April 19, 1921

L LIB

William Daum Euler

Laurier Liberal

Mr. EULER:

I do not think that the law does provide that the doctor shall keep such a record. I know that when we were discussing the matter last year it was provided that druggists should keep a record, but I am pretty certain that there was nothing that compelled the doctor to do the same. The suggestion was made, but I do not think it was carried.

Topic:   OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
UNION

Matthew Robert Blake

Unionist

Mr. BLAKE:

The object of this Bill is to prevent persons who have a tendency towards the drug habit from becoming what are known as dope fiends. If a man has a broken leg, in the United States, under the Harrison Act there must be a record if he is given a quarter of a grain or half a grain of morphine. We do not

need such restrictions in Canada. This resolution covers that point, for it provides that no drugs shall be given except for medicinal purposes, and on prescription. I remember a case in one of the cities in Canada where a doctor was approached by a drug fiend and offered a fabulous sum for an ounce of morphine. The doctor proceeded to procure the drug, but by a very ingenious trick on the part of the "patient" he was nicely taken in. He had arranged to meet his client at a hotel, and after delivering the drug, he was instructed to go to another room to receive the price of the sale; but when he went there was nobody there, and, of course, he did hot get the money he expected. The drug ring to-day is the greatest menace we have to contend with in Canada. Winnipeg is one of the important centres for the distribution of drugs, and, according to this morning's papers, $35,000 worth of drugs, which would have been sold at double that figure, were caught on one of the chief men in the drug ring in Toronto. Now, these restrictions cannot be made too stringent if we are to stamp out the drug traffic. The provision that no prescription shall be used more than once is, I think, necessary and wise, because in the large cities certain people have acquired the drug habit, and if they were allowed to refill a prescription indefinitely you might as well abandon any attempt to control the traffic. The suggestion that this resolution will work a hardship on those people who obtain cough medicines has nc weight, in my opinion. I cannot recall, in the course of my practice last year, any case in which such a prescription has been filled more than twice, and it is easy to renew the order. I do not think, therefore, that there will be any hardship on anyone. We must restrict the sale of these drugs, and to do so we must prevent the indiscriminate use of them. I have gone over these amendments with the officers of the Health Department, whose explanations are entirely satisfactory. In connection with almost every Act, some loopholes are always discovered after the Act has operated a certain time, and steps should be taken without delay, to repair them and make the law as workable as possible. I do not think that more than once or twice in a large practice will there be found any case of real hardship from the operation of section 1.

Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Will the suggestion I have made regarding the matter of sworn complaint be embodied in the Bill?

Topic:   OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
UNION

James Alexander Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization; Minister presiding over the Department of Health; President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. CALDER:

The whole matter will be subject to further discussion. If the Bill goes to a special committee that committee will consider all its provisions and it will be reported back to the House, and will go through Committee of the Whole in the usual way. The passing of the resolution now does not necessarily mean that its exact terms will be finally embodied in the legislation that will be passed by the House.

Resolution reported.

Hon. Mr. Calder thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 81, founded on the resolution, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.

Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

Topic:   OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance), moved that Bill No. 77, to extend the time for the payment of certain debentures issued by the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal be read the second time. Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Steele in the Chair. On Clause 1-Date for payment of debentures extended for twenty-five years.


L LIB
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Secretary of State of Canada; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

As stated

when the resolution was under discussion this is a purely formal Bill. Authority was given to the port authorities of Montreal under the statute to issue these debentures. They are a permanent investment, and the object of the Bill is simply to renew the date for payment. It was never intended that these debentures ever would or ever could be paid. The Harbour Commissioners are paying the interest and, as a matter >of book-keeping it is better to have a debenture earning than to have it overdue.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
L LIB

John Howard Sinclair

Laurier Liberal

Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :

Who

are the holders of these bonds?

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Secretary of State of Canada; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

The Dominion.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
L LIB

Frank S. Cahill

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CAHILL:

Does the minister include these debentures among his active securities?

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Secretary of State of Canada; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

These constitute one of our active securities. Most of our securities, I am sorry to say, are inactive.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
L LIB

Georges Parent

Laurier Liberal

Mr. PARENT:

Have the Harbour Commissioners paid interest on the bonds?

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Secretary of State of Canada; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Yes, interest

has been paid regularly by the port of Montreal.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

Are there not several

sets of bonds? I understand the Government of Canada has made large advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal at various times. Will the minister say whether the Harbour Commissioners have always paid interest not only on the bonds we are now dealing with but on all their bonds?

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Secretary of State of Canada; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

There is no

interest in arrear that I know of. I can assure the hon. gentleman that all interest has been paid.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink

CURRENCY ACT AMENDMENT


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance), moved that Bill No. 78, to amend the Currency Act, 1910, be read the second time. Motion agreed to and the Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair. On Clause 1-nickel five-cent coins authorized of fixed weight and fineness.


UNI L
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Secretary of State of Canada; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

The weight

of the new five-cent piece is entirely different; I forget for the moment what it is exactly.

Topic:   CURRENCY ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
UNI L

Sanford Johnston Crowe

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. CROWE:

My reason for asking is

that when you are using the pay telephone you have to put five cents in the slot. Will the new five-cent piece be suitable for that purpose? Has there been any objection at all raised to the new five-cents piece by the Telephone Companies, or by people who now use the pay telephone?

Topic:   CURRENCY ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

April 19, 1921