Mr. BUREAU:

We had thought the House was going to adjourn after these Estimates. I do nolt see why the second reading of this Bill should be taken up now. I have a lot of letters and

11 p.m. communications on this Opium and Drug Act and I would like to say something about it.' The President of the Privy Council is repeating his old trick of taking measures of (this kind up on Friday night when many hon. members are absent from the House. I think he ought not to try and force this Bill through its second reading to-night.

Mr. ROWELL:

If the hon. gentleman had waited he might noit have spoken with the feeling that he has manifested in his remarks. It is not my intention to ask the House to proceed with the second reading to-night but as I intend when the House gets into committee to submit some important amendments to the Bill I thought it would facilitate the consideration of the Bill if I put on record to-night what these amendments are, so that hon. members will have them in Hansard and know the character of the amendments before we proceed with the discussion of the second reading. I therefore arranged with the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) that the second reading should be formally moved to-night in order that I might put upon Hansard the amendments I intend to ask the committee to consider when the Bill comes 'before it.

Mr. BUREAU:

And then the second reading will be carried.

Mr. ROWELL:

No, I do not ask that the second reading be carried. I had hoped to save the time of the House and to contribute ito the convenience of members by putting these amendments on record.

Mr. BUREAU:

We appreciate it.

Mr. ROWELL:

I knew my hon. friend would.

Mr. BUREAU:

The general rule is that when you move the second reading of a Bill it is read a second time. I did not know about any private agreement.

Mr. ROWELL:

When the resolution upon which the Bill is founded was before the House I explained that the object of the Bill was to enable the Government to carry out its obligation under the International Opium Convention which was signed at The Hague in 1912, and went into effect in January of this year by virtue of the provisions of the Treaty of Peace. Representations have been made by the druggists of the country in reference to the form of the Bill. These representations have been considered and when the Bill goes into committee I intend submitting two amendments. After reading these to the House I intend moving the adjournment of the debate. The amendments will be in the form of two new subsections, first, a subsection which will repeal the existing subsection (1) of section (5) of the Opium and Drug Act of 1911, and will substitute for it a new section which is identical with the original section except that it leaves out all reference to the preservation of a record of the sales and

changes the penalties. The record o>f sales is dealt with in subsection (5-A) in a fuller and more comprehensive way and therefore I propose to leave out those portions of section (5). As the penalties in section (5) and section (5-A) differ, I intend making the penalties under section (5) of the Act of 1911 the same as are now proposed under section (5-A) in the present Bill in order that there may be no confusion in prosecution and no question as to whether, a party is being prosecuted under section (5) or section (5-A). It is thought desirable to have the penalties the same. Therefore the amendment is:

(4) Section 5, subsection 1, of the said Act is1 hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:

" Any person who deals in any drug, who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person other than a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or to a bona fide wholesale druggist, or to a druggist carrying on business in a bona fide drug store, and any druggist who gives, sells or furnishes any drug except upon a written order or prescription signed by a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or who, without the authority of the prescribing physician, veterinary surgeon, or dentist, uses any prescription to sell any drug on more than one occasion, shall be guilty of a criminal offence and shall be liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and costs and not less than five hundred dollars and costs, or to imprisonment for a t^rm not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment."

The other change I propose is to ask the committee to substitute for subsection (4) of the Bill as it was printed the following clause:

The provisions of section five-

Mr. BUREAU:

Is that the new Bill?

Mr. ROWELL:

I purpose to substitute a new section for subsection (4) of section 5A as follows:

" (4) (a) The provisions of section five and of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section shall not apply to the possession, sale, or distribution by a druggist carrying on a business in a bona fide drug store of preparations and remedies which do not contain more than two grains of opium or more than one-fourth of a grain of morphine, or more than one-eighth of a grain of heroin, or more than one grain of codeine, or any salt or derivative of any of them in one fluid ounce, or, if a solid or semi-solid preparation, in one avoirdupois ouncfe; or to liniments, ointments, or other preparations which are prepared for external skin use only, which do not contain cocaine or any of its salts or preparations, but every such remedy or preparation as mentioned in this section, must contain active medicinal drugs other than narcotic in sufficient proportion to confer upon the preparation or remedy valuable medicinal qualities, other than those possessd by the narcotic drugs alone;

provided, however, that it shall be an offence against this Act to sell, or offer for sale, any remedy or preparation intended for internal use, which contains opium, morphine, heroin or codeine, unless there be printed in a conspicuous place on .an inseparable part of the main panel of the label and wrapper of the bottle, box, or other container, and in letters of the same size and visability as the word that dominates the label, in (the article) the following words:-

It is unlawful to administer this preparation to a child under two years of age as it contains (insert name of drug) and Is dangerous to its life.

Provided, further, that the Governor in Council may, by regulation to be published in the Canada Gazette, extend and apply the provisions of the said paragraphs (e) and (f) to any preparation named or described in such regulation.

(b) It shall be an offence against this Act for any person to sell for administration to a child under two years of age, or to administer to any such child any remedy or preparation containing opium, morphine, heroin or codeine the sale of which is permitted by this subsection.

(c) Nothing in this Act shall contravene or affect any provisions of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act or any amendments thereto.

Just a word in explanation of that amendment. The International Opium Convention does not apply to the sale of preparations containing a limited quantity of these drugs. The quantities mentioned in this subsection are smaller than those mentioned in the Treaty, but are the same as those mentioned in the Harrison Act-the American Act passed some two or three years ago to deal with this same subject matter.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to: debate adjourned.

On motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Monday, April 26, 1920.