April 1, 1938

INQUIRY AS TO REOPENING OF MALTON, ONT., STATION


On the orders of the day:


CON

Gordon Graydon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):

I

should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) to indicate to the house whether

the management of the Canadian National Railways has under consideration the reopening of the railway station at Malton, Ontario, in view of the prospective increase of traffic attributable to the location of the airport and certain new industries at that point.

Topic:   INQUIRY AS TO REOPENING OF MALTON, ONT., STATION
Permalink
CON

John Ritchie MacNicol

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MacNICOL:

Is Malton in the count} of Peel?

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) The matter being entirely one for the manage iment of the Canadian National Railways all I can say to my hon. friend is that I shah direct the attention of the management to the question he has asked.

Topic:   INQUIRY AS TO REOPENING OF MALTON, ONT., STATION
Permalink

DEATHS IN UNITED STATES FOLLOWING USE AS CANCER SERUM


On the orders of the day:


LIB

James Joseph McCann

Liberal

Mr. J. J. McCANN (Renfrew South):

I wish to direct a series of questions to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power).

1. In view of the catastrophe at Orlando, Florida, where seven persons met their death following the use of a cancer treatment serum known as ensol, manufactured and distributed from Kingston, Ontario, what steps are being taken by the federal Department of Health regarding an investigation, and what protection is afforded to the Canadian public to prevent the occurrence of such an accident or incident in this country?

2. Is ensol licensed for manufacture and distribution in Canada?

3. Is ensol manufactured under government supervision?

4. Has the distribution of ensol been prohibited pending the holding of an investigation?

5. Has any attempt been made to recall batches of ensol made at the same time as that which was distributed to Orlando, Florida?

Topic:   DEATHS IN UNITED STATES FOLLOWING USE AS CANCER SERUM
Permalink
LIB

Charles Gavan Power (Minister of Pensions and National Health)

Liberal

Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):

My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question. Some two days ago the department was informed through the United States food and drugs administration that a number of deaths had occurred at Orlando, Florida. Immediately the department dispatched Mr. Lancaster, chief dominion analyst, Doctor Harris, chief of the laboratory of hygiene, and Mr. James Gibbard, bacteriologist, to Kingston to inquire into the circumstances connected with the manufacture and distribution of the batch of ensol, No. 10170, under suspicion.

Ensol

On examining the books in which the records of shipments were contained, our officers found that a certain number of vials containing ten cubic centimeters each had been distributed to different places in the United States and Canada. Upon the advice of our officials a telegram was immediately dispatched by the Hendry Connell Research Foundation to all recipients of ensol. This telegram ordered the recipients immediately to discontinue treatment with any of the ensol of batch No. 10170. The National Health Institute at Washington was advised, and Mr. Lancaster, the chief dominion analyst, telephoned the food and drugs administration in Washington, informing them that all consignees of this particular batch of ensol in the United States had been instructed by telegram to discontinue its use. Subsequently a list of all recipients of ensol since January 1, 1938, was prepared and a similar telegram dispatched to them. It should be pointed out that with every vial of ensol Doctor Connell enclosed printed instructions for use, in which he particularly warned those using the ensol that certain aseptic precautions should be taken. Inspection of the records shows that many doses of this particular batch, No. 10170, have been given to patients in Canada, with no ill effects reported. In the meanwhile all further distribution of ensol has ceased pending results of laboratory examinations and autopsies.

An application was made by the Hendry Connell Research Foundation to manufacture and sell ensol some two or three years ago, in 1935. A licence was refused and the applicant was advised that a licence would not be granted until such time as a pronouncement had been made upon the efficacy of ensol by a responsible medical authority. Under existing legislation the department is unable to supervise or control free distribution, as it has no authority therefor; nor has it authority to interfere with the making up and preparation of prescriptions by laboratories, by physicians themselves or by hospitals.

Further consideration will be given to the entire question as soon as all the facts have been ascertained upon investigation and through laboratory tests being made both here and in the United States.

Topic:   DEATHS IN UNITED STATES FOLLOWING USE AS CANCER SERUM
Permalink

INSTOW, SASK., FARMERS


INQUIRY as to conditions with respect to FEED OATS AND FODDER On the orders of the day:


CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

I should like to ask the

Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether

or not the conditions that have been complained of with respect to feed oats and fodder at Instow, Saskatchewan, have been remedied. I was going to communicate with the minister before he came in, but possibly on Monday next he can give us some information on the matter. I think perhaps the situation has been corrected by this time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

Topic:   INSTOW, SASK., FARMERS
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE


Departmental administration, $425,720.


LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):

Mr. Chairman, when I resumed my seat the other evening I had been commenting on the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). Before I come to the matter I was discussing at that time I should like to take this opportunity of correcting, if that is necessary, an impression that might be gained from something I said in respect of the functions of a member of parliament as compared with those of one who does not have the responsibility of membership in this house or the responsibility of a minister of the crown. What I obviously meant was not that we should turn this place into a citadel of hypocrisy; but that what any hon. member said at this time in this House should be with an appreciation of the existing international situation. I did not mean that we should say things here differently than we would outside this house.

Regarding the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver North that we should acquire the legal right to assert neutrality, I should point out that as a matter of history, in respect of at least minor wars in which Great Britain was a participant, we have always taken the attitude that this was not our business. I could refer to the Fashoda incident of 1884, in which Sir John A. Macdonald refused to have Canada involved. Then one could make reference to the Chanak incident, when the present Prime Minister as Secretary of State for External Affairs took the stand of Canadian non-participation. I further contend that in the Locarno treaties there is an implied non-participation on the part of Canada in any major European war in which Great Britain should be involved. I also suggest that if the famous Balfour declaration of 1926 means anything, there is no question about our right to assume a position of neutrality. I do suggest to the house, however, that in any event neutrality is rather a matter of policy than a matter of legal debate. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver North

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink

I, 1938


Supply-National Defence that we should have the legal power to assert our neutrality, without commenting in any way as to any given event in regard to which we might exercise that right. My submission is that the Foreign Enlistment Act passed in this house in 1937, the amendment to the Customs Act of last year and the proposed amendment to the Shipping Act now before the house, clearly indicate that the administration has no intention of becoming entangled in foreign wars. Speaking in this house on June 18, 1936, I made the plea that has been made by the hon. member for Vancouver North. I then asked that we should acquire the legal right to declare a position of neutrality if we so desired. On that occasion I quoted the words of the Prime Minister regarding neutrality in terms of constitutional and international law. Those words deserve to be repeated here to-day in order to remove what I think is a misconception on the part of the hon. member for Vancouver North when he discussed the position Canada would occupy in respect of a war in which Great Britain was involved, and in which we might wish to assume a position of either passive belligerency or complete non-participation. I repeat the words of the Prime Minister at this time, words uttered in 1926 and referred to by myself in this house in 1936, because I think they will help, as I have noted, to clarify the issue: There is a distinction to be drawn between the purely legal and technical position in which this dominion may be placed and the moral obligations which arise under treaties, depending upon the manner in which such treaties are entered into, upon the parties who are present, and the representative capacities in which they acted while negotiations were proceeding. Legally and technically Canada will be bound by the ratification of this treaty. The Prime Minister was referring to the Lausanne treaty. In other words, speaking internationally, the whole British Empire in relation to the rest of the world will stand as one when this treaty is ratified. But as respects the obligations arising out of the treaty itself, speaking now of inter-imperial obligations, this parliament, if regard is to be had to the representations which from the outset we have made to the British government, will in no way be bound by any obligation beyond that which parliament of its own volition recognizes as arising out of the situation. Somewhere Sir Arthur Berriedale Keith has expressed the view that this is a correct statement of the position. Let me remind the hon. member for Vancouver North, as he has been reminded already: assuming that in a given event we wish to be neutral, I trust he will appreciate the full significance of that desire in respect of the use of force. There is every bit as much likelihood, if not more, of our being called upon to use force to protect a neutral position, as there is if that neutral position be not asserted. Last year his leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) moved in this chamber the following resolution which I give in part: That in the opinion of this house the foreign policy of Canada should conform to the following principles, (1) That under existing international relations, in the event of war Canada should remain strictly neutral, regardless of who the belligerents may be. In other words, regarding any conflict we should assert a position of neutrality. But the hon. member for Vancouver North, if I interpret correctly his speech of last Friday, does not agree with the statement made by his leader, because at page 1728 of Hansard he is reported to have said: I am not suggesting that we should attempt to make a prior declaration of neutrality and bind parliament. So that at any rate we have this difference in the points of view of the hon. member for Vancouver North and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on this issue. In this particular the hon. member does not agree with his leader, and I think it should be stated whether or not, when the hon. member for Vancouver North was speaking, he was declaring his own position or that of his party. With regard to this question of neutrality one should not forget the experience of the United States. It is significant that a former president, Mr. Hoover, recommended only the day before yesterday, following a return from Europe, the abrogation of the existing neutrality legislation of the United States. And there are growing evidences, in congress itself, of a change in this particular. One should mention here, I think, that the anomalous position in which Lord Atkin has put us as a result of his judgment in respect of Canada's treaty making power. In passing I suggest this should be remedied at the earliest possible moment. Speaking of the foreign policy of this country, which I now intend to discuss, I think one might well say by way of preface, that if a government party is expected to have a foreign policy, so, too, should all the political parties in this house. One wonders, for instance, if the speech delivered by the hon. member for Argenteuil' (Mr. Heon) the other day in Montreal, represents the point of view of the party of which he is a member, or whether one is to take the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) Supply-National Defence



as indicating more clearly the position of his party regarding these matters. Even at the expense of labouring the point, in respect of the question of commitments I think I should place on Hansard one or two further declarations of responsible ministers, indicating the position of Canada, so that any hon. gentleman who should follow me will not seek to emphasize that while assuming there are commitments we at the same time display an unwillingness or a reluctance to indicate their full significance. Mr. J. H. Thomas, speaking on March 9, 1936, in the House of Commons at Westminster, as Secretary of State for the Dominions, said: At the jubilee celebration in 1935 the United Kingdom government had explained to the dominion prime ministers that the defence position, since which the full content of the white paper had been communicated to them, and without a solitary exception every dominion not only acquiesced but felt that this was a policy that .ought to be supported. Obviously, if that was correct, the statement of the present Prime Minister-


LIB

Frederick George Sanderson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

Order. I regret to

inform the hon. member that he has exceeded his time.

Topic:   I, 1938
Permalink
CCF

Abraham Albert Heaps

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. HEAPS:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver North had a little more than forty minutes, and that it is to that speech the hon. member wishes to reply, I think he should have an opportunity to continue.

Topic:   I, 1938
Permalink
LIB

April 1, 1938