1919-05-21

INQUIRY INTO EFFICIENCY OF THE INSIDE CIVIL SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth) moved the adoption of the first report of the special committee appointed for the purpose of considering the possibility of reducing or re-arranging the staffs of the inside Civil Service with a view to securing the greatest efficiency with the minimum number of employees, and moved that it be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. PEDLOW:: 1.	What is the total amount of money received by Colonel James Arthurs, M.P., Parry Sound, as pay and expenses from the Department of Militia and Defence, while on service both in Canada and overseas?
2.	On what date did he sever his connection with the Department of Militia and Defence?
3.	Since severing his connection has he received payment of any further sums from the Department of Militia and Defence?
4.	If so, how much, and for what service?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1, 2, 3 and 4. The whole of this information is not available in Canada, but a cable has been sent overseas for the necessary information.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

['I beg to move that there be inserted in the Bill as section 16 the following:\nSubsection (c) of section 60 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:\n(c) to every officer in the force on the first day of July. 1902.\nSection 60 created this pension system for the officers of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. Prior to that, they had certain rights to a pension under the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act. When the Mounted Police Act was amended by creating a pension fund to which the officers of the force must contribute, every officer was given a certain period in which to\n[Mr. Rowell. 1\nelect whether he would come in under the Mounted Police Act or retain his rights under the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act. There were two officers of the force out in the North country, either in the Yukon on the Mackenzie River district, I am not sure which, who were not able to take advantage of the Act in time, and they have been unable to come in under its provisions in consequence. They have wanted to do so, but as the Act was not being amended, it has not been possible to permit them to come in. The amendment I have proposed is simply to enable them to take advantage of the opportunity enabling all the officers to come in under the Act, and of which the great majority have taken advantage.']
Mr. BUREAU:: How many Orders in Council have been passed under the War Measures Act?



[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the House to again go into Committee on Bill No. 53 (from the Senate) to amend the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act.
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue):: This Bill was before Committee of the Whole some few days ago when very substantial amendments were proposed. In some respects the Bill is contentious, and requests have been made by many persons in regard to certain of its provisions. It is very desirable, I think, that these persons be heard, and the most convenient way of so doing is to refer the Bill to a special committee. I move, with the unanimous consent of the House:
That Order 21 he struck from the Order Paper and that Bill No. 53 he referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Beland, Oopp, Cowan, Douglas (Cape Breton South and Richmond), Long, McMaster, Manion, Nesbitt, Pedlow, Sheard, Stevens and Sutherland, with power to call for persons, paipers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):: At this late stage of the session it is very unlikely that the special committee which is now proposed will have time to sit, and hear evidence and report. I do not know what procedure could be suggested in lieu of what is now contemplated, but it is obvious there will not be time now for a special committee to consider this Bill in all its details and report, and then for opportunity to be afforded for a thorough consideration of the measure by the House.
il would suggest that we further consider the Bill in Committee of the Whole. No doubt the hon. minister has had a number of interviews since the Bill was considered in 'Committee, and he might be in a position to suggest some amendments. I believe that would be the proper course to adopt, otherwise it means that the law will remain as it is to-day.
Hon. Mr. MiAQLEAN: I have had many requests from hon. gentlemen to appoint this Committee. I think if the Committee when properly constituted fixes one day for the hearing, that will be sufficient. There is no reason as far as I can see why the Committee should not report the Bill promptly.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: L hope it will be a
lesson to the Government to introduce Bills of this importance in the House of Commons instead of in the Senate.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion can only
be entertained by unanimous consent. Do I understand the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) to object?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, I do not object. I
understand that the Committee will have power to summon witnesses before it to give evidence. That in itself will require more than one sitting.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Committee
need not exercise that power. Motions of this kind invariably contain those words. The power is there in the event of the Committee desiring to call any one before it, but I do not think there will be any necessity to exercise the power.
Mr. PETER MoQIBRON (Muskoka): May we have the assurance of the hon. minister that the Bill will reappear this session?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I see no reason why i't should not. I have every desire to expedite the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 107 to confirm the Order in Council of the twenty-fourth day of February, 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of the twelfth day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: Will the Acting Prime Minister give us some information on the details of the Bill?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Upon consideration by the Committee of the resolution which preceded this Bill I made a full statement as to its nature and scope and I do not know that there is anything I can usefully add on this occasion. If in Committee further information is required in regard to any of the sections of the Bill, I shall, of course, be pleased to reply in as great detail as may be necessary.
<pior which is in prohibited area allowed but not delivery in that area.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1, subsection (1)-Orders in Council confirmed. Definition of " prohibited area " amended. Importation of permitted wine allowed. Manufacture of liquor that may be sold in any province to be permitted in such province. Transportation of liquor, the use of which is permitted, to be allowed. Sale of li
Jacques Bureau: Could we have the regulation read now as amended before we pro-

ceed? To hear that a word is stricken off in the third line or added in the sixth line does not help us very much.


William Thomas White: I think my hon friend will have no difficulty in following it. He will find in the schedule the regulations referred to, and the amendments are of a comparatively simple character. I will send up to the Parliamentary counsel to see if he has a copy of the Bill in its amended form, but in the meantime I think we can make progress. For example, take the first section:
The Orders in Council marked " A " and " B " in the Schedule to this Act are hereby declared to be valid and are ratified and confirmed, and declared to have the force of law according to their terms, subject to the following amendments to the said Order in Council marked " A."
That is to say, as I explained upon the resolution, the Government is asking the House to ratify and confirm the two Orders in Council, subject to such amendments as are necessary to enable effect to be given to any provincial legislation respecting the sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. Then take subsection (a) of section 1.
Paragraph (c) of regulation one is amended by striking out all the words after the word "wine" in tfie last line thereof and inserting the following words in lieu thereof: "or other intoxicating liquors of limited alcoholic content are permitted."


Jacques Bureau: That may be all right, but we had the same thing last night, if I may be permitted to inform the Acting Prime Minister. Somebody is charged with the duty of drafting amendments to a Bill, and the Bill is examined by a subcommittee. We have full confidence in the sub-committee, and we are satisfied that the Parliamentary counsel has seen that the drafting is proper. But we have not the law before us as amended, and I think it unfair to any member of this House to have a clause read to him full steam stating that in the first line all words are struck out after the word " wine," and certain words are added in the second line, and so on. That is not the proper way to pass legislation. I suggest that the regulations as amended should be submitted to the members in order that they may have a chance to make a comparison between the law as it exists and the law as it will be when amended.


William Thomas White: I understand that some members of the Committee desire to speak generally on the question, and while an opportunity Is , being afforded them, I

shall endeavour to see if we can get the regulations in the form suggested by the hon. member.
Mr. CR'ONYN: Mr. Chairman, if I am now in order, I desire to make a few remarks on this clause and to suggest two amendments thereto. In the first place, when the resolution on which this Bill is founded came up for discussion, I suggested an amendment which was not approved by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White), and which was dropped. Upon reading his remarks in Hansard, I take it that the basis upon which the Government is acting in this matter is set out in these words by the Acting Prime Minister on page 2440 of Hansard:
The principle which should underlie the action of the Dominion with respect to legislation of this kind in recognition of the rights of the provinces to enact such legislation within their jurisdiction as they may deem proper.
And again, on page 2438, the Acting Prime Minister states:
I should be prepared to consider an amendment to the resolution which would provide for the importation into a province of wine not exceeding the alcoholic standard authorized hy the law of that province. Such an amend- [DOT] ment might provide for importation from a country outside of Canada, or for transportation from another province in Canada, into any province where such a law as I have mentioned is in effect.
Following the reason of the Acting Prime Minister, I feel it will be necessary to drop my former suggestion. I note that his position, which is also that of the Cabinet, has been approved by a body called, I think, the Dominion Alliance, which is prepared to endorse the Government in accepting the provincial view on matters concerning prohibition. I, therefore, do not purpose making any general remarks on the Bill itself. It would be futile to mention the fact, and I understand it to be a fact, that a petition of 1,500 Trades Unions was presented to the Government last February asking for an increase in the strength of beer. The answer, in View of the attitude of the Government, would be logically this: You must go to your provincial legislature and request it to increase the strength of the beer, if that is your desire. It would be useless to discuss the fact that in various states of the Union and in a number of European countries, beers of a strength of from two to three per cent alcohol by weight are declared to be non-intoxicants and are advocated very strongly by temperance societies and other bodies in those countries. But I do question whether this new Bill follows the provincial law, and I hope to be able to submit to the Committee a statement, which, if the Committee reach the opinion which I have reached, may cause them to favour the amendments which I shall suggest.
I want to take the case of Ontario as an example. I have no familiarity with the laws of the other provinces, but I have before me a copy of the Ontario Temperance Act. It is necessary for the consideration of this subject that the Committee follow as closely as they may be able, the law of Ontario as, in my opinion, it stands to-day. Under section 40 of the Ontario Temperance Act passed in 1916, there is a sweeping clause prohibiting any person from selling any liquor,-which, under the interpretation clause, is defined to be any liquid having an alcoholic strength of more than 2J per cent proof spirits. Section 41 is another sweeping clause and it provides, that no person by himself, his clerk, servant or agent shall have or keep or give liquor in any place wheresoever, other than in the private dwelling house in which he resides, without having first obtained a license under this Act authorizing him so to do. Then there follow three clauses to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee, and which may be classed as clauses of exception. I do not desire to read all of each of these clauses as portions do not affect the question at issue, but I hope to read all the words which have any bearing on the subject. Section 43 provides, amongst other things-and this section was enacted first in 1916, and amended in 1917:-
Nothing in section 41 contained si,ad prevent common carriers or other persons from carrying or conveying liquor from a place outside of Ontario to a place where the same may be lawfully received and lawfully kept in Ontario, or from a place where such liquor is lawfully kept and lawfully delivered within Ontario to a place outside Ontario, or from a place where such liquor may be lawfully kept and lawfully delivered in Ontario to another place in Ontario where the same may be lawfully kept, or through Ontario from a place outside of it to another place outside of it.
That clause, as will be seen, deals with common carriers or other persons interested in transportation. Then section 45 reads:
Nothing herein contained shall prevent any brewer, distiller or other person duly licensed by the Government of Canada, for the manufacture of spirituous, fermented or other liquors, from keeping or having liquor manufactured by him in any building wherein such manufacture is carried on, provided such building does not contravene the provisions of section 39 hereof, or for selling liquor therefrom to a person in another province or in a foreign country-*

I just want to emphasize that line, which is repeated in the next section.
-or for selling liquor therefrom to a person in another province or in a foreign country or to a licensee under this Act, or to the keeper of a liquor warehouse within the meaning of section 46.
Then this clause was amended at the last session of the legislature by repealing certain words and adding these:-
Nor shall it prevent a distiller selling alcohol to a wholesale druggist.
Then subsection (1) of section 46, which is very much along the same line as the fast section I have read, reads:-
Nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from having liquor for export sale in his liquor warehouse, provided such liquor warehouse and the business carried on therein complies with the requirements in subsection 2 hereof mentioned, or from selling such liquor from such warehouse to persons in other provinces or In foreign countries.
Under these sections of the Act-and 1 do not think there are, in that very voluminous Act, others which materially affect the provisions of those sections-the law of Ontario is clear that while one could not sell liquor having a strength of more than 2J per cent proof spirits in Ontario, it was possible to manufacture and export to places outside of Ontario liquor of a greater strength. Since that Act was passed, the Orders in Council, of which those now before us are a consolidation, came into effect, and in 1918 the Legislature of Ontario added section 154 to the Ontario Temperance Act, which reads:-
During the time any statute of the Parliament of Canada or any Order In Council passed thereunder is in force, the effect of which is to prohibit the transportation of liquor into or out of this province for any purpose, sections 43, 45, 46 and section 139 of the Ontario Temperance Act shall be deemed to be suspended to the extent necessary to conform to the provisions of such statute or order.
I would call the attention of the Committee particularly to the words "shall be deemed to be suspended." I submit that the real effect of the Bill before the Committee is not to implement the provincial law, but actually to supplant it. The pro-, vincial law, as I hope I have made clear, did allow the export of liquor of a greater strength than that mentioned, and the Order in Council actually prevents it. It is quite true it may be argued that the Ontario Legislature suspended the operation of the four sections I have mentioned during the continuance of the Orders in Council, but if we now confirm by this legislation those Orders in Council, are we
]Mr. Cronyn. [
not virtually legislating for Ontario? That is the effect, and if I cannot make that clear, I must confess to failure.
It may be argued that Ontario recognized the Orders in Council and was only too glad to lay the burden upon the shoulders of the Dominion-words to that effect were used in a former discussion. I rather take it that Ontario desired no clash of jurisdiction between the province and the Dominion and was quite willing to supplement the Dominion Order in Council by saying "While that Order in Council is in force we shall suspend the effect of our Act."
In order that the Committee may understand the effect of the amendment I shall propose, I will read subsection 1 of section 3 of the regulations, appearing on page 4 of the Bill, as amended by section 1 of the Bill:
No person shall make or manufacture intoxicating liquor or cause intoxicating liquor to be made or manufactured within the Dominion of Canada after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen: Provided that in case the sale of intoxicating liquor of any class for beverage purposes is permitted in any province, this regulation shall not apply to the manufacture of such intoxicating liquor in such province.
Section 1 of the Bill strikes out all the words after "province" in subsection (1) of section 3, so that the subsection as amended will read as above. Now my amendment is that the last three words "in such province" shall be struck out. The proviso will then read as follows:
Provided that in case the sale of intoxicating liquor of any class for beverage purposes is permitted in any province, this regulation shall not apply to the manufacture of such intoxicating liquor.
In other words, as the law of Quebec allows beer of a strength of 2.96 per cent to be manufactured and sold in that province, the other provinces may lawfully manufacture beer of that strength.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: It will be a case of Quebec ruling Canada.


Mr. CRONYN:: Perhaps so. The amendment, of course, does not make the sale of that beer lawful in any province outside of Quebec. It would be just as unlawful for a brewer to sell beer of that strength in Ontario as to sell to the public the stronger beer which the brewers now manufacture and sell for medicinal purposes to licensed vendors.
Combined with the amendment I have proposed, I also suggest an amendment to subsection (3) of section 3 of the regulations, and in this case my amendment has to be

read into the amendment proposed by the Government, I will now read subsection 3 as it will read with the combined amendment:
No person after the first day of April 1918, shall send, take, transport into or deliver in any prohibited area any intoxicating liquor, or cause any intoxicating liquors to he sent, transported or delivered.	i
I leave out the proviso which then follows, because it has only a temporary effect and does not govern this case at all, and I will read the second proviso with the combined amendment:
Provided that this regulation shall not apply to the sending, taking, transporting or delivering any intoxicating liquor lawfully manufactured in any province to any place where such intoxicating liquor may lawfully he sold.
Hon. members will see that my amendment strikes out the words "in such province" from the amendment appearing in paragraph (d) of section 1 of the Bill. I quite agree with the hon. member (Mr. Bureau) that it is most difficult to follow the Bill in its present form. (The net effect of the two amendments I have proposed is to allow the manufacture of beer of the strength permitted by the province of Quebec in any province of the Dominion, It does not permit the manufacture of any other liquor; it would, of course, permit the manufacture of wine up to the Quebec strength, but that is already provided for under a special proviso. It would also permit the export of that beer not only to the province of Quebec but to any foreign country where it can lawfully be sold. That is the total net effect of striking out the words " in such province" in the two subsections.
It restores to the. breweries throughout Canada-because it affects only the breweries, as I read the Act-their right to export ale of only Quebec strength to any country where it may lawfully be sold.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: That is the present proposition?


Hume Cronyn: That is the proposition as embodied in the amendment I have suggested. Under the Bill as brought down here, while you can import into Quebec wines of Quebec strength from anywhere in the world including Ontario, you cannot export from Ontario or any province beers of any strength greater than 2J per cent proof spirit. That is the rule in Ontario, and, I understand, it is the same rule throughout the rest of Capada. The curious fact should be noted that if Ontario is so ill advised as to follow the example
set by Quebec-some people may quarrel with my phraseology describing it as ill advised^-and allow beer and wine of limited strength to be sold there, while Ontario could manufacture that beer it could not under this Act be sold outside of Ontario; and Quebec could not export her beer into Ontario, nor could any other province. As I said, I did not come prepared to discuss the general question, but I do not want this Committee to be under any misapprehension as to my view thereon. I am delighted to testify to the benefits derived from the abolition of the sale of ardent spirits under the Ontario Temperance Act, and I would be very sorry to see that Act repealed. But I am also of the opinion that the best measure of temperance to-day is that one, or something akin to it, adopted by the province of Quebec. I therefore move:
To amend clause 1 of the Bill by striking from sub-paragraph (d) of subsection, one, the words "in such province" where they appear in the thirtieth line of the said bill and by adding as sub-paragraph (f) of subsection one, the following words:
"(f) Subsection one of regulation three is amended by striking out the words 'in such province' in the eighth line thereof."


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I want to understand what the hon. member is doing by his amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Michael Clark: Some one is joking-


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Michael Clark: Well, I hope my voice is at once circumventing the acoustics of the Chamber and penetrating the somewhat dull faculties of my interrupters. I want to know what my hon. friend exactly desires to accomplish by his amendment. Does he want Ontario to manufacture these liquors, where they are not drunk, and export them into Quebec for sale there?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Hume Cronyn: To manufacture what may be termed "lager," which is absolutely the Quebec standard and export it not only into Quebec, but into any country where it may lawfully be sold.


Michael Clark: Does the hon. member not think tha't that would be a most immoral proceeding-at least from the Ontario point of view?


Hume Cronyn: Can my hon. friend justify the Ontario point o'f view which allows the manufacture and sale of native wine



having an alcoholic strength up to perhaps 20 per cent proof spirits?


Michael Clark: That is not under discussion. .
Mr. .THOMAS FOSTER:	The question
is, do we or do we not want a " dry " Canada? The answer is; we do. Considerable effort has been made to prove that the working men are anxious to return to the old condition of things. Even Gompers has given his view on liquor drinking and is rather encouraging the use of strong drinks among working men. From my experience I will venture to say, notwithstanding the endeavours that are made to draw the workman into this issue, that the liquor interests are involved in the attempt to revert to the old condition of things; and before I conclude my remarks II think I shall be able to convince the Committee that the workingmen generally do not want that condition. It is untrue that the workingmen are asking for it. But there are certain interests that are making capital out of the question for their personal advantage and at the expense of the workingmen. Let tis consider the question; from eome concrete standpoints. Do the railway companies, for instance, want to employ men who indulge in drinking either wine or beer? My experience is that any man who shows any indication of being addicted to the drink habit is turned down, and there is no use whatever for men of his type. Then take the manufacturers- and we have many of them in this Chamber. One such gentleman is sitting very close to me and no doubt he employs hundreds of men. I would like to ask him if he or any other manufacturer would employ to operate machinery men who showed signs of intoxication. I think not. And take the banks. I know of one instance in which a bank was wrecked through over-indulgence on the part of one of its principal men; and in another case of which I am aware, a man who had imbibed too freely lost one of the best positions in connection with the management of a bank. And in connection with the steam ship companies no man who is addicted to the drink habit even in the slightest degree will be employed, for we know that accidents have frequently happened and lives have been lost because men employed in occupations of this kind have given way to drink. I remember a few years ago that to be a school trustee or an alderman or a controller, a mayor or-member of Parliament, one could not succeed unless he had been
]Mn Cronyn, [
endorsed by the saloon-keeper or the hotelkeeper. This condition was rather embarrassing. If a respectable candidate wanted to offer himself for election,he would have to make terms with this class of people, and it meant that he had to go to every saloon in the riding and saturate the voters with booze so as to satisfy the saloonkeeper.


Samuel Hughes: That was not in Toronto.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER :: It was in a large city in this province. I have seen this condition time and again, and I have experienced it when offering myself in opposition to that class. I have seen candidates go from saloon to saloon to debauch the voters with a view to getting their support,
[DOT] and I might mention a rather amusing incident. I know of a candidate who catered extensively to people of this type. He would call into the saloon perhaps about twenty or thirty men, and there would be in all some hundred men in the saloon. He would purchase drinks for all the "boys" who, as soon as they had quaffed their fill, made their escape. The candidate could not understand it, but when he got to tRe next corner the men were all there as dry as ever. He went the rounds for a couple of hours, and the crowd grew larger and larger at each saloon, until after a while there was no saloon large enough to accommodate the men who had been trying without success for hours to slake their thirst. That condition of things has passed away, and we do not want a return to it. We know the debauching effect drink has had on the people generally, even when supplied by candidates who wanted to ensure their elections and to be considered pretty good fellows into the bargain. In satisfying those . who were ready to drink, they were only injuring men who would be better off without liquor. I wish to call the attention of the House to two or three statements which I shall quote as bearing upon this important question:
Prohibition Extending in Europe.
The trend of public opinion throughout Europe is ail against the Liquor traffic. Legislation prohibiting certain classes of spirits had been adopted prior to the war, and, since the outbreak of hostilities this has been largely extended, both in belligerent and neutral ooun- , tries, while beer and wine have been prohibited in some countries and greatly restricted in others.
Total prohibition has been enacted in Russia, Roumania, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Island, and among the North Sea Fisheries. Absinthe and similar spirits have been prohibited in France, absinthe in Switzerland,


MA f 21, 1919
[Stage Direction]
Italy, Holland, and Belgium: branvin in parts of Norway and throughout the rural parts and in some of the cities of Sweden: the use of home grown corn and potatoes for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor is prohibited dm Denmark and other countries: the manufacture of spirits for (beverage purposes has ceased in Great Britain and its sale in parts of Scotland and on certain days throughout the United Kingdom (is also prohibited. The beneficial results are so universal that prohibition is fast being recognized as the true remedy for the world's drink problem.
Mr. Stanley Washburn, the well-known British journalist, has stated in 1916:-"From Serbia to the Baltic there is not a public-house open, and', further, the Order is enforced to the letter: and greater even than that, it is accepted by the entire population."
Denmark:-An overwhelming majority of the people has declared for National Prohibition, and at the General Election in July, 1918, 69 per cent of the elected members of the various Liberal, Socialists, and other parties pledged * themselves to enact a measure for taking a National Plebiscite on Prohibition.
In France, Switzerland, and some other European countries, the demand for Prohibition or more drastic restriction on the liquor traffic is growing louder and more persistent.
I heard one hon. member of this House make the remark a few days ago that the drinking of coffee for a certain time caused sickness and that it was necessary, in order to counteract the effect. of the coffee, to take something stronger, or to indulge in another way. Well, if coffee has such an effect on the individual that it is necessary to resort to something stronger, I think I can prescribe a remedy that would be more effective than that if my hon. friend would accept my prescription. I would say to him that, instead of taking strong coffee to make him sick, and taking strong liquor to cure him, if he would take pure water all the year around, he would have none of these troubles at all. I read the following citation:
Civil War and Prohibition.
The first State to adopt Prohibition was Maine. From 1S51 down to the present time, with the exception of a few months in the years 1856-57, prohibition has been the law of Maine. On March 29th, 1918, the Governor of this State, in an address delivered before the State Convention of the Republican Party, at Portland, Maine, said:	" The honest efforts
of all officials charged with the enforcement of the Prohibition law in Maine have brought about a condition so satisfactory that all discussion of the wisdom of the law has permanently ended." This is surely an effective answer to those who declare that " Prohibition does not Prohibit."
Clearing the Liquor from Government and Civil Positions.
In spite of the powerful influence of the liquor interest and its influential lobbying in Congress, year after year the Temperance Reformers have made inroads upon the various strongholds of liquordom. To protect the In-
169i
dians, a Prohibition Zone has been established round every Indian Reservation. To protect the soldiers and sailors the sale of intoxicating liquors has been abolished from all Canteens, Army and Navy Training Camps and Naval Depots. Prohibition is also enforced in all Soldiers' and Sailors' Homes, Army Reservations, National Homes for Disabled Volunteers and Emigrant Stations, &c. To protect the workers a Prohibition zone has been established round shipyards and Government workshops. To protect young people, the evil effect of alcohol upon the human system is taught in all the public schools, colleges, and universities throughout the land1. By an Order issued September, 1918, the selling of alcoholic liquors is now prohibited on trains and1 at Railway Stations. Railway Corporations and many of the great industrial concerns have, with the approval of the Trades Unions connected therewith, prohibited servants employed by them from drinking while on duty, and in some instances this is extended to drinking whilst off duty, or frequenting places where intoxicating liquors are sold. The great fraternal organizations, such as the Masonic, Trade and Thrift Societies, totalling a membership of over 12 millions, exclude liquor-sellers from membership, and many societies call upon their members to vote for Local No-License and State-wide Prohibition.
Surely, if that has been the experience in the past, we cannot be too careful at this moment in changing the present condition as to the restriction of the liquor traffic, especially when societies representing 12,000,000 people will not admit to membership any one engaged in selling liquor or who is associated with the traffic. 1 read:
Methodist Minister Arrested.
The arrest of the Rev. S. F. Newton, pastor of the East End Methodist Church, for distributing temperance literature on the streets without a permit was one of the incidents of the campaign on Wednesday. Mr. Newton stated that he had permission from the general manager of the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company to distribute leaflets among his employees.
There is a case where a clergyman trying to do good, and innocently distributing certain kinds of literature, is arrested. We know, notwithstanding it was forbidden by this Government, that certain propagandists were distributing literature, that they were arrested, convicted and sentenced to two or three years' imprisonment, that their sentences were commuted and that they.were set at liberty. When men had been convicted of doing things of this description this Government had no right to interfere with the law but the law should have been allowed to have taken its course. Yet, here is a man,'a minister, who is doing harmless work and he is arrested and put in prison. It is not very creditable to those who undertook to bring about his arrest. I read:
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brewer: We are absolutely opposed to the restoration of the drinking bar. They propose to cleanse whisky drinking of its relations with crime and vice by changing its posture and ensconcing it behind tables. So universally are vice, crime, corruption, disease and misery associated with the bar, that both brewers and distillers are willing-nay anxious -that it should be banished-if only they can go on doing the mischief they have been doing by means of it. But no change of fittings or of posture is going to change the nature of the reptile or the fruits of its activities..
There are streets in Montreal whose reputation is so bad that their names have had to be changed over and over again. One which was named after a saint had to be unsanctified and was then called after a national hero, but he, in turn, had to be relieved of it; and it was again reduced to a more fitting godfather. It will be the same with the drink trade; its outward form will not change its unholy results.
Then., as to the saloon, we have the following declarations:
Death on the Saloon.
The Committee of Fifty, in their exhaustive study of the liquor traffic in the United States found that out of the unions investigated one out of every five is, by its constitution, directly opposed to the saloon, one out of every three is at least generally opposed to it, while only about 25 per cent of all unions seem to have no definite policy in relation to the liquor traffic;
Now come the opinions of labour leaders, men occupying responsible positions, and organizations of working men:
To inquiries, answers were received as follows :
Order of Hailway Conductors: We are absolutely opposed to the saloon, and it is incorporated in our laws that a man cannot engage in the liquor traffic and remain a member of this organization.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen: We oppose the saloon to the extent that the Brotherhood will not tolerate a member being connected with the sale of liquor.
International Seamen's Union: We continually enjoin sobriety upon our members by refusing to publish advertisements of the saloon, etc., in the official organ of the union.
United Garment Workers: Our organization is decidedly opposed to the saloon.
The Journeymen Tailors: The officers of our organization are decidedly opposed to the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage and its general secretary adds: " I have not failed whenever the opportunity has presented itself, to declare myself upon this question."
The United Mine Workers of America: The officers of the United Mine Workers of America discourage in every respect saloon business.
The constitution of the Telegraphers reads: The use of alcoholic liquor as a beverage shall be sufficient cause for rejecting any petition for membership.
And to crown all, and to prove that the fight against the saloon is not of recent origin, in 1894 the International Typographical Union in its convention called for " the State and national destruction of the liquor traffic."

The Blacksmith's Journal says the greatest curse to the labour movement has been the saloon, and it is high time that the labour leaders got together and forever divorced the trades union movement and the saloon influence.
It is a readjustment, a changed condition of society. Almost every disturbance in the ranks of organized labour can be traced back to some connection with the saloon.-John Mitchell, Vice-President A. F. L.
I have been criticised for my fight against the saloon, but I give notice here and now that I will fight the traffic as long as the saloon opposes the interests of the people. Too many men and women are going downstream to degradation for me to keep silent. To the trades unionist there is no redeeming feature in the saloon. Go anywhere where its influence is felt and you see the demoralization it brings. We are fighting for social well-being, civil benefits, and moral uplift. Never a foul plot is organized to injure public rights and social well-being but the saloon is used for the job.-John B. Lennon, Treasurer American Federation of Labour.
I know that I am right; I know that in refusing to even touch a drop of strong drink I was, and am, right. In refusing to treat another to that which I do not believe to be good for myself to drink, 1 know I am right. In refusing to associate with men who get drunk, I know I am right. In not allowing a rum-seller to gain admittance into the Order of the Knights of Labour, I know that I was right. In advising our assemblies not to rent halls or meeting rooms over drinking places, I know I was right. I have done this from the day my voice was first heard in the council halls of our order.-Terrance V. Powderly, former Gen-tral Master Workman of the Knights of Labour.
I will now give quotations showing what the position of President Wilson is: President Wilson's Glass of Water.
The American press report that when President Wilson responded to the toast of the President of the French Republic in Paris, he raised a glass filled with water, President Wilson drank no wine at the luncheon. Explaining the President's action to the French, Dr. Grayson# hist physician, said that Mr. Wilson never drank wine or alcoholic liquor of any kind.
Here is a further statement showing the attitude of labour towards the liquor traffic: Slandering the Workingman.
Friends of decency and sobriety are getting exceedingly tired of the constant vilification of labour at the hands of the Liquor Traffic. Every time an attempt is made to pass some prohibitory legislation there is a protest in the name of labour. We must not shut down the saloon lest labour be angry and cease work. The curious fact is that every time the vile grogshops have been put out of business in any large numbers, labour, far from quitting or causing trouble, has immediately become more efficient.-Zion's Herald, Boston, Mass.
That goes to show the opinion of the workingman and the effect which prohibition has with respect to his efficiency. Now let me give the opinions of the Canadian provincial premiers in regard to the value

of prohibition. The International Record contains the folowing:
Prime Ministers and Prohibition.
During' February, 1919, an extraordinary expression of opinion on the value of Prohibition was given by statesmen, professional and business men and others. We have only space for the following:
[Stage Direction]
Sir G. H. Murray, Prime Minister of Nova Scotia-"I regard Prohibition in Nova Scotia as very beneficial."
Hon. T. C. Norris, Prime Minister of Manitoba-"Results of Prohibition are certainly beneficial."
Hon. W. M. Martin, Prime Minister of Saskatchewan-"Money formerly spent on liquor now finds its way into more legitimate channels. Crime has greatly decreased, and one of our jails has been closed."
Hon. N. E. Foster, Prime Minister of New Brunswick-"Prohibition in New Brunswick since it became effective in May, 1913, has undoubtedly given satisfaction."
Sir W. H. Hearst, Prime Minister of Ontario

''All parts of the province Indicate the success of Prohibition."
It is apparent, from the statements I have read containing expressions of Oipinion by labour leaders, that it is a libel upon workingmen generally to say that they are not sympathetic towards prohibition. I have also given you the opinions of the various provincial premiers throughout the Dominion, and I think it can be taken for granted that a similar opinion is held by the Premier and the Acting Premier of Canada. Such being the case, and the House having now to deal with a prohibition measure, every clause of the Bill should receive the greatest consideration, and should be put in such a form as to demonstrate that Parliament proposes to discourage rather than encourage the liquor traffic and the consumption of liquors of any description. Surely it will not be long until the day comes when throughout this Dominion there will be total prohibition. I think you will find that every province will eventually vote in favour of it.
I do not suppose there is an hon. member but has had more or less experience of the degradation, the suffering and the wasting of energy of men and women through overindulgence in the use of intoxicating liquors. The world knows by this time that liquor sold under high license, low license, or no license, in saloon, export warehouse, or government grog shop, by hotel keeper, dealer, or " factor," whether across a bar, on a table, or in a sealed package is the same liquor, and it is the liquor that does the damage. Let us not be confused or deceived in this matter. The foe we are fighting is alcohol.
Then I saw the mother shudder and tremble as if with dread,
As she heard on the rotten staircase the sound of a heavy tread,
And the children run to their mother, and cry in their deep despair,
Oh, hide us from our father, for we hear him coming there.
Then I see the door flung open and a form come staggering in,
The form of one God made as man, now a brute through the curse of gin.
Those hungry babes are his children, that fainting woman his wife,
And he was their proud protector till the liquor ruined his life.
Now the stone is rolled away.
Hail the glorious Temperance Day.
Michael Clark: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I did not interrupt my hon. friend; indeed, I admired the care with which he had prepared his speech, and it has always been considered an invidious action to interfere with a young member. But I submit to you, 'Sir, that we are embarking on a second reading debate after the House has gone into Committee; that is the point of order I desire to raise. If we are to have a second reading debate we ought to have it at the proper stage, and it is a bad precedent at a time when law and order ought to be supported everywhere that a coach-and-four should be driven through the rules of the House of Commons itself. I hope my hon. friend will not take any offence at my remarks.


Mr. THOMAS  POSTER@: Certain latitude was given by the Acting Prime Minister to cover any general views on this question.


The CHAIRMAN:: The point of order
raised by the hon. member for Red Deer is well taken. The debate which is now being carried on is a second reading debate, discussing, not the Orders in Council at all, not the schedule to this Bill, not the clause under consideration, but the general principle of prohibition, which principle was adopted by this House when the Bill was read the second time. As long as the matter had not been brought to my attention by any hon. member I took it for granted that the debate was being carried on by the unanimous consent of the Committee; but now that it has been drawn to my attention I will have to ask hon. members to observe the rules and confine their remarks to the clause under consideration. Section 5 of rule 13 is well known to all hon. members. It is very short and has been read many times, but I will read it again:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.

Mr. McKEiNZIE: Of course, the point is not open to discussion, hut I might just remind the Chair that there is an amendment before the House which I think would let in the speech of the hon. member. .


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think it
would.	.


Mr. HEINDERS:: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) with regard to the turn taken by this discussion and I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to the matter in hand. As I understand it, this is an amendment that will continue the provinces in the right that they now have to deal with the use of intoxicants, I believe that when the Government dealt with the liquor question as a war measure and passed the Order in Council, they did one of the very wisest things possible under the circumstances, and there is no doubt that very great profit accrued to us as a people because of the advantages that followed that measure. The part that Canada played in the war would indicate that the action taken by the Government was along the right lines and brought splendid results. Now that the war is over and we are coming back to normal conditions, naturally the question comes up as to what should be the attitude of Canada on the temperance question. That brings us back to the point as to where the provinces stood on this question previous to the war, and there can be no doubt that their pronouncement was emphatic and conclusive along the line of prohibitory legislation, with the exception of one province, and that province through local option measures had in large measure in effect pronounced against the evils that flow from the effects of intoxicants used for beverage purposes.
I am glad that the Government has brought this matter up for consideration. In the main I agree with the Bill as now presented, which will leave the matter in the hands of the provinces to be dealt with as they see fit. I have always been a believer in provincial rights, and this regulation is placing the matter where the law previously enacted by the provinces placed it. In view of the fact, however, that the Order in Council gave practically Federal prohibition, and that we are enjoying that condition of affairs at the present time, it seemed to me that we might perhaps have left the Order in Council as it is, with the right reserved to each province, if it saw fit, to bring up the issue and vote on
[The Chairman. ]
it, as to whether it would continue a prohibition province or not.
This would have practically removed the question of prohibition as a contentious matter out of the realm of Federal politics and would have left it entirely with the provinces, and the Federal powers would have concurred in the attitude taken by each of the provinces. As the Bill now stands, however, no serious loss can accrue and no serious damage can be done to any one. I am prepared to support the Bill because of the position taken by the constituency which I represent. I have received from my constituency a large number of petitions asking that the strongest possible support be given to the retention of the prohibitory legislation that has been secured. I have further the endorsation of one of the largest organizations in my province, an organization that has placed itself on record year after year for seven years as being in favour of prohibition. I think that organization represents very largely the sentiment of the province from which I come, and I believe I would be acting contrary to the pronounced view of that organization as well as of the constituency which I represent, did I not make my voice heard to-day in endorsation of this Bill.


Mr. EULER:: It is not my purpose to discuss the merits or demerits of prohibition, although I would say in a general way that restrictive legislation of too drastic a nature, particularly at this time, is not in the interest of the country under the present unsettled conditions. The extremist in any movement is usually a greater hindrance to that movement than a help. I rise only for one purpose, and that is to point out what I consider was an inconsistency on the part of the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) in the statement he made the other day when discussing the resolution that preceded this Bill. He laid down the principle that legislation on prohibition should primarily be the function of the provinces, such legislation to be enacted after the will of the people of the provinces had been ascertained. With that, I entirely agree. If the people of any province say that they desire prohibition in whatever degree they please, then this Parliament of Canada can consistently enact legislation that will ensure, so far as lies within the power of this Parliament, that the will of the people of that province shall be made effective. When the Acting Prime Minister made that statement, he also stated that when the Government of Ontario enacted prohibitory legisla-

tion, he took it that they represented in that legislation the will of the great majority of the people of that province. I do not know upon what he ibased that assumption. It may be, and perhaps it is, the wish of the people of Ontario that they should have prohibition in that province, but, so far as this Parliament knows, there is no indication that the people of Ontario desire prohibition. Indeed, the election ol 1914 would show that prohibition was not favoured. For that reason my opinion is that this legislation is premature and anticipates what this Parliament believes to be the will of the people of Ontario. The proper method to follow would be this: First, obtain your mandate from the people of Ontario-and I refer now particularly to Ontario, because I know very little about the conditions in the other provinces-then, after that mandate has been obtained, this Parliament would be justified in making effective whatever wish is expressed by the people of that province. The Acting Prime Minister, when he stated that he took it that the people of Ontario endorsed the action of the Government of that province, could not have been in close communion with the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), -because, as far as I know, the only recent expression of opinion that we have from the people of Ontario was that given in the provincial election of 1914. The President of the Council knows all about that, because he was the leader of the Opposition in the Ontario House at that time, and that election was fought on a question of much less stringent legislation. The question was the abolition of the bar, and, as every one knows, the people of Ontario voted overwhelmingly against the Opposition, led by the present President of the Council. From that, we must gather, if we can gather anything at all, that the people of Ontario were opposed to prohibition, and if later on it seemed that opinion had changed, perhaps because of the war, the proper method to follow, before this Parliament interferes with provincial rights, would surely be to obtain a new mandate from the Ontario people. It may be the case that the people of that province will vote in favour of prohibition, but my argument is entirely on this point, that, so far as we know, the people of that province are, from their view as expressed * in the election of 1914, opposed to prohibitory legislation. This was war legislation in the first place, and now that the war is over, the logical thing to do would be to revert to the position as- before the war so
far as Dominion legislation is concerned. Then, when eaph province declares itself by referendum in favour of or against prohibition, as the case may be, it will become the duty of this Parliament to enact legislation to ensure the carrying out of that expressed view. The thought has just entered my mind whether the reason for this legislation is not that possibly some undertaking or promise was given to the effect that legislation of this character would be enacted. If any such promise was given at a certain time, perhaps a year or two ago at election time, we should be told to whom that promise -was given and what the consideration was.


Mr. CHARTERS:: I desire to say a word or two in support of this measure, (because in the first place I believg the passage and enforcement of a prohibitory law would result in greater good to the people of Canada than any measure we have put upon the statute -book in recent years, with the possible exception of that in regard to the conduct and the winning of the war.
The Government is to toe congratulated upon the courage it displayed in passing the Order in Council, and I believe that the House will toe commended by the people of this country for the readiness with which it is accepting the legislation validating the Order in Council. As we have recognized the right of self-determination by the provinces in this matter, we cannot have total prohibition at the present time, but this legislation approaches more nearly than any heretofore enacted to the objective at which the temperance people have been aiming for upwards of fifty years, and I believe that it will meet with the general approval of the temperance forces throughout the country. Many years ago ;gir John A. Macdonald told a temperance deputation that they would get prohibition (just as soon as they elected men to Parliament who would vote for' prohibition. I think the action of Parliament to-day indicates that the advice of Sir John A. Macdonald is being followed by the people of this country.
Are we wise in passing this legislation? In the first place, it has been asked whether the people of the province of Ontario are behind this proposed legislation. Let me remind the House that the people of Ontario have voted three times directly on this question, when no other issue was before them. In 1894, in the first Ontario plebiscite, there was a majority of 82,000 in favour of prohibition. The second vote was taken in 1898, when the Dominion [DOT]

plebiscite was held. At that time, although there was very great fear on the part of certain temperance workers that a vote in favour of prohibition would put the then Government in the hole, Ontario gave a majority of 39,000 in favour of prohibition. In 1902, when the third vote was taken, prohibition was carried by the province by a majority of 96,000. In 1916, a petition equal to upwards of eighty per cent of the total vote cast at the election two years before was presented to the legislature asking that prohibition be enacted, and following that, the present Ontario Temperance Act was passed. Surely that is sufficient evidence of the feeling of the people of the province of Ontario on this question, and because of that evidence I believe the Government is justified in introducing the legislation now before us.
Further evidence is found in the western provinces. In 1915, for instance, Alberta voted for the widest measure of prohibition within the jurisdiction of the province by a majority of upwards of 25,000; Saskatchewan, in 1916, by a majority of 71,000, and Manitoba in the same year, by a majority of more than 25,000. The same sentiment prevails in the eastern provinces. In view of this evidence of a strong sentiment in favour of the destruction, as far as possible, of the evils of the drink traffic, I think the Government is justified in seeking to validate this Order in Council, and I am convinced that the only serious complaint that will be made is that the legislation is to be enacted for one year only, instead of being made permanent. I am sure that if this Government or the local Government in Manitoba opened the saloons in Winnipeg at the present moment they would be regarded as fit only for the asylum, and the same Is true with regard to Toronto or any other city, where similar conditions might prevail. For the reasons I given this legislation has my heartiest support.


Michael Clark: I am a victim of unfortunate circumstances. I am compelled to break the law against my own will-that is, so far as breaking the rules of this House is breaking the law. I would not have done so, and I shall do so very briefly, but that there are one or two circumstances I am bound to point out in reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Charters). I have put to myself as carefully as I could the question "Do you think that you can honestly vote for giving greater facilities during the twelve months immediately ahead of us than exists at the present time for the drinking of intoxicating liquor, considering all

the circumstances of the country and the serious time through which we are passing?" [DOT] And I have concluded that my duty to the country compels me to answer that question in the negative. I do not think that I could honestly vote for giving any extra facilities for the use of intoxicating liquors during the first period of reconstruction; but when my hon. friend goes on to say that regret will be expressed that the Government have not gone further I take issue with him, and on very clear and distinct ground. He mentioned the province of Alberta. Now, in the province of Alberta the prohibition vote was as large as it was, very largely because of the constant use by prohibitionists of this kind of appeal-it was said to the people most distinctly: " You are voting on what is practically a measure for the abolition otf the bar; you are voting to abolish the free sale of these liquors in public houses over the bar; there is no disposition to interfere with any one's right to use liquor within his own home." I know I am right about that, because that argument was used upon the platform and in private canvass, and it had a very large influence	upon the vote that
was given in the province of Alberta. I do not know about other provinces, and therefore I do not mention them. Now, Mr. Chairman, what position does that put the question in from the prohibitionist's point of view? Good faith would have required that we should again have taken the opinion of that province on the question of importation. The Government in my judgment were perfectly justified in doing what they did as a war measure, and it was put up to them as a war measure by those who held what I venture to call, without any desire to offend, extreme views on this question. So that under the law complete prohibition was arrived at in Alberta by influences brought to bear upon the Dominion Government-I won't say against the wishes of the province of Alberta, because the question has never been submitted by referendum to the people- but against what they voted for at the time they voted on this question for their own particular province.
For that, reason I do not agree with my hon. friend that this question can remain as it is. I understood that what the extreme prohibitionists were advocating at this time was an extension by legislative enactment of the conditions established by the Order in Council, with the added view that the opinions of the entire 'Canadian people should be taken at the end of that time; and that would be the only fair thing

to my province, having regard to the way the vote was taken.
And, I have a shrewd suspicion that the same thing applies to other provinces. However, as I said at the outset of my remarks, which I am sorry are somewhat out of order, I am in- favour of the Government's measure. I am quite sure they have approached this question with a great seme of responsibility, and I am glad to support them in speech, and if there were a vote on the question I would support them in that respect also. Having looked as carefully as I can into the question I for.one should hesitate to take the responsibility of giving greater facilities, for the first twelve months after peace has been- declared, for the -sale of intoxicating liquors than there are at present.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: I understand that the particular subject before the committee is -the amendment of the hon. member for -London (Mr. Cron-yn) by which he purposes to allow the manufacture in Ontario of liquor -of such strength as is permitted in other provinces. Perhaps on a cursory consideration the proposal might seem reasonable, but a careful study of the question will not support -such a view. If the province of Ontario says it is in favour of complete prohibition, that would imply that it is also in favour of abolishing the manufacture of -liquor in that province, because it would be most inconsistent to say that you are not in favour of the sale of liquor, the consumption of which you think is not in the interests of the people, and at the same time that you are willing to have it -manufactured to any -strength permitted by other provinces. If the amendment of my hon. friend from London were accepted you would have breweries all over Ontario manufacturing beer to seven or eight different strengths. Perhaps British Columbia would permit 3 per cent, Alberta 5 per cent, Manitoba 6 per cent, and so on throughout the different provinces; and under the amendment beers of these varying strengths would be permitted to be manufactured in Ontario while the province itself had said that they did not think that the sale of liquor was in the public interest. I do not think that is consistent. If we in- Ontario say that we want prohibition because we believe it is -good for the people, how can we consistently be willing to manufacture it for sale in- Quebec? On the other hand, -if we pass a law permitting the -sale of light -wines of a certain strength-we may do that, I do not know-can we conscientiously manufacture light wines of a greater percentage of alcohol to ship elsewhere?


Samuel Hughes: In temperance
legislation why should we depart from the principle of equal rights and the same law for all, and special privileges for none? Why should there be a different law in Ontario in this matter from that in Quebec, and why should this Parliament legislate special laws for each province?


William Sora Middlebro: This Parliament is
not legislating special laws for any province. Each province may pass whatever law it chooses, and by the legislation proposed by the Government we ratify and enable such law to be put effectively into force.


Samuel Hughes: Why not do the same with any other concern?


William Sora Middlebro: We do not want to force laws upon any province which it does not wish, and as regards the liquor traffic , I think the only just and equitable solution of the difficulty is to allow each province to say what it -wants, and so soon as it had the courage to declare its conviction this Act would enable that province to carry its legislation effectively into force.
I think the Bill as it is is the best solution of the difficulty. It is fair to the provinces and to the Dominion.


Mr. BLAKE:: I said before that I was in favour of the law permitting each province to manufacture liquor for export to any other province. The Order in Council, taken on the whole, has been quite unnecessary. But as the Government gave a promise a year ago that it would be effective for a year after the war, we must endorse it under those circumstances. When w-e voted on prohibition in Manitoba the vote was two to one in favour of prohibition, but at that time we had the option, as every one knew, of sending to Ontario or Saskatchewan for liquor. That privilege has been cancelled by this Order in Council and has interfered greatly with the comfort of the people of Manitoba. I have heard it said dozens of times-in fact I do not recall having heard anything to the contrary in Manitoba-that if the vote were taken again under existing conditions, liquor not being allowed to be imported into Manitoba, the result would be vastly different and possibly prohibition would be defeated. We are not going to eradicate the liquor traffic suddenly by such legislation or by enforcing total pro-

hibition. Apparently, nothing has so many public enemies and at the time so many private friends as liquor, but very few of the old private friends are ready to say a word in its defence. Total prohibition can not be rapidly advanced successfully. The only member who has thoroughly understood this matter of temperance-and the question resolves itself into one of temperance versus prohibition-is the hon. President of the Privy Council. If he had had his way and were elected in Ontario he would have proceeded, as he said, to abolish the bar. That accomplished, the liquor stores would undoubtedly have been regulated and the business would have been put under Government control. This would have solved the whole difficulty slowly and gradually perhaps but effectively. The pendulum at present is swinging with terrific force and will come back again to probably the same condition that existed before the war. I remember an old Scotchman years ago having said that it was well to make haste slowly, and the same remark applies when dealing with an old established custom like this. Liquor has been drunk since the time of the flood, because we read that Noah was drunk after that great event. It is evident therefore that liquor must have been obtainable before that period. And we also read in the Scriptures that Christ converted water into wine. The Bible teaches temperance in all great things. And in any great reform such as free trade, it has not been achieved with one fell stroke and in the course of one short year. Total abstinence from liquor will not be effected with any great suddenness. What we want is a reasonable compromise. We might consider France and Italy, which have not yet tried prohibition, and benefit by the experience of other nations. England tried prohibition on a modified plan, providing shorter hours and weaker beer. But so much industrial unrest ensued that they had to resume the longer hours open and the selling of stronger beers. Would Russia not be better off to-day with Vodka galore as before the war than she is to-day tattered and torn and bleeding? I am satisfied that all this industrial unrest is the result of restraint that has been put upon the people by the war. Many men were compelled to serve, and many volunteered, and the war meant a great deal to some
55,000	homes. We had the race track abolished and that meant a great deal of pleasure to many people.
WTe have had fuel control, we have had food control and we have had, last but not least, prohibition, which was the straw that 
broke the camel's back and precipitated to a great extent the industrial unrest that we have to-day. No member of this House has had a better chance to see the workmen's homes than I have had in my experience as a practising physician in North Winnipeg. We cannot say that we have any slums but we have some homes which are by no means superb. I have watched these people at their meals in the days before prohibition came into effect. Many people who have come from European countries are fond of their beer *and, a.s they' have so little comfort in their homes, they receive a great deal of stimulus from a glass of beer at their meals and they are not so restless after their day's work. I am satisfied that the elimination of the soothing effect of alcohol suddenly has had a great deal to do with the unrest. If any member of this House, who has been an habitual smoker, has stopped it suddenly, for a week he does not feel as serene and happy as he formerly did about his home or amongst his friends. It has a soothing effect. In every country there seems to be something needed to soothe the nervous system. The soothing effect of liquor and of beer is something that will be missed if suddenly stopped. A friend of mine said: When you stop smoking, do it gradually. You have to stop it gradually just as we have to stop a morphine fiend gradually.
There has been too much fuss about this prohibition business. We all know that the liquor traffic will die a natural death. The older members of the House can remember the logging bees in Ontario to which nobody came unless there was a gallon or more of whisky guaranteed depending on the size of the bee. Thiity years ago at a medical banquet the best fellow was the one who was on top of the table when all the rest were under. That was only thirty years ago; the other instance, that of the logging bee, was probably forty years ago. We do not find anything of that kind at the threshing and logging bees amongst the farmers of Ontario at the present time. Twenty years ago we had the first dry banquet at Trinity Medical College. This is the result of the process of evolution, of gradual education, of the gradual discussion of this traffic. Yet, temperance people take to themselves all the credit for this process of evolution. Follow Darwin's theory of evolution if you wish. That is the process which has been,going on.
I think it is unfortunate that the conditions as they existed in Alberta, Mani-

toba, and some of the other provinces, have been disturbed by this Order in Council which we backed up on the promise of the Government that at the end of the year it should be dropped. I think it would be well to drop it and let the provinces make the best they can of the Doherty Act, which meets all the requirements.
We have heard a lot about the harm done by alcohol. I am satisfied that tea and tobacco are doing more harm in the land to-day with regard to the mentality, the physique, and the working capacity of the people than liquor, because they are more generally used. Fifty million dollars annually is the estimate placed on the tea bill of this country at the present time. I have known people to drink as many as one hundred cups of tea in a day. In the Old Country an Englishman would never think of taking a cup of tea after a meat meal. In this country, prepare tea as carefully as you can-and in many homes it is prepared very badly-take a meat meal and pour that tea down with its tatmie acid, and the food that you have taken must be tanned as brown as the hide is tanned foi the leather that goes into your shoes. Why is it that in the Old Country you find that most of the people are full blooded, while in this country a great many are sallow and yellow? Because they drink beer at their meat meals and avoid tea. The greatest trouble that the doctor has in treating patients in this country is to keep up the standard of the blood. Because of the quantity of tea that is drunk, it is very hard to do that.
The Women's Christian Temperance Union and various organizations are talking loud and long against liquor, but I am sorry to say that a great many of the members of these organizations never had a drink oi liquor and know nothing about it. Would I be justified in giving a lecture on digitalis, strychnine or morphine if I did not know anything about these things? Yet members of these organizations are lecturing people all over the country on the question of liquor. I am sure that 1 have had petitions from every Women's Christian Temperance Union in Manitoba, all drafted in the same way, from the same copy sent out from headquarters.
That brings me to a story that I heard about the master of the Rotunda hospital in Dublin. There was to be a temperance meeting in the early days of the temperance movement, and one of the gentlemen interested in it said to the master of the hospital: We want you to come on the platform. The master said: I cannot make a speech." " We do not want you to make a
speech, but we want you to be there to show by your presence that you are favourable to the movement." Several of the speakers failed to respond and the chairman was forced to call on the master to make a speech. He said: "Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I quite agree that bad whisky is a very bad thing, but I am quite convinced that a little good whisky never did anybody any harm."
Prohibition, in so far as it applies to Manitoba, has brought forward an awful crop of bootleggers and stills and the people afe getting bad whiskey, which, as I have said, is a very bad thing. We will admit that during the first year in which we had prohibition crime fell off eighty per cent. The police stations had to hire people to clean out the halls and so on; they were almost deserted. But to-day that condition of things is changed. Crime has-increased all over the country. The excise department has stated that there are probably 500 illicit stills in Winnipeg. I think they have underestimated the number. In every large city in Canada we find the same state of things. They tried to stamp out potheen in Western Ireland for a century, but they have not accomplished very much yet. This illicit traffic, making criminals of people, is going on. I do not know what the outcome will be, but I am satisfied that -if the people had liquor before the Order in Council came in they are going to have it still. There were few bootleggers until the Order in Council was brought into effect and since then there has been no end to them. The people need liquor and they are going to have it. During the influenza epidemic there was a lot of controversy as to whether whisky was beneficial in influenza or whether it was not. Those who had tasted it and knew of it were the ones who backed it up, while those who had never tasted it are most emphatic in their declarations that it was no good at all. They did not know anything aibout it. I might just explain how alcohol operates by saying that for many years in the treatment of tuberculosis we had given creosote in the hope of killing the germs by this means. Take a child with diphtheria, take two swabs from that child's throat, drop them into two tubes and in one of these tubes put in three or four drops of alcohol; in the tube containing the alcohol there will be no diphtheria germs in twenty-four hours, while in the other tube you will have the diphtheria germs develop.
During the influenza epidemic alcohol was the only poison with which we could flood the lungs in sufficient quantities to have any inhibitory effect upon the

growth and development of these germs. That ought to be sufficient proof that there is need for this remedy; and, although I am a temperance man, I would not want to practise medicine during such an epidemic as we had last winter without using whisky profusely upon -any of my patients who were suffering from influenza. I am satisfied that the results of my treatment will compare with those of any other practitioner on this continent, and I used heaps of toxine and whisky. The people need alcohol for medicine. Last winter they had to go to a doctor for a prescription when they wanted whisky, and had to buy say Burke's Irish whisky from -a drug store and pay as high as $7 a bottle. Talk about the high cost of living. Look at the hardship occasioned to the poor in Winnipeg by reason of the high charges made when they happened to need whisky for influenza. I do not want to be held responsible to say who of my patients shall have a bottle of whisky. It is unfair to the medical profession to expect them to do so, and it is unfair to the public that they should have to go to a medical man and pay one, two or three dollars, as some medical men charged, and then pay the prices charged for -a bottle of whisky as was done in some drug stores. That is not the fault of the retail druggists; I know the wholesale druggists are responsible as well. In the drug business, as in all other occupations there are middlemen, and the effort was made to get more money for their work than the manufacturer received for the finished product.
We have already had a referendum in this Dominion on the question of prohibition, and as a boy I worked hard for that referendum. The vote was a very close one, but it did not do any good, and I am satisfied that no federal referendum will achieve any great benefit. I believe the situation in regard to. prohibition should be left to each province to deal with. We have not had success with the law as it applied to Manitoba. I repeat that in the last influenza epidemic the wholesale druggist charged all sorts of prices, and the people were either held up by medical men for prescriptions, or else the doctors did not make any charge; it is distasteful to any conscientious member of the medical profession to be placed in such a situation as arose at that time. My suggestion, and my advice to Manitoba in a case like this, and I suppose the remedy might apply equally to other provinces, is to establish provincial liquor stores under

Government control and sell the best liquor that -can be procured at a reasonable price. License the head of each home, charge a nominal fee of one dollar per year for the license, and then permit the purchase of a bottle of whisky, or a case of beer per fortnight, or per month, as the provincial government may deem proper. In that way the traffic -can be regulated, real temperance brought about, and the tendency to crime removed. Control of the traffic, to my mind, is the important thing. We cannot hope to bring about total prohibition because stills will go on, just as the production of wine has always taken place on this globe. My hope is that people will deal with this question sanely; that they will try and carefully control the liquor traffic and not endeavour to enforce total prohibition immediately.


Samuel Hughes: L desire to ask the promoter of this measure-I do not know whether the Acting Prime Minister or the President)* of the Privy Council has it in charge-if native wine can be made i-n the province of Quebec up to the same percentage of strength as is made in Ontario under this Bill, and if the same thing can be done in British Columbia or any other -province? The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) said this was not special legislation, but as 

T read the Bill it is special legislation with respect to province after province. What I want to know is whether wine can be manufactured in Quebec up to twelve per cent strength as in Ontario, and whether the same thing can- be done in British Columbia, or vice versa?


William Thomas White: Yes, if the law of the province of British Columbia permits the sale of native wine for beverage purposes up to that strength. Ontario places its whole limitation upon the strength of the native wine which may be sold in the province for beverage purposes subject to the regulations that are in force.


Samuel Hughes: The point I want to make is that we are legislating for one province on- one line and for another province on another line, according to the whim of a particular province for the time being. My view is that we should have 'the same law for one province as for another; that there should be a universal statute applicable throughout the whole of Canada. This Parliament has no right to legislate according to the whim of any particular province. If you do that in the case of one

province why not do it in the case of another?


Mr. WHIDDEN (Brandon):: I want to
say a few words in favour of the amendments to the Order in Council embodied in this Bill as presented by the Government. In the first place I think the measure recognizes fully .the rights of the respective provinces to deal with this matter. It recognizes the legislation of the provinces and also the implied sentiment and attitude of a province where full and final legislation has not been put into effect. [DOT]I think 'that the argument raised in regard to the position of the province of 'Ontario is taken care of in that connection. If the people of that province change their view and express it in their ballots, the provisions contained in this Bill meets that supposed new situation. While the Bill, does not in the matter of the length of time it is to be in operation, go as far as I personally would like to see it go, I believe that in view of the strength of the position taken by the Government in relation to the situation likely to exist in the year that is before us, (as the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has already, stated) we can safely allow this legislation to take care of the needs of our developing country, and then permit the people of the Dominion, either through their representatives directly, or through a provincial or Dominion referendum, to express their sentiments when the twelve months have expired. Further I think this" Bill meets a situation which my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) argued for in the first part of his address, and then argued against in the last part, viz:	the
evolving sentiment and attitude of an intelligent people of our country with regard to a system which-I say it without any passion or prejudice but speaking historically-has grown out of barbaric instincts. Scientific authorities, not old-fashioned grandmotherly temperance agitators, or the narrow-gauge old time temperance agitator from Missouri, are responsible for that statement. I do not think it necessary for us to spend time in discussing the general principles of prohibition at the present moment. I believe that there has been placed before us a fair proposition designed to meet the situation which will exist in our country during the next year.
I would like, however, to notice one or two statements that have been made in this debate before I resume my seat. In the first place it has been asserted that the opinion of the majority of the people of Manitoba, expressed in various ways, is
that prohibtion has proved to be a failure in that province.
I do not wish to deny any of the statements that my hon. friend the member for North Winnipeg makes, but I will simply cite a quotation with regard to an official claiming that there were at least five hundred stills in operation in the city of Winnipeg alone. He was asked how many stills there were, and he replied: " How many stills; how do I know; there may be two, there may be ten, there may be five hundred." That was the statement that official made. However, a false interpretation of his statement was given publicity, and it was afterwards denied by a reliable and broad-minded citizen of Winnipeg. The same line of argument, Mr. Chairman, would have disproved the validity of Great Britain's position in doing away with slavery; there was many a slave bought and many a slave sold after slavery was abolished. But we do not propose to turn back this evolutionary process in the onward movement of an increasingly intelligent humanity, because there are evidences that we all have instincts which at times claim satisfaction in ways that are not good for the majority.
I think that we do well to enact such legislation as is proposed in this Bill, bearing in mind the outspoken demand and request of a great many thoughtful people in all classes of society throughout our Dominion and in many other countries, that we march steadily forward, not interfering with personal rights, where those rights do not interfere with the development of the national life. In regard to the claim made for the use of alcohol in a medicinal wav-although that is not the point before us-I think we would do well to remember that so far as the public consciousness at the present time is concerned, it is capable of changing this way or that. When we refer to other countries, let us not refer to those countries that have not yet developed such a consciousness as is capable of being developed; and when we refer to the dear Motherland, let us not forget that the Prime Minister of Great Britain-whom we delight to honour when the circumstances suit us individually-is responsible for that very, very strong, if not extreme statement of two or three years ago: That Great Britain had three enemies-Germany, Austria, and drink; and the greatest of these was drink.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: Mr. Chairman, I look upon this measure as the most important that has been brought before this House, notwithstanding the vital importance of so many measures that we have dealt

with since it has been my privilege to be a member. In saying that, as a prohibitionist I feel that it is not necessary for prohibitionists to justify, or to attempt to justify, prohibition as a means of wiping out the evils of the liquor traffic. The time has come when it is difficult to find any man who would undertake even for a moment to justify the liquor traffic as we have understood it. There are, however, those who will make an effort, that can only be looked upon as the last dying kick of those who, to retain a portion of their privileges, have from time immemorial fastened their tentacles on humanity through the liquor traffic.
This measure deals purely with the matter of giving to each province that which each province by its expressed will desires. Ontario has been referred to as being, one would imagine, the only province that was effected, and that Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island have been overlooked entirely. The argu-'" ment centered around the question in many respects would seem to lead to the conclusion that Quebec and Ontario were the whole Dominion of Canada. They are important parts of the Dominion beyond question, but there are also other parts of the Dominion. This legislation is for all the provinces and has no relation to one province as against the others, but is simply giving to each the right by its expressed will to have what it wishes.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would feel that it was unnecessary to go any further, because I rose chiefly to commend the Government for what they have done as a distinct step forward in bringing about what prohibitionists look to as the ultimate goal -the complete wiping out of the liquor traffic. But prohibitionists, who are at the same time sane men, do not wish this or any other Government to go faster than the people want them to, and if the people in any province desire a certain standard of liquor as a beverage I do not feel that 1, living in another province, have a right to say to those people, " You must accept something that I feel I should have because I am not living in your province."
But in order that we may not be misunderstood I would like to refer to one or two things that have been said on this question, sometimes in this House .and sometimes outside. I as a man who, I think, can presume to represent working men to some extent, having lived amongst them all my life, want to place the position of the working man in a proper light before

this House and country. A consistent, determined effort has been made to represent the working men of Canada as being in favour of the liquor traffic. I have been, as I believe has every other member of this House, flooded with petitions, all designed to lead us to the conclusion that the working men were not satisfied with what the Government was doing along the lines of prohibition and the curtailment of the liquor traffic. I am not going to question for one moment the bona fides of those who were circulating these petitions nor am I going to question the bona fides of the statement made in so far as they were representing the views of the individuals who were making them. But I am going to question the right of these men to represent the working men of Canada. I repeat, I have lived my whole life among working men, and I think I know something of their sentiments. I am going to give the House an idea of the efforts made to line up our working men and put them in a false position before the country in relation to the liquor traffic.
In doing that, I will read to the House some of the things that were said to organized bodies of workingmen from one end of the country to the other in an effort to have them pass resolutions in their organizations in support of the attempt to induce the Government to continue the liquor traffic. Some organization-I am not going to give my opinion as to what organization it was-undertook a propaganda from one end of the country to the other amongst organized labour, and that propaganda must have cost at least more than $100,000. I do not think the workingmen provided the money, but that is aside from the question. This is the first letter that was sent out to every body of organized labour in Canada. I will read just one or two extracts because the correspondence is too long to weary the Committee with:
So that you will have a complete record of the actual proceedings, we are enclosing a copy of the resolution referred to.
Experience has1 taught that resolutions do not meet their full value unless active propaganda is systematically employed to enforce them.
We are also enclosing a resolution and appeal, together with a stamped envelope, which we urgently request your Local to adopt at the very earliest possible moment. Kindly return to us at your earliiest convenience after your next regular meeting this resolution with the signature of your secretary and the seal of the local attached.
I want the Committee to notice particularly the next paragraph:

The purpose of this campaign is self-preservation. We desire above all things to keep our organization intact, and at the same time to lend our aid and assistance in fulfilling the expressed will of the workers as declared at the convention, who have asked for the privilege of enjoying a palatable and nutritious beverage which is non-intoxicating.
This statement was sent out by the organization behind this movement and it is the organization responsible for the resolutions which have been misused to represent the position of organized labour, that all that was being asked for was a non-intoxicating beverage. These resolutions were sent to every lodge or division of every one of the bodies of organized labour in the railway service in the Dominion of Canada. The first circular and first resolution sent out did not secure a single reply from any one of those organizations. That was followed up by another letter marked "confidential" and stating:
You have received communications in regard to our campaign for permitting the manufacture of a palatable, temperance beverage

Take note of the word "temperance."
-to contain less alcohol than is permitted in the manufacture of beer in the prohibition state of Maine.
We fully realize that your constitution may not permit you to sign the resolution as such, and it is far from our purpose, therefore, to ask you to violate any of your rules and regulations. If your sympathies are with us, if you feel that we are working along conservative, safe and sane lines, we should be very glad indeed, and we would highly appreciate if you would return the resolution to us, merely writing on its face that your constitution will not permit you to sign it, but that you give us your moral support and good will.
And so on and so on. Again that letter was sent to every one of those bodies from one end of the country to the other and with identically the same result-not a single answer from any one of the organized bodies of railway workers in Canada. Not satisfied with the progress they were making, after the lapse of a month, they sent out another letter marked "private and confidential" and beginning "Dear Sir and Brother." This time they were getting affectionate in their appeals to the workingmen of Canada in order to get their support for the liquor traffic. This letter reads:
We have been hourly expecting the resolution which we forwarded to you for adoption by your local.
We realize that only very unlooked-for circumstances of some kind would interfere with your co-operation. We have been so successful in our campaign that our ambition now is to make this appeal practically unanimous. With a little assistance and energy from you, this can be accomplished.
Please do not entrust this important matter to the mails.
Just as soon as your Local has adopted this resolution, please wire it direct to us at our expense.
We are again enclosing you copy of the resolution which we desire you to use.
Again thanking you for any assistance that you might give us, we beg to remain, etc.
This third appeal, couched in the language that I have just read, met with tlj.e same result as the other two-not one response. I have stated in this House before to-day that there is nothing in my life that I am more proud of than my association with the railwaymen of this country. I never was so proud of them as I was when I learned the result of these insidious appeals to organized bodies of labour men in the railway service of this country, that result being that not a single " local " as these bodies are termed approved the effort that was being made to line up organized labour with the liquor traffic.
While dealing with that, I should like to refer to another matter in connection with it just in order that hon. members in contemplating the possibilities of future legislation regarding the liquor traffic in Canada may take it into their consideration. The statutory law of Canada makes it a criminal offence for a man in the train service of this country anywhere, not only to drink intoxicating liquor, but to be found spending his time in one of the places where this stuff is sold. These so-called beer and wine saloons, that are a possibility under some of the conditions that are contemplated in this House, are of such a nature that if a man in the train service of this country is found frequenting any one of them, he cpn he haled before the,court and prosecuted criminally. That may be too drastic legislation, and perhaps it is, but I am going to give the Committee one or two things to think about before hon. members make up their -minds that it is. The men in the train service of this country are not going to he discriminated against very much longer. They have been discriminated against in the enactment of these laws; they have been set apart as a special class. It has been said to them: You are not going to be permitted to enjoy the conditions that the hon. membeT for Winnipeg North (Mr. Blake) looks upon as so very necessary for the well-being of the workingman; we will separate you as a special class. When this question is finally put before the Canadian people to deteripine, the railwaymen are going to demand that they stand on the same ground as every other man in this country. I would ask the hon. member for

Winnipeg North or any other hon. member in this Committee how he would like to go to bed in a pullman car going out of the city of Ottawa to-night with the knowledge that the man standing on the right hand side of that locomotive peering out into the night as he handled the train across the continent, had sitting beside him a jar of this stuff that the hon. member seems to think is so very necessary in order that the workingmen may be in a position to do their work, that, as he says, they may be full-blooded, that they may have the energy necessary to do these things. Or, I would like to ask any hon. member how he would feel if he knew that the train despatoher, in the still hours of the morning between one and five o'clock, had sitting beside him, instead of a pail of tea (which the hon. member (Mr. Blake) condemns so vigorously) a pail of lager beer. Would he feel that that man's intellect was so very much clearer, as the result of the imbibing of that kind of a beverage to maintain his vitality as he performed the most arduous kind of work any man could be called upon to perform?
The very reason why we have these drastic laws'in the train service of this country is because there is not a man in this House or out of it with an ounce of common sense who does not recognize that the lives of the travelling public would be at stake but for these very laws. The common sense of the men themselves, .recognizing that truth, has made them say, in the constitution of every single organization of railway employees in this country, that a man cannot be a member of any one of those organizations if he indulges in the use of intoxicating liquors to any extent whatever. If the Canadian people, when this question is directly before them for the first time, should decide against prohibition, railroad men are going to insist upon standing on their present ground, because if one of their members happens to come under the influence of drink they do not want to be brought before the criminal courts of this country, as I have known railway men to he brought, on the charge of being under the influence.
Let me say one word-and this brings me to the amendment moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Cronyn)-with reference to the manufacturing within a province of something that the province itself says should not be sold within its borders. I can scarcely conceive of a more immoral proposition being put before a body of intelligent men and the people of this country than to suggest that the provinces of Ontario, Mani-
toba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which say, "We do not believe there should be imported into or manufactured in our province a liquor above a certain strength, because we do not believe our people should drink it," should, for the sake of financial gain, declare, "We are going to manufacture the stuff that we say is not fit for our own .people to drink, and sell it outside of the province, where it will be accepted." I can hardly conceive of a more immoral proposition from any source whatever, than that there should be manufactured within a province something that the province emphatically states is not fit for its own people to use, whether it is liquor or anything else.
Let me add a word or two with regard to the workingman, because after all it is the workingman who is used as the argument in the effort to continue the liquor traffic in this country. I know workingmen's homes, not one, hut by the score, into which the light of heaven itself has come as the result of the measure of restriction we have had in this country already. I can count workingmen by the thousand who were kept down by liquor when the liquor traffic held sway who so long as their money lasted were good fellows, but as soon as their money was gone were kicked out on the street like so many dogs. That is how the liquor traffic treats the workingman.
I should like to give the House just one instance. In 1912 I had in my employ a man from a town many miles from Ottawa, and the only reason he was bank in the lumber woods of Northern Ontario was because he could not trust himself in places where liquor was sold. On a certain morning I received a telegram that this man's .wife was dangerously ill. I immediately despatched a man to the camp in which he ,was working, to get him out as quickly as possible. He got out to the town in which I lived, and in which there were two open bar-rooms, about two hours before the train left for his home town. He had sufficient money to take him home and look after his anticipated needs there, and left my office one hour and forty minutes before his train left. The following morning I got a wire asking that the man come quickly as his wife was dying. I wired that he had gone the day before and should be at home by that time. The next morning I'got another wire, " Where is so and so? His wife has only a few hours to live." I put the case in the hands of the provincial police to locate the man. They traced up and down the line, but could find no sign of him. The very next morning I got

a wire that his wife was dead, and on the following day a policeman found the man in the snakeroom of one of the hotels in the little town of Chapleau where I live. The climax came in June 1916, when that man staggered out of a bar-room in the city of Hull at ten o'clock at night, and the next morning his body was found against a boom of logs near Booth's mills. That is what the liquor traffic has done for the workingman, and that is why the workingman turns a deaf ear to the appeals of tlhe liquor traffic, that he should get behind it and give it his support. Never was I so proud of my association with the railway men of this country when T learned that notwithstanding these three appeals not one single " local," as they are called, in Canada gave them their support.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON:: I should not like bo remain silent while this Bill is passing through the Committee. If the case which the hon. member for East Algoma lias just recited were the only one, I be-iieve it would be a sufficient justification for the wiping out of the liquor traffic the world over; but the history of Canada, the history of the continent, nay, the history of the whole world affords hundreds of thousands of if not millions of such instances. History is weighted down with tragic stories of that kind. However, 1 do not wish to deal with the question from that standpoint.
The province of Manitoba passed its present Temperance Act about three years ago and it came into effect on the first of June, 1916. As a newspaperman of forty years 'experience, and as a public man, I want to bear testimony on this great issue, and as a Winnipeg editor, I want to tell of the success of the temperance legislation in that province. The almost complete extinction of the liquor traffic in Manitoba has, in my judgment, been perhaps the most profound blessing that has ever been conferred upon the people of that province. I want to dissent from the position and the views enunciated by my hon. friends from North and Centre Winnipeg. As they are both my personal friends, I differ from them in all kindness and with all moderation. I have talked this matter over with all classes of people. I have often discussed it with many old topers in the city of Winnipeg who were tottering to the grave as a result of drink. These unfortunates voted against prohibition when it was submitted to the people of the province of Manitoba, and invariably they have borne testimony
to the view that while they voted against prohibition they believed it was a godsend to the country and that so far as they were personally concerned prohibition was the best thing that had ever happened. I never found one dissentient voice on this question. Could I bring stronger evidence to bear of the value of prohibition in Manitoba than to tell the Committee that crime in that province was reduced to the extent of 80 per cent by virtue of the adoption of prohibition? We had six jails in Manitoba, and after prohibition there was a time when it looked as if the entire six would have to be closed. Three of them have been closed altogether, and the other three have scarcely sufficient inmates to warrant their being kept open. Is that not as strong testimony as could be submitted in favour of prohibition? I believe the people of Manitoba are overwhelmingly in favour of prohibition, and I think that their view generally is that they would like to see total prohibition for the Dominion of Canada. And when the speech from the Throne announced, as I think it did, that a plebiscite would be taken for the entire Dominion - the Acting Prime Minister shakes his head, and I accept the correction. The impression I had was that a plebiscite would be taken, but it appears to be erroneous. However, it is my opinion that it would be a'good thing if we could have Dominion-wide prohibition. I suppose the federal authority is limited by the constitution, and the Dominion Parliament can only go as far as the British North America Act constitutionally enables it to go. That being the position, I am satisfied that the Order in Council was a good thing. After our Prohibition Act was passed in 1916, as we could not prohibit the manufacture and import of liquor, the result was that a string of liquor houses at such places as Kenora, Keewatin and Fort Frances, were established. On the other hand there were fifty-nine liquor houses established in Manitoba for the purpose of supplying liquor to Saskatchewan and Alberta. While they could not sell it in Manitoba they could export it to these provinces. Of these houses about thirty-nine were run by men of alien origin. I think that is creditable, at least to the Anglo-Saxon. In my judgment the bar should never again be allowed to get a footing in this country. As a newspaper man, and as one who has seen a great deal of life in the city of Winnipeg, almost since its incorporation as a city, I have watched the growth of these



numerous and well patronized bars and have seen their extending influence as the years went by. Little bars ten feet long extended to fifteen, twenty, and thirty and forty feet, until finally, before this Act was passed, we had a large number of circular bars taking up all available space possible in the saloons. I have taken many a visitor from the East to witness the spectacle in these bars at five or six o'clock in the afternoon as workers were on their way from work. We saw' hundreds, sometimes many hundreds, at one bar along, almost five deep, clamouring for liquor and pouring their coins over the counter. As a result of the passing of the prohibition measure in Manitoba the money that went over the counters of the bars by incalculable sums every year immediately began to filter over the counters of the retail merchants' stores, and the sale of boots and shoes and women's and children's clothing enormously increased. I am perfectly sure that if any independent man went into Winnipeg to find out for himself what the benefits of prohibition have been he could not find one independent man or woman-and the women have a great interest in this matter, because they are deeply interested in the liquor traffic-who would not bear eloquent and fervent testimony to the substantial advantage of prohibition. It always seemed to me that when the vote was extended to women the question of prohibition was solved. In Manitoba the men carried the plebiscite by a vast majority of two or three to one, and when we had the accession, as we have had since, of women to the ranks of those who exercise the franchise, those of us who believe in prohibition as a godsend to the people, felt that the question was permanently settled so far as Manitoba at least was concerned. The franchise is being extended to women in all the provinces, and we now have this great army of women, who, I think, are almost unanimously in favour of prohibition. And well might the women be in favour of it, for after all they are among the chief srfHerers. It is they and their children who are subjected to the brutalities of drunken husbands, and who -are deprived of the necessaries of life, because the money which should go to support and make them happy has been thrown over the bars. We know how rich and affluent the saloon keepers and hotel keepers as a class generally became in past years as a result of the liquor traffic. It is generally the saloon keeper who has been able to drive about with a - span of fast horses, wearing diamonds and TMr. Richardson. J
fur coats, and living on the fat of the land. It is no wonder that they desire to get the thin end of the wedge in again.
I want to say a word in regard to the administration of the law in Manitoba. It is true my good friend the hon. member for North Winnipeg criticised it, arid said that since its enactment we have had boot-legging and illicit stills and all that sort of thing. Would the hon. member suggest that if we abolished the law against murder we would have fewer murders, because that is the logical sequence of his argument? Certainly not. The fact that crime has been reduced by eighty per cent in Manitoba absolutely proves the value of prohibition. The Liquor Act in Manitoba has been and is being well enforced. At the head of the License Department is a gentleman of splendid character, of known and tried integrity, and the staff of officials who second his efforts have done thir level best to stamp out the evil. Here and there an illicit still may be found, but that will always dxist. In Ireland, although it is contrary to law, they have had illicit stills for centuries. I suppose the same is true of Scotland, and I have no doubt that similar conditions exist all over the country. You cannot absolutely wipe that out, but if the law is as well enforced as it can be-and I can bear testimony to the fact that it is in Manitoba-we bave reached an almost ideal condition of affairs with regard to the enforcement of prohibitory liquor law. Speaking, as I believe, for the vast majority of the people of Manitoba, we commend every movement that this Federal Government may take to enable us to continue, and if possible strengthen, prohibition in that province. Under this proposed Act I take it that the importation and manufacture of liquor can be prohibited in Manitoba. Is that correct? Yes; the Acting Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council nod their heads. That being the fact, so far as Manitoba is concerned, we may assume so long as the populace itself is sound on the issue that we are safe in that regard. I have no desire to refer to the amendment of the hon. member for London. It has been criticised and it will be unnecessary for me to say anything on that point. But as the representative of a Manitoba constituency, I want to reiterate the statement that the people of that province look to this Government to assist in every way to make prohibition effective, and would be profoundly disappointed if every available measure were not taken by the Government to secure

that enforcement. If I could be assured that any legislation that might be passed here, or any additional position which the Government could take would make prohibition more effective in Manitoba than it will be under this proposed law, then I am prepared to advocate it. I am one of those who, from long experience and close observation of this traffic, firmly believes that alcohol has been the greatest curse that has ever fallen upon humanity.


William Daum Euler: Was the Manitoba legislation enacted after a plebiscite had been taken or was there a plebiscite taken at all?


Robert Lorne Richardson: It was after a plebiscite. [Perhaps the President of the Privy Council could answer that.


Mr. ROWELL:: My hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) has answered it. It was enacted after a vote of the people.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, after a plebiscite had been taken. It was carried by two or three to one.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL: I think the Committee will pardon me for saying that I listened with a good deal of satisfaction this afternoon to the expressions of appreciation and approval of the policy of the abolition of the bar uttered on both sides of the House. I mention this because it indicates the rapid growth of sentiment in all sections of Canada on the important question now under consideration. Not only have there been expressions in the House and elsewhere, but I notice that in a statement issued by the distillers of Canada and circulated among members of "the House they set out:
It was felt that the public bar with its ever-ready invitation to enter, its customs of "treating," its pernicious record of political activity, and in too many cases its dubious management, could only be dealt with by extinction.
The distillers go further and put themselves on record as being absolutely opposed to any legislation which has for its object, directly or indirectly, the restoration of the public drinking bar. When I recall the attitude, so recently as 1914, of the gentlemen who are responsible for the publication and distribution of that pamphlet, and their very active and energetic hostility to the proposal to abolish the bar, I feel justified in accepting this change of attitude as an indication of the growth of public sentiment on
170J
this question. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) has intimated that he thinks that the closing of the public bar is the right policy, and that in this proposed legislation we should not go further. I judge that the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) shares the same view, and that he thinks that in the Order in Council which, we are seeking to ratify we are going beyond what should be considered in the public interest.
Mr. MoMASTER: I do not think the hon. member for North Waterloo expressed his opinion one way or the other on the prohibition question from my recollection of what he said.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He very carefully avoided committing himself, but I think the statement I have made is a fair inference from what he did say. But while that policy may have been a sound and wise policy in 1914, I venture to think that the war radically changed the situation in all the provinces of Canada, and public sentiment throughout Canada demanded more advanced action than the abolition of the bar. That has been shown by the action which the various provinces have taken in legislating on this question. Wherever it has been submitted to a vote of the people, the vote has been overwhelmingly in support of a proposal which went much further than simply the abolition of the bar. As I recall the matter, the province of Saskatchewan passed legislation for abolishing the bar and putting the sale of intoxicating liquor in shops under government control. That continued for one year. Then the Government submitted to the electors of the province the question of whether the sale in shops should continue, or whether it should be abolished. The result was a decisive vote of the people in favour of abolishing the sale in shops also. The question was submitted in Alberta, as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has stated, and the vote included the prohibition of the sale both over the bar and in shops, as the terms of the Alberta Act indicates. That was also the case in the province of British Columbia, in the province of Manitoba, in the province of New Brunswick, and in the province of Quebec in the legislation passed there a year ago. Nova Scotia was dry before the war, except the city of Halifax, and legislation was introduced to make the city of Halifax dry also. Prince Edward Island was likewise dry before the war. That was the general situation. Now

the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has suggested that there is really no evidence that the province of Ontario is in favour of legislation as advanced as that now in force in Ontario and that we should not proceed with this legislation at the present time, but should defer action until an expression of the people is taken in Ontario this fall. May I say that I entirely dissent from the hon. gentleman's conclusion that the people of Ontario have not evidenced a desire in favour of the legislation in force in that province at the present time. The hon. member from Peel (Mr. Charters) has already pointed out the attitude of Ontario on this question as expressed in the votes which have been given in the province from time to time when the matter was submitted to a vote of the whole people. When the legislation was introduced by the Government of Ontario in 1916 I was a member of the legislature and have an intimate knowledge of all the discussions that took place upon it. But while I concede there was some differences of opinion in the House on the question, some members not being wholly in favour of the legislation, yet the Bill passed the House without one dissenting vote. I do not think there could be legislation as important and radical as that introduced into Ontario in 1916, and no vote against it unless public sentiment strongly supported the legislation.


William Daum Euler: How would the minister interpret the vote given by the people in the province of Ontario on the issue that was raised by the hon. gentleman himself in the election of 1914?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think the best interpretation to put upon it is the one I put upon it at the time.


William Daum Euler: What was that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That was that I would
continue to advocate the policy until the cause triumphed.


William Daum Euler: That is not an answer to the question.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The interpretation I put upon the vote at the time was this:	The
total vote given in the province of Ontario-I am speaking now from recollection-was fifty-two and a half per cent in favour of the Government or the Government candidates. The vote in favour of the Opposition or in opposition to Government candidates was forty-seven and a half per cent. The popular vote was not

fully reflected in the membership in the House, as the popular vote seldom is on any occasion, and there were other factors entering into the contest, as there is in every political contest. You cannot in an election between political parties have any issue decided wholly on its merits. In the vote referred to other questions entered in; all I can say is that to me it was not discouraging. The night after the election I announced that the policy would he continued; and I may be pardoned for saying I am gratified to-day that the policy has been accepted in all the provinces of Canada by men of both political parties. In reference to the situation in Ontario I have one further remark to make, and 3 make this upon the basis of a statement by the Prime Minister of the province. Speaking at the last session of the Legislature on the matter-Sir William Hearst stated that if the men opposed to the legislation, the men engaged in the trade, had desired a vote in the year 1916, he would have given it.
I know that to be the case: If the men opposed to the legislation which was introduced by Sir William Hearst in the Legislature of Ontario in 1916 had desired that it should be submitted to a vote of the electors before it came into force on the 1st of September of that year, he would have been quite prepared to have had the question submitted. But those who were opposed to the legislation recognized that it would simply be absolutely hopeless for them to successfully oppose it before the people. The sentiment of Ontario was so unanimously in favour of the proposal of Sir William Hearst, that those opposed to the legislation would not challenge a vote upon it; and one of the grounds of complaint, and I think quite just complaint, on the part of Sir William Hlarst, was that after he had refrained from giving a vote because these people did not want it, he should have been criticised for putting the legislation into *	.
force without a vote. Now since that time a vote has been given to the women of the province. There is not an hon. member coming from Ontario, if he considers the question of the women's vote in that province, who will not frankly admit that if you take a vote of the men, plus the vote of the women, there would he a most overwhelming preponderance of opinion in favour of this legislation. Others may not think the vote will be so overwhelming, but there will be an opportunity of ascertaining that when the vote takes place next fall. There is no use hazarding a prediction on the point; but I am persuaded myself that

the vote in Ontario on all the questions submitted will be decisively in the one direction; the people of Ontario will answer all the questions submitted to them in the negative. The position therefore when the Dominion Order in Council prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquor and interprovincial trade in it was passed, was this: All the provinces of Canada had enacted legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor within their own boundaries, and the law had gone into force in all the provinces save Quebec, where it was to become effective on the 1st of May of the present year. When the Order in Council was passed the Government believed that it had the power to pass the necessary legislation to continue during the war and for the period of one year thereafter. Orders in Council passed by the Imperial Government, under somewhat similar legislation, were made to continue during the war and for certain periods after the war. The great majority of the Orders in Council passed by the Government of this country under the War Measures Act were made to continue during the war and for a certain period thereafter. But more recently the advice of the law officers of the Crown in Great Britain, and of the committee of lawyers of the British House of Cornmons appointed to	look	into	thematter, has been to	the	effect	thatthe legislation would	end	when	the
war came to an end-that is when peace was officially proclaimed. The Department of Justice concurs in this opinion and this legislation has therefore become necessary.
The object of the present legislation is simply to give effect to the intention and policy of the Government, as embodied in the Order in Council, to implement what they thought at the time they had the power to do, but which appears now to be doubtful; that is, to continue this legislation for the period of one year after the war.
The Order in Council as it stands prohibits the importation, manufacture and inteTprovincial transportation of intoxicating liquors throughout the whole Dominion for the remainder of the period of the war and for one year thereafter. Intoxicating liquor is defined in the Order in Council as any liquor or beverage containing more than two and one-half per cent proof spirits. It is quite true, as was stated by the hon. member for London, that deputations waited upon the Government urging that a change should be made in the definition of the
alcoholic content, and that instead of two and one-half per cent proof spirits it should be two and one-half per cent alcohol. The Government was not able to see its way clear to grant that request. The Government did not itself fix two and one-half per cent proof spirits as the definition of what constituted intoxicating liquor; it found that definition already embodied in the legislation of almost all the provinces. It was the definition of intoxicating liquor in Quebec, in Ontario, and, I think, in nearly all the western provinces. Two provinces had a definition covering even a lower alcoholic content, one, I think, being two per cent proof spirits and the other something less; but no province had higher than two and one-half per cent proof spirits as the definition of intoxicating liquors.


Mr. McMASTER:: As the minister is an authority on these matters, will he explain the exact difference between proof spirits and alcoholic weight?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend had
been in the House the other afternoon when this was very carefully and fully explained he would have had the information, and I must refer him to the Hansard statement on the difference, which is fully set forth there. Practically proof spirit is about one-half the alcoholic content.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The alcoholic content
by weight?	-


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. In other words, 2i per cent alcoholic content would be approximately 5 per cent proof spirits. If the Government had undertaken* to change the definition of the alcoholic content as was requested at one time, and had undertaken to say that liquor containing that alcoholic content might be sold in any part of Canada, it would have been over-riding provincial legislation. For while the Federal Parliament has power to deal with the sale of intoxicating liquors, if we undertook to do so the Federal legislation would supersede the provincial legislation. Therefore the Government in its legislation has carefully guarded against interfering in any way with the provincial legislation on the question of sale; we have dealt with importation, manufacture and interprovincial trade and transportation.
Before passing to a discussion of the amendment of my hon. friend, may I say a word or two more with reference to the action of the Federal Government in the matter? My hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) and one or two other


Robert Lorne Richardson: Fifty-one stores.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Representations were made to the Government that this was not in the public interest; that it was militating against the efficiency of existing legislation and preventing it from having the full effect which was desired. I am quite prepared to concede that many arguments were made by many people in favour of provincial enactments along the line of what the hon. member for Red Deer stated, and I thought his statement of the general position was very reasonable. The Government, having decided that this legislation was in the public interest and was needed to supplement the legislation of the provincial gov-

ernments, passed this Order in Council, and among the expressions of public opinion on the matter, I think none is more worthy of the serious attention of hon. members and of the country than the statements of the premiers of many of the provinces who expressed themselves on the subject, either in communications to the Prime Minister or in the form of interviews given to the press at the time. The Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White), when he moved the resolution, read to the House a copy of a telegram from Sir William Hearst, Premier of Ontario, to Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, in reference to the matter. Let me give the Committee a statement made by the Premier of Manitoba in reference to the question:
In reference to the recent order passed by the Dominion Government concerning the control of the liquor traffic, it is regarded as very satisfactory to the Provincial Government rendering more effective the Manitoba Temperance Act. It applies the missing link, and will, I believe, be acceptable to the great majority of the people of the province.
I point that out as indicating that the provincial government recognized that our legislation was not sdpplanting theirs, but supplementing theirs, was providing the missing link, which they themselves had not 'the power, as [DOT] they understood the situation, to provide. What was the view of the* Premier of Saskatchewan on this matter, as stated at that time?
The announcement that the Dominion Government, by Order in Council under the War Measured Act, has determined that Canada on April first next will be under a complete prohibitory law has been received with general approval by the people of Saskatchewan. Almost all the provinces of Canada have now in force prohibitory laws which go as far as their constitutions will permit, but it was necessary for the Dominion to supplement the legislation by prohibiting the importation into Canada and by stopping trade in liquor between the provinces. The beneficial effects of our local prohibition law have been of such a character as to lead to the conclusion that Dominion Wide prohibition will better economic conditions, and will also decrease waste, and will so increase the efficiency of the nation that we will be assured of still greater efforts being put forth to see that Canada performs her full duty in the world's great crisis.
I desire to call the attention of the committee particularly to this sentence:
It was necessary for the Dominion to supplement 'the legislation by prohibiting the importation into Canada and by stopping trade in liquor between the provinces.
Then the Premier of Alberta made this statement:
Aside from the national approval of any measure tending towards the conservation of all food products for strictly war purposes, the
Dominion Order in Council prohibiting the transportation of liquor into any part of Canada wherein the sale is now illegal is the legal complement to the enforcing of the will of the people of this province as exemplified by the overwhelming majority given on the Alberta referendum.


Michael Clark: What is the date of that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Shortly after the Order in Council was passed. I have not the exact date, and I am not sure whether that was an interview given to the press, or a telegram sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, but it was published, I think, in January, 1918, or the last week of December, 1917.
I am not sure which.


Michael Clark: I am sure the minister does not want to mislead the Committee and is not doing so as to the opinion in Alberta, but is he aware that the Attorney General of Alberta stated in the Legislative Assembly quite recently that at this time eighty per cent of the people of the province are law-breakers? They are not breaking the law of the province as they are not drinking over the bar because they cannot do that, but, according to the statement of the Attorney General, they are lawbreakers as far as the Order in Council is concerned. Does the minister 'know the opinion of the Alberta Government as to the matter nowr?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have had no conversation with the Premier of Alberta on this matter since July or August of 1918, when I understood him to be wholly favourable to it. The situation may be quite as my hon. friend has stated, although I was not aware that the Attorney General of Alberta had made such a statement in the legislature.


Michael Clark: I do not want to misrepresent my province; indeed, I have no means of doing so. I think there is a very strong sentiment in the province still, but the minister will admit that that was a strong statement also by the Attorney General of the province who has in charge the liquor business within the province.
Mr. ROW7ELL: It certainly is a strong statement upon which I am not in a position to express an opinion as I have no personal knowledge of the matter. The then Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Brewster, made this statement:
Apart from sentimental temperance considerations, I regard the prohibition order as wisest possible enactment for war period and entirely in conformity with pledges of Union

Government to introduce all possible measures affecting the economic situation. The direct and indirect saving will enable the Dominion to better bear war burdens and, at the same time, materially conserve the country's manpower,
I might go on showing the general trend of public sentiment throughout Canada at the time by reading similar expressions of opinions from other influential persons and religious bodies. I shall not do so. I ha'*e quoted these particularly to show that the legislation we are proposing does not supplant, but, in the language of the premiers themselves, supplements their legislation of the provinces and gives effect to it in a way that at the time at least, they thought very desirable.
My hon. friend from London also referred to the large petition which had been sent to members of the House from various labour organizations in reference to changing the alcoholic content which should be deemed intoxicating. My hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) has already dealt with one aspect of that matter, and it is not my intention to go into it. I would say, however, that one of these deputations, representing the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, indicated that they would be satisfied if the Government left it to the provinces to settle the question of the alcoholic content, just as is being done by the amendment to the Order in Council. So that, even if there are sections of labour that do not agree with the Order in Council as originally framed, I believe that the Order in Council as now framed, meets their views. Even as the Order in Council was originally framed, it met with the approval of that very large and influential body of labour, the organizations of railway employees, who waited upon the Government to present their recommendations against any change and in support of the Order in Council as it then stood. My recollection is that the Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council, the Alberta Federation of Labour, and I think the British Columbia Federation of Labour, voted against the proposal to change the alcoholic content. A very serious strike took place in Winnipeg last year, and the strike committee made a public statement in reference to prohibition which was cabled to New Zealand for use in labour organizations there, in view of the vote which was being taken in New Zealand on prohibition. I refer to this statement because it has a very direct bearing on the present situation. They stated that one of the most important and satisfactory features in connection with the strike was the maintenance of law and order

in the city of Winnipeg during the .whole period of the strike. And that this would not have been possible if the bars had been open.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What would have been the situation in Winnipeg to-day if the bars had been open?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I ask hon. members to stop and think what would be the situation in Winnipeg to-day, with 30,000 men on strike, and feeling running high as it naturally does "when the situation is so critical, if the open sale of liquor were permitted in that city? I ask further, what would be the situation in Winnipeg to-day if large quantities of liquor were stored there and could be broken into? I venture to think that if this measure was important during the period of the war, it is vastly more important during the year that lies immediately ahead of us. We must recognize that we are passing through a very critical time, that there is a widespread feeling of unrest, that men must keep their heads level and their minds clear. We must recognize that the use of intoxicating liquor under existing conditions, or the granting of facilities for the securing of it, might have very disastrous results where large companies of men are on strike and feeling is running high in consequence.
The present Bill validates the existing Order in Council subject to certain exceptions which I shall mention. The existing Order in Council is to continue in force for the duration of the war and for one year thereafter. It has been modified, and modified only-as the Acting Prime Minis-tre has pointed out,-to give efiect to the change in the situation that 'has developed sin-ce the Order in Council was passed, and indeed, since the speech from the Throne was delivered. In the speech from the Throne the Government promised to introduce legislation to validate the Order in Council. At that time all the provinces had legislation prohibiting the sale of liquor. Since then the province of Quebec, by a vote of the people, has decided to permit the sale of beer containing 2-51 alcoholic content, and light wines. The province -of Ontario has also passed legislation to take a vote on the same question, and it has been suggested-I do not know whether the suggestion has been carried out or not-that some other provinces are preparing to take a similar vote.
The effect of the amendment is simply this: That if any province decided by a vote of its people to permit the sale within that

province of any class of alcoholic liquors, then automatically the manufacture and transportation of such liquor is permitted in that province. Quebec has already decided to permit the sale under certain conditions. Automatically, under this legislation, those liquors may be manufactured within that province. If Ontario, when the time comes, should vote to permit the sale of beers of a limited alcoholic content, then the manufacture of those beers in Ontario may commence the moment the sale commences. Automatically, the Order in Council applies. It is not a question of discriminating between the provinces, because exactly the same principle applies with reference to every province of the Dominion.
The amendment of my hon. friend from London is to this effect: That although the province of Ontario does not permit the sale of beer of a higher alcoholic content that two and a half per cent proof spirits, if we should permit the manufacture in Ontario of beer containing a higher alcoholic content, namely, whatever alcoholic content might be sold in any other province it would mean, if his amendment prevailed, the manufacture of such beer might immediately commence in Ontario for shipment to the province of Quebec or for export.


Mr. MORPHY:: How does the minister
explain what appears to me to be an inconsistency of permitting Ontario to ship to Quebec or any other province native wines that may be fifty per cent proof spirits, hut not beer that may be only five per cent proof spirits?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Ontario cannot ship to
Quebec any wine of an alcoholic content in excess of that which may be sold in the province of Quebec.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Ontario could, if Quebec voted that way. The question is a propos just the same.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Order in Council
permits the manufacture in any province of any liquor of which the province permits the sale.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Ontario permits the
manufacture of wine to any percentage.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Native wine.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That may be shipped out.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Beer of 6 per cent can neither be made nor shipped out?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It cannot be made because Ontario does not permit the sale.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But this Order in Council permits the export to any other province.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It permits the shipment from Ontario of anything that may be lawfully manufactured and sold in Ontario. The only intoxicating liquor that may be manufactured and sold in Ontario for beverage purposes is native wine, which may be manufactured and sold under the conditions provided in the Ontario Temperance Act.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But your Order in Council, as I understand it, does not refer to the export of beer of any strength. You absolutely prohibit the export of beer abroad by this Order in Council.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the manufacture is prohibited.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: You allow the manufacture and export of wine to the extent of 50 per cent proof spirits?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We permit the manufacture of wine because the province permits the sale. I do not think I can make myself clearer. The whole basis of the legislation is the recognition of the right of a province to govern the question of sale. We permit the manufacture of anything that the province decides may be sold.


Mr. CROTHERS:: Does the Order in Council provide lor the absolute prohibition of transportation from one province to another, or is the prohibition applicable only to a "dry" province? Does it absolutely prevent the transportation whether the province is "dry" or "wet?"


Newton Wesley Rowell: It prohibits the transportation of intoxicating liquors into any place that is "dry." It may be transported into any place where it may 'be lawfully sold.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Is that native wine, or does that provision apply to beer? I understand that Quebec is not what is generally called "dry" since the vote taken recently, and under the proposed Bill would Ontario be in a position to send to that province not only wine but beer?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. The provision is this:
Provided that this regulation shall not apply to the sending, taking, transporting or delivering of native wines in the province of Ontario, or to sending, taking, transporting or delivering any intoxicating liquor lawfully manufactured in any province to any place in such province where such intoxicating liquor may lawfully be sold, or to sending, taking, trans-

porting, or delivering any wine lawfully manufactured an any province to any place where such liquor may lawfully be sold.
It does not permit a brewery in Ontario to manufacture liquor containing a higher percentage of alcohol than the province of Ontario authorizes to be sold. What cannot be sold cannot be manufactured.


Mr. MICHAUD:: What is the percentage of alcohol in the native wine manufactured?


Mr.   HOWELL@: There is no fixed percentage.


Pius Michaud: What is the minimum?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is no minimum named.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What is the usual percentage of alcohol in the native wine in Ontario?
Mr. ROWELL; I do not know. My recollection is that it is a higher percentage than that authorized for sale in Quebec. Therefore I think that the question of shipping it into Quebec is largely an academic one. At the suggestion of my hon. friend from Beauce the other day the Acting Prime Minister said he was prepared to amend the Act so as to provide for its shipment if it may be sold.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Suppose the province of Ontario permitted the sale of 15 per cent wine and the province of Quebec limited the strength of wine sold in that province to ten per cent. Am I right in supposing that Ontario could not export into Quebec any wines stronger than 10 per cent?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is correct.


Pius Michaud: What amount of wine has the province of Ontario on hand at
present?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Ontario Government has not any wine.


Pius Michaud: The province of Ontario?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Government of Ontario has no wines on hand at all.


Pius Michaud: But the province?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot give that information because I do not know; but my recollection is that it is not a very large quantity. On one occasion when representations were being made to the Government by the grape growers of Ontario we asked for the information and I was surprised to find how limited the quantity was, and how small was the volume of business in native wines in Ontario. Relatively, it was an insignificant trade; there were only a very

limited number of gallons. My hon. friend from North Winnipeg seemed *to think that there was an objection to this Order in Council because of the necessity for liquor in the case of influenza. I am not going to discuss the medicinal or scientific aspect of that question, but I would point out that no legislation in any province interferes with the use of intoxicating liquor for medicinal purposes. My hon. friend also mentioned that the price was excessive and it was urged that there should be some control. I quite agree with that. Quebec and Ontario have both taken steps to curtail excessive prices in the future. Quebec in its recent legislation prov:des for withdrawing the license from the vendor if he charges an excessive price. In Ontario the Government is taking over the sale, and will carry the business through the License Board. Two or three hon. members have urged that the legislation be rhade permanent. The hon. member for Springfield regretted that we did not make it permanent and Dominion-wide, subject to a vote of the people, and other hon. gentlemen spoke of the legislation being province-wide, that is being continued subject to repeal at the request of any province so far as it relates to that province. While these views do represent the opinion of very many people in this country, the Government is carrying out the promise it made in the speech from the Throne by validating this war-time measure for the period during which according to its terms it should continue in force. In the meantime a vote is to be taken in Ontario where there will be an expression of public opinion on the question. Votes may also be taken in other parts of the country. The soldiers will have returned before another session of the House and the whole matter can be reviewed at the next session in the light of all the relevant facts with- a view to taking such action as the public interests may demand. The Government felt in introducing this legislation, modified only to the extent I have mentioned, that it wa^ carrying out its pledge in the speech from the Throne and giving, as I believe, expression to the real public opinion of this country.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I do not wish to take up much time in dealing with the subject in any general way. I do not think that I would have risen had it not been for some remarks that we have heard from some hon. members who appear to think that any legislation that is brought forward now by people who are generally termed

temperance organizations, such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which has been so much complained of, and kindred bodies, is liable to increase the consumption of intoxicating liquors. They are opposed to such institutions, and to the friends of temperance, although if their desires were carried out there would be less liquor consumed. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) has given the Committee some medical views in regard to the question. The hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) has replied to a portion of the hon. member's address and has shown that this legislation is not intended to interfere with the use of intoxicating liquors for medical purposes. In regard to any other views that he may have expressed, as to the good effects of intoxicating liquors, or as to the absence of any bad effects, let me remind the hon. gentleman that there are others who are quite as capable of expressing opinions on this question as he is and who have expressed exactly the opposite opinion. In the issue of the Ottawa Journal for to-day, I find that one of the reporters of that paper has had an interview with Dr. Saleeby, whom the paper describes as the leading recognized expert on the effect of alcoholism on the future of the race. I will read an extract or two from what he says:
We and you want to see the Dominions populated with British people. But if those people do not exist where are you going to get them?
' This is one of the factors of imperial importance that must be faced.
The decreasing birth rate in Britain means ultimately that there will be no surplus for the Dominions, and then what? The future of this great Canada is bound up in this question of the birth rate of Britain. To go back to the factors in the reduction of the British birth rate, I said that the war was the chief factor, but the war did not cause the steady decline that had been going on for years before.
Belongs to Racial Poisons.
Alcohol, which I hold belongs to a group of racial poisons, is one of the chief factors in this condition, whether a war is being fought or not. Alcohol, it has been proved, has had the most deleterious effect, not only on the consumer in excess, but on his ability to be the father of healthy children; to be the father of children at all. Babies dead and babies incapable of living we have in immense numbers, due solely to alcoholism. Think of the effect on the future of the race. I am not so much concerned with the drunken man. I am, of course, deeply sensible of the fact that he is ruining himself and abusing his wife. But with the children of that drunken man I am vitally concerned. The racial effect of his indulgence is a matter that concerns not himself alone, but the nation to which he belongs.
In my opinion there is no better stock in existence than the Scottish. For centuries the Scottish race has been the fruitful source of
the best of our Dominion's population. My friend Professor Arthur Keith, curator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in London, reckoned that in the war one Dominion soldier in every three was either Scottish or ol Scottish descent.
Scotch whisky in Scotland to-day is arresting the continuance of that splendid breed. The time has come for the Empire to choose which is the more valuable: Scotch whisky or Scotch men.
Empty of Population.
Our Dominions are practically empty of population and with this war we have made ourselves responsible for immense further tracts of the earth surface. We must have men for them. If we are going on with social practices that ruin the race whence will we get the men? It was not worth going on with the war if it is not worth going on with the race. This war has of course had its terrible effect on the fathers of the future but we must not lose sight of the other war against them that is continually going on. Incidentally this need of saving the future fathers of the race led me to devise the helmet which the British Government honoured me by accepting as the standard for its troops and the American Government added to that honour by adopting it for the United States troops. That, however, is beside the point of the evil of alcoholism. Research, data, statistics of every description, conditions as you may see them each day prove the evil effects of alcoholism on the human race.
I put that up in opposition to my hon. friend from North Winnipeg.


Mr. FRASER:: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if what he has just read about the Scotch race represents his own views?


Levi Thomson: I think I will pass it over to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) to answer.


Evan Eugene Fraser: If the view expressed m that statement represents the views of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Levi Thomson) I protest against it. The Scotch race proved themselves to be a race of heroes in this war, and to say that alcohol has depleted that people is a libel against which I protest. It is well known that in the State of Maine, which has had prohibition for the last forty years, the birth rate is the lowest in the United States.


Levi Thomson: I do not know that what my hon. friend has said has any bearing whatever on the authority that I have quoted and I quote the statement of this gentleman as being as good an authority as my hon. friend (Mr. Blake). I have listened to the objections to the work of so-called temperance people and the assertion that their work has had the effect of increasing the consumption of intoxicants rather than decreasing it, and that their opponents are the true temperance people.

We have been told that very often. Those who oppose these organizations pose as the real friends of temperance. I have been watching temperance work for half a century and I have become rather accustomed to the statement. In this connection I am reminded of the saying that there is nothing new under the sun. When I was a boy I sometimes had occasion to travail over the Cruelph-Erin gravel road for a distance of twelve miles. Along that road, according to the best of my recollection, there were twelve licensed hotels. A great many people in those times thought there was no necessity for so many. They earnestly preached the doctrine that some of these licenses should be cut off, the way temperance cranks do. A strong campaign was made along that line but the liquor interests and their friends held that if the suggestion of the temperance workers was carried out it would cause an increase in the consumption of intoxicating liquor. That was the main argument used against the cutting down of the licenses. It was suggested that the congregating of people in fewer houses would result in more drinking. That was one of the first effective reforms that was undertaken along temperance lines in that part of the country. Another early reform was the cutting down of the hours in which intoxicating liquors could be sold. The same argument was used against that-it would increase the consumption of intoxicating liquors. Not a single thing endeavoured to be done for the last fifty years in the hope of decreasing the consumption of intoxicating liquors but the organized liquor traffic and their friends insisted determinedly would have the opposite effect. We were told the same thing in regard to the Dunkin Act, that its adoption would cause an increase in the consumption of intoxicating liquor. The same thing was said in regard to the Scott Act and local option. People who opposed local option said: "Anything in the world but local option; we are prepared to support you in anything at all that will do away with the use of intoxicating liquor, even total prohibition, but don't say local option whatever you do. It will ruin the communities in which it is passed, and will cause an increased consumption of intoxicating liquors." Every man who has been through those campaigns knows that these were the arguments always advanced. The same arguments were put forward when a campaign was started in favour of banishing the bar. We were told that if we banished the bar it would 
cause intoxicating liquor to be taken into the people's homes, that more of it would be consumed, and the young people in those homes would be taught to use it. Doubtless that doctrine was preached in Ontario and all over the country. I know it was preached in Saskatchewan, because before we actually did banish the bar in that province there had been considerable agitation going on on the part of the so-called temperance cranks and marked advance had been made everywhere along temperance lines by reason of that agitation. The same thing is true with regard to every single piece of legislation that has ever been passed with a view to decreasing the consumption of intoxicating liquors; and I think we may say such objections will always be raised. I think the present legislation is along sensible lines. The President of the Council (Mr. Howell) has dealt so very fully with the subject that little has been left for me to say, except this: The duty devolves upon us under the British North America Act, in view of the decisions which have been given with respect to temperance legislation, to pass such laws as will make provincial enactments effective. The provinces, as we all know, have no power to prohibit the importation, the manufacture or interprovincial trade in intoxicating liquors. Therefore, the only authority that can make the provincial legislation as effective as it should be is this Parliament. The only complaint I * have to make with regard to the Bill now before us is perhaps that it is merely temporary and not permanent. However, it is legislation along the right line; we will take what we can get and look for more.


William Cameron Edwards: The debate has taken a somewhat wide range, and while I do not propose to speak at any great length I may be obliged to follow the course taken by others instead of confining myself directly to the Bill.
I suppose we can all accept the principle that the aim of legislation should be to make it as easy as possible for men to live right, and as difficult as possible for them to live wrong. We will find considerable more difficulty when we undertake to define what is right and what is wrong. No doubt it is a serious matter to interfere with the personal liberty of the individual citizen; but it is also a serious matter that the physical, intellectual and moral status ol the next generation may depend upon the quantity of intoxicating liquor consumed by the head of the house. That is also a

serious matter and something that we have a right to take into consideration. The State, I take it, is justified in introducing legislation of this kind interfering with the liberty of the subject, when the subject in the exercise of that liberty, interferes with the general welfare of the State and with the undoubted right of other individuals to enjoy a measure of happiness in this world.
The amendment which is before 'the Committee is in the right direction because its general object is to make effective whatever legislation the provinces see fit to pass. I do not blieve the House should go beyond such legislation as the provinces are prepared to adopt, but, in my opinion, it is perfectly logical and right for us to go as far as each of the provinces wishes to go and to pass legislation here which will make effective the expressed will of the people of those provinces. Such, I understand, is the general intention of the present legislation. I am not one of those who feel very enthusiastic about the Dominion Alliance, nor am I disposed to throw many bouquets at that organization. I think the Dominion Alliance has on a great many occasions taken a course which could not be regarded as a straight course. From 1878 down to 1896, the Dominion Alliance hounded the life fairly out of the Conservative Government at Ottawa by its demands for prohibitory legislation, and from 1896 down to 1911 was practically silent in regard to prohibitory legislation so far as it could be enacted by the Dominion Parliament. The Alliance became active again, especially active, immediately after 1911. I do not agree with some gentlemen who seem to think that the argument in regard to prohibition is all on one side. I think I could produce figures here to show that that is not true in the prohibition States on the other side of the line, bearing in mind what is disclosed by the years 1888 and 1893. It may be said that that is ancient history, but those are the years for which I have figures concerning the prohibition States of Maine, Kansas and Iowa. Comparing those States with the non-prohibition States of Michigan, Nebraska and Minnesota, there were more arrests per thousand of the population for all offences against the law in the prohibition States referred to than there were in the non-prohibition States. There were also more arrests for drunkenness in the prohibition States than in the non-prohibition States, and a greater degree of pauperism in the former States than in the latter. I do not think we would be justified in taking that data as an argument against
prohibition. The figures cannot be regarded as an argument against prohibition because they did not really have prohibition in the so-called prohibition States. Prohibition has never had a fair trial in any of those States. The Royal Commission appointed by the Canadian Government in 1893 to inquire into the liquor traffic examined one hundred and eighty-four witnesses from the states of Maine, Kansas and Iowa. Twenty-four of them stated that the prohibition law was enforced; one hundred and fifty-four that it was not enforced; and six of them expressed no opinion on that point. The report of the Canadian Commission contains this 'Sentence:
The whole trend of the evidence only proves this much, that prohibition prohibits where no one wants intoxicating liquors, but nowhere else.
That was the summing up of that commission in regard to the way in which prohibition was working out on the other side of the line. But notwithstanding that summing up there is undoubted evidence that not only in the United States but in the countries of Europe wherever prohibition has been tried it has been an unquestioned success in the rural districts.
I was very much interested in reading a work compiled by two English gentlemen appointed by the Imperial Government for the express purpose of inquiring into this whole business, Messrs. Rowntree and Sherwell, who have probably written the most comprehensive and logical book that was ever attempted on the temperance question. They spent several years on the work and visited the different countries of Europe, the United States and Canada, and their facts and deductions are well worthy of consideration. Referring to the Gothenburg system in Sweden, they state that in 1900 the consumption of spirits per head of the population was not over one-third as much as fifty years before. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Swedish government enacted a law which gave the right of distillation to any person who owned or cultivated land. The result was the establishment of 173,000 distilleries, or one for every seventeen of the population, and the drunken degeneracy of the people. Drunkenness was carried to such an excess that, I presume, it disgusted public opinion and led to the adoption of the Gothenburg system. An attempt was made through that system to lessen drunkenness, and by 1895 the number of distilleries had decreased to only 132. The Gothenburg system has

been a very great success if viewed from the standpoint of the amount of liquor consumed per head of the population, but its weakness lies in the fact that while the sale of liquor is under the control of the State, the money received by the State from the sale is used as a means of increasing the local revenue, and consequently the people have an interest in retaining the liquor traffic because the revenue derived from it lessens their burden of taxation.
Now, Sir, I want to name what I consider to be the three principal causes of intemperance, and then to suggest what I think, if not a complete remedy, is something which commends itself to me as more likely to be effective than anything I have heard suggested. First, in regard to the cause of intemperance. What are they? The first is the element of private gain. General Neil Dow, who took such an active part in the prohibition movement in the state of Maine, made use of these words:
The liquor traffic can never Ibe put down so long as there is any profit remaining in it.
That is to say, his idea of the first requisite was to eliminate private profit from the sale of liquor. I believe that that is logical and sound. So long as any persons are making money out of the sale of liquor, there will always be some who will actively" work for the continuance of the traffic. Another cause of intemperance is the monotony and dullness and, too often, the actual misery of many lives. I know there are some who are of opinion that drink is the cause of poverty. No doubt drink is responsible for a measure of poverty, but I think I am right in saying that if it were possible to eliminate all liquor from the Dominion, so that no person could procure any drink for beverage purposes, you would not thereby eliminate all poverty. Drink is not the only cause of poverty. I grant that drink may be taken to be one of the causes of poverty, but perhaps it is not the main cause. Poverty, I think, may be characterized as a sort of industrial disease, and you will have it in this or any other country until industrial conditions have very much improved over what they are at the present time. Another cause of intemperance i3 the absence of adequate provision for social intercourse and healthful recreation. That brings me to the suggestion which I desire to make, and which, perhaps it may be said, has not any direct bearing on this legislation now before us. Reforms, it seems to me, must be constructive as well as restrictive. If we are going to have liquor sold in any province, I think the State

should handle the sale-that it should be a State monopoly. There should be a system of local restriction and control, and if we are to be consistent we must cut out the State profit in liquor just as we would eliminate individual profits in the business. Therefore I say that any profits which arise from the sale of liquor by the State should be used to provide counteracting influences to provide some forms of healthful recreation, some attractions to draw the people away from the place where liquor is sold.
That principle has been recognized in many places in England, Scotland and Wales; it has been recognized in many places in Norway and Sweden, and it has worked with splendid success. Rooms have been provided where the men can meet, have social intercourse, enjoy games and recreations, and the money required for providing those places was the money obtained from the sale of liquor. I commend that suggestion to this committee, and in OTder to give point to that suggestion, may I be permitted to place on Hansard a few words from the pen of Mr. Robert Blatch-ford, who, writing in regard to conditions in certain parts of London, stated:-
Imagine for a moment the common lot of our London poor. Ignorant and untrained minds, weary and unhealthy bodies, gloomy and demoralising environment, monotony and weariness of life, out of these evils spring the seeds of vice. Drudging in their vile stews day after day, night after night-always with the black future like an ominous cloud, casting its chill shadow on their anxious hearts; always with the mean walls hemming them in, and the mean tasks wearing them down, and the mean life paralysing their sick souls ; with no pleasure but drink, with no club but the public house, with work precarious and wages low, in hateful and cheerless surroundings, and with faint hopes ever narrowing, the toiling millions bring their worn bodies and bewildered souls to fight against the devil and all his works-and the devil, amongst other weapons, uses gin. Out in the horrible East the women drink. What wonder! if you go amongst these poor women you will feel suddenly stricken old. What culture have these poor creatures ever known? What teaching have they had? What graces of life have come to them? What dowry of love, of joy, of sweet and fair imagination? Think what their lives are, think what their homes are, think of the darkness and confusion of their minds and then say, is It a marvel if they take to gin?
I place that quotation before the Committee because I think it has a very direct bearing upon two things to which I have previously alluded, one being the fact that poverty is not entirely due to drink, but is largely a result of wrong industrial conditions. But we find, it seems to me, in those words, ample justification for the adoption of any means which will lessen the evil of

intemperance. Notwithstanding what I must regard, from my reading of statistics, as the failure of the attempt at prohibition in the United States, at least in so far as applies to urban centres, I find in the success which attended their efforts in the rural communities very great encouragement for Canada, because this Dominion is largely rural as yet, although there is a tendency towards the cities. I do not mean to say that any law on prohibitory lines which was successful in the rural parts hut a failure in the urban centres is a complete success; it must succeed in both the urban centres and the country districts to be a complete success. But because our population is largely rural, I believe that there is a good opportunity for a greater success of any temperance measure in this country than has attended similar measures in any other country in the world.
I do not believe that legislation in Ontario or in this House is due entirely to temperance sentiment in Ontario or in this House. I believe it is largely due to the fact that it is supposed to be and is, unquestionably, a popular measure at this time. As has been stated by some hon. gentlemen, the position taken in Ontario at the present time is a most inconsistent one. Ontario prohibitionists hold up their hands in holy horror at the thought of any man drinking beer of a greater strength than 2* per cent, but our friends are quite ready to allow a man to drink wine of a strength of 10, 15 or 20 per cent, so long as it is made from Ontario grapes. Ontario says in effect: It is a crime and a shame for a man to get drunk on beer, but it is quite permissible for him to get drunk on wine so long as the wine is made in Ontario and of Ontario grapes. That is an inconsistent position and shows that some temperance agitators in Ontario are not prepared to go as far as they would like members of this House to go in matters of prohibitory legislation. Again, I say the only safe and proper way for us to take here is to go no further than each province is prepared to go. We have no right to force upon Quebec, for instance, the views which may obtain in Ontario or Manitoba, and we have no right to force on Manitoba the views of the majority of the people of Saskatchewan. But we are quite safe in passing legislation here which will make effective any attempts of the various provinces along temperance lines.


Mr. McISAAU:: I desire to say a few
words in favour of the Bill before the House,
in the firsit place, because I come from a province which has taken the lead and is the foremost province in Canada to-day as regards prohibition legislation, and second, because I myself am a temperance man, that is, I have been a total abstainer all iny life. I am, therefore, pleased to give my feeble word in support of any temperance legislation. I think the Government are to be congratulated on having brought in a Bill to give legislative sanction and statutory enactment to the Orders in Council, and also because they have made this legislation adaptable to the conditions of the different provinces. Whatever prohibtion legislation the different provinces may have will not be interfered with; on the contrary, this Bill will so adapt itself as to meet their wishes and enactments in that respect. It is, therefore, most commendable legislation. Within the last few years there has unquestionably been a great advance in temperance sentiment throughout the Dominion, and it is pleasing to know that such is the case. After all, we cannot make men altogether temperate by legislation, because true temperance is a moral virtue; but all legislation that tends to bring about temperance and that will lessen temptations and remove dangerous occasions from those who may have a weakness for intemperance, is good for the uplifting of the people.
Any legislation that will promote temperance will improve the moral welfare of the community. A good many stories have been told by hon. gentlemen of the evils of intemperance; we have all encountered cases of this kind. The hon. member for East Al-goma told of a man in his employ who was called home to the death-bed of* his wife, but who instead of going home went to the tavern and got drunk, and finally met his death through drink. It occurred to me, while my good friend was telling his story, that he would have performed a good and meritorious act if, knowing the man's weakness, he had kept him in his office for the two hours the man was waiting the train, and my bon. friend might even have accompanied him to the station and seen him on board the train. He was not obliged to do that, of course, he is not his brother's keeper; but I could not help thinking that if he had done so, it would have redounded to his everlasting credit.
I shall not deal at greater length with the Bill because the matter has been pretty well discussed. I most highly commend the Government for the action they have taken, and the way in which they have

framed this legislation to meet the requirements of the different provinces. The legislation will have no effect so far as my own province is concerned, because at the recent session of the legislature the provincial prohibition Act was amended so as to place the sale of liquor in the hands of the Government. We have gone further in the matter of prohibition than any other province in Canada, I believe.


Hume Cronyn: Before you put the motion, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in reply to those two members, excluding the President of the Privy Council, who alone touched on the question of the amendment. So far as I was able to follow the speeches this afternoon, I heard only two criticisms directed against the amendment I proposed.
In the first place, the hon. member for -East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) called it an immoral proposition. Well, it is always easy to call a thing names, and even outside of the legal fraternity it is not an unknown exercise of wit by pinning a bad name to a man or an argument, to endeavour to put him or it out of court. But I would ask you for a moment to analyze just what this " immoral " proposition is. The whole proposition is founded on the rights of the province of Ontario or any other province to legislate on this matter of prohibition, and my contention is that the Order in Council and the Bill as drawn do not recognize the Ontario law. If I am right in that contention, my amendment simply seeks to implement or follow the Ontario law, and if there is any immorality in the proposition, that immorality rests upon the Government of the province of Ontario. I understand that my hon. friend from East Algoma was, and perhaps is, an ardent supporter of that Government, and I call his attention to the fact that not merely the export of three per cent beer, but the export of any kind of intoxicating liquor, was permitted under the Ontario Act. That is made abundantly clear by the sections which I read this afternoon. I suppose my hon. friend from East Algoma, if my "doxy" did not agree with his, might call me heterodox; and so he may call a proposal to export three-per cent beer " immoral." But let us look a little further. The state of Maine has been mentioned during the debate. It has had prohibition for something like sixty years, and the statement is made, and I think has not been contradicted, that for many years the state of Maine has accounted beer containing three per cent alcohol by

weight a non-intoxicant. Would Maine then think that the drinking of beer containing two and-a-half per cent alcohol by weight was " immoral?" Would the province of Quebec consider it an "immoral" transaction to drink beer containing two and-a-half per cent alcohol by weight if the same were made in Ontario and exported to Quebec?
Something has been said about the progress of temperance in Denmark and Sweden. Now, in Denmark, as in Maine, the Government declared beer containing three per cent alcohol by weight a nonintoxicant, and removed all duties thereon. The temperance societies in that country, large and powerful, established cafes and restaurants throughout the country and placed this excise-free three-per-cent beer on sale. They believed that to be a good move; they believed it to be in the interests of temperance, and the result is shown by the figures. You will remember that there is no general prohibition law in Denmark. The figures show that in consequence of this move the sale of three-per-cent beer went up in a most tremendous fashion, and the sale of ardent liquors decreased in a similar way. So, I think it cannot fairly be argued that this particular amendment-and no other result is possible in the time in which this law will last- is immoral.
The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) suggested this case: Suppose, he said, Ontario voted to go completely dry, to allow no sales of beer of any kind; how strange and illogical it would be to allow the export of three-per-cent beer into Quebec. That is a striking supposition, but quite an impossible one. This legislation will last, at the outside, for fifteen or sixteen months'-until peace is declared and one year thereafter. The people of the province of Ontario are to vote next autumn on the question of the continuation or otherwise of the Ontario Temperance Act, and under no possible combination of circumstances, on no vote that can be given on that Act, can the province of Ontario go absolutely " dry." So that the danger conjured up by the member for North Grey does not apply in this case. At the present moment under these very Orders in Council the breweries can export to licensed vendors anywhere, so that whether Ontario went "dry" or not that export business could continue. The President of the Privy Council pointed out the genesis of the Ontario Temperance Act, and I am not at all in a position to argue or contradict him in that respect. He said

that this Act followed generally the Macdonald Act of Manitoba and that the clauses permitting export and transportation were put in to avoid any question of jurisdiction or any attack in the courts as to the constitutionality of the Act. I would like, however, to call the attention of the Committee to one clause of the Ontario Temperance Act which I did not read, as I did not think it dealt with the matter before the Committee, but which is in * striking contrast to the clauses I did read.
I would suggest that this clause is the type of clause which the Government would insert in an Act so as to prevent any possible question as to constitutionality, whereas the other clauses are of a wholly different type, and are framed, I submit, for quite another purpose. Clause 139 reads:
While this Act is intended to prohibit and shall prohibit transactions in liquor which taka place wholly within the province of Ontario, except under license or as otherwise specially provided by this Act, and to restrict the consumption of liquor within the limits of the province of Ontario, it shall not affect and is not intended to affect bona fide transactions in liquor between a person in the province of Ontario and a person in another province or in a foreign country, and the provisions of this Act shall be construed accordingly.
This is a clause such as one could well imagine the Government inserting, out of an abundance of caution, to protect the constitutionality of its Act. But clauses 43, 45 and 46 are on an entirely different basis. They deal with the right of common carriers to carry liquor for export, and the right of the manufacturer to sell for export. The President of the Privy Council said, in answer to a question by an hon. member, that the test of the right to export is the right of sale within the province. That is the test as matters stand today. Under the Bill which the Government has introduced you can export wine of Quebec strength into Quebec because Ontario allows the sale of that wine. But as I pointed out in moving the amendment, if Ontario next September allows the sale of beer of 3 per cent or 2i per cent alcohol by weight-if it follows the Quebec lead in that respect-even then, when the sale of that beer is allowed in Ontario, under this Act as brought in, that beer could not toe exported into Quebec nor could beer be imported from Quebec. So that the sale test is only partly applied and unless the amendment which I suggest is adopted there will be that defect, that illogical position. I desire to repeat briefly what the general effect of >my amendment
is: It. allows the manufacture in Ontario of beer of a strength which is permitted to be sold in Quebec, and the export of that beer to Quebec or any other place where it may lawfully be sold.
Amendment (Mr. Cronyn) negatived.


Mr. FIELDING:: Subsection 3 of this section says:
The Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue shall have power to make such regulations as he may deem necessary to prevent intoxicating liquor from being illegally manufactured in or from being imported into Canada-
-and so on. This language certainly is very unusual. The Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue is to have power to make any regulations that he personally may deem necessary. They are notl to be approved toy the Governor in Council nor published in the Canada Gazette. The minister has an absolute and unqualified power; I would call the attention of the minister to this subsection because it seems to me to be a very usual proceeding.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This is in the form drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel, but there is not the least objection to substituting "Governor in Council" for "minister." I presume the regulations will be important and it would be wiser to have them passed upon by the Governor in Council.


William Stevens Fielding: The words as drawn give the Minister of Inland Revenue absolute and unqualified power in the matter. No broader words could be used. I have never to my recollection seen such broad language in. any previous Act.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I understand from the Parliamentary Counsel that these are the usual words in many Acts, and that in drafting this clause he has followed precedent. But I see no objection to an amendment to provide that the regulations shall be made with the approval of the Governor in Council and published in the Canada Gazette.


William Stevens Fielding: That would be better.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is what the intention is. I move that subsection 3 be amended by striking out the words " Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue " and substituting therefor the words " Governor in Council," and inserting at the end of the clause the following words:-
All regulations made hereunder shall be published in the Canada Gazette,


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


On the title:
Newton Wesley Rowell: It has been said that the title is rather long and cumbersome. 1 would suggest that the following be inserted in section 1:-
This Act may he cited as the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1919.
That is for convenience of reference.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. CANNON:: By referring to section 1 paragraph (a), it will be seen that paragraph (a) provides for the amendment of subsection (c) of regulation 1. If we amend subsection (c) of regulation 1 as provided in paragraph (a) of section 1, I do not see that there will be any meaning to 'it at all. It says that you shall strike out the word "wine" in the last line and there is no word "wine" in the last line.


Georges Henri Boivin: The word "wine" is found in the last line of paragraph (c) regulation 1 page 3.


Lucien Cannon: Paragraph (c), as I read it, says "native wine is permitted." The word "wine" is not in the last line. If the paragraph is amended I do not think it will have any meaning _ at all.


Hume Cronyn: I do not know whether the hon. member (Mr. Cannon) is aware that the Order in Council as printed and first distributed differs from the Order in Council as printed in the Bill. The original Order in Council read "wherein the sale of native wine is prohibited" and the Bill reads "wherein the sale of native wine is permitted"-absolutely and entirely changing the Order in Council.


Lucien Cannon: I am reading from the Bill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend will turn to the schedule he will find that paragraph (c) regulation 1, says:
" Prohibited area" means any province, territory, municipality, district, county or other area wherein the sale of intoxicating liquor is under or by any l'aw, federal or provincial, prohibited, and shall include any such area wherein the sale of native wine is permitted.
The words after the word "wine" are stricken out and the following substituted: "or other intoxicating liquors of limited alcoholic content are permitted."


Lucien Cannon: I understand that but it says the word "wine" in'the last line, when it is not in the last line. It may be in the Order in Council but it is not in the Bill and the Bill is going to be the law.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is correct. There is a line in which half of the word "permitted" appears. It should be changed to read"the fifth line thereof." I therefore beg to move:
That Regulation 1 paragraph (c) be amended by substituting for the words " the last line thereof," the words " the fifth line thereof."
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.


MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS AND MEN. *
On the motion of Major-General Mewburn (Minister of Militia and Defence), the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Militia Pension Act, chapter forty-two of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to pro vide:-
1.	That an officer who is retired compulsorily, for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency, after ten years' service, shall be entitled to a pension for life, not exceeding one-fiftieth of the pay and allowances of his rank or permanent appointment at the time of his retirement for each completed year of service.
2.	That in the case of an officer who has been seconded or given leave of absence for service in a position in the public service of Canada or in the Canadian Expeditionary Force or in any other military force raised in Canada for service outside Canada, and paid and maintained by the Government of Canada, or who has been permitted to serve in any such force, deductions at the rate of five per cent per annum shall be made from the salary or pay, as the case may be, which such officer is receiving in the said public service, or as an officer in any such force, and those deductions shall form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and shall be treated in all retepects as deductions under section eight of the Militia Pension Act; and, notwithstanding anything in that Act mentioned, the pension granted to an officer thus seconded, or thus serving in any such force, shall be based on his salary and allowances, or his pay and allowances, as the case may be, which at Ihe date of his retirement the Said officer is receiving from the said Government in the public service or in such force.
3.	That the time served as an officer, noncommissioned officer or man on active service during the war between Great Britain and Germany, which commenced on the fourth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, shall be counted for pension purposes under the said Militia Pension Act.
4.	That every militiaman shall be entitled to retire and receive a pension for life who has completed not less than ten years' service, subject to the provisions of the Militia Pension Act.
5.	That the pension to a miilitiaman on retirement shall be:-
(a)	if he has completed ten but less than
twenty years' service, an annual sum equal to

one-fiftieth of his annual pay and allowances for every completed year of service;
(b)	if he has completed twenty but less than twenty-five years' service, an annual sum equal to twenty-fiftieths of his annual pay and allowances, with an addition of two-fiftieths of his annual pay and allowances for every completed year of service above twenty years;
(c)	if he has completed twenty-five years'
service, an annual sum equal to thirty-fiftieths of his annual pay and allowances, with an addition of one-fiftieth of his annual pay and allowances for every completed year of service above twenty-five years:	Provided
that tht pension shall not exceed two-thirds of his annual pay and allowances at his retirement.
6.	That the time served as a militiaman on active service during the war between Great Britain and Germany, which commenced on the fourth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, shall be counted for pension purposes under the said Militia Pension Act.
7.	That the Governor in Council may as to him seems fit grant a pension to the widow and a compassionate allowance to each of the children of any officer who, having completed twenty years' service, was at the time of his death on full pay, or who, having completed ten years' service, was at the time of his death in receipt of a pension.
8.	That the pension of a widow shall, if her husband was at the time of his death on full pay, be an amount equal to one-half of the pension to which he would have been entitled if he had been retired compulsorily immediately before hie death, or, if at the time of his death he had been pensioned, an amount equal to one-half of such pension.
9.	That pensions to widows heretofore granted under the provisions of the Militia Pension Act may be re-adjusted in accordance with the provisions of these resolutions; but no saich re-adjustment shall authorize the increase of any payments for pension that accrued before the passing of the Act based upon these resolutions.
Major-General MEWBURN: The object ol this resolution is to carry into effect one or two amendments in the old Militia Pension Act, which now provides for compulsory retirement after twenty years' service. Under the old Militia Pension Act an officer or a man could' only be pensioned compulsorily after twenty years' service. This amendment permits the pensioning of officers after ten years' service instead of twenty. It will enable us to pension certain officers instead of keeping them on the strength for twenty years; especially the large number of officers promoted from the ranks who have served overseas during the present war, and who cannot be absorbed in the establishment. The second resolution makes provision in connection with officers of the permanent force who have been seconded, or given leave of absence in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, or other military forces. The Pension Act only provides for officers 171*
seconded in the public service in Canada - and, by adding the words "Canadian Expeditionary Force," it will enable us to pension officers of the Permanent Force who have been promoted from the ranks, or officers of the Permanent Force who have been promoted to a higher rank in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The present Act, of course, was passed without any thought of this war. This does not provide for voluntary but compulsory retirement. It provides for the recognition of war service and makes it unnecessary for officers and men of the Permanent Corps who distinguished themselves in the war to return to their lower ranks. It would be manifestly unfair to require non-commissioned officers and men who have distinguished themselves to revert to their rank as non-commissioned officers and men. In connection with section 3 of the resolution, I might also refer to section 6 which provides that the service of men in the recent war will be considered towards pension. Under the old Militia Pension Act provision was made for men who had served in the South African war or the Yukon. Iln accordance with the precedent .created after the South African war this section enables us to count towards pension the time that officers, non-commissioned officers and men have served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. 'Section 4 provides that the men are to be pensioned on the same ratio as the officers. It also gives the right to a man, which the officer does not possess, to retire voluntarily at the end of ten years service. Section (5) subsection (a) provides that militamen can be pensioned after ten years' service. Subsections (b) and (c) of section 5, are the same as now provided in the Act, except in the addition of the word " allowances."
Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is the difference between "militiaman" and "man"?
Major-General MEWBURN: In the interpretation clause "militiaman" means a non-commissioned officer or private of the force. All ranks below the commissioned rank of lieutenant would be included in the word "militiaman" under that interpretation.
Sections 7, 8 and 9 are identical with the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Pensions Bill which went through the House last week. Section 7 simply provides for the reduction of time from twenty years to ten years, in which time a pension can be granted to a widow, provided her late husband was in receipt of full pay or pension.

Section 8 is identically the same as the Mounted Police pension. It provides that the widow of a husband if he were, at the time of his death, drawing full pay, should receive equal to one-half of the pension to which he would have been entitled. Section 9 makes provision identically the same as under the Mounted Police pension, that is, the pension of widows already granted under the provisions of the old Act, can, by Order in Council, be readjusted from the date of the passing of this Act.


Mr. NESBITT:: What would a militiaman receive after ten years' service?
Major-General MEWBURN: A warrant officer of the Permanent Force, after twenty-five years' service, comes under a pension of $739.25. He gets one-fiftieth of his pay for every year of service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How much would a
militiaman receive who had been nineteen years in the service?
Major-General MEWBURN:	He would
get nineteen-fiftieths of the pay and allowance he was drawing.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It says here one-fiftieth of his annaul pay.
Major-General MEWBURN:	For every
year of service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It does not say so. It does say that, however, in the case of a man of over twenty-five years' service. 1 refer to subsection (a) of section 5. It reads that if a militiaman has completed ten, or less than twenty years' service he shall receive an annual sum equal to one-fiftieth of his annual pay and allowance for every completed year of service.
(Major-General MEWBURN: The amount is equal to one-fiftieth of his annual pay and allowance for every completed year of service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The provision reads differently in the one case from the other. It is r. little confusing.


Lucien Cannon: The resolution provides for the case of officers and men who have taken part in the war against Germany?
Major-General MEWBURN: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: Take the case of men who fought in the advance from Saloniki.
Major-General MEWBURN: The resolution applies to any man belonging to the Canadian Expeditionary Force who took part in the great war.
[Major-General Mewburn.]


Lucien Cannon: I do not know about that. There are men who participated in the engagements in the Balkans and never fought against the Germans?
Major-General MEWBURN: Canadians who fought there would be members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. If a man served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, no matter where it was, he would come under the terms of the resolution.


Lucien Cannon: Would that apply also to men who served in Siberia?
Major-General MEWBURN: Yes, if they were in the Permanent Force.
Resolution reported, read the first and second times and concurred in.
Major-General MEWBURN thereupon moved to introduce Bill No. 118 to amend the Militia Pension Act, founded on the resolution.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Acts respecting the appointment of a Harbour Master at the Port of Halifax, chapter forty-nine of the Statutes of 1882, and chapter seventy-eight of the Statutes of 1885, by providing :-
1. That the Harbour Master of the Port of Halifax shall be remunerated for his services solely by the fees, or the portion of the fees, which he may be authorized, by the rules and regulations, to collect in respect of all ships over twenty tons register, entering the Port of Halifax, but which shall not at any time exceed the following rates:-
(a)	For every ship over twenty tons and not over fifty tons register, fifty cents;
(b)	For every ship over fifty tons and not over one hundred tons register, one dollar;
(c)	For every ship over one hundred tons and not over two hundred tons register, one dollar and fifty cents;
(d)	For every ship over two hundred tons and not over three hundred tons register, two dollars;
(e)	For every ship over three hundred tons and not over four hundred tons register, two dollars and fifty cents;
(f)	For every ship over four hundred tons and not over five hundred tons register, three dollars;
(g)	For every ship over five hundred tons and not over seven hundred tons register, four dollars:
(h)	For every ship over seven hundred tons and not over one thousand tons register, five dollars;

(i)	For every ship over one thousand tons register, seven dollars.
Ships of twenty tons register and under not to be subject to any duty under this resolution, nor ships engaged in trading or plying between ports and places in the Dominion of Canada.
2. That the Harbour Master of the Port of Halifax may. out of the moneys received by him for fees, retain for his own remuneration such sum. not exceeding three thousand dollars per annum, as the Governor in Council may authorize ; and if the moneys received by him for fees in any calendar year amount to a less sum than that allowed him by the Governor in Council, then such sum shall be his remuneration for that year.
Mr. BALLA.NTYNE: The object of this resolution is to enable the Government to pay a reasonable salary to the harbour master at Halifax, having regard to present-day conditions. In 1885 the salary was fixed at $1,800 a year, but out of this he was obliged to pay boat hire and the expenses of his office. It can scarcely be said that such remuneration for an officer looking after a harbour of the importance of Halifax is sufficient. If this salary was considered reasonable thirty-four years ago it is manifestly inadequate to-day. The resolution is to provide the means of putting the matter right. The resolution also deals with the fee collectable on vessels of over one thousand tons registered tonnage entering the harbour, the amount being increased from $5 to $7 per ton. This will add greatly to the revenue, which in ordinary times is scarcely sufficient to make ends meet. The resolution, which involves the expenditure of money, has been duly recommended by His Excellency the Governor General. The total fees collected in Halifax from 1914 to 1918 were as follows: 1914, $1,822.50; 1915, $1,714; 1916, $1,783.50; 1917, $1,832; 1918, $3,351.
The large sum collected in 1918 was duo almost entirely to the war, and to so many vessels entering the port of Halifax. The object of this Bill is to enable the harbour master to get a larger remuneration than $1,800, but in no event can his salary be more than the total amount of the fees he collects. As a comparison I might take some of the other ports where the harbour masters are not paid by fees. The harbour master of the port of Montreal receives $5,000; of Quebec, $3,500; of Vancouver, $1,800, and fees as shipping master; of Three Rivers-the amount is not inserted, but I know from memory that it is $900 a year. Two' important matters are embodied in this Bill. One is to enable the harbour master to draw more than $1,800 a year, provided the fees exceed that amount; and the other is to increase the
fees of vessels over 1,000 tons register from $5 to $7.
William Stevens Fielding: Has the hon. minister any special reason for changing the system? On general principles the payment of any important official by fees is objectionable; it is better that the fees be turned into the public treasury and an established salary be paid. That seems to be the rule in the harbour of Montreal, as my hon. friend has said, and unless there be some special reason to the contrary, it seems to me that that would be the wise policy in the case of Halifax or any other port.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: The reason the harbour master is not paid by fees at Montreal is because the port is under a harbour commission. The port of Halifax is not under a harbour commission, and since 1885 the harbour master's salary has been fixed at the maximum of $1,800. He cannot get one cent above $1,800 unless this Act is passed.


William Stevens Fielding: But he has been paid a salary in recent years as I understand the hon. minister?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


William Stevens Fielding: By fees?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, entirely.


William Stevens Fielding: The object of the Bill is to give him a larger salary?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The object of the
Bill is to enable him to draw more than $ 1,800.


William Stevens Fielding: Up to $3,000?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes. But if the fees were only $1,700 a year, that is all he would draw as remuneration. On the other hand, if the fees reach the maximum of $3,000, that is what he would draw. But according to the amount of fees during the period of years that I have given to the Committee, it is not at all likely that he will draw much over $1,800. I would like to put the harbour master of the port of Halifax in such a position that if the fees collected amounted to $2,800 he would be able to draw that amount of remuneration. It is manifestly unfair to have the harbour master of such an important port drawing the meagre remuneration of $1,800 a year, and that has been in vogue during the past thirty-four years. It is time we changed it, I think.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is there a harbour commission at Three Rivers?	,


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: And the harbour master receives, if I understood the hon. minister aright, only $900 a year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have not a memorandum of the exact amount, but I believe that is correct.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think the hon. minister gave it as $900?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I did. But with all due deference to the port of Three Rivers, it cannot be considered to be as important a port as Halifax, neither does it have as many ships coming in and going out.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sure if my hon.
friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) were here he would resent very much such a declaration.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No doubt.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Because the harbour master of the metropolitan city represented by my deskmate should receive more than $900.	.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is a matter
that can be remedied by the harbour commission of the port of Three Rivers. But the harbour master of Halifax cannot draw any more than $1,800 even if he collects fees to the amount of $2,000.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister say how much the pilotage rate is being increased?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We are raising the fee for all vessels over 1,000 tons registered tonnage entering the harbour from $5 to $7 per ton. These fees are payable once a year for small ships under 100 tons and twice a year for those over that tonnage.


John Howard Sinclair: No more than twice a year in any case?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No more.


John Howard Sinclair: For example, the liners that come in from Boston or any other port will only have to pay on two occasions each year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is the meaning of it.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the reason for the change? Is it because the present dues are insufficient to pay the harbour master?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is one reason; and the other reason is to enable the harbour master to draw more than $1,800 from the fees collected. For instance, in

the year 1915 he was only able to collect in fees $1,714, which really is too small an amount for a man who has the responsibilities of harbour .master for a port like Halifax.


John Howard Sinclair: How much did he collect last year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That was a very large year, $3,351. But the harbour master stands no show whatever of getting an income beyond $3,000, because the war is over and the amount of shipping going in and out of the port of Halifax will not be so large that he will be able to draw such a salary, but he certainly will draw more than $1,800-1 hope he will, anyway.


Mr. DUFF:: Has the Board of Trade or any other body at Halifax asked to have these changes made?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No one has asked it as far as I know. It is just a matter of what the minister would consider fair and just in the way of remuneration, and I think that a harbour master who has been in the service for thirty-four years, considering the high cost of living, would not be treated fairly if the Government only gave him $1,800 a year. I am sure hon. members will agree that if he can collect more fees than $1,800 he certainly ought to be entitled to them.


William Duff: I agree with the hon. minister that $1,800 for the harbour master of Halifax is not sufficient remuneration, and I think the vessels can afford to pay the fees laid down in the resolution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How are those fees collected ?


William Duff: At the custom house, are they not?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I presume so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This will be an amending Act, I understand ?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should like to have it clear that those fees are collected at the custom house. I do not like the idea of an officer going aboard a ship arid collecting fees for himself.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
William Duff: That is the way it is done.


Lucien Cannon: Does that official fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


Lucien Cannon: He is under the minister?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. BALLANTYNE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 119, to amend the Acts respecting the appointment of a harbour master at the port of Halifax.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Newton W. Rowell (President of the Council), Bill No. 116, to amend the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 9-those who left Force to serve in war on rejoining Force, service in war to be included in computing pension:
Henri Sévérin Béland: Are there many who joined the forces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, -several hundreds
went to the war.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-rates of pay:
Mr. ROBB:: How will this rate of pay compare with the previous rate?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This rate of pay was the rate established by Order in Council last autumn when we decided to recruit the Force up to the authorized number of 1,200 men. The rate iS" 50 cents -per day for constables and non-commissioned officers above the rate of pay that prevailed before the war. It is only right here to mention to hon. members that, as was suggested when we were discussing the resolution, the rate of pay during the next two or three years will have to be increased above this amount, and provision for that is made in the latter
part of the section by giving the Governor in Council power to do so. I think the rate of pay of constables will -have to be 50 cents per day above the amount fixed in the Bill which will make the constables start at $2 a day. It is not possible, we think, to get the most desirable men and to recruit up to strength unless we make the pay for the next three years start at $2 per day. We should also increase the pay of non-commissioned officers by 75 cents per day and the officers by $1.25 per d-ay.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-creation of a reserve of officers and men who have served in Force.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I desire to make a slight amendment in this clause. Members of the Committee will see that subsection 3 reads:
When such officer or man ot the said Reserve shall have been called up for duty he shall hold the rank and draw the pay which he received on the date of his retirement or discharge from the Force.
We should make that read "current rates of pay when he is called up." I therefore move to amend the clause by striking out all the words after the word "rank" in the second line and -substituting therefor the following:
"Which he held on the date of his retirement or discharge from the Force and shall receive the current rates of pay for such rank.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lucien Cannon: Subsection (7) of this section reads:
Any member of the Reserve may retire therefrom on giving one month's notice in writing to the commissioner.
Does this extend to the man who is called for service, because that would be most acceptable?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, this reserve applies only to men who have served their full period in the Force and have retired or been discharged. It provides for creating a reserve of retired men who have served in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. They cannot be brought in unless they voluntarily consent to do so, and if once they are brought into the reserve and called for service, they may retire on a month's notice.


Lucien Cannon: Subsection 2 says:
Such reserve, or any portion or member thereof, may be called up for duty by the Commissioner when he deems it necessary.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They must be enrolled in the Reserve, then they may be called up

for duty. After a man has been called up for duty and is serving, he may give notice that he wishes to withdraw at the end of the month.


William Stevens Fielding: In that case would he receive both pay and pension? These men forming the reserve are presumably pensioners, and in emergency they may be called out. They would receive the pay of their rank at the time of retirement. Would they receive both pay and pension? That is allowable only under certain conditions which I do not care to mention here.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I admit there is a good deal in what my hon. friend has suggested. The situation is simply this: We want to enroll this reserve" at once, as it appears desirable in certain sections of the country that they should be enrolled, and we want to make the inducements as generous as possible. The time the men would serve would not count for any additional pension. And the amount of pension the members of the force receive is very small. I beg to move that subsection (7) of section 11 be amended by substituting the word " two " for the word " one " in line 10.
Major-General MEWBURN:	After an
active officer in the Militia retires he goes on the reserve of officers, so that he can be called upon in case of emergencv. During peace time he is permitted to resign after three months' notice, I think. Our object in the Militia is to create a reserve so that the men will be available in case of emergency.


Mr.   GANNON@: According to the Bill
he could resign while on service.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 16:
Newton Wesley Rowell: I beg to move that there be inserted in the Bill as section 16 the following:
Subsection (c) of section 60 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(c) to every officer in the force on the first day of July. 1902.
Section 60 created this pension system for the officers of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. Prior to that, they had certain rights to a pension under the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act. When the Mounted Police Act was amended by creating a pension fund to which the officers of the force must contribute, every officer was given a certain period in which to
[Mr. Rowell. 1
elect whether he would come in under the Mounted Police Act or retain his rights under the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act. There were two officers of the force out in the North country, either in the Yukon on the Mackenzie River district, I am not sure which, who were not able to take advantage of the Act in time, and they have been unable to come in under its provisions in consequence. They have wanted to do so, but as the Act was not being amended, it has not been possible to permit them to come in. The amendment I have proposed is simply to enable them to take advantage of the opportunity enabling all the officers to come in under the Act, and of which the great majority have taken advantage.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Thursday, May 22, 1919.