China, if she honestly undertook to suppress the trade in opium, from having other countries profit by her suppression and smuggle opium into China.

On the other hand, the provisions inserted require China to act in a bona fide manner and suppress the opium traffic in her own country if the countries manufacturing or (producing opium and exporting it to China curtailed it in their own country. The basis of it is a reciprocal arrangement governing China and the other countries as well. This is dealt with in three articles that follow:

Article 16: The Chinese Government shall promulgate pharmacy laws for their subjects, regulating the sale and distribution of morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts, and of the substances referred to in Article 14 of the present Convention, and shall communicate these laws to the Government having treaties with China, through their diplomatic representatives at Peking. The contracting Powers . having treaties with China shall examine these laws and, if they find them acceptable, shall take the necessary measures to apply them to their nationals residing in China.

I do not think it necessary, Mr. Chair-map, to go further into the terms of this Convention. I have given a general outline of these provisions so far as they have a bearing upon the resolution now before the House. .

The Convention was agreed to by the twelve Powers represented at the Hague in January, 1912, and an effort was made to secure the adhesion of the other Powers who might be interested either in permitting or suppressing this traffic. There were thirty-six other Powers named in the schedule to the Convention who were to be asked to adhere to its terms, and the Government of the Netherlands was commissioned to communicate with those Powers with a view to securing their adhesion.

Let me say in passing that it was agreed that the Convention should come into force only in case all those Powers adhered to it. The object was absolutely to regulate, in so far as they did not completely suppress, the trade in these habit-forming drugs. Therefore the dissent of countries that either produced opium or might be responsible for dealing with it would interfere with the whole arrangement, and originally the operation of the Convention was predicated upon all the Powers named in the schedule adhering to it, it being provided that in case they did not adhere before a time specified, a new conference should be called at the Hague with a view to dealing further with the matter.

While a very large number of the Powers did adhere, the terms of the Convention were not complied with, and a new Conference was called at the Hague in July, 1913. At that Conference it was decided that the objects which the Convention sought to obtain were so important in the interests of humanity as a whole that the operation of the Convention should not be nullified by reason of some few Powers having failed to sign it, and that therefore the Conference should proceed and endeavour to secure the signature as well as the ratification of the other Powers; it being understood that the Treaty might go into effect even though it was not signed or ratified by all the Powers named in the schedule. An effort was made to carry out- this resolution, and it was provided that in case of failure, a further conference might he held to decide whether the Powers that had ratified the Convention should be called upon to put it into legislative effect before all the Powers had signed it.

At the Conference of 1913 it was agreed that the Convention should be signed and ratified by the Powers who were willing to do so, but the action then taken at that Conference did not go to the extent ot agreeing that it should be put into legislative operation, and another effort was made to get all the Powers in. That effort failed and a third conference was called in June, 1914.

Up to the time of this conference the consent of all the Powers had been secured in one form or another, except that of Turkey and Serbia, a qualified consent from Greece, a promise of consent from Austria-Hungary, and a qualified promise from Germany. With the information "before the Conference, however, it was decided to proceed and a resolution was passed that the Convention should be iput ito effect, and that the Powers prepared to sign and ratify should be asked to adopt the necessary legislation.

The war intervened and it was not posible to make further progress. The United States and Great Britain took the initiative at the Peace Conference and by inserting the provision I have mentioned in the Peace Treaties with Germany, with Austria and with Bulgaria,-and undoubtedly it will be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, -they secured the assent of all the Powers which up to that time had refused and were thereby blicking the carrying out of this very important international undertaking. So that the combined action of the Shanghai Conference and the three/Conferences at The Hague, plus the Treaty of Peace, should be to bring into effect this international agreement for the suppression of the opium traffic in all the countries vitally concerned in it.

I am sure the House will agree that that consummation marks a most important ad-

varnce in international co-operation for human welfare the world over. This resolution now submitted to the House is to put the Government in a position to carry out fully its obligations under the terms of the Convention. I do not know that there is anything more I can add by way of explanation, but if any further, information is desired by hon. members I shall be glad to give it. ,

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   THE OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Might I ask

my hon. friend if he has any information as to whether there has been any increase of the habit-forming drugs in consequence of the prohibitive enactments of recent years?

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   THE OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Newton Wesley Rowell (Minister presiding over the Department of Health; President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

That question came up

when we had the Bill before the House last session and I inquired of the officers of the department in reference to it. Their reply was that from the best information they could gather there was no evidence to justify the conclusion that prohibition had produced that result.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   THE OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I should like to say that I think the House is indebted to the Miniser of Health (Mr. Rowell) for having gone so exhaustively into the historical and international significance of this important legislation. He has given reasons which, I am sure, will appeal to all of us, and I think there is no good ground for delaying the passing of this resolution.

Resolution reported, i

Mr. Rowell moved for leave to introduce a Bill founded on the resolution.

Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   THE OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink

CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.


On motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) that the House do go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to repeal sections eighty-five to eighty-nine, both inclusive, and section ninety-one of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter one hundred and thirteen of the Revised Statues of Canada, 1906, and to re-enact in lieu thereof:- (1) That every British subject who,- (a) served as a master or mate of a seagoing or coasting vessel of over seventy-five tons, gross tonnage, before the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty, for a full period of twelve months within ten years immediately next preceding the date of his application for a certificate of service, - (b) produces satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, ability and general good conduct on board ship, and [Mr. Rowell. 1 (c) passes the sight test and the prescribed examination in signalling, shall be entitled, on payment of the prescribed fee, to a certificate of service as a master or mate of a square rigged or fore-and-aft rigged sea-going or coasting sailing vessel not exceeding seven hundred and fifty tons, registered tonnage, according as his service has been (a) as master or as mate, (b) on a sea-going or on a coasting sailing vessel, (c) on a square rigged sailing ship or on a fore-and-aft rigged sailing vessel. (2) That in every such certificate of service the name, place and date of birth of the person to whom the same is issued shall be stated, and each certificate shall specify whether the holder is entitled to act as master or mate, whether the certificate is for sea-going vessels or for vessels in the coasting trade, and whether for square-rigged sailing vessels or for fore-and-aft sail-in vessels, and that it is not for any vessel exceeding seven hundred and fifty tons, registered tonnage.


L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):

When this resolution was before the House last week I tried to get some information from the minister as to why we are departing from the old law pertaining to the handling and sending to sea of our ships. It is an offence against the Criminal Code to send an unseaworthy ship to sea; one who is convicted of that offence may be sent to penitentiary. What is the difference between sending an unseaworthy ship to sea and sending an unqualified master to sea in charge of a ship? The proposal now before us is to carry forward the old idea that prevailed at the time of the first introduction into this country of a Shipping Act. The doctrine that was held to on that occasion has been asserted also in connection with mining laws. There was a time when it was not necessary for a man to have a certificate to take charge of a coal mine; if he had had the experience and was capable of doing the work, no law required that he should have a certificate. All at once a law was enacted that a mining manager should have a certificate, and that was regarded as a very great hardship to a man who was competent to do the work and who had had the experience but who had not the technical education to enable him to write a proper examination or to answer satisfactorily the questions put as the basis for the granting of a certificate. It was provided in that Act, therefore-and there was a similar provision in the old Shipping Act-that a man who had had the experience and who was qualified to do the work should be permitted to carry on as he had done before and should be given a certificate of service. But everybody knows what the present provisions of

our Shipping Act are, and a law should not now be enacted giving to any one who has not obtained a proper certificate the right to handle ships. Such legislation as is here proposed would have a tendency to put us away behind other countries in respect to ships, masters, and mates. We have been going into shipbuilding to the extent of millions of dollars; and so long as the minister keeps within proper bounds and gets full value for the money that he expends on this account, I fully approve of the action taken in that regard. But while we are going ahead in the matter of shipbuilding, we are going behind in proposing to give a license as master or mate to any person who may choose to serve a year on some schooner. If this proposal is adopted the tendency will be to discourage our young men from going into this profession, and the ships that we are building will have to be put in charge of men from other countries. The schools for the education of seamen and for the granting to certificates to captains should be encouraged; higher qualifications should be required of masters and mates. In practically every other profession the tendency is to go forward, to be more scientific, to be more progressive, to know more about the subject in hand than ever before, and to keep pace with the world. But the minister asks us to turn back the hands of the clock, to go back sixty years so far as the education of master mariners and mates is concerned. I live in a seaport at which thousands of vessels call every summer, and I have some conception of the importance of sending men out to sea in charge of crews of twenty or thirty and thousands of dollars' worth of property. Those men should be properly qualified. I would have as much Tight to pass a law permitting a man who is not a doctor, who is not a surgeon, to go into a hospital and operate on patients >as I would to pass a law cutting down the safeguards and qualifications which have been found to be necessary in connection with the operation of ships. As I said the other day, I have not any personal interest in this matter, not even to the extent of one-half cent's worth. But I fought the legislation when it was proposed last fall; I regarded it as a danger to the community, and the then Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. A. K. Maclean), who had the matter in charge, withdrew the proposals as a result of my protest. I suppose those who are behind this proposal think that where the then acting minister failed, a bigger 36*

and stronger man, and the head of the department, will succeed. If the minister wishes to display his prowess to those who are in favour of this retrograde movement, he is entitled to all the glory that attaches to it, but he shall not have that glory without my making the most vigorous protest against the proposed legislation.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries; Minister of the Naval Service)

Unionist

Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):

It is the hon.

member himself (Mr. McKenzie), not the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who wishes to go back fifty years. As a rule, the hon. member is a very progressive gentleman; he is usually ready to be abreast of the times or even ahead of them. In this particular instance, however, he has an unusually strong desire to remain fifty years behind. I pointed out to the hon. member the other day that the Shipping Act now enables a man who wishes to qualify as master or as mate of a sailing vessel of one hundred or one hundred and fifty tons to get a service certificate. But that man's age would have to be 70 or 75, because no master or mate can obtain a service certificate under the present Shipping Act unless he served on a sailing vessel prior to the year 1870; nor can a mate get a service certificate unless he served - on a sailing vessel prior to 1883.

1 refer now to sea-going craft. This resolution also asks that section 86 be repealed in order that men, if they so desire, may obtain certificates of service as mates. But there again, they would have to have served on a sailing vessel prior to 1883 for inland waters, and that year applies to both masters and mates. The object of this resolution and the Bill that is to be based on it is merely to move the hands of time, as the.hon. member has stated, from 1870 and 1883 up to ten years prior to 1920. Surely hon. members will have no objection to the Government bringing the Shipping Act up to date. We are not changing the statute so far as the law is concerned, as the hon. member has, I think, incorrectly stated; we are merely bringing the Shipping Act up to date.

We are also changing ~the tonnage of the vessel so that it shall not exceed 750 tons. I should like to point out to hon. members that our great neighbour to the south allows masters and mates to navigate sailing vessels up to 750 tons without any certificate at all. But before any one can get a service certificate as this resolution, and the Bill that will be based on it, set forth, he will have to have served on a sailing vessel

twelve months any time within ten years prior to 1920; and in addition to that he must produce satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, ability and general good conduct on board ship and must pass the sight test and the prescribed examination in signalling. I do not think that in the passing of this resolution and of the Bill later on we are jeopardizing the shipping industry. I pointed out the other day-there may be present some hon. members who were not in the House when this matter was under discussion before-that this country is so much in need of masters and. mates for small sailing vessels that I had to take the necessary authority under the War Measures Act, and now that the War Measures Act no longer holds good, it is necessary for me to bring forward this resolution.

The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) states again that a similar Bill was introduced by the acting minister at the last session of Parliament. May I be permitted to correct the hon. member and to say that if he will be good enough to compare the Bill that the acting minister introduced last session, with the resolution that is now before the House, he will find that they are entirely different. I will not take up the time of the committee by reading the Bill that the acting minister introduced last session.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

It was along the same pernicious lines.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries; Minister of the Naval Service)

Unionist

Mr. BALLANTYNE:

The Bill that the acting minister desired to have passed at the last session of Parliament was for sailing vessels propelled by steam as an auxiliary power. The present resolution-

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

That is a much safer method.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
UNION

Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries; Minister of the Naval Service)

Unionist

Mr. BALLANTYNE:

There again I am sorry that I cannot agree with my hon. friend. But to sum up in a few words: The authority is in the Shipping Act today whereby any man can get a service certificate if he is seventy or seventy-five years of age and served on a sailing vessel prior to 1870. A man can also get a service certificate provided he is seventy or seventy-five years of age and has served on a sailing vessel prior to 1883. Surely, the hon. member is not going to find any fault with me or this Government for being progressive enough to bring the Shipping Act up to date in order that these men when they are in the full vigour of their youth may

get the necessary service certificates as captains or mates.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

The minister could not have followed me or he would not say that I am refusing to bring this Act up to date. When the English law was brought into force in this country, it was found that there were numbers of men who were navigating sailing vessels and doing it very well, who had no certificates, because the law did not demand them. It was found that to compel those men to get certificates would be a great hardship upon them and they were given service certificates because they could do the work at that time, a provision being put into the law that on account of their services they could get certificates. But that does not apply since the law came into force, because every man who puts his foot on uuard a ship with the hope of promotion knows that he must comply with the law, and he cannot come here and say: I have served so and so and because of my service I must get a certificate. Because when he started his seamanship and his services the law was on1 the statute book and he must be understood to know it and to expect to comply with it if he looks for any promotion. That is my position; that is the law; that is what the intention was; and there must be no misunderstanding as to my position.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

William Duff

Laurier Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

As my remarks will be rather lengthy, I should be glad, Mr. Chairman, if you would call it six o'clock.

Progress reported.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

We have gone through the whole of the list of private member's resolutions and exhausted them. There is, therefore, no private members' business to come on if we return to-night. There is this resolution and that finishes the Government business which is ready, and under those circumstances, I think it is scarcely worth while for us to come back to-night. I, therefore, move that the House do now adjourn.

Topic:   WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 5.55 p.m. Friday, March 19, 1920.


March 18, 1920