1916-03-06

PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I read in the Toronto Star of Friday, March 3, under the heading, "Ottawa Frowns on the HydroRadial Scheme," the following:
Another member of the city deputation talked of the anti-Hydro and anti-Toronto feeling in the Railway Committee. He also criticised the attitude of Col. J. A. Currie, M.P., a Toronto man, who recently returned from the front. " The antagonistic spirit to Toronto is so strong down there that you can put your finger on it," said this man; " the French-Canadian members sit there smoking their Quebec tobacco in their little old pipes, and they vote for the corporations always."
This comes, Mr. Speaker, from a Toronto man, who w,as a member of the deputation that came to Ottawa. Coming from a Toronto man, it is treated by me with the contempt that it deserves; I shall not say anything about it except that it is a sequel to his brain power, and nothing more. There is something graver in the same paper. The Toronto Star, under date of Saturday, March 4, contains the following, under the heading, "Toronto has Few Friends in the Railway Committee:"
Even though it comes down to another fight before the Commons Railway Committee, the Hydro stands a good chance of winning out, in the opinion of Capt. Thomas Wallace, member for Centre York; who reached the city to-day. "All the Toronto members who were in Ottawa were at the committee, ready to put up a fight for the Hydro," Capt. Wallace stated, "and I think the Hydro should win out when all the suppQrters get there. The meeting last week

was poorly attended, but the next one will not be. 'As it seems to stand now, the most of the Ontario members on the committee will vote Hydro, while the strongest supporters of the Canadian Northern railway were the French members. They always seem to be out to hit anything Ontario wants."
I w ant to register my most energetic protest against this statement, and to qualify it as absolutely unfounded, unjustifiable, and unworthy of a man occupying a representative position in Canada. Let me tell this gentleman that the French members of the Railway Committee, of which I am one, sit there as representing all Canada. In their deliberations and in their judgments, they know no provincial boundaries, no parochial boundaries, no sectarian motives; to the best of their ability they devote themselves to the interests of their country. I may add that I feel deeply on this question, but at this juncture I shall say nothing more than this: I leave it to the judgment of the well-thinking .and broadminded men of this country to treat this contemptible assertion as it deserves to he treated, emanating, as it does, from a narrow mind.



WINTER COMMUNICATION WITH PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to a telegram which I have received from the Summerside Board of Trade in connection with winter communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The telegram states that efforts are being made to have the steamer Prince Edward Island keep up communication between Pictou and Charlottetown, but that she is not able to do so, with the result that mails are delayed, passenger traffic seriously interrupted, and trains tied up. The telegram asks that in view of the fact that she is not able to keep up communication with Charlottetown, she be transferred at once to the Pictou-Georgetown route. I ask, what action, if any, the minister intends to take.


Mr. HAZEN:: The same policy is being
pursued this year as in previous years. The service is performed between Pictou and Charlottetown so long as ice and weather conditions permit. When the ice conditions become of ..such character that the service cannot be carried on between Charlottetown and Pictou, then the service is carried on between Summerside and Pictou. The same
instructions have been given to the captain of the boat this year as in previous years, and if the condition is such as has been described by my hon. friend, and the service cannot be carried on between Charlottetown and Pictou, then the boat will be transferred to- uiimmerside.



HILLSBOROUGH, P.E.I., BRIDGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Joseph Hughes: I have received a telegram stating that some time ago representations were made to the Government asking to have a guard placed on the Hillsborough bridge. This is an expensive bridge and people, fearing it may be interfered with by evil-minded persons, are very desirous that a guard should be placed there.


Mr. REID:: There is one man in Prince Edward Island who seems to be raising a lot of trouble and agitating to have a guard placed on the Hillsborough bridge, and he has tried to work up some feeling on the matter. The Railway Department have received a telegram from this gentleman, and I have directed that it be forwarded to the general manager of the road, Mr. Gutelius, with instructions to investigate and, if he deems it necessary, to place a guard on the bridge. I received a telegram this morning or Saturday in respect to the same matter and I have forwarded it also to Mr. Gutelius. I find that in some cases railway bridges are guarded by the Railway Department and in others by the Justice Department, through the Dominion police. I have therefore forwarded copies of these communications to the Justice Department, with a request that they look into the situation. Thus the question of guarding this bridge will be looked into by both the Railway Department, through the general manager of the railway, and the Justice Department, through Colonel Sherwood; and if, as the result of either or both investigations, it is deemed necessary to have a guard on the bridge, one will be placed there.



ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CARVELL:: I read in the St. John Standard, which is the recognized organ of the Government in that city, that a new arrangement had been made with regard to the construction of the St. John and Quebec railway. The paper states that it has been decided that the road shall not go any farther north than its present terminus

at Centreville, and shall not cross the river St. John* but shall make connection with the Canadian Pacific railway tracks at Westfield. This would involve an entirely new arrangement with this Govern- ment. I wish to ask if such a new arrangement has been made, and whether the Dominion Government has agreed to operate the road as part of the Intercolonial on the changed conditions.


John Dowsley Reid: This matter has been under discussion between myself and some of the ministers of the New Brunswick Government, but I have not yet got the matter completed and have not brought it before council as yet. Therefore I do not think I would be justified in making any statement to-day. Probably to-morrow T shall be in a position to make a statement.



COMMANDEERING OF WHEAT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: With reference to the report which was brought down to-day in answer to a motion made some time ago for the correspondence concerning the commandeering of wheat, I have just taken a cursory glance at the return and I have to observe that it is, on its face, "absolutely incomplete. The first document brought down in point of date is an Order in Council bearing date December 18, 1915. The first paragraph of that Order in Council is in these words:
On a report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, representing that the Government of Canada has been requested to take into account the supplies of wheat required by the British Government and certain of the Allied governments, and to arrange for a considerable supply to be shipped during the month of December and following months, the Minister of Trade and Commerce reports that it has become necessary and advisable, and within the meaning of section 6, of the War Measures Act, 1914, to appropriate and control the wheat hereinafter described under the conditions hereinafter mentioned:
This first paragraph recites that the action of the Government was taken at the instance of some party, presumably the British Government. This refers also to a memorandum, which has no date but which was made evidently later than the 3rd of March.
Early in the autumn of 1915, it became evident that Canada, in common with the United States and Australia, would have large surpluses of wheat for export, representations were made to the British Government with a view of interesting it and the Allied Governments in the purchase from Canada of a generous portion of the large quantities they would undoubtedly require. These representa-
tions were successful, and, on November 23, instructions were cabled to the Canadian Government by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to purchase a large quantity, delivery to begin in December and continue for the following months:
There is certainly no reason why the instructions of the Secretary of State for the Colonies should not be brought down and they are certainly covered by the Order of the House. That is not all. The next paragraph of the Order in Council to which I have already alluded reads as follows:
The minister further reports that the action which he has taken for the above purpose is set forth in the telegram, copies of whioh are hereto appended, and that the instructions given in the messages signed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Solicitor General, were sent after consultation with him and at his request in pursuance of the proposed appropriation and control of the wheat aforesaid.
On the face of this Order in Council it is -shown that certain telegrams issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the Solicitor General, were appended to this Order in Council, and they certainly ought to be brought down. It is an oversight that they have not been brought down, I presume, but they should be before the House.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Instructions were given that these telegrams should . be brought down. It is an oversight that they are not here.


Wilfrid Laurier: What about
the instructions of the Colonial Office?


George Eulas Foster: I will think that over. Those instructions involve a great deal of previous correspondence, and I will have to look into that pretty carefully. My object in preparing a memorandum of the case at first was to give to my right hon. friend, and to the House, all the essential information concerning the transaction. I think my right hon. friend will find that information to be pretty full. All the Orders in Council, on which the memorandum is based, have been brought down with the exception probably of the first one; but as the second Order in Council repealed the first, and substituted itself for it on account of some inaccuracies involving no principle, or anything of that kind, I did not think it worth while to include it. However, there is no objection to bringing it down, if my right hon. friend wishes. Meanwhile I will lay this on the table, and bring the other papers down later.



PRIVATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Lillian May Dent.-Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	Where was the 22nd Battalion located in Amherst, in the spring of 1915?
2.	When did they take possession of buildings, and how long did they remain in them?
3.	How much was paid the owners of the buildings in which they were located?
4.	How much was expended in fitting up the buildings by the department?
5.	Were the fittings in the said buildings torn out when the 22nd Battalion left?
6.	Is any battalion located in Amherst this year?
7.	Is it located in the same building as the 22nd was? If not, in what buildings?
8.	Has anything been spent in fitting up these buildings for this year's use? If so, how much?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Canada Car and Foundry Company's shops.
2.	March 15, 1915; moved out May 20, 1915.
3.	No rent has been- paid for the use of this building.
4.	$21,974.76. This sum included the cost of fitting up barracks for the 22nd Battalion; also for the 6th Canadian Mounted Rifles; also stalls and stable accommodation for the horses of the last-nam&d battalion.
5.	Fittings were removed in August, 1915, and were utilized for troops in Halifax.
6.	Yes; the 150th Battalion and portion of the 106th Battalion.
7.	No; 150th Battalion, located in Winter Fair building, Amherst. The Winter Fair building was used this year because the Canada Car Company required their factory. The same selection could not be made last year because there is no room for the horses in the Winter Fair building, and these had to be located near the men. This condition could only obtain in the shops of the Canada Car and Foundry Company.
8.	Nothing has been spent on the shops of the Canada Car and Foundry Company for the use of troops this year. There has been spent on the Winter Fair building approximately $23,000, and owing to the splendid offer of the city of Amherst to give the Government the use of the buildings until the end of the war, also supplying water free, and to avoid constantly refitting rented buildings, of which we only had temporary
occupation, the department decided to fit up the Winter Fair building in a permanent manner.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Is an infantry regiment for overseas service being raised at Medicine Hat, Alberta?
2.	If so, who is the Commanding Officer?
3.	Did he possess any previous military experience?
4.	Is he a qualified officer of any rank?
5.	What position did he hold in civil life prior to his appointment?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes; the 175th Overseas Battalion has been authorized for Medicine Hat, Alberta.
2.	Temporary Lieut.-Colonel Nelson Spencer, M.P.P., 21st Alberta Hussars, has been appointed Commanding Officer of this unit provisionally.
3 and 4. He has all the necessary qualities to become a most efficient officer, and is rapidly acquiring the necessary military training.
5. Merchant.


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Is it true that E. Taylor, E. Pigeau, Wm. Charnock, Jas. P. Murphy, R. J. Martin, G. Marion, H. Macara and P. J. Pillie have been dropped from the 159th Battalion now on duty' at North Bay?
2.	If so, was it on account of a difference that arose between the said members of the militia and the department concerning nonpayment of separation allowance which the men claimed was due their families?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	These men were discharged, as they refused to be sworn in.
2.	Separation allowance could not be paid previous to sworn attestation, and, as these men refused to be sworn in, no separation allowance could be paid. Therefore the men were discharged.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Have any changes by way of increases been made in the freight rates on lumber and lumber products on the Intercolonial railway?
2.	If so, what were those increases?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To make the rates east of Levis uniform with those in effect west of Levis and on the Transcontinental west of Moncton, the mileage tariff rate on line of the Intercolonial railway east of Levis on certain forest products for local consumption short haul was raised:
Distance over 5 to 80 miles, 1 cent per 100 lbs. Distance over 80 to 90 miles, 3 cent per 100 lbs. Distance over 90 to 100 miles, | cent per i00 lbs.


IMMIGRATION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONALD.
How many immigrants came into Canada in 1915?
Mr. ROCHE:: 48,466.


WAR CONTRACTS-BLANKETS, ETC.
Mr. LAMARCHE:: '
1.	Did the Logan Brothers Company, of Renfrew, Ontario, obtain any contracts from the War Purchasing Commission since the 1st June, 1915?
2.	If so, at what dates, for what goods or furnishings, at what prices, and how much did they supply?
3.	How much were they paid on each contract, and on what dates were such payments made?


John Douglas Hazen: Logan Brothers have not received any orders since June 1, 1915, but as " The Renfrew Woollen Mills," the Logan Brothers have been awarded contracts.


Mr. LAMARCHE:: 1.	Did the Renfrew Woollen Mills, of Renfrew, Ontario, obtain any contracts from the War Purchasing Commission since the 1st June, 1915?
2.	If so, at what dates, for what goods or furnishings, at what prices, and how much did they supply? '
3.	How much were they paid on each contract, and on what dates were such payments made?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes'.
2 and 3.
Date.
Order.
July 21, 1915 July 22, 1915 July 30, 1915 Feb. 11, 1916 Aug. 3, 1915. Nov. 16, 1915
1,700 Blankets. 7,000	"
20,500	"
15.000	"
35.000	yds. No. 33.
15.000	yds. No. 33.
Payments.
Aug. 3, 1915 "	25,	1915Sept. 11, 1915. "	13,	1915"	13,	1915."	15,	1915."	23.	1915."	24,	1915.
Oct. 7, 1915..
"	8,	1915."	14,	1915."	20,	1915."	20,	1915."	20,	1915."	27,	1915."	28,	1915."	29,	1915."	29,	1915.Nov. 1, 1915. "	1,	1915."	10,	1915."	10,	1915."	12,	1915."	17,	1915."	22,	1915."	23,	1915."	25,	1915."	25,	1915.
" [DOT] 30, 1.915.

Price.	Deliveries. Amount paid.
$	68 per lb.	1,692	8 4,444 0068	"	"	7,000	20,190	3968	"	"	21,897	64,062	9772J "	"	None.	None.1	85	"	"	35,000	64,750	001 85	[DOT][DOT]	"	720}	1,332 18
Payments.
Dec. 1, 1915	 1,296 70
"	2, 1915	'	
2,902 G2"	7,	1915	
2,505	50"	9,	1915	
1,167	22"	13	1915	
3.212	96"	14,	1915	
2,634	66"	17,	1915	
4,694	71"	20,	1915	
1,448	07"	22,	1915.. .V	
2,367	42"	23.	1915. . . .t	
1,065	14"	30.	1915	
2,431	71Jan.	6,	1916	
4,751	16"	6	1916	
350	57"	14,	1916	
5,935	21"	18, 1916	*	
707 16"	26, 1916	
5 633 80Feb.	1,	1916	
2,543	78"	2, 1916	1,066 06"	8,	1916	
3,460	20"	10,	1916	
1,108	60"	11.	1916	
2,367	59"	16,	1916	
1,952	21"	18,	1916	
1,946	19"	19, 1916	'	
1,565 54"	22,	1916	
1,124	34"	23,	1916	
2,068	90"	23,	1916	
1,743	57Total	$154,779 54


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES AT QUEBEC.
Mr. PAQUET:: What are the names and salaries of the employees in the offices of the Transcontinental railway at Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: Name.	Occupation.	Monthly
salary.
Dick, Arthur, division engineer.-. ..	$ 225
Bradley, T. C., secretary	 100
Lefebvre, W., res. engineer	 160

Name.	Occupation.	Monthly
Salary.
McGreevy, Frank, station inspector $ 125 Beaudet, N. R., res. engineer..	..	160
Laberge, H., architect	 170
Legare, Alphonse, watchman	 60
C outier, Adjutor, watchman	 60
Total	 $1,060


GEORGE SKEFFINGTON.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	Is George Skeffington, of the city of Moncton, still in the. employment of the Canadian Government railways?
2.	If so, in what capacity, and at what salary?
3.	If he is not so employed at present, when did his employment cease, and why?


Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	July 31, 1915. Overstayed leave of
absence.


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: How many annuities were sold by the Post Office Department in tlje year 1908, and how many in each succeeding year since that date?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Number
Period	of
Anuitants.
From Sept. 31,1908 to March '31, 1909.	80
"	Mar.	31,	1909,	to	Mar.	31,	1910.	566"	"	31,	1910,	to	Mar.	31,	1911.	1,069"	"	31,	1911,	to	Mar.	31,	1912.	1,031"	[DOT][DOT]	31,	1912,	to	Mar.	31,	1913.	373"	"	31,	1913,	to	Mar.	31,	1914.	318"	"	31,	1914.	to	Mar.	31,	1915.	263"	"	31,	1915,	to	Mar.	2,	1916.	385


D. T. S. TYRIAN.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Was a contract recently entered into for the placing of bulkheads in the D.T.S. Tyrian, Halifax, N.S.?
2.	If so, what are the names of the firms who tendered, to whom was the contract awarded, and at what price?
3.	Has the work been completed? If not, what is the cause of delay?


Mr. REID:: 1.	An agreement was entered into on April 21, 1915.
2.	Hogan & Co., offered to perform the work for $650, and their offer, being considered fair and reasonable by the General Superintendent of Telegraphs, was accepted.
3.	Yes.


SOUDANGES CANAD PIER.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	How much money did Philias Dore draw from the Government for stone sold for the construction of the Soulanges canal pier?
2.	What amount is still due to him?
3.	Was the purchase of that stone made after tenders were called?
4.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each?
5.	What are the names of the officers and drew on board the tug Carillon, and the names of the other men who worked at the loading and carrying of such stone, with the average daily salary of each?
6.	Are these men fed by the Government? If so, what is the average daily amount paid for the feeding of each?
7.	What is the name of the dredge to which the tow-boat Carillon was attached?
8.	What work was it engaged in, and at what place, when the said stone was transported ?
S. Were the employees who unloaded^ that stone the same who did the loading of it?
10.	If not, what are the names of such employees, and what was their average daily 1 salary?
11.	Were they also fed by the Government? If so, at what average daily cost?
12.	At what place on the Soulanges canal was that stone placed?
13.	Did the using of it require a fresh handling?
14.	Under the superintendence of what engineers or other officers of the Government was the work of such purchasing, carrying and unloading, performed?
15.	Was he a permanent or temporary employee, and what was his average daily salary?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$6,929.78.
2.	Nothing.
3.	Yes.
4.	J. A. Major, of Montreal and Philias Dore, of Valleyfield.
5.	Nap. Bertrand, captain; Nap. Molleur, engineer; Joseph Molleur, fireman; Alex. Menard, deckhand; Joseph Beriault, deckhand; (there was also a cook, Rosanna Bertrand).
'6. No (the department supplies the cook) but the men feed themselves.
7.	Dredge No. 2.
8.	Widening and deepening channel at upper entrance to Soulanges canal, about 700 or 800 feet from the pier in which the said stone was used.
9.	No. The stone was placed on the scows by the contractor.
10.	Foreman, Adelard Royal, salary 25 cents per hour; Edmond Royal, Benjamin Gauthier, Avila Gauthier, Joseph Lalonde, Daniel Lalonde, Valmore Filiatrault, Wil-brod Legros; Joseph Lefebvre; Isidore Le-compte, Honore Miron, Xavier Dubois, Arsene Beriault; Louis Gagnon; Isaie Le-roux, all at 20 cenjts per hour.
These men did not always work ten hours a day, nor every day in the week, and about one-third of their time was employed spreading and levelling clay brought from the dredge to form the backing of the exten-

sion pier, upon the slope of which the riprap stone was to be placed. When a scow load of stone was delivered at the pier the men were turned from the backing work to the unloading and placing of the stone on the slope.
11.	No.
12.	On the river side slope of the extension to the upper entrance pier.
13.	Yes, the stone had to be taken off the scows and placed on the slope.
14.	L. S. Pariseau, as engineer in charge and J. T. Lemire, as assistant engineer. Both were also supervising the dredging and the construction of the concrete protection dam at Valleyfield.
15.	Permanent employees: L. S. Pariseau, salary, $200 per month; J. T. Lemire, salary $125 per month.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has a petition been received asking for the establishment of a rural mail route at Black Cape and Caplan, Bonaventure county?
2.	If so, what has been done in the matter?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A petition was received on the 19th of February, 1916, for rural mail delivery from Black Cape. The matter is still under inquiry by the Post Office inspector, whose report is expected at an early date.


KILLAM, ALTA., MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	Has there been an application made for the establishment of a rural mail route out of Killam, Alberta?
2.	If so, what action has the Postmaster General taken on this application?


Mr. OASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Tenders were invited for the performance of the proposed service but the prices asked were considered excessive and consequently action was suspended pending further offers.


FAIR WAGE BOARD.
Mr. VERVILLE:: Has the Government received any recommendations of a confidential nature or otherwise from the Imperial Government respecting a fair wage board? If so, of what nature?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The correspondence is of a confidential nature at present.


BREEN'S POND BREAKWATER.
Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: Were tenders called for the construction or extension of a breakwater at Breen's Pond, 
Antigonish county, in the year 1914? If so, how many tenders were received, from whom, and at what figures?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


CRIBBIN'S POINT WHARF.
William Chisholm: Were tenders called for the construction of a wharf at Cribbin's Point, N.S., in the year 1914? If so, how many tenders were received, from whom, and at what figures?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


TRACADIE HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS.
William Chisholm: Were tenders called for improvements to Tra-cadie Harbour, N.S., in the year 1914? If so, how many tenders were received, from whom, and at what figures?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


NEW ZEALAND WHEAT PURCHASE.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	When was the wheat for the Government of New Zealand purchased?
2.	When was that portion sent to New Zealand shipped?
3.	When was the balance sold, and at what average price per bushel?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	250,000 bus. on November 12, 1914.
100,000	it	" 27, "
40,000		December 1, "
16,732.30	it	" 24, "
1,000,000	" (for July delivery) from	
	day to day during J arm-	
	ary	and February, 1915.
1,406,732.30	bus.	
11,920.30	bus. on December 12, 1914.	
11,112	it	" 23, "281,000	"	on January 3, 1915.9,000	ii	" 3, ''9,000	,y	" 10, "93,700	" 19, "47,491.10	July 22, "50,000	ii	September 22, "504,223.40	bus.	250,000	bus.	on January 7, 1916.652,508.50	"	" 10, "
J. H. STEWART-AUTOMOBILE SEIZURE. Mr. CARVELL:
1.	Did the Department of Customs seize an automobile from one J. H. Stewart, of Bathurst, New Brunswick, in the month of May last?
2.	If so, was the matter settled, or was the auto sold under the seizure?
3.	If settled, what amount was paid by way of duty?


John Dowsley Reid: The Department of Customs made no seizure from J. H. Stewart of Bathurst in May last. His automobile, however, was seized in June last, there having been delay in entering same at customs. The automobile was released on deposit of $375 to cover duties and penalties.


MAX DRAB.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: .
1.	Is Max Drab, of Wilkie, Sask., in the employ of the Department of the Interior?
2.	If so, what position does he hold, what are his duties, and what remuneration does he receive?


William Roche: In so far as the Immigration Branch is concerned:
1. No.
2 Answered by No. 1.


REGINA INLAND REVENUE PREMISES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr.'W. M. MARTIN:
1.	From whom does the Government rent premises in the city of Regina for the accommodation of the Inland Revenue Department, Weights and Measures Branch?
2.	When were such premises rented?
3.	What monthly rental is paid for such premises?
Mr. REID:: 1.	From the J. A. Westman Agency, Limited.
2.	From 1st November, 1915, to 1st November, 1916.
3.	$100 a month.


R. N. W. MOUNTED POLICE AT REGINA.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	From whom does the Government rent premises in the city; of Regina for the accommodation of the town station of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police?
2.	When were the said premises rented?
3.	What monthly rental is paid for such premises?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Mr. John A. Westman.
2.	Leased for five years commencing 1st April, 1915, with a proviso that the lease may be terminated at any date earlier than the first day of April, 1920, in case the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Force is dispensed with by the Saskatchewan Government.
3.	$100 per month.


A. A. EVANS.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has A. A. Evans, of Outlook, ever been in the employ of the Department of the Interior or any other Department of the Government?
2.	If so, what remuneration or salary did the said Evans receive while so employed, and what remuneration does he now receive?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes. Relief work in October, 1914, five days.
2.	No salary paid. Expenses only allowed.


ARCHIBALD TIBBITS.
Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: 1.	Is Mr. Archibald Tibbits in the employ of the Department of Marine and Fisheries or Naval service?
2.	If so, what position does he occupy, when was he appointed, and at what salary?
3.	Who was his predecessor in office, and what was the cause of his retirement?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	He is in the employ of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
2.	A mere critical examination of the details of the work of the several Harbour Commissions in Canada, more espechuly those at Montreal and Quebec, which are receiving large advances on loan from the Government, was deemed necessary in the public interest.
There was, at the time, no officer in the department with the requisite experience and qualifications who could be spared for this work; hence it was decided to appoint a special officer. Mr. Tibbitts was appointed on the 14th October, 1912, at a salary of $2,400 per annum; his present salary is $2,600 per annum.
3 Answered by No. 2.


W. BADGER.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has one W. Badger, of Outlook or Conquest, Sask, ever been employed by the Department of the Interior or any other department of the Government?
2.	Is the said W. Badger at present in the employ of the Government?
3.	Was the said W. Badger employed by the Government in distributing relief and seed grain ?
4.	What remuneration or salary did the said Badger receive while so employed?


William Roche: '
1.	Yes. The Department of the Interior, Immigration Branch.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	Refused to accept any remuneration or salary.


HANOVER PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. TRUAX:: 1.	Who was the contractor for the Hanover public building, and what was the amount of his tender?
2.	Was the contract let to the lowest tenderer?
3.	Is the building completed?
4.	Who was the inspector, and what amount has been paid for his services?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Anderson, Bath & Patchell; $28,500.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	John Telford; salary, $1,808; disbursements, $2.66; total, $1,810.66.


MEDICINE HAT CUSTOMS BUILDING.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	What was the total amount of rental paid for premises used by the Customs Department at Medicine Hat while the federal building in that city was being reconstructed?
2.	How many months were these premises occupied ?
3.	Who owns the premises?
i. To whom was the rent paid?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$1,980.
2.	Twenty-four months.
3.	As far as the department is aware, these premises are owned by the lessor,
H.	W. T. Foster.
4.	H. W. T. Foster, Medicine Hat.


IMMIGRATION AGENTS AT MONTREAL.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	What are the names of the immigration agents appointed since the 1st October, 19X1, at Montreal, Quebec, when were they appointed, at what salaries, and what are their present respective salaries?
2.	Are there any of them who have a right to travelling expenses? If so, what are their names, and what amount for such expenses have been paid to them?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No immigration agent lhas been appointed at Montreal, Quebec, since October
I,	1911. Mr. John Hoolahan has been agent there for many years.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ICE-BREAKER CONTRACT.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Has the Government given by contract the erection of an ice-breaker? If so, to whom, and at what price?
2.	Has the Government attached a fair wage schedule on said contract? If not, why not?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes. Messrs. Canadian Vickers, Ltd., Montreal, $998,583.00.
2.	There is no fair wage schedule embodied in the said contract.. The matter is, (however, covered by a clause in the contract as follows:
All workmen labourers or other persons who perform labour in the construction of the work hereby contracted for shall be paid such wages as are generally accepted as current from time to time during the continuance of the contract for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed, and if there is current rate in such district, then a fair and

reasonable rate, and shall not be required to work for longer hours than those fixed by the custom of the trade in the district where the work is carried on, or if there is no custom of the trade as respects hours in the district, then fair and reasonable hours except for the protection of life or property or with the consent of the minister on due cause shown. In the event of a dispute arising as to what is the current or a fair and reasonable rate of wages or wtiat are the current hours fixed by the customs of the trade or fair and reasonable hours, it shall be determined by the Minister of Labour, whose decision shall be final.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lanctot.-For a return showing the names of the lawyers of the province of Quebec who have been entrusted with certain cases or given other work by the Government since the month of September, 1911 ; the amounts that have been asked by each of such lawyers for each case; and the amounts paid to each of them?
Mr. Buchanan.-For a return showing the different rural mail routes in the constituency of Medicine Hat, with their location and date of establishment; and also all rural mail routes now being established or under consideration at the present time in the same constituency.
Mr. Buchanan.-For a return showing the amounts contributed from the constituency of Medicine Hat for machine guns and by whom contributed or forwarded.
Mr. Buchanan.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents relating to the dismissal or resignation of Dr. W. T. Patton from the service of the Veterinary Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture, and his re-appointment and his later dismissal or resignation.
Mr. Murphy.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams and reports in any way connected with the investigations made at different times during the year 1915, in connection with the Toronto harbour works, under contract to the Canadian Stewart Company.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all correspondence, accounts, vouchers, etc., in connection with the construction of a wharf at Shad Bay, Halifax county, N.S., in 1914 and 1915.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all correspondence, accounts, vouchers, memoranda, etc., relating to the construction of a launch way and boat house at Bear Cove Beach, Halifax county, N.S., and completed in 1914.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all telegrams, letters, petitions and documents of all kinds referring in any way to the application of Mrs. Flora McIntyre, of River Dennis, Inverness county, N.S., for the Fenian Raid veteran bounty of her late husband, Angus McIntyre, late of River Denis.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all telegrams, letters, petitions and documents of all kinds in any way referring to the change in the Inverness-Margaree mail route from the west to the east of the Margaree river, from a point at Margaree Forks to Chapel Bridge.
Mr. Wm. Chisholm.-For a detailed statement of the expenditure last year at McNair's Cove, Nova Scotia, giving the names of the workmen, the number thus employed, the

amount paid to each; also the amount paid for supplies and material, and the names of the persons to whom the same w'as paid.
Mr. Graham.-For a return showing the amounts paid under retroactive clause of the Act providing for an impost of 50 cents per proof gallon on all spirits taken from bond between the date of the outbreak of war and the date of the passage of such Act; and also by whom paid, and the date of payment.
Mr. Boulay.-For a list of the employees in the Dominion police force, with the salary of «ach of them.

Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For a return showing the dates, parties, quantities and values of all contracts made by the War Purchasing Commission, so-called, from its formation, down to the present date.


Robert Laird Borden: Stand.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think this should [DOT]stand. ,


Robert Laird Borden: It must either stand or be transferred to the debatable motions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not want it debated; it is only a small matter, involving, perhaps, 150 pages of typewriting. I think the Prime Minister might furnish the papers. I am not asking for details; just for the names, dates, and quantities.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no knowledge of the matter except what the Chairman of the War Purchasing Commission told me. He said it would take a very long time, three months, to complete the return, if all the staff were employed on it. The operations of the War Purchasing Commission involve much detail. I think my hon. friend has no real idea of the task he is setting before the Commission.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I have. If the right hon. the Prime Minister will look at the resolution he will see that it calls for simply the dates, parties, quantities, and values of these contracts. So, one line across a sheet of paper will give all the information I ask with regard to each contract. Suppose that there were ten a day, that would be only three thousand, or enough to cover one hundred pages. It -seems to me that a first-class clerk would get out the material needed in a day, and it could be typewritten in another day.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would speak to the chairman on the subject.	,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will do so.
Motion stands.


PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion:
Mr. H. H. Stevens-Proposed resolution- That, in the opinion of this House, at this time, when the Empire is at war, the conservation of the wealth and the resources of the Dominion and the promotion of the efficiency of our nation would be materially aided by the prohibition of the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and legislation for this purpose should be enacted forthwith.
Robert Laird Borden: Before this
motion is taken up, I should like to say a word. Some gentlemen interested in the purpose of this motion, and representing the Dominion Alliance and other associations, waited upon the Government some weeks ago. At the request of the members of the Government then present, they undertook to furnish certain information as to the laws within each province, the results attained under those laws, the number of licenses, and other important particulars. The information was received, or at least a portion of it, and, as to the laws in force in the various provinces, it was supplemented by a memorandum from the Solicitor General. We have had these documents printed, and I had expected that they would be ready to lay on the table at three o'clock to-day. Unfortunately, they are not quite ready, but I am informed they will be laid on the table before six o'clock.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Do I understand that it is the desire to take up also the next notice of motion on the order paper, that of the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. J. J. Hughes), in favour of a constitutional amendment to empower the provinces to enact prohibition laws?


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose it will be impossible to vote on both motions at the same time. If the House has no objection, it might be quite proper to discuss both motions in the one debate. I see no objection to having the discussion on this motion so general as to include everything that could be said on the other.


Mr. MARCIL:: The motions will be put from the Chair separately, of course, and the debate may be allowed to extend so as to cover the matter of both motions. I suprevised EDITION

pose it will be understood that the first motion is that which will be voted on.


Robert Laird Borden: The two motions could not be put by the Chair at the same time.


Mr. HENRY HERBERT STEVENS (Vancouver) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House this afternoon on the motion which you have just read, I realize in the first place that it deals with a matter of vast importance, and I am deeply impressed with a sense of my own limitations in discussing it. I feel that the proposed resolution might have been placed in the hands of a member of the House whose experience and influence would have enabled him to deal with the question in a very much better manner than I can hope to. I have particularly in my mind the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), whose utterances on this question in the past have been of such a character as, in my opinion, to be classics amongst the oratory and literature of Canada. I should very much like to have seen this resolution in his charge. I am somewhat comforted, however, by the thought that the resolution is seconded by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) whose words in this House are always received with marked respect.
It is clear, I think, to every hon. member of the House that this question, which is of such grave national importance, is being approached from an entirely non-political standpoint. Some have called the proposed resolution revolutionary, and I shall have something to say on that point later. The subject matter of this resolution and the matters I wish to lay before the House are of such importance, that I fear I shall have to trouble the House at some considerable length, even though I do not even then hope to cover all the ground. Some phases of the question I shall touch on in only the most casual manner, leaving it to others to take up any special phase that may appeal to them.
There are two aspects to this question: the moral and the economic or social aspect, and with the moral aspect I do not intend to deal at any great length. Not because I fail to appreciate the moral importance of the question, but, as the wording of the resolution indicates, because I desire to deal particularly with its economic or social aspect. I should like to impress upon the House, however, that it is quite within the rights of any hon. mem-

her to bring up the moral aspect of any problem, and I sometimes think that the members of this House are a little too backward in emphasizing the moral aspects of problems pertaining to the welfare of the people of Canada. I think it is just as much the business of this Parliament to look after the moral health of the nation as after its/commercial, economic and industrial health. I shall leave the moral aspect of the question with this one observation: A nation's moral character, like an individual's, is developed and strengthened, and beautified, not by the indulgence of its grosser appetites, but by their subjection. As a nation or as an individual, we gain in moral strength by the diligent exercise of the virtues of industry, honesty, and service, rather than by the assertion of so-called personal rights or by satisfying our whims. It is not my intention to go into this aspect of the question at any great length.
With regard to the economic aspect. This resolution, as its terms indicate, is proposed here to-day as a war measure. In considering this question as it relates to the war it is necessary for me to impress upon the House how titanic is the struggle we are engaged in, and what new factors are entering into the settlement of this war. It seems as if it would not be men, strategy, or military tactics that will decide the war, but that all the elements that go to make up a virile nation must be marshalled if we are to prove victorious. A vast army of the citizens of Canada is asking for consideration of this question, and I hold that I need not apologize to any man, nor to this House, for having submitted it for the consideration of Parliament. A great many members dislike it, and friends of mine on both sides of the House claim that it is unwise to introduce a measure of this kind. But I hold that when a large portion of the people of Canada demand consideration of a given problem, this Parliament dare not say nay. I therefore say that the personal opinion of myself or of any other member of this House has little or nothing to do with the question, and that as representatives of the people we are bound to give consideration to this problem, which to-day is demanding and holding the attention of a vast portion of the whole people of Canada. I am not voicing the wish of a few fanatics; I am voicing the opinion of a vast-number of our citizens. Some say that the

intoxicating liquor evil has always existed, that the problem has never been solved in the past, and that it will never be solved in the future. For my part, I have greater faith in democracy than to think that a problem exists which democracy is not capable of solving. Let me say that, to-day more than at any other time, democracy is on trial; it is on trial at the battle-front in Europe; and if democracy cannot deal with a problem such as this, then in my estimation democracy will fail on the battlefields of Europe, and I think the quotations which I shall give to the House in a few minutes will bear out that opinion. What other ages have failed to do I believe that we in this age are capable of doing.
I ask the indulgence of the House while I point to the opinions expressed on this question by various sections of Canada. I will give them, not in any particular order, but just as I have them jotted down from the information I had on hand. Two-thirds of Ontario is dry; or, more specifically, there are 162 municipalities without licenses, 349 municipalities under local option, and 61 municipalities under the Canada Temperance Act, or a total of 572 municipalities dry, and 279 wet. For a number of these so-called wet municipalities in Ontario, the three-fifths clause is responsible. For instance, I find that the city of Belleville gave a majority of 306 in favour of local option, Brantford a majority of 948, Port Arthur 417, Sarnia 315, Woodstock 165 and Whitby 108; all these cities and towns gave a majority in favour of prohibition or local option, but are still wet and are classed as wet by reason of the three-fifths clause. In addition to this, the Ontario Government, recognizing the will of the people as expressed in a huge petition which is about to be presented to them, have introduced in the Provincial Legislature a measure for total prohibition in the province.
Quebec is three-fourths dry: out of 1,143 municipalities or parishes, 906 are dry and 237 wet. The Premier of Quebec has also intimated that the Government is working towards prohibition.
In the province of New Brunswick, 80 per cent of the population are living under conditions known as dry; or, more precisely: of fifteen counties and three cities, nine counties and two cities are under the Canada'Temperance Act; about half of the wards in the city of St. John are dry, and a large portion of the six remaining counties are also dry.
In Nova Scotia there are eighteen counties dry and one wet, namely, Halifax, and the Provincial Government have already stated that a measure will be introduced to bring Halifax under the provincial prohibition law.	*
Prince Edward Island is the only "all white" province in the Dominion at the present time; it is all under prohibition.
In Manitoba there are 38 municipalities without license and 49 under local option, a total of 87 dry municipalities and 71 wet. Moreover, Manitoba will, on the 13th day of March, vote on the question of provincial prohibition, and there is every indication that the measure will carry.
Saskatchewan is practically under prohibition. In the whole province liquor is sold in 23-now reduced to 20-Government shops.


George Eulas Foster: Is liquor sold in those shops for beverage purposes?
Mr. ST-EVENS: Yes. The law in Saskatchewan came into force in June or July last. I would like to give some evidence of the effect of prohibition in Saskatchewan and also of the tendency of the people to close out these Government shops. In eleven cities: Regina, Moosejaw, Saskatoon, Prince Albert, Swift Current, North Battle-ford, Weyburn, Melville, Estevan, Humboldt and Rosetown, there were, in the months of July, August and September, 1914, 912 arrests for drunkenness; in the corresponding months of 1915, immediately after the new liquor provisions came into force, there were only 247 arrests, or a reduction of 665, an indication of how the province is progressing.	.
Another indication is this: Four votes, which were taken in January last on the question of whether Government shops should be opened, were defeated on the following figures:
For the opening
District.	of a	Against.
Government shop.
No.	23	
285	1,037No.	28	
289	438No.	37	
165	843No.	44	
555	778
In three districts the following vote to close the Government shops was taken:
District.	For closing. Against.
No.	21	
476	173No.	45	
741	263No. 46	;	.	987	487
In other words, in four districts out of seven where a vote was taken, the introduction of the shops was defeated, and in

three districts the closing of the shops was carried, which shows the tendency of the. people of Saskatchewan to carry the prohibition measure to its 'logical conclusion.
Alberta, so far as provincial jurisdiction will permit, has gone dry.
The Government of British Columbia, on the occasion of the recent opening of the Provincial Legislature, introduced legislation. for prohibition in that province.
Thus, we find that every province of Can-'ada from the Atlantic to the Pacific has taken some steps towards the introduction of prohibition.	[DOT]
Some persons, in dealing with the question of prohibition, refer to it as a fad. It is not a fad; it is not the whim of certain fanatics; it is a well-recognized principle in law and practice. I do not wish to debate that point at any length as it would take up a great deal of time; I have only to remind hon. members that two years ago this House passed a law prohibiting the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches, the reason given in the preamble of the Act being that white phosphorus was inimical to the health and interest of the community at large. I ask the House to consider this question of prohibition from the standpoint that it is injurious to the community at large, because a principle which applies to one phase of life should also apply to another. This resolution calls for;
The conservation of the wealth and the resources of the Dominion and the promotion of the efficiency of our nation.
Prohibition is only one of the ways in which these can be aided, but in my estimation, i't is a vastly important way. It will be my purpose to point out the opinions of some of the best posted men in the Allied nations on this subject, but first let me draw the attention of hon.
members to the fact that the 4 p.m British Parliament not very long ago appointed the British Savings Committee, which has under its control the business of advising the nation in regard to saving. One of its recent utterances on this subject is a call to the nation to practise economy in connection with certain extravagances, and automobiles are particularly mentioned. I am calling the attention of the House to the utterances of this committee, not because they have so far made any direct utterance on the question of prohibition, because I 
dct not think that has yet come to their attention, but simply to show the necessity of the nation at large 'economizing along every possible line.
The wealth of a nation consists of the potential value of the things which it possesses, such as its natural resources and the skill and virility of its people, and anything which interferes with the efficiency of the workers, whether they work with brain or with brawn, interferes with or lessens the wealth of the nation as a whole. Energy misdirected becomes a liability instead of an asset, and it is this phase of the question to which I invite the attention of the House.
Certain representations have 'been made as to the attitude of labour in- reference to this problem, and I have observed that certain sections of those authorized to speak for labour have expressed views which might lead us to believe that they were not in favour of prohibition. I should like the House to bear with me wfiilo I read what I consider to be some very important letters on that point. On May 24th last a convention was held in Cleveland, Ohio, of Canadian and American railway engineers. At that convention, which represented 90,000 to 100,000 railway engineers, the following resolution was adopted:
Be it resolved that this Board of Locomotive Engineers go on record as favouring statewide and nation-wide prohibition of intoxicating liquors as a beverage.
The word " Canada " was included in that resolution. The following is a letter written to Mr. Lawrence, who is legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, by Mr. Berry, of Toronto, vice-president of the Order of Railway Conductors ;
Tour favour of the 20th instant has been forwarded to me here, and I am indeed sorry that it reached me too late to meet your request in permitting you to say at Patriotic Appeal for Federal Prohibition meeting on the 27th instant, at which you were to represent a deputation as spokesman, that the Order of Railway Conductors as an organization are in favour- of the movement.
While it is too late to advise you for use at the meeting above referred to, I assure you, Brother Lawrence, that the undersigned is in favour of any movement that will do away with the manufacture and use of alcoholic liquors, and I am quite sure that the order will acquiesce in my position in this connection.
I quote the last paragraph of a letter written to Mr. Lawrence by Mr. A. E. Barker, the grand president of Maintenance of Way

men, an organization which covers Canada and the United States:
I have pleasure in saying that this organization wishes to go on record as being in favour of the movement; and this letter will be your authority so to state.
Mr. G. D. Robertson, third vice-president of the Order of Railway Telegraphers, has expressed sentiments which should have considerable weight with members of the House. Writing to Mr. Lawrence he .says:
I am informed that a deputation of prohibition "workers are expecting to meet the Premier on January 27th in connection with the Patriotic Appeal for Federal Prohibition in Canada.
If opportunity offers, I would be glad to have you also speak for me as representing the Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
The Undersigned is heartily in favour of the total prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor in Canada, except in such quantities as may be necessary for medicinal and scientific purposes. While this question has not been specially referred to our men in Canada for an official opinion, I know that the sentiments above expressed voice the opinions of a very large proportion of our members. Our laws specifically deal with the temperance question, inasmuch as they provide that the excessive use of liquor is sufficient to debar any man from membership. Our members have for many years past ceased to look for any protection from the organization if dismissed by their employer for drinking on duty. These two facts pretty clearly indicate the popular feeling of Canadian telegraphers on the subject. The co-operation of railway managers and the various organizations in each doing what they could to discourage habitual drinking among employees has brought greatly increased safety to the travelling public of Canada. The moral, social and financial advancement of the employees directly concerned has been very marked. ,
For the sake of the men whom he serves, as well as for the good of society generally, the undersigned will be glad .to lend such assistance as he is able to bring about the total abolition of the manufacture and sale of liquor in this country.
I have another letter written to Mr. Lawrence by James Thordock, Vice-President of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, and which reads:
I have just arrived home to-day for the first time this year, and find your letter of the 20th advising me that a deputation would wait upon the Premier of Canada on the 27th of January in the interest of a patriotic appeal for federal prohibition.
I have not of course, had opportunity to sound the views of our Canadian membership on this subject, but, knowing them as I do, would feel safe in expressing the earnest conviction that the great majority of our 10,000 members in Canada would be in hearty sympathy with total and effective war time prohibition.
My own personal view is that the Gcvem-,ment could do no more effective act at the present time than to authorize prohibition during the continuance of the war, at least so
that labouring men and all concerned in the Dominion might at all times feel sure of being sober of thought, of speech and of action, and with determination, be the better prepared to further British Empire interest in the paramount question that we as Canadians and as British subjects have before us.
My further personal view is that if federal prohibition was to be made effective during war time conditions, such prohibition should also prohibit the manufacture.
Would very much like to be with you tomorrow for the purpose of lending my personal support in connection with this very commendable and desirable undertaking.
I have another letter written to myseli by Mr. William L. Best, legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers. I trust that the House will bear with me while I read this letter; it is the last that I shall read upon this phase of the subject. The writer represents the views of a labour union which has been brought to the highest point of efficiency, and which seeks to secure for its members a degree of protection which exceeds that sought for by any union in this or any other country. The letter is:
Having observed, with keen interest, your proposed resolution to Parliament, calling for Dominion wide prohibition of the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, permit me to convey to you my sincere appreciation of the importance of this proposed measure and to assure you of my unqualified endorsation of the legislation contemplated therein.
Realizing the fact that the vocation of locomotive enginemen involves ceaseless peril, and that it is a duty we owe ourselves, our employers and those dependent upon us for safe and comfortable transit, to guard in every manner against those disasters which frequently overtake us on the railway, the necessity of rendering the highest efficiency of service, of being careful and sober, becomes self-evident; hence the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, an organization of 90,000 members on this continent, has adopted as one of the cardinal principles in its motto, Sobriety. This principle is further emphasized in article No. 28, section 4 of its Constitution, as follows:
"Section 4. (a) Any member dealing in intoxicating liquors shall be expelled from the order.
(b) Any member who shall use intoxicating liquors to excess, or who shall be found guilty of drunkenness shall, upon proof thereof, be suspended or expelled."
, The operating rules for use for Canadian railways, which have been approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, contain the following rule:-
"Rule G. The use of intoxicants by employees while on duty is prohibited. Their use or the frequenting of places where they are sold is sufficient cause for dismissal."
These are arbitrary rules, but they have been found necessary by experience. As I have already stated, these views deserve

the careful attention of hon. members of the House.
The letter goes on:
If this declaration of policy on the part of operating officials and employees of railways, against intoxicating liquors, is essential to the highest railroad efficiency and the greatest measure of safety to the travelling public, then it would seem equally essential to the highest efficiency in, and conservation of, all other industrial enterprises throughout the Dominion. This being true, it would further seem that, at this time of stress and strain; when every available resource was being taxed to i|s maximum limit in order to call forth the highest national efficiency in the protection of those high ideals for which our Empire is struggling to maintain, it is an economic folly to further permit the existence of a traffic which has so retarded industrial development, and impaired human efficiency, while making a few men rich and making many thousands poor.
Hundreds of our Canadian railway men were amongst the first to offer their services in defence of those great principles involved in the titanic struggle in which the Empire is engaged, and many of them have already made the supreme sacrifice of their lives upon the altar of loyalty and patriotism.
Therefore, I have the very highest commendation for the splendid results that have thus far crowned the untiring 'efforts of our military, and other national leaders. But it has sometimes occurred to me that this military spirit engendered by this awful European conflict has had a tendency to cause some of our legislators to, in some measure, exaggerate the need of guns, munitions, money and battleships when the question of national defence is being considered. In my humble judgement, national defence does not altogether depent upon guns, munitions, money and dreadnoughts alone-essential as these are to our liberty-but in the productive capacity, the industrial efficiency, the character and Christian fortitude of the men who work on our farms, in our factories, on our railways, and in other industrial enterprises; men who are well equipped for all the duties of the highest type of citizenship. This seems most essential in this great world conflict, and it is equally essential in times of peace.
I feel sure that every Member of Parliament realizes-perhaps more than ever before-that the object and duty of every g-ood Government is to advocate and promote that which will be for the general welfare of the people by the encouragement and protection of whatever makes for the public good, and that it is equally their duty to discourage, suppress, and if possible exterminate, whatever tends to the public disadvantage
Again complimenting you on your proposed measure, and wishing the contemplated legislation the most favourable consideration and approval by the Government,
I remain,
Very truly yours,
Wm. L. Best.
Canadian Legislative Representative Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.
Those sentiments, expressed by this representative of labour, are worthy of the utterance of the highest statesmen of any land,

-and well merits our consideration. These letters are the expressed opinions of the men. in Canada best able to judge of what is in the interest of labour, and I invite this House to the careful consideration of these words from such a representative source.	.
The other evening, at a meeting of a labour organization, the question was asked; Why not pay attention first to the elimination of child labour and the betterment of labour conditions for children and women? Mr. Speaker, if we eliminate-and I am not talking cant or nonsense, but sober truth- if we eliminate the liquor business from Canada or from any other nation, we will take the greatest step forward towards the elimination of child labour, or conditions of labour for women that are inconsistent with their position in society, and strike the greatest blow that could be struck at child labour and other deplorable things.
*1 wish to direct the attention of the House to what our Allies have been doing about prohibition. I feel a little jealous for Canada; I feel that Canadians, a young and virile people, ought to be in the vanguard rather than lagging behind in any problem which is considered of importance in this great war. I find that Russia has done a great deal in connection with prohibition in the interest of the efficiency of the nation, and again I am going to ask the House to bear with me while I quote certain views which will, I think, influence the House a great deal'more than any words which I could speak. The right hon. David Lloyd George, said in September last:
Russia has enormously increased her resources by repressing the sale of alcoholic liquors. It is hardly realized that by that means alone she has increased the productivity of her labour by something between 30 and 50 per cent. It is as if she had added millions of labourers to her labour reserve.
These are the words of the Eight Hon. David Lloyd George, who has ^iven, not only since the wat broke out but prior to the war, acute study to the conditions of labour and to industrial problems, and I do not think there is a member in this House who would dare stand in his place and question the opinion of Mr. Lloyd George on these subjects, because his opinion is backed up by accomplishments which were thought to be an utter impossibility before the outbreak of war. Therefore, I quote his opinion with a great deal of confidence. I quote further the opinion of Mr. Bark, the Finance Minister of Eussia, as the words of a man who has the responsibility of handling the finances

and directing the financial affairs of
170.000. 000 people.	Mr. Bark, in May last, said:
Prohibition of vodka has had a wonderful effect on the moral and economic conditions in Russia. Savings hanks deposits have been augmented by leaps and bounds. The increase had been from 34,000,000 roubles in 1913, to
84.000.	000 roubles in 1914. But the moral effect was even more considerable. The output of factories has enormously increased. Home life has become more beautiful and more secure. Throughout Russia crime has diminished to a dwindling point. Even if I desired to remove this prohibition I should not be allowed to do so. The people would refuse to allow this evil thing to come upon them again.
These are the words of the Finance Minister of Russia, spoken officially and as a result of an experience of almost a year of prohibition. I need not remind the House that the liquor business in Russia, prior to the outbreak of war, was a Government monopoly yielding a reyenue of $500,000,000 annually. This huge revenue was wiped out by one stroke of the pen, because it was apparent to the Czar and his advisors that the efficiency of the nation had been so undermined as to make them incapable of doing their part in this war.
I have further statements by Mr. Bark, which I wish to read. On March 1 of this year he again referred to this question. The words I quoted a moment ago were uttered on May 15, 1916, and surely if the prohibition of vodka was of any injury to the nation, it would have been felt during that period of nearly a year. On March 1 of this year, just about six days ago, in introducing the Russian Budget officially in the Douma, he made the following observations:
Bank deposits reached the unprecedented figure of 800,000,000 roubles.
Something that was never known in the history of Russia before.
And a little later on you will see what brought that about. The Finance Minister, explaining the Budget, said it was expected to realize more than 500,000,000 Roubles from new sources of revenue created by the state of war. He had such confidence in the spirit of the Russian people to make permanent-
I ask the House to mark this:
-the advantages gained by temperance, he added that he was loading himself with the heavy responsibility of drafting urgent legislation and devising taxes to cover the diminution of receipts caused by the cessation of the sale of liquor, so as to avoid all temptation to return to the past. War expenditure would compel the nation to face heavy deficits, but there existed means of restoring the Budget ballot by strict economy and by development of the nation's production of resources. To this end the Government was devising taxation of such a nature as to give free scope to the economic independence of Russia. The Finance Minister emphasized the importance of the enormous increase in the savings bank deposits, which was observable among all the states of the nation. '
In another statement given to the Associated Press by the Russian Minister of Finance-I must apologize to hon. members for wearying them with these quotations, but I think they are of sufficient importance to warrant our1 consideration-he had this to say of the capability of Russia to deal with the situation:
" Russia's finances rest upon the most solid foundations in the world," said the minister-
" the economic prosperity of the Russian people, which is now greater than was ever conceived possible before the beginning of the war. Thus, while the masses of the German people are reduced by war to poverty, every month of the war has enriched the Russians.
" The optimistic statements concerning Germany's financial status have deceived but few. On the other hand, there is nothing illusory or specious about the Russian's prosperity. It rests upon the incontrovertible fact of the Russian peoples' increased earnings and savings.
" This is accounted for principally by the growing thrift and economy of the peasants since the enforcement of prohibition, by their greater earning powers and the higher wages they command."	.
Let us now give a moment's consideration, to the situation in the Mother Country in connection with this problem. Last summer a large deputation of British shipmasters and ship owners waited upon the Government, and particularly upon the Right Hon. Lloyd Ge.orge. According to the White Paper in which the record is given, not a single member of that deputation was a teetotaller, and yet they made'the statement soberly and upon their responsibility as owners of large ship-building concerns, that eighty per cent of the lost time in the ship-building yards was due to drink, and they urged upon the Government the necessity of introducing prohibitory laws. It is well known that the Government of Great Britain did introduce some restrictive measures, but it has. been pointed out to the British Government time and again that these measures are not sufficient to deal successfully with the problem. In reply to that delegation the Right Hon. Lloyd George made the famous statement:
We are fighting Germany, Austria, and drink, and so far as I can see the greatest of these deadly foes is drink.
I have the names of that delegation here, but I will not trouble to read them. Representing, 'as I have said, the leading shipbuilding concerns, they pointed out to the Government that the restrictive measures

tion, which has been put forward as an insuperable difficulty. We hear of "vested interests "; and these are covered with a cloak which seems to justify putting them in a class with rights and privileges which must not be tampered with and which must hardly be spoken of except in a suppressed tone. But compensation, I think, is not a serious problem. As a matter of fact, the difficulty is largely solved for us. In Britain, they are taking over the whiskey distilleries for the purpose of manufacturing denatured alcohol. Furthermore, the British Government for reasons which I shah n->t dwell upon now has placed a ban upon the importation of barley for the purpose of manufacturing liquor. I suggest to the Government for their serious consideration the abolition of " the booze ", while providing reasonable safeguards for vested interests. I propose that this shall be done by the Government taking over the distilller-ies of Canada and nationalizing them as a new industry for the production of denatured alcohol and spirits for industrial purposes. That may sound like a revolutionary suggestion, but let us consider it for a moment. Here is a new industry, the manufacture of denatured alcohol. It has been demonstrated by science that a gallon of alcohol is equal to a gallon of gasolene in power. I learn that in Great Britain some of the distilleries have been for years manufacturing starch, and the alcohol, which is a by-product, and which costs 8 cents a gallon to manufacture, has been largely going to waste. As the result of the discoveries of scientists in the last few years it has been found that alcohol can be successfully used in internal combustion engines. In Canada, we import petrol, gasolene and other materials for internal combustion engines, whereas there is going to waste upon the farms and in the cities of Canada sufficient refuse of various kinds out of which to manufacture all the alcohol necessary to supply our needs in this line. I hope I shall not weary the House if I read briefly to show how we can take another leaf out of Russia's book:
The Russian Ministry of Finance is offering a series of prizes for inventions relating to the use of alcohol, and covering a varied field of investigation. The various prizes offered are as follows: Three prizes of 50,000 roubles for a satisfactory method of denaturing alcohol.
Three prizes of 100,000 roubles for a new product derived from alcohol. Three prizes of 75,000 roubles for a new method of applying alcohol to the preparation of a product in which it, or its derivatives, constitute a part. Three prizes of 50,000 roubles for new methods for the application of alcohol in an industry 
in which the spirit, or its derivatives, serve as a transitory dissolving agent, or an extracting or precipitating substance. Four prizes of 175,000 roubles for an apparatus for utilizing alcohol for feeding internal combustion engines. Four prizes of 175,000 roubles for improvements in apparatus relating to utilizing alcohol as fuel. Four prizes of 100,000 roubles for apparatus for applying alcohol to lighting purposes.
I have quoted this to show what Russia is doing, and I lay on this 'Government the responsibility of developing an industry in Canada for which Canada is peculiarly fitted. There is no reason in tjie world why the -Dominion Government should not take advantage of this opportunity to do two things: To solve the compensation question with regard to these distillers and their vested rights, ahd, before-any more vested rights are established, to nationalize a new industry for this country. If we do not do that, in a year or two we shall be putting Bills through this Parliament incorporating such and such a company for the manufacture of denatured alcohol, and the first thing we know the country will be dotted with factories for this purpose; large vested interests will be created, and the opportunity for the Government taking over the industry will have vanished. I again urge the Government to seize this opportunity to deal with this important question, and to prevent such a happening as I have described. What are other countries doing? France has made long contracts with distillers and brewers for motor spirits. Germany, in 1914, consumed 26,000,000 gallons of alcohol for motor spirits. This means a great deal to the farmer; it means cheaper power, light, and heat, and a larger market for his waste products.
Another suggestion has been made with regard to this question of prohibition, and that is, that we should leave it to the provinces. Some one says, " Oh, this is a matter for the provinces to deal with, not the Dominion Government; let us leave it to them, and they can deal with as they think fit." With all respect for those who hold this view, I submit that it is simply a subterfuge. If I remember rightly, the Government presided over by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition took a plebiscite throughout Canada in 1898, and the reason why that plebiscite was not given effect to

I am speaking subject to correction-was that one of the provinces, or possibly two, gave a majority against prohibition. I am not questioning the action of hon. gentlemen at that time

at all; I simply wish to point out that the intimation then went throughout Canada, whether authorized or not, that when the provinces got into line it would be time enough ior the Dominion Government to take action. That was the sentiment of those opposed to prohibition at that time. Now that the provinces are in line, they say: " Oh, let us leave this question to the provinces." But that is not the whole story. A provincial government has a very limited jurisdiction in the matter of prohibition; it can only prohibit the sale of liquor within its boundaries; it cannot prohibit the importation of liquor into private houses, nor can it prohibit the manufacture of liquor within the province. It is therefore a very meagre jurisdiction that the provinces possess as to prohibition. 1, am also informed that the Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, when they met not long ago, passed a resolution instructing the premiers of those provinces to ask the Government of Canada for Dominion-wide prohibition. Whether they have approached the Government I do not know, and I have not had time to ascer-* tain, but this I do know, that throughout Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is a demand for implementing legislation on this subject. "Implementing" is a good word. It was used in this House a few years ago with great effect. There is, I repeat, a demand throughout this [DOT]country for implementing legislation to give effect to the will of the people in those provinces. I am not wedded to any particular manner in which the Government should solve this question, nor db I stick "to the exact wording of my resolution. There is, I think, a desire on the part of -those behind this resolution-and they form a very large portion of the population -to give the Government a free hand in framing legislation to give effect to their wishes. At the same. time I contend that -the argument that we should leave this question to the provinces is not a sound one, nor one that should be given any consideration.
I have detained the House at a greater length than I intended, and 1 have possibly wearied you, Mr. Speaker, by Teading from the opinions of others. But I quoted these for the purpose of reinforcing my own views with the opinions of men in a position to know, and whose voice I think will be heeded by this House. Democracy, I repeat, is on trial at the present time. This war means that democracy will be established or it will fall, and I believe it is up to us in Canada-in my estimation
the most democratic of all people-to grapple with this problem, to face it without flinching, to deal with it to the best of our knowledge and ability. I place on this House the responsibility of heeding the call of the people of Canada, as expressed time and again in the votes of the people in different sections of the country. From one end of Canada to the other a vast majority of the people have spoken for a prohibitory measure of some kind. I place on the House the responsibilty of giving expression to these views and the responsibility of making such provision in the suppression of the liquor traffic as will make the nation as efficient as it can possibly be made. I urge the Government to grapple with this problem in connection with the distilling interests. I do not think there is any insuperable difficulty. Problems are solved by grappling with them, not by turning aside, and dodging them. I believe that this House is capable of dealing with this question, and that the majority of the members of this House are anxious to deal with it. I trust that before we adjourn the day's sitting we shall come to some decision in the matter. My proposal, therefore, is that this resolution be passed by this House, and that the Government at this session bring down the necessary legislation to give effect to it; that one year after the war, if desired, provision be made for a confirming plebiscite making the law permanent; that the Government take over all distilleries in Canada for the purpose of manufacturing denatured alcohol for industrial or medicinal purposes, and that the manufacture of such alcohol be made a national monopoly, thus changing a nonproductive and! wasteful institution into a productive and beneficial national industry.


Charles Marcil: Mt. Speaker, I have very much pleasure in seconding this proposed resolution. I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) for his kind words in regard to myself. Coming from the far east I am delighted to have the opportunity of seconding a resolution moved by a member from the far west, thus showing that on this great question Canada is united. The majority of the Canadian people realize that at this moment we are passing through probably the greatest crisis in our history. We are face to face ' with the greatest problem we have ever had to tackle. We have a Budget this year proposing an expenditure of $425,000,000, and we do not

know what the extent of our obligations next year may be. Within another twelve months we may have 500,000 young Canadians fighting under the flag, and .we do not yet know the amount that we shall be called upon to pay, not only in money, which is of secondary importance, but in blood and in the lives of the flower of our young men. This great circumstance calls for great action and great measures. For myself, I voted on the Dominion plebiscite against prohibition in the province of Quebec, but to-day I realize that I have a great duty to fulfil towards my constituents who have taken unanimous action in favour of prohibition, and when I consider the action taken by the various provinces throughout the Dominion, I feel justified in saying that we have to-day a mandate to act upon these questions and that it is bur imperative duty to act promptly. We have taken it upon ourselves .to assist England in the great struggle in which she is engaged and to vote millions of dollars without formally consulting the people, but we felt from the outset that we had the nation behind us. At the present time I feel equally sure that the people will support us on this question, arid I speak freely, as a convert probably to the idea, but I speak in the interest of the country, feeling within me that I have the interest of Canada at heart. During the last fifteen years I have given many votes in this House; I have assisted, along with 150 or more gentlemen who now no longer sit in this House, in passing measures for the framing of new provinces, for the construction and development of transcontinental railways, for the formation of banks and insurance companies, . for making the St. Lawrence and other waterways of Canada second to none in the world, and for doing all that we thought was in the interest of the welfare, commercial prosperity and happiness of the nation. But, Sir, I consider that the duty I am now undertaking is probably the most important that I have discharged during all that period. I realize that this is the greatest question that we have before us for solution at the present time, and that not only from its firlaneial aspect, but more especially from its moral aspect. I am glad to know that I represent the feeling of my people, because in 1898 the province of Quebec gave a decided vote against prohibition, to which vote I will refer later on; but I am now in a position to show that there has been in my province a tremendous change TMr. March. ]
of sentiment in regard to this question,, and I will produce evidence showing that on this question, as on all other questions relating to the welfare of Canada, Quebec is prepared to shoulder her share of responsibility. We ha've heard from seven or eight of the provinces of Canada; we shall hear more from the province of Quebec when the time comes.
I have accepted the honour of .seconding this resolution on the invitation of members of the Dominion Alliance, [DOT] which for years has been working for the cause of temperance throughout Canada. Canada, as we know, 'is inhabited by people of various creeds and various nationalities. We differ on many questions, but prohibition is one upon which we can all agree, because on the solution of this problem rests the efficiency of the nation.
I have been asked to second 5 p.m. this resolution by men who belong to various walks of life, men who are of different nationalities and different creeds. The House will pardon me if I read the petition which they have placed in my hands, but it is well worth reading and its language explains the problem better than could any words of mine. This petition is signed by some of the leading citizens of, Canada, by some of the great employers of labour, by members of the judiciary, by men who have given this important question years of study. It is a fortunate occurrence, now that the Dominion is brought face to face with thig question, that it was in the city of Montreal in 1875 that the Dominion Alliance for the Suppression of the Liquor Traffic was formed, and while Ontario and the other English-speaking provinces have since been taking the lead, it will be well to remember that this movement originated in Montreal.	.
This petition, which contains all the arguments necessary to, impel this House and the Government to take action immediately, reads:
A Patriotic Appeal for Federal Prohibition.
To the Editor:
On tihe 4th December last a very instructive address was delivered at the Canadian Club, Ottawa, by Hon. R. H. Brand, C.M.G., of London, on "How England is paying for the war and how Canada can help."
The speaker explained the enormous financial burdens which Britain is carrying, and that only by rigid economy and by increasing the wealth-producing powers of the country, would Canada be able to help.

How to attain this end should be the aim of Government and people.
While not directly indicating the manner in which Canada could accomplish this, he referred to the enormous waste from drink, stating that in 1913 the British expenditure on drink amounted to $830,000,000, besides the loss of thousands of tons of barley and the productive employment of tens of thousands of men, " and the final result is that all this drink goes down the people's throat and nothing is left."
Mr. Brand was too courteous to apply this to Canada, but left the application for us.
The expenditure on liquor in Canada runs into many millions. It is not only absolutely wasted, but, as Mr. Brand states, it also takes away from productive employment thousands of men.
What, then, is the remedy?
Pass a prohibitory law to remain in force during the war and for a reconstruction period of three years thereafter, at which time let the question of repeal be submitted to the people.
Russia, France and, to a limited extent England, have acted on these lines with beneficial results.
Prior to the war, in these countries public sentiment was overwhelmingly opposed to any such legislation, but under the stress of war conditions their leaders did not hesitate to act.
Are our leaders in Canada less courageous, less patriotic than the Czar of Russia, the President of France, or the Premier and Lloyd George in England?
In these countries they braved an antagonistic sentiment.
In Canada, even before the war, public sentiment expressed in the plebiscite years ago decided in favour of prohibition. Since then, public opinion has been manifestly growing stronger in its favour.
British Columbia is now demanding the right to restrict the liquor traffic.
Alberta has decided in favour of prohibition. So has Saskatchewan.
Manitoba is ripe for it, and there both political parties are outbidding each other in this direction.
Ontario has now liquor sold in only about 300 municipalities out of 850.
In Quebec, out of 1,143 municipalities over 900 are without a license, and the number is still increasing, as witness the voting in the last few weeks in Lachine, Three Rivers and Ar-genteuil.
New Brunswick, excepting four or five counties, is, under prohibition.
In Nova Scotia no liquor is allowed to be sold in the entire province, except in the city of Halifax, and none whatever in Prince Edward Island.
What stronger evidence is required?
By one simple act of legislation following the overwhelming sentiment of the country, Parliament can save millions of dollars of waste, can by one stroke enormously add to the productive wealth of the country, and do more to increase the power of Canada to help the Empire than by any other legislation it may enact; in helping the Empire it will benefit our own people.
Two hundred thousand young Canadians have left their homes, friends, and all their business interests, to endure the hardships of war, to fight and if need 'be to die for the Empire. Shall those left at home not do every**
thing possible to strengthen their hands and help them to win? The little self-denial imposed by such an Act will enable Canada to vastly increase her power to help.
Will our leaders, forgetting party and remembering only Canada and the Empire, support such a measure? Canada awaits with confidence their answer.
Signed on behalf of the committee.
J. R. Booth (Ottawa)
Wm. C. Edwards (Ottawa)
E. Lafontaine (Montreal)
President de la Ligue Anti-alcoholique de Montreal. Fred. H. Deacon (Toronto)
Geo. H. Millen (Hull)
Stuart J. Carter (Montreal) Hiram Robinson (Ottawa)
Honorary Chairman. A. W. Fraser (Ottawa)
Chairman.
J. W. Hennessy (Fort Coulonge, P.Q.), Vice-Chairman. Edward Seybold (Ottawa)
I	Secretary.
I find in this petition the gist of the whole question. We are told that there is in this country an enormous waste in connection with alcohol, and that the time has come to deal with the question. On this circular we have the names of some of the most competent^ men in Canada. The first name that I read was that of Mr. J. R. Booth. I have heard Mr. Booth mentioned in this House during the last fifteen years as one of the most enterprising and far-seeing men. He has ibuilt railways; he has developed immense industries; he has employed thousands of men; he is in a better position than anybody else to know the injurious effects of alcbhol. Senator W. C. Edwards, whose name is second on the list, also is a man who is entitled to particular respect; he also has had opportunities of a similar nature. This circular was accompanied by another, which also was forwarded to all the newspapers in Canada. It reads as follows:
On Saturday last the appeal to the political leaders of both parties in Canada was made to introduce and carry a prohibitory Act during the war and a reconstruction period of three years thereafter when the question of repeal can be submitted to the people.
If, as pointed out on that occasion, a great responsibility rests on the leaders as well as a great opportunity for Empire service, the responsibility of the people is none the less.
The war expenditure in Canada during last year amounted to about $175,000,000. For the present year this expenditure is estimated at $225,000,000 for an army of 200,000 men. But in Sir Robert L. Borden's New Year message the call has gone forth for 500,000 men. What, then, will be the financial expenditure? It must of necessity be much greater than the above

estimate. How is Canada to meet this tremendous strain on her financial resources?
The answer is plain-we must economize. Every wasteful expenditure must be cut out. We must also strain every energy to increase the wealth-producing power of the people.
It is estimated that the annual loss in Canada through the liquor traffic is about $150,000,000. By the passing of such an Act this great loss can be avoided and a saving to the country can be made equal to more than one-half of the estimated war expenditure. Are the free-born citizens of Canada equal to this sacrifice?-a sacrifice cheerfully made by the nobility and peasantry alike in Russia.	,
Our political leaders may be willing to lead in this great patriotic movement, but they must be supported by Parliament and the people.
What, then, is the duty of the people? Let the citizens call upon the senators and members to grant this legislation. Let every constituency act. Let the churches, the temperance organizations, the boards of trade, Canadian clubs, and other local bodies in each constituency make clear to their member their desire for such legislation.
As soon as the answer of the member is obtained advise our secretary, so that the central committee may know upon whom to rely.
If the people of Canada are in earnest, as we believe they are, on this question, a united effort in every province brought to bear on our public representatives will produce the desired result.
* Let the people act.
This, I think, was the inception of the present movement to bring the question before this House. The circular is couched in- moderate language; it is supported by arguments which are irrefutable; it is entitled to respect. Even if nothing had taken place since this movement was inaugurated but what has happened in this great province of Ontario, I think those who promoted the movement have every reason to feel proud of what they have done.
The Prime Minister has impressed t upon us the urgent need of economy; the urgent need of taking every possible step which will enable us better to bear the burdens laid upon us by our participation in the great cause of Empire. I remember reading some few weeks ago a speech delivered by the Honourable Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), in which he also ref erred to the urgent need of national and personal economy In speaking as they did both hon. gentlemen gave expression to the views which have prevailed on the other sid,e of the water. When this war was declaraed the destinies of the British Empire were, to a great extent, placed in the hands of Kitchener. When the Republicans of France undertook to combat practically the whole of Europe the organizer of their victories was Carnot. To-day Kitchener fills practically the same position for England. He has been entrusted with the task of organizing the vic-
tory, of raising, supplying and equipping the armies, and of maintaining them at the front. Less than a week ago Lord Kitchener delivered a speech at the Guildhall in London. I should like to read a few paragraphs from that speech "to impress; the House, if possible, with the authority of a great man whose words apply to Canada as they apply to the other side of the-water, because they are true, and are based on common sense. Lord Kitchener said:
We want just as many men as we can get as soldiers. We are bound to take all the men that can possibly be spared from industry, agriculture and commerce.
We cannot produce all our ordinary peace time requirements. Either the population must go short of many things or the army must go. short of munitions and other indispensable; things.	[DOT]
Are civilians prepared to let brothers in the trenches endure hardships while they are not. ready to make small sacrifices of harder work,, increased effort and increased economy?
Every war problem teaches the same lesson. First, if we employ less labour, meeting the' wants of the civilian population, we release more men for fighting. Secondly, if we import less for consumption we lessen the difficulties of sea transport. Thirdly, we relieve serious congestion at our docks. Fourthly, we relieve the congestion of our railways. Fifthly, the general reduction of the consumption of commodities by civilians limits the increase in the-cost of living. Lastly, less consumption sets free labour and capital which make what armies need.
Referring to his remarks, the press report says:	*
Lord Kitchener appealed for economy in everything, particularly in coal, foodstuffs, intoxicating liquors, petrol and oils, tea, coffee and tobacco and clothing of all kinds, especially woollen articles.
In another part of his speech he said:
As a representative of the army in the field,
I want to appeal on their behalf to the civilian, army at home to play their part strenuously. Whether the army in the field, who are entirely dependent on the civilian army for food, equipment, and munitions, can get those things in sufficient quantities depends absolutely and entirely on whether every man and woman at home shows the utmost energy in production. and the utmost economy in consumption. Any failure in this respect helps the enemy to win , just as much as the soldier who refuses to do . his utmost in the field of battle.
The question is how all these things can be [DOT] done at the same time, how we can take mil-lions of men from their workshops and farms , and yet provide for all the needs of the civil . population and the army millions in the field ; If those left behind only work as hard as they did before and all the consumers consume as they did before the war, our problem will be insoluble.
Hitherto we have filled the gap by vast importations, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer -and other financial authorities impress us with, the vital necessity of reducing our imports. .

The dilemma is that either the civilians' must go short of things which they are accustomed to in peace times or the armies must go short of munitions and other indispensable supplies. Which is it to be?
The reading of that simple statement, Mr. Speaker, should place the question in a very fair light. We are in the same position as they are in England; when we realize what the outcome of this struggle may mean to us, we are in practically the same position as they are. Surely we can give up our whisky at a moment when our children, our brothers, our sons, our relatives, are shedding their blood for the cause of Empire.	The time has come for the
civilians of Canada, even, if necessary, at the cost of great sacrifice, to show that 'those who, by circumstances of age or for other reasons, have been unable to join the boys at the front, are animated by the . same patriotic! spirit which is evidenced by those who have gone to the scene, of battle.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to read a paragraph from a speech delivered by Mr. McKenna at the same gathering. He said:
The only method is the diversion of capital and labour which are now engaged in peace services for the nation to employment for the army and navy.
Every one, he said, ought to take stock of [DOT] his daily habits and see what he could give up. What was needed now was to teach the people to postpone their expenditures.
And the Eight Hon. A. J. Balfour, speaking on the same occasion, made this statement:	,
The question of personal expenditure was a . difficult and delicate one. It was easy to lecture other people, but what was important was to make every man understand that he should examine his own expenditure to see how much in the national interest he could cut it down. It was for the man who benefited from additional income derived from the war to show why this expenditure should not be postponed until the war was ended.
The time has come for Canada to economize, not only in public matters but in the daily routine of every day life. There is no man within the sound of my voice who will not admit that drinking is a luxury and of course if we were to stop at that argument there would be a great argument in favour of doing away with the liquor traffic. But the moral consequences that have followed in the train of liquor are well known to every member. One of the last things I did in the'old House of Commons -and I am sorry that the book was destroyed by the fire-was to spend an evening reading the admirable speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) in 1884 when he introduced
a resolution in this House in favour of prohibition. That effort was a classic masterpiece. which I read with the greatest delight and in which I found the inspiration for many of the arguments I am advancing to-day. If he failed in those days there is no reason why to-day, under war conditions and changed public sentiment, he should not succeed. If no action is taken now, I am satisfied that by the close of another twelve months the people of Canada will take such a determined stand on this question that action will have to be taken because our economic circumstances and our realization of the necessity for saving every dollar, would make us blush if we continued to waste $100,000,000 or $125,000,000 a year on a luxury. When we are preaching economy to the people and asking our boys to enlist for the war and to risk their lives, if we have not the courage to (io away with this luxury I think we are not worthy of the position we occupy. I shall not weary the House by reading all the statistics of the cost of liquor in Canada, but I shall venture to give the totals. The latest report shows that the total quantity of intoxicating liquors entered for consumption in Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1915, was 56,797,704 gallons. After consultation with experienced men, the following prices have been taken as a reasonable basis for a calculation to ascertain the amount actually paid by the consumers for the quantities cf liquor upon which duty is collected:
Canadian spirits	$6	00.Imported spirits	
8	00Canadian malt liquo"S	
0	70Imported malt liquors	
2	00Imported wines	
5	00
The application of these estimates to the quantities already quoted will give tile following table as the expenditure on intoxicating liquors in the Dominion of Can ada for the year:
Canadian spirits	$24,126,540
Imported spirits	 23,775,496
Canadian malt liquors.. .. 33,569,163 Imported malt liquors..	..	2,122,130
Imported wines	 3,938,325

The official Government estimate made by the Inland Eevenue Department of the quantity of liquor taken for consumption during the year, gives the following as the average for every thousand persons'
Gallons.
Sprits	 672
Beer	'	 6,071
Wine	 9$
7,038

If the total expenditure for drink as above stated is divided by the figures for the population o: Canada, as shown by the Government's estimate made at the beginning of the fiscal year under consideration, it will be found that the actual per capita expenditure for intoxicating liquor was $10.84 as against $12.72 in 1915.
It is not a very big sacrifice, to ask a Canadian who has at heart the interest of his country and the triumph of this Empire to abstain from this reckless waste of money, money that could be so well used for other purposes in the great cause for which we are fighting. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has gone so fully into many of the arguments in favour of this motion that I shall omit many of the arguments which I intended to advance, as I do not wish to weary the House and many other hon. members desire to speak.
We have made efforts of various kinds in Canada to cope with this question. The various provinces, during the last 30 or 40 years, have taken all the measures that could possibly be taken by them for the purpose of putting down this evil. The people in my own province especially have always taken the broad view that in this matter the great change could best be brought about by the inculcation of sentiments of temperance, by persuasion rather than by coercive measures. I am glad to say that to-day an immense change has taken place, that more than 900 municipalities in the province of Quebec have already gone dry, and that 42 out of the 72 constituencies in Quebec have taken that stand. In the provinces we have always had to contend with the fact that as long as the manufacture and importation of liquor is not stopped, it is practically impossible for the provincial authorities to put the traffic down. They can prevent the sale, they can refuse to issue licenses, but they aTe unable to prevent its importation into the province. In the province of Prince Edward Island, which is the sole province in Canada where they have prohibition for the whole province, they are at the mercy of our Federal Legislation. They can prevent the sale of liquor, they can refuse to issue licenses, but they cannot prevent the importation of liquor and it is imported into the province. The same thing happens in Nova Scotia. The people of Nova Scotia by an overwhelming majority have declared in favour of prohibition. The same thing has happened in New Brunswick,'in Ontario and Manitoba, and so on all the way to the coast.

Therefore, the duty of the Federal Government is imperative. If for no other reason than as a war reason, we should act now. We have had liquor for a long time. There is no hon. member within the hearing of my voice who cannot, on a moment's reflection, recall all the evil and all the harm that- has been done by it in his own environment, say among the boys whom he knew at school. Let him give a moment's thought to the solution of this great question. If we have tried liquor for many years in this country, why should we not try to abstain from it for three years, at least while we have a death struggle on; and if in three years from now the Canadian people, in their senses, with these boys coming back, covered with laurels, from the field, feel that they must repeal this legislation, then let them do it freely. But my contention is that after three years of prohibition the people of this country would never repeal it. I am not asking for an innovation, for anything of a startling character. I have here statements from two men who represent fairly well the Conservative and the Liberal views, at least of the English-speaking part of the people of this country, and I. shall quote them. One is the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce who said on September 9, 1915, at the Insurance Underwriters Association banquet:	[DOT]
I confess to you that every time I see the open bar and see the young soldiers of this country coming out and going in, every time I pass the open bar and see the unemployed who, perchance, have got a day's employment, making a bee line for the bar, I confess that my soul cries out for the closed bar in this great Canada.
Then the leader of the Opposition in the Ontario Legislature, Mr. Rowell, speaking on the same occasion, said:
If we have in our midst to-day an institution which is demanding sums of money for its perpetuation and is giving no return in value, but is impairing the earning capacity of the men who go there, there is only one patriotic duty for every patriotic citizen: that to the extent of his ability that curse will be wiped out, the curse of the open bar. Russia has had the courage to do it; Prance has largely undertaken the task; some sections of our own country are doing it; in Great Britain they have cut down the hours to five and a half. Let us have the courage in this supreme hour of crisis to rise to the height necessary in order that this thing shall be done, and done promptly.
I have here an extract from one of the leading newspapers of Ontario, the Toronto Globe, which represents Liberal opinion in that province. The Globe quotes a few lines from the Spectator of London, one of

the most influential of English periodicals, which had said this:
We must economize, and the only great national economy open to us is the cutting off, root and branch, of our expenditure on intoxicants. If we do not, our waste on the nonnecessity of alcohol ..will undo us even more surely than the force and brand of Germany and Austria.
If we mean to win the war, we must prohibit the use of intoxicants in order to save money and get more munitions.
The sellers of intoxicants warn the nation off their preserves. Yet the ministers know as well as we do that the only great saving attainable would be from prohibition.
Commenting on these utterances, the Toronto Globe calls for legislation both provincial and Dominion, in a very strong editorial, in which are the following paragraphs :
Let the King's ministers, in Ottawa as at Westminster, note that word. Its meaning is as large, its alternative of failure as perilous, and the imperative of its "must" as uncompromising for Canada as for Britain. What answer has the Dominion Government, what answer can it have, to the protest, in these war times, that last year 275,000,000 pounds of foodstuffs were destroyed in the distilleries and breweries of Canada in order to produce some 66,000,000 gallons of intoxicating liquors with an estimated value of more than $103,000,000? The most authoritative voice in the journalism of British respectability calls out for what? For "prohibition during the war." Will the King's ministers at Ottawa listen?
I shall now quote a few lines from a lecture delivered by Professor Cudmore, the professor of economics in the University of Toronto. This lecture was delivered before the Royal Canadian Institute and in it he described the position of Canada, from an economic point of view, at the present time, and pictured what it would be in a year or two. He said:
Canada should save at least $500,000,000 a year during the war to hold up her end of the financial burden. The economy of the British people will have to be extended to Canada as well. Instead of expecting money from England to finance our munitions industry Canadian capital should be used to relieye the mother country of the additional strain. The $100,000,000 loan raised last November was just a small part of what Canada will have to do. By cutting down the luxuries and by rigid economy Canada's national saving should be increased from $200,000,000 to a sum two and a half .times that size.
This great issue has also been summarized very briefly by the Pioneer, the organ of the temperance organizations in the province of Ontario, and I shall give the summary to the House. It reads:
The biggest question in Canadian politics today is the question of the liquor traffic. The remedying of the evils of intemperance would
be the greatest boon that any legislative body could confer upon the country.
To set the powers, and purposes, and resources of this country free to graple with other social problems, the settlement of the liquor question is necessary; because the drink traffic stands in the way of every progressive movement, and while it is approved by law it will be an influence for evil in every department of life with which it comes in contact.
By it religious work is handicapped, domestic happiness is impaired, poverty is induced, crime is promoted, political life is corrupted, honest business is defrauded, and physical and mental efficiency is lessened, to the loss of the nation as a whole, and the ruin of thousands of individuals who otherwise would be self-supporting citizens and a strength to the nation, but who are now miserable parasites, a weakness and a discredit to the community of which they form a part.
Since we are taking up this question chiefly as an economic question, I wish to quote from Canadian Finance, a newspaper published in Winnipeg, a few observations on the economics of prohibition. This paper said:
A question that many are looking at from a new angle in days of war is that of the liquor traffic. Even those who heretofore have held out for non-interference with what the individual puts down his own thoat, are asking whether the community burden of the drink habit should not be sloughed off by the majority's will. That Great Britain has temporized in its dealing with so deeprooted a- problem- despite acute experience of its drag upon national efficiency in time of stress-need not necessarily deter a younger country from more radical treatment.
It is not to be denied that many individuals and some lines of trade will be acutely disturbed by ending the liquor trade as an organized business. But the liquor interests attempt an impossible task when they seek to prove that the net economic result of banishing their trade would not be a gain to the community as a whole.
The ending of the war will badly dislocate the business of manufacturing munitions in Great Britain-will leave much plant and equipment idle if not useless, and put thousands of men to the necessity of seeking other work. Yet what manufacturer of munitions, however seized with the importance of war profits, could delude himself by thinking it possible to delude the public into believing its economic weal dependent upon the war's continuance.
From the viewpoint of national economics there are two possible kinds of manufacturing. The first is where the joint employment of labor and capital results in commodities which contribute in turn directly or indirectly to further production-whether they be machinery for factories, partially worked materials for more finished products, food and clothing for workers, or even luxuries contributing to the healthful enjoyment of life. (Happiness has a more real place in economics than some of the schoolmen would have us believe.) The second kind of manufacturing is where the labor and capital together bring forth that which conduces to waste or actual destruction.
In considering the effect to the world ol business of making a plow, there are to bt



taken into account not merely the direct returns upon the labor and capital employed in its manufacture; there is the sum total of the economic services rendered by the plow as long as it is used in farming. Indeed, it is really by anticipating, or discounting, these in part that the manufacturing process receives its direct return. The plow pays for itself by economic service.
Very different is the case of an instrument of destruction-say, a field gun. It is true that capital and labor get their direct returns in its making; but, the completed article destroys instead of adds to wealth, or to mankind's wealth-producing power. Therefore whatever gain comes to the world of trade from its manufacture and sale must have reckoned against it the .later waste directly or indirectly -caused -and the net result is apt to be very much minus.
Again, suppose twenty thousand dollars to be spent in building an incinerator for the sole purpose of burning up some thousands of bushels of perfectly good grain each year-the ashes being dumped around the city 'in such a way as to interfere materially with its cleanliness and the community's comfort. Would it be possible to find final economic justification for this whole process on the grounds that the farmer was duly paid for his grain, the manufacturer for his bricks, the mine operator for his coal, the railroad for its transportation, the bricklayer, the furnace stoker and others for their labour-even supposing the resultant ashes were no worse than merely useless?
In place of the suppositious grain incinerator, consider the economic processes connected with a distillery or brewery. Is its output from use of grain and other raw materials better or worse than ashes-from the whole public's standpoint? It is not necessary to take the extremist's view, that absolutely no benefit or legitimate enjoyment results from the drinking of whisky or beer. But who is bold enough to assert that the harm wrought in a community does not vastly outweigh benefits derived therefrom-and does not overbalance also the trade contributions of the manufacturing and distributing processes? Especially when it is considered that-after some temporary Jmsiness dislocation-the capital and labour used could be turned ultimately to more productive service.
The last official Dominion census indicates that for every million dollars of capital invested in the manufacturing of intoxicants, under $55,000 is paid annually in wages. A similar amount of capital employed in the making of bread, etc., involves the paying of practically four times that amount in wages-while in the making of clothing a corresponding investment results in wage payments of about $525,000, or a showing almost tenfold that of the liquor business. For every million dollars invested in the making of liquor, Dominion official census figures show 87 employees. For other manufacturing processes the comparative figures are: iron and steel 302, bread, etc., 523, boots and shoes, 684, clothing 1,239.
This, I think, goes far to prove that from an economic standpoint the manufacture of liquor is not an advantage, far from it, that it is more to be considered as a bane to the country.
I come to another phase of the question, to which I alluded a moment ago. Parliament has discussed this question many

times-in 1884, on a motion of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), in 18?9, and in 1892. Parliament never voted down a resolution in favour of prohibition, but it has adopted that resolution on three different occasions-of course, with a rider added to it; that the resolution should be given effect to only when it had been adopted by the people. The resolution is as follows, and it contains, I think, all the arguments necessary to support its adoption:
That the object of good government is to promote the general welfare of the people by a careful encouragement and protection of whatever makes for the public good, and by equally careful discouragement and suppression of what. ever tends to the public disadvantage.
That the traffic in alcoholic liquors as beverages is productive of serious injury to the moral, social and industrial welfare of the people of Canada.
That despite all preceding legislation, the evils of intemperance remain so vast in magnitude, so wide in extent, and so destructive in effect, as to constitute a social peril and a national menace.
That this House is of the opinion, for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, that the right and most effectual legislative remedy for these evils is to be found in the enactment and enforcement of a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes.
On the motion of Mr. Thomas White, the resolution was' amended by adding the following words:
And this House is prepared, so soon as public opinion will sufficiently sustain stringent measures, to promote such legislation so far as the same is within the competency of the Parliament of Canada.
This amendment was adopted by 124 votes against 40. In 1898, the administration of the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier gave effect to the wishes of the people by calling for a Dominion referendum on the subject of prohibition. I am sorry to say that on that occasion the people of Canada did not seem to have attached to the question the importance which they attach to it to-day. But Canada was not then face to face with the conditions which now confront us. Not more than half the voters cast their ballots in this referendum. A summary of the voting on that occasion is as follows: '
Ontario-
For prohibition	 154,498
Against prohibition	 115,284
Majority for prohibition. 39,214 Quebec

For	 28,436
Against	 122,750
Majority against ..	..	94,324

Nova Scotia

For	 34,678
Against	 5,370
Majority	for	 29.30S
New Brunswick-
For	 26,919
Against	 9,575
Majority	for	 17,344
Prince L'dward Island-
For	 9,461
Against	 1,146
Majority	for	 8,315
Manitoba-
For	 12,419
Against	 2,978
Majority	for	 9,441
British Columbia-
For	 5,731
Against	 4,756
Majority	for	 975
North West Territories-
For	 6,238
Against	  2,824
Majority for . .	. .	. .	3,414
Total for prohibition	 278,380
Total against prohibition	 264,693
Majority for prohibition	 108,011
Majority against prohibition	 94,344
Net majority for prohibition . . . . , .	13,667
The Government of that day decided that, in view of the small majority, and in view also of the decided stand that had been taken by the province of Quebec on the question, it would not be wise to bring in a Dominion Prohibition Act, and so the matter was allowed to stand as it was. But I wish to give to the House some idea of the great progress that has b.een made in the province of Quebec since this adverse vote was given on the 28th o<f September, 1898. On that occasion Quebec declared against prohibition by a majority of 94,324. We have in the province of Quebec 72 constituencies in the local House, and of these 44 have "gone dry" as follows:
Argenteuil, Bagot, Beauce, Bellechasse, Bonaventure, Brome, CShamplata, Charlevoix No. 1, Charlevoix No. 2, Chateauguay, Chicoutimi, Dorchester, Drummond, Gaspe No. 2, Huntingdon, Iles-de-la-Madelaine, Kamouraska, Lac Megantic, Lac St. Jean No. 1, Lac St. Jean No. 2, Levis, L'lslet, Lotbiniere, Maski-nonge, Matane No. 1, Matane No. 2, Megantic, Montmagny, Montmorency No. 2, Nicolet, Pontiac, Portneuf, Richelieu, Richmond, Rimouski, Saguenay, Stanstead, St. Hyacinthe, St. Maurice, Temiscaming, Temiscouata, Wolfe, Wright, Yamaska.
This shows that the great majorities of constituencies in the province of Quebec, of their own volition, have adopted prohibition, and have carried it into effect by the action of their county councils or other-
92i	[DOT]
wise. This shows a tremendous change in public opinion; and I am satisfied that if there were a referendum to-morrow in Quebec on the subject of prohibition, especially at this moment, the reform would be adopted by an overwhelming majority. In support of this, I desire to give further evidence.
If prohibition has made tremendous headway in the province of Quebec, it is largely due to the efforts pf the Roman Catholic clergy. In former days, the Dominion Alliance and other prohibition organizations were recruited largely from those of the Protestant faith. Of course, the Roman Catholic church has always favoured temperance not only in liquor but in everything else. But in the last few years, in the province of Quebec, they have taken a decided stand. At the .head of the Roman Catholic clergy in the province is the Archbishop of Quebec, Monseigneur Roy, who is the acting assistant to His Eiminence, Cardinal Begin, head of the Roman Catholic church in 'Canada. I wrote to Monseigneur Roy and sent him a copy of this resolution, asking his opinion upon it. His answer is as follows:
Archbishopric of Quebec, February 20, 1916.
Dear Sir,-This is about my opinion on the Stevens motion:
1.	The prohibition movement is serious, profound and irresistible.
2.	The manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in the present conditions certainly constitutes one of the worst plagues of the country.
3.	Public opinion, properly enlightened and directed, has expressed itself thereon with a clearness and a persistency which can leave no doubt.
4.	To establish the prohibition regime in the rural parts and small towns, and have the trade free in the large centres, is a grave error and opposed to common sense.
5.	The present war furnishes an excellent opportunity for the Government and Parliament to intervene to deliver us from a public plague, and throw off the degrading yoke of ^he manufacturers and dealers in alcoholic diquors.
6.	The 240 municipalities and towns of the diocese of Quebec have of their own free will voted for prohibition Alone, the city of Quebec stands as the supreme entrenchment of the enemy, driven away from everywhere else. Still, four-fifths of the population of Quebec want prohibition.
Conclusion:	The Parliament at Ottawa will
meet the wishes of the very large majority of the Canadian people if it places the whole country under the beneficent regime of prohibition. Please accept, dear Sir, with my congratulations, the assurance of my personal esteem and of my entire devotion to the cause which you wish to serve.
(Sgd.)
Hon. Charles Marcil, M.P., , Ottawa.
P. E. Roy, Arch, de Sel.

Bishopric of Rimouski,
January 24, 1915.
Mr. A. W. Fraser,
' Ottawa.
gir>-x have read your communication of the 17th inst., as well as the patriotic appeal for a Federal prohibition law for liquor during the time of the war in particular. I desire to inform you that I am -favourable to such a project, and that I will give it all the help I can.
It seems to me that it is of the highest importance, even under all circumstances, to favour and protect our people against all temptation, the dangers and the incalculable abuses of intoxicating liquors With such sentiments,
I remain, Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
x Andre Albert Blais, Bishop of Rimouski.
The Bishop of Joliette writes:
Joliette, Que., January 21st, 1916.
A. W. Fraser, Esq., Chairman,
Committee of the Patriotic Appeal for Federal Prohibition, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the-Patriotic Appeal of your committee, with vour favour of the 17th inst.
I would cheerfully give my approval to the movement, with the proviso mentioned in your letter regarding alcohol for industrial and medicinal purposes, and including also, in those exceptions, what is necessary for ecclesiastical or ministerial functions.
In the diocese of Joliette, we anticipate, after a plebiscite in every parish, a total suppression of the legal commerce of spirituous liquors, as it is now in the diocese of Three Rivers. We would be glad to see this temperance movement reinforced by an Act of the Federal Govern- [DOT] ment.
I beg to remain,
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd) x Guillaume Forbes,
Bishop of Joliette.
I also wish to give an important testimony as to the disastrous effects of alcohol. This is from the city of Montreal, which by the very nature of things will remain the last stronghold of liquor in Quebec. It is in Montreal that the [DOT] trade is the most strongly entrenched, and the large firms and the powerful influence in that city will of course combat prohibition as'long as it possible for them to do so. The effects of liquor to-day in the city of Montreal is judged by no person better than the sheriff, who is in charge of the new jail which the province of Quebec has erected at great expense at Bordeaux. Hundreds and hundreds of the poor unfortunates of this unholy traffic are kept interned in that jail. The sheriff of Montreal writes:

Office of the Sheriff,
Montreal, February 1, 1916. Hon. Charles Marcil, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-The question of prohibition will soon be discussed in the House of Commons. On this subject allow me to tell you what alcohol has done to people in the Montreal prison.
In 1915, out of 6,288 condemnations, 1951 were for drunkenness. Out of 5,101 seiit -to prison, 1,642 were sent there for drunkenness or 32 per cent. Three hundred and thirty- . nine women were condemned for drunkenness.
What of the other offences for which delinquents have been specifically condemned ; 75 per cent of these offences were committed by persons under the influence. The four cases of homicide reported in the statistics in the district of Montreal were committed while under the influence of liquor.
Alcohol plays such a large part in the prison statistics, that once it was removed there would be but few prisoners. My office as sheriff of the largest district in Canada has enabled me to ascertain this.
I have the honour to be yours truly,
'	L*. J. Lemieux, M.D.,
Sheriff.
In addition to the evidence I have submitted, I have received from a large number of municpalities and societies all through the province of Quebec a resolution which is identical in terms. I will read it and then give the names of the municipalities and societies which have declared for it. The rtesolution reads:
That this council approves the resolution for prohibition of alcoholic liquors in Canada during the war, and for a period of three years after the war is over for the reconstruction of the country, and that a copy of this resolution he forwarded to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Hon. Mr. Marcil, and to the member of our constituency.
The following bodies approve of the resolution :
Council Notre Dame de Mont Carmel, Co. St. John; Cercle Agricole de Maniwaki, Que.; Temperance Society, Maniwaki, Que.; Township of Roxton, Que. ; Council of Roxton Falls, Que.; Notre Dame de Mont Carmel, Que. ; Village of Yamachiche, Que; Temperance Society, St. Georges de Henryville, Que.; Parish of Ste. IJrsule, Que.; Town of Pointe Claire, Que; Town of Megantic, Que; Council of St. Denis sur Richelieu, Que.; Medical Society District of Richelieu, Que.; Council Parish St. Mathieu (St. Maurice), Que.; Village of Massueville, Que.; Village of St. Joseph de Richelieu, Que. ; Parish of St. Joseph de Richelieu, Que.; Council of St. Boniface de Shawinigan, Que.; Parish of St. Damase, Que.; Council of Stanbridge Station, Que.; Anti-alcoholic League, Longueuil, Que.; Council Parish of St. Marcel, Que.
In addition to these petitions from my own province, I have been honoured by receiving from the province of Ontario two other communications which were sent to
me direct, and which I would like to place upon Hansard, as I believe they agree pretty fairly with the trend of opinion in that province. The first of these petitions is from the town of Renfrew, which is represented in this House by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). I had the pleasure recently, on thq. invitation of the citizens of that locality, of visiting Renfrew, for the purpose of assisting that noble work, the Canadian Patriotic Fund. The town of Renfrew, which has a population of 4,250, and from which liquor has been banished for the last five years, has subscribed this year $42,000 to the Canadian Patriotic Fund, thus at one stroke placing itself at the head of the communities of Canada as regards contributions. We were received in a magnificent temperance hotel erected by the citizens, and men and women, young and old, said that the day liquor was banished from Renfrew was a blessing to that community. This is the resolution:
Renfrew, February 23, 1916. Hon. Chas. Marcil,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
At a meeting of the members of the Baptist Church, Renfrew, held on the 31st inst., It was moved by A. A. Wright, and seconded by T. L. Main, and carried unanimously, that in the oiinion of this congregation, It was most desirable, in the interests of our fellow countrymen, that the resolution introduced in the House of Commons by H. H. Stevens, M.P., and seconded by the Hon. Chas. Marcil, M.P., looking to the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, should be adopted.
Resolved, also, that a copy of the resolution should he sent to our Premier, Sir R. L. Borden, and also one to the Hon. Geo. P. Graham, our representative in the House of Commons, urging them to do their utmost to have the resolution adopted.
Signed on behalf of the congregation,
W. G. Draper, Clerk.
Here is another resolution from North Bay, where liquor unfortunaltely has in the past played a very important part:
North Bay, Ontario,
March 3, 1S16,
We, the undersigned ministers of North Bay, Ontario, do hereby express our strongest en-dorsation of the resolution which is to be brought before the Parliament of Canada by Mr. H. H. Stevens and the Hon. Charles Marcil, namely:
" That at this time, when the Empire is at war, in the opinion of this House, the conservation of the wealth and resources of the Dominion, and the promotion of the efficiency of our nation would he materially aided by the prohibition of the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage

purposes, and legislation of this character ought to be enacted forthwith."
Further, we herewith forward copies of this resolution to the Hon. Frank Cochrane, Sir Robert Borden, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with the earnest hope that they may be able to use their powers to have the said resolution most cordially adopted by the House.
Signed on behalf of the ministers of North Bay. x
J. G. Bowles, Secretary.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Marcil: The.hon. member for Vancouver and myself have attempted to show that a' profound feeling in favour of prohibition prevails generally in the various provinces of Canada. Before six o'clock I tried to give an idea of the immense revolution that has taken place in the province of Quebec in this connection. The more consideration I give to the matter, the more I am convinced that if, especially at this time, an opportunity were given to that province to express itself on the question of prohibition, there would he a majority ih its favqur. I have given the evidence of some of the leading men in that province to show the great change that has been brought about.
I am glad to be able to say that the effect of prohibition in those parts of Canada where it has been introduced' has not been penalizing-far from it. On the contrary, it has been entirely to the benefit of the people; there are few instances in recent years where prohibition, after having been once accepted, was rejected. Take, for instance, the effect of the introduction of prohibition in Saskatchewan. I have here the following statement of Mr. Koepke, field secretary of the " Banish the Bar " crusade:
The Liquor Act which was passed on the first of July last brought about a great change in this province, doing away with 417 bar licenses, all the club licenses in the cities, and the railroad licenses, and changing the wholesale places, 38 in number, into 23 Government-owned liquor stores.
The province was divided into 67 districts, 19 of these having liquor stores or dispensaries, and the remaining 48 having no liquor stores. The immediate result of this was a great reduction in the hulk of liquor consumed. Government figures for the month of July showed a reduction of 95 per cent over the average amount, and since then figures anywhere from 80 to 90 per cent reduction. It has almost entirely done away with the treating system. It has stopped a great deal of recruiting in the army of drinkers. Great satisfaction is expressed all over the province. The people are delighted with all of the changes, except the

dispensary feature. There is dissatisfaction in the centres where these Government-owned stores are established.
According to the provisions of the Act, all liquor stores that were situated in towns of less than one thousand population could he attacked this year by a movement to vote them out. The vote was thus brought on in three districts out of nineteen. Also campaigns could be brought on to put in liquor stores where there were none, hut out of the forty-eight only four attempted to put them in. This made campaigns in each of seven districts, three to close the liquor stores, and four to open stores. The election took place on the 13th of December last, resulting in a most decisive victory for the temperance forces. The three liquor stores were put out with large majorities, and the stores were kept out of the four districts by overwhelming majorities.
In one district where there were seven towns in a row, the seven towns gave a total of 22 wet votes. One municipality, comprising 15 townships, gave a total of 14 wet votes, and over 400 dry votes. The results show conclusively that "booze" is in disfavour in this f great prairie province, and it is safe to predict that next year the remaining twenty liquor stores will be abolished. The results of the foregoing votes are prophetic of the end of the whole dispensary system.
The work in the province has been very encouraging, but very strenuous. The people are clamouring for a Dominion vote on the entire situation, having in view the total abolition of the intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. Saskatchewan is ready for this next great step.
I shall refer to the effect' of prohibition in the province of Alberta only by reading a despatch, published in the papers of Saturday, March 3, which tells how the second reading of the Prohibition Bill was treated in the Alberta Legislature, showing the unanimous feeling that exists among the representatives of the people. The despatch follows:
Edmonton, Alta., March 3.-Practically without a word of comment, the Sale of Intoxicating Liquor (Prohibition) Bill was read,' ai second time in the Legislature this afternoon, and now only awaits consideration by the House in Committee before it comes up for third reading and then becomes a law in the statute hook of the province.
The Bill, which goes into force on July 1, will effect prohibition in the province in so far as it is within the control of the provincial authorities-that is to say, it absolutely forbids the sale in Alberta, except in so far as it Is required for medicinal and mechanical purposes. When the Act comes into force 281 wholesale and retail licenses become inoperative. At the time the referendum resulted in adoption of the Act on July 31 last by 19,500 majority, there were 253 hotel, 13 club and 55 wholesale licenses in operation.	*
In Manitoba, as the House has been informed, a referendum will be taken on this question on March 13 next. In the meantime, it may be interesting to mention the results of the votes that have already

been taken in Manitoba. On July. 23, 1892, the vote for prohibition was 19,637; against prohibition, 7,115, a majority in favour of prohibition < of 12,522. On September 29, 1898, at the time of the Dominion plebiscite, another vote was taken, with the following result: for prohibition, 12,419; against prohibition, 2,978, a majority of 9,441 in favour of prohibition. I think that there can be no doubt as to what the result of the coming referendum in Manitoba will be. We have, therefore, the three great prairie provinces arrayed on the side of prohibition.
The province of British Columbia is attracting a great deal of attention just now in this connection. It lies alongside one of the. large American states which has just adopted prohibition. In convention at Nanaimo, the Orange Grand Lodge adopted the following resolution:
That this Grand Lodge strongly endorses the principle of the prohibition of the manufacture, sale and importation of intoxicating liquors, and approves of the movement now on foot to have such a law enacted in British Columbia.
They passed another resolution to this effect :
That this R. W. Grand Lodge of Britisjh Columbia comply with the request of the Executive Committee of the People's Prohibtion Movement and appoint a committee of three to accompany the prohibition delegates in their conference with the Government at an early date, and to act as a standing committee of the prohibition movement in promoting the interests of prohibition during the year.
I quote the following as an instance of a commercial body favouring Dominion-wide prohibition:
Because the Board of Trade of Regina, Sask., believes that, " conditions prevailing throughout the British Empire and countries allied with it demand the conservation of every available source of power," it has placed itself on record as favouring immediate steps towards federal prohibition.
The board, in a resolution, holds that the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquors are in themselves to a very great extent an economic waste and tend to lessen the forcefulness, energy and complete fltness of the people of the Dominion. The board urges Parliament to pass a law providing for prohibition and suggests that the measure be not repealed until after the question of repeal has been submitted to the voters.
Many resolutions have been passed by large religious bodies in Western Canada. At a recent meeting of the Session of St. Andrew's Church, Moosejaw, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
Whereas a campaign has been launched in Ottawa and elsewhere, having for its object the abolition of the liquor traffic in all its branches from the Dominion of Canada, be it resolved that this session records its approval
of the same, pledging its sympathy and support, and that the clerk, be instructed to forward a copy of this minute to the secretary of the organization which is prosecuting this good work.
We have, therefore, a plain indication of the fact that the feeling in Western Canada is undoubtedly in favour of prohibition. But the most important step taken within the last few days is that which has been taken by Ontario, the greatest and largest province of this Dominion. The Premier of that province has introduced a measure, the details of which we are not familiar with now, but which aims at the introduction of prohibition into the province and the holding of a referendum later. Mr. Rowell, the leader of the Opposition, has come out in support of the proposal, and, according to the present indications, there is no doubt that the measure will carry the House and the province.
We have seen what has been done in Quebec, in Ontario, and in Western Canada. So far as the Maritime Provinces are concerned, Prince Edward Island has prohibi-tioh, and Nova. Scotia has it, with the exception of Halifax. I understand, however, that a private Bill has been introduced in the Legislature of Nova Scotia having in view the object of doing away with the 46 or 47 licenses in the city of Halifax. That will leave under license in the Maritime Provinces only a portion of the city of St. John, and in respect of ^hich similar steps will likely be taken. If at the present 'session legislation of this kind is not introduced in this Parliament, at the coming session the whole Dominion of Canada, with the single exception of the province of Quebec, which has not yet taken any official stand in the matter beyond the reduction of the number of licenses, will be in favour of prohibition.
In Quebec, as has been said, we have over 900 municipalities which have adopted prohibition. This shows that there is an immense feeling all through Canada in favour of this great change. Apart from its moral aspect, the economic side of the question has become of immense importance. The ordeal through which Canada is now passing makes it imperative on the representatives of the people to give the country an opportunity of doing its share in the great work we have undertaken of seeing humanity and civilization through in this war.
I wish to glance at the history of prohibition among our neighbours in the great republic to the south. A great struggle on

this question has continued there since 1845. In that year the State of Maine adopted prohibition and has maintained it ever since. It must be remembered that in the United States national prohibition of the manufacture, importation, and sale . of liquor has never been adopted by the Federal authority, and under the Interstate Commerce law liquor can be forwarded from one state to another. Therefore prohibition has never had a fair and complete trial in the United States as it would in this country were prohibition adopted by this Parliament, because the root of the whole trouble is the manufacture, importation and distribution of liquor. In the United States on January 1, 1916, no less than 6,800 barrooms were closed and seven states went dry. Those states were Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Oregon, South 'Carolina and Washington. The total population of these ~seven states is 8,253,993. The conditions in these states have been well described as follows:
Arkansas:	The new law which, goes into
force in this State is said to be the most stringent yet enacted in any part -vf the United States. The penalty for liquor-selling is a year's imprisonment in the State penitentiary. The experience of the people with attempts at violation of county prohibition had made them determined to see that the voice of the people was effectively carried out.
Colorado:	It is stated that during the last
week of 1915 more than $2,000,000 was expended for intoxicating liquor in Colorado. Besides the saloons set out in the above table there were five breweries in operation which -go out of business along with the bars. The city of Denver, which came under the prohibition regime, has a population of 245,423 making it the third largest of the prohibition cities.
Idaho:	The Idaho prohibitory law is of unusual stringency. It is being attacked at the present time in a suit which is set down for hearing on appeal in the United States Supreme Court. This law provides pirnishment for the possession even by private citizens of . any kind of malt or spirituous liquors.
Iowa:	Notwithstanding the legal restrictions imposed by existing legislation in Iowa, there were in operation sixteen breweries, with a capitalization of $4,236,963. There will be no toleration of these so-called industries, and the buildings in which they are housed must be turned to some other use.
Oregon:	Oregon is a very progressive State.
Its natural wealth is vast, and its citizens are exceedingly enterprising. In it the city of Portland takes the second in population among the cities in which the traffic is entirely outlawed. Even drug stores will not be allowed to sell intoxicants for any purpose.
South Carolina:	As already stated, the dispensary system disappears in this State, In which it practically originated as far as the United States is concerned. The new law allows importation by any person for private use of not more than one gallon of intoxicants per
 ,
month. There is not much change as authorized dispensaries were very few.
Washington:	In the extreme north-west of
the Republic, lying just south of British Columbia, this big State will by its dryness, help the enforcement of prohibition when it comes in British Columbia. It contains the city of Seattle the largest prohibition urban area,with a population of 313,029. No other State has closed as many bars by going dry. It had also a number of breweries, some of them extensive and prosperous.
General:	There are now eighteen States under prohibitory law, and the people have voted for prohibition in another, namely, Virgina, in which the change will take place on November 1st next. The dry States are now:
Alabama; Arkansas ; Arizona:	Colorado ;
Georgia; Idaho; Iowa ; Kansas ; Maine ; Mississippi; North Carolina; North Dakota; Oklahoma ; Oregon; South Carolina; Tennessee; Washington ; West Virgina.
Five license States will vote on the question this year-Vermont in March, and California, Michigan, Montana and North Dakota in November.
Campaigning looking to State-wide prohibition also going on in New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. It is possible that other States than those which have already decided may also vote at the November election. Outside the prohibition States that have been named, there is an immense prohibition territory obtained through the local option method. The question of a national constitutional prohibition amendment is now before Congress. Surely this is a mighty sweep, and a prediction of ultimate and complete success.
In describing the results of the'coming into operation of prohibition in the seven States on January 1st, the American Issue said:
" Portland, Oregon, has a population of nearly 300,000-about one-third greater than Columbus, Ohio. Portland, along with the State, became dry January 1st. For the twenty-four hourq ending last Monday night, following the closing of saloons on Saturday, not an arrest was made for drunknenness or disorderly conduct. No saloons city in the world of equal size has such a record."
The state of Kansas is often mentioned in connection with prohibition. I do not wish to dwell upon it at length, because members who have at all studied the question of prohibition know that Kansas stands as a shining example of what prohibition may do. Will we be penalizing the people of Canada if we impose prohibition on them for at least three years, during .the war and the period of reconstruction following it? Let us see what has been the experience of one of the leading states of the Union. This is an official document, signed by the Gov-ener of the state, and dated the 6th of March, 1915:
Kansas people are stronger for prohibition to-day than ever before. At the end of nearly a generation under prohibition, it may truthfully be said that the prohibitory law of this state was never so well enforced as now, and never so generally approved, nor is the reason for this approval far to seek.

As a result of prohibition there are forty-eight counties which did not send a prisoner to the penitentiary and eighty-seven counties tnat did not send an insane patient to the asylums last year; more than a dozen Kansas counties have not called a jury in ten years to try a criminal case; fifty-three counties were without paupers in their alms-houses.
The Kansas death rate is the lowest in the world-7! for each 1,000 persons; there are more students in the Kansas colleges and universities in proportion to population than any other state in the Union; the bank deposits in ten years have increased frbm $100,000,000 to more than $200,000,000. Kansas, with a population of a million and three-quarters, has as much wealth as Chicago with a population of two and one-half million, and the per capita wealth of Kansas is the greatest of any state in the Union-approximately $1,700 for every man, woman and child in the state.
The annual expenditure for liquor has been reduced from $21 per capita, the average in the United States, to $1.25 in Kansas; illiteracy among Kansas people has been reduced to two per cent-the lowest in the United States.
The value of the field, orchard and live stock crops for 1914 was 638 million dollars.
I do not claim that the prohibitory law is the sole cause of this great agricultural wealth, but surely this wealth is evidence that prohibition does not destroy business and the property of the state. The state of Kansas has no bonded debt except $370,000 held by the Kansas school fund.
As a matter of fact, there is no sound argument against prohibition, either moral or economic, not even the argument that it increases taxes, which it does not do. The taxes in Topeka are just about the average of cities in the Middle West, many of which get a large revenue from saloon licenses.
The attacks on prohibition in Kansas are simply the false representations of that enemy of the home, the church, and the state-the saloon power.
National prohibition is coming and Kansas and her people are ready to take the lead in the fight.
(Signed) Arthur Capper,
Governor. 1
X have read Governor Capper's communication and heartily concur in all that he says.
(Signed) S. M. Brewster,
Attorney General.
I do not intend to refer at any greater length to Kansas, but here is a State which adjoins part of our western country, and in which prohibition has been tried; I refer to North Dakota. With your permission., Mr. Speaker, I will read an extract relating to that State in order that Canadians may know what is going on alongside their border. Here is a statement by Judge Charles A. Pollock, in the Christian Advocate, a publication of the highest standing. Judge Pollock has been presiding judge of the district court for nineteen years. This is what he said:	-	*
When prohibition was adopted in North Dakota we had a population of about 180,000. It was urged that if the prohibitory system was
engrafted upon our statute book the state would not develop. This statement, like others from the saloon source, has been shown to be untrue. We now have a population of about 700,000, and the per capita wealth of our people is approximately $2,000-the highest of any state in the Union. South Dakota, when admitted to the Union, had something like 250,000 inhabitants. After having had prohibition for four or five years it returned to the license system. That state now has a population of less than 600,000.
With us as the saloon interests decrease in a community the banks and trust companies increase. The last reports from our banking interests show a constant and healthy development, the aggregate deposits mounting up into the millions. Statements of the banks in Fargo alone show an aggregate of about $10,000,000. Fargo has grown from a city of 6,000 under the license system to one of 20,000 under the prohibitory. It has all modern improvements -like heat, water works, paved streets, street cars, electric lights and every convenience attendant upon city life.
Many of those who were most bitterly opposed to prohibition have been won over and are now planted firmly upon the side of the present system, convinced, it is true, against their will, but now firm in their new position because they cannot put aside what they see and know to have been fully demonstrated. They have in a large number of cases been manly enough to step forward and give utterance to the unshaken faith which they now possess. They declare that under no considerations ought we to permit the saloon to return to our borders. I have the written state*-ment of most of our leading business men, speaking from their special viewpoint of the beneficial effects of prohibition. Many of them were determined opposers of prohibition when it was adopted.
Under these conditions it is the height of impudence for the liquor men to assert that our law has -been a failure, - and, therefore, we ought to cause its repeal. If it is a failure, it is because liquor has been sold in larger quantities, and if that be true the vendors of such liquor do violence to their own interests by attempting to destroy such a valuable field in which to carry on their traffic.
*
I do not need to quote any more on that point, because I think that is a very good statement of the case. The United States affords us in some of its States an example of the results of prohibition. These should not debar us from doing what we think ought to be done under the circumstances and for the very special reasons that we have to contend with. Mention was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) of what Russia had done. I shall not refer to Russia, because that.country has witnessed the greatest change of all time, so far as the liquor question is concerned. The people of this country have a particular interest in the problem outside of what has happened in Great Britain, to which I shall refer in a moment. There is France, the land of the vintage, the land of liqueurs,

the drunkard and the pauper, or to the prison and workhouse.
I have looked into the tear-stained faces of a still larger army of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, wives and husbands, as they have pleaded for the miserable wrecks that booze has made. I have seen with this army ten thousand pale-faced, hollow-cheeked, ragged, hungry, and starving children, cursed by booze.
Booze has caused 200,000 divorces in the United States in the last twenty years, and adds 25,000 more to this number every year. It divides more homes, fills more jails and empties more *churches than all other influences combined.
Booze never built a park, a playground, a school, or a church, but is the enemy of them all.
War may be hell, but where it slays its thousands, booze destroys its tens of thousands.
I do not intend to speak at any greater length and I must thank the House for the kind and patient attention which it has given me. I have spoken to-day in fulfilment of what I consider a public duty; I am supported in what I am doing by the unanimous sentiment of my own, constituency ffom which, to the great satisfaction of the people, the last license was banished three years ago, and I feel that I have the sentiment of Canada with me. I am sorry that circumstances and my age have precluded me from doing what many of us would like to do, that is, to take our share in the present great task which now lies before Canada of achieving on the other side of the ocean that great victory which we all have at heart. One thing, however, which I can do and which T intend doing, is to give my vote, my influence, my energy, my work, and all that I can do to retrieve what I did in 1898, when in a moment of forgetfulness, when the
9. p.m. country was prosperous, when we had not been brought face to face with the trying ordeals which we have now to face, when the very existence of Canada is at stake, I cast a vote against prohibition. I am glad to say that twenty years have matured my experience and wisdom, and in the face of the present crisis, I feel it is the bounden duty of this Government, and this Parliament, to bring in a measure of prohibition, now. After the war, and the subsequent necessary period of reconstruction, if the people want to repeal the measure, let them do so. But in the meantime, when 250,000 of our boys have enlisted, and many of them are at the front, and when thousands more may enlist and go to the front, let them feel that ve are doing something towards getting rid of all that is unnecesary, all that is

luxurious, and that we shall do* what Kitchener wants the civilian army to do, namely, to do our share in supporting those at the front. Then when victory has been won on the battle-field, the greatest victory will be, not the victory over Germany, but the victory won by the Canadian people over the greatest inherent weakness of mankind.
Mr. W. G. WEIlCHEL (North Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion under discussion, on the very eloquent manner in which they have presented their case. The liquor problem is as old as the hills; it dates back to the time of Noah because we all know that Noah made a mistake, although probably we may forgive him, because he had seen so much water at that time.
As long as human society has existed, the t opinions of men have differed regarding that which is most vitally essential to human morals and human happiness. Opinions so expressed have always had a beneficial effect on the widely divergent views of matters relating to the moral and social uplift of communities, leading, as it should, and always does, to a discussion and interchange of thought wherein, after all, lies the root of all human progress. Our social fabric has not been built up in a day, a year, nor in hundreds of years, nor by the thoughts, opinions or achievements of one man, or one race of men. An interchange of thought has resulted in the compromise of many human minds and views, and has resulted in placing society in the position where we respect the opinion of our neighbour, no matter how much we may differ from him regarding the views he may hold, and besides, giving recognition of that great fundamental principle which is, after all, the foundation of a , nation's stability, namely, the equal rights of all men. '
We live in an age where the majority rules. If we did not subject that rule 'to certain limitations, however, by recognizing the rights of the minority, it would prove to be as tyrannous in principle, and as destructive to human rights and human happiness, as the most despotic and autocratic form of government, examples of which are in evidence in this world war.
Startling as the assertion may be, it is nevertheless absolutely true that the limitations so wisely imposed upon our modern form of government by our forefathers are to-day in great danger of being removed

at the instigation of certain men and organizations who are preaching the delusive doctrine that the needs of human society demand the sacrifice of individual human liberty. I consider the danger which threatens civilized society through the growing class of citizens in this country, whose views on prohibition are merely an exemplification of their general low estimate of man's ability to rise to higher things, as very great.
There is to my mind a vital distinction between the advocacy of temperance and the doctrine of prohibition. Temperance, as taught by the Scriptures, means moderation, and goes hand in hand with self-control, whilst prohibition is the direct negation of self-control. In order to save a very small percentage of the human race who do not obey the Divine teachings, and who abuse the law of nature by not being able to resist their animal desires, it aims to put chains and shackles on all, the weak and strong alike, forgetting that the fundamental fact of self-control is, after all, the growth and outcome of civilization. It is the emotional appeal made by speakers from platforms to their hearers that has strengthened the hands of those who preach prohibition, and by which they attempt to usurp that power which will, they hope enable them to dictate legislation at their own free will, and will in time, if the people do not wake up, impose upon a free people laws and restrictions that will be absolutely ' intolerable. Emotional legislation has never been productive of good results, and prohibitory laws relating to the individual rights of citizenship should never be enacted and placed on the statute books of our country mainly for sentimental reasons. Good, sound, common sense and good judgment is more essential in framing legislation; let us realize, as the representatives of the people, that sentiment should never take the place of the intellect.
Prohibition means that the policeman's club must be behind every citizen to make him good and righteous by law. It is deplorable that we have extremists who preach such a doctrine, and deplorable indeed that the great truth seems to be forgotten that the law must be written in our hearts regarding our personal well-being; and that then no one need teach his neighbour to do what is right, for they will all know it. I deplore as much the intemperate habits of some of our citizens as does the most ardent prohibitionist. There is no excuse for drunkenness; it is sinful
and degrading to drink to excess, and certainly has a most demoralizing effect on the community as well as on the individual. The glutton, the gambler, the libertine, the ;man who talks lightly of womanhood, the person who gossips to the detriment of his neighbour, the man who uses God's name in vain, the spendthrift-all must be placed in the same category, as they surely all disobey the Divine command " Be ye temperate in all things." I hold no brief for any distiller, brewer or hotel-keeper, but intemperate language regarding those who happen to be in this business is all too prevalent at the present time, because there are good men in the hotel business, and there are bad hotel-keepers, and the same can be said of any other business.
. I am opposed to prohibition on the ground that it will have a tendency to degrade the public service; that it dulls the public conscience, and will make the nation hypocritical. It has failed miserably in many states of the Union. Level-headed and high-minded men living across the international .boundary line, -who know from sad experience that the law is a farce and that it does not prohibit, were extremely anxious to re- ' turn to regulation and license, and did not hesitate to express their opinions in a convincing manner regarding the fallacies of this doctrine. I believe in personal freedom and the right to eat and drink what I please without the interference of so-called moral reformers, who, at so much per annum, fry to make people abstemious by legislation.
John Quimicey Adams, one of America's great men, once made use of these words:
Forget not, I pray you, the rights of personal freedom; self-government is the foundation of all our political and social institutions. Seek not to enforce upon your brother by legislative enactment the virtue that he can possess only by the dictates of his own conscience and the energy of his will.
It is pure phantasy to try to make men good by Act of Parliament, as it does not promote either temperance or virtue, and has a tendency to corrupt the morals of the community rather than to elevate them. Temperance means moderation in all things, not in one thing alone, but should be applied to eating, thinking and speaking, as well as drinking. The extravagance of the present age in blindly following the creations of Dame Fashion leads to intemperance of the worst kind. I venture to say that the Committee of One Hundred would be greatly surprised if, for instance,

they gathered statistics showing the percentage of crime, poverty and insanity that should be charged to dyspepsia, to indigestion, over-eating, gluttony, -etc. If men' learned to eat right, they would not become dyspeptic, and if men would not go to excess in drinking, there would be no drunkenness. Was there ever anything good that was not accompanied by evil? Was there ever a virtue that was not practised to excess, as a certain writer states, that did not turn to vice and crime? Drink temperately and eat temperately, and you will be healthy and strong, virtuous and wise, generous and affectionate. Man loves liberty; it is ingratiated in his very being; he loves personal freedom above everything else, yet it is hard to understand why he will allow a few well-paid agitators to determine for him what he should eat or drink, or to supply him with certain rules of conduct.
We have a great deal of legislation on our statute-books in this country. I have heard it stated on one occasion that the *best governed country is the one that is the least governed; yet we have in our midst so-called moral reformers who are to-day popping up here and there, advocating their pet theories for the regeneration of the human race. These men do not even stop at the intemperate use of alcoholic drink. If they could induce public opinion to favour their theories, certain amusements would also be placed out of commission. Card playing, according to their theories, should be forbidden in general, simply because some men or women go to excess and become card fiends. Dancing is looked upon as a sin, because, according io their distorted ideas ol morality, dancing has caused the downfall of a few, and therefore all others must abstain from the pleasure of this amusement. The habit of using tobacco, according to their theories, is a vicious practice and must be stopped, because tobacco contains nicotine, which is a pois-on. Yet they forget that both coffee and tea, if taken to excess, are harmful, because both of these beverages contain a certain amount of caffeine and theine. These are poisons, a few concentrated grains of which would kill a man instantly. These are no arguments, I will admit, but they are just as good as the arguments of some prohibitionists.
Again, people in many towns and cities

in Canada say that street cars must not run on Sunday. Yet I have never heard ol a law prohibiting a rich man from taking an automobile ride on that day, whilst the poor man, who has worked ten hours a day from Monday until Saturday noon and wishes to enjoy the fresh air and the beauties of nature, is compelled to walk a considerable distance with his family in the hot sun to the distant park. With many it is a crime to have a Sunday sacred band concert, with others it is an absolute sin to allow little children to skate or enjoy the slides on the Sabbath day. Toronto take notice. We have come to this pass: that a stranger cannot even buy a newspaper on Sunday in our large cities, and a cry of horror has gone up because certain well-meaning gentlemen, who had the best interests of the country at heart, have suggested that the libraries and museums be open on Sunday for the general good of the public.
A spectacle was presented a few nights ago when the Lord's Day Alliance actually objected to the holding of Sunday evening recruiting meetings. As this was practically the limit of endurance, their wishes came to naught. All these irksome restrictions, if we do not wake up, may be placed, as a bar to our happiness and comfort, on the statute books of our country by a few well-paid organizers, backed up by men who have seldom or never been up against the real issues of life, who draw weird pictures of misery and degradation about things that never took place, even if there is a semblance of truth in the story, they generally grossly exaggerate it. If one half of the time now devoted by the moral reformers and prohibitionists to this propaganda were given to aid in securing legislation to improve the conditions in factories, where thousands of men are yearly mangled and killed, there would be fewer victims of our industrial machines.
Legislation is desirable to make mines safer, and also to secure safety appliances for railroads and cars that would protect life. A great field is open to these people to limit the scourge of tuberculosis, and though to-day we have many good men and women who are doing noble work for the sufferers from the white plague, yet there is room for more of them, and if half the energy now devoted by these gentlemen to the attempt to prohibit alcohol were devoted to securing legislation to overcome some of the other evils, there would be more happiness and good fellowship in

this country, less friction 'between capital and labour, and more progress and stability all along the line. There are other evils in this world of a far greater and more pernicious character than drinking a glass of wine or beer. Gossip, the vile abomination so freely indulged in, has ruined more reputations and characters than all the evils for which drunkenness is responsible, and clothed in its puritanical robes of sham and hypocrisy, men and women are today hardly safe from its malignant influence. What about the social evil which has laid low many a young and promising life brought ruin and disaster and shame to many a home? Can Governments enact laws that will prevent men and women from going to destruction by legislating for them that they must not do this, or they must not do that? Are these things not a matter of conscience? If the moral reformer has no right to lay down rules and laws of conduct regarding these matters, to men and women, what right has he got to dictate to men and women what they should drink, eat or wear? Let us realize that we are not living exactly in an ideal world but in a practical one. What is God's law? It tells us to be good in ourselves, that we should be moderate in all things; that everything was good that was made in the beginning, and that it is the abuse of things that is wrong and not the use of them, because the laws we enact can only restrain us from doing wrong to others.
Remember that no law ever placed on the Statute books will suppress your thoughts or desires or your appetite. Untold damage will be done if laws are made with this object in view. By one stupendous forward push these well-meaning but over-zealous moral reformers are trying to bring humanity to a state of perfection, and the most distressing spectacle is presented to us by some men.who, not having the moral courage to voice their opinions on these important matters, to please others, swim with the tide. In prohibition states across the border many openly professed allegiance to the cause, but made a farce of it when it became law. Bishop Gailor of Tennessee says about prohibition:
Many people thought state-wide prohibition to be the ideal remedy. Instead of calling to their aid some experts on the subject and having laws framed that could be enacted without force >
they passed through the legislature a measure that has led to civic degeneracy. It is impracticable, and this violation is productive of shameful evils. You cannot pass laws that way. The reformer should leave law making to wise experts and be content with educating public sentiment.
Cardinal Gibbons, one of the most eminent prelates who ever adorned the Catholic Church, has this to say:
The establishment of prohibition in Chicago or other large cities would be impracticable and would put a premium on the sale of intoxicating drinks. When a law is frequently and habitually violated it brings legislation into contempt. It creates a spirit of deception and hypocrisy, and prompts men to do insidiously and by stealth what they would otherwise do openly and above board. You cannot legislate men by civil action into the performance of good and righteous deeds.
I honestly believe that prohibition is not necessary to make the world sober. Economic considerations force a man to be temperate. No one trusts a man who habitually drinks to excess, nor can he hold a job, nor can he get life insurance, and if he seeks the company of idlers he will find that he cannot find much company because the sober men are all at work. I do not believe that anything is to be gained to-day by a drum-beating, hell-ringing prohibition campaign to stir up strife and force divisions among the Canadian people. Is it not enough that we are in the midst of a world war so awful that it is almost terrifying? Is this the time to bring before the people an issue that for the present at least should be shelved? And, Sir, would it be fair to ask Parliament to vote on a measure of this kind without giving consideration to the quarter of a million men who are today ready and willing to make the supreme sacrifice if necessary? Even should they be allowed to vote this is no time for dissension. Should we not be better employed in looking after these men at the front who are so valiantly upholding the honour of this country, and who are doing everything possible to end this cruel struggle? We must be united at the present time, and we want nothing to interfere with the unity of purpose that animates the Canadian people to-day. A general election has been averted, thanks to the foresight and common-sense of those in authority, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific the people felt relieved that the Government and the Opposition were one on this matter, as a general election would have been harmful to every interest in Canada. But I also believe that to divide the people on this issue would be more disastrous still.
I place a great deal of confidence in the statements made by eminent men on matters of this kind. Bishop Hall of Vermont expresses his view in the following language:



Prohibition drives underground the mischief which it seeks to cure, making It more difficult to deal with the evil and impossible to regulate the trade, as for instance, in the quality of the liquor sold.
These are words that we should weigh well before committing this country to a law which has proven disastrous in many states across the border. Many eminent men have said that after the law came into force it not only failed to present the sale of drink, but led to pernicious drug habits which are a thousand times worse than the drink evil.
No legislation has been more extensively and fairly tested than prohibition. For from forty to sixty years it has been tried out across the border in several states. We must judge it therefore, by its record, by what it has done and what it has not done. What do we find by looking up the records? It can be summed up in three capital "F's" -Failure, folly and farce. It has not abolished the liquor traffic or lessened the consumption of liquor, or lessened the evils of intemperance. There is one service, however, that it has rendered to society-it has furnished, a warning example of the supreme folly of attempting to legislate virtue into men's lives. A great many people who oppose prohibition are prone to make the mistake of concluding that all those who are opposed to the moderate use of liquor in any shape or form are fanatics. They are. not. There may be one here or there in the ranks, but there are hundreds of others who merely recognize the existence of the same evil, as most of us recognize,' that is the moral degeneracy that follows the abuse of liquor, and these same people who see no way of curing it conclude that it is incurable, and that therefore there is no other remedy left but to complete the destruction of the source from which they believe the evil emanates. Many of the states of the Union that*voted prohibition years ago have gone back to license and regulation, and have found to their sorrow that they had built on false hopes, and that conditions were not only no better but far worse under prohibition than under license.
A great many moral reformers and prohibitionists claim that even the moderate drinker, or in other words the man who uses God's gifts properly and does not abuse them, is not the equal of the out-and-out teetotaler, and that wine, even in limited quantities, has a tendency to dull the faculties, to impair the strength and aggravate disease.

No doubt many of these good people admire Charles Dickens, and I am sure that only pity must be expressed for the individual who does not find the works of Dickens alluring. That world-renowned author once stated that the cause of temperance was not promoted by any intemperate measures, but that it was intemperate conduct to assert that fermented liquors should not be taken at all, for when taken in excess they did harm.
When reading an article of Colonel Henry Watterson of the Louisville Courier-Journal I was struck by the following paragraph
Any form of prohibition or restriction bears most heavily upon the poorer classes, the rich being always able to secure all the potions they wish.
No one can question the sincerity of Mr. Gladstone's quotation when urged to join in the temperance propaganda. He said:
How can X. who have drunk good wine and bitter beer all my life in a comfortable room and among friends, coolly stand up and advise hacd-working fellow-creatures to take the pledge ?
Several years prior to his severe illness, the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain undertook a trip to the United States, and being a man of keen perception, the following statement by him will no doubt be of interest to those who advocate prohibition for this country:
I have seen prohibition at work in the United States of America, and I rely in regard to it much more upon information I have obtained from impartial intelligent people than I do even on my own observation, and the evidence I have received from such persons, so thoroughly disinterested, is to the same effect that in towns at any rate anything in the nature of compulsory prohibition of drinking is absolutely impossible, and it only leads to drinking in a worse form than under the old system.
The late Justin McCarthy once made the statement that the prohibition law in Canada and the United States was a gross and ludicrous imposture. To think that to take a drink is wrong is to cast doubt and dishonour on the lives of our forefathers, and is, in my estimation, worse than an insult to their memory, because in years past it was considered no crime for a man to use the good gifts of God in moderation. But the things which are now countenanced in this twentieth century, as, for instance, the ill manners of the young towards their elders, profanity, commercializing religion were frowned upon as greater evils. These men who toiled day and night, who cleared the trackless forests, and who laid the

foundation of Canada's future greatness, were men of integrity and honesty, and never thought of putting chains and shackles upon themselves or their fellow creatures to prevent them from enjoying the gifts of nature. They had a greater mission to perform than that of interfering with other people's business, and the results of that great work are apparent to-day from one end of the country to the other.
All laymen do not think alike, nor do all the clergy think alike on this question, and if the prohibitionist feels that he has a right to expound his views and doctrines, he must, of course, allow others the same privilege. But, owing to their own intemperance on these matters, they insult those who desire to express conscientious opinions with which they do not agree.
Talking of the clergy. Let me refer to the Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbot, a noted and well-known preacher of the gospel, who once stated:
I do not know whether the Master would be a total abstainer or not, but I am very sure that He would not confound total abstinence and temperance. He would not think that total abstinence in one form of indulgence is selfcontrol. He would not teach that the man who eats pie until his face is as soft as pastry ought to be called a temperance man because he does not drink beer.
Prohibition will never prohibit; the reform must begin with the individual. 1 make this statement conscientiously, that if you tear down every saloon, distillery and brewery, and everything that looks like temptation, you can rest assured that you will begin a campaign of destruction that will practically empty the world. The only remedy lies in an organized effort to rid the man of his defects: first, by moral remedies, releasing the weak will from bondage; and, secondly, by educating and strengthening the will to a point where it reaches self-control.
According to the beliefs of those who agitate in favour of prohibition, education and moral suasion are no longer necessary in shaping our lightning course towards perfection. They believe that mankind can be made honest, righteous and sober, moral and what not by a mere stroke of the legislative pen. The beautiful theories of these gentlemen are all based on the one fundamental fallacy, that if the manufacture, sale and importation of alcoholic beverages is prohibited, men will cease drinking such beverages. They forget that the destruction and abolition of the sale of liquor can neither destroy the desire of man
93i	.
to obtain these commodities, nor deprive him of the means of doing so, because there is hardly anything that grows in nature from which alcohol cannot be easily obtained in practically unlimited quantities by all who desire it.
Mark Twain, in talking about prohibition, gave utterance to this statement:
" Since men can get their tipple out of a table leg or a wooden fence rail, what is the use of talking about prohibition ?"	.
I presume that human ambition to exercise power over others will never die out. In saying this I do not wish to be misunderstood. I believe there is no nobler life than that which is devoted to improve the lives of others, to bring greater happiness, greater protection, and greater security to the many who are handicapped in the great battle of life. I am quite prepared to concede that great strides have been made in the past years for the betterment of the human race, but my contention is that if there ever was a time when men required to stand up for their own personal liberty, to assert themselves against an invasion of their personal freedom, that time is now. Though referred to in sneering tones, by those who wish to impose prohibitory laws and restrictions upon our people, it means as much to-day as it did to our wise legislators who framed our laws and constitution in the past. Yes, it means more today than at any other time in the past owing to the fact that over-zealous partisans are seeking to take advantage of abnormal conditions, when the public mind is unsettled by war, and not prone to think as normally as in times of peace.
In studying this question I came upon the following paragraph, which to my mind is an answer to prohibition:
The history of civilization which stripped of its unessential features is largely the record ol man's strangely contradictory struggle; on the one hand, to assert his right to the exercise of his individual tastes, opinions, and beliefs, and on the other hand, when he has succeeded in securing that right for himself, to arrogate to himself the privilege of denying the same right to those whose tastes and opinions and beliefs differ from his own.
Again I read:
A good deal of that which affords pleasure to my neighbour appears to be the rankest folly to me, but if I legislate where my neighbour's freedom to exercise the pleasure he prizes, is concerned, and which I consider foolish, what is to prevent him, in his turn, from legislating where my freedom to exercise the pleasure which I prize and he considers foolish is concerned?

This, I believe, is what we are coming to, and if everybody succeeded in abolishing by law what he considers the foolish exercise and the freedom of everybody else, we shall then-have reached the final stage of efficiency according to the ideas of those who advocate prohibition. To my mind it will be the final stage of inefficiency. When anything that has a demoralizing effect on the individual, or, for that matter, on a few individuals, takes place, and when newspapers refer to any sore, moral, social, or political, we see thousands of amateur specialists clamouring to be given an opportunity to inoculate every one with moral reform, with legislative serum, to cure that for which perhaps only a few are responsible; the rest of the people must be inoculated, whether they individually happen to suffer from the sore, or not.
We must agree that pretence of virtue is the most pernicious of all vices, and, unfortunately, of all vices the most prevalent, and that a great deal of cant and hypocrisy prevail to-day regarding the drinking evil. But surely public opinion is of no force or avail unless we, as individuals, uphold the same, by giving expression to it by our own voluntary actions and by the examples of our own daily life. But, Sir, to join in condemning in public what we, ourselves, do in private, or, for that matter, what we condone privately in others, is, to my mind, to reduce public opinion to a farce.
Nothing is surer thai. ciiat no law should govern a man's thoughts, or his beliefs, or his desires, or his appetites; but it can only so regulate his exercise of them as to prevent him from thereby interfering with -the Tights or. endangering the safety of his neighbour. Some who advocate prohibition, who are wise and honest enough to recognise these facts, say: " Oh, but wait uptil we have perfected prohibition and have barred the shipment of liquor into our territory and stopped the importation from abroad. " Supposing such a thing were possible, and presumably it is, would such a law placed on our statute-books arrest the development of nature? Would the grape and apple cease to ripen, and the com and rye and barley refuse to lend themselves to the process of fermentation at the behest of the Canadian Government?
We are all desirous of minimizing the drinking evil, and if we are honest we certainly wish to -see the improperly-conducted hotel abolished. But the methods [Mr. Weicheld
of the Prohibitionist are not the remedy for these evils. The only remedy in my estimation is the middle path correction, namely, the sane enforcement of the liquor license law coupled with moral suasion and enlightenment. Some have tendencies to commit crimes, some gamble, some go insane, others spread disease, while others indulge in foolish excesses, and certainly for that reason these men should be placed under restraint; but surely no Government would likewise bring within the law the thousands of other men who are free from the vices and criminal tendencies to which I have just alluded; and when it takes upon itself such an authority, it goes too far, and violates the fundamental rights of constitutional government. Newspapers are the advance agents of progress. The New York American says:
Realize that education and self control mean temperance. Bigotry, intolerance control of a majority by the minority, will cause secret drunkenness, and never true temperance.
The Rev. Wm. A. Wasson, of New York, an American clergyman, states that nothing is more certain than that every state and local community in which prohibition now obtains will ultimately have to return to the policy of regulation, and just so long as the prohibition law remains on the statute books will the day of reformation be deferred.
Which are to-day the races that are in the vanguard of human progress? Surely not the Turk and Mohammedan, whose religion forbids him to use wine, even moderately. The British soldier is considered the best on earth, and this takes in the Canadian, Australian, New Zealanders and others, while the Jack Tar of the British Navy has no peer; and both are allotted a moderate amount of stimulants by law. Yet it is claimed by men who advocate ^movements of this kind that wine dulls the faculties and has a tendency to numb and impede progress in communities. Are the works of the great sculptors, painters, musicians, philosophers and statesmen in the past, the works of wine bibbers? Have their works been outclassed in recent years? Surely not. Nor can such an argument be used against the wine-drinking countries of the world to-day who are in the vanguard of progress and who are so valiantly upholding our liberties and institutions at the present time.
The personal freedom and liberty we enjoy, for which men have fought and died

in all ages, is perhaps in greater jeopardy to-day than it ever was before. We talk of freedom and what it all implies, and every patriotic thought expressed in song or verse during these dark days of war produce a sentiment that is truly inspiring. Place no legislation on the statute books of our country that is emotional and is guided by impulse and sentiment rather than by logic and reason. Let us not forget that the customs, the habits, the ideals, the social needs' of those who constitute the rapidly growing population of Canada vary as much as does night from day, and legislation governing such a population should bear evenly upon all and not be especially oppressive upon specific classes of the people.
The New York Sun, reviewing the situation not long ago, said:
There is no escaping the somhre chronicle. Prohibition does not prohibit. Morality fares worse under the new law than under the old, and we must console ourselves with the complacency of a few unthinking zealots.
Possibly the greatest foe to our liberty to-day is the man who in his ignorance defines liberty as license. Laws which are not founded in right and reason can never be inforced, and prohibition, whenever it has been enforced, has tended to create and foster disrespect for all law. The Committee of Fifty of the United States, who investigated the liquor problem, headed by such men as President Eliot of Harvard University, Bishop Potter, Seth Low, Hon. Carrol D. Wright, Hon. Chas. J. Bonaparte, Dr. Felix Adler, Prof. W. O. Atwater, and others, after searching reports came to the following conclusion:
There has been concurrent evil of prohibitory legislation. The efforts to enforce it during forty years have had some unlooked-for effects on public respect for courts, judicial proceedings, oaths and laws in general, for officers of the law, legislators and public servants. Almost every sorts of liquor legislation creates some specific evil in politics. Legislation to secure the ends of prohibition intensifies political dissensions incites to social strife and abridges the public sense of self respecting liberty. It cannot be positively affirmed that any one kind of liquor legislation has been more successful than any other in promoting real temperance.
Buit because some men lose self-control regarding over-indulgence and drink, and because perhaps it affords one of the mibst convenient examples of man's liability to deviate from the path of moderation, this is used .today as evidence that many .pastimes, appetites and customs should be forbidden, and thus reduce every man to the level of those few who have no power of self-control. Men
who openly and defiantly organize to terrorize governments into formulating legislation of this nature are the enemies of personal liberties in our midst, and it has come to this pass that the opinions of those who value their own individual freedom above everything else are no longer respected. Creeds which differ from them regarding these things are of no account, and those who have the temerity to oppose them they attempt to ostracise. The honest man, the sober man, the man who tries to do right, who does not consider it a crime to take a drink, does not count for much in these days. 'Some men in public life bow to their will, and rather than oppose them they are apt to applaud their aims and methods, even though the idea of doing so is repugnant to them. Let the people of Canada awaken and awaken fast. If it is true that a nation that gives itself over to, self-indulgence in certain habits is bound to deteriorate, it is equally true that the same will apply to all people who no longer dare to think for themselves, and who let others do their thinking for them. Our statute books1 are becoming crowded with laws that have been placed there by men who imagine they can bring about the millennium by depriving men by legal enactment of the right to determine for themselves what they shall drink, and in time what they shall eat, and whether they shall laugh or cry on the Lord's Day. Fight foT the defence of these God-given rights and do not leave it all for your neighbour to do, who perhaps is just as neglectful as you are, with the result that everybody's business is nobody's business, and the rights and privileges so loudly proclaimed from the house-tops become a mere sham and a hollow mockery. Will the Canadian people allow a few well-paid organizers to lay down certain rule3 of conduct for them in the matter of what they shall eat or drink? Will they allow themselves to be stampeded by men of the type of Billy 'Sunday who has commercialized religion and has become wealthy .at the expense of our citizens both here and across the border? In language that is certainly not uplifting but in the opinion of real Christians, most degrading to public decency, appeals are made to the morbid emotionalism of communities, at so much per meeting, always arranged for in advance, by men of his type, and that which is our most sacred spiritual possession, trpe religion, is abused and used to further the

financial greed of a few who are desirous to reform a man's habits and desires by the enactment of certain legislation and federal laws. Others in this debate have quoted the opinions of eminent men. I suppose I may be allowed a similar privilege. First, I will give the opinion of Archdeacon Farrar, the eminent clergyman of the Church of England.
I have never asserted anything so wrong and so foolish as that it is a sin to drink wine, nor have I ever been so uncharitable, and gone so far beyond my legitimate warrant as to pronounce a syllable of condemnation against those who are called "moderate drinkers." The question of abstinence or nonabstinence is one which can be settled only by the individual conscience.
Pascal, the great ornament of French literature, said:
To go beyond the bounds of moderation is to outrage humanity. The greatness of the human soul is shown by knowing how to keep within proper bounds. So far from greatness consisting of going beyond its limits it really consists in keeping within them.
James Madison, one of the greatest men of the United States:
It is of great importance to a republic not only to guard society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the oppression of the other. Justice is the end of government; it is the end of civil society.
Dr. Parkhurst, the eloquent preacher, said:
I am decidedly of the opinion that the more wine there is produced in this country and the more freely it is transported from state to state the smaller will be the amount of drunkenness.
When Massachusetts had a prohibition law, conditions were so bad that the following will be interesting-from .Jno. A. Andrew, Massachusetts' famous governor:
Do you tell me, however, that all such beverages, in their most innocent use, involve a certain danger; that possibly any one may, probably many, and certainly some will, abuse it, and thus abuse themselves; and by consequence, that all men, as a matter of prudence, and therefore of duty, ought to abstain from and reject it? I answer: That is a question of morals, for the answer to which we must resort to the Bible, or to the church, or to the teachings of moral philosophy. The right to answer it at all, or to pretend to any opinion upon it, binding the citizen, has never been committed by the people, in any free government on earth, to the decision of the secular power. If the state can pass between the citizen and his Church, his Bible, his conscience and God, upon questions of his own personal habits, and decide what he shall do, on merely moral ground, then it has authority to invade the domain of thought, as well as of private life, and prescribe bounds of freedom of conscience.

There is no barrier, in principle, where the Government must stop, short of the establishment of a state church prescribed by law, and maintained by persecution.
Do you tell me that the using of wine or beer as a beverage, however temperately, is of dangerous tendency, by reason of its example? Do you insist that the temperate use of it by one man may be pleaded by another as the occasion and apology for its abuse? I answer: That if the Government restrains the one man of his just rational liberty to regulate his private conduct and affairs, in matters innocent in themselves, wherein he offends not against peace, public decorum, good order, nor the personal rights of any, then the Government both usurps undelegated powers and assumes to punish one man in advance for the possible fault of another. The argument that1 because one man may offend another must be restrained is the lowest foundation of tyranny, the cornerstone of despotism. Liberty is never denied to the people anywhere on the ground that liberty is denied to the good or right, in itself. The universal pretext of every despotism is, that liberty is dangerous to society-that is, that the people are unfit to enjoy it.
Do you tell me that these arguments have a tendency indirectly to encourage and defend useless and harmful drinking, and that silence would have been better; for the sake of a great and holy cause? I answer:	That He who
governs the universe and created the nature of man, who made freedom a necessity of his de-' velopment, and the capacity to choose between good and evil the crowning dignity of His reason, knew better than to trust it to the expedients of political society. The great and holy cause of emancipation from vice and moral bondage, is moral, and not political.
Let us learn to speak and hear the truth regarding these things, which so many would like to do, but so many dare not express. Canada is too big, too cosmopolitan, to be enslaved by a few zealots. Let the men who today are fighting for those liberties we love to talk about have the right to vote on this issue to preserve them. Do not disfranchise nor'insuilt them by neglecting to give them an opportunity to express their opinions on this most vital matter. Wait until tire struggle is over.
The big issue is the war, and nothing should interfere which might be a detriment to unity. When men dare to make the supreme sacrifice for us who stay at home, when they renounce position, comfort, and everything else that makes life pleasant and worth while in tins world, then let us be brave enough to grant to them the privileges of citizenship and to take a common sense view of the situation by appreciating their efforts on the battle front and to such an extent ' that rather than pass laws regarding their conduct, as future citizens of Canada, let us devote our energies to the final and speedy completion of the war by doing everything possible in men and money to bring about this happy solution.

Think well of the results of Prohibition as they obtained in the United States. It is a farce, has not prohibited, has increased drunkenness, vice and crime, and as surely as it has done this across the border so will it surely work out in Canada.	,


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, as it is already late and many hon. gentlemen wish to speak on this question, I shall not take up the time of the House in replying at any great length to the remarks of the hon. gentleman for-Waterloo (Mr. Weichel). In fact, practically all he has said was answered before it was spoken by the mover and seconder of this resolution. The hon- gentleman seems very much disposed to think that we who are opposed to him are actuated by hypocrisy. I can assure him that I am thoroughly sincere in any remarks I may make on this question. The hon. gentleman seems to be under the impression that we should not interfere with the ideas of the ages; that because our forefathers believed a certain thing we must also believe it. If we -adopted that theory, there would be an end to progress. The hon. gentleman is very desirous of educating people along temperance lines. How did he propose to do it? He proposed to educate them by the licensing system. I should like to ask him what the licensing -system has done within the last five hundred years towards educating people along temperance lines?- I am wejl aware that it has done a great deal towards educating people along the lines ,tof drunkenness. The open temptation provided through the licensing system has been the greatest incentive to drunkenness the world has ever known. We may not be able, as he s-ays, to legislate virtue into men's lives, but at least we can legislate temptation out of their way, and indirectly make them a little more virtuous. The hon. gentleman was very anxious that we should devote our energies towards preventing accidents from machinery and so on, and towards lessening the social evil.
I wonder if there is anything in the world that has done more to cause accidents and encourage the social evil than drinking, which the licensing system so largely promotes. My hon. friend seems very much opposed to prohibition in any shape; not only such prohibition as is contained in the Lord's Day Act, but prohibitory measures of every kind. It strikes me that the hon. gentleman is living four thousand years after his time. He should have been living
at the time of Moses- When Moses was on the earth he gave ten commandments, which were all expressly or impliedly prohibitive. If my hon. friend had been living at that time he would have said to Moses: 'That is all wrong; don't do it; your commandments will only make people steal more, lie more and kill more, and do this, that and the other more; the more you legislate along these Lnes the more. evil people will do." I do n-ot think Moses would have paid much attention to my hon. friend; nor need we.
A perusal of extracts from the early English statutes providing for the licensing of the liquor traffic shows that the necessity for regulation and restriction was a reason given for those enactments-, but the desire to obtain revenue from the drinking habits of the people is also in evidence. I am convinced that the license system was conceived, in sin and shapen in iniquity, and its results are what should have been expected from such parentage. In the early days of agitation for temperance legislation, the main argument against it was the financial argument, the effect on the revenue of the country. That has -been met by counter arguments, which have largely convinced thinking people that the gains from such 'legislation will far exceed the losses. Advanced legislation along temperance lines had a difficult struggle for a time. Progress was very slow -at first, and reverses common, but as people were given an opportunity to judge from results their fears decreased, their confidence increased, and progress was more rapid.
I do not purpose discussing the financial effects of prohibitive measures. I think most people who are open to conviction are already convinced that it pays to pass and enforce such measures. And after -all, we cannot place a money value on the conduct and habits of the people. We cannot estimate in dollars and cents the value of vigorous manhood. What compensation can we accept for the tears, anxieties and miseries of the wives and mothers of our land, caused by drunkenness of husbands and sons? What is a man profited if he gam the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what can a nation accept in exchange for the moral, intellectual and physical manhood of its citizens? There are profits and losses, the extent of which cannot be set out in terms of dollars and cents. We do not hear so much now about the loss of revenue. We hear more about interference with personal liberty. Well, laws generally define and restrict onr liberties. We must

have either interference with personal liberty or anarchy.
We are also told that prohibitive measures are ineffective and that there is more liquor consumed under prohibition and local option than under the license system. If that be true we would naturally expect distillers and brewers to be the most enthusiastic supporters of prohibitive legislation, but their support has not yet been very conspicuous. If we are to judge faith or belief by works, we must conclude that those who are financially interested in the increased consumption of intoxicants believe that their profits will be greater under the license system, and that their trade will eventually be destroyed by prohibitive legislation, should such legislation be generally adopted, and we must also conclude that those friends of prohibition who have no interest in the matter outside of their desire to better humanity and to decrease the consumption of liquors with the evils resulting therefrom, are of a like mind. Surely these people are not all in error. Surely there is some foundation for their practically universal faith as shown by their works.
This question has been before the House on many occasions, and in various forms, but heretofore it seems to have been felt that public opinion was not sufficiently advanced, that the people were not quite ready for complete prohibition for all Canada. That objection can hardly be said to exist now. The advance in public sentiment has been shown by the rapid increase in the number of places throughout Canada where liquor Acts of a prohibitive nature have been put in force, and this advance has been more rapid since the commencement of this great war. The present seems to be a time when this Parliament is in duty bound to enact prohibition for the whole Dominion, because the people of Canada, from coast to coast, axe insisting, in tones the earnestness of which must not be underestimated, that we shall now enact legislation for alj, Canada to prevent the importation, manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor, at least during the period of the present wiar, or better still, for all time. Although I intend to vote for the resolution, I do not think that prohibition should be confined to the period* of the present war; I believe
10 p.m. that we should have permanent ** prohibition and that the people of Canada are in favour of such a measure. If, however, we have prohibition for three years or more, we shall have prohibition

thereafter, if we are to depend on a vote of the people, so that there is not much difference of opinion between my hon. friend and myself. I am in the habit of attending the conventions of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, of which we sometimes hear in this House. At the last convention, which was held recently and at which I made it a point to be present, this question came up and a vote in favour of Dominion-wide prohibition, without any rider attached as to time, was passed unanimously. Further than that, the officials of the three Western Grain Growers' Associations met together a short time ago and passed a similar resolution.
If we are to have prohibition only for the duration of the war, the resolution proposed by my hon. friend from Kingsl(Mr.Hughes) should also toe adopted toy the House, because, if we are not establising prohibition permanently, we should give the provinces and municipalities power to go further than they have been able to go under the law as it exists at present. I am not wedded to any particular plan, and, as I understand that there is considerable objection to amending the British North America Act wherever it can be avoided, other means could be devised whereby without amending that Act, we might accomplish the same purpose as my hon. friend has in view. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice could frame some such legislation. I had my attention called by the hon. menfber for Saskatoon (Mr. Mc-Craney), who has been heard in this House frequently and always with great attention, to an amendment of the Canada Temperance Act in 1908, and from a careful perusal of that amendment, I believe that the underlying idea and something more might be made use of in this resolution. I refer to section 117 of the Canada Temperance Act which, as amended in 1908, reads:
From the day on which this Part comes into force and takes effect in any county or city and for so long thereafter as and while the same continues or is in force therein, no person shall, except as in this Part specially provided, by himself, his clerk, servant or agent-
(a) expose or keep for sale, within such county or city, any intoxicating liquor; or,
(b. directly or indirectly on any pretense or upon any device, within any such county or city,,sell or barter, or, in consideration of the purchase of any other property, give to any other person any intoxicating liquor; or,
(c)	send, ship, bring, or carry or cause to be sent, shipped, brought, or carried to or into any such county or city, any intoxicating liquor; or,
(d)	deliver to any consignee or other per-

son, or store, warehouse, or keep for delivery, any intoxicating liquor so sent, shipped, brought or carried.
2. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any intoxicating liquor sent, shipped, brought or carried to any person or persons for his or their personal or family use, except it be so sent, shipped, brought or carried to be paid for in such county or city to the person delivering the same, his clerk, servant, or agent, or his master or principal, if the person delivering it is himself a servant or agent."
This section of the Canada Temperance Act has accomplished very little; but if this enactment is intra vires, it will be equally so, even if section 2 is struck out, and then it would (provide that, liquor could not be sent, shipped, brought, or carried into local option territory, and although I have not gone into the matter very carefully, I have not heard that this (provision is ultra vires.
I have here an extract from a judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the city of Fredericton vs. The Queen. The beginning of the report is at page 505, vol. 3, Supreme Court Reports, Canada, but this extract appears at page 530, and is as follows:
If the matter dealt with comes within the class of subjects assigned to the Parliament of Canada, I can find in t'he Act (that is, the British North America Act) no restriction which prevents the Dominion Parliament from passing a law affecting one part of the Dominion and not another, If Parliament in its wisdom thinks the legislation applicable to and desirable in one part and not in the other.
If these words of the then Chief Justice of Canada are correct, I think there is very little danger of a provision such as I am suggesting being declared ultra vires. The passing of such legislation would be merely applying to one particular portion of the Dominion a power which Parliament undoubtedly has the right to exercise in respect of the Dominion as a whole. So far as I know, no one has ever taken exception to the judgment of the Chief Justice in that respect. I assume, therefore -my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, will put me right if I am wrong-that Parliament has the power to enact such legislation as I have suggested. If we are to have prohibition merely during the period of the war, we should make such provision as will enable any provinces or municipalities which have adopted legislation looking to prohibition to establish a further prohibition, if you like, than they were enabled themselves to obtain. That is, we should provide that in such places liquor may not be manufactured or imported. The hon.
member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) suggested that an enactment of but two sections would be sufficient to make this provision, having in regard the case of provinces like Alberta or Prince Edward Island, which have already adopted prohibition. Let me make another suggestion, if it is not amiss. If the Government should provide that such legislation as I am proposing should not take effect until ratified or confirmed by Order in Council, they would be in a position to go carefully into any restrictive proposals that might exist in counties or provinces, and themselves decide whether or not these counties or provinces had gone as far as they could. Another advantage of such a course would be this: The Government would be enabled to consult the county or province before bringing the legislation into force; they might, if they wished, not pass any such Order in Council until the province in question had requested that the legislation be brought into effect.
It seems to me that the present is the time when this matter ought to be thoroughly dealt ,with. Notwithstanding anything that may be said, the people of Canada are ready for such legislation as is proposed. They are anxious that we should pass the most stringent legislation in this matter. I believe that the people of Canada will stand by us in the matter of establishing permanent prohibition. The most popular move the Government could make now would be to pass a measure of permanent prohibition for the whole Dominion. If they cannot see their way clear to do that, I hope they will at least see their way clear to giving us prohibition during the war and for a reasonable period thereafter, and that they will see that the license system is not again brought into vogue unless it be approved by the vote of the people. Whether or not we pass legislation for the period of the war, I think it would be well for the Government to consider carefully the advisability of making some enactment, whether by way of amendment to the British North America Act, or by way of prohibitory legislation, applying to the sale, importation and manufacture of intoxicating liquors in all places where the strongest possible measure of prohibition has already been adopted. I trust that I have made myself clear to the Minister of Justice; I submit

William Murray, for nineteen years superintendent of an alms house in Brooklyn, New York, said:
My opinion is that liquor is the principal cause of pauperism. If there had been no liquor drunk, say for the past one hundred years, there would be almost no pauperism, and there would be no poor houses.
I should like to quote a few statistics that have been gathered in a number of states showing the percentage of paupers caused by drink. In the institution at Worcester, Massachusetts, 90 per cent of the male criminals and paupers, and 70 per cent of the females, were there through strong drink. In the city of Albany, New York, nine-tenths of the pauperism was caused by strong drink; in Meadville, Pennsylvania, nine-tenths of the pauperism was due to the same cause. In Minneapolis at least eighty per cent of the pauperism and poverty apd crime was due to strong drink.
I read a. statement some time ago to the effect that in Kingston Penitentiary 75 per cent of the inmates were there through strong drink. Dr. Howard Crosby says:
I have been watching for thirty-five years and in all my investigations among the poor I never yet found a family borne down by poverty that did not owe its fall to strong drink.	-
Horace Greeley said:
Most of our paupers have become such through the use of alcoholic liquors-often by themselves, sometimes by their parents or other guardians. We estimate that nine-tenths of the paupers in our country were made so directly by strong drink.
The question may be asked, why is it that ( strong drink should have the effects charged against it? One thing it does is to divert money from the grocery stores, shoe shops, clothing stores and other legitimate businesses. In the speech delivered by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Dr. Weichel) he quoted to us opinions of men who disapproved of prohibitory measures.
I am sorry to find him in what I consider rather bad company. Who are the men in this country that are defending the liquor traffic, and who are the people who are opposing it? How many women whose husbands patronize drinking places are defending the traffic? How many boys and girls who have suffered from lack of food and clothes, because of the waste of money on drink by their fathers, are defending it? Compare to-day the saloon or the places where drink is sold, with the churches in the matter of contributing to the order and well-being of the community.

Does it improve the reputation of a man to be known as a frequenter of a drinking place? Like other members of this House, I have had young men apply to me for positions, and what is one of the first questions that we ask? We want to know at once what the young man's habits are; we want to know whether he is a user oi liquor or of tobacco. Tobacco is not included in the resolution before the House, but I class liquor .and tobacco together. We see notices posted up in this building by order of the Minister of Public Works that there must he no smoking except in three places in this building. I want to say something which perhaps other members may not favour, but I see men every day in this building violating that order and smoking in different rooms in the building.
Why was that notice put up? It is because there is a lurking suspicion in the minds of men inside and outside of this House that the burning of the Parliament Buildings was due to somebody dropping a match or a cigar stub or cigarette stub, and it is hoped by this rule to prevent a recurrence of such a disaster. Yet every day there are members of this House who violate that rule. I call the attention of the Government to that fact.
We are often asked: why should you be prejudiced in connection with this drink business? The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) related an incident that occurred in his own city, showing that the family of an otherwise reputable citizen suffered untold miseries because of his indulgence in drink. The part of the country in which I live1, I presume, is an average country district. Within five miles of the place where I was born and brought up inside of fifteen years therb were twelve violent deaths from strong drink. In the township in which I lived there were at one time fifteen licensed hotels, and I presume that a similar proportion held good for almost every township in that part of Ontario. It was impossible to travel those roads a single day of your life without seeing from one to a dozen drunken men. Today it is a rare thing to see a man drunk in that township, for there is not a license in it nor within twenty miles of the place where I live. Some of the most brilliant men this province has ever seen came from that section of country-professional men, doctors in particular. I know five doctors who were boys when I was a boy, all wonderfully successful practitioners, and all

five went down to premature graves through strong drink. The question, as I say, is asked, why we should object to this, why we are not willing that every man should have his liberty without restriction? I think the facts answer the question.
A great deal has been said about soldiers being allowed to have liquor. There are two sides to that question. When large numbers of men are together whether soldiers or others, there is often a_ temptation to drink. 'And I want to say right here that a debt of gratitude is owing to the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) by the people of this country for what he has done to prevent drinking among our soldiers. I find on>
looking over history that the same difficulty has confronted other countries. During the American Civil War, one of the greatest obstacles to the success of the Union troops was excessive drinking. It was found necessary to pass a law during that war to prohibit men from giving liquor to soldiers. Abraham Lincoln was strongly in favour of that reform and signed an Act of Congress on the 5th .of August, 1865, providing that the person should be liable to a heavy fine who sold liquor to soldiers.
Something has been said in this debate about the success or failure of prohibition in the United States. Prohibition has accomplished something in that country. A careful estimate shows that after the municipal elections of April, T915, there were -2,173,819 square miles of territory in the United iStates in which the saloon is forbidden. There are 38 states in which the combined number of saloons is less than in the city of Chicago. A population of over 46,000,0001 of people in the United States, out of a total population according to the last census of '98,000,000, are now living under no license. Of the 2,856 counties in the United States, over 1,700 have abolished the saloon. There are over 500 cities of a population of 5,000 or more, and also 200 cities of a population of 10,000 or more, in which saloons have been abolished. In nine states, with an aggregate population of about 15,000,000, there is state wide Ijorohibition.
I want to say a little, and -a very little, on the economic side of this question. The statement has been made by men who have had experience that the drink traffic is the enemy of the factory and of the efficiency of labour. At the closing session of the National Congress of Industrial Safety, in Chicago, on the 15th of October, 1914, resolutions were passed pledging the
members to the elimination of. alcoholic stimulants in their plants and factories. The National Congress of Industrial Safety represents 500 of the leading manufacturers of the United States, who employ over 1,000,000 workers in their factories. Mr. R. L. Palmer, chief inspector of the Pennsylvania Department of Labour and Industry, stated that 60 per cent of the industrial accidents were due to liquor. He said further:
It will not be long before the saloon will be as much separated from the Industrial plant as it is now from the church. As a matter of business, we will have to pay in cash, to prevent men from going to the saloons to convert their checks Into currency.
A proposition was made by Mr. E. K. Pritchett, representing one of the largest manufacturing concerns in America, that, after employees had been forbidden to use alcoholic beverages, milk wagons should call at the factory, at a certain hour every morning. He goes on to say:
We then permitted the men to stop work, and go out and buy fresh bottles of milk. We find this arrangement has practically solved the drinking problem.	>
Our attention has been called to-night to the action of leading manufacturers of this city who have endorsed the resolution now before us. Mr. Booth, one of the largest, if not the largest employer of labour in Canada, has had perhaps a longer experience than any other manufacturer, and he is most insistent that the one way to remedy the evils under which his employees suffer is to enact prohibitory legislation.
There is one other thing I should like to mention, and I am sure the other members of the House will be very gratified to learn of it. I asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to-day whether liquor was dispensed in this building, and he said that neither he noT any other man	that he knew of
could get anything stronger here than Tally-ho water. I am sure honorable gentlemen will be glad to know that. I wall go a step further and urge upon the Government that no provision should be made in the new Parliament building for the dispensing of liquors of any kind. I see ladies in the gallery, and I hope that all the influence of the sex will be brought to bear so that never in future will liquors be dispensed in the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. THORNTON:: There is one other point I should like to mention. Perhaps it may be thought too serious a matter to be intro-

duced in this House, but these are war times and we should be prepared for almost anything. I have left out a good deal of material that I had.intended to touch on in the course of my remarks, but what I am now going to mention affects everybody. In every church of the Dominion of Canada yesterday, Roman Catholic and Protestant, prayers went up to the Almighty that He would stop this awful war. In almost every home in Canada prayers go up every day that God will intervene, and by some means stop this awful bloodshed. The question arises almost every day in the thoughts of every man, "Why does God not answer' these prayers." This may seem too serious a matter to introduce in this House, but I repeat that these are war times and that nothing is too serious to talk about. The most serious question before the people of Canada and Great Britain to-day is:	Are
there some things that we and the people of Great Britain, and perhaps of our Allies, are indulging in that prevent God from answering the prayers of His own people? Is the millstone that is around the necks of the people of the whole British Empire this liquor traffic? As sure as day follows night the Scripture is true when it says: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." It is just as true of nations, apd it is just as true of nations to-day as of nations in all times of the world's history. We cannot read the history of the children of Israel without coming to the conclusion-the whole world knows-that whenever they did the thing that was right in God's sight they defeated their enemies and prospered; but whenever they did the things they ought not to have done their enemies defeated them. Are we in that position to-day? Is there selfishness, not only in individuals, but in communities and in nations? Perhaps we are not willing to deny ourselves in or'der that this country may be cured of this evil. Perhaps that is the real reason why God does not answer our prayers and deliver us from this awful scourge of war. Where should there be a beginning towards bettering conditions-a beginning which we know would bring relief? I do not know a better place than the House of Commons of Canada for the movement to start and I belieVe that we ought to deny ourselves of the things which we know are not conducive to our good and to the good of this nation. We ought to rise in our might and cast 
this curse of strong drink out, for just as true as we are here to-day, the Scripture 1 have quoted is true. Further than that, the Scripture tells us " Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts." When we get to the point where we are willing to forego any luxury and bear any hardship, so that God can help this country, then I believe that victory will come to the Allies, and not till then. Is the liquor traffic one of the evils that is keeping us down and withholding the Almighty from answering the prayers of His people? It looks to me very much like it. If this is so, I believe this Government ought to move in the matter in the way indicated by the mover of this resolution:


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with the utmost attention to the speeches that have been delivered in this House this afternoon and evening supporting the motion which is now under discussion. After a careful study of the questions of temperance and prohibition, and after following very closely the trend of the arguments that have been advanced here to-day, I have no hesitation in declaring that I am still of my former opinion. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Thornton) seems to be under the impression that even the liberty of members of this House should be prohibited, if they do not hold the same views as he does. I had expected that the apostles of prohibition would give us some reasons why the trade which has been acknowledged by law should be prohibited; I had expected that the members who wished to create a new state of affairs in this country would appeal to our minds. With a full knowledge of what is in store for those of us who have the courage to express our views against prohibition, I say without fear that I am opposed to this resolution. Let me give my reasons. First of all, those who favour prohibition want to ensure the cause of temperance. In my opinion, which is borne out by the lessons of history, prohibition, instead of promoting temperance is its bitterest enemy. That is one reason why I am opposed to prohibition. Every one admits that the abuse of strong liquor is a danger. If you tell me that alcohol has caused a great deal of evil in this world, I admit it immediately; but, to cure an evil, you must find a remedy which will be a certain cure. The question of pro-

hibition is as old as the world; it was known even amongst the tribes of the Jewish people, because the Essenians and the Rechabites were in favour of prohibition. There has been prohibition in England. My hon. friend (Mr. Thornton) has spoken of England in 1732 and 1736. Why did he not tell us of England in 1734 when a prohibition Bill was passed? After two years' experience, the House of Commons unanimously repealed that law, and the House of Lords voted in favour of the repeal by 84 to 52. Lord Chesterfield, who opposed the Government, was compelled to admit that prohibition in England did not give the results which the English people expected. Immorality prevailed, debauchery was greater under prohibition than before, and intemperance was so rampant that the British Parliament was compelled to repeal the Act.
Some hon. members have spoken of prohibition in the United States. I do not want to speak against the United States, but, according to the lessons of experience, drawn from that country, prohibition is an impossibility. You must stop the distillation, the transport and the consumption of liquor and that you cannot do. Certain of the states tried that cure, but the result was that kitchen stills were started where they used tea kettles and a pint of molasses with which to distill whisky. I have in my hand a treatise written by the bitterest opponent of alcohol, Dr- Bertillon, of Paris, the inventor of the anthropometric system, and chief of statistics of that city. He has studied everywhere the question of prohibition and temperance; he has travelled through all the United States, and through all Europe. The result of his studies is that prohibition is an impossibility in the cities although it may succeed in the rural districts- He says that the only system which has shown any appreciable results is the Norwegian system. The use of alcohol as a beverage is acknowledged by all religions, namely the Hindu, the Jew, the Christian, the Greek, the Roman, the Scandinavian. You can regulate the liquor traffic; you can enforce the law stringently, but prohibition will never prohibit distillation; it will prohibit liberty, it will prohibit the license holder, but it will noit prohibit the consumption of alcohol. In Norway the state buys every pint of alcohol that is distilled by any distiller, and that alcohol is handed over to the state chemists by whom it is rectified, and the power to sell intoxicating liquors is sold to a combine which had scalaags where alcohol is sold to the
consumer. Every one who goes into one of those establishments knows what he is going to get and what prick he will have to pay; If he wants a drink he goes into one of those establishments which are open places and well-kept, and the result is that, since the establishment of that system, intemperance has decreased in Norway.
I have to-day listened with a certain amount of curiosity to the speeches delivered by hon. members. One hon. member quotes the opinion of one man; another quotes the opinion of some one else-you can play with the opinions of men, because this is an open question, and you will find as many men in favour of prohibition as against. Other hon. members are playing with statistics. If you were to listen to all the statistics that have been given here this evening, or if you were to read all the -statistics for and against prohibition quoted here, you would be compelled to admit that everything bad was due to alcohol. As has been stated by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Weiehei) the Koran prohibits the use of alcohol; bur, who will say that Turkey is not a degenerate country where crime after crijne is continually committed to the disgust of humanity, and, as the Turks do not drink, these crimes cannot be due to the curse of drunkenness. Spain, where hatred, where vendetta, where the bitterest passions of humanity are in full flame, is the most temperate country in the world.
The climate of Spain does not induce people to drink, but in all countries where hard liquor is used, I say that it is the duty of free men who hold public positions' to stand up and defend liberty. When you look at the history of the places where prohibition has been in operation, what do you find? You find that trade in alcohol goes on. In the states of the Union where prohibition has been enacted, and where they boast of having legislation of that kind on their statute-book, they have invented the pocket-pedlars who go from place to place in the city with flasks in their hip pockets, offering drinks to all who want to pay for them. Is that the kind of system you want to establish here? Do you want to have in Canada, where we boast of our liberty, a system under which the home of every free man, the cellar of every free man, will be under the supervision of the policeman? Do you want to have a system which has increased perjury, which has increased intemperance, which has increased immorality? Sir I do

not want to be harsh towards those who do not entertain the same views as il do. They say that in order to have peace we should pray the Almighty to do away with our imperfections. Well, Sir, this would be a nice state of affairs, but I am afraid we shall not succeed in bringing it about this year. There is in the world a tornado of folly which is sweeping over humanity at the present time. If you want the proof of that, look at the war that is now going on. You see the Catholic Austrian combined with the Protestant German, the Mohammedan Turk linked with the unbelieving Bulgarian. What are they seeking to accomplish? They seek to crush liberty, while the Allies are fighting for the preservation of liberty and civilization. At the very time when the Allies are exerting all their power and giving the best of their resources, the best of their blood, the best of their manhood to this purpose, gentlemen get up in this House and seek to tamper with the liberty of the citizen. It appears to me, Sir, that we are subject to a special kind of disease. Every once in a while in this world we come in contact with people who believe that they are redeemers; they want to redeem humanity. They pretend to be a real Christ; they want to redeem; they want to preach. They are willing to follow the path that leads to Golgotha, but, although in this case they would like to crucify the individual liberties of our people, they are not willing themselves to be crucified. When some men, imbued with the real principles of liberty, stand up and plead for the maintenance of that liberty, prejudices are brought to bear against them and abuses are heaped upon their heads. As one hon. gentleman has said: it is easier to go with the crowd; it is easier to drift with the current. But, having studied the question, and having heard from opponents not a single sound argument why the course suggested should be pursued, in my humble opinion it is better for each man to stand firmly by his convictions.
I must congratulate the member for Vancouver in that he went one better than many persons with whom I ever discussed the matter of prohibition in that he dealt with the question of compensation. But, to my mind he did not go far enough. The liquor trade is a legalized trade; it is acknowledged by the law of the land. Men who have invested their capital in a trade that is recognized by the law of the land are entitled to the protection of the law of the land. If you say that in the public

interest, you want to get rid of the liquor trade, then, as the first article of your programme, you must state that you are going to expropriate the property of individuals, because they will be forced to make a sacrifice for'the benefit of the community. But the apostles of temperance and of prohi-hibition do not think of that. They have decided that they have a mission, that mission being to punish the individual for the benefit of the community without giving the individual so punished any compensation. Is that fair? I say, no. All authorities who have written on this subject state positively that when a measure of prohibition is to be enacted, the people ought to know what they will have to pay for it. The hon. member for Vancouver suggested that the properties of distillers and brewers should be expropriated by the Government. Well, what will he do with the wholesale traders, and with the retail traders? Is it fair to enact a law of prohibition which will deprive the men who have invested their capital in the legalized liquor trade not only of their earning power, but of their capital? I say no. When a measure is submitted to this Parliament providing that there shall be no more distillation, no more importation of liquor, no more consumption of liquor, and that the properties of those who have invested their money in the liquor trade shall be expropriated, then, and not till then, should we discuss the matter.
The hon. member for Bonaventure stated this afternoon that forty4hree provincial constituencies in the province of Quebec had gone dry. I should like to tell you, Sir, what has been done in the county of St. Hyacinthe, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Bonaventure. The county went dry by a vote of the county council. The mayors of the different parishes who were present at the meeting were told:	""You do not need a license in
your parish; you can get all the supply you want in the town of St. Hyacinthe; better vote for prohibition in your different parishes and you will get hll the supplies you want in St. Hyacinthe." In the month of January the prohibition advocate came to St. Hyacinthe and wanted to have St. Hyacinthe dry. They said to the people: " We don't want you to stop drinking if you want to drink, but you will get all the supplies you want from Montreal." Do you think, Sir, that men 'who have a just cause should take such means to arrive at their object? I can say more than this. In certain parishes-and I know that in the

papers of my province and perhaps in other provinces I shall be taken to task for this to-morrow or before the next election-in order to get a vote the parishioners were called to the church, all the parishioners had to swear, and then they started in procession for the poll where the authorities were present to see how the people were voting. And you claim that this is the free expression of the will of the people, in an open vote, in the year 1916, at a time when everybody has liberty to attend to their municipal, their school, their parochial, their parliamentary business with a secret ballot. We still have in the province the open ballot. [Such is the case and such was the way the vote was taken in more than one parish. And now that this vote has been procured, we hear on the floor of the House: You have so many counties that went dry, you have so many cities that went dry. In the list of parishes quoted by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), there were two parishes in the county I have the honour to represent. I am willing to bear the responsibility oi what I say now. I would rather go back to private life, holding the opinion I do, and after having studied the question as I have done, rather than lack the courage to stand up in this House and say: Beware, because you cannot compel me to practice a virtue by a law enacted by any parliament. Charity is a virtue, but do you think that this parliament should pass a law to compel me to be charitable? Should this parliament pass a law compelling me to be temperate if I did not want to be? No, sir, it is an encroachment on the liberty of the people. Consult the people, and if they are willing to have prohibition, give it to them; but enforce the law and see that those who have made the sacrifice of their liberty reap the benefit of this sacrifice. Sir, I hope that every hon. member who has done me the honour of listening to my remarks will admit that, holding the opinion I do, 1 yet respect the opinions of those who differ with me. They are perfectly at liberty to have their opinions, but I claim for the representative of the riding of St. Hyacinthe the right to have his opinion and to express it in the House of Commons.


Mr. WILLIAM WRIGHT (Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the prohibition of the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquors is a very old question indeed". It has been discussed before the public of this country for more years than I can well remember. It has been discussed in this House on many occasions, and in the various legislatures of the provinces which comprise this Dominion. It has been discussed before the county councils, before the municipal councils, in the parishes and in the various churches. It has been discussed in the papers to a very great extent indeed. If all the words that have been spoken and written on this question in the Dominion of Canada were summed up, we should arrive at the conclusion that it has been discussed to a much greater extent than any other public question in the Dominion of Canada. So I do not feel that I am called upon to say anything to elucidate the very great evil ' that the drink traffic has caused in this great country of ours. The immoderate consumption of intoxicating drink is an evil admitted by every man in the Dominion of Canada. It is only when we come down to the question as to whether there is such a thing as the moderate use of intoxicating drink that there arises a difference of opinion. I have the very greatest respect for those who are accustomed to drinking in what they are pleased to term moderation, for that large class in the community who can take it or leave it alone. Usually they proceed to demonstrate the first part of the proposition, and then they expect us to take their word for it that they can leave it alone. As to the right of this Parliament to deal with this question,I feel that we have that undoubtedly. This evil is so great that I think the people of this country have delegated to us the power to deal with it, and they expect us to take the position of responsible representatives, and to say yes or no to the proposition that is here before the Chair. Personally, I feel like endorsing the position of the mover and seconder of this resolution, because I think the time has arrived that the hands on the dial of the clock have reached that point when something must be done with regard to this great question. How are we to deal with it? It seems to me that there are two methods open, one to deal with it through the various provincial legislatures, and the other to deal with it through this Dominion Parliament. What are the objections to dealing with it through the legislatures? One of the objections that has been raised is that they have not sufficient jurisdiction to prohibit the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. That may seem a serious objection, but to my mind it is not altogether an insuperable objection. I think the powers of the provincial legislation should be supplemented by action or legislation



of this Parliament, or by an appeal to the Imperial Parliament to amend the British North America Act. What is the objection to dealing with it in this House? To my mind there are two, and these are the only things that can be brought, forward as of any very great weight in prohibiting us from dealing with the question. First, a plebiscite was taken a considerable number of years ago, and when that plebiscite was taken the province of Quebec rose up in an enormous majority against prohibition. While the toon, gentleman who seconded the motion tells us there has been a reversal of public opinion in the province of Quebec, I do not know that that may be entirely correct. I do not think that at the time that vote was taken there was any more drinking being done in the province of Quebec than there was in any other province in this Dominion. I think the people of Quebec are just as sober as those in any other part of Canada, and I think that the objection that they raised to prohibition- on that occasion did not arise from their love of strong drink. I think it arose from anpther source, and I am not too sure that the objection would not hold good to-day. I believe that the people of the province of Quebec object to toe people of other parts of the Dominion interfering with what they consider their own affairs. They feel that they are quite capable of looking after their own domestic matters. I would like to see more proof from the province of Quebec that it would fall i:i heartily with any measure proposed in this House. We know that to-day there i- a burning question as between portions of the province of Ontario and portions of the province of Quebec in regard to the - chools, and I would be very sorry indeed to see this Parliament do anything that might load the people of Quebec to think that the people of other portions of the Dominion were trying to force upon them views to which they might object. If I were satisfied about that matter, I would the more heartily support the motion before the House.
There is one other objection to the Dominion dealing with the matter-I wish to discuss this issue fairly-and that is the disinclination manifested in times past b>
some of the legislatures to enforce temperance laws passed by the Dominion Government. We know that they refused to enforce those statutes. We know that while the Dominion Government can pass legislation, the local governments provide the machinery for its enforcement. The Dominion Gov-

ernment is without the machinery required for its enforcement. This arrangement works out \ail right in regard to questions upon which there is no difference of opin-ion._ Take the law in regard to murder, arson, stealing, and so on, upon which the people are unanimous; there is no hesitation in enforcing these laws in any corner oi the Dominion. But when you come to such questions as the one before the House, in regard to which there is a difference of opinion, some people feeling that in quenching their thirst they are not guilty of any moral crime, it is a different matter altogether. We must admit that there is not the same moral sentiment behind liquor legislation that there is behind the laws relaling to murder, and crimes of that sort. We have only to take the case of a man who stands behind the counter grasping for money at some hour during which the sale of intoxicating liquor is forbidden. He wants to enrich himself, and on the other side of the counter there its a man afflicted with a very great thirst, and having a coin in his pocket. There you have all the inducement to commit a crime.
So I say, it is much more difficult to enforce laws of this nature, than to enforce laws affecting other matters. We need a strong temperance sentiment to enable us to enforce laws of the kind that we are discussing. If we had an assurance from the various provinces that they would take hold of this question heartily and enforce a prohibitory law, I think we would have a complete ease, and we might put the law upon the statute-book with a clear conscience, feeling that we had secured all the necessary machinery for its enforcement.
I have not attempted to make a speech to-night upon this question, but two or three things were said which prompted me to make a few remarks. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. L. J. Gauthier) has spoken very strongly against prohibition. He told us that Turkey was a prohibition country, and apparently, he attributes the cruelty of the Turk, and the bad character which he possesses, to his sobriety. I wondered that somebody did not suggest trying to improve the Turk by supplying him with strong drink. It would make a very interesting experiment-strong whisky working a cure on the Turkish mind and character. In my limited experience of life, I have never seen strong drink improve the morals of anybody, and I do not think it would have that effect upon the Turk- If he is unspeakable now, I do not know what he would be if he were addicted to strong

drink. I have no doubt he finds something to assuage his thirst as people do in every land under the sun.
As to the desirability of adopting the Norwegian system, I have very serious doubts. All kinds of legislation have been passed to do away with the evils arising from the consumption of intoxicating drink, but success has attained them just in proportion to the prohibitory element in them. In my opinion the evil of strong drink is to be measured by the amount of drink consumed. Looking at it from every standpoint, weighing up what may be said in its favour, and what may be said against it, I have come to the conclusion that a prohibitory law will at any rate do more good than harm, and in consequence I am quite willing to see an attempt made by this Parliament to enact it. Therefore any legislation that the Government may introduce with the view of lessening the evil or of prohibiting it altogether will meet with my hearty support. In the meantime, I support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens).


Jacques Bureau: I want to say just a word. I have been strongly opposed to prohibition in the town of Three Rivers for various reasons: first, as the honorable member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) said, because I do not believe in encroaching on individual liberty; second, for local reasons, one of them the financial condition of the town since the conflagration of 1908; .and third, I do not believe that prohibition prohibits. Some honorable gentlemen have expressed rather queer views. I heard speakers this afternoon express sorrow for the poor miserable drunkard who went home, licked his wife and threw out his children, and their cry was: punish the hotel keeper, however nice he may toe, or however well he may educate and treat his children. They .say: we want to stop the use oif liquor, and to do that we are going to stop the sale; that
is,	they propose to make it a crime on the part of the vendor, because the article he sells is per se wrong, immoral, or subject to legislation, while at the same time they are going to let the purchaser go scot free, when he is the offender. I will support this resolution if it is amended, but it is up to the Minister of Justice to amend it so that I can support
it.	If it is the drunkard who does evil, let us punish him. Let us put in the Criminal Code, a provision that whosoever shall
have in his possession drink, or shall offer a drink, or accept a drink, or otherwise have intoxicants to dispose of, shall be punished by a fine for the first offence. Increase the fine the second time, and put the man in jail the third time. Do that, and I think you will not have to abolish the bar,, nor expropriate the distilleries, nor buy out the breweries. And such a law you can enforce. There is a great economic principle that this Parliament, or anybody else, cannot tamper with. The law of supply and demand operates; as long as there is a demand for whisky they will find a way to supply it. Moonshiners and boot leggers will carry on their operations as in those parts of the United States where there is absolute prohibition. Stop the demand and the brewers and distillers which turn out the supply will soon cease.
Some people will say :	Bureau is
reasoning ad absurdum in that matter. It may be, but my reasoning is no more absurd than the proposal to punish the man who sells an article, on the ground that the sale is an immoral transaction, and to let free the buyer of the article, the man who really does the wrong, who goes home, beats his wife, and turns his children out of doors to starve. On the other hand, here is a man who is running a good hotel, who has a large family of children whom he educates and makes happy, and yet, in the form in which the temperance question is put before the House, this man is represented as a wrong-doer. As the resolution stands, I hold my position on the ground of individual liberty. But we are under special conditions. During the war we are called upon to make sacrifices, and I think the biggest sacrifice a man can make is the sacrifice of his liberty, since that is worth his life. Let us make the sacrifice, but let us make it properly. If you have two parties to an immoral contract, and both have entered willingly into that contract, punish them both. If you are going to punish only one, and that the one whom I consider less guilty than the other, I do not want to support the measure.


James Joseph Hughes: Would you give the provinces power to pass such laws?


Jacques Bureau: If they are going to have the same kind of prohibition that they have in the province of Quebec, no.


James Joseph Hughes: Would you give the provinces power to prohibit the manufacture and importation of liquor?


Jacques Bureau: I would leave that to the Minister of Finance. He already has enough embarrassments, and1 I do not want to add to them.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: I move the adjournment of the debate. I suppose that the leader of the House will give us assurance that opportunity will be afforded us to resume the debate.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, opportunity will be given to continue the debate at an eaHy day.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I would suggest that it be not gone on with too soon, as some of the members will take advantage of the Ash Wednesday holiday to remain away for two days.


John Douglas Hazen: I think that quite reasonable. It will be better to fix some day next week, a day to be agreed upon between the leaders of the House.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Tuesday, March 7, 1916.