1917-08-11

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 97, to amend the Criminal Code respecting jurors.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was so thoroughly threshed out upon the second reading of the Bill and in the committee stage that I do not feel like going into it at length. I consider that the Government have decided to have this Bill passed and to take the responsibility for it. Having regard to the circumstances which were disclosed during the discussion, and which have not been denied, I wish to put myself upon record as being absolutely opposed to such a radical change in the criminal law at this time, a change made for no reason whatever. No case has been made to warrant the action of the Government in the matter, and the circumstances which have led to the introduction of this Bill indicate to the House that it is legislation that should not be proceeded with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on bill No. 181, to amend the Government Railway Act-Hon. Mr. Cochrane.-Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 6-Repeal of inconsistent provisions in Government Railways Act:
Mr. CARVELL:: Since last evening I
have had an opportunity of carefully going over the proposed amendments of the Minister of Railways with an officer of his department, and so far as I am concerned- and I am speaking only for myself-the minister has met all the objections which I thought were properly raised, excepting probably the question as to whether the government railways would be liable to the imposition of a fine in case they refuse to obey the orders of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I realize that there are
difficulties in the way of imposing a fine upon His Majesty, and .also that pTobaJbly in ninety-nine oases out of a hundred, if the Board of Railway Commissioners passed an order that the government railways should do or refrain from doing a certain thing, they would carry out the order of the board. That matter is left open, . -and I have no opinion to offer upon it now other than what 1 have already offered. With that one exception, as I understand the *matter, the amendments moved by the Minister of Railways cover everything that was in dispute yesterday and bring the government railways practically under the control of the Dominion Railway Act.


Mr. MARGIL:: What about expropriation of land?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was understood, in
all the discussion yesterday, that expropriation of land by the Government still remained under the Expropriation Act, and did not come under the purview of this Bill. I raised the discussion in regard to the right of a subject to sue the government railways in the ordinary courts of the land. When we come to examine the Railway Act, we find that no right is given by that Act to sue a railway company, and therefore if there is to be any change in the law as it stands to-day, it must be obtained by amending the Small Claims Act and not the Railway Act. A man sues a railway company by virtue of the common law of the land, but he receives, by virtue of the Railway Act of Canada, no authority nor assistance in bringing his action.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: He does not
need it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. The only thing
the Railway Act of Canada does, so far as bringing an action is concerned, is to limit it within certain conditions, that is to limit the time within two years-up. to the present time, the limit has been one year. A man can bring an action against the government railways by suing the manager -I think that is the way it stands now by virtue of the Small Claims Act of 1910 as afterwards amended. Therefore, if we wish to bring all1 these actions into1 the ordinary courts of the land, there would have to be an amendment of the Small Claims Act. Only this morning I received another evidence of the necessity of a change of that kind. I received a letter from a prominent solicitor in New Brunswick asking me

to act as counsel for him to collect from the Government whatever the amount might be by reason of the death of two men killed on the Transcontinental railway through what he claims to be the negligence of the railway corporation. Those were poor men, and they have left families. If they had a right to bring their action in the ordinary courts of New Brunswick, there is no doubt they would go on and have speedy justice meted out. If they are driven to the Exchequer Court, they will, in all probability, never bring action. 'The 'Government might settle their claims, but we know from past experience that if they do -settle, they will not pay what the real damages are. I merely mention that as an illustration of the necessity of permitting those actions to be brought in the ordinary courts of the land. I am satisfied with the amendments proposed by the Minister of Railways; the only question that might be left open to discussion is whether there should be a change so that the railway itself would be *subject to penalties in case it refused to carry out the orders of the Railway Board.


Wilfrid Laurier: The tendency of the age is certainly towards government ownership of railways and other public utilities. That is a principle in regard to which I, for my part, have very serious doubt, but there is no doubt that public opinion is verging in that direction, and there is much to commend the principle. I am satisfied that if the government management of railways or other public utilities could he kept free from political partisanship, that evil of our system of government, government ownership might be very desirable.
At all events, it might be very desirable in an old country, -but I have my doubts whether a young country like ours can be better served by government railways than, by railways that are run by companies. I think in a young country like this, a company railway has more elasticity of management and can better serve the public, than a railway under government ownership. But undoubtedly the younger element of the country-western Canada, for instance-is in favour of government ownership. If we adopt government ownership we must also be prepared to take the consequences of it; as in everything else, we must take the bad with the good. The public should have the same recourse against the management of the government railways as against the management of company railways. The

company railways, under our Railway Act, are subject to the control of the Railway Board, which enacts the penalties and can enforce its decisions. It was not my privilege to be here yesterday evening, but I read this morning the discussion which took place, and I was struck by the objection which was made to subjecting the King to penalties. Of course, there is some anomaly in that, but it is an anomaly more in name than in anything else. If the King becomes a common carrier, he is entitled to all the advantages of that position-he can collect my fare-and he should also accept the responsibilities. We have provided already that he shall accept those responsibilities to a certain extent, but there is still the old doctrine that the King cannot be sued at law-you cannot bring the King against the King. Under our Small Claims Act, however, we have provided that the manager of the government railways can he sued for damages up to $500. There is no reason why he should not be sued, no matter what the amount of damages a subject may have suffered. What objection can there be to allowing a man to sue for $600? The public should have the same rights against the government railways as against the company railways, and there is no reason why all the penalties, and all the methods of enforcing the law, in the case of company railways, should not apply in the case of the government railways. I am quite satisfied that the minister is in earnest about this, and if his aim is, as I believe it always has been, to remove the railway from politics, I would commend that suggestion to him.


Mr. COCHRANE:: I think they already have that under clause 439 of the Railway Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a pretty strong clause.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a pretty
strong clause so far as the companies are concerned, but this Bill does- not deal with the companies; it deals with the Government.


Francis Cochrane: It is proposed to introduce such a clause in regard to the government railways.


Wilfrid Laurier: The clause goes pretty far, I admit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is a pretty good start.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: One of the difficulties the minister pointed out last night was that if any order from the board involved the expenditure of an amount of money there was no way in which the money could, he legally got. My attention has been called to the fact that under the Exchequer Court Act, if a judgment of the Exchequer Court involves the expenditure of an amount of money, it is paid out of the consolidated fund of the Dominion of Canada. Automatically, such a judgment of the Exchequer Court has that result without any action on the part of my hon. friend.


Francis Cochrane: I have gone into this matter with the law clerk, and he says that a judgment of the Railway Board would operate in the same way.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was going to suggest that as a solution. That provision in the Exchequer Court Act, if applied here, would bring about the desired result.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Repeal of inconsistent provisions in Government Railways Act R.S. 1906, c. 36:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The sections mentioned here, which refer to the present Government Railways Act, have been amended very considerably. I can assure the committee that I have compared the proposed amendments with the Railway Act itself, with the assistance of one of the officers of the department, and I am satisfied that what is left in the Government Railway Act, together with those portions of the general Railway Act, practically put the railway under the control of the board with the exception of the penalties.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Commencement of Act:


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: In accordance with the notice I gave yesterday, I beg to move that this section be amended by adding thereto the following:
but shall not apply to that part of the government system known as the Prince Edward Island Railway until the gauge of the same has been standardized.
The minister, speaking on this matter yesterday, appeared to be under the impression that the difficulties and disadvantages under which the people of Prince Edward Island laboured were chiefly due to the delays connected with the extra handling of freight at the terminal points, and the extra cost involved.
While there is some disadvantage in that regard, it is not the most serious one under which we labour. Our great disadvantage is in not being able to ship perishable products to the markets of the other provinces and of the United States, because we cannot ship in refrigerator cars. It is impossible to get refrigerator cars until the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway is standardized. We grow very large quantities of potatoes, and the time for digging those potatoes is the month of October. The people are then so busy that they can pay little attention to shipping. In the month of November there is. such danger from frost that we are prevented from shipping unless we have" cars that will protect the potatoes. Thus the season for shipping is so short that it is practically impossible to reach the market. I think until we become a real part of the Intercolonial, and until we get the privileges and the advantages enjoyed by those living on the maim land, we should not be asked to accept the responsibilities or burdens of additional freight rates. When we entered Confederation the great inducement held out to us was that we would be put in continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the Dominion. That has never been carried out. There were, of course, great difficulties in the way. At the same time, it was one of the terms of Confederation. The present Government undertook to establish what will, perhaps, be a solution of our transportation difficulties, when it is completed, but until it is completed things are in a worse condition than they were before. When the present Government came into power, we had a very good summer service. Our winter service was fairly satisfactory, inasmuch as we had two excellent ice-breaking steamers, which maintained fairly regular winter communication. The Government undertook to improve matters by establishing what is known as the car-ferry system. Once this system is put into operation, the great advantage will be that it will 'be possible for us to ship right through from the point of production to the point ot destination, and we can have cold storage cars to carry perishable products, particularly potatoes and fresh fish. I may say that in proportion to the size of the province of Prince Edward Island we have the best fishing grounds in the world. But we cannot reach the market until we get refrigerator cars. The Government of Canada being a party to this agreement, I

would not like it to. shift its responsibility to any board or any other party, until the agreement is carried out. We are very sensitive on this subject and we look forward to becoming a real part of the Intercolonial system some day. I therefore ask the Minister of Railways, and the committee, not to put the Prince Bdrward Island railway under the direction of this board until the terms of Confederation are carried out; that is, until the Government completes the system it has commenced. I do not think this is an unreasonable request, and I hope the minister will agree to it, and that the Government will retain the control and operation of the Prince Edward Island railway in its own hands until we are put in continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the Dominion. Until that is done I hope that at no time will we be obliged to look to any other body for redress.


Francis Cochrane: My hon. friend from Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. J. J. Hughes) and several other hon. gentlemen from the lower provinces seem to think that putting the railway under the Railway Board is being done purely for the purpose of raising the rates. This is not the case at all. Before this Bill was introduced the raising of the rates lay with the Government, and the people had no recourse. The Government could raise the rates as it saw fit. Under the Railway Board this cannot be done, unless it is permitted by the board. With reference to the car ferry, and the possibility of shipping produce in refrigerator cars, we certainly have made progress, and as soon as we can get the car ferry repaired we hope to put it into immediate operation. It is very hard to get a vessel repaired now, but we hope to have it running by the first of the month. Then we can take our refrigerator cars over to Prince Edward Island and load them with perishable freight 'there, which is much better than having to tranship. I do not think the argument put forward by my hon. friend is fair, or one I can accept. I would therefore ask that it be voted down.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is a good deal of reason in the position taken by my hon. friend from Kings, Prince Edward Island, and I second his amendment. We must remember that Prince Edward Island is situated differently from almost any other part of the country. In the first place, it is a purely iagricultural province.


Francis Cochrane: But, what harm are we going to do? I object to what my hon. friend from Kings says in regard to the raising of the rates. As a matter of fact, we have the right to raise the rates to any extent we wish.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And you did raise them recently. For instance, you raised the rate on coal coming to Montreal.


Francis Cochrane: When this Bill goes into effect you will have a chance to appeal against the raise.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Prince Edward Island has a population of about 90,000 persons, practically all of whom are engaged in agriculture. They have a narrow-gauge railway, which they built themselves before Confederation, entirely as a local work. They are not connected with the rest of the Dominion except by steamer. Whatever advantages there are in the application of this Act to the other parts of the Intercolonial, they do not apply to Prince Edward Island, because of its entirely different position. My hon. friend from Kings points out that some years ago this Government gave a definite and positive assurance that the Prince Edward Island railway should be widened to standard gauge and that continuous communication between the mainland and the island should be maintained, and he asks that pending the carrying out of these undertakings no other body should be introduced having any control over the operation of their purely local road. I think that proposition is a reasonable one, and I therefore second it.


James Joseph Hughes: I wish to point out to the minister, what the business men of Prince Edward Island well know, that even although there may be some improvement over present conditions when the car ferry steamer begins to run between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, yet, until the road is standarized, and until standard cars can be usied, there will be so much congestion at some points that it will be very difficult to handle all the traffic that offers. Then again the minister says that refrigerator cars can go over the Prince Edward Island railway just .across the Straits. They can, but unless you have refrigeration from the shipping point to the consuming point, it will be no good. You would have to ship in these small cars

without refrigeration for some distance, then unload the freight into ,a shed, and if there was any congestion, it would have to remain in the shed for some time. Under these circumstances perishable products would be injured. If fresh fish, for instance, is taken out of cold storage, within a very short time it suffers depreciation, in fact it sustains more injury and is of less value when it reaches the point of consumption than if it had never been in cold storage at all. The congestion at the shipping points in Prince Edward Island will certainly be very great.


Francis Cochrane: Putting the railway
under the Railway Board will not hurt conditions?


James Joseph Hughes: The Government will be able to shift the responsibility to another body.


Francis Cochrane: The people will be
able to shift responsibility to other people too.


James Joseph Hughes: What advantage will it be?


Francis Cochrane: It is no disadvantage and it is certainly a great advantage.


James Joseph Hughes: I am very much afraid there will be considerable disadvantage. The minister really wishes to shift part of the responsibility upon the shoulders of this board. Then he will have what is known as a " wicked partner." At any time he does not wish to make any change or to take any steps in the interest of the people, he can say that the board will not allow him, that he is circumscribed by the new conditions. There is no reason in the world why the amendment should not be accepted. I wish to impress upon the minister, the Government, and the members of Parliament, the very great disadvantage under which the province of Prince Edward Island labours in marketing its products. I mentioned a day or two ago that two prominent members of this Government, the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), last spring had advised the people, those of Prince Edward Island as well as others, to produce more. We acted upon that suggestion and we have an abundant crop this year in Prince Edward Island; but we shall not be able to market it. It is a sad thing to think that while food products are scarce perhaps in other parts of the world, and perhaps in some parts of
Canada, crops will go to waste in Prince Edward Island simply because they cannot reach the market. I do not imagine that the present Government can do everything. They adopted this car ferry system but they have been very tardy in pushing it. Five years have passed and it was to have been finished in two years. Now the minister does not mention any date for the beginning of the work of standardizing the Prince Edward Island railway.


Francis Cochrane: Tell me when the war will be over.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister made a promise since the war began.


Francis Cochrane: No, I do not.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister said that he was going on with his work.


Francis Cochrane: No, I did not.


James Joseph Hughes: Standardizing the Prince Edward Island railway to enable food products where they are in abundance to reach the markets of the world, may fairly be classed as a war measure as well as a trade measure.
Amendment (Mr. J. J. Hughes) lost on division.
On the schedule-


Francis Cochrane: With regard to the
motion to strike out the schedule and substitute an amended schedule, I desire to add to the amendment the following:
Sections 371 to 373, both inclusive, and 381 and also the following provision at the end of the schedule:
Provided that no prosecution for the imposition of any fine or penalty under section 439 of the Railway Act as applied to Government railways shall be brought except upon the consent of the Board
Schedule as amended, agreed to.
On the Preamble:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do I understand that the minister will not provide for permitting actions to be brought against the railway in the name of the general manager for fire3 and all the other claims which may arise? In other words, will he not remove the limitation of $500?


Mr. DOHERTY:: That is another Act
altogether. We shall have to consider that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The situation is
that you have the Government Railway Act-


Francis Cochrane: That does not come
under the Government Railways Act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But my hon. friend
will never have a better opportunity for doing away with this isolated (Act and amending the Government Kailway Act by simply maintaining the Tight of action against the general manager. One of the great advantages in regard to this Act, which relates to the Railway Commission, is the fact that it extends the remedy of parties who have met losses or damages or have had business connection with the Toad; it enables them to invoke the aid of the court.


Francis Cochrane: They can do that now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. On the Intercolonial railway you have to go to the Exchequer Court.


Francis Cochrane: Well?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why will not the
minister agree? Why should he deal with the thing piecemeal? I know that the Department of Justice have always been slow in regard to this matter, why I do not know. If the minister is going to do this, he ought to do it right. It does not make any difference to him, but he is preventing the application of those sections of the Act which really aTe of advantage to the district through which the railway runs. There is no need for taking two bites of a cherry.


Francis Cochrane: You did not want any of the cherry yesterday.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is surely not complaining when, in the best possible humour, I am trying to help him make a good Act. He does not want to fight with me all the time. I am anxious only to get the best Bill we can, and I submit that it is no unreasonable request.
Bill reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT-INSURANCE.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty, the House went into committee on Bill No. 54, to amend the Criminal Code respecting insurance.
Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 1, soliciting for insurance forbidden except as permitted in proviso.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the minister state the purport of this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill is really complementary or supplementary to the Insurance Bill which has gone through the

House. The Insurance Act imposes upon companies subject to Dominion jurisdiction the obligation of taking out licenses. That Bill provides no penalty for failure to take out a license. It is being dealt with as a matter of criminal law because there have been some difficulties with regard to the legislative competency of this Parliament over the carrying on of the business of insurance. It may be suggested that if the n\atter he dealt with otherwise than from the point of view of criminal law, objection may be taken to the competency of Parliament, which objection would -disappear once it was quite clear that Parliament approached the matter looking at failure to comply with the obligations imposed as constituting public wrong. The obligation already exists under the Insurance Act; this is merely to provide a penalty in the event of non-fulfilment of the obligation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: While I entirely agree with the object of the present Bill, I should like to see another clause added to embody the principle of an amendment passed by the Banking and Commerce Committee when the insurance law was under consideration some three or four years ago- to make it a criminal offence for the agent of a bank to engage in the occupation of an insurance agent. I realize that I am raising an entirely new point, but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without at least calling it to the attention of the committee. I do not know to what extent this has become a grievance in Canada as a whole, but I do know that in the province of New Brunswick we have at least one case that has become a public scandal. The agent of one of the big chartered banks of Canada carries on a private insurance business, and practically controls the entire insurance of a very large section of the province of New Brunswick. No man can do business with, or get accommodation from, this bank unless all his insurance, or that of the corporation to which he belongs, goes to the agent of the bank. It works out in two ways. In the first place, he drives everybody else out of business; no other insurance agent can thrive in that district. He may do a little business with some of his friends, but when it comes to the big business he is driven out. In the second place, to my personal knowledge-I am speaking now from knowledge which I have obtained as solicitor-people's properties are insured for a great deal more than they could be compelled to pay premiums upon, in order, according to my contention, that this parti-

cular insurance agent may receive more commissions on premiums.


Mr. COCTIRANE:: Is there only one bank in the place?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, there are more banks. But this bank has control of practically all the lumber business, and that is the principal business of the community. I am speaking now with an absolute personal knowledge of what is going on. An estate which I have practically closed up, which I have been helping to manage for years- which, I am sorry to say, was not very flush financially-has paid insurance to make your head ache, if you had to help finance it, simply because we were in the hands of the bank, and the banker placed the insurance without asking our leave or anything else. We had not a word to say-we had to pay the premiums; he did not ask us to pay them, but simply took them out of our account. I brought the matter up and got an amendment made to the Act, by the Banking and Commerce Committee, and it came down to this House as part of the Bill, when it left the committee, but sufficient influence was brought to bear on the House to defeat it, I think, on the third reading.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That was in connection with the Bank Act?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Was it in connection with the Insurance Act?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, the minister is right. It was in connection with the Bank Act. The Insurance Act was codified in 1910, and this happened in 1912 or 1913. As the minister is dealing with the Insurance law as it refers to insurance companies, I thought it my duty to bring this matter before him. I do not propose an amendment, because if the hon. minister would not accept it it would not carry, but I call attention to the circumstance, and say that matters are getting worse instead of better, although there was a pledge given that this particular condition of things would cease to exist. I know, from talking with members, that this condition of affairs exists to some extent in very many parts of Canada. I do not think it is right for a man occupying the position of manager of the bank, who necessarily has certain direct or indirect control over very many people who do business or get accommodation from the bank, to have the 278i
right to say to them either directly or indirectly, or even by inference:	If I give
you the accommodation you require, I shall expect you to give me your insurance. It gives him a very great leverage over the agents of the other insurance companies, and insurance has become a great business in Canada. This is an unjust discrimination. I think the chartered banks of Canada pay their agents pretty good salaries, and if they do not, they should pay salaries large enough so that the agents could get along without depriving other people of a legitimate source of revenue. I think even if there were no cases as extreme as the one to which I have called the minister's attention, the principle is wrong to allow the manager of a bank to carry on an insurance business, and indirectly and surreptitiously take away from other men business which rightly belongs to them.


Mr. GLASS:: The matter to which my
hon. friend refers is not peculiar to the province of New Brunswick. That condition of affairs generally exists throughout Ontario. In my district it is quite a common thing for a bank manager, especially in the smaller places, to have the supervision and control over insurance, which may not only lead to an improper use of it, but which is an injustice to those engaged m that business. I should like to suggest here, also, that the same condition of affairs exists in relation to managers of loan companies. I think they should be debarred from engaging in insurance, as well as the men who are engaged in ordinary commercial banking. I will not say that these large loan companies receive a direct commission, or a division of the commission from the agent, but they arbitrarily direct that, providing a loan is given, the insurance shall be placed with a certain .agent who is known to be closely allied with them. I think that when a man borrows from a loan company, any insurance company which is satisfactory to the Superintendent of Insurance should be considered satisfactory for the requirements and purposes of the individual obtaining the loan. I do not think even the lawyers themselves should have any control or power over individuals and say that they should take insurance with certain companies. If a company is financially sound and responsible, and satisfactory to the Department of Insurance in this country, it should be strong enough and good enough so that a client getting

a loan should be permitted to take insurance in any company he chooses.


Mr. TURGEON:: In reference to the
authority of bank .managers to take insurance, I was perhaps the author of that amendment to the Bank Act on behalf of the bank managers in rural districts who *were not getting the salaries they should have from the banks. I remember that I was specially influenced by that consideration, and the Minister of Finance at the time, in accepting the amendment which I proposed, declared to this House that he would use all possible influence upon the banks to have them increase the salaries of their agents to a living wage to take away from them the business which, he admitted, was sometimes conductive to extortion. As I have seen no improvement on the part of the banks since that time, perhaps this might be the time to give effect to the advice of my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell). It would be a most influential lever to raise the salaries of bank agents to a fair minimum, and would do away with a practice, which might amount to extortion in some cases.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am very much impressed with what has been said. It appears, at all events on its face, to be a matter that might very well call for legislative action; but such legislation, of course, would affect not merely the business of insurance, but the business of banking. I understand that the question vas up in connection with the renewal of the Bank Act; that a proposal similar to the present one, looking to the prohibition of the combination of the business of banking with that of carrying on insurance, was made, and was dealt with and finally dealt with in the sense of rejection. That leaves the position as regards the banking business determined at that time, at all events. We are now dealing with legislation with regard to insurance, and so far as the present measure is concerned, with a measure simply supplementary to the veneral Insurance Act. That measure has been through the Banking and Commerce Committee, together with this Bill as supplementary to it, and before +hat committee m cmnectior with that Bill, the insurance people connected with and interested in the insurance business, who, as well as the bankers, would be affected by a provision such as suggested, were heard, and I am informed-I was not present at the sitting? of the committee-that this matter was not brought to the attention of the committee 
at all nor to the attention of those interested. Under those conditions, I suggest it would hardly be a proper thing, in a Bill of this kind, to insert, without notice to any body concerned, a provision of the character suggested, which must very materially affect the carrying on both of the banking business-with which we are not concerned directly in connection with this legislation-and of the insurance business, those engaged in which had opportunity to present themselves and to make .any representations with regard to any provisions contained in the Bill. With regard to a provision of this kind they would not have the same opportunity as they have had with regard to the provisions of the Bill in general. While, as I have said, it seems to me upon its face that there is a great deal to be said in support of this proposition, I would hardly like, and I could hardly be expected at this moment and without further examination and consideration, to assent to a proposition of this kind. It would certainly be very proper, when we have any further revision of the Insurance Act generally, and when there would be proper occasion to deal with the Bank Act, that this suggestion should receive consideration, but I would hardly feel justified in dealing with it in . connection with the present Bill.
I wish to insert a little amendment in the first subsection of the section. It is simply to make the addition of "persons," a change which has already been made to the general Insurance Act. This is simply to make the 'two measures correspond. I move:
That subsection 1, section 508 C-
which it is proposed to insert in the Criminal Code.
-be amended by inserting in line 14 of the present Bill, after the word "or" the words "of an association of persons."
This is merely to add to the exceptions contained in the Bill an exception for an association of persons formed for the purpose of inter-insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move:
That the Bill be further amended by adding to section 1 the following provision, to be inserted in the Criminal Code as 50S D :
Any insurance company, or any officer, agent or representative thereof, who

(a,) makes or permits any distinction or discrimination in favour of individuals between the insured of the same class and equal expectation of life in the amount of premiums charged or in the dividends payable upon any policy of life insurance issued by or on behalf of the company; or
(b)	makes or assumes to make any stipulation or agreement which is intended to operate as a part of any insurance contract to which the company is or is to become a party, whether in respect of the amount, terms or conditions of the insurance, the premium to be paid or otherwise, except such as is plainly expressed in the policy issued in the case; or
(c) pays, allows or gives, or offers to pay, allow or give, directly or indirectly, as inducement to insure, any rebate of the premium stipulated by the policy to be payable, or any special favour or advantage in the dividends or other benefits to accrue thereon, or any advantage by way of local or advisory directorship unless for actual service bona fide performed, or any paid employment or contract for service of any kind or any inducement whatever intended to be in the nature of a rebate of premiums; or
(d)	gives, sells or purchases as such inducement or in connection with such insurance any stock, bonds or other securities of any insurance company, or other corporation, association or partnership ; and any person who knowingly receives as an inducement to insure any rebate of premium or any such special favour, advantage or inducement as aforesaid,
shall for a first offence be liable to a penalty of double Vhe amount of the annual premium chargeable upon the application or policy in respect of which the offence is committed, such penalty not to be less than one hundred dollars, and for a second or subsequent offence to a penalty of double the amount of such annual premium, the latter penalty not to be less than two hundred and fifty dollars.
2.	Moreover every director, manager or other officer of any insurance company who knowingly consents to or permits the violation of any of the provisions of this section by any agent, officer, employee or servant of the company shall be liable to a penalty of five hundred dollars.
3.	The penalties provided for in this section may be recovered either upon summary conviction under Part XV of the Criminal Code, or in any court of competent civil jurisdiction at the suit of any person suing therefor as well for His Majesty as for himself; one-half of any such penalty when recovered to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the other half to belong to the informer or person at whose suit the same is recovered.
4.	No director, manager, agent, officer or
servant of any insurance company shall be indemnified, either in whole or in part, from the funds of the company for any penalty or costs which he may be adjudged to pay on account of any offence committed against this section.	.
This is to make it a criminal offence to give a rebate of premium, or to effect any combination or arrangement whereby one individual will be able to get his insurance at a cheaper rate than another.
I may say that these provisions are contained in the general Insurance Act. The
principle reason why it is necessary to insert them in the Crimial Code is that the Insurance Act as' such may apply, and does apply, only to such insurance companies as the Parliament of Canada has legislative jurisdiction over, which, speaking generally, may be said to be companies incorporated by the Dominion, and foreign companies. But provincial companies, or the agents or officers of provincial companies, could not be reached by the general Insurance Act. I think the committee will agree that the different operations which are hereby prohibited, namely, the offering of rebates and undue advantages, discrimination between the insured, attempting on the part of the an agent to make undertakings which are not contained in the policy and which operate to the deception of the insured, and the giving of any inducement for the insurance in the way of direct benefit or advantage-all these things are just as objectionable and are just as detrimental to the public. interests when done by a provincial company, or the officers or agents of a provincial company, as when done by a foreign or Dominion company. It is further to be pointed out that unless legislation of this kind be applicable to all companies carrying on the business of insurance, without distinction of their source of incorporation, you have a most unfair situation as regards the Dominion and foreign companies, in that they are subject to the present Insurance Act and are bound to comply with these requirements, whereas provincially-incorporated companies would entirely escape and would be enabled thereby to carry on a most unfair competition, and to resort to those practices which, I think it will be generally agreed, are most objectionable and most unfair.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can quite understand the necessity of [DOT] amending the Act so that an agent of a provincial company shall be under the same law and subject to the same penalties as the agent of a Dominion or foreign company. But I have never quite understood the reason for this law, anyhow. I do not see why an insurance agent should not be allowed to canvass business and sell insurance as cheaply as he likes; that is a matter between him and the purchaser. It seems to me we are drifting into-I do not know whether it is socialism; I think it is these public-ownership faddists getting their work in again. Why in the worldi should not an insurance company he allowed to sell me insurance for a price which I am willing to pay, regardless of the price they

sell to any one else? You might just as well interfere with the man who sells sugar and pork, which are juet as necessary to my family as insurance is. If you say that an insurance agent cannot sell me insurance except at such a price, you have just as much right to say that a grocer cannot sell me sugar or pork except at such a price. I was never able to understand the reason for these provisions at the time the Insurance Act went through. It seems to me we are simply drifting in the direction I have indicated, and unless a stop is put to it no man can tell what the end will be. After a while they will be telling us we cannot do anything except under the instructions of some public authority; individual action will be taken away entirely. If the Government would go a little further and say that the munition makers and profiteers could make only so much money, there would be some sense in that. They fight shy of touching these people, however, but when it comes down to the average man who is trying to get a living, they make legislation of this kind. I do not know that I can object to the amendment, because it makes the law uniform, but I object to the principle of the whole thing.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are not introducing these provisions now, because they have been the law since 1910, and are applicable now to all companies under the jurisdiction of this Dominion Parliament. Moreover, may I say this, as a reason for differentiating between selling insurance and selling sugar and pork and other things of that kind? The insurance business, of course, has to be carried on in such a way that the premium charged shall provide the means to make up the losses; perhaps that is especially true with regard to life . insurance. Now, when you let one man contribute for the same risk less than another to the creation of that general fund that is to pay all the losses, you necessarily make the cost to that other man or men larger than it otherwise might be. The fact that you have given to one man insurance at a price less than it is necessary to charge in order that according to the actuarial calculations the business may be carried on so as to sustain itself, makes it necessary in order to make up that deficiency to Charge some other man something extra. It creates an absolute inequality between people, who-this is the case referred to in the section-are absolutely in the same class of risk, and enables one man to get covered at a price lees than be ought to 
be charged on a business basis, inevitably necessitating that some other man be charged more than he ought to be charged.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can quite understand that argument. It is very plain, and I think it is perfectly logical. At the same time, this amendment goes a great deal further, and is aimed at the insurance agent who is willing to divide up his commission on the first premium with the insured. We all know, a very large proportion of the first premium goes to the agent as his commission. I do not think any one ever heard of the insurance companies charging anything except the uniform rate of insurance governed by the age, the mortality tables, and other considerations which enter into the fixing of the premium. The intention is to reach the insurance agent who, in order to do business, makes a little cut to the insured. That cut comes out of the agent, and does not impair the fund out of which the policy will ultimately be paid. It merely reduces the agent's profits by that much. This Bill simply prevents the agent from dickering, or doing business at all. It makes every insurance agent practically an automaton. So far as concerns the premium which goes to the company, of course that should be uniform, but why an ordinary insurance agent cannot make a discount of fifteen dollars, or twenty-five dollars, or fifty dollars, out of his commission on the first premium is something I cannot understand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not profess to he an expert in the matter, or to be able to explain it absolutely. At first glance, it would certainly seem as if there might be something in what my hon. friend says. I understand, however, that in the carrying on of the insurance business it has been found that if the practice is allowed, the agent, in his zeal to get business, is exposed to do it very largely, and there is a great temptation to the companies to use that method of getting business, which leads them not impossibly-and I believe in practice it happens quite often-to give some compensation to the agent in lieu of that rebate. However that may be, I may tell my hon friend these practices are legislated against universally, throughout North America at all events, and so legislated against as the result of inquiries made in different countries at different times as to the abuses that might arise in connection with the insurance business. This having been our law since 1910 as we all understood applicable to



XI, 1917

[Stage Direction]
all insurance companies, and being still our law unquestionably as applicable to insurance companies incorporated by this Dominion, I think we would be leaving the law in a very anomalous condition, and producing a most unfair state of things if we did not do as is sought to be done by this legislation, that is make it of general application.
Samuel Francis Glass: I do not see an analogy
between the merchant doing business, who is allowed to sell his goods at any price he likes, and an insurance company doing business. According to the mortality table's, insurance companies are actually collecting a very much larger amount than is necessary from policyholders on the 3 per cent or 3i per cent reserve generally prevailing. As is shown by the reports, in cases they are earning a great deal more than 7 per cent on the total amount of their investment's, including bonds and everything else. The policyholder has a real live interest in the earnings of the company and the only way to compensate him adequately for what he has to contribute as exorbitant premiums, is to repay to him a division of the profits as they occur. My hon. friend has very rightly pointed out that in a very great many cases the agent receives his compensation as commission on the first premium. Many companies, however, have adopted the practice of paying their agents straight salaries, and this practice is becoming much more prevalent. Of course the salary a man gets is based on his power to produce business, and men vary in their ability in that respect. If an agent on salary gives a rebate to the insured, surely the money comes directly out of the funds of the company, and the earning power of the other participating policyholders, who are simply partners in the large business, must necessarily be impaired to the extent to which those rebates or commissions may be allowed. The matter of rebating in insurance has always been a serious evil, and I think has been an injury to the insurers themselves. It has always been understood that the old law did not apply to anything but life policies.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under this measure it
will apply to all companies.


Samuel Francis Glass: In that respect it will better meet the needs for which it was created.


Mr. McKENZIE:: To my mind, section 508 (c) is very badly drafted. I find it difficult to understand its meaning. It may be clear to an insurance man, but as an ordinary individual I regard it as very complicated and extremely difficult to understand. In view of the provisions of subsection (2) I cannot understand why this is made an indictable offence. The subsection provides a punishment which comes easily within the most ordinary summary conviction. Indictable offences are dealt with in a veTy elaborate, expensive and difficult way, as the minister knows. If the intention is merely to collect a fine ranging from $20 to $50, I do not understand why a man should have to go before the Grand Jury, the Petit Jury and the Supreme Court. It seems to me the machinery provided is altogether too cumbersome for the penalty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Speaking without the Criminal Code before me, unless I am mistaken-and I do not think I am-the fact that this is made an indictable offence does not make it impossible to be dealt with otherwise than by indictment. There are the provisions of the Criminal Code under which there may he option for summary trial, etc., so that no injustice is done to any one.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am very familiar with those terms.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the hon. gentleman is more familiar with them than I am.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Proceedings are commenced the same as for sending a man to the Supreme Court, but when he is before a stipendiary magistrate he has the right to elect to be tried before that magistrate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But only in certain cases.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Only in certain cases. This would have to Ibe put in the list of cases that could be so tried before he could come under that category. I think it would be well worth while for the minister to consider it, because, certainly, it should be dealt with in the ordinary way, summarily before a magistrate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill was drafted by the Deputy Minister of Justice and I understand that in putting it in this form he put it in the same form, and dealt with it in the same manner, as analogous offences are dealt with in the Criminal Code generally. With all respect, and while I am prepared to admit what may be the more accurate knowledge of my hon. friend, I entertain a pretty strong conviction that it is open to the accused in a matter of this kind

to obtain a summary trial. In any event, should that not be true, there is no injustice done to the public, or done to the individual, and there is no evil, from the point of view of the public prosecution, arising from allowing it to stand as an indictable offence. All that is lost is that there would be no option on the part of the prosecution to proceed otherwise 'than one is bound to proceed upon an indictable offence. I am sorry that I did not anticipate the raising of this question, which is quite a proper question for the hon. gentleman to raise, and that, not being provided with the Criminal Code, I am not in a position to speak more positively than I do. But, I feel confident that no injury would be done to anybody liable to be prosecuted for this offence by reason of its being made an indictable offence.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand what
the minister means but I can assure him that if he would look at the Code,' and look more particularly into the procedure, he would see that there is liable to be a great injustice done to the party accused. If he is tried summarily, if he is not satisfied with the magistrate's decision he may appeal. That is a great satisfaction to anybody. If he is brought before a magistrate and he has to elect to be tried under indictment he has ho appeal. I am sure the minister will understand that this is a very striking difference.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a difference; but on the other hand the party accused has an option as between the two methods of trial. He will not be dealt with on a summary prosecution without an appeal except as the result of the exercise of his own option.	*


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Under this Act there aTe two things that he can do. The magistrate before whom he comes will have to send him up for trial to the Supreme court. He will have to explain to him that on a certain day the Supreme court is going to sit where he can be tried before a judge and a jury. He will have to say: "You have the option to forego that and be tried before me now if yeu consent to it." The accused says:	"I prefer to go to the jury," or,
" I consent to be tried before you." If he says that he consents to be tried before the magistrate, he is tried and whatever the decision of the magistrate taay be there is no appeal from' it. But, if he is tried summarily before a magistrate on an ordinary information, he can appeal in the ordinary way and, of course, the procedure
EMr. Doherty.]
under which a man can appeal is a more popular and a better procedure in small case,g of this kind.


Charles Joseph Doherty: While I appreciate the value that may attach to an appeal, on the other hand, I think it deprives a man of trial by jury which is an inherent right. Then, to	have , him tried otherwise
than	by	jury without	regard to
any consent of his own is perhaps a more serious thing. There should be a procedure which leaves it open to him to be tried by a jury or to havethe trial before a magistrate without appeal. He has an opportunity and he has an option. If we make it a matter of summary trial simply, he will have to go before the magistrate. It is true, he will have an appeal to a judge of the higher court, but he will have to stand by the findings of the judge, he will be deprived of his trial by jury. While the penalties are not exceedingly heavy, the offence in itself is not in any way a minor' one. It would be very undesirable to treat it as such. From the point of view of the class of people who will be liable to be charged with offences of this kind, people who may be in the very largest way engaged in this very important business of insurance, I do not think we should merely, because the penalty is not heavy, deprive them of the right to have a trial by jury if they so desire. I do not think it is much of a grievance that instead of being subjected absolutely, in the first instance, to the judgment of the magistrate-with the right of appeal, it is true-the accused is placed in a position where he may at his own option have the verdict of his peers or the judgment of the court but without an appeal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I see that the minister stands iby the Act, but I wish to point out to him as a lawyer who has had a good deal of practice in matters of this kind, that to send a man up under an indictment is a very serious matter. If a man is brought up with a view to his being indicted under this Act he comes before the magistrate or he elects to fake the privilege which the minister points out. Then the magistrate has to send him to jail. He (applies for bail. The magistrate has no power to take bail. If he is brought before a magistrate under this Act and he says: " I will not agree to be tried summarily before you, I want to be tried by a jury," what must the magistrate do? He must send him to 'jail. If he is sent to jail he must

get an order from a county court judge to get bail. It is true that there is a provision by (which the magistrate is permitted to say: " The evidence is not strong, I will simply hold you over for trial, and I will take bail myself." The magistrate can say that, but if the evidence is strong and he commits for trial it is beyond his power absolutely to take bail and the man must go to jail and then apply to a supreme or county court judge for authority for some magistrate to give him bail. It is for this reason that I am bringing the matter to the notice of the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the hon. gentleman does not question the power of the magistrate to grant bail?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the evidence is not strong enough to commit.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not the section before me, but as I recollect it, it is a matter for the magistrate to appreciate, and, if I am not mistaken, he is entitled to appreciate the nature of the evidence and the probability of the person disappearing rather than presenting himself for trial, in the exercise of his power to allow bail.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It has no power at all, except as I have stated.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I regret I have not the Criminal Code before me and I do not like to question the positive assertion of the hon. gentleman, but I do know that, in my own experience, it is only for the graver offences that a magistrate would refuse to admit a man to bail. Certainly he would not in the case of an offence of which the penal consequence is so light as in this case.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We need not discuss it, because it is in the Code in plain words.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We will take it that it is in the Code in plain words and will not discuss it further. But I adhere to what I said, that I do not think a man has a grievance because he has to submit himself to a magistrate, subject to appeal to the higher court, with the option of having his trial by jury. So far as the question of bail is concerned, if the magistrate cannot or will not admit him to bail, the accused has his recourse before a judge of a higher court.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For a man living in a city, where judges are easily accessible, the consideration which the minister advances may be some consolation, but if a man lives twenty or forty miles away from a judge and is put in a lock-uip by a magistrate it is not as easy as the minister might think to obtain authority for bail. However, the minister thinks it is all right. Every word of subsection 2 and all the procedure is of a summary character, the language of the Summary Convictions Act is used. Everything is summary in its nature and procedure except that this is made an indictable offence, with three months in j ail if the fine is not paid.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.



SALE OR USE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

[Stage Direction]
BILL, IN AID OP PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION; THIRD READING.
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty, Bill No. 121 to amend an Act in aid of provincial legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 1-Insertion of words "for beverage purposes ":	*
Charles Marcil: Are these amendments being inserted at the request of any particular provincial government or temperance association, or as the result of experience gained during the past year? What is the raison d'etre?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are different
Taisons d'etre. Some have been suggested by representatives of the authorities for the administration of prohibitory legislation, as in Ontario by the commission appointed under their statute. Others have been asked for by persons interested in temperance in certain provinces, more particularly in New Brunswick, and for the purpose of meeting legislation, in New Brunswick in particular, and legislation that I understand it is within the power of the commission in Ontario to bring into effect, if it has not already done so, and to give to that legislation the support or aid that is given to general legislation upon the subject by the Act of last year. Then, one amendment is to correct an omission in one of the sections of thq Act passed last year. The Senate last year struck out a clause inserted by the Commons, and in accepting the Senate amendment it was announced in this House that another effort would be made to< re-insert this clause in the Bill. The clause providing for the right of seizure of liquor has been introduced on representation of the authorities engaged

in the enforcement of the law in the provinces, who have pointed out that grave inconvenience has resulted from the fact that, while the liquor was liable to confiscation on conviction, there was no provision under which it could be seized and held pending prosecution. The first clause is to insert in paragraph (a) of section 3 of chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1916, after the word "liquor" the words for "beverage purposes."
As the section reads now, it makes it an offence for any person to ship intoxicating liquor into a province. The old section reads:
(a) Shall send, ship, take, bring or carry or cause to be sent, shipped, taken, brought or carried to or into any province from or out of any other province, or import into any province from any place outside of Canada any intoxicating liquor, knowing or intending that such intoxicating liquor will or shall be thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of the province into which such intoxicating liquor is sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported as aforesaid;
This amendment is inserted upon the suggestion of the authorities in Ontario charged with the carrying out of the liquor law. They point out that their prohibition is against the sale of liquor for beverage purposes, and was not intended to interfere with the shipping of liquor for any other purpose not prohibited by law. It was a mere oversight in the legislation of last year.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: How does the hon. minister distinguish between liquor sent for beverage purposes, and liquor sent for other purposes?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is necessary in order to bring the offence under the law, to establish that the liquor is being sold for beverage purposes. That is the offence, and this imposes no additional requirements. In order to constitute a violation of the law, it must be sent for the purposes of being sold for beverage purposes, because that is the only violation of the law; and this is intended to avoid making prohibition which nobody desires. Nobody wishes to prohibit the free circulation of liquor for the purposes for which no province prohibits its use. Of course, it would be incumbent on tlfe prosecutor to prove the liquor is being sent in for the purposes of violating the law. I do not know that any occasion has arisen for this provision, The request for this enactment comes really from the authorities charged with the administration of the legislation in Ontario.


James Joseph Hughes: Would the quantity of liquor not very largely determine the use for which it was intended?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, and the question whether the liquor is really suitable for beverage purposes. You may have liquor that would be very intoxicating, if you drank it, but not in a condition to be used for beverage purposes. These are the matters which, in a prosecution for violating the provincial law, would have to be dealt with. We are not adding anything to the difficulty in dealing with cases in making our law correspond with the prohibitory law of the province. I do not think any harm would be done if the law stood as it is. It is only as our attention is called to the fact that there was an inaccuracy, and it was suggested we should correct that inaccuracy, that this amendment is proposed, because if you send in liquor not for beverage purposes, it could not be said that it was sent in for the purpose of being sold in violation of provincial law, inasmuch as the prohibition of the provincial laws deal with liquor for beverage purposes. Large quantities of alcohol are used in the manufacture of munitions. It would be unfortunate if, by the wording of this law, there should be any interference with the handling of liquor manifestly only used for purposes of that kind.


James Joseph Hughes: When the Bill which passed last session was before the committee, it was thought by some that perhaps it was not intended to be very effective. I thought it would be a step in the right direction anyway, for pretty heavy penalties were attached to the carrying of liquor into provinces where the sale was prohibited. I think the minister read the clause in the Bill passed last year, and I desire to call his attention and that of the Government to the fact that the employees of the Government are the real offenders in this case, so far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned. I am quite safe in saying that nine-tenths of the liquor imported into the province is carried on the Government railways and steamships, and it could not be carried without the knowledge of the employees, if they have ordinary intelligence.
A small portion of it is carried on the steamers subsidized by the Government, owned by private people, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), I think, intimated last year that he would notify the owners or managers of the steamers so subsidized that if they knowingly violated the law the payment of the sub-

sidy might be withheld. I do not know that any notice was ever sent out. I rather think not. This traffic could not be carried on to any great extent if the government employees did not connive at it. If the government employees were determined that they would not be any party to it but would do the best they could to prevent it, and if the officers of the steamers subsidized by the Government would act in the same way, the traffic, so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, would be practically stopped.
I would like it very much if the Minister of Justice, and the Government generally, would take any action they could along that line. We are peculiarly situated in Prince Edward Island, because practically the whole traffic is carried on between that province and the mainland by government-owned railways and steamers, and the smaller portion is carried by the subsidized steamers. I think something ought to be done to prevent the traffic.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Government employees and employees of the steamships are subject to penalties under the Act, as everybody else is, but quite apart from that, I quite recognize that anything that can be done to impress upon them the necessity of being law abiding citizens ought to be done, and I shall be glad to call attention to what the hon. gentleman has 'stated.


Wilfrid Laurier: At whose instance is this amendment introduced? Is it at the instance of the Provincial Governments, or any of them, or temperance societies?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestions come from different directions. The principal sections are concurred in by the commission in Ontario charged with the administration of the provincial law and by people very much interested in the enforcement of the prohibitory law, I might say in a special way, in New Brunswick.


Mr. MURPHY:: What commission in Ontario is that to which the minister refers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot give the official designation of it, but I understand that, in the operation of the provincial prohibitory law, large powers are entrusted to a body which I believe-I have had the pleasure of meeting the head of it-is called a commission.


Charles Murphy: The Ontario Government Liquor License Commission?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The authority constituted under the provincial Act to see to its administration. Representations have come from New Brunswick, and strong representations from different associations interested in the promotion of temperance, in support of such of the provisions as are new. As I have intimated, one of the provisions-and it is an important one-seeks to reintroduce and to replace in the Act of last session a section which the Senate struck out. That provision we are introducing now in fulfilment of a promise, made when the Bill came back from the Senate last year and was accepted with that clause struck out, that we would again ask the House to pass the section and send it back in order, to afford the Senate an opportunity of reconsidering its action.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Act which we passed last year is to give effect to different temperance legislation passed in different provinces. So faT so good. If this amendment in the first section is asked for by the temperance societies, I have nothing more to say. But it seems to me that it is opening the door to very severe abuse and not making the enforcement of the law easier. Drug stores are places in which such legislation may be violated, and it is a well known fact that in many sections drug stores supply liquor. Suppose a druggist imports a certain quantity of liquor. If you ask him what he is importing it for, he will say, with some appearance of reason, that he is not importing it for beverage purposes, but that he requires liquor in the preparation of his drugs. Drugs are frequently prepared with alcohol, and this provision is supplying, a good reason for the druggist to say: I want it in my own business. The effect may be to break the law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I said a few moments ago, this suggestion came from gentlemen representing the commission in Ontario, and was with a view to making our law strike at those things which the provincial laws prohibit. As our law stands at the present moment, it is too wide in this sense that it applies to all intoxicating liquor. As I have pointed out, it is well known that large quantities of alcohol are used for purposes that have nothing to do with beverages, and none of the provincial laws so far purport to prohibit the sale of liquor for such other purposes. We, therefore, find ourselves with a law which is intended to aid provincial legislation, which strikes at something at which provincial legislation does not strike at all. My attention was called to the matter solely in the way I mentioned, and it seemed to be

desirable that the subject matter of the offence under our law should be described as is the subject matter of the offences under provincial legislation. I am disposed to think that, save in so far as there might be difficulties created and interferences with people dealing 'with liquor of a kind not intended to be covered at all from the temperance point of view, no evil would follow if our law remained as it was. But this amendment makes it more accurate, and as the suggestion came from the source I mentioned, I felt it would do no injury from the point of view of the enforcement of the provincial law.


James Joseph Hughes: Will this law make it easier for druggists to import liquor than the former Act did?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think not.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the druggists will say it will.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not what the druggist is going to say that is going to settle the question. Whether those words are in or not, the man who institutes a prosecution under this measure will have to,prove to the court that that liquor was sent in to be dealt with in violation of the provincial law. The first thing he will have to prove, whether the case is against a druggist or any other man, is that the liquor was to be used for beverage purposes, because unless it was for beverage purposes it could not be used in violation of a provincial law. Every man who seeks to prosecute under this law has to establish two things: first, the sending in of the liquor, and ' second, that it was sent in to be used in violation of a provincial prohibitory law. In order to prove that, he has to establish that the liquor was sent in for beverage purposes. It is not what the druggist is going to say; the man who is prosecuted for bringing in the liquor has to clear himself with regard to what his purposes' were.
A section of the Act which we are amending reads:
On any prosecution for the violation of section 1 of this Act the accused person shall be deemed to have known or intended that such intoxicating liquor would be thereafter dealt with, in violation of the law of the province into which such intoxicating liquor was sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported, unless he proves that he had good reason for believing that the intoxicating liquor would only be dealt with in a lawful manner.
The burden of proof is on the accused to establish that there was no intent to use the liquor unlawfully. In the second place,
['Mr. Doherty.]
the druggist, whom the hon. members have in mind, is 'the druggist who receives the liquor in the province. His offence is an offence under the provincial law, and we shall not affect what will have to- be proved against him for dealing with that liquor in violation of the provincial law. This law deals with the, man in the outside province who sends the liquor. What the druggist says is not going to make any difference in regard to the matter. This man has sent liquor in, he is charged with having sent it with knowledge that it was to be used for unlawful purposes, and it is for him to satisfy the court that he had no knowledge of any intent to use it for unlawful purposes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In other words, there
might be two offences for the same act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is to cover the offence of the man outside the province who sends the liquor into that province. That man, of course, could not be reached by the provincial legislation, and it is to reach him that this legislation is enacted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That does not affect the man who receives the liquor?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, the province takes care of him.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: I am sure the Minister of Justice'is to be congratulated upon bringing forward this measure. It it a step in advance in the direction of total prohibition in our country. I should, of course, be very glad if total prohibition could be brought about in this country, but the minister assures me that it is not possible at the present time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do you believe him?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The subject of temperance legislation has engaged the attention of this Parliament and of the local legislatures for many years. The progress made in temperance reform in Canada has been most remarkable, and the end is not yet. I, for one, will welcome the day when national prohibition will be an assured fact in this country. I represent a district which is strongly in favour of temperance and Dominion-wide prohibition, but they did not send me here to legislate for one district or one province alone, but for the whole Dominion. They know that any province in the Dominion can have prohibition just as soon as the people of that province decide in favour of it, through their provincial legislature. In 1893 the Liberal party promised a plebiscite upon the question of

prohibition, and in 1898 the plebiscite was taken and carried by a large majority. But the Government did not enforce it, leaving the matter to the provinces. The provinces then took it up, and while most of them to-day have advanced temperance legislation, none of them have come out for total prohibition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman is reading his speech.
Mr. MARCH.: Is that a war-time speech?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am merely giving the dates in connection with this matter. I should also like to call attention to the fact that on the 17th April, 1916, the Minister of Justice introduced a Bill in aid of provincial legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors. While this matter has been pretty fully discussed in many of the provinces, the provincial governments have hardly dealt fairly with the people in directing petitioners for total prohibition and their petitions to the Dominion Government, when the provincial governments themselves have power in their hands to bring that about. Let me read a portion of clause 1 of the Bill introduced on the 17th April, 1916:
Any person who by himself, his clerk, servant or agent, and any person who as clerk, servant or agent, officer or employee of any other person, or of any government railway or steamship, whether Dominion or provincial,
(a)	shall send, ship, take, bring or carry or cause to be sent, shipped, taken, brought or carried to or into any province from or out of any other province, or import into any province from any place outside of Canada any intoxicating liquor, knowing or intending that such intoxicating liquor will or shall be thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of the province into which such intoxicating liquor is sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported as aforesaid; or
(b)	shall sell or cause to be sold any intoxicating liquor, knowing or intending that such Intoxicating liquor will be sent, shipped, taken, brought or carried into any province from any other province, or from any place outside ot Canada, and thereafter dealt with in violation of the law of the province into which such intoxicating liquor is sent, shipped, taken, brought, carried or imported as aforesaid.
Then follow the penalties. There is no question in my mind that the provinces have the power to prohibit the importation and sale of liquors of any kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The importation?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the provincial governments will prohibit the sale or use of intoxicating liquor in the provinces, the Dominion Government ;will support
them and not allow the liquor to be taken in.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the law absolutely in the province of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and, I think also,, in Ontario.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: While it is
true that the Dominion Government are prepared to assist the provinces in this matter, not one province has yet taken advantage of this law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In what way did my
own province, for instance, fail to take advantage of the law?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not a province in the Dominion has granted total prohibition within its borders.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Nova Scotia has total
prohibition.


James Joseph Hughes: So has Prince Edward Island.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why do they not prohibit the importation of intoxicating liquors?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They can't.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The question of the manufacture, the transportation, and the sale of liquor, excise, customs, and inland revenue, are all matters of Dominion jurisdiction, and the provinces have no authority to deal with them.


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. member submit to the House the name of any reputable temperance organization which says that this legislation is satisfactory? Will the hon. member deny that what the temperance people, and, in fact, public opinion in Canada, have been demanding for the last two years is the total prohibition of the importation, sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors? When we have reached a time when it is necessary for the Food Controller to cut down the amount of meat we shall eat, I think it is surely time to let up on whisky.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I was calling attention to the fact that if any province will prohibit the sale and use of liquor within its borders, the Dominion Government will prohibit the importation of liquor into that province.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Under what conditions?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Under the conditions which I have just read.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not prohibition.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then what is it? It is prohibition as far as the province is concerned.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have forgotten the exact wording of the Clause, but it is to the effect that the importation can be prohibited if the person who is sending it in believes it is to be used in violation of the law. Of course, a wholesale merchant in Montreal sending liquor to New Brunswick would have no hesitation in saying that he did not believe it was to be used in violation of the law, but it would be used in violation of the law just the same.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The presumption is that he did, and he has to prove that he didn't.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This Government
grants licenses for the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, and the government railways collect freight for carrying it to places where the liquor is sold in violation of the law. If my hon. friend wants prohibition, let the Government stop the traffic at the fountain head. Do not let the current go into the province and then try to -stop it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am satisfied that the provinces have the power to prohibit so far as the manufacture, sale and use within the province -is concerned; there is no question about -that. The Minister of Justice supports me in that position, and with his consent I will place on record a few questions which I asked him on the subject only a few weeks ago.


Mr. ROSS:: The late Provincial Secretary takes the opposite view entirely. He says that the provinces have no power to prohibit the manufacture and sale.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: There is no
question that the provinces have power to prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquor for use within the province.


James Hamilton Ross: The late provincial secretary says not.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My letter to
the Minister of Justice was as follows:
Dear Mr. Doherty:-
I would greatly appreciate if you would advise me as to whether any province in the. Dominion has the power to prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquor within their boundaries.
Further, has any province of the Dominion the power to prohibit the circulation of literature or advertising which has the object of promoting the sale of liquor to its people?
Is the Dominion Government prepared to prohibit the importation of liquor into any 
province that has passed an Act prohibiting the manufacture, sale or use of liquor in that province?
The minister replied:
Ottawa, August 1, 1917. Dear Mr. Armstrong:-
Replying to your letter of the 20th ultimo, I beg to say that in my opinion there is absolutely no question of the right of a province to prohibit the sale of liquor within its boundaries. As regards the manufacture, the Privy Council has never given a categorical answer to the question. This much, however, may safely be said, that it is within the power of a province to prohibit the manufacture when the conditions under which it is carried on are such as to make it a matter of local concern in the province.
In reply to your second question, in my opinion, the province has the power to prohibit the circulation within its limits, of literature or advertising which has the object of promoting the sale of liquor to its people.
In reply to your third question, the Dominion Parliament, at the instance of the Government, has already passed legislation prohibiting the importation of liquor into any province, to be therein used in violation of the law of that province. The effect of this is that It is a violation of the Dominion law to send liquor into a province to be sold therein in violation of the law of that province. And without further legislation on the part of the Dominion, if any province chooses to prohibit any other method of dealing with liquor than the sale thereof, as for instance, the use of it for beverage purposes, it will then be a violation of the existing Dominion law for any one to send liquor into that province, to be dealt with in violation of any such law.
The practical result is that any province that wants to prevent liquor being sent into it for use as a beverage, can attain that end by prohibiting the use in the province of liquor as a beverage. Such a prohibition on their part will produce the result that under the already adopted Dominion law, it will be an offence to send liquor into the province to be used as a beverage.
Yours sincerely,
Chas. J. Doherty.
J. E. Armstrong, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Surely the statement as made by the Minister of Justice is sufficiently plain.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Speaking with a cursory knowledge of the law of Ontario, I should say a man could keep a certain amount of liquor in his house for beverage purposes. Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG: Any man?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no limitation
at all. If a man in the city of Ottawa for instance wants to send over to Hull and get a case of whisky-


Charles Marcil: They do it every day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is there anything in this law to prohibit him from doing it? As long as he wants it for his own use?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The statement I have already placed on Hansard entirely bears out the argument I have made.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, there is nothing
to prevent the importation of liquor from Quebec into Ontario so long as a man ie going to consume it himself.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: So long as the
province does not prohibit it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am inclined
to say the provinces are hardly dealing fairly with the Dominion on this question. They have absolute power to forbid the sale and use of liquor, and they can stop that liquor from coming into the province. Still, they will not do it. So far as I can learn no province has taken advantage of the legislation which the Dominion Government has placed on the statute books. Let me* go a little further.


James Hamilton Ross: Could not the Government effect the very same purpose by prohibiting the manufacture and importation of liquor in a province?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then it would be interfering with the autonomy of the provinces, and my hon. friend would be one of the first to argue that that would be seriously interfering with provincial rights.


James Hamilton Ross: Let the Government try it,
and I will show you what I will do.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not only did the minister, in 1916, advance temperance legislation in this regard, but he brought in a further Bill, No. 121, which has further restricted wholesale quantities to certain persons. I am glad to say he has been able to give the provinces the power to control the distribution by mail of advertisements for the sale of liquor. Section 3 (a) of the Bill says:
3a. Any person who by himself, his clerk, servant or agent, and any person who as clerk, servant, agent, officer or employee of any other person, sends or attempts to send, through His Majesty's mails, to, from or in any province, any advertisement, letter or document with respect to the sale, purchase or furnishing of intoxicating liquor, the publication or circulation of which is prohibited by the law of such province, is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty of not less than ten dollars and not exceeding one hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a term [DOT] not exceeding thirty days, or to both fine and imprisonment.
In the district I have the honour to represent they have felt it has been a very great injustice to allow the Post Office Department to be used for the purpose of
distributing advertisements for the sale of liquor. The same contention is made in different parts of the province of Ontario and I am sure I am voicing the sentiments of every member of the House when I say we appreciate the efforts of the minister in bringing about this legislation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am surprised that the mails of His Majesty are polluted by liquor. When I had the honour to be Postmaster General of Canada I issued directions to every mail carrier not to carry liquor with His Majesty's mail. I do not see how the next section can be made effective, because it prohibits the circulation of liquor literature or advertisements through His Majesty's mail. The Montreal Gazette is full of liquor advertisements. Many of the Montreal papers contain advertisements of the licensed victuallers, and include the names of the various port wines, Scotch whiskies and so on. They pass through the mails without anything to prevent them, and they circulate largely in other provinces.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But, this law is to prevent that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would my hon. friend undertake to say that the Montreal Gazette, or La Patrie, or Le Canada, or Le Devoir, or any other Montreal newspaper containing liquor advertisements will be forbidden circulation in provinces where they have prohibition?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is being done in the United States.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the province prohibits it. This has been done in many cases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think that is a very drastic section. It means that if the Government of Ontario is sincere it will have to prevent the Montreal Star, the Montreal Gazette, La Patrie, Le Canada, and nearly every paper published in Montreal from circulating in Ontario. The only paper that does not publish any liquor advertisements is the Montreal Weekly Witness, which lives up to its professions, and has always been a temperance paper. But all the press of Montreal will be suppressed by the Ontario Government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the advertisements will be suppressed but not the papers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would be very much surprised if the Toronto Government would notify the Montreal Gazette and the Mont-

real Star that they will not be allowed to circulate in Ontario unless these liquor advertisements are omitted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have done it in the United States.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I confess that the section will prove very drastic if it is lived up to and if the Ontario Government is sincere. Immediately after this Bill is sanctioned we will have a test of its sincerity. If it is sincere it will prohibit these papers from circulating in Ontario.


Charles Marcil: I find in the Montreal Gazette of to-day two advertisements, one for "Molson's Extra Mild Ale" and another for "White Horse, the pride of the Army."


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: We are not on clause 2 yet.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are on clause 1.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Mails not to be used for circulating liquor advertisements, etc., in province where such advertisements are prohibited:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Last year I very strongly supported legislation of this character, and it is a matter of more than ordinary satisfaction to know that the province of Alberta, at the last session of the legislature, availed itself of the very provision of the statute that we then passed. I submitted at that time that any province might pass legislation limiting the quantity of intoxicating liquors that any of its citizens might have in his possession, and that once that limit was imposed by provincial legislation, it followed that by virtue of the legislation we then passed, any attempt on the part of any person either to ship or to import into that province a larger quantity than the quantity fixed by the law of the province would be a violation of the law and subject both the importer and the shipper to the penalties that are provided. So that, on the first day of July of this year, there came into force a statute passed by the legislature of Alberta which provides that if any individual has in his possession a greater quantity than one pint of intoxicants, he shall be subject to the pains and penalties provided by the statute.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not even a "square-face."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not even a "square-face"-and a larger quantity of beer. It follows that in that province to-day, if the firm in Montreal to which my hon. friend has just referred, endeavoured to ship to
[Mr. Lemieux.}
the city of Calgary, consigned to me, a case of whisky, I should be liable under the terms of the Act of last session, and the shipper would also be liable because of the shipment into Alberta of a larger quantity than by the law of the province I could have in my possession. Therefore, this statute in actual practice is working out to the very end that was sought; and by and by, when public opinion has become educated, and there is behind the law that sanction of public opinion without which no statute can become effective, the legislature will declare that it is an offence for any of its citizens to have any quantity of intoxicants in his possession. When that moment arrives, as it will arrive, any shipment from Ontario or British Columbia into that province will be a violation of the provisions of the statute and prohibition will be an accomplished fact.
My hon. friend1 from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) referred to the fact that the Federal Government might have enacted a statute forbidding the manufacture of intoxicants. But I desire to point out to him that large investments have been made in this country for the manufacture of intoxicants, not necessarily for the use of the Canadian people, and' for my part, while I am content to see placed upon the statute books of my country, province and Dominion alike, legislation which will bring about prohibition, I am not yet so ambitious as to desire to impose my views as to sumptuary legislation upon the minds of those who may desire to import Canadian whisky into their own country. The enactment of temperance legislation goes on in Canada and if we were to carry the laws on the statute books to their ultimate end these intoxicants could find a market only outside of Canada and in those countries that may desire to use them. That is the position. I do not believe that my hon. friend would think that it would be proper on the part of the Canadian Parliament and people to say: We will forbid you to manufacture for those people in South America who like Walker's whisky or a form of gin that is manufactured. If these people see fit to use these intoxicants they must be the best judges as to what they want. I would -resent very keenly the people of South America undertaking to determine what I should eat or drink. If they desire to use intoxicants in that manner, I submit, we should not [DOT] prevent them. If we so desire, legislation looking to the accomplishment of prohibition in Canada, can be made absolutely effective. The province of Alberta is now on the highroad to that end. As far as

the carrying trade is concerned I am sure that my hon. friend will agree that a common carrier must accept freight. He who ships and he who receives must accept any consequences in so far as they involve a violation of the law, unless we treat the carriage of liquor as we do some form of high explosives and make the law absolutely prohibitive.
Ajs far as this section is concerned, it aims to treat advertisements in public newspapers on the same basis as shipments of the liquor itself. If the province of Alberta, as it has, passes legislation forbidding advertisements within the province of intoxicants for sale, forbidding advertisements in newspapers in Alberta, this legislation makes it an offence for a newspaper publisher outside of Alberta to send into that province his papers with advertisements of intoxicating liquors offered for sale. What happened in the United States may happen here. I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen are fully aware of the great struggle that took place in some of the western states to accomplish this very thing. One .of the largest and most enterprising journals in the United States is publishing a special edition for circulation in those states where they have passed this law while its general edition circulates throughout other parts of the republic. I doubt not that many hon. gentlemen in this House have seen the editorial references that have been made by Life, one of the most interesting of American journals, with respect to the character of that legislation. Whether such legislation commends itself to every one or not is another question, but at least this Bill makes effective the Acts which have been passed by the provinces in the exercise of the legislative jurisdiction which they enjoy under the constitution. They having declared their mind this Parliament has supplemented their efforts by declaring that any endeavour on the ipart of a liquor seller or newspaper vendor to circumvent the law of the province and to nullify its effect shall be an offence punishable upon conviction under the statute. For that reason I congratulate the minister upon what he has done. I do believe that when we have carried this legislation to its finality we shall have accomplished, with the sanction of the great body of public opinion, behind it, that measure of prohibition which only will be effective in a country such as this.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I should hesitate to
adopt the moral principle laid down by the hon. membeT for Calgary, namely, that
because other people want a thing, therefore it will be right for us to manufacture or to provide it. If the people of the Fiji Islands wish to commit murder, therefore, under this principle, I have a right to ship them knives or explosives or anything of that kind, knowing exactly for what purpose they wish to have them. That is a doctrine to which I will not subscribe. Too much congratulation cannot be extended to the Minister of Justice for his fair and equitable handling of this question. There has been a great body of public opinion in Canada both foT and against provincial rights. That is to say, they have been on some occasions very strongly for provincial independence, and those very same people, when other matters were under discussion, were very anxious that provincial rights should not be granted. Such an impossible position as that, of course, could not exist. It is in the face of that that the Minister of Justice, bearing in mind the essential principle of provincial rights, has endeavoured to make provincial rights what they were intended to be, namely, a source of independence and liberty on the part of the provinces so far as it is possible, for them to exist consistent with Confederation. He has observed that; he has carried it out; he has put in the hands of the different provinces the possibility of practising that degree of abstinence which they desire. It is well recognized, and must be recognized, that if a province does not desire to have prohibition, as, for example, British Columbia, it would be absolutely impossible for the Dominion to enforce it there. We know perfectly well, following what has been said by many members of the Opposition with regard to different railways, and so on, that if prosecutions did ensue it would be put down to politics, and if they did not it would also be put down to polities. So that, all things considered, there can be no question whatever that this method of dealing with the liquor question is beyond all peradventure the very best, and I am sure that the people of Canada will congratulate the Minister of Justice and the House upon having piloted .through such a wholesome measure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was dealing with sumptuary legislation. 'Sumptuary legislation is a matter about which divers opinions are held by divers people, and I for one am not prepared to decide upon sumptuary legislation for anybody in South America.



Mr. MARCH.: Would the hon. member tell the House that he is in favour of-continuing the manufacture of liquor and beer in this country with foodstuffs which are required at the present time? Does he consider that these are normal times in Canada, and that, in view of what Parliament has authorized by Order in Council, the time is opportune to deal with this question as he would have dealt with it ten or fifteen years ago?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am opposed to the use of grains for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in war times, and always have been.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Even ifor the people of South America?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Even for the people of Ontario.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would call attention to the fact that we are on a clause dealing with the question of sending liquor advertisement through the mails, and it seems to me that the discussion of the general question of prohibition is not relevant to this clause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is unfortunate that these rules are discovered when the discussion drifts to this side of the House. The cyclone commenced in western Ontario and swept this way, taking in all the provinces; but only when it crossed the Table to this side of the House were there any rules at all. I am sorry, now it has crossed to this side, that prohibition and restriction have immediately come into force.
On section 4 B-Seizure of liquor pending conviction:


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is a clause to
make it possible to seize liquor so that it may be held until the conviction is had. Under the Act as it stands, if there is conviction of an offence against this Act the liquor which forms the corpus delicti is confiscated, but unless you provide for a method of 'seizure whereby it can be held, in most cases the liquor is not there when the conviction is obtained. I think the necessity of the clause is obvious. Attention has been called to this matter by different provincial officers engaged in the enforcement of the law.


James Joseph Hughes: I beg to suggest some slight amendments to this section, having in view the conditions in Prince Edward Island. Provision is made to have an officer search a government railway or

vehicle or steamship. I should like to have the word " warehouse " inserted after " railway


Charles Joseph Doherty: Are there Government
warehouses?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, and liquor is stored in them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be very glad to insert the word " warehouse


James Joseph Hughes: Liquor is imported in packages and every device is used to prevent officers knowing there is liquor in the package. It is imported in flour barrels, boot boxes and so on. I should like to see power given an officer to open a package that he thought might contain liquor, and to have it provided that he should not be liable to any penalty in consequence. I do not know whether that power could be given to him by this Act or by provincial legislation. You give the officer power to search premises and remove any intoxicating liquor in packages, and so on. I suggest that you add the following words:
And may open and examine the contents of any package or packages which he thinks may contain intoxicating liquor.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is enabled, under this section, to seize and remove any intoxicating liquor or any packages containing the same. I do not think there is any doubt about his power to open and examine packages. The section states that if he has reason to believe there is any liquor on any premises, he has power to enter and search such premises. I would have no doubt that a man entitled to search a place to find a particular thing is entitled to search every receptacle on the premises.


James Joseph Hughes: And open the package?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: If he is mistaken, he is not liable to a penalty?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No man is liable to a penalty for doing that which the law authorizes him to do.
Section adopted.
On section 4 (c)-Operation of Canada Temperance Act may be suspended upon petition:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does this meet the condition of affairs in New Brunswick at the present time? Petitions have been sent to

the Government from a great many counties in New Brunswick.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is at the instance of the people promoting those petitions that this legislation is proposed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are petitions asking for the repeal of the Canada Temperance Act, in order that the prohibitory Act of New Brunswick may come into force, and this Order in Council will make unnecessary the holding of an election in these respective counties, but we can have the Prohibition Act brought into force by means of passing this Order in Council.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The petitions for this provision came from other provinces, but principally from New Brunswick, and I intend to move an amendment to this section, to make it quite clear that this applies not only to petitions which are received after this Bill becomes law, but also to pending petitions. I am not quite sure that it is necessary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Make it ae strong as
possible.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it is good for a
petition received to-morrow, it is good for a petition which came in last week. I move that we amend section 4 (c) of section 3, by adding the words:
The present subsection shall apply to petitions already made, and upon which no polling has as yet taken place.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection 4 (d)-Penalty for selling alcoholic beverages as medicines not to affect liability under provincial laws:
Charles Joseph Doherty: That is only to meet the complications that have arisen. We have provisions in the Proprietary Medicines Act imposing penalties where, under guise of proprietary medicines, decoctions containing more than a certain amount of alcohol are sold. There have been cases where such preparations were purely and simply alcoholic beverages, and some of the courts have held that because of the provisions in the Proprietary Medicines Act the party could not be prosecuted undeT the Prohibition Act of the province. Under the last-mentioned Act the penalty is heavier than under the Proprietary Medicines Act, and this enactment simply means that the penalties imposed under the Proprietary Medicines Act could not be treated as in substi-279J
tution for penalties in cases where the same act constituted the violation of the provincial law; so that, where an- act is a violation of the Proprietary Medicines Act and a violation of the Provincial Prohibitory Act, you may prosecute under the one Act or the other.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill ae amended reported, and read the third time and passed.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
Monday, August 13, 1917.