I might mention that in Ontario, we are fully covered as regards ordinary medical practitioners, just as the minister explained in connection with Quebec. I cannot answer for the veterinary surgeons or the dentists, but I believe they are covered also in this way. Supposing some medical practitioner or veterinary surgeon or dentist prescribes a large quantity of the drugs in the schedule. Immediately the Department [DOT] of Public Health writes to him because the druggist makes a report to the department regularly. If a report went in that a large quantity of a drug was prescribed by a certain physician, dentist or veterinary, and from the quantity of the ding prescribed the department were of the opinion that it was not being used for medicinal purposes, then they would write the doctor, veterinary or dentist concerned and ask for an explanation. I believe, therefore, that the act covers the situation so far as Ontario is concerned, and I have no doubt the same thing applies to the other provinces. But suppose a medical practitioner were pulled up by the department and
condemned to pay a fine or be otherwise punished for some offence under the act; it would be the duty of the provincial authority mentioned by my hon. friend, the Medical Council, to deal with that practitioner. But so far as reports are concerned, I think the point made by the member for St. John (Mr. Mae-Laren) is a good one. No doctor would care to hand in to any policeman or police magistrate any information regarding his patients; he would not consent to do anything of the kind unless he were subpoenaed. The department can look into the matter and deal with any practitioner who is prescribing drugs improperly, and can deal with him as they see fit if a satisfactory explanation is not given.