Mr. Francis:

Is it not possible in the province of Quebec for a medical doctor to be the owner and operator of a pharmacy?

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Chairman, it is a fact that doctors in medicine can own drugstores and even laboratories. This state of affairs stems from understandable circumstances. In some parishes, rather far from the centres, there is nothing which might attract a druggist; besides in some parishes, not enough drugs are sold to justify the presence of both a doctor and a druggist. That is why in the

Private Bills

smaller parishes the physician often combines both fields of endeavour, and will at once exercise his own profession and own a drugstore.

That goes to prove that in the province of Quebec, even if the law is broad enough to allow co-existence, there is a specific understanding of the problems which prevail in various communities and in various districts. This is proof of the understanding shown in the writing of Quebec legislation, and not only in this field but in many others. When cases come up where the situation does not seem to have been well understood in the preparation of certain legislation, our people, be they doctors or pharmacists, broadminded as they are, have accepted those few exceptions.

I have examined this bill a little. There is a section which says among other things -I am going over certain sections of the bill a bit at random-

What number?

Mr. Gregoire:

It is the one which provides that a certificate of qualification may be issued to someone who has been practising for ten years. At that time, he would be given a certificate of qualification, when we know that, in other provinces, one does not have to be a pharmacist to practise pharmacy. That means that even if someone has not studied that science at all, he is still allowed after ten years, to operate a pharmacy without being a pharmacist. He is given a certificate of qualification as a pharmacist, even though he may never have studied pharmacy.

Mr. Francis:

Could the hon. member name such a province where it is possible for a person who never studied pharmacy to be a pharmacist?

Mr. Gregoire:

May I ask the hon. member to repeat the question?

Mr. Francis:

I understood the hon. member to say it is possible in other provinces to own and operate a pharmacy without having studied pharmacy. I would like to know which provinces the hon. member is referring to.

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Chairman, it is evident, if all kinds of distinctions are to be made, that with the kind of drugstores we see today, where all medicine sold are patented pills or syrups, it is possible for an individual to sell such medicine behind a counter; but the fact remains that in other provinces, an individual could be the owner of a drugstore without being a pharmacist. An individual could have a drugstore registered in

Private Bills

nis name without being a pharmacist, provided he has operated such business for ten years. I do not say he would be granted the title of pharmacist, under this act, but he would be granted a certificate of qualification. I agree he could not hold a university diploma, but he would nevertheless have a certificate of qualification which would allow him to operate a drugstore.

Mr. Mitchell:

With the sanction of that province's graduating body.

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Chairman, I am actually looking for an article of this bill. I have not looked at it. I had no opportunity to read this bill since about a month ago, for every time it was supposed to come before us, it was allowed to stand. The article says:

Any qualified pharmacist licensed or registered- [Text]

Mr. Miichell:

Take a look at 15.

Mr. Gregoire:

It says:

Any qualified pharmacist licensed or registered in any province-

It means, if I understand correctly the words and the phraseology, that one or the other-since after the word "licensed" there is the word "or":

Any qualified pharmacist licensed or recognized in any province prior to the coming into force of this act shall, after ten years from the date when he became so licensed-

Mr. Mitchell:

May I direct your attention to the word "qualified"? Now go on from there.

Mr. Gregoire:

Can you let me have a copy of the bill in English, please? I have the French one, and if I explain the French one it says-

Mr. Mitchell:

Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt for a moment to explain that in the English version of the bill, which is quite easily understood, the clause commences:

Any qualified pharmacist licensed or registered in any province-

First of all a pharmacist must be qualified and then licensed or registered.

Mr. Gregoire:

I appreciate what my hon. friend says, but I think there is a difference between the French version of the bill and the English version, because in the French version there is a comma after "Any qualified pharmacist". So it makes it completely different in meaning. For that reason, I think it would be opportune to move that this bill be

referred back to the committee or referred back to the responsible authorities so that they can determine which version is the correct one, the English or the French version, and make the necessary correction accordingly. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix:

That this bill be referred back to the committee to make the appropriate correction, and to determine which one is the approved bill, the French or the English.

It is impossible for us to discuss the bill now because there is a difference of meaning between the French version and the English version. There is a difference in interpretation between the French bill and the English bill, so I think it should be referred back to committee so that the committee could question the people presenting the bill and would know whether the French or the English version is the good one.

The Chairman:

I should like to remind the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that he cannot move that amendment at this time. He could do it on third reading but not in committee of the whole.

Perhaps I might suggest that the hon. member move an amendment to the clause which was discussed, that is section 15 of this bill. Then, the hon. member could introduce a private motion to change the wording of the section.

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Chairman, on the point

of order, I feel-

Mr. Mitchell:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps if we could make the amendment here and now to the French version and remove the comma, so that both the English and French versions are the same, it would satisfy the hon. member. I would so move that amendment.

The Chairman:

May I suggest that we at least wait until we reach clause 15. We are still on clause 1. We can, of course, have a general discussion of the bill on clause 1, but we cannot amend clauses which are not yet before the committee for consideration.