1916-03-27

INTRODUCTION OF PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 70, respecting the Atlin Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Arthur Alexander Reinhardt.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, to a decision arrived at by the City Council of Ottawa. My right hon. friend, by referring to that excellent report of the Federal Plan Commission on a general plan for the cities of Ottawa and Hull, which has been laid on the table of the House, may read, at page 118:
In the matter of height regulation, a request was presented early in the work of the Federal Plan Commission to the Municipal Board of Control of Ottawa, recommending that buildings erected in the future within the business district shall not be more than 110 feet from the sidewalk level to the highest point of the building. The Board of Control urged the enactment of this regulation, which was passed and adopted by the City Council under by-law No. 3754, dated June 1, 1914. Certain modifications of this regulation, as shown on the plans and as outlined herein, are now recommended. -
The report adds:
If Ottawa and Hull are to acquire and retain the appearance of the capital city, full precaution must be taken lest commercial buildings reach such a height as to detract from the beauty and importance of its Government buildings. This is true both of the near views and of impressions formed from the first glimpses as one approached the city, either by railway or highway. Already several buildings have been erected on Sparks street which threaten the dominating height of the Parliament Buildings. The dominance may soon be entirely taken by high office buildings on the adjoining blocks, unless steps are taken to limit their height. No need is apparent in Ottawa for buildings higher than nine stories.
My right hon. friend may have noticed in the press a few days ago that an Ottawa resident had applied for the construction of a building on the southeast corner of Rideau and Little Sussex streets. The plans filed for that building showed a building less than the regulation height of 110 feet, but within the last few weeks Mr. Booth-because that is the gentleman who intends to build-for some reason conceived the idea that this building would be more remunerative if it went up two or three stories higher. Accordingly, he made application to the Board of Control of the city of Ottawa to permit this to be done. A remarkable thing

happened. The Board of Control, which had .yielded to the view of the commissioners appointed to draft this report, retraced its steps and amended the by-law which had been passed as a result of the conference between the commission and the Board of Control. It has decided to make a report to the City Council changing the by-law passed at the request of the Federal Plan Commission, and raising the limit of the height of buildings from 110 to 130 feet. It is true that no action has been taken so far on the report of the commission, but I believe that this report has been published under the authority and supervision of the Government, and it .seems to me that the city of Ottawa should be notified that it must not set such a bad example, but that it must carry out the recommendations of the commission and not retrace its steps in such manner as is proposed in the present instance. I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister especially to the fact, that Mr. Booth intends to lease a part of that building for Government offices. I am not sure that this is the case, but that is my information. If that is so, there is double reason why the Government should insist that the city of Ottawa should carry out the provisions of the by-law which was based upon the regulations .suggested by the Federal Planning Commission. We are about to reconstruct our Parliament Buildings, and it would be a great pity indeed to do anything which would impair their architectural beauty. The Government is spending enormous sums of money in Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion; the country does not begrudge the spending of that money, but we expect that the city of Ottawa will recognize what is being done for the capital and respect what regulations have been adopted or even suggested by the Federal Plan Commission.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: My attention
had not 'been directed to any change in the by-laws proposed by the Board of Control of the city of Ottawa, I shall bring the subject to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and also1 confer with him about it. It is, of course, not only desirable, hut entirely necessary that there should be some reasonable restriction upon the height of build.ings erected in this city, and one would suppose that the limit which was agreed upon by the city on the one hand and the members of that commission on the other would have been adhered to. I

know of no reason why it should have been departed from. It is imperatively necessary, if the report of that commission or any part of it is to be carried out, that reasonable restrictions shall be made, and that there shall foe permanence to the understanding arrived 'at. .



THE EXPORT OF NICKEL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: There is a
statement in the press to-day that the Government have prohibited the export of nickel to certain countries. May I ask if the report is true, and if so, will the correspondence be brought down?


Robert Laird Borden: There is not any particular correspondence except a report made by Mr. Graham Bell, who has conducted the investigation on behalf of the Government. The reason for the passage of the Order in Council is that a small quantity of nickel has very recently been sent to the United States by a small company, with which the Government had not an arrangement. Neither the Canadian nor the British Government was in a position to trace the destination of that nickel without a good deal of difficulty. Therefore, it is proposed to prohibit formally the export of nickel, but to continue the exportation under license from time to time, which will make it necessary for any person or corporation exporting nickel from Canada to the United) States to enter into arrangements as satisfactory as those which were consummated in the early months of the war with the International Nickel Company.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the Order in Council and the report of Mr. Bell be laid on the Table?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure whether it would he desinhble to lay the report of Mr. Bell on the Table, but I shall be very glad to give my right hon. friend a copy of it; and, if there does not appear to be any objection in the public interest to doing so, I shall lay it on the table of the House.


Mr. TURRIFF:: 
Robert Laird Borden: The Order in Council will be laid on the table of the House to-morrow. It prohibits exportation except to British possessions. Export will be carried on under license, wherever the British and Canadian Governments are satisfied as to the ultimate destination of the article so exported.
206TH BATTALION-SUPPLY OF KITS.
On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. A. E. KEMP (Acting Minister of Militia):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rouville the other day brought to the attention of the House an article in a newspaper in reference to certain articles included in the kits of soldiers having been made in Germany. 'The commanding officer of the 206th Battalion denies the correctness of the interview credited to him. Nearly all articles in the kit are made in Canada. Those not made in Canada are made in Great Britain. Certain articles which could not be obtained in Great Britain were obtained in the United States. Such articles were not produced in Canada. All razors purchased by the War Purchasing Commission were British razors, except that when they were not able to get a sufficient supply in Great Britain they purchased from the United States manufacturers direct. However, a small piece of wood, such as 1 hold in my hand, with a dozen thumb tacks in it, was found in the kit. It is not a regular issue, the 'Government did not issue it and the department did not put it in the kit. I do not know how it got in the kits of the 206th regiment. I tihink a joke has been perpetrated on the regiment: I see that on the back of it there is printed, " Made in Germany."



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Bill No. 31, to incorporate the Eastern Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventists-Mr. Smith-in
Committee.
Mr. OLIVER:: This Bill purports to deal with property rights of the eastern conferences of this particular church. I desire to have on record the assurance of those responsible for the Bill that it in no way affects the property rights of the western church organization.


Mr. MORPHY:: The hon. member for
South Ontario, in whose name the Bill
stands, is absent, but I told him that in his absence I would be glad to take his place and give any explanations required.
I cannot see how the Bill can affect the western church organizations as it specifically mentions the conferences which are entering into this particular consolidation. It does not deal with the West at all, so that I cannot see how it can affect the West.


Frank Oliver: On the face of it, the Bill is exactly as my hon. friend says, but I just want some one to take responsibility for the assurance that the property rights of congregations of this particular church west of the lakes will not be affected. It may be that congregations west of the lakes possibly form a part of the Ontario Conference; and if that were the case it .might be desirable that the matter should be looked into a little more closely. If my hon. friend will take the responsibility of assuring the House that the property rights of the congregations of this church west of the lakes are not affected by the Bill, I will be satisfied.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am not in a position to take such a responsibility as that. Has the hon. gentleman any reasonable ground for suspicion that congregations in the West are in any way intermingled with the conferences of this church? It seems to me that the scope of the Bill is very plain. This is an incorporation of three distinct conferences which do not include the western country. If the hon. gentleman had any reason to suppose that the assets of western congregations were in any way held in common with those of this body, the objection he raises might be pertinent, but otherwise, I cannot see the force of it.


Frank Oliver: I am not raising an objection; I merely want to bring before the House a possible condition. I am not responsible for the Bill, or for its passing, but I do not want it to go through without the attention of the House being drawn to the possibility that there might be some interference with the rights of congregations west of the lakes. As I said before, it is not that I suggest that the Conference of Ontario is taking over anything that is not perfectly right, but if there is no separate conference west of the lakes, there is the possibility of interference with rights which is not desirable in western interests. I just wish to be satisfied on that point, or at any rate to satisfy myself

that the matter has (been brought to the attention of the House. The responsibiliity must rest on other shoulders.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: On the face of the Bill, there is no attempt to deal with any other property than that, belonging to the three conferences mentioned. I cannot see that there is any ground for my hon. friend's suspicion.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Clarice Smith.-Mr. Cash.

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

Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Referring to Auditor General's Report, 1915, Page P-284, Ammunition Small Arms, .303 at $20 and $20 per M, to whom was this ammunition sold?
2.	Has any such ammunition heen sold during the present fical year?
3.	If so, (a) what kind or description; (b) to whom; (c) what quantity; (d) what was the price per M?
'Mr. KEMP:
I.	The small quantities of ammunition mentioned were sold to seventy-two rifle clubs and other organizations of a military and semi-military character, as shown on the accompanying list:
Hespeler Rifle Association, Franklin, No. 356 C.R.A., No. 357, C.R.A., No. 390 C.R.A., 47th Regiment, Lakefield R.A., No. 390 C.R. A., Guelph C.R.A., Renfrew C.R.A., J. R. Smith, No. 343 C.R.A., No. 529 C.R.A., No. 346 C.R.A., No. 413 C.R.A., No. 663 C.R.A., Hespler R.A., 23rd Regiment, 91st Regiment, Irish Rifle Club, 48th Regiment, 12th Regiment, 2nd Regiment Irish Rifle Club, 10th Regiment, Q.O.R., Lieut.-Col. Flowers, A. B. Herbert, No. 174


Albert Edward Kemp: 
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AS LIEUTENANT-COLONELS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the House of Commons who have been appointed as Lieutenant-Colonels since the outbreak of the present war, and what are the dates of their respective appointments?
2.	What amounts, if any, have been paid to such appointees, since such appointments, up to February 1 1916?
3.	What amounts, if any, have been drawn by such appointees for expenses or allowances up to February 1, 1916?
Rank prior to
1.	Name.	. Appt. of Lt.-Col.Fowler, G. W	Hon.	Lt.-Col..,Tremaine, H. B	Hon. Col	Stanfield, J	Hon. Lt.-Col...Carrick, J. J	Nil	Cockshutt, W. F	Nil	Arthurs', J	Nil	Donaldson, S. J	Hon.	Captain..Bradbury, G. H	Nil	Sharpe, S. S	Major	Appt. as Lt.-Col.	Date.Canadian Militia	
22- 9-15112th Batt. C. E. F	
9-11-15193rd Batt. C. E. F	
27- 1-1696th Regiment (Hon.)	
16-11-14125th Batt. C. E. F. (Hon.)....	3-12-15162nd Batt. C. E. F	
21- 1-16188th Batt. C. E. F	
24- 1-16108th Batt. C. E. F	
4-11-15116th Batt. C. E. F	
11-11-15

2.	Lt.-Col. G. W.. Fowler, $1,233.75; Lt.-Col. H. B. Tremaine, $635.50; Lt.-Col. J. Stanfield, no payment; Lt.-Col. J. J. Car-riek, awaiting information from England; Lt-Col. W. F. Coekshutt, no payment; Lt.-ooL J. Arthurs, $465; Lt.-Col. S. J. Donaldson, no payment;. Lt.-Col. G. H. Bradbury, $556.25; Lt.-Col. S. S. Sharpe, $768.00.
3.	Lt.-Col. G. W. Fowler, $221.78; Lt.-Col. H. B. Tremaine, $178.20; Lt.-Col. J. Stanfield, no payment; Lt.-Col. J. J. Carriok, awaiting information from England; Lt.-Col. W. F. Coekshutt, no payment; Lt.-Col: J. Arthurs, $6.55; Lt.-Col. S. J. Donaldson, no payment; Lt.-Col. G. H. Bradbury, $164.75; Lt.-Col. S. S. Sharpe, $1.84.


WELLINGTON HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	What was the estimated cost of the Wellington harbour and pier improvements and construction?
2.	How much has been expended upon said works to date, and are the pier and improvements completed?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to expend any more money on those works during this year?
4.	(a) What class of shipping frequents this harbour, and (b) what is the depth of water at the mouth or entrance?
5.	Does The channel dredged remain clear, or does it refill with sand and silt? '


Mr. REID:: 1.	$79,363.10.
2.	$94,990.39.
3.	No.
4.	(a) Harbour of refuge for fishermen and other boats. Work now completed and is ready for the spring business, (b) 11 feet.
5.	Soundings are now being taken to ascertain whether or not the dredged channel remains clear.


LIQUOR IN PROHIBITION TERRITORY.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is there any Dominion Legislation concerning the transportation of liquor in prohibition territory? If so, what is it?
2.	Who is charged with its enforcement?
3.	If there is no such legislation, does the Government intend having such adopted at this session?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	The only enactment to which my attention has been directed is Chapter 71, 7-8 Edward VII, Section 1, subsection (c).
2.	This is carried out by the local authorities or individuals.
3.	Notice of any intended action on the subject will be given in due course.


REVENUES OP CUSTOMS PORTS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What was the total revenue of the following Customs Ports, respectively, for the fiscal years 1910-11: Montreal, Toronto, Quebec, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria, Three Rivers, Sherbrooke St. John, N.B. and Halifax?
2.	What was the total yearly revenue respectively, of the above named offices for the fiscal year 1914-15?


Mr. REID:: ** **	=v
Port.
Montreal	
Toronto	
Quebec	
Winnipeg	
Vancouver	
Victoria	
Three Rivers.. ..
Sherbrooke	
St. John, N.B. . . Halifax	
Total


SALARIES OP CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What was the total sum paid as salaries to the Customs employees, both permanent and temporary, on the 1st October, 1S11, at the following- offices: Montreal, Toronto, Quebec, Winnipeg-, Vancouver, Victoria, Three Rivers, Sherbrooke, St. John, N.B., and Halifax?
2.	What was the total sum paid as salaries to the Customs employees, both permanent and
Fiscal year	Year Oct. 1,	12	Fiscal year	1910-11.	to Oct. 1, '13.	1914-15.	$18,248,772	03	$26,543,279	58	$19,303,534	5113,707,369	61	19,782,170	96	15,052,519	451,353,263	20	1,820,325	30	1 596,164	176,455,138	82	10 507,868	23	5,996,975	035,507 805	73	8,908,217	16	5,100,511	911,541,282	37	2,512,858	09	1,236,001	42100,805	58	183,966	57	124,152	00262,492	42	384,249	06	254,069	231,327,881	17	1,724,376	49	1,658,503	SI1,772,905	72	2,201.208	75	2,224,232	41$50,277,716 65	$74,568,520	19	$52,546,653	94
temporary, on the 1st October, 1915, at the above-named offices?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many Customs employees were actually on the pay-list both permanent and temporary, on the 1st October, 1911, at the following- offices: Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria, Three Rivers, Sherbrooke, St. John, N.B. and Halifax?
2.	How many Customs employees, both permanent and temporary, were on the pay-list on

the 1st October, 1915, in each of the abovenamed offices? [DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: 
PONT MARCOTTE.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	What was the cost of the bridge known as the Pont Marcotte, constructed by the Department of the Public Works in the parish of Ste. Anne de la Parade, county of Champlain, during the year 1914, over the St. Ignace channel?
2.	In virtue of what authority, and on whose recommendation did the Federal Government undertake the construction of such bridge?
3.	Has a sum been voted for the construction of such bridge? If not, upon what fund were the amounts drawn to pay for the same?
4.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not another iron bridge had been built by the municipality and the Provincial Government in 1912 within 550 feet of the Pont Marcotte?
5.	For what use does the said Pont Marcotte exist?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The department did not ibuild a bridge at Ste. Anne de la Perade, but simply a 16-foot span culvert in riprap protection that was placed so as to check inundations occurring after heavy rains which affected the lower part of the village. The reason why a slab abutment system was decided upon is that an opening for small boats *had to be provided. These boats travel from the main channel of the river to the small channel, and the culvert is placed at the entrance of the latter.
2.	In the appropriations for 1914-15 an amount of $5,000 was voted for protection work, and the culvert above mentioned being part of that work, was charged to that appropriation.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.
4.	The department has no knowledge as to this.
5.	Answered by No. 1.


ARMY CHAPLAINS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What is the name, the military rank, and the religion of each person appointed as chaplain to the military camp at Barriefleld during the year 1915, and how much did, each receive for his services?
2.	Since the breaking up of the camp at Barriefleld, what persons have been appointed as chaplains to the soldiers in training at Kingston, and what is the remuneration of each?
iMr. KEMP:
1.	The name, rank and religion of each person, and the amount each received, is as follows:
Honorary Major G. L. Starr, (C. of E.), from 27th May, 1915, to 10th November, 1915, $1,176.
Honorary Captain W. F. Fitzgerald, (C. of E.), from 16th June, 1915, to 6th November, 1915,	$864, outfit allowance, $100,
total, $964.
Honorary Captain C. Milton, (Salvationist), from 1st June, 1915, to 10tn November, 1915, $978, outfit allowance, $100, total, $1,078.
Honorary Captain G. I. Campbell, (Methodist), from 20th August, 1915, to 10th November, 1915, $498, outfit allowance, $100, total, $598.
The Rev. Father A. J. Hanley, (R.C.), $10 per .service.
2.	Honorary Captain W. F. Fitzgerald, (C. of E.), appointed chaplain to artillery units, 3rd division, at $3 per diem.
Honorary Major G. L. Starr, (0. of E.) appointed chaplain to "C" battery, R.C.
H.	A., without pay.
The units to which these chaplains ministered at Barriefleld, not including detachments of the Permanent Force also there, during the following months, were:
June.-8th C.M.R., 38th Battalion, 59th Battalion.
July.-8th C.M.R., 38th Battalion, 59th Battalion.
. August.-8th	C.M.R., 59th Battalion,
32nd Battery, 33rd Battery, 34th Battery.
September.-59th Battalion, 8th C.M.R., 32nd Battery, 33rd Battery, 34th Battery, 80th Battalion.


TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF MINISTER&quot;OF MILITIA.
Mr. MICHAUD:: What amounts have been paid by the Department of Militia and Defence since August
I,	1914, for travelling expenses, of all kinds, including special trains, automobile hire, steamship and railway fares for General Sir Sam Hughes, Minister of Militia?


Albert Edward Kemp: Travelling expenses of all kinds, $10,502.74; special trains, $4,583.67; automobile hire, nil; steamship and railway fares, nil; Civil Government contingencies, $500.


MOOSEJAW CUSTOMS OFFICE.
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What was the total amount paid for salaries in the Moose]aw city customs office in the fiscal year 1910-11?
2.	What was the total sum collected in said office in said fiscal year?
3.	What was the total paid for salaries in the same office in 1914-15?
4.	What was the total sum collected in said office in said fiscal year 1914-15?


John Dowsley Reid: Salaries of officers, 1910-11, 5, $4,078.48; October 1, 1912, to October 1, 1913,	15,
$17,200; 1914-15, 15, $18,083.32. Revenue, 1910-11, $171,790.70; October 1, 1912, to

October	1,	1913,	*416,769.15; 1914-15,
$250,345. Officers on duty at Customs, March 1, 1916, 14, salaries, $16,900; officers absent on military service, March 1, 1916, 2, salaries, $2,000.
106th REGIMENT SUPPLIES.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Were any tenders asked for the supply of groceries and other supplies for the 106th Regiment, stationed at Trenton, N.S. ?
2.	From whom were the tenders asked, if any?
3.	To whom was the contract or contracts given ?
4.	On whose recommendation were the names supplied from whom tenders were to be called?
5.	On whose recommendation were the contracts awarded?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Tenders were asked for the supply of .groceries and other supplies to the 106th Regiment, stationed at Truro, N.S.
2.	From the following:	Farmer's Store,
McCullough, Creelman & Urquhart, Ryan Bros., Snooke & Company, John Fraser, McKenzie's Market, John Ross, W. H. Snooke, Angus Chisholm, G. W. Casson, Canada Preserving Company, Dominion Canners Ltd., Glassco Ltd., Imperial Extract Co., Lindner'-s Ltd., T. A. Lytle Co., Ltd., Labreque & Pellerin, McCormick Mfg. Co., Quebec Preserving Co., Alphonse Raymond, E. D. Smith & Co., Stuart Ltd., St. Louis Preserving Co., T. Upton Co., Wag-staffe Ltd., T. S. Battilo & Co., H. U. Fulton, J. E. Morse & Co., Wentzells Ltd.,
O.	H. McDonald, John R. McMullin, J. H. Kent & Co., Ltd., J. H. Hanson, Robert Wright, Edward McKenzie.
3.	Contracts were made as follows:
For bread: W. H. Snooke & Co.
For marmalade: The Dominion Canners, Limited.
For jam: T. Upton & Co.
For bacon (green), potatoes, beans, butter (dairy), dried prunes, rice, white sugar, fresh vegetables, lard: W. H. Snooke & Co.
For bacon (breakfast), creamery butter, cheese, flour, milk powder (domestic), split peas, rolled oats, salt, pepper:	John D.
Ross.	.
For meat: Angus Chisholm, who declined to act; afterwards to George W. Casson,
For toilet paper: To H. O. Fulton.
For tea: J. E. Morse & Co.
For coffee: National Coffee & Spice Co.
For coal: John R. McMullin.
For wood, soft: J. H. Kent & Co.
For wood, hard: J. H. Hanson._

For straw for men's bedding:	Edward
McKenzie.
4.	The names from whom tenders were to be called were obtained from various sources.
5.	Contracts were awarded to the lowest tenderers.


DREDGING IN CAPE BRETON.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: What is the total amount expended in dredging in the four counties of Cape Breton Island during 1915, by the Government and Company dredges, and where was each amount which makes up this total spent?


Mr. ROGERS:: During the dredging season of 1915 no contract dredging was done; work done by department dredge at Mabou, $14,159.75; Smith's Cove, $13,759.54.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What work has been done by tender or otherwise at the Royal Military College and at Fort Henry during each of the years 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915?
2.	What amounts of money were paid for such w'ork and to whom in each case?
3.	What work has been done or is being done at the Royal Military College and at Fort Henry this year, and what amounts have been paid for such work and to whom?
4.	How much money has been paid out to interned prisoners at Fort Henry for work done by them, and what was the rate of wages so paid?


Albert Edward Kemp: 1,	2 and 3. So far as this department is concerned, this information is contained in a return sent to the Secertary of State on the 15th instant.
4.	No information in this department.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY POSTAL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Was a petition received from residents of the Township of Nouvelle, Bonaventure county, asking for the opening of a post office at the residence of A. W. Richardson?
2.	Was it granted? If not, why not?
3.	Have other post offices been opened in that township within the last two years, and how many?
4.	Where are these latter situated, and who are the postmaster?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: -
1.	Yes; received March 10, 1915.
2.	It was not granted, the population to be served "being rather a small one, about 15 families, while the cost of its up-keep would have called for $100 a year-postmaster's salary $50, mail service $50-with a revenue in return of probably $10 or $15.

There was formerly a post office in that neighbourhood, about a mile away, called Escuminac East, which was closed on August 1, 1906, the postmaster having resigned, and the office considered as unnecessary.
3 and 4. Not during the past two years. If, however, reference is bad to the Escuminac Nord and Shoolbred post offices, the particulars are as follows:	Escouminac
Nord, opened April 1, 1913, on lot 8, range 1, township Nouvelle, with William Carmichael as postmaster, and with a semiweekly service from Escuminac- distance five miles-at a per annum cost of $55; revenue, $36; Schoolbred, opened June 15, 1911. The postmaster of this office is Ed. Savoie, and the service is six times a week from Robitaille-distance, 2 miles at a per annum cost of $72, revenue, $72.70.


DRILL HALL AT LEVIS.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Were tenders asked for the stone to be used in the construction of the sidewalk of the drill hall at Levis, in 1915?
. 2. If so, who was the lowest tenderer, and what are the names of the other tenderers?
3.	What price has been asked per toise by each tenderep for the stone to be used for the sidewalk of the drill hall at Levis?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Yes, from Jos. St. Pierre and L. P. Samson. The amount involved, $862.50, was too small to call for public tenders.
2.	The lowest tender was that of Jos. St. Pierre. The other tenderer was L. P. Samson.
3.	No price obtained per toise, but price per cubic yard obtained from St. Pierre, $1.50, and from Samson, $2.


POSTAL. REVENUE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What was the total revenue received by the Post Office Department for the sale of postage stamps for all purposes from March 31, 1915, to February 29, 1916?
2.	What was the total amount received between said dates from the sale of postal cards?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Postage stamps, post
cards, etc., sold from April 1, 1915, to February 29, 1916, $18,848,346.30. No separate account is kept of the sale of postage stamps and post cards.


MILFORD HAVEN BRIDGE POSTMASTER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Was the postmaster at Milford Haven Bridge, Guysboro county, Nova Scotia, dismissed? If so, when?
2.	Was there an investigation held prior to dismissal ?
3.	Was any complaint filed against the former [DOT] postmaster? If so, by whom?
4.	Who is the present postmaster, and on whose recommendation was the new postmaster appointed ?
5.	If an investigation was held, who conducted the same?
6.	What was the complaint?


Mr. OASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes. On October 12, 1915.
2 and 3. The Post Office Inspector reported that the postmaster was very remiss in his duties. He stated that he had repeatedly written to the postmaster in regard to keeping up his supplies of postage stamps .and postal notes, but had failed to elicit any reply whatever. The inspector stated that the postmaster was most negligent also in other duties connected with his office land all efforts to induce him to perform his duty in these respects had proved unavailing. The inspector recommended that a change should be made in the postmastership.
4.	Mt. Guy O'Connor. On recommendation of Mr. G. A. R. Rowlings.
5 and 6. See answer to Nos. 2 and 3.


SHERBROOKE-MOSERS RIVER MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What is the present yearly cost of the mail service between Sherbrooke, Nova Scotia, and Mosers River, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the cost of this service under the terms of the contract in existence in October, 1911?
3.	Who is the present contractor?
4.	Who was the contractor in 1911?
5.	On what date did the contract existing in 1911 expire?
6.	Why was the contract enforced in October, 1911, concelled?
7.	Was any compensation made to the contractor for the loss of his contract before it expired?
S.	On whose recommendation was the contract existing in 1911 cancelled?
9.	Has the contract of the present contractor been renewed? If so, when were public tenders invited when such renewal was entered into?
10.	If tenders were invited, what are the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	The mail service between these two places is included in a contract for service between Sheet Harbour and Sherbrooke. The amount paid at present is $3,384.35, the original contract price having been increased from $3,293, on account of increased distance travelled since the contract was entered into.
2.	$3,334.
3.	J. S. Cameron.

4.	M. McGrath.
5.	On the 30th June, 1914.
6.	Representations having been made by J. S. Cameron that he had been unfairly treated by the cancellation of his contracts in 1897 and 1910, the Postmaster General decided to terminate the contract and give Mr. Cameron an opportunity with others of tendering for the service.
7.	The contract was terminated in accordance with a condition contained therein giving the Postmaster General the right to terminate by giving three months' notice.
8.	Answered by No. 6.
9 and 10. The contract has not been renewed, but tenders are now being invited for a new contract, which aTe receivable at the department oh the 31st instant.


AMHERST HOG-SLAUGHTERING.
Mr. COPP:: What amount of money was paid Percy T. Smith, or Amos S. Btter, by the Department of Agriculture for the slaughtering of hogs at Amherst, N.S., during the year 1915?


Mr. HAZEN:: No amount was paid to
either.


NEW RICHMOND MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is the contractor of the rural mail service of New Richmond, Quebec, what is he paid, when did he tender, when was his tender accepted, is the amount allowed him the sum that he first asked, and was he the only or lowest tenderer?
2.	What is the service, and how many have taken it?
3.	What does it cost, as compared with the previous postal service in the district served?
4.	Has any other rural mail routes been established in Bonaventure county?
5.	If so, where, at what cost, with how many patrons, who gives the service, how many offices have been closed in consequence, and what are they?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Tenders for this service were receivable at the department on the 30th October, 1914. All the tenders were considered too high and the several tenderers were given an opportunity to submit lower offers. Joseph Cyr, whose original tender was $900 per annum, subsequently reduced to $735, which was the lowest offer received. The contract was awarded to him at the amount of his reduced tender on the 5th May, 1915.
2.	The courier leaving New Richmond station post office daily at 1 p.m., after the arrival of the eastbound train, Quebec, Oriental railway, "Gaspe and Matapedia R.P.O." due at 12.35 p.m., winter timetable, and travelling via the former sites of the New Richmond Centre and New Richmond West

post offices, thence via Range Grand Cas-capedia to road between lots 15 and 16 and the road between concessions 4 and 5, back to New Richmond station, forming a circular route of 21 miles per round trip, and serving 38 boxes, representing 52 subscribers.
3.	Former cost: Cost of mail service, $265.33; salary for post offices closed, $212; total, $477.33.
Present cost: Cost of trunk service, $735; cost Of service of boxes, $38; total, $773. Total extra cost, $295.67.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


WHARF AT L'ASSOMPTION.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What sum has been paid by the Department of Public Works for work and materials intended for the construction of a wharf on the river l'Assomption, in the town of 1'Assomption ?
2.	What amount did the Government receive when it dispossessed itself of the materials purchased for the purpose of such construction?
3.	To whom were such materials sold?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Material, $665.25; labour in building a crib, $131.77.
2.	$125 for portion that was not used in the construction of the crib.
3.	Rev. J. A. Lamarche.


ST. PAUL L'ERMITE MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What are the names of the tenderers for the carrying of the rural delivery mails in the parish of St. Paul l'Ermite, and the amount of each such tender?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded, and for what amount?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Camille Seguin, St. Paul l'Ermite,
$450; Clodimire Longpre, St. Paul l'Erimte, $490; Johnny Trudel, St. Henri Mascouche, $600;	C. Jette,	St.	Paul	l'Ermite,	$700;Clovis	Payette,	St.	Paul	l'Ermite,	$700;Oscar	Longpre,	St.	Paul	l'Ermite,	$750;Albert	Chartier,	St.	Paul	l'Ermite,	$800;
Jos. Archambault, St. Paul l'Ermite, $850.
2.	OscaT Longpre put in another tender at $445 and, was awarded the contract.


VALCARTIER CAMP.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Were tenders invited for the removal of 223,794 tins of refuse at Valcartier Camp from August 17 to October 7, 1914, which, at 15 cents per tin, amounted to the sum of $33,569.10?
2.	Who is W. Jones, the man to whom the contract is said to have been given, and where does he reside?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Tenders were invited for the emptying of latrine buckets for the period of Valcar-tier Camp, during the year 1914.
2.	The contract was awarded to W. Jones, the lowest tenderer, whose address is Champlain Market Square, Quebec.


INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. DELISLE:: How many employees has the Civil Service Commission been requested to provide for the Department of Inland Revenue, out of the number of successful candidates writing for the May examinations?


Mr. BLONDIN:: The Civil Service Commission has not been requested to provide any employees for the Department of Inland Revenue out of the number of successful candidates writing on the May examinations.


DR. N. O. FOREMAN.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Does Dr. N. O. Foreman, of Bridgewater, hold any rank in the militia? If so, what rank?
2.	To what regiment, if any, is he attached?
3.	What services is he performing in his rank?
4.	What amount per day does he receive?
5.	How much has he been paid to March 1, 1916?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.


P. M. FIELDING.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What position does Mr. P. M. Fielding, of Windsor, N.S., hold in the public service?
2.	Is he performing the duties of his position?
3.	What amounts have been paid him since January 1, 1915, (a) for his services, and (b) for expenses, respectively?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Dominion Immigration Agent. .
2.	Yes.
3.	January 1, 1915, to February 29, 1916.
(a)	Salary, $2,100; (b) expenses, $163.68.


LITTLE SANDS, P.E.I. BREAKWATER.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	(a) Was the breakwater at Little Sands, P.E.I., repaired last year? (b) If so, when?
2.	(a) What did the repairs cost, and (b) was the work done by tender or by day labour?
3.	(a) Who was the inspector or foreman,
(b)	what was his rate of pay per day, and for how many days was he paid?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) October, 1915.
2.	(a) $213.85; (b) day's labour.
3.	(a) Mr. A. B. McNeil; (b) paid at the rate of $2.50 per day for 15 days.


POWDER MILK FOR TROOPS.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Is powder milk still being supplied to the troops at Charlottetown, and at other places in Prince Edward Island?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


INSPECTORS OF PICKLED FISH.
James Joseph Hughes: .
1.	How many pickled fish inspectors has the Government in Prince Edward Island?
2.	What remuneration or salary does each receive?
3.	What allowance is made for travelling expenses, and what do these expenses amount to?
4.	Are there any other payments or expenses?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	One, whose district also includes Magdalen Islands and Pictou, Cumberland and Colchester counties, in Nova Scotia.
2.	$1,200 per year.
3.	Actual out of pocket expenses in travelling, which from May, 1915, to February, 1916, inclusive, amounted to $583.48.
4.	No.


REGISTERED SHIPPING IN CANADA.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: How many tons of shipping, sail and steam stood on the Canadian Register at the expiration of each of the years 1875, 1885, 1895, 1905 and 1915?


John Douglas Hazen: i
Total net tonnage, steam and sailing vessels remaining on the register books of the Dominion, 31st December: 1875, $1,205,565; 1885, $1,231,856; 1895, $825,776; 1905, $669,825; 1915, $929,891.


A. DE W. FOSTER, EX-M. P.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Is A. de W. Foster, ex-M.P. for Kings county, N.S., in any way connected with or receiving pay from any branch of the Government, or the Munitions Commission?
2.	If so, what is his position and salary?


Robert Laird Borden: The answer to the first question is, No. The second question is answered by the first.


MONTREAL CUSTOMS BUILDING.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Who is or are the contractors for the furnishing and erecting of partitions in the new Customs House Building on McGill Street, Montreal ?
2.	Is that work done by contract or day work, or on percentage? If so, on what conditions?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The Berlin Interior Hardware Company.
2.	Tenders were called by public advertisement, twelve tenders were received, and the contract was awarded to the Berlin Interior Hardware Company.


PROOF SPIRIT PURCHASE.
Mr. PROULX:: In view of the well known temperance attitude of the Minister of Militia, what is the explanation of the Acting Minister regarding the following item appearing in the Auditor General's Report, Page P-134 : Gooderham and Worts, 570.9 gals, proof spirits?


Albert Edward Kemp: The proof spirit referred to was used in the manufacture of ammunition at the Dominion. Arsenal. The spirit is nonpotable.


SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Will the wives of the men who joined the militia at North Bay in September, 1915, or previous to that date, receive the separation allowance from September 1915, to January, 1916?


Albert Edward Kemp: The above question is not understood. If the hon. member will be more specific in his question and give reference to the particular battalion he has in mind, the information will be furnished.


MARINE AND FISHERIES DEPT. LAW CLERK.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Who is Law Clerk of the Marine and Fisheries Department?
2.	When was he appointed, [DOT] and at what salary?
3.	Is he now, and was he at the time of his appointment, a member of the Bar of the province of Quebec?
4.	Who was Law Clerk of the Marine and Fisheries Department prior to the present incumbent of that office?
5.	Was his appointment recommended by the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Frangois Romuald Alphonse Bourgault.
2.	1st September, 190&; $1,400 per annum.
3.	At the time of his appointment, Mr. Bourgault was a member of the Bar of the province of Quebec; he is not at present a practising member of that Bar.
4.	None.
5.	The recommendation of the Civil Service Commission was not necessary, as his appointment became effective under the provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908.


ARCHIBALD TIBBITS.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What has been the amount paid annually for travelling expenses of one Archibald Tibbits since his appointment to the Department of Marine and Fisheries?
2.	What amount has been expended for furniture and equipment for his office since his appointment?
3.	Who comprises his office staff, and what are their respective annual salaries?
4.	Did he pass the Civil Service examinations before his appointment or since, or did the Civil Service Commission approve of his appointment?
5.	What was his occupation prior to his present appointment?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	1912-13, $670.11; 1913-14, $735.46; 1914-15. $462.37; 1915-16, $253.75. Total, $2,121.69.
2.	By Department of Marine and Fisheries, $166.75.
3.	A stenographer, receiving $700 per annum, is at present placed at his disposal.
4.	No, it was unnecessary.
5.	Banking, including expert financial work, and general contracting business.


TAXES PAYABLE BY BANKS.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: What amount of taxes will each of the following banks pay under the new taxation Bill, as per their last annual statements: Bank of Montreal, Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, and the Bank of Nova Scotia?


John Dowsley Reid: It is not possible to state in advance of assessment the amount which will be payable by any person under the provisions of the measure referred to. Under the special war taxation legislation, introduced by the Budget of 1915 and which still continues in force, the banks in question have paid the following sums to date: Bank of Montreal, $154,014.20; Canadian Bank of Commerce, $133,406.97; Royal Bank of Canada, $115,600; Bank of Nova Scotia, $65,000.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-EMPLOYEES WITH DIPLOMAS.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: 1.	How many employees holding diplomas from agricultural colleges are there in the Department of Agriculture?
2.	How many of such employees hold diplomas from the Macdonald Agricultural College, at Ste. Anne de Bellevue?
3.	How many hold diplomas from the Guelph Agricultural College?
4.	How many hold diplomas from the Oka Agricultural College?
5.	How many hold diplomas from the Agricultural College at Ste. Anne de la PocatiSre ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. 80.
2. 19.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Pacaud.-For a return showing to whom was awarded the contracts for the transport of mails in the county of Dorchester from the 21st September, 1911, to this date; if there were any tenders called for these contracts, and, if so, who were the tenderers and the amount of their respective tenders?
Mr. Lachance.-For a return showing the names and salaries of the persons employed in the immigration service in the city of Montreal; their respective salaries when appointed, what they receive at the present time; which of such employees are given travelling or other expenses, and how much has been paid to each on that account since their respective appointments.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters,, telegrams, etc., in any way referring to the dredging at Margaree harbour, Inverness county, N.S., during 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1916.
Mr. Carroll.-For a return showing the names and addresses of all persons in the public service of any and every department of the Government of Canada, in the counties of Cape Breton, Victoria, Inverness, Richmond, Guys-borough, Antigonish and Pictou, province of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all petitions, correspondence, telegrams, recommendations and other papers or documents in the possession of the Postmaster General or his department, relating to the dismissal of James Hall, postmaster at Milford Haven bridge, Guysboro county, Nova Scotia, and the appointment of Guy O'Connor as his successor.
Mr. Boulay.-For a return showing the amounts paid by the Federal Government from the 1st July, 1896, to the 1st October, 1911, to the following newspapers:	Le Canada, La
Presse, La Patrie, Le Pays, of Montreal, and La Vigie and Le Soleil, of Quebec.

Rodolphe Lemieux: That, in the opinion of this House, measures should be taken at the earliest opportunity to give effect to the report on technical education.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to dwell at any length on the importance of technical education. The subject has already been exhausted in various debates that have taken place in this House during the last twenty years in which I have had the honour to sit in Parliament. Every one is seized with the necessity of a movement forward on this vital question. Not later than this morning I read in one of the newspapers the -remarks made by Viscount Haldane at a meeting held in Liverpool a few days ago. He said that he was more afraid of the engine for conquest in peace times which the Germans were busy preparing, than of their -big 42-centimetre
guns. He declared this new engine for conquest to be the most modern form of continuation school, which was extending itself over a large part of Germany. It was a work-school for imparting trade skill and general knowledge. In short, Germany had begun to train the youth of the land in special skilled trades to out-distance her competitors throughout the world. I attended a convention of the American Federation of Engineers at Chicago the other day, and I can say that not only every one in this country, but indeed in America, is seized with the importance of technical education and manual training. Urgent as this question is for older countries, it is still more urgent for us in Canada, who belong to a young and progressive community. From what I have read on this question, not only have Great Britain, the LJnited States and France set us a noble example in this respect, but I am bound to add that Germany, our enemy, has also. Let me quote a few lines from a leader in education, Mr. J. Scott Russell, an eminent scientist, engineer, builder and educator. As far back as 1869, he described in these feiw pungent sentences the effect sound technical education would have on a country:
In every country where technical education has taken root and had time to bear fruit I also find unquestionable proofs of the rapidity with which increased intelligence and enlarged knowledge bring increase in employment and remuneration. From my personal experience I may say that within the last twenty-five years I have seen large branches of commercial trade leave our country and plant themselves in another because the workers of the one were educated and those of the other uneducated. And I have watched nations rising into importance and power by education and by order, organization, and efficiency, which education bestows, and other nations lagging behind and losing their place by reason of their unwillingness to educate either the higher or lower classes of their people.
Education, of course, comprises knowledge and mental discipline, but not these alone; to be practical and useful to those who must earn their livelihood, it must also afford opportunities for acquiring physical dexterity with special reference to the industrial pursuits of life. That is the object of manual training and in a higher sense, of technical education; namely, physical dexterity with special reference to the industrial pursuits of life. Briefly it contributes to the development of a country, to an increase in its wealth, and to the protection of its citizens.
One phase of this question which might

tary college at Kingston; we h-ave a naval school at Halifax. We spend money for the dissemination of knowledge of the metric system. We pay subsidies to various provincial institutions, for instance, to McGill, and to the Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal. I have only these two in mind just now; possibly we pay subsidies to other institutions, But in view of the fact that we pay subsidies to improve and extend knowledge of the running of railways; in view -of the fact that we pay millions to the various provinces to improve the agricultural training of our farmers, so Mr. Speaker, the Dominion Government could well cooperate with the provinces and make grants towards industrial training. The matter of technical education affects trade and commerce, as to its quality, quantity, and means of transportation. Considering then the question from that point of view, technical education, in my humble judgment, becomes a matter of a national concern.
The provinces have but limited revenues, and when we consider the obligations that the provinces have to face we realize that their revenues are subject to considerable strain. The revenues of the provinces are derived partly from Dominion subsidies; they receive somethipg like $11,250,000 by way of subsidies. The provinces have to engage in public services of prime importance, such- as the administration of justice, the maintenance of civil rights, the care of our public domain, the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges. Thanks to the good roads movement, which was inaugurated within the last ten or eleven years, the various provinces are improving their .highways. Of course, these improvements entail large disbursements. Besides, the provinces have to look after the organisation and supervision of municipal government, and the organization, administration and support of general education. So that their slender revenues are practically eaten up by these public services. Prof. Robertson, who presided so ably at the different conferences held between the representatives of the provinces and municipalities and members of the commission of -which he was the president, has, more than any other, studied deeply the question of technical education. Speaking on this subject not long ago, he said:
In making a forecast of the probable cost of maintaining an adequate system of industrial training and technical education, the commission considered the populations and need of 566 places in Canada, besides the rural population in the counties. These 566 places, ranging
(Mr. Lemieux.J
from great cities like Montreal and Toronto, down to incorporated villages of over 500 people, contained a population of 2,790,000. In these urban places the number of persons between 14 and 17 years of age who were not attending any day schools is estimated at 150,000 young people. The population of Canada at the last census, outside the 566 places already indicated, amounted to 4,440,000, of whom 237,000 are young persons between the ages of 14 and 17 who are not attending any school. If the proportion of attendance of these 387,000 young people could he brought up to that of many areas in England, Scotland, and Ireland, no less than 213,000 of them would be continuing their education at suitable classes after they had begun to earn their living.
As Prof. Robertson admits, this is a large order, and it means a heavy expenditure, which the provinces cannot beaT. I grant that by section 93 of the British North America Act, education is assigned exclusively to the provinces, and that there is practically no dividing line between cultural and technical education, that the one merges into the other. But surely this Dominion Government, this Parliament, can do something practical towards stimulating the interest of our Canadian people in this subject. And if I mistake not, that is the conclusion arrived at by the Royal Commissioners appointed by the late Government, who have presented the very remarkable report to which I shall in a few moments refer briefly. My hon. friend the member for Pictou (Mr, Macdonald), when speaking on this subject a few evenings ago, said something which must be considered a truism, when he stated that the Canadian people, at present, are enjoying a fictitious prosperity. Shell making is not a normal factor in our industrial life. It is transient and ephemeral. But the problem of the aftermath may well engage our attention. I can only repeat what I said when I introduced the motion a few weeks ago on the question of labour bureaus:
What reliable nation-wide organization does Canada possess to deal with the following gigantic problems at the close of the war?

The replacing of returned troops in suitable occupations. The readjustment of dislocated industrial conditions, and the transference of workers from war industries to normal industrial occupations. The industrial training and technical equipment of potential citizens to meet the strenuous and fierce competition for industrial and commercial expansion. The handling of the stream of immigration which will set in when peace is concluded. The replacing of interned aliens from concentration camps throughout the country.
-And I added the following words:
The confusion and economic waste of the pasl will be intensified tenfold at the close of the war, when thousands of soldiers return, when factories cease their war equipment, and the

whole fabric of trade and industry has to be reconstructed without a large reserve of wealth to facilitate the process. The victory will be to that nation or group of nations which devote all their energy and resources to industrial training and organisation. All the component parts of the British Empire will share in the struggle. All must participate in the training.
There will be, after this war, a tremendous industrial competition, and the duty of Canada, the duty of the Government, the duty of this Parliament, is to see that, after the war, Canada captures the trade of the world.
The members of the House have probably received the report of the Ontario Commission on Unemployment. I wish to quote just a few lines from that very able report. I think my friend Sir John Willison was the president of that commission, and I am glad to read the conclusion arrived at by Sir John Willison on this question of industrial training and technical education *n relation to trade. The report says:
For many reasons it would appear, therefore, that .o secure for "Canadian products a world market is of national importance ; and it would be well for the proper authorities to consider the advisability of reorganizing and supplementing our foreign trade agencies by the appointment of energetic and capable men, selected wholly for their fitness to promote commerce. By the adoption of new and vigorous measures, something might be done to redress permanently the balance of trade, to restore a satisfactory condition of the labour market, and, in part, to provide for the period of readjustment which must follow the war.
The employment at present of nearly 100,000 workmen upon war orders, and the enlistment in the armies of approximately an additional 225,000 men, obscure a situation which had fully developed before the declaration of war in August, 1914. It is of urgent importance that the courses advocated, or other adequate measures, be made fully effective before the close of the war, when we shall be required within a brief time to re-absorb several hundred thousand men into our national and industrial life.
I wish to repeat this for the benefit of my friend the Minister of Labour, because he must not think that this is simply a hobby of mine. This is a true economic principle asserted by his best friend, and by men who know:
It is of urgent importance that the courses advocated or other adequate measures be made fully effective before-
Not after.
-before the close of the war, when we shall be required within a brief time to re-absorb several hundred thousand men into our national and industrial life. While the Government, through the Department of Trade and Commerce, may do much to facilitate and foster foreign trade, it is evident that little can be done without the
whole-hearted co-operation of every class concerned in the use of these new agencies.
Banking facilities are required for long-term credits; questions relating to foreign tariffs and transportation require consideration; technical and trade training are indispensable in order to produce in competition with established industries abroad; greater knowledge of modern languages and of what may be broadly termed the economics of foreign trade, are also of importance.
And let me interject just one thought. The report of this Ontario Commission recommends a greater knowledge of foreign languages.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.
Mr. LEM1EUX:	I shall not say anything more, than that I think, in years to come, if the Canadian trader, if the Canadian manufacturer, whether he be from Ontario or from Quebec, wishes to capture the world's market, the trade of the world, it will be important for the Ontario trader to know French just as it will be important for the Quebec trader to know English. I call the attention of my friend the Minister of Labour to this sefitence:
Technical and trade training are indispensable in order to produce in competition with established industries abroad.
Now, this question has already engaged the attention of the British Parliament. The problems of the future are being debated in the British House of Commons. My hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr. Glass) referred to these discussions the other day in a very able address. He referred to the motion introduced on the 10th of January last by Mr. Hewins the object of which was to seek co-operation of the Allies and the Dominions to bring their whole economic strength into play in a policy directed towards the enemy.
I will not quote at any length from the very important speeches which were delivered on that occasion, buf I wish to call attention to what Sir Alfred Mond, whose authority is unquestioned and unquestionable, said in the course of that debate. He said: .
No amount of legislation, no amount of tariff jugglery, and no amount of treaties will ever assist you to deprive the Germans of those advantages unless you will technically improve your methods for metal trade and utilize your ordinary resources. Those resources in Australia have been developed by German ingenuity and German chemists, and if they had not been so developed the ores would simply have remained lying in Australia as they had lain for years before. Therefore you must realize that fact, and the Government must devote much more attention to it in future than they have done in the past. It is no use occasionally paying a little lip service to tho

development of technical industry or science. The amount of money that we have devoted to scientific education compared with Germany is perfectly ridiculous. Three-quarters of the German success in export industries, I am convinced, is not so much due to clever arrangements of tariffs and schedules, or to the negotiations of their diplomatists, as to their technical and financial skill.
I shall also quote a few sentences from the speech of Mr. Runeiman who took part in the same debate. If we were discussing' tariffs, or the reorganization of the (Empire, I might perhaps delve more deeply into the speech of Mr. Runeiman. He is my apostle; his speeches are my gospel, -as against the views of the new empire builders, but today we are discussing technical education. He said:
I therefore put down, as one of the first necessities of this country if she is to hold her own during times of war and when war is over, that we must improve our research methods, the education of our people, and the training of our young men. We should not attempt to economize on the money we now spend on technical colleges and modern appliances. There are other directions in which we can cut down expenditure with less national damage.
May I say to the Canadian Government, that they might well cut down expenditures in many other directions, .and apply the money saved to technical education and manual training. But enough of the debate in the British House of Commons. Coming back to Canada, I need scarcely point out that we have great natural resources and immense industrial possibilities. We have the greatest estate that ever came into the possession of eight million people. I am using the phrase which was used the other day in Chicago by the President of the American Federation of Engineers. Speaking of Canada, and pointing to our flag which was displayed with the Stars and Stripes, he said: "You in Canada have the greatest estate that ever came into the possession of eight million people." Our land is eontinenWide, and the productive values of the Dominion for 1915 are simply marvellous. Look at our field crops, $800,000,000; fisheries, $31,264,631; forests, $176,672,000; mines, $128,475,499; dairying, $100,000,000; fruit, $25,000,000, .and fur trade, $200,000. Look 'at the facts as regards manufacturing:
Industrial comparison, 1900-1910.
1900	1910	Inc. p.c.Capital . .	5446,916,487	$1,247,583,609	179Industrial Establishments . .	. 14,650	19,218	31Wages . .	89,573,204	197,228,701	120Materials	266,527,,858	601,509,018	109Products .	481,053,375	1,165,975,639	142
Canada makes 300 varieties of manufactures, sustaining two-fifths of population.
*Canada's industrial development in the ten-year period of 1900-1910 was greatest on record Ontario led with 8,001 establishments; Quebec, 6,548 ; Nova Scotia, 1,480 ; New Brunswick, 1,158 ; British Columbia, 651 : Prince Edward Island, 442; Manitoba, 439 ; Alberta, 290; and Saskatchewan, 173.
As regards our natural resources, the late Administration appointed a Conservation Commission, which is doing excellent work. Conservation does not mean only keeping out abuses.; it means taking a just toll of our resources, and leaving them not only unimpaired, but extended and improved by a wise use. I think that is the best definition we could give of the service rendered to the commonwealth by the Conservation Commission.
How shall we extend and improve our natural resources, if not by technical education, imparted not only to our mechanics, and to our labourers, but a-lso to our farmers. The need for industrial training and technical education for the highest development of our vast resources in the land and in industry, is therefore self-evident. The question is not new. In 1909 my hon. friend the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) introduced a motion in the House which was the occasion of a splendid contribution to parliamentary eloquence by that hon. member. His motion read as follows.:
That in the opinion of this House it is advisable that a commission of inquiry be forthwith appointed to investigate the needs of Canada in respect to technical education, and to report on ways and means by which these needs may be best met.
A long and very interesting debate followed, .and the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Mackenzie King, who has made quite a name for himself in the labour world in America, stated that in his opinion the Government should first appoint a commission in order to investigate the whole question of technical education in Canada. On May 3, 1910, an appropriation was voted by Parliament for the expenses of the inquiry. On June 1, 1910, the Royal Commission was appointed. The Order in Council containing the names of the commissioners followed soon, but before that Order in Council had been passed, correspondence had been exchanged between the Minister of Labour and the Premiers of the Provincial Governments. Generally speaking, all the premiers accepted the views that were expressed in , the circular letter sent by Mr. Mackenzie King to them. The commission

went to work. The work of that commission is fully analysed in a report of four volumes. I need not say that the report is most exhaustive. Canada was very fortunate in securing, as chairman of the commission, Professor Robertson, that noble Scotchman who has consecrated his life to Canada, to educating young Canadians in order that they may make the best use of the natural resources of our favoured land. I take this opportunity of taking off my hat to Professor Robertson. He is a man of whom any country might well be proud. I may say that many Scotchmen like him have been of service to the country of their adoption. Mr. Speaker, the commission, under the chairmanship of Professor Robertson, visited one hundred places in Canada, held 175 sessions, received evidence from 1,471 men and women, some of them occupying foremost positions in industries, agriculture, housekeeping and educational work. But the commissioners went beyond Canada. They pursued their investigations in other countries. They went to England, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland and the United States. They were given the amplest opportunities of investigating and they found all over, courtesy, enthusiasm and ability. They found an increased interest in education. The countries which have done most were striving, to speak the language of Professor Robertson, to do better still. Those that were the most advanced were the least satisfied. I shall not wander into the details of the report. The report is in the hands of every member of the House, I will simply point out some of the conclusions arrived at. I would use for that purpose the advance Part I of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education. On elementary education in relation to industrial training and technical education, there are some conclusions and recommendations that I beg to be allowed to read:
From the testimony received it appears highly desirable in the interests of vocational efficiency,-
(1)	That all children to the age of 14 years should receive the benefits of elementary general education up to at least the standards provided by the school system of the place or province where they live;
(2)	That the experiences of the school should tend more directly towards the inculcation and conservation of a love of productive, constructive and conserving labour.
(3)	That, after 12 years of age, for the children whose parents expect or desire them to follow manual occupations, the content of the courses, the methods of instruction and the experience from work undertaken at school should have as close relation as practicable to the
productive construction and conserving occupations to be followed after children leave school.
The commission is further of opinion:
(4)	That benefits from such pre-vocational education would accrue (a) from the interest awakened in manual occupations; (b) from the discovery through their experiences at school to the pupils themselves, and to the teachers and the parents, of the bent of their abilities and aptitudes, and (c) from the taste and preference thus developed leading the children to follow skilled occupations for w'hich they are suited ;
(5)	That further advantage would result because the interest which this form of education would arouse in the children would dispose them to desire further education after they had begun to work and cause them to keep in touch with educational effort in some form ;
(6)	That the time and attention devoted to
pre-vocational or trade-preparatory work in no way detracts from or hinders progress in general education of a cultural sort.	[DOT]
They add recommendations to this effect;
The commission is of opinion that the teaching of drawing, manual training, nature study, experimental science and pre-vocational work including domestic or household science in elementary schools, is of great importance and value and should be provided for generally.
The commission suggests that such a fund should receive not less than $350,000 a year for ten years from a Dominion Parliamentary grant; and that it should be divided into nine portions, in proportion to the population in each of the nine provinces as determined by the latest census, and allotted to each province accordingly.
The commission further suggests that there should be paid to each province for said fund (if and when the amount to its credit in said fund is sufficient therefore) an amount not exceeding 75 per cent of the amount which such province had paid, during the immediately preceding fiscal year for the promotion and support of drawing, manual training, nature study* experimental science, and pre-vocational work, including domestic or household science, but not including the provision of buildings.
It would appear to the commission that a certificate by the chief education officer of any province, setting forth in detail the places, the work done and the sums paid by the province in furtherance of these branches, should be regarded as satisfactory evidence of the amount earned by said province.
On secondary and higher education in relation to industrial training and technical education, they arrive at the following conclusions :
The commission is of opinion that:
(1)	Secondary vocational education should be provided for those persons who are to follow manual industrial occupations, producing occupations such as agriculture, conserving occupations such as housekeeping, and commercial and business occupations.
(2)	Such persons should have opportunities for acquiring secondary education which would be as fully advantageous to them in their vocations as the secondary education provided in the general school system has been advantageous to those who enter the learned profes-


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister ot Labour):: I very cordially endorse every
word that has been uttered by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) concerning the advantages that would accrue to this country from a thorough and well-diffused system of technical education and industrial training. It seems to me that it requires no elaborate argument to make it clear that scientific knowledge of the properties of raw materials and a practical familiarity with the various processes of manufacture are essential to skilled workmen; increase efficiency, enlarge output, and improve quality. Other things being equal, knowledge and experience always triumph over ignorance and inexperience. The skilled workman commands the highest wage and produces the largest, finest and most valuable output. That is true in *every walk and calling of life, whether it be that of farmer, artisan, merchant, chemist, or professor. As technical education and industrial training increase the worth and influence of the individual, so they enlighten the community and enrich and strengthen the State. These are mere truisms readily accepted by every thinking man. So that it seems to me that the question before us is not whether technical education and industrial training are desirable- indeed, are of the highest national importance, and should be brought within ihe reach of every youth in the land-but rather how best can" these advantages be placed before them. The Government is quite alive to the importance of practical as well as [DOT]cultural education, and realizes that inestimable advantages would accrue to Canada had every youth an opportunity of acquiring technical education and training in the particular vocation chosen for his or her life work. Especially, I think, do we owe it to the mechanic, the artisan, and other wage earners, to provide them an opportunity to qualify themselves for larger earning
power and to take a more prominent and influential place in the various activities in which our people are engaged. Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that ample arrangements are being made and will be made to provide facilities for disabled returning soldiers, in all suitable cases, to secure a training, and to be enabled, so far as possible, to maintain themselves in independence and self-respect. The motion brought before the House by the hon. member for Rouville calls upon us to give effect at the earliest opportunity to the scheme set forth in the report made by the Commission on Technical Education and Industrial Training. Important as we regard this work from a national viewpoint, and desirous as we are to see it extended and more vigorously prosecuted, we are unwilling, at least at the present time, to accept this motion, for the following among other reasons :
The Commission on Technical Education were not authorized or requested or invited to make any recommendations or to express any opinions as a basis for any action by this Parliament. The Provincial Legislatures. to which, by our constitution, the subject of education is exclusively assigned, have not expressed their approval of the scheme recommended in the report, and I believe, in many instances at least, do not approve of it. The scheme itself is very elaborate and would, I believe, prove impracticable and unsatisfactory.
A few years ago, as my hon. friend has said, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr Guthrie) brought this matter very clearly before the members of this House. The position taken by the Government of that day, of which mv hon. friend 'run Rouville (,Mr. Lemieux) was a member- and in stating their position I have no desire to find fault, but simply to state to the House, as a fact, the position then taken- as expreseed by my predecessor, the then Minister of Labour, is to be found in the Hansard of December 6, 1909. Speaking on the resolution presented by my hon. friend from South Wellington, which was to the effect, that a commissioner should be appointed to inquire into the needs of 'Canada, and also to devise ways and means for meeting those needs, my predecessor said:
The resolution asks only for a commission to inquire into the needs of this country. It suggests, however, that the commission should also report of ways and means. [DOT]
All of
this raises a question which has been debated manv times in this House, and one which we

cannot consider too carefully-whether or not the good which might be done by the appointment of a body by this Government to further the work of technical education might not be in part undone by the mischief which the appointment of such a body might create were the motives and purposes of this Government in establishing such a commission not fully apprehended and understood. The hon. member for South Wellington has said that communications have already been received to the effect that there would be no objection on the part of the provinces to such a course. Well, Sir, it seems to me that before the Dominion Government should take the step suggested in the resolution there should be something more than this negative attitude on the part of the provinces. It should not be a case of no objection, but a case of an earnestly expressed desire which the Government should be asked to listen to. I think the risk should not be run of raising a great constitutional question in a matter of such great national importance until at least the exact position of this Government with regard to this question is fully and rightly understood by the different provinces and by the people in the country. To my mind the section of the British North America Act which says that "the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education," undoubtedly gives to the provinces the right of legislation in all matters respecting education, and if this Parliament were to attempt to legislate on matters affecting education, as set forth in this section, I think this Parliament would be going beyond the powers which are given to it in the British North America Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From whom is the hon. gentleman quoting?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
Mr. GLASS:: What was the date of that letter?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: December 13,	1909,
and it is signed " W. L. Mackenzie King." The then Prime Minister of New Brunswick, my hon. friend who is now Minister of Marine and Fisheries, replied on 16th December, as follows:	-
Hon. W. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favour of the 13th instant, informing me that the Dominion Government is considering the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as regards industrial training and technical education, and into the system of methods of technical instruction prevailing in other countries, specially in Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States.
I entirely agree with the view of the government to the effect that a commission of this kind might render valuable ^ service to the Dominion as a whole, and I have no hesitation in saying that the appointment by the federal authorities of a commission of the character and scope-
To gather information merely.
-suggested in your letter, would meet with the approval of my government and no exception would be taken to such a course on any ground of jurisdiction.	. [DOT] [DOT]
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. D. Hazen.
On the same date, the late Sir J. P. Whitney, Prime Minister of Ontario, wrote:
Hon. W. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I have your letter of the 13th
instant.
I understand the object of the proposed commission, to inquire into the' needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respect training and technical education and into the system of methods for technical instruction obtaining in other countries, will be solely for the purpose of gathering information. This being so, I see no objection to the creation of the commission, and no exception will be taken to it on the part of the _ province of Ontario.
Yours very truly
(Sgd.) J. P. Whitney.
On the same date, this letter was written by the then Prime Minister of Manitoba:
Winnipeg, December 16, 1909. Hon. W. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of yours under date of December 13th, regarding the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into the industrial training and technical education of Canada.
I appreciate the fact that education is a matter under the constitution entirely vested in the provinces and realize that it is a delicate question on which to give advice such as you solicit.
The matter is an important one and I think, in view of the rapid strides along industrial lines that the Canadian people are making, there is necessity for more attention being given to technical education than what has been the practice or custom in the past.
I shall certainly be pleased to see more interest taken in this matter and our young men better qualified for the opportunities that are offered along industrial lines by having a first-class technical education to qualify them for the responsible and important positions that are awaiting men of that quality.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) R P. Roblin.
The Prime Minister of Prince Edward Island wrote on 18th December:
Charlottetown, December 18, 1909. Hon. W. Mackenzie King.
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa Ont.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 13th instant regarding the advisability of the Dominion Government appointing a royal commission to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respects industrial training and technical education and into the systems and methods of technical education obtaining in other countries, etc., with tihe request that the matter should be considered and approved of by the government of this province, and whether exception to such a course would be taken on the grounds of jurisdiction.
In reply I beg to say that your proposal meets with the approval of our government.

Government and to many of your leading officers.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) T. W. Crothers.
(A similar letter was addressed to the Prime Ministers of each of the other provinces.)
I am now going to read a few of the replies 'we got. The first is a letter from the secretary of the late Sir J. P. Whitney, which reads :
Toronto, March 13, 1914.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 12, addressed to Sir James Whitney in regard to the Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education.
In the absence of Sir James Whitney, through illness, I have placed your letter in the hands of the Hon. Mr. Foy, who is acting as Prime Minister.
Yours very truly, *
(Signed) Horace Wallis,
Secretary.
The Honourable T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Having received no further reply from Sir James Whitney, the Hon. Mr. Foy was written to on the 6th of May:
He Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education.
Sir,-Referring to the letter addressed by the Minister of Labour to the Prime Minister of Ontario on March 12 last regarding the report of this commission, a copy of which (comprising four volumes) was expressed to the Prime Minister at that time, an acknowledgment from Sir James Whitney's private secretary mentioned that the matter had been referred to yourself as Acting Premier. I am to say that the Minister of Labour will be obliged if, in the event of your having had an opportunity of examining the report in question and the recommendations contained therein, you would give him the benefit of your conclusions. I enclose for your convenience a copy of the letter sent to Sir James Whitney on March 12 last, and I would add that a complete set of the report was forwarded you a few days ago.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) F. A. Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour.
The Honourable J. J. Foy,
Acting Premier of Ontario,
Toronto, Ont.
That, as I have said, was written on the 6th of May, and we have never received a reply from that day to this. On March 21, 1914, the Prime Minister of.Quebec wrote:
The Honourable T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Crothers,-I have received your letter of the 12th instant, together with the four volumes of the report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Educa-

tion. I will not fail to read this report with much pleasure.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Lomer Gouin.
On the 6th of May, 1914, my deputy wrote Sir Lomer Gouin:
Re Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education.
Sir,-Referring to the exchange of communications between the Minister of Labour and yourself in March last regarding the report of this commission, a copy of ^vhich (comprising four volumes) was expressed you at that time, I am to state that in the event of your having had the opportunity of examining the report and the recommendations contained therein, the minister would be obliged if you would give him the benefit of your conclusions.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) F. A. Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour.
Sir Lomer Gouin,
Prime Minister of Quebec,
Quebec, P.Q.
And on May 15, Mr. Acland received the following reply from Mr. Taschereau:
Re Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education.
F. A. Acland, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Sir,-Sir Lomer Gouin has referred to me your letter of the 6th instant, in regard to the above matter. I beg to thank you for the four volumes containing the report of the commission, which you have sent me, and I will at an early date take the opportunity of examining the report and the recommendations there contained.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) L. A. Taschereau.
There has been nothing further from the Governor of Quebec, either from the Prime Minister or any other member of the Cabinet. The next letter is as follows:
Executive Council, Saskatchewan,
Regina-, 17th March, 1914.
Dear Sir,-With reference to your letter of the 12th instant to Hon. Walter Scott in regard to the report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education, 1 beg to advise you that the Premier is at present absent from Canada and will be away for several weeks. I shall, however, see that your communication is brought to the attention of the other ministers of the cabinet at the earliest possible date.
Yours truly,
(Signed) J. N. McLeod,
Private Secretary.
Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour.
Ottawa, Ont.

There was nothing further from that Government. The Government of Alberta wrote:
Department of Railways, Alberta,
Edmonton, March 17, 1914.
Dear Sir5-Your letter of March 12 to the honourable the Premier received. He is in the Old Country at present, but on his return your communication will be placed before him for attention.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) Norman L. Harvey,
Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
Secretary.
There was nothing further from the Government of Alberta. Then we got the following letter from the Premier of Nova Scotia, whiclji went a little more fully into the matter:
Halifax, 26th March,' mi.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, and desire to assure you that your communication and the matter contained therein has received the careful consideration of the Government.
We wish to record our high esteem of the exhaustive and illuminating report recently submitted by the Royal Commission appointed by the Dominion Government " to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respects industrial training and technical education," etc.
We have closely examined the recommendations of this commission and see no indication of federal interference with provincial autonomy in education. If the spirit of administration implied in the recommendations of the commission should dominate any plan of assistance for technical education to the provinces on the part of the Dominion we believe we would be assured perfect provincial control of education as guaranteed under the British North America Act.
We believe that the provision of the proper facilities for technical education is one of the most pressing and Important questions of the present time in order that the great mass of our people should fit themselves for enlightened, prosperous and efficient lives.
The " efficiency audit " proposed by the commission as applying to Dominion funds which may be granted to the provinces seems to be right and reasonable and in line with the plan already adopted in the distribution of the special grants for improving agriculture from the Dominion Department of Agriculture to the provinces.
We consider the matter of providing pre-vocational work in the public schools a highly necessary and progressive step and believe that our portion of the proposed special grant of $350,000 a year from the Dominion would not'be found more than sufficient to help In meeting this demand.
In the light of our experience in technical education, covering a period of seven years, we think that our portion of the proposed yearly appropriation of $3,000,000 a year from the national treasury is no greater than necessary
to assist in providing adequate facilities for technical education in towns and rural communities in this province.
The slowly increasing revenues of this province are inadequate to make proper provision for the insistent and growing demands of technical education and we would urge the adoption of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Technical Education and Industrial Education by yourself and your colleagues and action thereon with the least possible delay.
Yours truly,
(Signed) G. H. Murray.
Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
On March 31, 1914, we got the following from the Premier of Prince Edward Island:
Premier's Office,
Charlottetown, March 31, 1914.
Dear Sir,-
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 12th instant referring to the Report of the Royal Commission appointed by the Dominion Government 'to inquire into Technical Education.
Owing to the demand made upon my time at present by the session of the House and other urgent questions, I will not be able to examine the report for some time. When I am able to reach it, I will be very glad to give any suggestions that might possibly be of value.
Faithfully yours,
(Signed) J. A. Mathieson.
Honourable T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa
On March 31, 1914, we got the following from the Government of the Province of British Columbia:
The Government of the Province of
British Columbia.
Education Office,
Victoria, March 31, 1914.
Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter' of the 12th instant, addressed to the Honourable the Premier of this province, and in reply to state that I have been very much pleased indeed with the report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education. While, of course, this Department would be pleased to receive its per capita share of the vote of $350,000 which the Commission suggests should be distributed each year for ten years by the Dominion Government yet I feel that British Columbia's share of this grant would not be sufficiently large to materially assist in the initiation of this most important work. Our share on a per capita basis would be about $20,000. I may add that whether the Dominion Government decides to make the suggested grant or not till* Government has already taken steps to inaugurate a system of Technical Training in this province,



the sum of $96,800 having been voted at the last Session of the House for this purpose.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) H. E. Young, Minister of Education.
He did not appear to have read the report very carefully, for he got the idea that the proposed grant was $350,000 instead of $3,350,000. We drew his attention to that in the following letter:
Ottawa, April 6, 1914.
Sir,-I am to acknowledge your communication addressed under date of the 31st ultimo to the Minister of Labour with reference to the report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education. The Minister has noted carefully your remarks, but thinks perhaps you had not observed the recommendation on page 36 of the first part of the report, in which the Commission recom-[DOT] mends that "the sum of three million dollars be p/ovided annually for a period of ten years", etc.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) F. A. Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour. The Honourable H. E. Young,
Minister of Education,
Victoria, B.C.	[DOT]
On the 13th of May he replied:
Education Office,
Victoria, May 13, 1914.
F. A. Acland, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Labour.
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sir,-I am in receipt of your letter of the 6th ultimo, and in reply beg to acquaint you that the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education, found on page 36 of the first part of the report, did not escape my attention. I did note that the commission recommends that "the sum of three million dollars be provided annually for a period of ten years." I may add that this recommendation has the full support of the Education Department of British Columbia.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) H. E. Young,
Minister of Education.
Mr. Acland wrote to the Prime Minister if New Brunswick on the 27th of April, as follows:
Ottawa, April 27, 1914.
Sir,-I have the honour, by direction, to call your attention to a communication (copy enclosed) addressed, under date of the 12th ultimo, to the Honourable J. K. Flemming, Prime Minister of New Brunswick, referring to the copy of the report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education being then expressed by the minister's direction to the Honourable Mr. Flemming. No reply to the minister's communication had been received before Mr. Flemming, as It is understood, was granted leave of absence on account of ill

health. A further copy of the report is being mailed you under separate cover, and I am to request that you will kindly have the same receive attention, and will, if possible, furnish the minister with an expression of your views as to the general nature of the report, and especially concerning the recommendations contained therein.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) F. A. Ackland,
Deputy Minister of Labour. The Acting Prime Minister,
Legislative Buildings,
Fredericton, N.B.
On the 30th of ApTil, 1914, Mr. Acland received the following letter in reply: Fredericton, N.B., April 30, 1914.
F. A. Acland, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-I have your letter of April 27, in which you enclose a copy of a communication addressed, under date of the 12th ultimo, to the Honourable J. K. Flemming, Prime Minister of New Brunswick, referring to the 'copy of the report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education, then about to be expressed to the Honourable Mr. Flemming, and in which you further advise me that a second copy of the report is mailed to me under a separate cover.
As soon as the copy of the report arrives, I shall be glad to give it my fullest consideration.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) George Clarke,
Acting Prime Minister of New Brunswick.
April 30, 1914, and not a word further said.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, at six
o'clock I had read letters from several of the provincial premiers in reply to my communication accompanying a copy of the report of the Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education, and expressing a desire that they should give me the benefit of their views on the recommendations contained in that report. I have one or two further letters to read. On May 6, 1914, not having had any reply from the Premier of Manitoba, my deputy wrote him as follows:
Dear Sir,-The Honourable Mr. Crothers, Minister of Labour, has requested me to remind you of the letter he addressed you under date of March 12, referring to the report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education, a copy of which, comprising four volumes, was addressed to you on that date. The minister's letter, a copy of which is enclosed, has perhaps escaped your attention in the press of public matters, but the minister asks me to say that he would be obliged if you could at your earliest con-

vcnience give him the benefit of your views on the subject therein discussed.
On May 11, 1914, we received the following communication, addressed to the Deputy Minister of Labour:
I have your letter of May 6, also copy of the letter of the Honourable Mr. Crothers of March 12, 1914. The volumes of the report of the Royal Commission were received, but I am willing to admit that I have not read them. While interested in industrial training and technical education, yet I have so many other things to engage my attention that 1 have not so far had the time to read the report, and consequently cannot give my opinion. I presume, however, that the report is one that deals with the matter is a comprehensive and educational way, and, being made by professional men, would scarcely admit of any review by myself that would be of advantage to the department. I shall read the report, however, at my earliest convenience.
That is the last communication that we have from the Premier of Manitoba. These replies, with thq exception of one, do not, I think, manifest any burning desire that the recommendations of this commission should be immediately adopted. I am sorry to say that, with one exception, they do not manifest that interest in the subject which I think its merit demands. It is a very important subject, and it does not appear to interest many people as much as it should. I noticed this afternoon, when the hon. member for Rouville was making a very able and eloquent address on this question and pressing its importance on the House, that he had behind him a mere baker's dozen, by actual count. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot congratulate myself on having secured a larger attendance on this side of the House.
The report about which we have been speaking consists of four large volumes, covering 2,350 pages. It contains much information in great detail; it has probably never yet been read throughout by any one. It recommends that this Government should provide annually the sum of $3,350,000 during a period of ten years, to be distributed among the nine provinces on the basis of population, to assist them in establishing a system of technical education and industrial training. It recommends an elaborate scheme for carrying out this work, involving the constitution of a Dominion development conference, a Dominion development commission, a Dominion development fund, a provincial development commission, a provincial development council, local urban industrial development boards, and local rural development boards-a scheme most complicated, and, I believe, utterly impracticable of execution. Beyond
the receipt of these replies of the Provincial Premiers, no official communication has been received from any one of them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did my hon. friend receive a reply from the Quebec Government?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, I have read it. This does not indicate, I think, any enthusiastic desire on their part for the adoption of the recommendations contained in this report. I have personal knowledge that several of the provinces strongly object to the adoption of this scheme. Our people are very jealous of provincial rights. Those of us who come from Ontario know that for 15 or 20 years, the two great political parties in that province were quarrelling over a very small matter of provincial rights. Our people are jealous of provincial rights; especially are they extremely sensitive on the question of education, differences concerning which ever since Confederation have retarded the progress of influences tending and intended to strengthen the bonds of unity, friendship and confidence among the chief races and creeds composing our population, and have caused more heartburnings and enmities than any others. So that it seems to me that it would be extremely unwise to enter on any national scheme of education such as is recommended in this report until we are quite sure that it contains no provision the carrying out of which might by any possibility arouse jealousies, passions, and discords, so much to be deprecated and avoided. In the several provinces much work of this character has already been done, and I am of the opinion that the details in carrying it forward should be left to them. We cannot be too careful to guard the rights of the provinces exclusively and clearly assigned them by the constitution.
In nearly all the provinces much good work has already been done in this direction, sometimes by municipalities, sometimes by the provincial government. In the city of Toronto they have just completed a technical school at a cost of $2,000,000, said to be the finest technical school in Canada. They have already secured sites in the city of Toronto for four branches to be built in the outer parts of the city. In the province of Ontario, under the statutes of 1911, and 1913, there are 34 centres where they are imparting technical education. I am not so familiar with the province of Quebec, but I do know that the Government of Quebec is maintaining two excellent technical schools, one at Quebec city, and one at Montreal.

So there is a good deal of very valuable work being done along these lines in the various provinces, sometimes by the provinces themselves, and at other times by the municipalities. I would be very glad, so far as I am concerned, to render any assistance within our power as soon as our finances warrant such a step. Personally I do not think that they do warrant such a step at the present time. The provinces are getting on very well. It is not a matter that you can rush through in a few days, or a few months, or in a year or two; it,is a matter of growth. My hon. friend referred to the technical schools in Germany. I wish he could have found some other country to refer to. I do not say that one thing followed the other, but while the Germans were becoming so efficient technically, the finer qualities of their minds and hearts seem to have been paralysed, so that they were capable of the atrocities of which they have been convicted in Belgium, and which will stamp them with infamy for ages to come. I do not say that these things resulted from technical schools, but they resulted from a system of education of one side of the human being, which left uneducated the finer and nobler qualities of mind and heart.
This resolution calls upon us to give effect to the report of the commission at the earliest possible opportunity, and it refers to the recommendations contained in the report. The Commission was appointed for the purpose of getting information for the provinces. It was not admitted by this Parliament that we had anything to do with the matter; on the contrary it was declared that we would have nothing to do with it. The commission was not authorized to make any such recommendations, or to express any such opinions, they were authorized to' gather information, I have said, which is the fact, that the Order in Council, and the commission , following it, wont further than the letters which were sent to .the various {Prime Minister warranted. I think the proper influence was that the recommendations and opinions invited, were to be, not the 'basis of any action by this Parliament, but the basis of action by the various provinces. The provincial governments have said, in .substance, .that they do not want this; that is the fair inference from the replies received from eight out of the nine. With the exceptions of Nova Scotia they say: we do not approve of those recommendations, and yet my hon. friend's

motion asks us to give effect to them. Personally I know that several of them do not approve of them; therefore, I think we will have no difficulty in saying that at the present time we should not adopt the motion presented to this House by my hon. friend from Rouville.


Mr. A. VERVILLE (Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend the Minister of Labour had finished his remarks before six o'clock, I think that ten minutes would have been sufficient to enable me to answer what he said. He has spent a good deal of time reading letters sent to the premiers of the different provinces, and the answers received, but to my mind, they have nothing whatever to do with this question. In his concluding remarks he stated that the resolution as presented must either be killed, or carried exactly as it is. He stated that he would be willing to do something if possible. If the report of the commission recommends that $3,000,000 per year be granted for ten years, is the minister willing to vote half a million dollars for all the provinces. Where is the provincial government that would not be satisfied with whatever grant this Parliament saw fit to give at the present time? It is not so much a question of amount as it is a question of principle. The idea of technical education forms probably the only ground upon which employers and employees stand unitedly. It is not often that you hear in this House of employers and employees meeting on common ground but on the question of the desirability of promoting technical education they are united. They are united upon this question because they know that the great producers of wealth must have a better technical education. If I understand rue motion my hon. friend from Rouville has brought before the House, even during the war, its underlying idea is that the wealth producing power of the people of Canada must be developed in such a way that when this war is over we will be able to produce three or four times as much as we have ever been able to produce before.
It is acknowledged that every one has a certain amount of brain power and that it only awaits development. This development is dependent upon education. If it were not for brain power the Allies would never win this war. We must not only have physical power but we must have brain power as well. I believe that the Government should be willing to do something to promote this movement for tech-

nical education. I feel sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) would be willing to assist in this direction. The Government ought to do something to assist the schools already in existence in the different provinc&s to enable them to do a little more than they have done in the past. I. was a member of the board of directors of the Montreal Technical School for three years and a half and I know what we have to put up with. But, we are doing the very best we can. The principal of that school told me only last week that during all his experience in France he has never found as high a degree of brain power amongst those with whom he had dealt in that country as he found amongst the Canadian boys in his school, and it is a bilingual school, if you please. When he says " Canadian " he does not say " French-Canadian," but he uses the word " Canadian " in the right sense. He says that the pupils are endowed with brains but all they require is a -little education. It has been impossible, so far, not only in the province of Quebec, but in the other provinces of Canada, to do the work that ought to have been done along that line. Let us suppose that a definite proposition was made to grant $100,000, or $50,000, to the province of Ontario, or a proportionate amount, according to population, to the province of Quebec, do you' suppose that these Governments would refuse it? No. I agree with my hon. friend when he states that if the money is granted it should be granted as a subsidy and that the Federal Government should have it so fixed that the money cannot be spent for anything else but technical education. I do not believe that any Provincial Government would refuse to accept the money on those terms.
The producing power of this country is going to be greatly diminished after the war. Many of the men who left to go to the front will never come back. We will have to rely on those who are here, on the young men especially, who are going to these schools, and who cannot go to the war because they are too young. These young men, after having had the benefit of technical education, and when they reach the age of 18, are in great demand. We have proved that, not only in Montreal, but wherever there are technical schools. In Montreal we have more demands for boys who have passed their examinations than we can comply with. The parents and relations of many of these boys are frequently
not in a position to send them to technical schools. A federal grant might be devoted to providing purses in order that the poor boy might receive the education that he desires. It is quite a drain on the resources of some of the parents to pay the school fees. In Montreal we never refuse any one who is unable to pay the fees. If these payments were exacted in every instance it would frequently be found to be beyond the power of the father of a large family to send his boys to a school of this kind. If there was a certain amount granted that we could apply to purses we could put 200 more boys through that course every year in the city of Montreal.
My hon. friend from Rouville does not propose in his resolution that every letter of the report which was laid before the House a couple of years ago shall be immediately put into effect. I do not believe it was his intention that effect should be given to the report in its entirety. The Minister of Labour would be willing to do something, to grant something, he says, if the times favoured it. During war, when we are spending money lavishly, it means a mere bagatelle to spend a few hundred thousand dollars for technical education. We have been juggling with millions in the last year or two and we say we are doing so because we want to win the war.
Germany has been mentioned in this dis-cusion. If the brain power of the German working men had been developed in the right direction probably there would have been no war. We do not intend to follow the example of Germany in this matter; we intend to direct the minds of the younger generation in another channel altogether. The Minister of Labour cannot excuse his failure to take action by saying that my hon. friend from Rouville will not accept anything but what is in his motion. The fact is absolutely the reverse. The present Government might vote, we will say, $1,000,000. That would be $1,000,000 for technical education in Canada to be divided between the different provinces according to population. It would mean that in three years from to-day you would have probably 300, 400 or 500 first-class mechanics, equipped with a high degree of technical knowledge in the different industries in the country. We have had in the past, I am sorry to say, to go to the old country to get professors of different kinds. The acquisition of technical knowledge has been very badly neglected in this country for a great many years. It is something

new with us. We are a new country. We sometimes hear it said in this House that we are the greatest producing country in the world, that we are the richest country in the world, that we have greater natural resources than any other country in the world. But, I ask, what are we going to do to develop these resources? Are we going to continue to send to the old country 'to get professors to educate our boys?
Anybody who has read history-if I may be allowed to speak of that country-knows there are some pretty good men in Germany. There are some good labour men in Germany. If they are fighting it is because they have to and not because they like it. But, I say that anybody who has read history knows that after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, if it had not been for technical education in Germany, they would never have produced the instruments of war that have come into use in the present struggle. Our position is absolutely different. We 'are going to be called upon to produce raw material and finished products of all kinds for the world. If we are called upon to do this after the war we will have to spend large sums of money to get professors from the old country to come and educate our boys in the different industrial arts. Why not pay the money ' now and try to have our boys ready for the task when the time comes? That is all I have to say on this question. I am simply asking the Government, if they cannot adopt the report in its entirety, if they cannot give $3,000,000 to at least give one million or five hundred thousand dollars. They could save that half million dollars in one contract if they wanted to. I urge the Government to study this question ana, if possible, to make a grant; but if they do, I insist upon the Government's seeing that the money is spent on nothing else but technical education.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough):: It seems to me it would be very unfortunate if this debate were left exactly where it is, because the remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve might leave the impression that there is hostility on the part of some one in this House towards technical education. Such, of course, is not the case. We have heard not only today, but on previous days, the highest possible praise of technical education, and of the report that has been made on the subject. The argument this afternoon and evening really centres upon the feasibility
fMr. Verville.]
of some plan of assisting the provinces. I admit that it -would appear to be a churlish thing to reject such a resolution as has been moved by the hon. member for Rou-ville; and it is not the intention to reject the principle involved. A way out has been suggested by the hon. member for Maisonneuve, who says that unquestionably the hon. member for Rouville would not insist upon the precise'wording of his resolution. I would therefore suggest, in accordance with the suggestion of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve, that this resolution be withdrawn and a new one prepared, on which we will have -a debate on some other day. I am sure my hon. friend from Maisonneuve will agree that that is a pleasant way out of the difficulty, considering that the difficulty is that we must not force our opinions on the provinces.


Samuel Francis Glass: A few nights ago I took the opportunity of saying a few words on this subject, when it came up in a somewhat different form. I am in the anomalous position of having spoken in favour of technical education, which has my profound sympathy, and yet feeling myself unable to-night to support the resolution of the hon. member for Rou-vi'lle (Mr. Lemieux) as it has been presented to the House; and I am unable to support it largely by reason of the explanation given by the Minister of Labour this afternoon, and as a result of hearing the correspondence between the Department of Labour and the Premiers of the various provinces. Tbe hon. member for Maisonneuve said that the provinces would willingly take any grant this Government chose to make, and suggested that the grant be in proportion to the population. I am not in sympathy with that idea as regards technical education, for I believe that the necessary foundation for its success is a close personal interest in the subject by the provinces, which, of course, have control of our educational system. We all know that after the provinces had organized a system of aid to agriculture in their continuation schools, and after district representatives had been supplied to the various counties interested in this form of assistance, the Dominion Government set aside a certain 3om of money for technical education as applied to agriculture. And I think in this matter of technical education as applied to agriculture, we should proceed on practically the same basis, and assist those provinces that are

taking .an interest in the subject themselves. If the provinces are not aroused to the need of technical education within their own borders, and are not interested themselves in the subject, I cannot see how any grant by this Government would encourage an interest that does not exist. I am very much surprised at the attitude of the province of Ontario, and the other provinces that have not responded to the call, or it might even be said the offer, that went out from this Government. Ontario is on record as being favourably disposed towards technical education in all its branches. I think I am correct in saying that in no other province has technical education made such great headway, or have such large grants been made towards schools for the purpose of developing technical education. The province of Ontario years ago committed itself to technical education as applied to agriculture. Only the other day I saw in the newspaper that the Premier of Ontario and the leader of the Opposition both expressed strong sympathy with this movement. Of course, they were referring particularly to that phase of the subject which was introduced in this House by the hon. member for Pictoii (Mr. Macdonald) a week or so ago, that is, technical education to enable disabled soldiers to earn their livelihood in occupations different from those they formerly followed. The Toronto Globe, March 4, speaking of certain correspondence with reference to the conference of Provincial Premiers, that Premier Bearst had been asked to bring down, says:
The conference referred to was called by the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, last fall. Every province but British Columbia was represented by one or more of its cabinet ministers. British Columbia could not send a representative, because the distance was too great to allow one to reach Ottawa in time. The attitude taken from first to last was that the war was a national undertaking. The provinces, however, decided to co-operate and do everything in their power to assist the Dominion with war work and the care of returned disabled soldiers. They had had a conference later with the Dominion Hospitals Commission, and the final understanding arrived at was that a memorandum should be prepared, agreeable to all concerned, outlining the duties and responsibilities of the provincial governments in this matter.
The education and equipment of soldiers who would come back from the front to enable them to do work they were not equipped for before the war was one of the things the provincial government had in mind.
"We understand and appreciate how very important it is that we should make every provision we can for training the soldier who comes back unfitted for his previous work," said the Premier, who went on to tell of good
work already being done in the Toronto Technical School. A former bricklayer had come back from the war minus an arm, and in the technical school he was taking a course in order that he might fill the position of clerk of the work with a firm of contractors. Thus he would be able to earn as much, and perhaps more, than he received as a bricklayer.
It is hard to reconcile that statement with the position the Ontario Government has taken' towards technical education in the correspondence the Minister of Labour has read this afternoon.	.
I notice in this evening's Ottawa Citizen an editorial on some remarks of Viscount Haldane. The title of the article is " Preparedness for Peace," and Viscount Haldane has well said that it is the duty of the Government to prepare for peace as well as for war and that, if we do.not look to the needs of our artisans in respect to technical education, it may be that even after the conclusion of the war, if it be prolonged, we may find ourselves equally as unprepared in technical work to compete with those countries which have devoted so much time and money to the development of technical education as we found ourselves unprepared in regard to munitions of war. The editorial says in part:
Viscount Haldane, former British Secretary for War, in addressing a meeting at the University of Liverpool, stated that he. was more afraid of an engine for conquest in peace time, which the Germans were constructing before the war, than of any of their 42 centimetre guns. This engine was educational, and Viscount Haldane declared it to he the most modern form of continuation work, which was spreading over a large part of Germany. It consisted of school work for imparting trade skill and general knowledge. Germany, in short, had begun to train the youth of the land in special skilled trades to out-distance competitors throughout the world.
The subject of technical education was under discussion in the British House of Commons on the 10th of January last, and the hon. member for Rouville this afternoon quoted some passages from the remarks of several eminent gentlemen who spoke on that occasion. I notice that Mr. Lynch, speaking on the subject towards the close of the debate, said:
I propose to say a few words on a subject which, although it has not been much dealt with in the course of the debate, underlies it all, and that is the question of technical education. In the course of the debate, which has been highly interesting and instructive, the president of the Board of Trade recited several instances where Germany had built up great industries, some of them on the basis of inventions which had emanated either from this country or from France, and he cited in particular the industries of the aniline dyes, of


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The whole thing cost about $120,000.


Samuel Francis Glass: To think that the Dominion Government should have spent $120,000 to gather that information, and that some of the provinces gave every encouragement to this Government to collect this information for them, and then, when it was collected and printed, and presented to them, they should display absolutely no interest in it, and should not have courtesy enough even to reply to the correspondence, it is not creditable to the provinces. They apparently do not feel the responsibility that rests upon them, and when they have not that feeling of responsibility it would not be consistent or advisable for this Government to try to force upon them a grant of money for such purposes. I am sorry that the provinces have assumed this attitude. I am sorry they are not alive to the very great importance of this subject. I believe, as the minister has said, that the one and serious object that confronts us to-day is the winning of this war for freedom and liberty. I believe it is our duty, so far ais it is within our power, to prepare our engines for peace in time of war; and the best engine we can prepare to meet the attack of Gennan competition in commerce when this war is over, will be the better equipment of our
2306 \___

men. Why, Sir, we know, as a matter oi fact, that in Canadians we have better material to work on, a better spirit, better minds, more capable men in every respect than they have in Germany. All that is needed is to give our people opportunity for cultivating their latent powers, and we will develop here an industrial community, that can not only compete but will outstrip, in my opinion, the best efforts of Germany and her people. I hope that some means will be devised by which the provinces of this Dominion, on whom rests primarily the responsibility of this great matter, will become imbued with and awakened to their responsibilities, and to the duties which lie before them to give practical effect to a thorough system of technical education.
Mr. GEORGE W. KYTE (Richmond, N. S.): The importance of this question having been presented to the House on several occasions, I do not propose, at this late hour of the discussion, to enlarge upon the subject. I was, however, impressed with the observations just made by the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Glass). I think the ground he has taken is that until the Provincial Governments, to whose jurisdiction more particularly the question of education belongs, take the matter up and deal with it in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner, this Government ought not to be called upon to take any action. He further intimated that when that time comes this Government should be called upon to assist the provinces. Speaking for the province of Nova Scotia, I desire to say that the Government of that province has been the pioneer, I believe, on the subject of technical education in this Dominion. Some ten years ago the Government of Nova Scotia embarked on a very comprehensive and effective system of technical education. They built a technical college at Halifax at a coat of $100,000. It has the very best equipment from every point of view, and it is in charge of a competent and efficient staff of professors. The province of Nova Scotia, as you, Mr. Speaker, know well, is not by any means one of the largest and most opulent provinces of Canada. We are one of the smallest, both in area and in population, and we are also one of the smallest in respect of revenue. But the Government of Nova Scotia, realizing tHe need for a course of technical education for the young men employed in industrial pursuits in the province, felt that, notwithstanding the large
TMr. Glass.]
obligations, of one kind and another, were pressing upon them, those industrial interests ought not to be overlooked. As I have said, for that reason, the Government embarked ten years ago upon a system of technical education which has already borne excellent fruit. We are becoming a great industrial province, and advantage is being taken by many hundreds of young men of the courses which are available to them at that college. I think that the time has come for this Government to do something in the way of relieving the province of Nova Scotia of a portion of the burden involved in carrying on this important branch of its educational system. I was very pleased indeed to learn that my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr. Glass) took the ground that, where a province has already embarked upon a system of technical education, this Government should supplement its efforts by a grant. The right hon. the Prime Minister is perfectly familiar with the conditions as I have described them, and I sincerely nope that, if the Government is not prepared to enter into a comprehensive scheme of technical education throughout the whole Dominion of Canada, they will at least recognize the claims of Nova Scotia to some assistance, and at an early date make provision to assist by a grant technical education in that province.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Since the report to which the hon. member for Rouville's resolution refers was presented to this Parliament, this country has become engaged in a great war. A great statesman, in fact, great statesmen, have said that conditions will never be the same again after this war as they were before. The amount of money that will be involved in the payment of pensions alone, by reason of the war, will exceed per annum the amount which the report of the Commission on Technical Education recommended should be spent. I cannot therefore understand why my hon. friend urges this resolution at this time. If nothing will ever be the same again as it was before the war, if the annual charge upon our revenues is . constantly increasing by reason of the war, if we have to take care of pensions, which I regret to say are ever increasing, is it not quite apparent that the whole scheme and system of technical education will have to be reconsidered and revised in the light of the experience which we have derived during the last two years. Nothing is clearer, nothing is plainer, and therefore, I cannot quite understand why

my hon. friend from Rouville insists upon pressing a resolution which, if carried, will commit the Government of this country to giving effect to a report which was drafted in times of peace, which had regard to peace conditions, and which has not been in any way tinctured or changed or modified by reason of the war conditions with which we are confronted.
Might I make this observation, that I do not think this is either the time or the place in which to discuss this question. The whole social and economic condition of this country must change after the war. The large question of technical education is linked up inseparably with those social conditions, and with our system of colonization, and colonization in turn can only be developed in this country if we secure for those who settle within our boundaries better conditions than obtain in other countries. And better conditions surely mean that this state, as a state, both federal nad provincial, will be ' committed to the advancement of technical education.. I listened to the splendid observations of the hon. member for Rouville, to the observations of the Minister of Labour, and of my hon. friend beside me (Mr. Glass). I am not concerned about what somebody tells me is happening in Germany, in England, or in the United States; not a bit. But I am vitally concerned with the conditions that confront me in this country. The only value to Canadians of what takes place in Germany or in the United States is that is may serve as a guiding lamp by the aid of which we may follow the proper direction. What do I care about how Germany succeeded here or there? Germany did not have any country such as mine; she had no vast undeveloped natural resources such as we have; she had no country as large as the United States with a limited population, no such conditions as we have in Canada. There is no individual in Canada, who has given any thought to this matter, who has not the profound conviction that technical education is absolutely essential to the welfare of this state. That being so, all we can discuss is- the ways and means. My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) can hardly be serious when he asks this Parliament to adopt a scheme which, as I have said, was prepared in times of peace, and which referred to no such conditions as those we are now confronted with. We are all agreed that the social and economic condition of this country must change after the war. Our colonization policy must be reshapen by the supreme effort of every man who calls himself a Canadian, so as to have a proper and efficient policy in the years to come, which will make the people of this country happier, more contented, and better settlers. Invited to come from other lands, they will find here the means to secure for themselves the proud position in the times of peace that they have -attained on the fields of war. That can never be done by talk. After the war, (the people of this country will not demand talk in Parliament. The men who come back from the front to this country will be sick of parliamentary talk. What they will demand is strong leadership, and if they do not get it from one party, they will get it from another; -and if they do not get it from the other they will get it from some middle party. They will demand leadership, initiative, and the carrying out of the reforms which have been suggested by this war. But this is not the time for us -to pledge ourselves. The men on both sides of politics who are supremely concerned with the welfare of the state should see to it that all the time we can give, and all the ability at our disposal, are devoted to an endeavour to shape a policy that will conform to the altered conditions brought about by the war. We must see that those who return from the battlefields, some strong, some wounded, -some maimed-those hundreds of thousands of men who have gone from our shores-will be admitted to a system of education which must be worked out harmoniously, not by appealing to the prejudices of this locality or of that, but by strong harmonious action on the part of the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments, to the end that the Canadian people may as successfully pursue the paths of peace as they have distinguished themselves in the times of war. For these reasons, I cannot understand why my hon. friend from Rouville presents his resohition at this time. I trust that -he -may reconsider the matter, and that he may feel constrained to withdraw his resolution under the circumstances, because there is no man within the sound of my Voice who is not as vitally interested in the matter as he is. All the people of this country realize that something must be done to prepare Canada for the great problems that confront her, but these can only be solved by revising and recasting our policies in the light of the great experience through which we have passed.


*Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: I cannot agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) -that we should postpone preparation for technical education until the war is over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. I said until such time as we were -able to revise and recast our plans in the light of the experience gained -since the report of the commission was -drafted.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understood my hon. friend to mean that we should postpone preparation until such time ae we were financially capable of dealing with the mat-tier, or until the war was over. I quite agree with him that the expenses connected with the payment of pensions will be very great, no matter how careful we may be. At the same time, I think we should prepare now to assist, those men who are coming, and will come back from the front, by a system of technical education, or by what I would call industrial schools. Such a system would save this countrty a great deal of money in the end. We should get ready to place those men in industrial schools, so th-at they can learn to help themselves. A great many will not be able to return -to the trades which they followed before they went to the front, but they will be able to -learn other trades by which they could assist themselves very materially in maintaining themselves after the war is over I -am sure that al-1 of us would rather see them maintaining themselves than being -maintained entirely by the country. Therefore, I would urge that we cannot commence too soon. It takes -quite a long time to organize anything of this kind, because it is -a very larg-e question. But now is the time to get ready to organize, to receive those men when they come back, and that is saying nothing at all about the population generally being prepared to compete with other countries. As to what my hon. friend the Minister of Labour said as to the matter being under the jurisdiction of the province, nobody suggests that it is not. What is suggested is that the Dominion should work with the provinces, and I am sure that there is no province which would refuse to work amicably. with the Dominion in an effort- to carry out this worthy object.


Samuel Francis Glass: Will my hon. friend tell us how, in view of the attitude of the provinces towards this question, he would propose to distribute the money? When the

recommendation of the commission that $3,350,000 should be distributed annually was communicated to them, they did not even reply, stating whether they approved of it or not, or whether they had any machinery with which to carry out the recommendation.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot imagine that
there would be any difficulty in negotiating with the provinces. The probability is that the matter was allowed to drop, though I do not know -about that. I am not taking a party view of the matter. I cannot imagine that the Premier of any province would refuse to negotiate with the Dominion. As I have already said, it will take quite a long time to carry the negotiations through, and for that reason I urge that now is the time for the Dominion to get ready to work with the provinces.


Robert Rogers: We have had a very interesting and very instructive discussion on the important subject of technical education. First, we heard my h-on. friend from Rouville, who is at all times interesting in any speech which he delivers on an important question, and he was followed by my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, who delivered one of the most interesting and most lucid speeches dealing with this question that, I fancy, has ever been delivered in this House. The question before us is one of great interest to the members of this House, and, I am sure, to the people of this country, and I desire that we should not have any misunderstanding upon it. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) that the question is liable to be misunderstood by some of the provinces in that they may regard any action we might take as interfering with their provincial rights under the British North America Act. If my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), had been present this afternoon and had listened to the Minister of Labour, he would have it made clear to him that the Government are undertaking in various forms to provide for the returned soldiers in the matter of education and everything that appertains to their welfare. The part that I do not wish to be misunderstood is this. My hon. friend from Rouville has moved a resolution asking this House to commit itself to the adoption of the recommendations of the report, as made by the Royal Commission on Technical Education a few years ago, in which they recommend that we

contribute $3,500,000 for ten years for technical education. As my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has well said, if conditions were normal, and if we had not to deal with war conditions, there would he some ground for the support which my hon. friend from Rouville has given to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But I am sure that my hon. friend from Rouville does not himself believe at this moment that this House should accept the recommendations of that Commission and pledge itself to undertake to contribute $3,500,000 a year for the support of technical education. My hon. friend from Maisonneuve in addressing the House this evening, stated that an expenditure by this Government of $500,000, instead of $3,500,000, would be a sufficient contribution for the time being at all events, towards technical education. In view of the differences of opinion that appear to exist even in this House, and in view of the sensitive manner in which the question of education is considered by the various provinces, I think that my hon. friend from Rouville will see the force of my suggestion when I urge upon him that he should not press his resolution, and especially when I remind him that, as stated by my hon. friend the "Minister of Labour this afternoon, the Government recognizes the principle of assistance in the matter of technical education. We are giving the question to-day the most careful consideration, and under normal conditions we would be coming down to this House with a recommendation for a large sum to assist technical education in the various provinces. In view of this I trust that my hon. friend will not press his resolution but that he will accept the statement that the Minister of Labour has made to-day, and the assurance which I add, that this Government acknowledge the principle and that we will at the earliest possible moment lend such assistance as we can in the public interest to the furtherance of the cause of technical education in the provinces of Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have just prepared a short amendment to my motion which dovetails in with the happy remarks which have been made by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). I will read my amended resolution and I think it will meet the opinion of the House:
That in the opinion of this House measures should he taken at the earliest opportunity to promote, in co-operation with the provinces, technical education and manual training.
In this amendment, I do not commit the Government, in view of the correspondence which has been exchanged between the Minister of Labour and the various provincial Governments, to the adoption of the conclusions and recommendations of the commissioner's report. This amendment is more academic but at the same time it gives expression to the opinion which has been uttered by the Minister of Public Works. Of course, I must keep faith with the right hon. the Prime Minister and with the House. I said this afternoon that I would try to rush matters as much as possible in order to give way to the other debate which is to take place and which is to be concluded this evening. I hope my suggestion will be accepted by the Minister of Public Works.


Robert Rogers: In view of the fact that the hon. member for Rouville has changed ,his ideas since he made his motion this afternoon-


Rodolphe Lemieux: To meet the. wishes of the House.	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: - I think he should be entirely satisfied with the statement of the Minister of Labour, supported as it has been by myself, that he shomld let the matter stand. My hon. friend is prepared to amend his motion and propose new conditions, but the Government would have to consider very carefully what was best calculated to advance the interests of technical education. We have admitted the principle that the Dominion Government should help in the matter of technical education, in some way or other, and I think my hon. friend should be entirely satisfied with that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope the Minister of Labour will not think I am disparaging Mm when I say that I am more inclined to accept the policy that has been enunciated by the Minister of Public Works than that enunciated by him this afternoon. I think the Minister of Public Works is a convert to the idea of technical education; he is in favour of the principle.


Robert Rogers: So is the Minister oi Labour.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Labour was not so favourable, judging by his remarks. I accept the declaration made by the Minister of Public Works, and I trust the' day is not far distant when this Government, in co-operation with the various
REVISED EDITIpN

Provincial Governments, will give technical education and manual training every necessary assistance. I therefore move for leave to withdraw my motion, on the statement of the 'Minister of Public Works.
Motion withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Rogers: There was an understanding that when this motion was disposed of, we should resume the adjourned debate on Prohibition. I do not wish to be understood as interfering with the rights of any private member, but an understanding to that effect was made on Friday last. I therefore beg to move that we proceed to Public Bills and Orders, and resume the adjourned debate on the motion' of Mr. Stevens, taking that and the resolution of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes), together.
Mr. (LEMIEUX: That was the understanding this afternoon.
MR. MARCIL: The question I put to the Prime Minister the other day related to the motion of Mr. Stevens; I understood that that was to be gone on with.
Mr, ROGERS: My hon. friend will recollect that it has been stated over and over again that the two resolutions are to be taken together. That proposal received the unanimous approval of the House, and it is upon that understanding that we are proceeding to-night.


Mr. MARCIL:: How can both motions
together; be put by the Chair?


Robert Rogers: We can debate the two
together, and the Chair can put on the motions separately.


Charles Marcil: The Premier admitted at the outset that that could not be done, and gave way in favour of the proposed resolution of Mr. Stevens.


Robert Rogers: Then we will take it up.



PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 6, consideration of the proposed resolution of Mr. H. H. iStovens (Vancouver):
That, in the opinion of this House, at this time when the Empire is at war, the conservation of 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.	*
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the Alberta
scheme?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Alberta scheme is legislation of the same character as the Macdonald Act, so called. It is a prohibitory measure that was initiated by virtue of a statute providing for direct legislation by which a petition was presented to the Legislature and a referendum then taken. The referendum was as to whether or not the Legislature should pass a prohibitory law; the .suggested prohibitory law being printed and circulated throughout the province before it was adopted.
Having regard to these results in the various provinces, we have to consider what our attitude should be as ia Parliament, representing not ofie province but all the people of the Dominion. I am not unaware of the argument that may be advanced against the exercise by this Parliament of any of its powers. There .are men who conscientiously 'believe that they should not be restricted in the use of alcoholic liquors as a beverage. I respect their convictions. IE there is one thing that the educational propaganda that has been carried on during the past twenty-five years has done more than any other, it is to teach men and women who have been engaged in temperance work to respect the profound and conscientious convictions of those who are opposed to pro-h'ibition. It is no longer regarded as useful in carrying on a propaganda for temperance to abuse a man who sells intoxicants; it used to be. A man who engages in the sale of intoxicants by the aid of a license has just as much right, as long as he obeys the law, to the protection of the law as any other man who carries on business under a license. The day when abuse was regarded as the one asset with which to conduct a propaganda of that kind has passed away, thanks, as I have said, to the education of our people with relation to the true matter at issue. Admitting, as I do, the right of every man to differ from me; admitting the right of men to believe conscientiously that they should not be restricted in the use of intoxicants; admitting the objection that most Anglo-Saxons have to the passing of sumptuary

laws, I purpose shortly to discuss this matter from the standpoint of a sumptuary law, from the standpoint of a police regulation, and from the standpoint of its social and economic effects.
Most men object to being told what they should eat and what they should drink. There is no man so bold in this House as to say that the liquor traffic should not be restricted and regulated. If, then, the traffic should be restricted and regulated, what is to determine the extent to which that regulation should be carried? What but the voice of democracy; what but the will of the people? Every man sitting within the sound of my voice this night knows that the price of our civilization is the surrender by each man of some of his individual liberties. The price of freedom is the exercise of self restraint and discipline. The price of liberty is the sacrifice of some of our personal rights, privileges, and advantages. The price of civilization is the exercise on the part of each of restraint and the surrender of some of his rights. So, with relation to what I shall eat and what I shall drink, I have to surrender something, because the system of Government under which I live is a system by which the voice and will of the people must determine what the laws shall be, and once democracy determines that I shall not have a drink of whisky, that moment I must sacrifice my right to	it. That is the
price of our civilization. We may not like it. There may be men who seriously object to it; there may be men who have conscientious convictions that such is unsound law. Nevertheless, the very founda- * tion of responsible representative institutions in this country is that the voice and will of democracy shall determine what is and what is not a sound sumptuary law. So far as personal liberty is concerned, there is nothing in that argument beyond what 1 have just said. The voice and will of the great majority of the people of this country determines what my personal rights shall be. .1 may not walk down the street unclothed, because the will of .society is that I shall not. I may not drink this or eat that because the will of society as expressed through the voice of the people has said, nay. But, Sir, there is a higheT ground; there is a ground the highest upon which I can conceive a man can base his reason for supporting a sumptuary law and enforcing a prohibitory law so far as liquor is concerned. It is the voice of Paul; it is
the voice of that great apostle of our common religion: " If by eating meat I make my brother to offend, I will eat no meat while the world stands." Upon that ground, it seems to me, we can base the soundest argument that can be made so far as the use of intoxicants as a beverage is concerned, because upon the third ground that I shall speak of presently we have ample reason for believing- nay, we must believe; we cannot help it- that the use of intoxicants is fraught with great disaster to the state, and the duty and the power of example necessitate our curtailing what might he our conception of personal liberty for the purpose of the advancement of the state as a whole.
Let us go a step further and deal with the second ground, that of police regulation. No man, within the sound of my voice tonight does not believe that the restriction and regulation of the liquor traffic is necessary from the police standpoint. Every man will at once concede that there may come a time when in the interests of efficient enforcement of police regulations, what was a restriction and regulation should become a prohibition. What determines that, mark you, must always be the voice of democracy. We have before us every day, whether we like it or not, examples of the misuse of intoxicants: poverty, suffering of the innocent, loss of labour, loss of wealth, both of the nation and the individual-all these things are everywhere visible to us.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The breaking up of
homes.
MR. BENNETT: I was going to mention in the next breath the sad domestic results .which follow: The innocent suffering, the children deprived of the support to which they should be entitled, the homes destroyed, the destruction of everything that goes to make for the national life of a country and the upbuilding of character, which is the greatest asset a country can possess. The social side of this evil involves the interference with those relations which characterize a great state, the domestic relations, the upbuilding of a sound ap* preciation and ideal of domestic life. On the economic side you have the waste that comes. I am not here to-night to measure that waste in dollars and cents. I am not here to-night to point out the great less that would ensue if we should pass prohibitory legislation, the loss of inland revenue and customs duties, which would

' amount to perhaps $20,000,000 a year. For all these things we would be amply compensated by the gain that would come owing to the added power and wealth, the savings of the people, by the labour that would not be interfered with or destroyed during the week, and by the comfort that would come to home and children, by the domestic happiness, by the lessened expense for police forces and the maintenence of our legal institutions-by all those things, as has been pointed out by a Lord Chief Justice in England, that would become unnecessary but for the habits of the people which have grown up through long years of use, until the people have come to regard liberty as a license to carry on these habits in perpetuity. Sometimes I thank Heaven that in a new country like this we have the example of an older country to guide us, so that we may at least profit by the mistakes that have been made by them, and: that in a new land such as this, where we have a small population, we are far away and ahead of those, who, by reason of their old country amd their old institutions and old habits, have not been able, by reason of vested interests and other considerations, to shake off the shackles that have bound them to particular habits of customs. Enough as to that. I think the case for interference by legislation is sufficient.
Let us now come at once to the unit of our efforts, namely the province. I have already referred to what has been done in the various provinces. Let me ask this question of the House, which seems to me after all, the crux of this whole isisue: Within what'area and to what extent shall the will of the majority prevail over the will of the minority with respect to the tastes and appetites of the people? Let me take a concrete case. The city of Montreal, perhaps the island of Montreal has, let me say, one-tenth of the population of Canada. Would it be sound statesmanship to say that the will of the rest of the people of Canada, constituting a majority of the various provinces, should prevail over the will of that minority? Or would it be sounder statecraft to say that the will of the majority in the province in which that island is should prevail over the minority within that island? That is a concrete case. Would it be fair or right to say that the will of the majority in the other eight provinces should prevail over the will of the majority in the province of British Columbia? That is a majority in so far as that province is

concerned. That is, if there be in British Columbia a majority against prohibition, would you look for a faithful enforcement of the law if you said that the will of the majority in the other eight provinces should prevail over the will of the majority in the province of British Columbia? Or would you .say that sound principle and the dictates of common sense and reason alike tell you, that if you desire to have a sound prohibition law you must always make your province the unit, so that, by the process of education to which I have referred,
' the will of the majority in that province should always determine what should be the legislation of that province? That is the problem, what should be the unit of area, as a gentleman said to me yesterday, of home rule with relation to the liquor traffic? Which is a very excellent and fair way to put it. Let us look at that in all its features. You have the province of Prince Edward Island, you have Nova Scotia, you have New Brunswick, and you have Ontario, we will say; and within the limits and boundaries of these provinces they have fairly well made up their minds, by reasonable majorities, that they will have prohibitory legislation. We will say that the province of Quebec, by a majority, thinks otherwise. Do you think you will have an efficient administration of the law if you pass a law common to all those provinces by which you propose to coerce the opinion of Quebec by virtue of a majority outside of and beyond the boundary of that province? That is the problem. That is the position you have to think about. Would any hon. gentleman in this Chamber say that be believes a Dominion wide prohibitory law passed by this Parliament to-day would be efficient and sound legislation unless it was backed by an enlightened and educated public opinion? No, he would not. Then, if he will not say that, I go a step further and ask him the next question:	Does he say that the will
of the province of Alberta would be effective in coercing the will of the people in British Columbia? Surely he will say no to that. Would he say that the combined opinion of the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, used to overcome the views of the majority in the opposite direction from the province of British Columbia, would make efficient legislation? There is behind it in British Columbia, you see, no efficient public opinion, no enlightened public opinion, and, by calling upon the public opinion from two outside units

or areas, you ask that combined public opinion, as representing a majority in those provinces, to overcome and thwart and destroy the will of the democracy in the province to the west. Suppose you come to .the East once more, to reiterate this argument which is the basis of it all, it seems to me. Is it sound to say that the will of a majority representing large numbers in the province of Ontario shall overcome the convictions and conscientious views in the opposite direction of the province of Quebec? Do you think you would have sound legislation? Do you think you could efficiently enforce it? Then you come to the other provinces and apply the same principle. I think, therefore, without endeavouring to waste the time of the House by a lengthy argument, you must conclude with me that the unit within which you can hope to make efficient laws, backed up by a sound and enlightened public opinion must be the physical boundaries of the province in the first instance. But from a constitutional standpoint, those provinces enforcing merely prohibitory laws, so long as they are part of this Dominion, and interprovincial trade is freely carried on, cannot hope to make their laws efficient except within their own borders. They cannot stop the importation into one province of liquor from other provinces. The province of Prince Edward Island, in the extreme east, having determined, as it has, by a majority substantial in number, that it will prohibit the use of intoxicants as a beverage, cannot, under our constitution, restrict or restrain the importation of liquor from the province of Nova Scotia or the province of New Brunswick or the province of Quebec. The very essence of our constitution is freedom in interprovincial trade. What happens? The limited powers of the Legislature precluding the possibility of their passing the necessary statute to prohibit importation, they find that their efforts, the will of the people, the will of the democracy within that province, is thwarted by reason of their being unable to express themselves in legislative form. I come to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and I find that the same conditions prevail. I come to Manitoba and I find the same conditions. I come to Alberta and I find the same conditions. Then it is with me a simple problem: What legislation, backed by an efficient public opinion representing the educated and enlightened views of the
democracy, shall Ibe passed by this Parliament which will enable the will of the democracy within the province to be made effective. That is the question I have to ask myself, and I am not content to approach that problem or that question in the light of visionary philosophy. I desire to approach it from the standpoint of sound, political, concrete necessity. And what legislation do I ask? My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island has suggested the amendment of the British North America Act. Another gentleman has suggested the widening of the constitutional power of the provinces in another way. I cannot agree to this, so long as I find within the four corners of the present constitution, methods and means whereby I can make effective the views I hold. I find that when the Canada Temperance Act was passed it went to the Privy Council to determine whether or not it was competent for this Parliament to pass that Act or whether or not it trenched upon and interfered with the exclusive rights of the provinces? I do not desire to make to this tribunal a legal argument, but there are a few elementary propositions which it seems to me may be fairly stated, and which the layman may have no difficulty in understanding. Under the provisions of our British, North America Act matters of a national concern were entrusted to this Parliament. We were given the power to regulate trade and commerce, and the Privy Council has said that means trade and commerce in the large and wide sense of the term, not only trade, buit trade and commerce as these matters affect the welfare of the nation as a whole. That is under subsection 2 of section 91 of the British North America Act, which section defines, in general terms, the powers that may be exercised by this Parliament, while section 92 defines the powers that may be exercised by Provincial Legislatures. The powers among others that may foe exercised by Provincial Legislatures are with respect to the raising of revenue by licenses, with respect to property and civil rights, and with respect generally to matters of a local character. Now, if we keep in mind trie** principles, in the light of the interpretation of that Act by the Privy Council, we [DOT] have evolved for us certain well fixed rules which I shall not take the trouble to state at length, but some of which I shall endeavour to present briefly to the House.
The case of Russell v. the Queen, which went to the Privy Council, involved an

interpretation of the Canada Temperance Act which came into force after being voted upon by a majority of the people of any county or municipality. That Act was prohibitory in its character; it was of Dominion-wide application, and it was contended before the Privy Council that it was an interference with the property and civil rights within the province of New Brunswick. But the Privy 'Council determined that, inasmuch as it was a statute dealing with a condition throughout the Dominion as a whole, and for the peace, order and good government of Canada, it was within the competency of this Parliament to pass it.
There followed upon that Act a local option Act from the province of Ontario, and the case Hodge v. the Queen, involved the determination of the constitutionality of a statute passed by the Legislature of Ontario in 1877, I think. That statute created licensing districts, gave local option in certain communities, and was in fact the basis on which the Ontario License Act was founded. That Act was held to be within the competence of the Legislature of Ontario. It was contended with great force that the legislatures of the provinces did not exercise plenary powers, that they only exercised subordinate powers, and had not the same free rights of legislation as appertain to a free Parliament. The Privy Council gave no force or effect to the contention. The Privy Council dealt with the matter at a later date, and 1 desire to quote from that decision 'because it puts the matter much more clearly than I possibly could. It says:
The object of the Act was neither to weld the provinces into one, nor to subordinate provincial governments to a central authority, but to create a federal government in which they should all be represented, entrusted with the exclusive administration of affairs in which they had a common interest, each province retaining its independence and autonomy. That object was accomplished by distributing between the Dominion and the provinces all powers, executive and legislative, and all public property and revenues, which had previously belonged to the provinces, so that the Dominion Government should be vested with such of these powers, property, and revenues as were necessary for the due performance of its constitutional functions, and that the remainder should he retained by the provinces for the purposes of provincial government. But, in so far as regards those matters, which, by section 92, are specially reserved for provincial legislation, the legislation of each province continues to he free from the control of the Dominion and as supreme as it was before the passing of the Act. In Hodge vs. the Queen, 9 AC., 117, Lord Fitzgerald, delivering the opinion of this hoard, said: "When the British

North America Act enacted that there should be a legislature for Ontario, and that its Legislative Assembly should have exclusive authority to make laws for the province and for provincial purposes in relation to the matters enumerated in section 92, it conferred powers not in any sense to be exercised by delegation from or as agents of the Imperial Parliament, hut authority as plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed by section 92 as the Imperial Parliament in the plentitude of its power possessed and could bestow. Within these limits of subject and area, the local legislature is supreme, and has the same authority as the Imperial Parliament, or the Parliament of the Dominion." The Act places the constitutions of all provinces within the Dominion on the same level, and what is true with respect to the legislature of Ontario has equal application to the legislature of New Brunswick.
That being so, and property and civil
rights being one of the subject matters committed exclusively to the provinces, it follows that it was given entirely to the provinces to determine what property a man should have in anything even if it should be a glass of intoxicating liquor. It is competent for the Legislature of the province of Manitoba or of Ontario to determine whether, or not, a man shall have in his possession a single drop of intoxicants. It is competent for the Legislature of Ontario to declare that a man shall not have property in a single pint or gill of intoxicants within the area of that province, because legislation affecting property and civil rights, and all that appertain to these two terms, are exclusively within the power of the provincial legislature.
After the cake of Hodge v. the Queen, there followed in 1890 the case from Ontario known as the Prohibition case, in which certain questions were submitted to the court for the purpose of determining what rights the province had with relation to the manufacture and importation of intoxicating liquors. The case was decided in 1895. The questions were very numerous and the , Privy Council did not answer them all contenting itself with answering a few and leaving the guiding principles for the determination of the balance. The first question wa.s:
Has .a provincial legislature jurisdiction to prohibit the sale within the province of spirituous, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors?
The answer is " Yes. " The next question was:
Or has the legislature such jurisdiction regarding such portions of the province as to which the Canada Temperance Act is not in operation?
The answer is " Yes. "

Has a provincial legislature jurisdiction to prohibit the manufacture of such liquors within the province.
That is a vital question and the answer to it I should like to read in the terms of the Privy Council judgment. The answer was this:
In the absence of conflicting legislation by the Parliament of Canada, their Lordships are of opinion that the provincial legislatures would have jurisdiction to that effect if it were shown that the manufacture was carried on under such circumstances and conditions as to make its prohibition a. merely local matter in the province.
In other words, if, in the city of Edmonton, there is a brewery making beer, all of which is sold entirely within the province, it is competent for the Provincial Legislature to pass a Bill prohibiting the manufacture of beer by that brewery. But if, on the other Rand, a brewery carried on an interprovincial trade and an export business the circumstances are such that the Provincial Legislature could not prohibit the manufacture of beer in that brewery. The next question was this:
Has a provincial legislature jurisdiction to prohibit the importation of such liquors into the province?
The answer is this:
Their Lordships answer this question in the negative. It appears to them that the exercise by the provincial legislature of such jurisdiction in the wide and general terms in which it is expressed, would probably trench upon the exclusive authority of the Dominion parliament.
The other questions deal with matters that I need not allude to at the present time, the two questions that I particularly desire to direct the attention of the House to being those concerned with the manufacture and .importation of liquor. If then it is competent, as the Privy Council has said it is, for a provincial legislature to pass the necessary legislation to prohibit the manufacture of intoxicants within the limits of the province for the purpose of undertaking to supply merely the local needs, it follows that that is all that is necessary to effect prohibition within the province if you supplement it with the unquestioned power of the legislature to prohibit the sale within the province. In other words, a brewery or a distillery that carries on business and sells its product outside of the province may carry on that business. But no distillery, or brewery, can manufacture and sell within the province because the provincial legislature can
prohibit such sale. A brewery or distillery which carries on business for purely local consumption can be prohibited by the province.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Does the hon. gentleman know of any such brewery in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there are breweries in my part of the country which sell their products only within the province.


Charles Marcil: If they sell one gallon outside of the province that would override the Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They could carry on an interprovincdal business. But that must be the character of their business. It does not mean the sale of a single gallon. I would sooner accept the answer of the Privy Council than my own opinion; and that is that if the character of the business was purely local and provincial they would have the power to prohibit; otherwise they would be within my understanding of the answer of the Privy Council.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would be a very precarious sort of legislation, would not my hon. friend admit, because the moment any quantity, or shipment of a commercial character, went from the province, the legislation would not stand the test any longer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That might well be, but that is not a practical question for the simple reason that if the sale is forbidden within the province, the province has the absolute and sole power over it. A little brewery that only supplies one province does not make any difference because the sale of its product is within the province and the province has the power to prohibit. Now, I am going to express an opinion that may not meet with the approval of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House or, for that matter, of hon. gentlemen sitting beside me. I do not believe it is my duty as a Canadian to undertake to legislate for the Argentine Republic, or England, or the United States of America, and if they want to buy beer or whisky I am not going to arrogate to myself the right to determine whether they shall or shall not drink it. I trust that experience has taught me the lesson that the less I have to do with other people's business, especially when they live outside of my own country, the better it is for me and for them. The principle is this: the manufacture of spirits may be carried on in Canada provided it is for export only, and I

am not concerned about it because it may well be that there are people who do not look upon the use of .spirituous liquor as a beverage as we do, who have not been educated as we have,,and I do not propose to undertake the education of people in other countries in regard to the principles of temperance. It is perfectly clear that while the province cannot deal with the manufacture or interprovincial trade or export, there is no reason why the Canadian people should not manufacture anything that other people want to buy. . I have not reached that stage in regard to the temperance question where I am prepared to say: You cannot manufacture or export whiskey from Canada if other people want to use it. I desire to be perfectly frank about this and I have no apologies to offer for expressing my opinion in a perfectly frank manner on this point.


James Joseph Hughes: It is said in the newspapers that the Attorney General of Manitoba has made the statement that legislation such as is proposed by the Bill submitted by the Minister of Justice is ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada according to section 121 of the British North America Act. Was the hon. gentleman's attention called to that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will read that section:
All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces.
I have a moat proper respect for any gentleman who calls himself attorney general of any of the provinces of Canada, but I do not think that there is a layman in any province who would say that that section has anything to do with out Bill. This is a matter of history. Any man who has read the Confederation debates at Quebec, will remember that before the British North America Act was passed, between the provinces there were duties and in fact, the province of New Brunswick found it rather difficult to give up certain payments which it received in relation to timber, and there was a little money paid to them in connection with that matter. We had tariffs between the provinces and it was to make it clear that in this federal union there should be freedom of interprovincial trade, the same as in the United States a constitutional provision was introduced for freedom of interstate commerce, that we have that section. The section is so clear that I think my hon.

friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) will see that it must have no bearing on this Bill. I will read it again:
All articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces.
The legislation that I am going to speak about just now does not in any way curtail freedom, but it makes it an offence to do certain things. That is all. For instance, there are acts bearing on this point and I will give an illustration that occurs to me.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the hon. gentleman say that a certain thing is free when it is an offence to do it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, .under certain conditions.
Mr. MARCH.: Free in that case means free from customs duties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely; free from
any impost of the character or nature of customs. I want to give an illustration because as I am dealing with the matter I might as well make it complete. Hon. gentlemen will remember the legislation passed some years ago in connection with the killing of fur-bearing animals, making it an offence to carry the furs of such animals from one country, or one province, to another. You may,, under certain conditions, apprehend a man who kills and takes furs notwithstanding the fact that he may have done it in another province.


Charles Marcil: Trade has nothing to do with the creation of an offence of another character altogether?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This deals with trade
and the other deals with the exercise of criminal law, and the criminal law may not he susceptible of universal application. You may have some sections which are limited in their application to one particular part of the country. But there is another point that occurs to me just now and it answers that conclusively. In the year 1908 this Parliament passed exactly the same section as this Bill contains mutatis mutandis in relation to the Canada Temperance Act We have gone a little further. [DOT] We enacted in 1908, in this Parliament, that if, in a Scott Act county, there was an importation from a non-Scott Act county, that that should be an offence. That law has been on the statute-book eight years, and nobody has questioned the constitutionality

of it. I am afraid the Attorney-General for Manitoba has not been correctly reported-	-


James Joseph Hughes: It was in the papers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -'because I know the Hon. Mr. Hudson and I have a high regard for him; his ability is admitted- on all hands.


Robert Rogers: In some directions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In some directions, we will say, because there may be different view points, and there are various shades of ability. I say that either he must have been incorrectly reported, or he is not conversant with the character of our legislation.
The last word of the Privy Council as to the powers of a province was given on the constitutionality of the Macdonald Act, and while I do not desire to trespass upon the time of the House, possibly you would not mind, Mr. Speaker, if I made a reference to that decision, because it is a matter of more than passing interest. The case was brought before the Privy Council in England in 1901, and the judgment was delivered by Lord Macnaghten, from which I quote:
In July, 1900, an Act was passed by the legislature of Manitoba for the suppression of the liquor traffic in that province. The Act, which is known by its short title of "The Liquor Act, " was to have come into operation on June 1, 1901. Before that date, on a reference under clause 28 of the Revised Statutes of Manitoba, the Court of King's Bench pronounced the Whole Act to be unconstitutional. From this decision the present appeal has been brought.
Although the questions submitted to the Court of King's Bench by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, were eleven in number, the only one considered in the court below, and the only one argued before this board, was the first:	"Had the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba jurisdiction to enact the Liquor Act, and if not, in what particular or respect has it exceeded its power?" To this the answer given was, "It exceeded its powers in enacting the Liquor Act as a whole." The other questions are either of an academical character or such as are material only in the event of the Act being declared partially and not wholly unconstitutional. No answer that could be given to any of those questions would be of any practical value. Their lordships, therefore, will confine their attention to the subject to which the judgment of the Court of King's Bench and the arguments at the bar were addressed.
The question at issue depends on the meaning and effect of those sections in the British North America Act, 1867, which provide for the distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion and the provinces. The subject has been discussed before this board very frequently and very fully. Mindful of advice often
quoted (1), but not, perhaps, always followed, their lordships do not propose to travel beyond the particular case before them.
The drink question, to use a common expression which is convenient, if not altogether accurate, is not to be found specifically mentioned either in the classes of subjects enumerated in section 91 and assigned to the legislature of the Dominion, or in those enumerated in section 92 and thereby appropriated to provincial legislatures. The omission was probably not accidental. The result has been somewhat remarkable. On the one hand, according to Russell vs. Reg. (2) it is competent for the Dominion Legislature to pass an Act for the suppression of intemperance applicable to all parts of the Dominion, and when duly brought into operation in any particular district deriving its efficacy from the general authority vested in the Dominion Parliament to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada. On the other hand, according to the decision in Attorney General for Ontario vs. Attorney General for the Dominion (3) it is not incompetent for a provincial legislature to pass a measure for the repression, or even for the total abolition, of the liquor traffic within the province, provided the subject is dealt with as a matter "of a merely local nature" in the province, and the Act itself is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.
In delivering the judgment of this board in the case of Attorney General for Ontario vs. Attorney General for the Dominion (1) Lord Watson expressed a decided opinion that provincial legislation for the suppression of the liquor traffic could not be supported under either No. 8 or No. 9 of section 92.
*
He added that it was not necessary for the purpose of that appeal to determine whether such legislation was authorized by the one oi by the other of these heads. Although this particular question was thus left apparently undecided, a careful perusal of the judgment leads to the conclusion that, in the opinion of the board, the case fell under No. 16 rather than under No. 13. And that seems to their lordships to be the better opinion. In legislating for the suppression of the liquor traffic the object in view is fcthe abatement or prevention of a local evil, rather than the regulation of property and civil rights-though, of course, no such legislation can be carried into effect without interfering more or less with "property and civil rights in the province." Indeed, if the case is to be regarded as dealing with matters within the class of subjects enumerated in No. 13, it might be questionable whether the Dominion Legislature could have authority to interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of the province in the matter.
The controversy, therefore, seems to be narrowed to this one point: Is the subject of "The Liquor Act" a matter "of a merely local nature in the province" of Manitoba, and does the Liquor Act deal with it as such?
Then follows a discussion of the authorities, and his Lordship proceeds:
The Liquor Act proceeds upon a recital that "it is expedient to suppress the liquor traffic in Manitoba by prohibiting provincial transactions in liquor." That is the declared object of the legislature set out at the commencement of the Act. Towards the end of the Act there occurs this section: "119. While this Act is


Mr. MARC IL:: A province does not go further because it has no power to go further. The legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice does not add anything of value, because the province of Ontario cannot prohibit a person in Ontario from importing liquor from another province for his own use. The Macdonald Act cited by the hon. gentleman shows that it has no such intention. The province of Ontario does not prohibit the importation of liquor because it has not power to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry my hon. friend has not followed the reasoning of the Privy Council. It is competent for a Legislature to pass an Act saying that possession of intoxicating liquors shall be an offence.


Charles Marcil: An offence against a provincial statute?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Legislature can say that it shall be an offence to have liquor in one's possession. If that be so, if you buy it in the province, there is a sale and the action is punishable by provincial law; but if you bring .it in and get it into your possession by importation, the carrier and the importer and the shipper are liable under this legislation. Have I made myself clear?


Charles Marcil: No. If under the Dominion Act you have the right to import liquor from another province or another country, the province cannot prevent that, unless you import the liquor for the purpose of sale or otherwise to violate the law passed by the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has quite grasped the principle; it is in the application that we are at variance. This law will say that, wherever a province has, in the exercise of its undoubted legislative power, declared, for example, that the possession of a bottle of whiskey shall be an offence against the statute, then if a person buy's a bottle of whisky, he has committed

an offence because there has been a sale within the province. If he brings a bottle of whisky in from outside and gets it into his possession, he is guilty of an offence against this statute beoause the importation) made possession possible, which is an offence under the provincial statute. I trust my hon. friend has followed me.


Charles Marcil: I follow you, but no province has passed such legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but the fact that a province has not exercised the power which the Privy Council says it may exercise is not the foundation of a good argument against the enactment of legislation which a province has the power to enact. On the contrary, it is a good reason why the people, with their eyes wide open, knowing fully the circumstances under which they enact their laws, should know that they have ancillary to their own statute, .supplementary to the powers conferred upon them by the British North America Act, the power contained in the legislation we are now about to pass whereby it is an offence to bring liquor into a province which has passed legislation prohibiting its citizens having liquor in their possession.


Mr. PROTJLX:: Under the Ontario measure, a person would have the right to buy from a retail druggist on a medical prescription six ounces of liquor. If a greater quantity than six ounces was found in his possession, would my hon. friend maintain that he was violating the law, or that it might be prima facie evidence that he had it for sale?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would depend upon the terms of the provincial statute. The provincial statute would have to state that possession of more than six ounces of liquor was prima facie evidence of having it for sale.


Edmond Proulx: If the statute said so, would my hon. friend say that it would be a constitutional offence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the statute said so, it certainly would be. I do not, however, know what the details of the statute may be. It occurs to me that we should endeavour to enact effective legislation applicable throughout this Dominion that may supplement the legislation of any province. I have conceded the importance of the issue, the magnitude of the question, the necessity for legislation. I have endeavoured to point out how regulation and
restriction have been followed by prohibition passed by various provinces, and I have endeavoured, I trust with some degree of success, to indicate that the unit or area should be the province. Let me point out that there has been standing on the statute. book of the Dominion for thirty-
11 p.m. eight years, a law passed by this Parliament, that would have made possible a Dominion-wide prohibition, and yet it has not been taken advantage of. If the Canada Temperance Act, were brought into force in every county and municipality of the Dominion, you would have Dominion-wide prohibition. No effort, however, has been made to do that. In my view, this Parliament, unless and until there is unequivocal evidence that behind us is an enlightened and educated body of public opinion


Charles Marcil: How is that to be ascertained otherwise than from the facts we now have?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be ascertained by the action of the provinces.


Charles Marcil: And is the hon. gentleman not satisfied with the overwhelming majorities in the provinces in favour of prohibition?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not satisfied that there exists in this Dominion such a body of enlightened public opinion as will make and enforce a national prohibition law, and the reasons I have plainly given; but I am satisfied that, exercising the powers given to them within the ample scope of their authority under the constitution, the various legislatures, exercising their powers a little to-day, a little more to-morrow, until they have exercised the full powers given to them under the constitution, supplemented and implemented by the legislation which will be placed upon the statute-books of this country by this Parliament can insure prohibition within an area provincial in its boundaries, and behind that legislation it will have an enlightened and educated body of public opinion which will make it efficient.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I presume that my hon. friend speaks of a provincial area. Does he think that the Bill which has been introduced by the Minister of Justice to supplement any local legislation will also protect the enforcement of a provincial law as regards a lesser area? Let us take, for instance, the province of Quebec. Suppose that the province does not adopt prohibition

within its boundaries, but that many municipalities adopt prohibitory measures, would the legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice apply as well to those lesser areas as to the larger area, the provincial area?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say that the language of the statute seems to contemplate that case. It says:
Any 'person who by himself, his clerk, servant or agent, shall send, ship, take, bring or carry to or into any province, from or out of any other province, or import into any province.
Of course, it would have to come from another 'province to meet that particular point. If it does not come from another province, but from the outside, this legislation is designed to meet that case. The Canada Temperance Act does meet the case, and if the importation came from a non-Scott area into a Scott Act area, then the provisions of the Canada Temperance Act Amendment of 1908 would apply. In view of all these facts to which I have directed the attention of the House. I beg to move the following amendment-


Charles Marcil: Before the hon. gentleman moves his amendment I would suggest to him that he has omitted entirely to deal with the main purpose of the resolution now before the House-that it should be adopted as an economic measure during the period of the war. Will he dwell on that aspect of the ease?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Marcil: In Quebec 916 municipalities are dry at the present time. Any .prohibition law enacted by the legislature would apply only to those municipalities
which have not yet taken action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last observation
made by the hon. member for Bonaventure enforces more strongly thpn I can the argument that I was endeavouring to make If the 916 municipalities in the province of Quebec have not seen fit through their

legislature to impose their will upon the people of the city of Montreal, why should a. majority made up of the residents of, we will say, Alberta and Saskatchewan impose their will upon the people of that city?


Charles Marcil: You cannot prevent importation from the province of Ontario into Montreal by provincial legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The moment the province passes a prohibitory law, then, by virtue of this legislation, importations into Montreal in contravention of that provincial measure of Quebec would be prohibited. I thank my hon. friend for his questions; they have directed my attention to points that I had overlooked.
I desire to move, seconded by Mr. Davidson, of Annapolis:
That all the words in the proposed resolution after the word " that " he struck out and the following substituted instead thereof:
This House recognizes the great advance made during the past twenty years in the several provinces of Canada through the enactment of laws for promoting temperance and for prohibiting or restricting the liquor traffic.
That the restriction and regulation of the liquor traffic cannot be efficiently accomplished except through public opinion fully supporting enactments passed for that purpose.
That as public opinion varies in the several provinces, it is desirable that such enactments depending for their efficient enforcement upon public opinion should in the first instance be determined by the respective legislatures of the several provinces.
That up to the full measure of provincial jurisdiction the subject should in the first instance be dealt with by the respective provincial legislatures.
That this Parliament should at the present session enact legislation to prohibit the transportation or importation of intoxicating liquor into any province for any use or purpose which is or may be forbidden by the law of such province.
I am not prepared at once to strive to make the reform which the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) contemplates. I have no doubt but that in the fulness of time such legislation as it contemplates ma-y be enacted by this Parliament. But as we pass the milestones that indicate the progress that the temperance movement has made, it must not (be forgotten that those milestones have not been passed in long strides. They indicate slow and weary steps that have been taken by those who have always had in mind the ultimate end-reform in the use of liquors as intoxicants, and the ultimate prohibition of their use as a beverage. Reforms will never be accomplished by too drastic measures. As I read history, great reforms have been accomplished by slow degrees,

by a step to-day and a step to-morrow, ever moving forward, so that where the vanguard camped to-day the rearguard may march to-morrow. It has always been so; it always will be so. The great reforms of Shaftsbury, of Romilly, of Howard, of Plimsoll, were brought about by a steady forward movement, keeping the goal ever in view, being content with a little here and a little there, to the end that there might be behind all legislation that strong and vigorous and educated public opinion without which legislation must fail. Unless we have behind us the sentiment of an aroused and educated public opinion that will decree that what we place on the statute-books must be enforced, then we had better have no legislation at all; because you bring your institutions into contempt and you cheapen the Parliament 'of your country in the eyes of the world if you pass legislation which you cannot or do not enforce. That is the view that I have, and that is the reason why, speaking as a life long abstainer, I think that the step we take if we pass this legislation submitted by the Minister of Justice, will be a step forward, and that it will maTk a milestone in the progress of temperance legislation such as will not be found in the statute-books of any country in the world.


Mr. A. L. DAVIDSON (Annapolis):: Mr. Speaker, with the very able and very eloquent remarks that have just been made by the hon. member for Calgary, I very heartily concur, and it is with the greatest pleasure I rise to second the amendment which he has moved. As long ago as the year 1905, in a political campaign in my own constituency, I outlined my position on this very important question to be in favour of the different provincial legislatures going to the full extent of their constitutional powers in restriction of the liquor traffic, and in the passage of a Federal Act which would protect the various provinces from interference from outside. For the last ten years the opposition in the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia, with varying degrees of success, have advocated this policy, and it is with the greatest possible satisfaction to-night that I realize that this reform has now found so eloquent and so influential a champion as the hon. member for Calgary, and, most of all am I pleased that these propositions stand so excellent an opportunity at the present time of being crystallized into legislation.
The provisions of the amendment appear to me as to be so very reasonable that I do not think they require argument in order to be received favourably by this House. Particularly after tne exceedingly able and eloquent plea which has been presented by the mover of this amendment, I think very few words are required from me, and I do not propose to weary the House at any very great length on this occasion.
It strikes me that the severe and dam-aging arraignment of the evils of the liquor traffic which has been made by the mover (Mr. H. H. Stevens) and by the seconder (Hon. Charles Mareil) of this resolution, as well as by the various speakers who have spoken in its support, will find pretty general agreement in this House and throughout this country. The evils of the liquor traffic are so inherent that to-day they are appreciated both by the user and by the non-user of alcoholic liquors. But this was not always so. It has taken a long time for this evil to be viewed in its proper light. The role which alcohol has played in the human drama has been the role of the gay deceiver. When distilled liquor was first discovered it was welcomed as the elixir of life, and a remedy so exceedingly agreeable in its immediate effects naturally became very popular. It was pre- . ferred as a remedy to Sir Walter Raleigh's sharp instrument which cured all diseases in sickness and a very agreeable companion in health, the true aspect of this evil was not at first recognized. The people did not see the evil in its ugly nakedness as the most persistent enemy of mankind. But that time has at length come, and I think both the users and the non-users of intoxicating liquors to-day realize that the traffic is a curse'. Of course I am free to admit that it is possible to engage in the use of intoxicating liquor with very slight, if any, injurious effects; and sometimes it may be that the magnanimity of the . individual who does not use liquor and who' thinks that, for the benefit of the community as a whole, the use of it should be abolished, may be somewhat open to question. The American humorist was willing to sacrifice all his wifeh relations on the altar of his country. But the teetotaller to-day who favours, in the interests of the war, sacrificing his neighbour's habits and luxuries', may be regarded as possessing very much the same sort of heroism. Yet, as I said before, the economic evil of the liquor traffic is so great and its moral effect, so deleterious, that there is scarcely any

one in Canada so bound to this evil at the present time that he would not favour, if it were possible, its absolute eradication, its absolute destruction, root and branch. As I understand, the only extensive opposition that comes to the measure is that of people who think that such provisions may not be effective. If we could point with certainty to a law which would forever remove this evil from our midst, I think there is no one who would not uphold such a measure, andil believe that the principle outlined in the amendment which has just been made by my iron, friend will go a long way towards this conclusion.	.
I suppose that in no part of the world have greater strides been made towards the enactment of prohibitory temperance legislation than on the continent of North America; and yet I fancy that the legislative temperance reformer in the North American continent has encountered greater legislative obstacles than in any other part of the world. Both the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada are governed by a federal system. The federal system of government, while possessing many advantages, possesses many disadvantages as well. It necessitates a division of power, a division of legislative authority between the central or federal parliament and the state or provincial parliament. That division of authority has inevitably led to overlapping and uncertainty of legislation; but perhaps in no realm of legislative enactment has this obstacle been more apparent than in the enactment of temperance legislation. The temperance legislative reformer in the United States went to the various state legislatures for power to regulate this evil. By the constitution of the United States powers which are not expressly assigned to the Federal Congress lie in the various state ;legislatures. Consequently the legislative temperance reformer in the United States as a rule sought the instrumentality of the state legislatures in the effort to suppress this traffic. But he had not gone far before he encountered a constitutional obstruction. When the various state legislatures proceeded to prohibit or license the sale of liquors imported from foreign countries and from other states, they encountered a constitutional' difficulty, because the constitution of the United States provides that commerce, both interstate and foreign, shall be dealt with by the Federal Congress, .and by the Federal Congress alone. Thus when 
the various states attempted to decrease or restrict the use of liquor imported from abroad, they were met with the Objection that this was beyond their powers, that this was ultra vires; and consequently, in 1890, the Wilson Act was passed through the American Congress iin order to rectify this condition of affairs. The Wilson Act provided and declared that intoxicating liquors shall, upon arrival in a state, be subject to the operation of the police powers of the state. That was supplementary Federal legislation very much in line with the proposal made by my hon. friend, but that law did not go far enough to be effective. That law did not make it an offence to send into a state under prohibition, liquor from another state or from a foreign country; and as" a consequence the prohibition Acts passed by the various states of the American Union are only half measures, that permit of liquor being imported from other countries and from other states.
In the Dominion of Canada the temperance legislative reformers sought, I believe, in the first instance, principally the instrumentality of the Dominion or Federal Parliament, under the powers given by the British North America Act to the Federal Parliament to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada; and from Confederation up to the year 1900 this Parliament, was continually assailed by the temperance reformer with a request for prohibitory legislation. Under this power and in compliance with requests made by the temperance people, the Canada Temperance Act and other legislation was passed. As outlined by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), a constitutional war raged on this question from 1867 until 1890, and the Privy Council on various occasions pronounced upon the question. But the matter was really not effectively settled until the year 1900. In the year 1900 the Provincial Legislature of Manitoba, upder the premiership of the Hon.Hugh John Macdonald, passed 'a very drastic and very complete prohibitory law, a law which at the tifne oi its enactment was thought by constitutional authorities in Canada to be beyond the powers of the Manitoba Legislature. The matter was taken to the Privy Council and the Privy Council decided that the law was not ultra vires, and by so doing decided that the power of the various Provincial Legislatures to deal with this question was veTy extensive and very complete. From that time the advocate of

legislative prohibition in Canada largely deserted this House and devoted his energies principally to the Provincial Legislatures. I know the statement has been made that it was not the decision upon the Macdonald Act that influenced the temperance advocates in changing their policy. I know it. has been said that the Dominion Temperance Alliance, for instance, officered by Liberals, were influenced somewhat by the change of Government in the Dominion in 1896, and by the change of Government in the province of Ontario in 1900, that those people were not so zealous in coming to the Dominion with embarrassing requests after the change of Government in 1896, and showed a greater zeal in going to the Provincial Legislature in Ontario after the change of Government there in 1900. But I do not think that that is a fair statement. I think the temperance advocates in Canada saw from the decision of the Privy Council that the. Provincial Legislatures were the places to which they should go, and I believe that they were right in that. I quite agree with the argument made the other night by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) that inasmuch as the Provincial Legislature provides the machinery for enforcing such a law, that inasmuch as the administration of such a law must inevitably be with the Provincial Legislature, it is only just that the law should be passed by the Provincial Legislature.
There are other reasons in favour of such a course. Temperance legislation of this kind must inevitably interfere with rights that may be regarded as time-established, and there is no doubt that the citizens will accept from a Provincial Legislature more severe legislation in this regard than from any central legislative body. There are other reasons. In a country like Canada, with its vast territory, different conditions exist in different parts, and it is very much easier for a Provincial Legislature to pass an Act, which meets the particular conditions in a province, than it is for one Act passed by the Dominion Parliament which would apply to all parts of the Dominion. And it is very much easier to get amendments to an Act passed by a Provincial Legislature, and applying only to the province, than to get amendments to an Act passed by the Dominion Parliament. Therefore, I say that the temperance advocates in Canada have been right in the last sixteen years in devoting their attention largely, in the matter of reform,
to the various Provincial Legislatures. I think there is no doubt whatever that the proposals made by my hon. friend is the true solution of the problem, but the Macdonald Act, though very effective, contains this one provision:
It shall not affect, and is not intended to affect bona' fide transactions in liquor between a person in the province of Manitoba and a person in another province or a foreign country, and the provisions of this Act shall be construed accordingly.
That provision was necessary in the Macdonald Act to make it intra vires of the Manitoba Legislature, but that provision opens a very wide door, and it is that door which we propose to close by the proposals now before the House. I think there is very little doubt about the constitutionality of such a measure. My hon. friend from Prince county cited the opinion of the Attorney General of Manitoba, a very curious opinion I submit, and an opinion that seemed to he endorsed by the hon. member for North Cape Breton, that because the British North America Act contains a provision that the products of one province shall be deemed free to enter another province, therefore no such restrictions as proposed shall be placed on the statute-books.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When I want to ex press an opinion upon legislation I will express it not through the conduit of the hon. member.	[DOT]


Avard Longley Davidson: I understood my hon. friend to come as near to expressing an inintelligent opinion on this as ever he does. As I have said, it strikes me that if that curious objection had any effect it would apply with equal force to a general prohibitory law. If we cannot, say that it is an offenloe to .send liquor into a province contrary to the laws of that province, we certainly cannot say it is an offence to send liquor into a province at all. So that, .notwithstanding the fact that it is credited to so high an authority as the Attorney General of Manitoba, and notwithstanding that it appeared to me to have the greater authority of the hon. member for North Cape Breton, I am inclined to attach very little importance to it.
It iseems to me that this is a proposition which ought to appeal to every member of this House, and I trust, for the sake of unity, that it will pass unanimously. It strikes me that seeing that this proposition meets everything that his resolution required, and



is in every way more practicable, the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), who seconded the resolution, and who made a very effective speech in its support must agree that this is the proper solution of the problem. I believe that even the hon. gentlemen from Quebec who opposed the resolution will be inclined to favour this proposition. There was some difference of opinion expressed by the hon. member for Bonaventure and other members from that province as to the sentiment in Quebec. The hon. member for Bonaventure expressed the opinion that Quebec was in favour of prohibitory legislation, while other gentlemen said it was not. This proposition should meet either of those conditions. If the Province of Quebec is in favour of prohibitory legislation, my hon. friend frorrv Bonaventure with his very great eloquence, and with the influence he has at his command, can no doubt induce his friends, who are in power in Quebec, to place upon the statute books a prohibitory law. If the sentiment of Quebec is not as represented by the hon. member for Bonaventure, but is reflected by the other speakers from that province, we could hardly be justified in applying a measure to the province of Quebec against its wishes.
It strikes me that the prohibitionists in Canada are particularly anxious that whatever measure is placed on the .statute book shall be free from all possible criticism. It strikes me that they do not want to mix up this question with cross questions. I can conceive that if a Federal Act were passed applying to the whole of Canada, there might be substantial objections. I can conceive of the opponents of the measure arguing that so drastic a piece of legislation as this should not be passed by a Parliament whose term has nearly expired. I can understand them holding that a Parliament passing such drastic legislation should have a fresh mandate from the people of Canada. And certainly even an old Parliament is justified in saying that the province that enacts prohibition should be exempt from interference from the outside. I can conceive that the opponents of prohibition might say, with a good deal of effect, that to enact a federal law at the present juncture would be an interference with provincial rights. I can conceive our friends in Quebec saying that this Parliament waited until every other province bad committed itself to the reform of prohibition, and that fMr. Davidson.]
when they found that Quebec was not disposed to follow the example of the other provinces forced this measure upon that province. But the people of Quebec, by whom, I believe, provincial rights are very justly regarded as dear, can certainly have no objection to an Act which gives effect to provincial legislation, and which renders provincial Acts effective. If this Act were to be passed at the present time, and on the ground contained in the resolution that it is a war measure, I can conceive that it might be said to those who were in the habit of using intoxicants, it might be used by the Bourassas and Lavergnes, as an added reagon why this country should not have entered into this war. We do not want anything like that. We want to be united at this juncture. If this proposal is crystallised into leglislation we will have gone a very long way in a great reform. I believe we will have taken a step which will appeal not only to the people of Canada but to the generations which will inhabit this country in years to come. I think they will look back upon this amendment and say that the legislators of Canada, at a time when a foreign foie was knocking at the gate, were wise in regarding this as after all the greatest enemy of our country. I think they will commend us, that they will say that it is a practical and sound piece of legislation which protects this country forever against so potent arid dangerous an enemy.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to make any extended remarks on this question. As I represent a constituency in Saskatchewan I desire to say a few words with regard to some observations made by the hon. member for Calgary who did not appear to approve very much of some of the temperance legislation adopted by the Government of that province. Let me say, before dealing with this question, in regard to the province of Saskatchewan, that I appreciate very much the remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary in moving his amendment in which he gave the history of the development of temperance legislation and the changed views of the people of Canada on the question of temperance. I can remember very well the passing of the Scott Act in the county of Huron from which I came. I have forgotten the year -I think it was in 1883-but it was passed by a considerable majority and some two or three years afterwards the same Act was

repealed by a very much larger majority. We all know that in various parts of the country temperance sentiment during the past fifteen or twenty years, and perhaps more particularly in the last three or four years, has increased very materially. It has been stated that in the province of Prince Edward Island they have had prohibition for a very considerable period of time. Very recently prohibition has been adopted in Nova Scotia. New Brunswick is about to adopt some prohibitory measure and Ontario is on the verge of adopting prohibition. In Alberta prohibition will come into force during the coming summer. Manitoba, very recently passed a prohibitory measure by a large majority. With regard to Saskatchewan, I do not know whether my hon. friend from Calgary intended to make any criticism of the Government of Saskatchewan but if he did I can only say to him that he seems to be very much interested in what has been done by that Government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I merely made the observation that the liquor was sold by the Government in Saskatchewan in substantial quantities the figures showing sales up to $1,000,000. I did not make any criticism but I merely made that reference to Saskatchewan as a matter of interest.


William Melville Martin: I understood my hon.
friend to offer some criticism of the system of selling liquor in Saskatchewan. I so understood his remarks but I would be very sorry indeed to think that my hon. friend should direct any criticism at the selling of liquor by the Government of Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not discuss that.


William Melville Martin: If that was not his intention I do not intend to discuss his remarks in that regard any further. When that legislation was passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan it was done practically at the request of the people who represented the banish-the-bar organization in the province, or the Committee of One Hundred. The Committee of One Hundred approved of that legislation. The idea was simply to banish the bar. Every person who knows anything about the liquor question knows that a great deal of the difficulty that occurs is the result of the sale of liquor over the bar. Young men meet together, and through the sale of liquor over the bar, become addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors. We all know that the bar has made many a confirntied "drunkard. The Government of
140*
Saskatchewan took hold of the banish-the-bar movement and it was the first Government that ever had the nerve to get up and say: We will banish the bar. They did banish the bar. What1 has been the effect? My hon. friend says that he did not intend to criticise the system of selling liquor in Saskatchewan. I must confess that I do not 'know what imy hon. friend meant if he did not wish to convey that impression. What has been the effect? My hon. friend says that within six months the Government of Saskatchewan, with twenty-three liquor stores-four or five of which were abolished by the people at municipal elections last December-sold $1,000,000 worth of liquor. I believe the figures are approximately correct. What would have been the situation supposing the bar had not been banished? Prom $150,000,000 to $200,000,000 has been the annual per capita consump-. tion of liquor throughout the Dominion of Canada. Saskatchewan has a population of a little more than half a million; we will take it at half a million. Take the average per capita 'consumption of liquor and take the population of Saskatchewan and you will find that the consumption of liquor in Saskatchewan would have been $20 per head or, for 500,000 people, $10,000,000 per annum. If they sell $1,000,000 worth in six months and another $1,000,000 worth in six months, you will have $2,000,000 worth of liquor which is only 20 per cent of the consumption that took place in Saskatchewan, taking into consideration the per capita consumption in the Dominion of Canada, during the year before the banish-the-bar legislation was put into effect. So that the province of Saskatchewan, in this present year, or from the first of July, will be some $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 better off than it would have been if the bar had still existed.
As far as this legislation in Saskatchewan is concerned, it was certainly a step in the right direction because it got at the very root of the evil and that is the bar. As far as the question of prohibition is concerned, II believe in it absolutely. I believed for many years in the proper enforcement of a proper license law and in some provinces the proper enforcement of a proper license Haw has worked out very well. But, insofar as any corrupting influences exist in connection with public life, the liquor men .are the men who are to blame for the large portion of those corrupting influences. Neither political party can point the finger of scorn at the other for neither political party is to blame tar a'H

the corrupt things that have occurred in connection with the legislatures of 'this country and for which the liquor men have been responsible. We have an instance today in connection with some of the legislators in the province of Saskatchewan. We have heard charges that attempts have been made by the organized liquor traffic to oor-rupt a portion of the legislature of that province. With what success these attempts have met we do not know, but a commission has been appointed to investigate and find out. I believe that the organized liquor traffic in Canada is the most corrupt influence that has existed in politics for many years. We all know what they do in election time, we all know how they corrupt the electorate. For that reason, if for no other reason, I am prepared to support any prohibitory legislation that will1 have the effect of putting the whole liquor traffic, the manufacturing business as well as the retail sale, out of business from one end of Canada to the other. The hon. member for Calgary says that we should not attempt to force such a measure upon the people of British Columbia, as they have not yet acted on the question. The people of British Columbia will before long act on prohibition, and if one can credit newspaper reports and what one hears, it will not be long before they get it. They will vote for prohibition exactly as Manitoba and Alberta have done. In speaking of Saskatchewan just now, I might have said that the liquor law passed by that province provides fOT a vote upon the total abolition of the liquor traffic, not only in bars, but in Government retail stores, in July of the present year, I think, so that some time in July we should have total prohibition in Saskatchewan.
The hon. member for Calgary says that we should not attempt to force on Nova Scotia what Alberta wants, or on British Columbia what Ontario wants. The same might be said with respect to any measure that comes before this House, except that this is a measure which affects the habits of the people. Well, practically every piece of legislation does. The Criminal Code does not distinguish between Alberta and British Columbia. The argument that the hon. member for Calgary makes might be used against practically every thing that the Government deals with. That argument is only a subterfuge. He also says that you must he sure that you have organized public opinion behind you. Well, if I was ever convinced that there was a well organized

public opinion in Canada, I am convinced that there is to-day with respect to the liquor traffic. I say this further. In Saskatchewan there has been no difficulty in enforcing the legislation with regard to the bars. There have been some convictions, it is true, in the case of men selling liquor in hotels where it was prohibited by law, but nothing like to the extent that was expected. And there was no vote on the question; no person knew what percentage of the people were in favour of the legislation. But it has turned out well.
The only arguments the hon. member for Calgary has advanced are the two I have mentioned: first, that you should not force the views of one part of Canada upon another part, and, second, that you must he satisfied that there is a -tfell organized public opinion before you attempt to enforce a Dominion prohibition measure. Personally, I do not believe that we shall get total prohibition until the Dominion Government takes hold of the question and enacts some sort of prohibitory measure. It is quite true that the Act that has been introduced -and I understand that it is upon that Act that the hon. member for Calgary's amendment is based-is a step in the right direction. But I repeat, that in order to get total prohibition in Canada, the Dominion Government must act, and if the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Calgary represents the view of the Government, it seems to me that it is simply a subterfuge, and that the Government are shelving on to the shoulders of the province the responsibility of enacting prohibitory legislation, a responsibility which should be assumed by this Parliament and by the Government of the day.
M5r. P. A. IS'EiGUEN (PAiSsomption): (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I listened with deep attention to the different addresses that-have been delivered to this hour on the important question of prohibition, so much discussed to-day throughout the country. I fully realize the necessity for this Parliament to examine closely and solve fairly the complicated question of protecting people in the best possible manner against the pernicious tendency towards alcoholic beverages, and to protect our young men from the danger that lurks even in a moderate use of liquor. I have always been satisfied and I am still more so from the arguments I have just listened to, that it is essential to educate the people and point out to them, so as

to instil into them a loathing for liquor, its baneful effects on mankind. I applauded heartily the temperance movement started a few years ago by the worthy archbishop of Montreal, the Right Reverend Paul Bruchesi, and I took pleasiire in favouring the movement, to the extent of participating in public meetings as I did by the side of Dr. (Dube in the church of ,St.-Henri de Mascouche, one of the important parishes in the county which I have the honour to represent. That educational campaign throughout the diocese of Montreal and a large section of Quebec gave the best results, and had it been continued on the same lines, I have no doubt that it would have spared the apostles of local option all the trouble they have given themselves lately.
Mr. Speaker, I may as well say right here that I agree with those who claim that lhcal option is impracticable. I protest against the attempts at coercion which have been used in certain localities to force upon the people this measure which is pompously labelled prohibition and which prohibits nothing except the licensed and consequently legal, licit and controlled traffic in alcoholic beverages and, substitutes the secret traffic with its long train of immoralities. ,1 have no hesitation in stating to the House that I strongly opposed the local option by-law which was lately submitted to the electors of the town of 1'Assomp-vtion, where I reside, and I am Toady to give out reasons for the stand I took on that by-law. Indeed I am not an advocate of alcohol, but I believe that to cure an ill, the microbe must be killed throughout the whole body and not be segregated in certain parts, whence it will soon return to the particular districts it is sought to protect with an increased malignancy because it will return stealthily, by ways that escape all control.
Furthermore I am satisfied that local optio n cannot cure the evil and that on the contrary, its effect is to incite people to break the law. The drunkards and those who want to drink will drink just the same either in a blind pig or other hovels where not only the habitual drinker will repair, but where our dear young men will take to drink and to a thousand other vices and more shameful degradatious. Such has been the experience in localities under local option. And if on the one hand that system seems to me ineffective and fraught with grave dangers, on the other hand the
manner in which it is foisted upon the people is repugnant to me. I do not question the sincerity of the promoters, of the prohibition propaganda in the province of Quebec, but I wonder if they are sure that those whom they bring to the polls are acting according to their convictions.
The other day the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) .quoted the large number of counties, towns and parishes of the province of Quebec who have voted in favour of local option and drew certain conclusions. My optimism is not as strong as that of my hon. friend and let me tell him that I have my doubts whether a large number of parishes and municipalities he has mentioned, in adopting local option, have truly expressed the real will of their population, but have not rather been prompted, in many cases, by reasons altogether foreign to the feeling that local option is the true cure for the evil it is sought to cure. I am sure that a large, a very large, part of those who have voted for local option, had they been given the chance to study the question seriously and to inquire into the results obtained in places where it was already in force, would have agreed with many others as with me that so long as alcoholic beverages will be manufactured and imported into the country it will be consumed and with .more baneful results in local option places. In this, Mr. Speaker, my position does not in the least differ from that of His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Ireland, reverend Homand and Bishop Roy, the distinguished coajutor of His Eminence Cardinal Begin of Quebec. The last named in his letter of the 20th of- February last, which was read to the House by the hon. member for Bonaventure, says in part:
To establish prohibition in the country and small towns and allow the open traffic in large centres is a great mistake and nonsensical:
Therefore Mr. Speaker, although I do not claim that the prohibition of the manufacture and importation of .spirituous liquors under certain restrictions is not without some hardship, and although I am aware that such a system being of human invention cannot be perfect, yet I dare hope that it would be a more effective remedy for the evil we deplore, and that, at any Tate, the experiment is worth trying in order to find out if the good effects from the scheme would compensate the attendant inconveniences.	'

I shall vote in favour of the motion of the members for Vancouver and Bona-venture (Messrs. Stevens and Marcil.)


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to make my position clear on this question. I am sure that the discussion we have had to-day and on the former occasion must have impressed the House with the fact that, generally speaking, hon. members realize that there is a great demand throughout the Dominion of Canada for some definite action along the line of dealing from a federal standpoint with the liquor traffic or the great temperance question. As regards the amendment proposed so eloquently by the hon. member for Calgary, had it been in the form of a separate motion, and not as an amendment to the motion proposed by myself, I cquld have approved it and given it very hearty support. But after having given the matter very careful thought, I can only conceive the amendment as a practical negative of my motion. Technically, this may not be so, but I must confess that the two suggestions are entirely distinct and apart. My proposals briefly were that the conditions arising on account of the war made it advisable, in the interest of the efficiency of the nation and of economy, that a definite step should be taken towards prohibiting indulgence in intoxicating liquor, and its ' manufacture and sale during the period of the war. The amendment, as I understand it, which reflects the terms of the Bill already introduced, is simply an ordinary Act giving some additional effect to the provincial legislation. I take this opportunity of congratulating the Government on the step so far as it goes. I think the measure is good from the standpoint of assisting the effectivity of provincial legislation, and so far as it does that, I certainly approve it.
I might be permitted to rrefer to one or two arguments advanced as to why we should accept provincial unit rather than the Dominion-wide unit. It has been argued that the provinces have the powers of property and civil rights and that the British North America Act places under this Parliament matters of national importance. I submit that if ever there was a matter of supreme national importance, it . is this problem above all other problems with which this Dominion is faced. Therefore, I think that under the provisions of the British North America Act it can be and should be dealt with by this Parliament.

I have in my hand the War Measures Act, 1914, which contains powers which would enable the Government to deal with this problem, and while I do not ask that the proposals of the hon. member for Calgary or the Bill which is consistent with them should be disregarded or dropped-I think it would be a mistake to do that- nevertheless, I draw the attention of the Government to the powers given them under this Act, and1 if it felt that the time is not opportune to introduce special legislation of a Dominion-wide character to deal with this problem, then it 12 m. may be that, under the provisions of the War Measures Act, action could still be taken which would not interfere with the motion before the House. Section 6 of the War Measures Act states:
The Governor in Council shall have power to do and authorize such acts and .things, and to make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
I say, in the interest of the defence of Canada, in the interest of the prosecution of this war successfully, such action should be taken. But it states further:
And for greater certainty-
It provides these two special cases: transportation, trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture of any or all goods. It distinctly has in view dealing with the suppression of the manufacture of anything detrimental to the welfare of the country or interfering in any way with the prosecution of the war. My contention has been that this is a war measure and that the time is opportune and the necessity grave for (the prohibition of the manufacture, importation and sale of alcoholic liquors in Canada. I have already suggested to this House and to the Government that the great distilleries of the country now used for the manufacture of alcohol should be taken over by , the Gevernment for munition and war purposes and operated by them as Lloyd George is operating and controlling the distilleries in the Old Country, thus overcoming that great difficulty , with which otherwise the Government might be faced.
I believe that this House is of the opinion that there is a widespread demand, an overwhelming sentiment throughout Cap-'ada in favour of this movement. I be-

Sieve that hon. members are convinced of it apart from their own individual feeling, and that they only hesitate o-n the question of method. While I appreciaate the efforts and the arguments of my hon. friend from Calgary and while I also appreciate very much [DOT] the distinct step forward in temperance legislation that his amendment contemplates and the Bill already introduced provides for, nevertheless I feel that, if I am to he consistent with my action of the 6th of March in proposing the first resolution, if I am to be consistent with my record for fifteen years, I shall be forced to vote against the amendment and to stand by the original resolution. I may say that I appreciate to the full the step in advance made by the Bill before the House.


Charles Marcil: When I accepted the honour of seconding this motion, I pointed out that I had voted against prohibition in 1898; that I had never before been a prohibitionist, but that we were now face to face with peculiar conditions. For that reason, I said that I was favourable to the request made by this important deputation which launched its patriotic appeal. I am amazed to hear a gentleman of the keenness of the hon. member for Calgary doubt the public opinion existing throughout the country on this question at the present time. The country was delighted some few days ago to see the province of Ontario, the largest province in the Dominion, put aside all its party divisions in dealing with this great question of prohibition. Is there a member from Ontario in this House who has any doubt as to the feeling of the people of Ontario on this question? Is there a member from the great western provinces, from Manitoba to the coast, who has any doubt about the feeling of the western provinces on this question? Is there a member from Nova Scotia, from New Brunswick, or from Prince Edward Island who has any doubt upon this question? I undertake to speak for Quebec. I say that if Quebec had a referendum to-morrow on this subject, it would be carried. I had the honour of submitting to this House expressions of opinion from some of the most distinguished men in Quebec. If we had a vote to-morrow we would be up against a big fight in the city of Montreal from the liquor interests, but public opinion in Montreal would vanquish it for the sake of the one great cause that we have at heart: to win this war. Why was this question brought before the House? I wish to read the last paragraph of the patriotic appeal which was signed by such men as J. R. Booth, W. C. Edwards, Judge Lafontaine, President de la ILigne Anti-alcoholique de Montreal, and others.	'
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 he to die for the Empire.- Shall those left at home not do everything 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.
There is the whole question in a nutshell. We have this year a Budget of $425,000,000, on the authority of the Minister of Finance. That Budget will reach $500,000*000 next year. We may have a public debt in this country of $1,000,000,000. Why should we waste $125,000,000 on whisky? What has impelled the people of Ontario to unite on this question? Why a majority in its favour of 25,000 in Manitoba? Why a clean sweep in Saskatchewan and Alberta? Why the adoption of such legislation in Nova Scotia by a vote of 28 to 3? Why has the Government of New Brunswick introduced a Government measure? Why have the people of Prince Edward Island asked that effect be given to their provincial legislation? Because we are facing a terrible ordeal; because we are passing through the gravest crisis in the history of our country. We have to face an unusual condition of affairs; no man can foretell exactly where it will lead us. We have preached national economy. Thirty years ago the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, one of the keenest intellects of this country, delivered a classic speech in favour of prohibition, at a time when the question was not of the national importance that it is to-day, and secured from the Parliament of that day a promise that when public opinion ratified the passing of such a law, such legislation would he enacted. Is there an hon. member in this House who doubts for one moment what the public opinion of Canada is to-day?	We have	heard	the hon.Minister of	Trade and	Commerce
appeal for	national	economy	and
for personal economy. I have read in this House appeals from Bonar Law, from Asquith, from Kitchener, all having the same import. " We are fighting Germany " says Lloyd George; " we are fighting Austria, but our greatest fight is against liquor." That is our position in Canada today. We have had' hardships imposed upon us; we should have greater hardships to bear before we win this war. No man wants to see the cause of the Allies go down in this conflict. We are pleading for national unity, for the bringing together of two great races in thi3 country, for a better understanding between s.'iem. The provinces have done their utmost. Ontario has acted; Quebec has acted through her municipalities. If she has not acted through her legislature it is probably because, as the hon. member for Rouville has explained, they have preferred ,in Quebec to leave the matter to be dealt with individually by each municipality. But the municipalities having spoken; 916 of them having adopted prohibition within their limits. Forty-four out of 74 local constituencies have adopted prohibition.


Mr. EDWARDS:: The hon. gentleman
has said that the legislature of Quebec thought it wise to leave legislation along this line tr the municipalities. Does the hon. gentleman think that the Legislature of Quebec has done wisely in that regard?


Charles Marcil: I do not agree with the Legislature of Quebec, but when this position was fallen three or four years ago, we were not under war conditions, as we are at the present time. IThose who made the patriotic appeal for Federal prohibition made it because Canada was in a peculiar condition. Does the hon. member for Fron-tenac approve of wasting $125,000,000 this year on whisky?


John Wesley Edwards: No, certainly not.


Charles Marcil: Is he desirous that we
shall have all the economizing and all the efficiency possible for the great task that is before us? How are we going to equip our 500,000 young men if we have barrooms awaiting them at every street corner? Ask the Minister of Militia; ask the officers in charge of the military organization in this country what the banishing of liquor means for the efficiency of the soldier. If you want to help Germany, maintain the liquor traffic; if you want to help the Allies, the best thing you can do is wipe it away.

Since March 6 last I have received over 150 petitions and resolutions from all parts of the province of Quebec, and they merely ask what is reasonable: give us a prohibitory measure during the war and for three years after the war.
The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has defended this amendment of his, which I admit, with the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), is a step forward in temperance legislation; but it does not meet the issue at all. We must have extraordinary legislation to deal with exr traordinary conditions. No man could have dreamed in 1911, when this Government came into office, that it would ever be called on to bring into this House legislation involving expenditures of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars such as have been supported cheerfully by the Opposition in this House. How are we going to face these, tremendous expenditures if we do not take the ordinary means of doing so, by national economy; and I think the best way we can do it is by introducing prohibition at once, especially at a time when prohibition is necessary. The hon. member for Calgary says that the provinces have gone to their extreme limit, that this Bill will follow and supplement the provincial legislation; that any infraction of provincial law will be followed up by this Federal statute, that the province will have power to take out a prosecution in another province, if liquor comes from that province. Let us take an object lesson. Suppose that the province of Ontario goes to the extreme limit of its power and enacts prohibition. Then what will happen? On the other side of the Ottawa river liquor depots will he established and liquor dealers will come from there and deliver in any house in Ottawa whatever liquor is desired. Would that be respecting the opinion of the city of Ottawa or of the province of Ontario?


John Wesley Edwards: You mean they will disregard the law?


Charles Marcil: They will disregard the law. Ontario has not the power to punish the importation of liquor into that province. It has power to prevent the sale of liquor, and that is what has been done. But we are asking to stop the manufacture, importation and sale of liquor.


John Wesley Edwards: The Bill before the House prevents the bringing of liquor from Quebec into Ontario.


Charles Marcil: I will not pose as .an authority, but I shall read an article from the Pioneer of Toronto, the organ of the Dominion Alliance.


John Wesley Edwards: That is not an authority any more than any one else.'


Charles Marcil: It is the authority of the temperance people. These people have a right to speak for the prohibitionists, and they are in a majority in Ontario.


John Wesley Edwards: They have a right to speak for themselves. Does my hon. friend think that those who are respbnsible for what is in the Pioneer are any better lawyers or better able to judge the constitutionality of a law than members of this House?


Charles Marcil: This article deals with the question of Dominion prohibition as compared with provincial prohibition. Referring to the prohibition adopted toy various provinces, and speaking of the great result in Manitoba, it says:
This prohibition will not be as effective as Dominion prohibition would be. A province cannot interfere with the shipping- of liquor to its own private citizens, from the liquor dealers of another province. No province has prohibited the private keeping or consumption of liquor. The Dominion Parliament cannot pass legislation to facilitate any provincial prohibition other than what provinces have enacted. Therefore, the Dominion Parliament will not prohibit the shipping of liquor from a license province to private citizens in a prohibition province until the prohibition province prohibits the private citizen from having the liquor.
A Dominion prohibition law, however, would result in the suppression of such sale. The most effective restriction of intemperance must be by the Dominion law relating to the traffic in intoxicating liquor.
The one clear, straightforward course before the Dominion Parliament at the present time is the adoption of the resolution, moved by Mr. Stevens, and seconded by Hon. Mr. Marcil, declaring that the immediate duty is the enactment of a law to prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.
Practically every province has approved this proposal. Even Quebec, although not doing so by a vote, has by the adoption of local option by-laws and by public expression of many prominent citizens, affirmed its readiness to support such a law. Quebec is not now an obstacle. The attitude of her representatives in the House of Commons sufficiently proves this.
When the Parliament votes for prohibition, it will be the duty of the Government to introduce a prohibitory Bill.
I shall not address the House at any further length; I wish merely to adhere to the position I first took. I was not formerly a prohibitionist and I have voted against prohibition; but I have been converted by 20 years' experience. I know what liquor means in this country. I have visited localities from which liquor has been banished, and where the people are to-day blessing the day it was banished. Liquor has been the curse of this country, as of every other. But we are passing through a tremendous ordeal, through a tremendous crisis. We have to face an enormous burden, the heaviest, possibly, ever placed on a nation of our size and population. We are willing to support that burden cheerfully but we want to be equipped as we should be, we desire that our soldiers should'feel that we of the great civilian army are doing something to bring about the great victory that our Empire has at heart, and I should be sorry, Mr. Speaker, if the vote that is about to be taken would be in any way dictated by party feelings or party motives, or would be on party lines in the slightest degree. How delighted Canada would be to-morrow to learn that the House of Commons had reiterated what it did in 1884 and in 1892, and declared in favour of national prohibition ! I am, Mr. Speaker, obliged to vote against the amendment.


John Wesley Edwards: 1
have only a word or two to say on this question. In the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) in regard to the advisability of curtailing, as far as it is within the power of this Parliament to do so, the sale of intoxicating liquors, I entirely concur. I believe that the best and most progressive measure ever passed in the province of Onatrio was local option with the three-fifths clause. Under that law, whenever local option was adopted in the various municipalities the Act had a public sentiment behind it which made it effective. The hon. gentleman has said that in hundreds of municipalities in Quebec they have passed similar legislation prohibiting the sale of liquor within those municipalities.
That indicates a strong feeling in that province in favour of prohibition. Other provinces also have given expression to their opinions on this matter. I think the resolution of the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) would be ineffective, in that it would force prohibition on a province whether the people of that province wished it or not. I am strongly of the opinion that with any kind of sumptuary legislation you require an extra strong public sentiment behind it to make it effective. The amendment pro-

poses to go as far in assisting the provinces as the legislation of the provinces will warrant. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) says that there can now be no doubt in the minds of any person as to the sentiment of the people of the Dominion of Canada, from ocean to ocean, in regard to prohibition. I am inclined to agree with him in that, although there have been occasions in the past when persons who have been very positive as to the sentiment of the people of Canada have found themselves very much mistaken. For instance, in 1911 I venture to say the hon. member for Bonaventure and all hon. gentlemen on that side of the House had not a doubt in their minds that they were going to carry the country. But they woke up the next morning and found themselves in the cool shades of opposition. They had not sized up matters correctly. But if we take for granted the hon. member's statement, that the overwhelming sentiment in every province is in favour of prohibition, what does it mean? It means that if each of the nine provinces go to the full limit of its powers in passing legislation, this Parliament, by this Act, is going to make that legislation absolutely effective-and so you will have prohibition from one end of Canada to the other. That is exactly what it means. If Ontario wantsprohibition entirely, Ontario can have it. If Quebec wants prohibition entirely it can have it, and if every one of the nine provinces, should act to the limit of its powers, and pass prohibitory legislation, this Act makes that legislation effective, and you will then have prohibition from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I contend that it is the duty of this Government, and of any other Government to pass such legislation as will make it is easy as possible for a citizen to lead a good life. I go further and say that it is the duty of this, or any other Government, to pass such legislation as will make it as difficult as possible for a man to be a bad citizen. I believe that this is a step in the right direction. It is putting it up to the provinces, saying, just as far as you want to go in the direction of prohibition, so far we will back you up in making that legislation effective.


Charles Marcil: When war broke out, if this Government had taken the position that the provinces should be consulted, and that we should wait to have the full expression of public opinion, what action would [DOT] Canada have taken?


John Wesley Edwards: We do not wait in this.


Charles Marcil: This is a war proposal, and you carefully avoid discussing it from that standpoint.


John Wesley Edwards: Why put forward your resolution as a war proposal?	*


Charles Marcil: Because we are facing an extraordinary' condition of affairs.


John Wesley Edwards: Does the hon. gentleman to say that that it is good to have prohibition in time of war, and that it is not advisable to have it in time of peace? Why put in that proviso at all? That is hedging. If there is ahy hedging being done it is by the mover and seconder of this resolution. The sentiment of the people of Canada is not in favour of prohibition merely because there is a war, but because they believe that the liquor traffic is .against the best interests of this country. I repeat that every province has the power to go just as far as it wants to go in the direction of prohibition, and this legislation makes that prohibitory legislation effective.
What would be the result if we did not do that? Suppose that a province wanted to go only a certain distance in regard to prohibitory legislation, and this Parliament went beyond that, at once you would have a conflict of opinion between the province and the Dominion. There is no conflict here. We leave the matter where it has to be left when it comes to enforcing the law. When it comes to making the law effective, we have to depend upon the sentiment of the people of the provinces. In my judgmnt this is one of the wisest pieces of legislation that has ever been brought down in this House, in that it leaves the provinces to develop a sentiment within their own territories in favour of prohibition, and says to the provinces:	We will
go as far as you want to go in making your legislation absolutely effective. What more can any reasonable person ask for?


John Gillanders Turriff: At this late hour it is not my intention to occupy more than a few minutes. I just want to express my sympathy with and support of the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). I am sure that every man in this House is perfectly well satisfied that the sentiment of every province in Canada is in favour of a prohibitory Act. All of us who have had anything to do with this question in the past, know that one of the great arguments against prohibition, whether by the Scott Act, by local option, or by provincial legislation, or in any other way, was that we did not have a real pro-

hibition Act, an Act that would cover the whole country, and that would permit the sale of liquor on one side of the road allowance and not on the other. If this resolution were passed by the Government and followed by an Act, it would meet the wishes of the great majority of the people of the Dominion. Most of the hon. members who have discussed the resolution have discussed it as a temperance resolution, while it is a war resolution first and foremost, which proposes to make prohibition last for the duration of the war, and for some two or three years afterwards during the time of reconstruction. The Minister of Finance has told us, and we all know, that we must economize. Here is a way in which the people of Canada can economize to the'extent of $125,000,000 or $150,000,000. How much easier it would be for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to get the revenue he required, if there was an extra $150,000,000 in the pockets of the people of Canada. There is no question that, as a war measure, prohibition .would be a great success. Why should the liquor men of Canada not make their Sacrifices as well as other people? There never was a time when this reform could be accomplished so easily as to-day. There is no unemployment to-day, and the men engaged in the manufacture of liquor could easily get other work to do. The distilleries and the breweries could be put to another use, and there would be no particular loss. This could be done more easily just now than at any other time, and the Government should have the courage to face the issue and face it squarely, and not try to side step it by a resolution such as that of my hon. friend the member for Calgary has introduced, to be followed by the measure of the Minister of Justice. That is only begging the question. If they would face the question fairly and squarely, I am sure they would have th6 support and approval of the great majority of the people of Canada.
I quite agree that the amendment of my hon. friend from Calgary is a step forward, and a step in the right direction. He put up some very good arguments, with many of which I agree, but, as a war measure, his amendment does not compare with the resolution that is now before us. Look at what has been done in Russia since the war began. They have abolished the manufacture and sale of liquor altogether. Look at what has been done in France, and in England, in connection with this matter, since the war started. Why should we in Canada be behind the Russians, and the French,
and the British? It appears to me that there is absolutely no reason why we should be behind them. I know that any one who has watched the working out of the law which has been in force in Saskatchewan since the first of. July last; would be glad to see a prohibitory law throughout the whole Dominion. I spent several months in the province of Saskatchewan, in my own constituency, after the law abolishing the bars came into effect, and I want to say that while travelling through my constituency, I did not see a single drunken man or one who showed signs of having taken drink. I do not mean to say that there is not a good deal of liquor being consumed there, because the Act passed by the Government of Saskatchewan is not a prohibitory Act, but is what the temperance people asked for. But you will find that before the end of this year every one of the Government liquor stores will be voted out of existence. Three or four of them were voted out last December by majorities of two to one, and by even larger majorities. That law is approved by the merchants and business men throughout the country, and any one who has seen it working, and the results that have flowed from it, would be perfectly well satisfied that the same law, if applied throughout the whole Dominion, would work well.
The result would be of great advantage to Canada, and of great advantage in winning the war, the object we have most in view. If this question were submitted to the vote of the people, as proposed toy the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver, I venture to say that 75 per cent of the people would support a proposal to abolish for all time to come the sale of liquor as a beverage. I shall have much pleasure in supporting the resolution of my hon. friend from Vancouver.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt at all in my judgment that the legislation contained in the Bill submitted by the Minister of Justice is a very considerable step in the direction of temperance legislation. Considered 'as a permanent measure it would, I think, meet with the approval of a great many people particularly since the explanation that I heard to-night from the hon. member for Calgary. It appears that the Bill will be more effective than I thought it would be and I presume it could be made more effective still in committee if improvements were considered necessary. At the same time, it does not seem to meet

the issue that is before the country. It has been -well pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver that his resolution is a temporary measure and ought to be considered in connection with the crisis the country is passing through in consequence of the war. Therefore, I would feel like supporting the resolution for that reason. But the hon. member for Calgary gave me another reason. He used- an argument that compels me to vote against his amendment. He emphasized very strongly that the voice of the rqajority in democratic countries must be heard. He said something like this: Once the voice of the democracy demands that I shall do without whiskey, that voice must be obeyed. Anybody must be convinced that the overwhelming opinion of this country is in favour of prohibition during the continuance of the war. Therefore, the argument of that hon. member is absolute and convincing on that point. If public opinion is not to be heeded then we are allowing the minority to rule contrary to the argument made by the hon. member for Calgary. Further than that, the prohibition sought to be brought into effect under the proposed legislation will likely 'be delayed for some time for, notwithstanding the statement made by the hon. member for Calgary that it is well within the competence of Provincial Parliaments to pass legislation having the effect of prohibition and that full effect will be given to it by the Bill now before the House, yet there is a contrary opinion in the country. The Montreal Gazette, a newspaper that is careful in its statements, said a day or two ago that the legislation proposed) by the Government will give rise to very interesting litigation. If it is very interesting, it will be expensive, and interesting and expensive litigation will mean delay. For these reasons, if the matter is to come before the courts and before the Privy Council for final decision, there will be considerable delay. We know that the liquor interests are well organized, that they are wealthy and that they will be able to contest any legislation that is proposed if there is a chance of defeating it. In all human probability that is what will take place. For these reasons, and particularly for the reason advanced by the hon. member for Calgary, that the majority ought to rule, I have to vote against the amendment introduced by the hon. gentleman himself. He has supplied me with the arguments that compel me to do 
that. Furthermore, I will support on its merits the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver though I approve of the legislation proposed by the Government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph Hughes: 
Charles Marcil: should be put.	The motion as amended


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment is carried. That puts an end to the matter.


Charles Marcil: The Speaker should put
the motion as amended.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I understand it was decided in my absence to-night to take a vote upon the motion of the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: That is the reason I put the motion to the House, but I have declared the amendment resolved in the affirmative.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now the vote is on the main motion as amended.


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment having been carried, there is no vote on the main motion. If the amendment had been lost we would have to vote on the main motion.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I respectfully ask that the main motion as amended be put to the House. I submit that, when the main motion was first presented, it was discussed and an amendment was moved. A vote has been taken upon that amendment. The members who were not in favour of the amendment voted against it, but there may be many members who prefer the main motion as amended to no motion at all, and they are entitled to vote upon it.
. Mr. SPEAKER: The main motion is:
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.
The amendment reads:
That all the words in the proposed resolution after the word " that " be struck out, etc.
That is to say: with the exception of the first word of the resolution every word is stricken out, and the amendment was voted in the affirmative. Consequently, in my opinion, there is no main motion before the House.


Robert Laird Borden: We will take the motion with regard to the Shell Committee to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. Tuesday.

Tuesday, March 28, 1916.