1923-05-02

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister
of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 152, respecting the Canadian National Railways.
He said: The abject of section 1 of this bill is to enable the Canadian National Railway

Questions
Company to carry on the, express business as a department of the railway, taking over the business of the Canadian National Express Company and the Canadian Express Company. Section 2 provides that the Canadian National Railway Company may, if it so decides, sell certain parts of electric lines within the corporation of the municipality of the city of Toronto. Under the wording of the act these lines could be sold to a company. This section amends the act to make it possible to sell to a municipality or to a company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

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

Mr. MERCIER:: 1.	Does the government intend to connect, by a branch line, Montreal with the National Transcontinental railway?
2.	If so, at what date do they expect to begin the necessary work?
3.	If not, would the government be disposed to grant subsidies to any person or company willing tc undertake said work?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Parliament yoted a subsidy in 1908 "for a line of railway from Montreal to a point on the National Transcontinental railway not exceeding 200 miles", and re-voted same in 1910. Any application for subsidy which may now be made would be dealt with on its merits, final decision resting with parliament.


SALE OF PRE-EMPTIONS
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	Were not the proceeds from the sale of preemptions thrown open in 1908 in what is known as the dry area in western Canada to be used for the purpose of constructing the Hudson Bay railway?
2.	How much money has been realized from that source to date?
3.	Was any other trust fund created for the purpose of constructing the Hudson Bay railway?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	There was no specific authority under the Dominion Lands Act 1908 for the sale of land for the purpose of Hudson Bay Railway construction, but pre-emptions were sold under the provisions of the said act.
2.	Sale of pre-emptions $15,649,674.83 to 31 March, 1923.
3.	No, so far as the Interior department is aware.


COLLECTIONS-LUXURY TAX
Mr. BIRD:: What is the total amount collected under the excise taxes, commonly called luxury taxes, imposed under section 19BB of the Special War Revenue Act?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: Excise taxes collected under section 19 B.B. of the 1920 amendments to The Special War Revenue Act 1915.
Fiscal year, 1921, excise taxes, $31,921,756.51; 1922, $4,053,076.09; 1923, $8,212,775.99.


TAX COMMISSION
Mr. BIRD:: 1.	What was the gross amount of income reviewed by the Tax Commission for the purposes of the income tax for the year ending March, 1922?
2.	What was the amount of income assessed for the purposes of the income tax for th.e year ending March, 1922?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	No information, as statistics were only compiled from taxable returns.
2.	$1,462,529,169.94.


DISMISSAL MISS BARBARA LEE
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	From what date was Miss Barbara Lee dismissed from the service of the Immigration department at St. John, New Brunswick?
2.	On whose recommendation was she dismissed?
3.	By what officer or officers of the department was such recommendation approved?
4.	For what reasons was it approved?
5.	Why was she dismissed?
6.	What part, if any, had a man named Byrne in
the dismissal?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	20th December, 1922.
2.	Mr. Jos. Byrne, officer of the Department of Immigration m charge of the catering at St. John, N.B.
3.	Mr. W. R. Little, Commissioner of Immigration, Eastern division, and Mr. J. E. Featherston, Supervisor of Personnel.
4.	Refusal to perform duties for which engaged.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Answered by No. 2.


U.S. LABOUR DELEGATES DETAINED
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Has the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) any further word in regard to Alexander Howat?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: We ar6 still in communication about the admission of Mr. Howat.
Italian Treaty


GOVERNMENT PRINTING
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. "BLACK (Yukon): I wish to draw attention to the fact that an unopposed motion . for a return was passed by this House on the 18th of last month, giving the names of newspaper companies and printing companies receiving money from the government, and the return has not been brought down.
Mr. MURDOCK:: We have that particular information ready, but another order was passed asking for the same information for five years, which we are preparing, and we will bring down within the next day or two the information for the five years.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Why is the information asked for delayed pending the other matter?


Mr. FIELDING:: The greater includes the lesser.


Arthur Meighen: The House has given the order.


James Murdock: I am not sure that the first order was completely ready to bring down, before the other question was asked, and we decided that it would be advisable to bring the five years down together.


Arthur Meighen: That is not an answer at all. The hon. minister stated that it was ready. If it is ready there is no reason for delay. That is an order of the House and the return should be brought down when ready. The minister is simply trifling with the orders of the House.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. HUMPHREY:: I believe that last year a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into certain charges laid by the Great War Veterans against the Board of Pension Commissioners. That report has now been submitted to parliament, and printed and distributed to members. What is the intention of the government in regard to putting into effect immediately the conclusions of that Royal Commission?


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment):: Some legislation will be introduced later in the session to give effect to most of the recommendations in the report to which my hon. friend has referred.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Will an opportunity be given to discuss this report in the House?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand that an item for pensions was held over some days ago with

the intention of affording members an opportunity to discuss that feature of the report itself. I expect this item will be under consideration within a week.


ITALIAN TREATY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that a certain convention of commerce dated the fourth day of January, in the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, entered into at London by the Plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty and by His Majesty the King of Italy be approved, and to give effect to the provisions of the said convention.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Will the minister please explain?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that would be more convenient in committee, if my hon. friend is content.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite content. I do not want to delay this at all, if we have a clear understanding that by letting it go into committee, questions of principle will then be open for discussion.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no objection to going into the matter now. As regards the French treaty, for reasons explained, it became necessary to deal with details to a considerable extent, and, therefore, Schedules were attached to the bill. In this case we are relieved of the necessity of dealing with schedules because the Italian fiscal policy permits treatment of the question in a general way. Therefore, all we need to do is to adopt the few clauses in order to establish what we call the most favoured nation treatment.
Some years ago, in 1910, we came to an agreement with Italy, not in the form and shape of a treaty. A good understanding was reached, and for years our commercial relations have been very pleasant, although by the words of the agreement they have been rather limited. We agreed at the time to which I refer that certain mentioned products of Canada should be admitted into Italy under most favoured terms and reciprocally that certain mentioned products of Italy should be admitted into Canada similarly on the most favoured terms. The chief products of Canada, perhaps the products that most concern us were included in that list, and I presume that our Italian friends mentioned the things that most concerned them. The trade that has been carried on between Canada

Italian Treaty
and Italy lias been, on the whole, of a most satisfactory nature. I suppose the question of imports and exports has been disturbed somewhat by war conditions. The figures as they stand for a few years are as follows:
Year	Imports	Exports1914	
$2,090,000	$	514,0001918	
771,000	3,336,0001919	
555,000	13,181,0001920	
1,745,000	57,758,0001922	
1,387,000	15,335,000
Evidently 1920 was quite an exceptional year. Thus, as regards comparison, the trade is quite favourable to Canada. The existing arrangement is satisfactory as far as it goes, but it gives us no guarantee as to what may happen with other countries. It will be quite possible, under our present arrangement, for Italy to give more favourable terms to somebody else. Therefore, although no particular case has arisen demanding a treaty and business is satisfactory as far as it goes, we thought it well to guard against any misapprehension of that sort, and so we have agreed as regards, not only the limited list already mentioned in our existing agreement, but the products of Canada and the products of Italy generally, that we shall give and receive the most favoured-nation terms. No details are required. Whatever we grant to any foreign country we must grant to Italy. Whatever Italy grants to any foreign country she must grant to us. That is the whole story of the treaty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think, perhaps, we could make greater headway if, instead of discussing the matter now, we were to reserve whatever observations we have until the House is in committee, as long as it is understood that we can raise questions concerning the principles without being debarred from that point.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 153, respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the King of Italy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 153, respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the King of Italy.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My suggestion to my hon. friend now becomes operative. Under my suggestion we would have no discussion on the second reading, reserving our remarks to the committee stage.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Convention approved:
Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not a copy of the bill, but I presume this clause is merely putting into effect the treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Therefore, under this clause we can properly discuss the whole treaty. I was going to ask my hon. friend whether his view is, as mine is, that the effect of the treaty with France and this treaty with Italy is to extend, for example to Italy, the right of giving more favoured terms to all its border states than it gives to Canada. In the case of Italy, if I am right, that would [DOT]give Italy the right to prefer in her markets. France, Switzerland, Austria and Jugo-Slavia. I do not think there are any more,


William Stevens Fielding: I would not like to say that. Canada gives to Italy all that the French treaty gives to France. We discussed that in connection with the French treaty My hon. friend's interpretation of that I admit is possible, but I do not think it is of practical importance. Whatever we give to France we certainly give to Italy. That is plain enough.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the hon.
member not think the committee ought to know this? The explanation given to us in connection with the French treaty was that while the treaty might well carry that construction, and, indeed, it seems impossible that it could carry any other construction: all that France wanted was to be able to look after reparations and to give more favoured treatment under the reparations clauses. Of course, the obvious answer there was: if that be the fact, if that is all that France wants, why was not the treaty so drawn? The trouble is that we must take the treaty as we have it, and we should understand what we are doing. As drawn, it provides that France can give to her neighbours, Spain, Switzerland and Belgium, more favoured treatment than she may give to Canada. Surely we should know where we are. If my hon. friend is in doubt about it, should not the point be cleared up before we go on? I
Italian Treaty

thought it was conceded in the discussion of the French treaty that whatever the reasons might have been, whatever the argument of France was, the neighbours of the French republic might be given better treatment than Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Whatever rates we give
France we are certainly bound to give to Italy. There is no dispute about that; that is the meaning of the favoured nation principle.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly. Then when I came to find out what was given to France I thought my hon. friend acknowledged that under the terms of the treaty the bordering states might receive benefits over and above the benefits guaranteed Canada. If I am wrong my hon. friend will set me right.


William Stevens Fielding: I told the hon. member
that such was a possible interpretation of the treaty. I think the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) called attention earlier to that phase of the question and I said that the treaty was open to that interpretation but that I was satisfied that this was not what the French government had in mind. And that is what I say now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend admits that the treaty is open to this interpretation, and that being the case, Spain, Switzerland and Belgium, for example, are entitled, if France chooses to give it, to more favoured treatment than Canada may receive under the treaty. Following up just exactly what my hon. friend has stated, that Italy is entitled to everything France has got,-the selfsame covenant-it is obvious that Italy may give to France, Switzerland, Austria or Jugo-Slavia a preference in her markets against Canada. Surely that is the case. But if my hon. friend disputes it I suppose we shall have to debate the question. I think, however, it must be apparent that this follows necessarily from what he says.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not very much concerned about the neighbouring countries coming into conflict with Canada. I have said that whatever we give to France we give to Italy and all the other favoured nations, but I do not seriously look upon Jugo-Slavia as a competitor of Canada. The main object of the treaty with France.is to see that we get even terms with the United States. I say now that in this case our chief competitor will probably be the United States, and if we get even terms with that country I do not think we need be very much disturbed about all the others.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if m;. hon. friend realizes the situation; I am sure he does. He says that Jugo-Slavia cannot be looked upon as a competitor with Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: In Europe


Henry Lumley Drayton: In Europe, yes. I would point out to my hon. friend, though, that the vast amount of the exports of this country to Italy consists of wheat, and I am going to ask the Minister of Finance whether once upon a time central Europe was not a great wheat producer and whether there are not wheat fields .to-day on that continent which, if not perhaps actively under cultivation in Jugo-Slavia at least-and my information is that they are-are at any rate potential competitors of the Canadian wheat producers in the Italian wheat market. I should have thought that wheat raised in any quantities in central Europe and sold in the Italian market would be an important competitor against this country.


William Stevens Fielding: Wheat is free in Italy, and all countries are treated alike. I do not think therefore that there is anything to be alarmed about in that regard. All I can say is that if at any time Italy granted preferential treatment to any other country competing with us in wheat it would be good ground for us to give Italy notice to terminate the agreement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is getting back to the chief argument he used in reference to the French treaty, which was that he could get rid of it in six months.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But he cannot get rid of this treaty in six months; this is for four years, subject, if I remember rightly, to cancellation on a year's notice. So that the argument about being able to get rid of the agreement if it is not satisfactory does not apply here. I want to impress upon my hon, friend that the result of the treaty as negotiated is this, that if Italy chooses to put a duty on our wheat and flour she may do so and at the same time give a preference to Jugo-Slavia. She may give free entry to Jugo-Slavia and hold her tariff as against Canada. If I am wrong will my hon. friend put me right?


William Stevens Fielding: There may be a possibility of such a thing, but I must say that it is so utterly unlikely that I cannot treat it with as much gravity as my hon. friend does.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But we have here a solemn document which is supposed to cover

Italian Treaty
these things. If we have not reserved to us in connection with our chief export to Italy, namely wheat, that which my hon. friend declared to be the real reason for making the treaty, that is, the assurance that Italy will not give someone else better treatment, what is the use of having the treaty? After all, wheat is our chief export to Italy and if my hon. friend can rely on Italy not to give a preference in respect of this commodity to other countries as against ourselves then there is really no use for the treaty. The effect of the treaty is to enlarge the scope of the most favoured nation compact, as pointed out by my hon. friend; it is a recognition of the principle. But it further complicates the situation to this extent, that so far as Italy is concerned the favoured nation treatment is to apply for four years subject to termination at the end of one year's notice. I do not know whether my hon. friend thinks or does not think that the most-favoured nation arrangement is a good thing for Canada; he has not t9ld us yet his view on that question. But we did the best we could to point out to him in connection with the French treaty just exactly how that most favoured nation provision works as regards Canada on the one side and France on the other. I notice'that the matter has been discussed in the other House, and I see that Hon. Senator Beaubien is reported in the Senate Hansard at page 350 as follows:
In our exchange of commodities with Spain, from 1912 to 1922, both inclusive, ten times out of eleven our imports have surpassed our exports. In the nine months ending December 31, 1922, our imports have exceeded by 200 per cent our exports to that country.
In the same period of 11 years-from 1912 to 1922, both inclusive-we imported from Switzerland over 60 million dollars' worth, exported to that country less than 4i million dollars. Whenever Switzerland bought $1 worth of goods from us, we purchased $15 worth of merchandise from her. During practically all this time Switzerland was a free-trade country and we could hope for no valuable tariff concessions from her. Lately Switzerland has adopted a policy of moderate protection, and we might perchance obtain from her useful tariff privileges. She imports yearly 250 million dollars' worth of products which we can furnish, amongst them, cereals, prepared foodstuffs, live stock, leather, furs, asbestos, mica, iron and steel sheets and tubes, agricultural implements and machinery, small hardware and tools, stationary and portable engines, varnishes, lumber, wood-pulp, paper, boots and shoes, cotton goods and tobacco.
On the other hand, our clientele, which is of great value to Switzerland could be easily shifted by tariff rearrangements to France. In 1921 we imported from Switzerland a total of $8,671,608, out of which textiles and fibres amounted together to $7,266,353, all of which textiles and fibres could have been purchased in France.
Hon. gentlemen will observe, Mr. Chairman, that the senator takes the position which we took in connection with the French treaty;
that the French treaty, as the result of the facts which he points out, could be much better described as a treaty, not with France for the benefit of France, but a treaty with France for the benefit of the most favoured nations. It was in that connection that I particularly pointed out to the hon. minister the position of the silk industry which France was so much interested in, that in connection with a tariff which was supposed to be for the benefit of France, she sent us $1,000,000 worth of silk products, while Japan and Switzerland sent us $8,000,000 worth, and that while there was some assistance given to France, at the same time the effect is to help France's competitors in our own market absolutely to the same extent as we help France. So that France is not helped very much after all.	.
The hon. gentleman will also recognize this fact in connection with that very item of silk goods-and it comes in here again because the basis is the same-that we have a silk industry in Canada. I am going to point out to my hon. friend what has been done in a country where the manufacture of silk is just as foreign to it as it could be said to be foreign to Canada, where they are not entangled with the most favoured nation treaty clauses in connection with their tariff. The statistics of the United States show that their silk industry-which industry was entirely formed in that country as a result of a protective tariff, and which has resulted in silk to-day being cheaper in the United States, even with a high tariff, than it is in Canada -those statistics show the silk industry to be in this condition: In 1919-I am sorry I have not the later figures; I think they are better-there were 1,369 establishments; their employees numbered 126,782; they had an invested capital of $532,732,163; they paid in wages $108,226,330, and the value of the product was $68S,000,000. So there is a country which grows just as much silk as Canada does and no more-that imports every single bit of silk, whose people to-day are enjoying silk at a lower price in their common markets then we enjoy in Canada. Under a protective tariff-and it was a high one-they have worked up this industry, and at the same time besides having cheaper silk they distribute $108,000,000 among their wage-earners and produce manufactured articles to the value of $688,000,000. Is it any wonder that the ministry has to report an exodus from Canada to the United States? I merely point out these facts to my hon. friend.
If any further evidence is required as to the effect of the treaty, having regard to the activities of other most favoured nations, I
239S
Italian Treaty

have a list of the different countries supplying Canada with goods similar to those received from France for the years 1914, 1920, 1921 and 1922. If my hon. friend desires the information I will read it, or if he likes the figures can be placed on Hansard.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman's remarks have touched some really important questions and some questions that I think are not so important. First, let me again remind him that he may talk of these silks coming in, whether they come in from France or from Italy, Switzerland or Japan, the greater proportion-I will not raise the question of 90 per cent and 10 per cent-but certainly the greater proportion of these silks have got to pay a duty of 27i per cent, less 10 per cent discount. It is necessary to keep that in mind. The whole tendency oi my hon. friend's observations is that we are bringing in these silks for nothing. If these enormous quantities of silk are paying this duty it is a good thing for the revenue. And I think 27*i per cent, less 10 per cent discount, take it all in all, is not lacking in a fair measure of encouragement to the silk industry of Canada. I think it will be held by many in this House that 27i per cent less 10 per cent, or a net duty of 25 per cent, is a pretty stiff rate and a fair measure of encouragement to our domestic industry. Wiser people than myself will say that any industry which cannot live in Canada under a 25 per cent protection is of questionable value to the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: But I want to say this. My hon. friend in referring to the United States tariff on silks says that silk is cheaper in the United States than here. If he has made inquiries and finds that to be the case I will take his word for it, but offhand I think he is mistaken; I do not think that as a rule goods that are paying high duties are cheaper in the United States than here. However, no industry ought to complain if it is allowed 25 per cent protection in Canada. I think the silk industry is not going to suffer under these circumstances. But if my hon. friend thought a high protective system was so valuable, why in heaven's name did he not put it in force when he had a chance? Again and again he talks of this high protection as if it were something very good. We have a moderate system of protection now. Some people do not like to call it protection. But if my hon. friend thinks that cheap silk and general prosperity could be created by raising the tariff, why in heaven's name did he perambulate this country from Dan to Beersheba

and end by doing nothing? WThy did he say in the Speech from the Throne that he was going to revise the tariff and then not revise it at all? I do not think my hon. friend has so much faith in his own high tariff ideas. If he really believed so much in its merits he would have given us a high tariff long ago. On the contrary he gave us a tariff not very much different from what we have to-day, and yet my hon. friend


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the fun? We
took something off last year, and we are going to take off-possibly we could take off something this year if we wanted to.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: At all events the point
of my remarks is this: My hon. friend i3 trying to establish that you can bring about prosperity by increasing the tariff; I think I am not misstating his position. Well, I ask him in all seriousness, why did he not do it? He went all over the country; he travelled from ocean to ocean, as I have said; he accumulated a vast amount of information, and the result was that he made up his mind to do nothing. Well, I do not think he ought to complain of what we do under similar conditions.
My hon. friend talks of the favoured nation provision as if it were something created by these treaties. Again I must direct his attention to the fact that there is nothing in this treaty, there was nothing in the French treaty which says a single word about what rates should be given to Switzerland or Japan or any other foreign country. The privilege of importing from Switzerland, from Japan and all those other countries arises from treaties made not by this government, but by governments of long ago, treaties which the hon. gentleman respected and recognized when he was in office. If they were the wrong thing; if favoured nation treatment is wrong, then why did my Conservative friends, in all the years they were in power, allow these treaties to stand? The Swiss treaty to which my hon. friend refers was in force during all the years that he and his associates were in office, and they did not seem to find anything wrong with it. How is it that it is only now discovered to be wrong? I cannot understand that. Again I say that if there is anything arising out of this so-called favoured nation treatment, it has been there for years, and that when my hon. friends had to deal with it they accepted it as something good and stood by it. Only now that they are sitting

Italian Treaty
on the other side do they suddenly discover a very great evil in it.
The main question is this: Is favoured nation treatment a sound policy or not? Many hon. members will think it is not. For myself I would say that it might not be well to apply it universally. There might be conditions under which the favoured nation treatment would not do you much good. I would not value an agreement with the United States now on the favoured nation principle because the best they can give us under present conditions would not be anything favourable or satisfactory. But where a country has a low or moderate tariff, what more can we ask from them? Take the case of Switzerland; my hon. friend says their tariff is a low one. Well, can we expect them to do more? If they give us all they are giving to the wide world, and if their tariff is low, what more can we ask? We have had that question debated many times, and I suppose it will be debated again. But if you have no favoured nation treatment you must be forever on the watch to gain access to the markets of another country.
Let me illustrate by an incident from my own experience. In the early days of the Liberal government I remember the latP Mr Barker, of Hamilton, a very able member of this House, getting up one day and saying that some of the manufacturers from his city had gone to Japan and that on the same vessel that carried them there were some American manufacturers of similar goods. He went on to say with indignation, "You will wonder when I tell you that what actually happened was this: the United States goods were allowed entry into Japan at a low rate while we in Canada had to pay a high rate for the very same article." Well, the fact was that a few years before, a treaty had, been entered into between Great Britain and Japan with the privilege that Canada might or might not adhere to it. The Canadian government of that day-I am not sure at the moment who were in power-thought it would not be wise to adhere to the treaty, the consequence was that Canada was not included in the favoured nation arrangement, and when cotton goods from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and similar goods from New York arrived in Japan, the United States goods were admitted at a low rate and the Canadian goods were taxed at a high rate. There was an illustration of what resulted from our not having come in under the favoured nation provision. Well, the Canadian government very soon got busy and adhered to the treaty, and from that day to this United States goods and Canadian 153
goods have gone into Japan on the same terms. That shows how some other nations may get ahead of us where there is no favoured nation treaty as applying to our own country.
I am not laying down the doctrine that in all cases we should adopt the favoured nation principle, but in the main, especially in the case of a country which has a low tariff, I think the principle is a good one. No country will give to Canada, or to any other country, exclusive commercial privileges; but the best it gives to any country it may hold itself free to give to any other country. It would be preposterous for us to go to Switzerland and say: You must give us a lower rate than you give a certain other country. No country would do it; we would not do it. We would not give exclusively to any one country any special commercial privilege. We might give what we thought would suit them, but we would retain the right to extend the same privilege to any other country. And I repeat, if a country has a low tariff and is giving us the best it is giving to anybody else, what more can we ask? That, in brief, is the argument for the favoured nation principle. There may be cases in which its application might not be wise if, for instance, we discovered that we were suffering any great injury through the admission of Swiss silks at 27\ per cent less the discount, why, we could get rid of it, I suppose. But it was there all the time my hon. friend was in power; he did not want to get rid of it then, and I am not sure he wants to get rid of it now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is always a great pleasure to hear from my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), even though the subject may be old and threadbare and pretty well washed out. Now, he says, why did we not increase the tariff? I would ask him to turn up any of his own speeches or the speeches of his leader when we were in power and to answer his own question from the arguments then advanced. Why, the whole time that hon. gentlemen opposite were over here they were declaiming to the House that we had no mandate and could not do business of any kind at all.


William Stevens Fielding: Did you believe that?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was the claim then made. No, we did not believe it. We believed we had the right to try to keep things going on in Canada and to put the country in proper shape after the war. And we were right in our belief; we were successful in our work, because when my

Italian Treaty

hon. friends attained power they were able to say that no country in the world was in better shape than Canada was. That is what we did.


Mr. JACOBS:: In spite of a Tory government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend asked, why did we not do it? Why did not my hon. friend himself do what he said he was going to do-reduce the rates of duty? What was his answer? Why, his answer was that the great American republic was doing something. What did we say? We said that until the policy of that country was absolutely fixed; that until they were really committed to a course of action, Canada would do nothing to give them the slightest excuse for their action in the premises. That is the stand we took, and twelve months later that is the stand my hon. friend takes; yet he turns round now and says, why did we not do it? That is the kind of argument we get when we try to talk business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the sort of argument, and one or two laughs-that is all. During the last session, although my hon. friends were insistent in their argument that we had no mandate, no right to do anything, the demand was nevertheless repeatedly made that a redistribution bill be brought down. But last session, a year afterward, hon. gentlemen opposite said that it was impossible to bring down a redistribution measure-although one of the claims previously made -was that there should be a special session of parliament to deal with that question. Well, two years afterwards we still have not a redistribution measure, although I understand there is a committee somewhere, waiting and hoping and struggling to get something like a settled declaration of government policy. That is how we stand on the question of what we have done. But what difference does it make whether we did the right thing or the wrong thing? The question now is what ought to be done today for Canada, regardless of old history, regardless of efforts to draw herrings across the trail. Is my hon. friend content with the exodus from Canada? Is he content with the conditions in his own province to-day-idle factories; 15,000 people moved out of Halifax since he came into office? Does he like that? And if he does not like it, should we not discuss it instead of simply saying nothing is to be done for Canada because I happened to be in office, I think it was two and a

half years, and did not do then what is now the right thing to do, not being met with the same necessities for action that this government is met with? The exodus came with this government, the exodus was not with us.
My hon. friend says that if I have made an investigation of the silk price business he is quite ready to take my word. I will tell him frankly that I have not, but I am going to ask my hon. friend to ask the ladies of his own family whether they cannot buy their silks in the United States cheaper than they can in Canada. I need not go any further. Ask them if they cannot get their silk stockings when they are across the line cheaper than they can buy them here. I know that is what my women folk tell me, and they wonder why it is. The answer is not to be found in the tariff, as my hon. friend understands it, it is to be found in connection with the silk industry just exactly as it was shown in the tin plate industry in the United States' and practically every other industry in that country. Why, the time was when there was not a single tin plate mill in the United States. The United States imposed a very high duty on tin plate, 75 per cent if my recollection is correct. The price of tin plate went up, and although previously Welsh tin plate had been sold altogether in the United States and not a bit of tin plate had been produced in that country, within a comparatively short space of time the United States was not only producing all her own tin plate but exporting as well to the Mother Country. I do not know how it is to-day, but I know that at the time I made the investigation my hon. friend speaks about, tin plate was selling lower in the United States than it was in the Mother Country. That is what they did with the tariff, and what they did there for tin plate they have done for silks here. Would it not be a good thing if we had that $108,000,000 of wages spent in Canada to-day? Would it not be a good thing if there was just a little movement from the south to the north instead of an uninterrupted stream from the north to the south? I ask my friend seriously to consider the position in which he finds this country getting to-day, and seriously considering it I think he will come to the conclusion, if he does not find himself so tied down by pledges here and pledges there -and I have to congratulate him on the ease with which he can get rid of these things- that we need a little more industry at home and a change in the direction of that stream, turning it from the south to the north.
My hon. friend is probably right in what, he says about the favoured nation treaty. It

Italian Treaty
is an old treaty, and we did not do anything to hurt it. He did a very good thing-I have given him credit for it before and I have to give him credit for it again-when he got rid of the favoured nation treatment 4 p.m. of Germany. He did a good thing for Canada then, but that is a long time ago, and the necessity for action to-day is more insistent that it was in the past. Our condition is more serious; our need for employment at home is greater now. If it was right for the hon. gentleman to do that with respect to Germany, will he not be good enough to look into the question to-day and see if something cannot be done in tint connection? As I say, I have all the figures. They are all worked out, but I do not want to take up the time of the committee in reading them. I shall be pleased to send a copy of them to my hon. friend or to hand them to Hansard for the information of the members. My hon. friend will find that these figures substantiate just what I have been saying.
What my hon. friend says is perfectly true about the first start of that most favoured nation clause. It can be got rid of so easily. If my hon. friend will refer again to the speech of Senator Beaubien in the Senate he will find that he can get rid of that clause just as easily to-day as he got rid of it when he was dealing with Germany.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I would like to inquire from the minister what the Italian rate is, whether the tariff generally speaking is ad valorem or specific duties.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is mostly specific duties. It is a moderate tariff on the whole, to the extent that I am acquainted with it. It is not an excessive tariff.


James Dew Chaplin: Would the minister consider giving the committee a list similar to the French list of the principal exports, so that we can get a general view? I think it would be a good thing for the trade of the country. I would like to see what the duties are on the different things we have for export.


William Stevens Fielding: In the case of the French treaty there was a long list of items many of which my hon. friend thought were not im portant, but in order that the committee may know the extent of our exports in the principal articles I am quite willing, before the third reading of the bill, to bring down a list.


James Dew Chaplin: I would like to see a list of our exports in the principal articles. Our exports to Italy are very limited, leaving out some of the articles in the French treaty that the minister refers to in the French treaty. I
153&
am not interested in those, and I think very few others are, but I would like to see what the Italian list is in the articles of importance to this country.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall be very glad before the third reading to bring down a statement showing what our principal exports to Italy are.


Mr. MacLAREN:: May I ask the minister if Italian goods in order to receive the benefits under this treaty, are required to be imported through Canadian ports?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. The French treaty requires that, and in order to get the benefit of the French treaty they would have to accept the same conditions.


Murray MacLaren: I am referring to Italy.


William Stevens Fielding: Italy would have to come under the same conditions.


Murray MacLaren: Is it so stated in the treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: Not expressly so. It is a favoured nation treaty. Whatever the best terms we give to any other foreign nation Italy can claim, and the best terms that were given to France contain the condition the hon. gentleman mentions. They can get the benefits only by accepting the responsibilities.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not a fact that it is only to France that the Canadian port clause applies? These duties we are giving to other countries too, and as a consequence any goods that another country sends to us at a certain rate Italy can get at the same rate, and does not have to send them through Canadian ports.


William Stevens Fielding: My impression is that they will be subject to the same restrictions that France is.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see the reasoning at all. It is only France that has the Canadian port clause. Any other nation to which we are giving these rates has no Canadian port clause. Italy is entitled not only to as good treatment as France but as good treatment as any other country. Consequently the goods that another country can send in by American ports, Italy can send in too.


William Stevens Fielding: But I do not think any other country could. The privilege was especially given to France, and the other nations who get the benefit of the French treaty must comply with the same terms.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps we will have to await events. I would ask the hon. minister
Italian Treaty

this: Outside of one or two clauses reserving certain rights to France in respect of border states and the like, is the French treaty itself aything more than a favoured nation treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I do not think it is.


Arthur Meighen: I agree with the minister there. He stated in his speech that he would not consider a favoured nation treaty with a higher tariff country any good.


William Stevens Fielding: The United States for example.


Arthur Meighen: France is a far higher
tariff country than the United States. Then does it not follow that his French treaty is no good?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a far-fetched
statement.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see it. That is about as short a piece of reasoning as I have ever seen, and I do not see any escape from it. The minister says the French treaty is a favoured nation treaty and nothing more. He says that a favoured nation treaty with a high tariff country is no good. France is the highest tariff country in the world.


William Stevens Fielding: I said a favoured nation
treaty with the United States would be no good, because she is a high tariff country.


Arthur Meighen: The minister illustrated it by the United States, and I think he is right, but it follows that his French treaty would be no good. I am sorry that reasoning did not appear to him.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I for one would not be inclined to offer any adverse criticism to this proposal. In my judgment, it is a far superior agreement, so far as Canada is concerned, to the French treaty. Many of the objectionable features of the French treaty are eliminated when we come to the Italian treaty, notably those provisions which appear in respect of the right of France to make such treaties as she may see fit with bordering nations, also the reservation on the part of France in respect of her colonies and protectorates, and also the reservation on the part of France in respect of enemy countries. Those features are all eliminated when we come to the agreement with Italy. This apparently is a most favoured nation agreement, out and out, and as I read it, I am inclined to differ from the opinion expressed by my hon. friend the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) in regard to border states. I would doubt if Italy were entitled to any reservation in re-
spect of border states, although France is undoubtedly entitled to such reservation. I think I would be inclined to take issue with the opinion expressed by the Finance Minister in regard to shipment to Canadian ports. As I read the agreement with Italy, there is nothing to bind Italy in respect to shipments to Canadian ports from Italian ports, but there is in the treaty with France. There is express provision in the treaty with France, in article 11, in regard to natural and manufactured products originating in and coming from France, when imported into Canada. I would doubt very much if that provision in the French treaty has any application to the goods of Italy coming to this country. Therefore, I submit it is at least doubtful whether there is anything in the Italian treaty which would compel shipment of goods to Canadian ports, in order that they might obtain the benefit of the most favoured nation treatment. The Italian agreement is very straightforward and very simple, as compared with the arrangement made with France. Article 1 merely provides for the imports of the two countries at the lowest rates of tariff granted to any foreign country. Article 2 applies to the exports of both countries at lowest rates granted to any foreign country. Article 4 provides that each country shall receive the most favoured nation treatment. Article 5 expressly provides that the convention shall apply to the colonies and possessions of Italy, and then provides for the termination of the treaty. If the principle of making agreements with other countries in the world, upon what we know as the basis of most favoured nation treatment, be a good one, then I think, in respect of Italy, we probably have a model convention, and I do not anticipate that any particular ills will flow from it. I would be inclined to think that, in respect of the trade of Italy there might possibly be some advantage to this country, as well as to Italy, and I would doubt very much if the provision in the French treaty in respect of border states would apply at all in regard to the treaty now made with Italy. Certainly, it would not apply in regard to the case of Jugo-Slavia, which was cited by my hon. friend, because that is not one of the border states of Italy. The border states of France would be Spain, Italy, Switzerland and Belgium.


William Stevens Fielding: And Germany.


Hugh Guthrie: And Germany. There is in respect of these countries a special reservation in the French treaty which is omitted

Italian Treaty
in the Italian treaty. I do not think Italy could take advantage of that reservation, but I may be wrong in that respect. However, I think that in the question asked by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. MacLaren) there is a suggestion which we should clear up before the matter is finally settled. I am inclined to think there is nothing in the present arrangement with Italy to compel shipment to a Canadian port at all. A shipment may be made from an Italian port to an American port, and the provisions of the treaty still apply to the imports of this country in the matter of duties, whereas in the French treaty it expressely provides for the shipment of goods from France to Canada. That cannot apply to Italian goods, because they would necessarily be shipped from Italy to Canada. If goods originating in Italy were shipped from France to Canada, they might be entitled to the same treatment as French goods under that treaty. But I doubt very much if any would come that way. It would requre a special provision with respect to goods shipped from an Italian port to a Canadian port-


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister state whether there are any of our actual exports to France that secure at the hands of Italy favoured nationed treatment under this agreement that did not secure it before?


William Stevens Fielding: I think not. I think they already had our principal exports under the agreement made some years ago.


Arthur Meighen: Is there any real permanency to this agreement that did not attach to the other? What were the terms for cancellation in the other treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: It was not a treaty in fact at all before. It had not the form of a treaty, but it was an understanding come to here in Ottawa with the Italian consul. My recollection is that it required four months' notice, but substantially it covered our main exports. As I said a while ago, there is not much extension of business in this treaty, but it is a benefit to have it in a permanent form. That is all.


Arthur Meighen: It really is a matter of form. I have not been able to find what form the last agreement took. Was it not ratified by parliament? [DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: No. I think it was done by order in council, and did not require ratification by parliament. It was not done by form of treaty. The Tariff Act authorized the
Governor in Council to extend the benefit of the intermediate tariff, and my recollection is that it was done under that provision.
Mr. A1EIGHEN: It was done under statute.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It really was a statutory
enactment.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The only difference was that it had a four months' notice of cancellation, whereas this has one year. The rest is a difference of form.


William Stevens Fielding: This is more comprehensive, It includes all things.


Arthur Meighen: The other included all that we sold.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps it did.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose this would apply to the list of mysterious drugs that appear in the French treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: It would include them.


Hugh Guthrie: Why was the term four years fixed as the length of the treaty? Four is an unusual number; the usual term is five or ten years.


William Stevens Fielding: The idea was that the term should not be made, too long. We thought it well to withhold the right of parliament to revise its judgment upon the matter.


Hugh Guthrie: It had no connection with other expiring treaties?


William Stevens Fielding: 


Hugh Guthrie: This term was fixed just arbitrarily at four years?


William Stevens Fielding: I think the Italians
talked of a longer period, and we thought it wise not to make a longer period.


Arthur Meighen: I notice the name of Lord Curzon of Kedleston in connection with this treaty. If we are to judge from the pronouncements of the government and the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), this government would consider it a great indignity that a British plenipotentiary should sign, along with Canadian plenipotentiaries, a treaty in which Canada alone is affected and interested. Why did the minister submit to it in this case?


William Stevens Fielding: Whatever others may
have said, it appeared to me that the name of the distinguished Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Curzon of Kedles-
Canada Temperance Act

ton, rather added to the weight of this document, and I was glad to have it there.


Arthur Meighen: I thoroughly agree with the minister and I congratulate him. I am sorry that his counsel as well as his sentiments did not prevail later.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 43, to amend the Canada Temperance Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Importation of intoxicating liquor prohibited.
Mr.   McQUARR IE@: Would the minister explain the necessity for this legislation?


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: The purpose of this legislation is to limit the importation of intoxicating liquor into provinces like British Columbia and Quebec, where the sale_ of intoxicating liquor is under the control of the provincial government. The scheme of the bill is that whenever the federal government is in receipt of an order in council of a province where the sale of intoxicating liquor is controlled by the provincial government or by a commission of the provincial government, such order in council asking that the prohibition decreed by these sections shall be put into force by a proclamation of the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council majr declare these prohibitions in force in that province. If hon. members will look at the bill, they will find that a general prohibition of importation of intoxicating liquor is provided. Exceptions are made for the government, for the manufacturer, for the blending of their products, and for the exporters. These are three exceptions. Exception is also made for the carrying of such liquor in the province and outside. This, I might say, was asked for by the government of British Columbia. In the other provinces, as hon. members know, where they have prohibition, no importation is possible. Last year the then Solicitor General, the Hon. D. D. McKenzie, introduced a bill providing for prohibition of exportation and prohibition of importation of intoxicating liquor. The measure passed this House; it went to the Senate where it was amended. The prohibition of exportation was accepted by the Senate, but the prohibition of importation was rejected. It is for that reason that we come this year with this amendment, which is about the same as that introduced last year.


Mr. CLARK:: Under section 163, subsection (2), paragraph (c), as it appears in the printed bill, is it not a fact that power is retained by British Columbia and Quebec to continue the existing bonded warehouses?


Lomer Gouin: Under paragraph (d), as amended, warehouses would be allowed. Paragraph (c) covers the manufacturers. I will ask to have this amended by the addition of the word "brewers"/ I was told that there might be some doubt as to that.


John Arthur Clark: It was paragraph (d) I meant.


Lomer Gouin: Paragraph (d) is in regard to exporters, and we made this exception at the request of the British Columbia government.


John Arthur Clark: That is the exceptions may be continued by order in council of the government of British Columbia?


Lomer Gouin: That is to say, with the proviso that is to be found at the end of the amendments, that whenever such order in council of the provincial government is passed and sent to the federal government, in such order in council the provincial government may say: "We wish to have prohibition of importation for everybody in the province, except manufacturers, brewers and exporters", or the order in council may limit the exception to manufacturers and brewers and refuse the exception to the exporters.


John Arthur Clark: If they pass an order in council providing for the continuance of bonded warehouses, I suppose they may go ahead and give assent to the establishment of new bonded warehouses?


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: It is a fact that to-day the
Department of Customs and Excise requires the unqualified request and consent of the attorneys general of such provinces before they will grant licenses to such bonded warehouses. Is that correct?


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: And it is also a fact that the attorney general of at least the province of British Columbia has requested the granting of such licenses in recent years as well as in the present year.


Lomer Gouin: That I do not know. There is nothing in my department that I know of to show that.


John Arthur Clark: In the provinces which now have total prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, before the importation into such

Canada Temperance Act
provinces of such liquors can be .prohibited it is necessary to submit to the people a plebiscite for their judgment. Is that correct?


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: And in the case of Quebec
and British Columbia it is proposed to legislate without submitting such a plebiscite to the people-


Lomer Gouin: Exactly.


John Arthur Clark: -and altogether prohibit
the importation either privately or by means of bonded warehouses.


Lomer Gouin: 
John Arthur Clark: Is the object in the case of
British Columbia, in short, to control bootlegging?


Lomer Gouin: That is the purpose, I understand.


John Arthur Clark: I have a few remarks to offer on this subject and I may as well say now what I have to say. I desire just as much as any other citizen of British Columbia to see the bootlegging traffic controlled. It is a curse in that province as it is in many other provinces in the Dominion today, and anything that will assist to curb it I am only too anxious to do my best to support. But this legislation is in my opinion
bad, and if it can be put in such a form as to be effective I would concur in it. At present in British Columbia private individuals are permitted by law to import liquor into the province, but the provincial government imposes a tax which makes it practically prohibitive for anybody to import liquor to-day. For instance, if I wish to import any liquor into British Columbia I must pay, in addition to the price charged by the vendor in the Old Country, the tax levied by the government, and that would bring the price up to what I would pay the liquor vendor of British Columbia. So that there is no advantage for a private individual to import liquor, and I may say that private persons are not importing, unless it be wealthy people who can afford to do so. So far as the prohibition of private importation is concerned, therefore, there is in my opinion no necessity for the bill, because there is no such importation to-day. Liquor can be imported privately but it is not practicable.


Lomer Gouin: Except on the part of wealthy people.


John Arthur Clark: Yes, and they would import in such small quantities that I do not think it would be desirable in any case to pass a law to prohibit that importation. Everyone has the right to buy liquor to-day; he can go to the vendor and get it, and if he has to pay the vendor the same price as he would pay for the imported article, and the government gets the profit in any case, it makes no difference whether anyone buys from the vendor or from the Old Country-the province gets the same profit either way-


Samuel William Jacobs: Except that people might want special brands.


John Arthur Clark: If they want special brands they can import them and pay the tax which goes to the province. So far as the private individual is concerned I can see no necessity whatever for legislation. There has been litigation in regard to the tax imposed by the province. It was held by the Supreme Court of British Columbia that the tax was legal, and that decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of the province. The appeal was taken no further, so that the province is within its rights in imposing the tax; it may collect it, and as a matter of fact is doing so to-day. That is the position with regard to private persons. The other phase of the question relates to bonded warehouses. We have in British Columbia to-day twenty-five customs warehouses for storage of intoxicating liquors in bond. All the licenses for such warehouses were issued since 1920. I think I
Canada Temperance Act

am correct in saying, all; if not all, practically the whole lot have been issued since that time, there may be one or two exceptions, but I feel almost sure that they have all been issued since 1920, that is to say, since the present law came into effect. In other words, the warehouse business has grown up since the coming into force of that law, and it is very interesting to know that many of these customs warehouses are located in places like Fernie, Cranbrook and Grand Forks, down in the interior of the province, two or three hundred miles from the sea coast. If the purpose is export, why keep them in that part of the country? Surely the intention is obvious. If any man intends to export liquor in a bona fide way he will certainly have his bonded warehouse on the coast; he will not handle the liquor four or five times The effect of this bill is to enable the province of British Columbia and the province of Quebec to continue these bonded warehouses by passing an order in council providing that clause (d) of subsection 2 shall be enforced, which simply means that these provinces bv order in council can make whatever law they choose. That is not sound legislation. That is enabling the province of British Columbia, for instance, to make laws by order in council. I should be perfectly satisfied if the minister would revise this bill so that we will know what we are going to get-either that prohibition is to be complete, or that we are to submit the question to the people, as is done in all the other provinces which have this prohibitory law. Let the people decide by plebiscite whether they want liquor to be imported privately or not. That question has been voted on in those provinces which have prohibitory laws, but it has not been voted on in British Columbia. In those provinces which have prohibitory laws the Canada Temperance Act provides that before private importation of liquor can be prohibited the question must be submitted to a plebiscite vote of the people. A fortiori, I would submit that provinces which have authorized the selling of liquor should be entitled to such a plebiscite. I cannot see why there should be any objection to inserting in this bill a provision similar to that given to the other provinces, namely, that the question should be submitted to the people; otherwise make this measure specific, make it mean something. As it stands the Lieutenant Governor in Council in British Columbia or Quebec can make whatever law they choose. That is what we object to.


Lomer Gouin: We cannot order a plebiscite, Mr. Chairman, it has to be asked 
for by the legislature. My hon. friend objects to this clause providing for the prohibition of importation by private individuals and says that as a matter of fact there is no such importation except by a few people. But if so why not accept the request which comes to us from the government of the province of British Columbia by whom we are told there is a great abuse of private importation? The hon. member says this importation is only done by wealthy people. Well, I am not so sure that he is correctly informed . on the point, because the Attorney General writes us that there is a great abuse of private importation.
The second objection is that by the exceptions we make, especially by exception (d) of subsection 2, we maintain^ the warehouses. This exception does not mean that the government will license such warehouses; it is inserted because in British Columbia the people have not pronounced on the question of prohibition, and consequently the authorities of the province do not want to raise too much objection to their legislation. The exception in favour of manufacturers and brewers does not mean that warehouses will be licensed; the provincial authorities may license them or they may refuse. My hon. friend asks: Why leave it to the provincial authorities to decide by themselves alone what the law shall be, with liberty to change it whenever they like by order in council? Well, Mr. Chairman, the province of British Columbia as well as the province of Quebec think the best system for the sale of intoxicating liquor is to take control of it themselves directly or through a commission. The system, I understand, is favourably looked upon by the people of the two provinces. They now wish to make that system more complete, if possible, and they tell us that to repress the abuses of importation and bootlegging generally it will be for the good of the people of those provinces that we should legislate prohibiting the importation of liquor by private individuals or by corporations, and only permit it by manufacturers, brewers and exporters. If the hon. members for British Columbia are of opinion that the principle itself is right, that is to say, that importation should be prohibited, with the exception in favour of the manufacturers, brewers and exporters, I may say that we have no objection to discuss the point raised in regard to subsection (d). But as to the main principle, that is, the prohibition of importation, I think it is the wish of all the people of British Columbia to have such prohibition accepted, while desiring to maintain their system regulating the sale of intoxicating liquor.

Canada Temperance Act


Mr. STEVENS:: I want to make my position clear on this question. Last year similar legislation was introduced. I supported it, for one reason only, which was this. The Attorney General of British Columbia claimed that he was unable to efficiently administer the liquor laws of his province because this parliament was preventing him from controlling importation by export houses as set forth in these amendments. He sheltered himself behind that excuse. I may say that last year I had very little sympathy with the measure as a measure, but rather than allow the Attorney General to succeed with the excuse he was making I supported the measure, I may say it did not result in any attitude of appreciation on his part, because he declared publicly on several occasions that I was the cause of the defeat of his measure in the Senate. As a matter of fact I think the Minister of Justice will recall, as the Prime Minister would if he were in his seat that on the last day of the session I was a medium for bringing about a conference between the members of the Senate and the members of the House to see if some common ground could nor, be reached; but unfortunately it could not. I wish, however, to say a few words on the merits of this bill and to state certain facts that I think the committee should be aware of.
I again say that my hands are more or less tied by the contention of the attorney general that he needs this legislation in order properly to administer the law. Frankly I do not think he is sincere in that contention. We meet at this moment in the shadow of the closing scene in that tragedy of the Crowsnest pass, where to-day two human lives went out in connection with the murder of the policeman Lawson. I have nothing whatever to say regarding the guilt of these two wretches who have paid the final penalty; in fact, I think they simply met the just deserts of their evil lives and of the crime that they committed. About that there can be no question whatever. But let the committee get a few facts squarely before it. The export business of British Columbia was largely concentrated on the Pacific coast, the only place from which that business can be properly carried on. Where can we export legally and in honour from British Columbia except overseas, to Mexico, China, or other foreign countries? There is a strong prohibitory law in our neighboring country to the south; there is a prohibitory law in Alberta, so that our export business, as I say, was largely concentrated on the Pacific coast. Certain houses, however, asked for and received from the Attorney General of British
Columbia and the government permission to transfer their business to the Crowsnest pass, five or six hundred miles from the point of export, and there they established export houses. Everybody in British Columbia knew that the export business carried on from these houses was a bootlegging business, deliberately violating the laws of the United States and deliberately contravening the laws of Alberta. And those wretches to whom I have referred, who were hanged this morning, committed their heinous crime in the carrying out of that business in the Crowsnest pass, based upon the consent of the Attorney General to establish the business in that section. Let me put it in another way-and I told the Attorney General this from the public platform on three different occasions last winter. I want the committee to understand these points, because they very materially affect this bill. When export is contemplated a permit is granted by the Attorney General's officers, and the only legal export is out of the province by water, we will say to Mexico, which is usually the destination. A large fleet is maintained on the Pacific coast for the purposes of this so-called export business, which is not export at all. I wish the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau) were in his seat, because I have a few words to say to him on this subject. They do not export to Mexico at all; they ship to Seattle, Portland and San Francisco, and in the case of these houses which were moved six hundred miles from the sea coast, the export is directly across the line southward or into Alberta. The traffic is known to be in contravention of the law, and yet not in one single case has the Attorney General of British Columbia during the past year seriously attempted to stop it. How could he stop it? In two ways. Upon the application being made to this government for warehouse license he could have refused his consent to the application, but he has never done that except perhaps in a few cases where his prejudice may have been aroused. In every case where an export license was granted the Attorney General had to give his consent before this government issued the license-and I am speaking of the government as it has been during the last several years. So that the Attorney General had that control in his hands and has it to-day, but he has never exercised it. What other control did he have? Upon the issuance of a permit for the movement of this liquor from the export warehouses, supposedly to Mexico, it would be a very simple matter for him to have one of his numerous inspectors see that the goods were actually
Canada Temperance Act

exported, but as a matter of fact no serious effort has ever been made in that direction. So that we have had this crime to which I have referred and numerous others, some of them resulting fatally. Now, let me read what the legislature of British Columbia asked. They requested this House-I quote:
-to enact legislation providing for the prohibition of the importation of intoxicating liquor into British Columbia for use therein except by the provincial government, such legislation to be for the purpose of supplementing and giving effect to the aforementioned Government Liquor Act, and to be contingent upon and to exist only during its continuance.
Now, what does this bill call for?-and this is what I want to bring to the attention of the committee as an evidence of the insincerity of the Attorney General in this matter. The bill provides for what the resolution of the provincial legislature calls for, with certain exceptions. The first exception is subclause (a), government sale; fhe second (b), deals with transport in bond; I shall not debate these. The next exception is in subclauses (c) and (d). . In the former provision is made for exceptions in the case of manufacturers and distillers-to that I make no objection, and subclause (d) extends the exception to export houses. But if this House determines that an exception should be extended to the distillers for blending purposes to bona fide exporters, then let us say so in the act. What does the act say? The act merely provides for it, but this further condition is added:
Provided, hovewer, that the exceptions contained in paragraph (c)-*
Namely, for blending purposes.
-and in paragraph (d)-
Namely, for export purposes.
-or either of them, shall not be applicable to any province in which this section is declared to be in . force, unless in the order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council mentioned in subsection 5.
And so on. In other words, this parliament is asked to make these exceptions, but to make them subject to the whim of the provincial governments. What does that mean? I know what it means in regard to British Columbia, and I am going to state it; I am not referring to Quebec, because I have no knowledge of the administration of the law there. Having in mind that for the last year and nine months during the term of the present act in British Columbia and its administration no effort has been made to control these export houses, it simply means that so far as distilleries and export houses are concerned the Attorney General wishes to hold control over them for the purposes of political expediency and for no other reason.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why does my hon. friend
make that assertion?


Mr. SI EVENS:: If my hon. friend wants me to bring some evidence, I will do so, as other hon. members can. I assert again that it is for political expediency that the Attorney General is asking for that power. If the Attorney General is sincere, why does he ask for the proviso at all?


Samuel William Jacobs: This does not apply to
British Columbia alone. It also applies to
Quebec.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not talking about
Quebec. I am discussing something of which I have some understanding. I have no personal knowledge of the conditions in Quebec.


Mr. NEILL:: Will the hon. member tell me where he finds subsection (d) ? It does not appear here in the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is in the amendment of which the minister gave notice, which will be found at page 2284 of Hansard.
Another point I wish to make is this. This legislation was first asked for two years ago, in 1921. I have under my hand the opinion of the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Doherty, who declared that in his opinion the law as it stood was sufficient and that there was no need of this legislation. I have also the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe, which reads as follows:
Ottawa, March 24, 1921.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of 21st instant enclosing copy of a minute of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of British Columbia, which sets forth a resolution of the Legislative Assembly of 9 th instant, whereby it was resolved that the Federal parliament should be requested to enact legislation to prohibit the importation of intoxicating liquor into British Columbia for use therein, except by the provincial government, and I think it would be advisable in reply to direct the attention of the Lieutenant Governor to the existing Dominion legislation which is embodied in chapter 19 of 1916. as amended by chapter 30 of 1917, and chapter 21 of the second session of 1919. These statutes, so far as I can perceive, contain provisions substantially in accord with those which the Legislative Assembly considers desirable. It will be observed that by the first section the importation of intoxicating liquor into the province with the knowledge or intention that it will thereafter be dealt with in violation of the law of the province is prohibited and made an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment. The extent of the prohibition which is thus enacted is therefore dependent upon the legislation of the province in which it is to be applied, and in so far as British Columbia has legislated to make the possession of intoxicating liquor in the province unlawful the importation is already prohibited by force of these Dominion provisions.
Your obedient servant,
E. L. Newcombe,
Deputy Minister of Justice.
The Under-Secretary of State,
Ottawa. *

Canada Temperance Act
The opinion of Mr. Doherty is similar to that of Mr. Newcombe. The Minister of Justice-I know that he has been given a great deal of concern in regard to this legislation, it is of rather extreme type-mentioned a moment ago that there was a general demand for this legislation. There has been no general demand for it except from the attorney general's department of the provincial government. I have in my hand a letter from the British Columbia Prohibition Association, dated February 1 of this year, and I want to read it for the purpose of showing the attitude of mind of a large section of the public in regard to this legislation and in justification of my position to-day. He goes on to say:
At the approaching session-
That is, this session.
-of the Dominion parliament there will come up again the application of the government of British Columbia for an act to prohibit the importation of liquor except through 'the Liquor Control Board, into British Columbia.
This act was introduced under government auspices last year, and in the House of Commons encountered no serious opposition, being represented as calculated to improve moral conditions, and as being in line with provisions already incorporated in the Canada Temperance Act.
It would have had a similar safe passage through the Senate except for the intervention of the veteran prohibitionist of parliament, Sir George Foster, who called attention to the character of the British Columbia Liquor law and showed that it was not a measure for the suppression of the drink evil, but only one for the transfer of the whiskey trade with its profits and its possibilities of political advantage, to the government.
It is to be hoped that the bill will not get through parliament this time, without some one, preferably one of the members of the House of Commons for British Columbia, raising the question as to whether it is desirable that the Dominion parliament should lend endorsation or recognition or reinforcement in any shape or form to the policy of liquor selling by the governments.
Already the debauching influence of the profits reported by Quebec and British Columbia has done something to undermine the moral defences of the other provinces.
And so forth. It is true that the Prohibition Association are not now taking any formal stand in this matter. This letter was received a month or so ago, but all through this controversy, such as it is, the inference on the Attorney General's part is that he requires this legislation in order to enforce the law, when those of us who have studied the enforcement of the law in British Columbia know perfectly well that he has not attempted to exhaust the powers that he now possesses, that he has not in any sense exhausted the rights he possesses regarding export liquor warehouses, for instance, or to properly enforce the law. I do not wish to go into further detail as to
his enforcement of the law than I have done up to the present.
Let me turn to the bill again for a moment in connection with these two clauses (c) and (d) to which I have already referred. I object to this legislation as it is drawn
5 p.m. because it transfers power to the Attorney General of British Columbia to decide whether or not these exemptions shall be applicable. I contend that this parliament, being the parliament entrusted with the power of determining that, should absolutely determine it, and not determine it with a proviso of that kind. If we decide that this should pass, let us pass it, and let these exemptions be part of the bill and not subject them to the whim of the Attorney General. For instance, suppose the provincial government should decide to harrass the distillers. They can go to the distillers and say. Now unless you do thus and so to suit us we will pass an order in council asking the Dominion government to put you all out of business. And the minute that order in council was passed, without any review or discussion by the legislature or the public the proclamation is effective. Or they might go to the exporter in the same way. Now, if the exporting and the other business is bad, it should not be in here. If on the other hand, it should be allowed-and we say by this act that it should-then let us make it the law absolutely by this statute.
Those are the main points I desire to make in connection with this bill. The legislation as regards these last two sections is more or less frivolous. It is not the type of legislation this parliament should pass. I do not think we should hand over absolute rights and powers in a matter of this kind to the province unless we do it in a constitutional manner by an amendment to the British North America Act, and forego any rights that we might have in that regard. Furthermore, I again assert that the contention of the Attorney General that there is need of this legislation is not based upon any established facts. It is an effort on his part to get further control of the liquor business. Let me give an illustration of the point. Under his present powers as the supreme purchaser, through the liquor board, of liquor sold in the liquor stores in British Columbia, what does he do? What has he done, as the records of the last session of the legislature will show? He has picked out certain firms from which he buys his liquor. These are firms that are suitable to the agents of the government, and many other brands of liquor, some of them the very finest I am told, not knowing by experience, are not sold at all, or very little
Canada Temperance Act

if at all. Now, under this law we are giving him still further power to restrict firms and prevent, say, Johnny Walker, Black and White, Haig and Haig and other brands, from being sold if the Attorney General decides that it is not in the political interest of hon. gentlemen opposite to allow it.
Furthermore, in support of what I am saying, I will give a practical illustration to my hon. friend who interjected a remark a moment ago. The liquor board in Vancouver imported $400,000 worth of these recognized brands into their warehouse, and still went out and bought cheap unknown brands and sold them in their liquor stores, and actually advertised and pushed the sale of them. Let me say something to my hon. friend who is interested in the matter-


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Is it not a fact
that the purchases of liquor made by the British Columbia government are made through the purchasing commission of that government?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and there has never
been a more hideous orgy of corruption in connection with any purchasing agency in Canada than in the case of this agency in British Columbia.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the hon. member going
to introduce British Columbia politics into this question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. member wants to attach politics to what I have said he can do so. I am stating facts.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are not interested in
the politics of British Columbia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am making statements
in answer to what has been said by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), and I know these statements to be correct.


John Warwick King: The statements
that were made were investigated by the public accounts committee of the British Columbia legislature last session, and if the hon. member will take the report of that committee he will not speak as he has spoken this afternoon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know the report of that committee and I know how it was arrived at. I am not anxious to introduce it here, but I think hon. members have it under their hand, and, perhaps, would like to do so. I do not intend to introduce it. When I was interrupted I was going to say something, but it has escaped my mind and perhaps it is just as well for my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and his friends in British Co-fMr. Stevens.]
lumbia that I have forgotten it. While I am desirous of removing from the Attorney General any excuse for the maladministration of the liquor laws of British Columbia-which excuse he is now making, and charging this parliament with responsibility-at the same time I do not for one moment lend my endorsation to this legislation in itself and on its own merit. I do not think it is necessary. I think they have the powers to-day, and, furthermore, I do not think that either the province of Quebec or the province of British Columbia should be in any different position from the other provinces: that is that ' such powers should be exercised by a plebiscite of the people, and not by the whim of the Attorney General or of the Lieutenant Governor in council who would be advised by the Attorney General. That is my chief objection, but rather than allow my friend the -Attorney General to continue this excuse, which perhaps many people accept, in ignorance of the fact, as being sound, I am not going to personally force my opposition to the bill to the extent of voting against it.


Mr. WOODS:: 
Mr. PARENT:: Would the hon. member include the prohibition of the manufacture of native wine in Ontario?


Robert John Woods: As far as I am personally concerned, I would. I cannot speak for Ontario, nor for the masses of the people, but from my own standpoint I would go to that extent. I have a few figures here that have been compiled by the Sons of Temperance in connection with the convictions for drunkenness in the province of Ontario under prohibition and before prohibition. The con victions for drunkenness were as follows:
	1914	1921
Toronto	14.247	4.727Ottawa	991 ,	411Kingston	482	168Port Arthur	1,376	541Hamilton	1.425	383Fort William	716	359Therefore hon. members will	see that	under
the Ontario Temperance Act the number of convictions for drinking has been cut down to a great extent in Ontario, and that would certainly show that there was a decrease in the consumption of liquor. I want to conclude by saying that I am in favour of the measure before the House, because I believe it is in the interest of temperance generally.


Mr. TOLMIE:: As regards the bill now before the committee, certain power for the selling of liquor was given to the British Columbia government after a plebiscite had been taken. I rather agree with what has been said already by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) that before any such drastic legislation as this should pass, another plebiscite should be taken, so as to afford the people of
British Columbia an opportunity to say whether or not they are willing to extend further privileges to the government of that province in that connection. When this power to control the liquor business was given to the British Columbia government, it was hoped that good administration would follow. But we find, as a result of an investigation made by the public accounts committee during the last session of the legislature, that this has not been entirely satisfactory. In purchasing the liquor, we find that much bigger prices have been paid for liquor than the same goods or goods of the same quality could have been purchased at nearer home. It has been peculiar too that many of these men who have done the buying have been friends of the provincial government. That may be just a coincidence, but hon. members can judge for themselves. We often found them handling a cheap quality of goods and building up these goods by the addition of "prune juice" and other adulterants of that nature, and then selling this liquor for a price that should have purchased a liquor of good quality. We find that, in other liquors, they have used water to break down the liquor and make a cheaper product. This is in contravention of the pure food laws of this country. There has been established a factory for the manufacture of port wine at False Creek, Vancouver. Anybody who has ever been there will recognize the fact that it does not look like a vineyard down there, and certainly it does not smell like one. This port wine is being purchased by the provincial government at $10 a case* when first-class Spanish and Portuguese port can be secured at $7.80 a case.
I have had some communications from prohibitionists in British Columbia objecting to further powers being extended to the provincial government. We are paying very high prices for this liquor in British Columbia, and we have no guarantee that if this legislation is passed, the government will not take advantage of it and we shall suffer from further abuses and also a further monopoly in this connection. I feel that after the way in which, the act has been administered in British Columbia, for us to support this move at the present time and give them further power, would be an endorsation of what they have done in the past. I can assure the committee that when the people voted on that plebiscite in British Columbia, they expected that the government would give good administration and handle the liquor question in a proper and businesslike manner. They certainly did not vote for the "prune juice" administration we are getting at the present time.
Canada Temperance Act


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I am in a positions similar to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), in that, although last session I did not take any part in endeavouring to secure the passage of this legislation, I did not take any objection to it. I remained silent as it were,' and I did so for the same reason which induced the hon member for Vancouver Centre to support the legislation, namely I wanted to see the attorney general of the province given the opportunity, which he was asking for, to enforce the law. The attorney general was a new man, having lately been appointed, and having made certain statements to the effect that he was going to see that the liquor law was administered to the very letter; that no influence could be brohght, to bear upon him which would induce him to relax the enforcement of that law, and that he for one was going to be able fo step out of the position of Attorney General of British Columbia without anyone, saying that he had in any respect neglected fo enforce the liquor law of that province to the fullest extent. I was also informed-I think the statement was made publicly-that the Attorney General of British Columbia proposed so to reduce the price of liquor that there would be no chance for a bootlegger to make any money, and consequently that he would iu that way put out of business this illicit trade.
Without desiring in any way to reflect upon the Attorney General of British Columbia, I must say that the general consensus of opinion, irrespective of party politics to a large extent, is that the administration of the liquor law in British Columbia has not been satisfactory, and also that prosecutions for breaches of that law have not been impartial. I take very violent exception to editorials such as one which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of April 20, of this year. I am going to take the time of this committee to read this editorial, because I think it is a matter which this committee should take some notice of. The editorial reads:	.	.
Federal prohibition agents in Los Angeles recently arrested a group of illicit liquor traders including one from Canada who gave the name of Joe Morris. According to the Vancouver Sun, this person was later identified as Jack Miller, secretary of the Independent Exporters Limited, a wholesale liquor firm of Vancouver, British Columbia. The shareholders of the Independent Exporters Limited are recorded as Albert Loftus McLennan, Maurice De Leon, Jack Miller and Samuel Diamond. Miller's record, according to the statement of Mr. Bowser, opposition leader in the British Columbia legislature, is wdl-known to the police. Among other offences it includes a sentence of five years for forgery.


The CHAIRMAN:: I doubt very much
whether the editorial that the hon. member

is reading has anything to do with the subject matter of this bill. Unless there is something further in it that does touch on the general question it surely cannot be relevant to the debate.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I am sure you will see that it is relevant.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not so far.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I have not reached that yet, but you will see it is very relevant. If you will permit me, I will continue reading the editorial and I think you will agree with me that it is perfectly relevant. I will hand it to you first, if you like:
It must surely be humiliating to the Liberal party to have the same Jack Miller figuring as a leading party worker. Perhaps the Attorney General of British Columbia, Mr. A. M. Manson, had such persons in rriind when he said, a few weeks ago, in an address in Victoria:


Mr. McBRIDE:: Surely we do not have to come here to listen to people reading newspapers.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: My hon. friend can go outside if he does not like to hear what I have to say; that is his privilege. The editorial continued:
Speaking generally, we value our friends, but in politics we sometimes curse our friends.


George Newcombe Gordon: I must rule the hon. member's reading of this editorial out of order. It is not relevant to the subject matter under debate, which has reference to the importation of intoxicating liquors to be prohibited in two provinces. The subject matter is definite and the hon. member who has had long years of legal training, knows exactly what the position is.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I certainly do, and 1 submit with all due respect that you are ab-solutelj' we'Eg.


George Newcombe Gordon: I rule the reading of the editorial out of orde\


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I have to accept your ruling; but if there is any hon. gentleman in this House who can read the editorial and say it is out of order to quote it I certainly will question his intelligence.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would call the lion member's attention to the fact that he is again out of order in criticizing the ruling of the Chair.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I am very sorry to have done that, and I apologize to the Chair. The substance of what I was going to read

Canada Temperance Act
is that charges have been made that objection will be taken to the particular bill by reason of money which is being contributed for the corruption of the legislature by liquor interests. That is what the editorial says. I want to say that charges of that kind should not be made without investigation, and I for one take exception to the charge that any money has been distributed to members of this parliament for the purpose of procuring the defeat of this particular bill. Personally I have received none of that money; I have not heard of any money being distributed for any such purpose; and I think that the writer of the editorial is undoubtedly a very fair sample of the Ananias brood. So far as I am concerned I did, as I said last year, remain silent when the matter came up before the House. But when I got home I was told that I should not have remained silent, but should have opposed the bill. The consensus of opinion in my constituency, as intimated to me, was that the bill should have been opposed, and I was so informed not only by men interested in the use of liquor, but also by prohibitionists. I got it from both sides; I was told on all hands that the Senate of Canada had justified its usefulness in having defeated that measure. Now I come here to-day and join with the members from this side of the House who think that this measure should not be passed. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) has said something about an investigation which was held before the public accounts committee of the Legislature of British Columbia during the last session. I think possibly it would be illuminating for the committee to know something in regard to the results which were brought out in that investigation. I might say that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in his statement today was very mild indeed. In October of last year he made a public statement under circumstances which would not entitle him to any privilege if he said anything incorrect that might be regarded as slanderous. He launched a series of charges against the administration, and very serious charges they were. Included in his statement was a charge in respect to a man named Dawson, of Prince Rupert. I am not going to say who Mr. Dawson is, or anything about him, unless I am required to do so. The member for Vancouver Centre on that occasion did say something about him, and he declared that the Attorney General of British Columbia was not enforcing the liquor act in his own city of Prince Rupert. In that connection I should like to read a synopsis of a part of the evidence which was submitted to the
public accounts committee of British Columbia referred to by the Minister of Public Works:
George Miller, Inspector of Enforcement, gave evidence before the Public Accounts committee.


John Warwick King: Who is the author of the document my hon. friend is reading from? Is that an official record?


Samuel William Jacobs: I rise to a point of order. It is not proper for the hon. member to discuss this matter on the question now before the Chair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was it proper for the Minister of Public Works to raise it? No one else did.


George Newcombe Gordon: He asked a question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I suppose the minister has a special privilege.


John Warwick King: I merely asked a question of the hon. member, as to who the author of the document was. If he does not think fit to reply, it does not matter.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: The heading is this:
The following is but a brief statement of a few matters brought out by the probing of the Conservative members of the Public Accounts committee in the session of 1922, dealing with the liquor administration of the government.


Charles A. Stewart: Who is the author?


John Warwick King: The document, as I understand, is unsigned, has been distributed throughout the province, and is not an official report of the public accounts committee of the legislature.	,


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: Possibly not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I say a word in regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member (Mr. Jacobs). As a matter of fact the Minister of Public Works raised the question a moment ago when I was speaking. I declined to be drawn into a controversy on the subject and I told him at the time that if he desired to dispute a question not perhaps directly germane to the discussion I was engaged in, I was willing to meet him.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Here or anywhere.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not here; they won't permit it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) is dealing with the same subject and is prepared to offer some observations upon it. I submit that if
Canada Temperance Act

the Minister of Public Works was in order in raising the question as to the probe before the public accounts committee of the Legislature of British'Columbia, then my hon. friend (Mr. McQuarrie) is quite in order in giving such light as he may have on the subject. That is merely my observation on the point of order raised.


Charles A. Stewart: The Minister of Public Works did not raise a point of order. He simply asked who was the author of the document.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am referring to something that preceded that.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend for New Westminster is free to answer the question or not as he thinks fit.


George Newcombe Gordon: I rule that any discussion is relevant if it has regard to the question of importing intoxicating liquors and the effects which will attend any legislation to prevent law-breaking under the bill. It is not, however, pertinent to the subject matter before the Chair to detail instances illustrating individual cases of law-breaking. Hon. members may submit information bearing on the question under discussion that will tend to prove any increase or decrease in the illicit use or sale of intoxicating liquors.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: What I intended to discuss was this point, whether in view of the record of the provincial government in the administration of the liquor law in the province of British Columbia, this parliament was justified in extending to that government additional powers such as are contemplated by this bill.


Mr. CAHILL:: What did you vote on last night?


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: That is what I was getting at. I intended to quote facts, which cannot be disputed, tending to show that the administration of the act is not at all satisfactory, that instead of sending bootleggers to . gaol, as could have been done on the evidence adduced, the attorney general allowed the accused to escape punishment by fining the companies for which they were working or which they controlled. I was also going to show that these men included one or two very prominent workers in the Liberal party out there who were delegates to the Liberal convention from the attorney general's town.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the hon. member mean to suggest that it is relevant to the particular clause under discussion whether those men escaped punishment or not?


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I think so.


George Newcombe Gordon: And that this clause may or may not cure the trouble?


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: Then I rule the discussion out of order.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: If I may say so Mr. Chairman, the point is this, whether the personnel of the provincial government is of such a calibre that we should further extend the powers that it already has in this connection. Of course, if you rule this out I must accept your ruling.
Now, something has been said by other hon. gentlemen as to the unfairness of passing this legislation and forcing upon the people of British Columbia something which they may not want and which they have never had the opportunity of saying whether they wanted or not. In a prohibition province if it is desired to prevent the importation of liquor it is necessary that a plebiscite should be taken to afford the people an opportunity of voting on the question. Well, how much more is that necessary in a province where there is not prohibition? Take the province of British Columbia. Previous to the question being voted upon by the electors they were told that if the bill passed they would still have the right individually to import all the liquor they might require for their own purposes. The bill itself contained a similar provision. I venture to say that a great many voted in favour of government control because of that stipulation, and the knowledge that they would not be required to accept liquor which was mixed for them by any provincial government.


George Perry Graham: Say "blended."


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: Well, blended. I have the greatest respect for some of these mixers in British Columbia. In the old days we used to get some very good cocktails, but I am afraid we never had a bartender with enough courage to mix prune juice with inferior whiskey and hand it over the bar as a drink which he expected to get credit for.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Is this propaganda for
the people of the province of Manitoba in the forthcoming referendum next June?


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I do not know what the hon. gentleman is referring to, whether to this bill or to the reports of the public accounts committee in British Columbia. But following along the lines of the argument in regard to the people of British Columbia having the right to say whether they want this kind of

Canada Temperance Act
legislation or not, I have to suggest the following amendment to the minister for his consideration, and I think he should embody it in his bill. It is as follows:
Strike out subsection 5 and insert in lieu thereof:
5a. Upon receipt by the Secretary of State of Canada of a duly certified copy of an order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province in which there is at any time in force a law vesting in His Majesty or the executive government of the province authority for the control and sale of intoxicating liquor in the province or in any board, commission, officer, or other governmental agency, the right of selling intoxicating liquor in the province requesting that the votes of the electors may be taken for or against the following prohibition, that is . to say:
"That the importation and the bringing of intoxicating liquors into such province may be forbidden."
The Governor in Council shall proceed to take a vote on such question in the manner provided in section 152, and the provisions of sections 152 and 152A and 153 shall as far as applicable mutatis mutandis apply to the taking of such vote.
5b. If the prohibition is declared to be in force, the Governor in Council may by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette declare the prohibitions of subsection 1 of this section in that province, and the same shall thereupon be and continue in force therein.	.
In order that this amendment may be before the committee, Mr. Chairman, I take great pleasure ih moving it.
Now, one hon. member has stated that he thinks this bill should be supported because it is legislation along temperance lines. I fail to see how that is so, Mr. Chairman, because *the government of British Columbia is not operating its liquor department for the sake of temperance; rather it is operating that . department for the purpose of making money.
I do not think there is any doubt about that.


Thomas George McBride: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is it not a fact that the government of British Columbia is operating the liquor business when the people of that province gave it a majority of over 30,000 to do so?


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: That is something
we discussed a moment or so ago-how that favourable majority was obtained. I have already referred to that. I say that the government of the province of British Columbia is not selling liquor for the purpose of advancing temperance but to make money. We have out there what is known as the Pacific highway, a road leading to Washington, Oregon and California. That road will be paved all through British Columbia from the border to Vancouver, and will be completed this year. Hundreds of motorists come across from the other side of the line every week, particularly during the summer time. The first
things that greet those motorists are large signs, some advertising the virtues of certain brands of whiskey, and others performing the same service for certain brands of beer. The first idea that a motorist from the other side of the line gets is, naturally, that he can buy whiskey, beer and other liquors in British Columbia; and he does not have to go very far before he finds a liquor store, a vendor's establishment. We had one at New Westminister, but that was about eighteen miles from the border; it was not near enough. Although New Westmister is the first place of any consequence on the road from the border to Vancouver, the government, in order to help the poor individuals from the other side who might feel the necessity for liquor, put in another vendor's place on the south side of the New Westminster bridge, where there is no population at all. There are perhaps three 01 four houses in that neighbourhood; practically nobody lives there, and the only object of establishing a vendor's place at that point is to assist the government to sell liquor. The same applies all over the province. They have even put in vendor's places for the benefit of the Japanese and the Chinese; they have put in Japanese and Chinese wines and that kind of thing. They are doing business there for the purpose of making money, and they do not make any bones about it. They will sell to anyone any quantity of booze that he wants. I use the word "booze" advisedly, because I understand it is a good old English word which has been in use for many centuries. So far as I know, there is not in British Columbia, as there is in Quebec, any restriction upon the quantity of liquor that a person may buy. But I do know that out there, through the vendors, they sell liquor to individuals in such large quantities that the vendor, and the government through the vendor, must know that that liquor could not be consumed by the individual himself. After the poor man buys the liquor and disposes of it-because a great part of the liquor that is bootlegged in British Columbia is sold to the bootleggers by the government itself-after the poor man gets rid of some of this liquor in an effort to get his money back, he is summoned before the court and sent to gaol, unless he has a pull with somebody. I know of one case in my constituency where a poor fisherman was given, out of the liquor vendor's store in New Westminster, 120 dozen bottles of beer in a very few weeks. It was not sent to the man's residence, because his wife would not have allowed it to be there.


Lomer Gouin: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but really this has no



Canada Temperance Act
bearing on the bill that we are now considering.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I submit it has a bearing.


George Perry Graham: Was the amendment put, Mr. Chairman?


George Newcombe Gordon: No; the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman is in reference to clause 5. At present we have reached paragraph (c) of subsection 2. An amendment has been moved by Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil), and that amendment is now before the committee. The point has not been reached where the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) could submit his amendment.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: The passing of this
legislation cannot by any possible stretch of imagination be said to be assisting the cause of temperance. This poor man to whom I referred had the liquor sent to a place in the business section of the town, where he was running an alleged club.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member must know that he has been out of order regularly and continuously this afternoon in going into individual cases in very great detail. Where he discusses the general principle of the importation or the restriction of importation, he is quite in order, but he must know that he is not in order in going into minute details of individual cases.


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I have always understood that details are what are required; when you deal in generalities you are open to censure. However, if details are ruled out, I have to bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. But I would say this: So far as temperance is concerned, you can forget it when you go to British Columbia. I do not know how it is in Quebec, but I see that they do sell liquor in places like Hull, and it does not seem very hard to get it over here in Ontario no matter whej-e you go. But when you think about temperance, do not think about British Columbia. Some of the Liberal papers have called British Columbia the "bootleggers' paradise", but I do not see why it should be a bootleggers' paradise when you can buy all you want in the government stores-wine, beer or anything else. All you need is a permit, which you can get on the payment of a small fee; then you can buy what you like.
What good is this bill going to do? If the Attorney General of British Columbia wanted to stop the business of the liquor warehouses, all he had to do was to proceed as was done in Alberta and refuse to consent to the issue of licenses to those warehouses. Did the Attorney General of British Columbia do that?

The minister knows that he did not. The return brought down shows that he consented not only to the renewal of old licenses, but to the issue of new ones. The minister knows also that a great many of these export licenses were issued to places where legitimate export could not have been carried on and could not have been expected to be carried on. There is no doubt about that.


Lomer Gouin: Is my hon. friend in favour of export licenses?


Mr.   McQUARR IE@: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that my own opinion has nothing to do with it. I am trying to reflect the views of my constituents as I find them, namely, that the administration of the liquor law in British Columbia is rotten, and we do not want to give to that government-


Charles A. Stewart: Do my hon. friend's constituents desire the continuance of these liquor warehouses in British Columbia?


Air. McQUARRIE:: My constituents are in favour of the importation of liquor by individuals rather than the confining of importation to the government' under the present circumstances. They do not feel that this government should be given any further chance to debauch the public. That is about the size of it. The question of whether there shall be liquor warehouses or not would be disposed of if this bill were for the purpose of making it impossible for liquor warehouse licenses to be issued. Then I think I would be in favour of it.	.


Lomer Gouin: You are not sure?


William Garland McQuarrie: Absolutely in favour of it. But the question is not whether they shall be done away with or not, but whether the provincial government shall be given authority to say whether they shall be done away with, and whether they shall have the right to issue liquor licenses to their friends and keep others from getting them. I submit that this is a serious matter and one that should be very carefully considered. The liberty of the subject should not be unduly interfered with without giving the people a chance to say whether they desire such legislation or not. The amendment which I have suggested is simply to the effect that there shall be a referendum, and if the province really wants to get rid of these liquor warehouses, all it will have to do wall be to ask for a referendum, when the people of British Columbia will have the right to say whether or not importation into the province shall be prohibited. Personally, this does not make any difference to me. I am not here representing any liquor

Questions
concern; I am not interested in any liquor or beer concern either directly or indirectly. I do not use liquor at all, and have not done so for many years.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put. pursuant to rule.
Thursday, May 3, 1923