Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (Minister of Health) moved:
That the House do not concur in the amendments made to Bill 28, an Act Respecting Maple Products, for the following reasons:-
1. Striking out clause 3 of the Bill removes the penalty for the violation of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 2 of the Bill.
2. The amendment of section 4, which purports to provide a penalty for the violation of subsection 1 of section 2 of the Bill, is not effective to accomplish the purpose.
He said: The Senate has amended the
Bill by striking out section 3 which makes specific provision for a penalty for the violation of subsection 1 of section 2, and they have amended section 4 of the Bill with the intention apparently of making its provisions applicable to violations of the pro-
visions of subsection (1) of section 2, but they are not applicable. The penal provisions provided in section 4 are those contained in section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act. That section provides penalties for three classes of offences: (1) adulteration injurious to health, (2) adulteration not deemed injurious to health and mis-brand-ing, and (3) wilful adulteration. As violations of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 2 do not fall within any of those classes, section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act cannot be made to apply, and if it was desired to institute a prosecution for violation of those provisions one would not know which of the offences to charge or what the penalty would be. It is quite clear that the Senate made the amendments under a misapprehension, and I therefore move non-concurrence.
Motion agreed to.