1929-05-21

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Brown.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. S. R. MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-
Rouville) moved:
That the sixth report of the select standing committee on standing orders, which was presented on the 17th May, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar, for Mr. Parent) moved:: That the tenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, .which was presented on the 17th May, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Business of the House


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the work of
the session has been proceeding fairly rapidly of late. We have exhausted most of the legislation on the order paper with the exception of supply. There are still one or two reports of committees to be received, with possibly one or two bills to be basedi thereon, and maybe another bill or two. I would suggest that on and after Monday of next week the house might begin its sittings in the mornings. I think this an appropriate time to bring the matter to the attention of the house. If there is no objection I would present the formal motion now; if it is desired to enter upon a discussion of the matter I should be glad to have it proceed immediately.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: personally, I would object to morning sittings for the reason that those of us who are trying to keep in touch with what is going on find it absolutely impossible to do justice to our work. I agree with what the right hon. the Prime Minister has just said that we are getting on very nicely and if we do not sit in the mornings it will only mean an extra two or three days, or we could possibly start at two o'clock in the afternoon. I would remind the house that it is particularly hard on the Hansard staff who have to sit here working while the house is in continuous session.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) who has just taken his seat, apparently mistook the thunderous applause which was given on the appearance of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) for approval of his Observations. In view of the fact that we have reached the point we have in connection with legislation and that the major part of the business which must engage our consideration during the balance of the session will be the estimates- I might say here that the government has been very derelict in not proceeding with them earlier in the session-I think we could get in two hours extra work in the morning without very much difficulty. It is impossible, strive as we may, to keep in touch with everything. I do my best but I realize that the government put it over on us very frequently and I agree with the hon. member for Battle River as to the necessity of having several supporters to watch what is going on. I am
quite sure my hon. friend will find it difficult to follow the intricacies of the operations of the mind of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), especially on the tariff, in this or in any other house. Some of my hon. friends have pointed out that it has not been customary to sit on Empire day. The other day I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister whether he expected the house would sit on that day and he said that was the intention. My memory was that the house did sit last year but I never trust my memory in a matter of that kind and I have not looked it up, but there seems to be an opinion on the part of many of our friends that as that day is being kept as a holiday by one-quarter of the world's population it might be well for [DOT] us to reconsider what our attitude should be in the premises.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Ever since I have been in the house we have always had towards the end of the session late sittings while at the early part of the session we have always had a number of holidays. This year we had quite a long Easter recess and now at the end of the session we are asked to hurry along with the result that much legislation will be ill considered. I join with what the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said, that we should have the twenty-fourth of May as a public holiday. We observed the holiday on May ninth, I believe some religious or church holiday, and if we observe a religious holiday I do not see why we should not observe Empire day. Not that I am an imperialist by any means; I join with my friend, David Kirkwood in the statement that he belonged to the British commonwealth of nations not because he was an imperialist but because he thought it was the greatest movement for peace which we had ever had.
These things are apparently arranged by the government as the private members of the house would seem to be just pawns in the game. I hope that the next session of the house will be so arranged that we will not have a number of holidays at the beginning of the session and then finally have to resort to morning and Wednesday evening sittings in the effort to rush things through.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I have been in this house long enough to realize that anything I say will have no effect, but nevertheless I am going to exercise the privilege of free speech. Personally, I have no objection to the house sitting in the mornings when the committee work is finished. Some of us who come from western Canada are
zm
Business oj Me House

particularly interested in the Canada Grain Act and have been attending one or two meetings daily of the agriculture committee. On one or two occasions this committee has sat three times in the one day and we find it impossible to keep in touch with the work which is going on in the house. There is to be a very important meeting of that committee this afternoon and I understand that there will be a motion to go into supply on the Immigration estimates. I am finding it difficult to decide which is the more important matter for my constituency, the question of immigration or the Canada Grain Act, but I suppose I will have to decide that matter before four o'clock. I do protest against this house sitting three times a day while some committees are sitting twice a day, as it is not fair to the members of the committees. We find it difficult now to get a quorum in our committee and I do not think the members of this house should be practically precluded from taking part in what is going on in the house, and that is what will happen should the committees be sitting twice a day while the house is sitting three times a day.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, for nine years I have been looking for an opportunity to support the right hon. the Prime Minister, and at last I have discovered something. I should like to put myself on record as being in favour of morning sittings. As the leader of the opposition has said, it is impossible to keep in touch with all the different committees anyhow. The hon. member who has just taken his seat pointed out that he had a committee meeting this afternoon. If the house were sitting in the mornings conditions would not be different as both the committee and the house would be sitting at the same time. Some of us who have not rented our farms would like to get back to attend to our professional duties, and I am one of those.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As hon. members know, in matters of this kind the government is anxious to meet as nearly as may be possible the wishes of the house as a whole. With respect to Empire day may I say to my hon. friends that we did feel that probably the greatest service which could be rendered the empire by this parliament on that day would be to put good legislation upon the statutes. However, if there are hon. members who were counting on Empire day as an opportunity to visit their constituencies or to take part in Empire day celebrations of one kind or another, certainly it would be the wish of the administration not to disappoint them in that Darticular.


Mr. CAHAN:: Has the right hon. the Prime Minister considered that for thirty years, without exception, this House has kept Empire day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was not
under the impression that such was the case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Except once, when it came
on Sunday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend says that such is the fact I will accept his word; I would be willing to accept his word on almost anything, particularly where it relates to Empire day. The government is quite prepared to have a motion presented immediately providing that the house shall not sit this year on Empire day. But might I suggest, seeing this is a matter of accommodation, that the two motions be put at the same time. We shall be losing a day out of this week if we give up Friday. We might as well make up that time next week by sitting in the mornings, and if that is agreeable, I would move:
That when this house adjourns on Thursday the 23rd of May, instant, it stand adjourned until Monday, the 27th of May; and that on and after May 27th instant until the end of the session, this house shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock, p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: May I suggest to the government and to the house that, instead of or even in addition to sitting in the morning, we sit until a reasonable hour at night. It is ridiculous to stop work just when we are getting into our stride. We are like a lot of school children being sent off to bed at eleven o'clock. This is absolutely out of proportion to our capacity for work or for happiness. My suggestion would satisfy those who wish to sit on committees in the morning and in the afternoon. We could make it a rule of the house that committees would not sit in the evening and that in the evening and until the early hours of the morning we proceed with the business of the country. In the few years that I have been in the house I have found that we get through more work in a much more intelligent manner after eleven o'clock than we do before. I would submit for the consideration of the house that at any rate we ought to be able to pass up our privilege of going to bed at eleven o'clock for a week or two until the end of the session.


George Gibson Coote: We find
it hard enough to maintain a quorum until eleven o'clock now.
Motion agreed to on division.

Private Bills



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Edwards) is out of the city and probably will not be back again this session on account of sickness. At his suggestion and with the permission of the house I will substitute my name for his.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent,
Mr. Howden for Mr. Edwards (Ottawa) moves that bill No. 290 for the relief of Joseph Edwin Wood be now read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 255 for the relief of Marion Rose Harrison.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 258 for the relief of Robert Wilson Reoch.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 268 for the relief of John Wilson Pickering.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 273 for the relief of Wallace Wellington Corkum.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 280 respecting Alliance Nationale. -Mr. Mercier (Laurier-Outremount).
Bill No. 286 for the relief of Marion Annie Terry.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 287 for the relief of Frank Milsom Ruggles.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 291 for the relief of Dora Chearn-ley Chearnley.-Mr. Howden (for Mr. Edwards, Ottawa).
Bill No. 295 for the relief of William Edgar Baird.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 296 for the relief of Charles Edwin Walker.-Mr. Sanderson.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the responsibility of carrying out the prosecutions recommended by the Customs commission fall upon the Department of Justice, or upon the attorney general of the province in which the accused is a resident? If it is the duty of the federal Department of Justice, why has the prosecution of Mr. Harry Bronfman of Regina, as recommended by the Customs commission, not been proceeded with?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow
his question to stand, and I shall see to it that he receives an answer.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I desire
to direct to the attention of the government the fact that on May 6th, an order was passed by the house for the production of papers in connection with the prosecution of Harry Bronfman. I should like to know when the papers will be brought down.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I will look into the matter and see if I can expedite the return.



FISHERIES PATROL SERVICE OFF BRITISH COLUMBIA COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
M.r. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):	As the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) is not in the house, I bring to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), with a view to having action taken, a telegram that I have received' stating that great dissatisfaction is felt along the British Columbia eoast because the patrol boat Malaspina has been tied up in the harbour of Prince Rupemt since she seized five American fishing boats cm May 11th, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is urged to take immediate steps to release this boat to carry on patrol service, which is imperative if poaching and illegal fishing of American fishing vessels in Canadian waters is to be checked. I trust that the Minister of Marine and Fsheries will take action in this matter because it is very important.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be glad to see
that the representations in the telegram which my hon. friend (Mr. Brady) has just read are brought to the attention of the minister.



DIAMOND JUBILEE OF CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of 'the day.
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Has
any promise or suggestion been made that mayors of Canadian cities during the jubilee year of confederation are to be presented with a bronze medal?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not recollect any such promise being made, but I think it would be a very appropriate action to have taken.
Special War Revenue Act



NOVA SCOTIA COAT OF ARMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: The other day the Secretary of State laid on the table some correspondence with reference to the coat of arms for the province of Nova Scotia. I find that the return is not complete because reference is made in a letter of the premier of Nova Scotia dated May 3rd, to a letter of Mr. G. Law Samson, who put an interpretation upon the matter that might have an important bearing on this question. I would like to have a copy of that letter and also a copy of any further correspondence that may have been received since this return was brought down.
May I be permitted to say that the province of Nova Scotia was granted in 1625 by Charles I an armorial achievement. It is a very beautiful and artistic piece of work, which I am sending to Your Honour for your examination, because I think it is worth looking at.
It would seem that when after confederation the Department of the Secretary of State was called upon to prepare coats of arms for the provinces, not knowing that the province of Nova Scotia had) a coat of arms, and I believe it is the only province in Canada that held a coat of arms, one was prepared for the province by the department and it took the place at Ottawa of the one granted iby Charles I. I note that it is suggested in this correspondence that the coat of arms prepared by the department should supersede the one granted by Charles I. To that the province of Nova Scotia objects, and I believe that legislation and the necessary consequent steps have been taken to have the original coat of arms as granted put in use here. The one now in use here was prepared by the Department of the Secretary of State in 1868.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I think he might very well bring up this question on the estimates of the Secretary of State. The coat of arms is certainly beautiful and I would call the attention of the government to it.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: I draw the attention of the Acting Minister of Agriculture to the fact that on April 25th I placed a question on the order paper in regard to the slaughter of diseased cattle. The question was passed as an order for a return. Up to the present time the return has not been brought down When may I expect it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is in the city but not in the house, so there is no acting minister at the moment. I shall be pleased to bring the hon. gentleman's question to his attention when he returns.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 278 to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On section 4-stamp tax on sale or transfer of stocks, bonds and so forth.
George Gibson Coote: This section caused a good
deal of discussion when the resolution preceding this bill was in committee, and I think that there is not much doubt that the majority opinion of the committee was not in favour of the section as it is printed. The hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Lang) made out such a good case, I think, against this section that it is not necessary for me to enter into any argument at all. Personally I think that whatever tax is imposed on the transfer of these stocks and bonds should be based upon the amount of money that is involved in the transaction, which I think almost everyone admits bears no relation whatever to the par value of the securities traded in. I therefore beg to move:
That section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out all the words after the words "a die of the value of" and substituting therefor the words:
three cents for every one hundred dollars or fraction thereof of the amount paid for the bonds or shares so sold or transferred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the difference
between that and the old rate?


George Gibson Coote: I am sorry that I have not the old act here, but under it the tax was imposed on the par value. The amendment bases it on the actual value of the shares or bonds sold or transferred.


Robert James Manion: Will this increase or decrease the tax as compared with the old tax?


George Gibson Coote: That would be hard to say. In some cases there would be an increase, in others a decrease, but the amount of tax payable would be on the actual consideration given for the transfer of shares.

Export oj Liquor-Mr. Woodsworth


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to delay the committee by reviewing the arguments presented when the resolution was before the house. Since it was passed in committee it will be recalled that there has been some objection from our friends in British Columbia. But I recall one telegram from a mining man in Nelson expressing satisfaction with the legislation as adopted.


Mr. CLARK:: I would not be much surprised because I have had many, many more telegrams the other way.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does the
hon. minister really advance as a serious argument the fact that he received one telegram in favour of the change? That is as ridiculous as the principle underlying this measure.


William Irvine: Apparently one man outside of the house is worth forty inside.


John Arthur Clark: There is one man left in
British Columbia ready to support the Minister of Finance.


James Alexander Robb: I would direct your attention,
Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the proposed amendment would involve an increase of taxation; consequently it is out of order.


The CHAIRMAN:: It does appear to me
that this amendment would mean an increase in taxation. Subsection 555 of standing order 60 provides:
No increase can be considered either of an existing, or of a new or temporary tax for the service of the year, except on the initiative of a minister acting on behalf of the crown.
I must therefore rule the amendment out of order.


George Gibson Coote: Is the chairman satisfied that this amendment would involve an increase?	.


John Frederick Johnston: The Minister of Finance has so stated, and from my reading of the amendment I would think it would mean an increase of taxation.


Edward Joseph Garland: May we
have the reasoning underlying the ruling?


George Gibson Coote: If the minister does not base his opinion on any principle more solid than that under which he introduced the tax, I think the amendment is in order.


John Frederick Johnston: The committee have
my ruling. I rule the amendment out of [DOT]rder.


George Gibson Coote: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that your ruling is made without proof that the amendment would involve an increase in taxation.
Section agreed to on division.
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.



EXPORT OF LIQTJOR TO THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before you
leave the chair, I should like to call attention to a situation in this country which in the view of at least a great many citizens is far from satisfactory.
Early in the session I gave notice that I intended to move a resolution urging parliament to introduce legislation to prohibit clearance being granted to vessels carrying intoxicating liquor to United States ports. That resolution was not reached before private members' day was taken away. I should like very much to have been able to secure a recorded vote on a resolution of this kind.
I think it would have been of considerable advantage to the country at large if we could have been able to see just where members stood on this question. To-day I have not moved an amendment, simply because that would be regarded as a vote of lack of confidence in the government, and I should like, if possible, to see a free expression of opinion on the question itself and not have the discussion merely along party lines.
There has been considerable interest shown in this question, as is indicated by the large number of petitions from the various parts of the country that have been presented to this house. I am hoping that this discussion may afford an opportunity for those members who have presented their petitions-the member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) and others- to back up those petitions on the floor of the house.


Mr. GOTT:: Why single out the member
for South Essex?
^680	COMMONS
Export o) Liquor-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: The member for
South Essex comes from a part of the country which is very vitally concerned in this question, and I have no doubt that, having received the congratulations of the Speaker he will be able to make a very eloquent appeal to the house. The government, although questioned in regard to this matter, has not given us its policy. Again and again throughout this session we have tried to arrive at the position the government intended to take, and I hope to-day that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) will state very clearly the policy of the government in this regard. The papers which were tabled last Thursday indicate nothing whatever except what might be called a "stand pat" policy. I regret to-day the absence of several members of the cooperating groups here-the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fan-sher), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy)-all of whom were keenly interested in this question, and intended to take part in the debate.
Let me say that this is by no means a fight between prohibitionists on the one hand and, on the other, the advocates of so-called government control. I hope that from the very first we shall clear our minds of the idea that this is simply a question either of enforcing prohibition on this side of the line or assisting to enforce prohibition in the United States. It is a much more serious question than that of prohibition. It strikes at the root of organized1 government itself, and involves the most serious problems in international relations. First of all I would suggest that there is involved in this question the responsibility of government to parliament. You may remember the resolution which was passed by this house on June 18, 1926. I shall read only two or three paragraphs from the report of the special committee appointed to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise. Section 10 of that report reads:
The committee find that it is the common practice of the department to grant clearances to vessels wholly or partly laden with liquor for the united States, or allegedly bound for a toreign port, but admittedly sailing to "rum rows , and that false landing certificates have been produced to obtain cancellation of bonds given for foreign export of cargoes so cleared.
the committee further finds that a strong presumption is raised that some proportion of the liquor so shipped and cleared finds its way back into Canada for consumption. The committee, therefore, recommend that excise and sales tax be levied on all Canadian-made intoxicating liquors released from bond, no matter where they are carried and consumed, 
and that duty and sales tax be levied on all alcoholic liquors entering Canada, whether in bond or otherwise, irrespective of their ultimate destination.
Doubts have been cast upon the sufficiency of existing legislation to prohibit or authorize regulations prohibiting the illegal export of intoxicating liquors to the TJnited States. To the extent to which such legislation may be insufficient the committee recommends that it be amended. The committee further recommends that, as soon as possible, regulations be made to prohibit clearances being granted to vessels carrying liquor as cargo, sailing from a Canadian port to a United States port, such regulations to make an exception in favour of liquor being imported into the United States in accordance with the law's of that country.
I wish the house would recall the circumstances under which that resolution was passed. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) a little earlier in the session, had made, an impassioned appeal to the house to get rid of some of the evils connected with smuggling. The government was fighting for its very life. I confess that I was one of those who gave the government a chance for its life, and a number in this corner agreed in that policy. The government accepted the resolution. I doubt very much whether the session could have continued had the government not accepted it. The report was passed1 by the house. Now I take it that such a report, especially when passed under such circumstances, would be mandatory in character. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) often speaks of the necessity of maintaining responsible government in this country. May I ask him, to whom is the government responsible? Surely to the House of Commons itself; and' if the government is not responsible to the house then we have ceased to have responsible government. What have we to-day? To a very large extent, as I understand the situation, the cabinet is controlled by the Prime Minister; the party is very largely dominated by the wishes of the cabinet; and these groups undertake rather autocratically to carry through certain types of legislation with very little reference to the house at large. Do we call that responsible government?
It seems somewhat curious that the Prime Minister, who rather likes to boast that his grandfather helped to establish responsible government in this country, may be lending himself to a procedure which is undermining responsible government. I recall some words of Mr. Henry W. Nevinson, the great English war correspondent, in which he points out that at each stage in history we have to struggle to maintain those things which our forefathers won.
For freedom, we know, is a thing that we have to conquer afresh for ourselves every day

Export of Liquor-Air. Woodsworth
like love; and we are always losing freedom, just the same as we are losing love, because after each victory, we think we can settle down and enjoy it without further struggle. The battle of freedom is never done and the field never quiet.
I submit that we ought to have a very clear pronouncement to-day from the Prime Minister as to why he has disregarded a resolution passed by the house under those very peculiar circumstances. It is true that a royal commission was appointed; I myself, I think, was responsible for the suggestion as to the appointment of a commission. Though my own amendment was lost, the idea was incorporated into another amendment that carried.
I had thought that we were suggesting a constructive policy which might take this matter out of the heated atmosphere of party discussion, and that we might have an impartial tribunal which would guide us in deciding what was the best policy for the country to pursue. The commission was appointed and in due time reported. I quote a few paragraphs from its report;
The evidence adduced before us disclosed that -a great majority of such shipments never reached the named destination, and the inference was strong that the liquor comprised in such shipments had been smuggled into the United States. In many cases landing certificates were produced to customs that our investigation showed to be forged and fraudulent. In some oases the bonds were released, but in other cases the department was not satisfied, and the bonds are still outstanding. We have dealt with this aspect of the matter in our interim report No. 10.
For some time past an additional method has been adopted which is to export duty-paid liquor. The practice is to enter at customs the liquor as being for export to certain ports in the United States, but the liquor is never landed at a port recognized by the United States authorities, and is smuggled into that country in various places where there are no recognized ports or customs houses.
Many regulations have been framed and enacted for the purpose of meeting this method of smuggling, but they have proved ineffective.
We are convinced that the export houses are established in practically every case for the sole purpose of selling liquor to be smuggled into the United States and that they exist for no legitimate purpose whatever. Some of these export houses have customs bonds, and we would recommend that all these bonds be cancelled.
As all of the provinces of Canada have either assumed control over the sale of liquor or have prohibited it altogether, the principle of the Doherty Act should in our opinion be extended to prohibit the export from any *of these provinces by anyone other than the provincial governments or the manufacturer.
And this is the paragsaph to which I call special attention:
We also express our entire concurrence in the recommendation of the special committee of the House of Commons as contained in paragraph
10 of that committee's report. An effective method of carrying out the intent of the treaty referred to would be to prohibit clearances to vessels or vehicles of all kinds carrying a cargo of liquor to the United States, contrary to the laws of that country.
One would have expected action to be taken by the government but nothing whatever has been done. In addition to that, the Prime Minister himself gave a serious pledge to this country; on September 11 a full page advertisement appeared in the Toronto Globe under the heading "A pledge From the Liberal Leader." It said:
When returned to power I pledge myself to continue relentlessly the investigation of the customs service and to carry out without fear or favour the needed requirements.
What were the needed requirements? The committee of this house, after sitting for weeks, decided that one of the needed requirements was the prohibition of clearances, and their decision was confirmed by a royal commission appointed by the government. There is not the slightest doubt in the world as to what those requirements were; the Prime Minister stood solemnly pledged to carry out the needed requirements, yet nothing whatever has been done. I recall the high praise accorded by the Psalmist to the man who, when he made a pledge, carried it out notwithstanding the cost involved:
He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not .... He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
Nothing is said about what will happen to the man who does not do so. I would like to ask why the government has refused to act in this regard. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre is in his seat; I hope we shall have his support in this connection. We remember the work he did, for which I think we must give him due credit, as I did at the time; I think he should complete his work and help straighten out this international situation.
* Why has the government refused to take action? It may be because we are still going on the old principle of complete national sovereignty; sometimes I think perhaps the government has been unduly influenced by the " red-blooded " speeches of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mandon), who has told us again and again that we should maintain our national honour by doing this, that or the other thing. I think the time has come when we should realize that this old doctrine of complete national sovereignty is becoming obsolete. It used to be that each individual householder believed that his home was his castle and that he could do as he pleased

Export of Liquor-Mr. Woodsworth
without regard for his neighbours, but in our modern city communities we know that this doctrine cannot be maintained. I am curbed in a hundred ways by the desires and wishes of my neighbours who surround me. In the old days each city could do as it pleased, but to-day even the cities must conform to certain general regulations, because we are no longer living isolated lives. In my opinion the same thing is true to-day in international affairs; No one nation lives to itself. We are bound together by a hundred ties and we must have regard to the convenience and the welfare of other nations if we are to preserve our own national life and if we ourselves are to be treated decently. In the great street of the nations we are but one house, and we must remembeT that we must live in that street with the others.
If I might give a simple illustration, it sometimes occurs to me that our position is very similar to that of two old women who have adjacent back yards. The one old lady keeps hens and the other keeps a garden, and in one way or another the hens from the one back yard wander into the garden, and of course the old lady who keeps the garden is very indignant over it. She says to the other, "You keep your hens at home" and when the other old lady answers that she will let her hens run and scratch where they please, the first old lady replies, "If they come over here I will wring their necks." So the quarrel goes on, and at last the old lady owning the garden says, 'We must live as neighbours, I am going to erect a fence in order to try and keep your hens from my garden, but will you not help me do so? At least help me to stop the holes in the fence." The old lady owning the hens replies, "If you would only keep hens like I do there would be no trouble about your old garden; we would live as neighbours, without trouble." So the squabble goes on.
That is about the situation as between Canada and the United States; we have govern

ment control and they -have prohibition, and our government takes the position that as long as they have a different system from ours we cannot settle anything. We say, "If you put up your fence and make it tight enough nothing will happen", to which they reply that they cannot make it tight enough to keep out all the hens, so they ask our help. I believe that in ordinary law affecting community life we are beginning to recognize certain rights of neighbours. My little illustration indicates at least my position with regard to this international situation. I believe international neighborlin-ess is essential.
Mr. Woodsworth.]
There is a suspicion that powerful interests are behind the people who thus evade the law of the United States; hon. -members will recall the -reports of the royal commission, and from interim report No. 10 I have selected a few paragraphs. With regard to the Cosgrave Export Brewery Company Limited, the report stated:
An audit of the books of this company disloses the fact that certain moneys were deducted from the gross earnings of the company which were paid as contributions to compaign funds, in respect of certain plebiscites taken in the province of Ontario. There does not appear to be any justification for these deductions and as these were improper there would be due considerable arrears of income tax.
With regard to the Carling Export Brewery Company, the report stated:
In order to insure the success of these operations, it was necessary to procure customs seals, both of the United States and of Canada, and the necessary customs and shipping documents. According to the evidence, Low stated that he could procure these. . . . These cars had affixed United States and Canadian customs seals which had -been stolen or otherwise unlawfully procured and affixed to the cars, and customs and shipping documents that were forged or otherwise unlawfully procured.
With regard to Gooderham and Worts:
It was disclosed by an examination of the books of the company that large unvouehered payments were made, which were charged as part of the cost of operation, under various headings which did not show the real nature of the expenditures. Most of these payments were deducted from the profits before arriving at the amount upon which income tax was payable by the company to be government. The evidence disclosed that these payments were principally for political and propaganda purposes. In so far as contributed for federal political purposes, they were illegal and contrary to the provisions of section 10, chapter 46 of the Dominion Elections Act. . . .
With' regard to Hiram Walker and Sons Limited!:
The evidence also indicates that this company made large payments for which there were no proper vouchers and for purposes not recognized by the department as properly deductible for income tax purposes, and that the same were deducted from the profits of the company on the income tax returns made from year to year. The evidence suggests that the income tax returns of this company and the settlements made of the income tax should be reviewed.
With regard to Wiser's Distillery Company similar statements are made. Reporting the sittings of the royal commission at Montreal, The Toronto Telegram of June 14, 1927, stated:	[DOT]
James G. Lawrence, secretary-treasurer of the Consolidated Distillers, admitted that the sum of $380,608.59 was paid to both political parties between July, 1923, and the end of 1926.

Export of Liquor-Mr. Woodsworth
I do not accuse the right hon. the Prime Minister of receiving campaign funds directly from these great breweries and distilleries; I do not intend to imply that the members sitting on the opposite side of the house are in direct receipt of these amounts, but I do say that when it is a well-established fact that large sums of money have been used for political propaganda and for election purposes, it does at least leave some ground for the suspicion that in some way or another, in the underground workings of the party system, there are influences at work which are inimical to the public welfare. I have been informed upon very good authority that when one of the old parties starts a federal campaign it requires a minimum of 81,000,000; I think I have that on fair authority.


Mr. JACOBS:: Shame, shame.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: The hon. member
for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) may make light of that, but we have all been long enough in politics to know that these practices do exist.


Mr. BOURASSA:: The hon. member is
shamed with the small figure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said a minimum
of $1,000,000. It may be for the legitimate purposes of the party, but what I am getting at is this; large corporations are making enormous fortunes in this way and we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that by underground methods these corporations have tremendous power and may influence public sentiment through the party organization, through the newspapers and in other ways. The right hon. the Prime Minister and the government should very definitely clear themselves of all suspicion of participating in any way [DOT] or of being influenced in any way by organizations of this character.
Further the present practice encourages bootlegging. We have been told by government officials that bootlegging has been decreased to almost the vanishing point. Well, tell that to the marines, or perhaps I had better say " tell it in the maritimes; tell it on the Pacific coast." Personally I do not know much about the border between Ontario and the United States but I do not think that anyone who knows of the conditions there will say that smuggling has decreased to the vanishing point. I will frankly admit that the government has introduced some great reforms in the regulations and I want to give every credit to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) for the way in which he has carried out those reforms. There has been a reduction in the number of docks and an elimination of the abuse of the B-13 forms, and liquor is now being loaded in the presence
of a customs officer. I have no doubt that these reforms have done much good, but they have not been sufficient. In the report of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario dated October 31, 1928, Sir Henry Drayton, the chief commissioner, states:
It is hoped that substantial relief will he obtained through these reforms and that the short-circuiting which has so undoubtedly taken place, substantially reduced.
Sir Henry continues:
Bootlegging and short-circuiting will never really be stopped until proceedings are effectively taken against those Supplying liquor m the first instance.
According to the Toronto Globe on November 22, these regulations are not satisfactory to the Attorney General of Ontario. If we are committed to the government sale of liquor in this country we should supplement that by government manufacture and make the handling of liquors purely a government monopoly.


Miss MACPHAIL:: We would save the
taxes too.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think that is a
reasonable and constructive proposal which might be considered by the government. Let me repeat: If we are committed to government sale in most of the provinces of this country, I think the only logical thing for us to do is to go in for government manufacture; manufacture practically at cost because that would eliminate the bootlegger as he would have no particular reason to go into the business if the liquors were manufactured by the government and sold at as nearly cost as possible.


Mr. GEARY:: Sold abroad at cost?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not considering the sale abroad; I think that we will have enough to do at the present time to consider our policy with regard to Canada itself. In considering our foreign policy we might very well determine it on a somewhat different basis from that which now prevails under private manufacture.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why manufacture at
all?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not intend to go into the question of why manufacture at all; I simply say that as we seem to be committed at the present time to government sale we should go right through with a public control policy and adopt government manufacture.
I charge that the present practice encourages lawlessness here in Canada. I should like to
2684	COMMONS
Export of Liquor-Mr. Woodsworth
read a few brief paragraphs from our daily-papers. The first is from the Toronto Globe of December 3, 1928, and is as follows:
There can be no mistaking the nature of the business itself or the men engaged in it. Official figures show that in the past trade year the Canadian customs cleared for United States points liquor valued at more than $25,000,000. This is not all. It is an open secret that most of the liquors ostensibly cleared for any of the four corners of the outside world are actually destined for consumption in the United States. This is big business-and it can be transacted only by those who daily risk their lives in evading our neighbour's police. It was inevitable, therefore, that the rum-running ranks should have been largely recruited from the gangs of gunmen and thugs who formerly inhabited the underworld of Chicago, Detroit and New York.
Is there any one so simple as to imagine that these gangsters are criminal only on their native side of the border and become good citizens the moment they cross or recross the invisible boundary? Such a hope is an impossibility. There are several hundreds of pages of evidence in the investigation of our customs scandal. A great many of them witness to the fact that these criminals are always criminals; that they are not in business for the fun of it; that they are not particular whence their profits come; that they just as readily smuggle narcotics, tobaccos or silks north as they smuggle liquor south; that their contempt for their own American government does not magically become admiration for the Canadian authority simply because it shelters them and abets them.
A particular case is mentioned in the London Free Press of December 3, 1928, as follows:
Last year J. D. Hanson, a native-born Canadian, was slain by a liquor enforcement officer for no discoverable reason. Hanson was not a bootlegger and did not even have any liquor in his possesion when shot down in cold blood. Children living in Sandwich had narrow escapes from death as long range bullets from guns of enforcement officers sped over the Detroit river. Motorists traversing the border cities along the water front were in danger of their lives. A state of siege every once in a while occurs on lake Erie off the Port Dover district, when it is not safe for law'-abiding citizens to venture out on the lake in their launches. They risk instant death or injury at the hands of the quick-trigger American liquor enforcement officials.
I need only mention the sensational articles which appeared in MacLean's Magazine of December I, December 15, 1928, and January 1, 1929. But I should like to quote a paragraph from a statement by Sir George Foster.
I read it in the Winnipeg Tribune of February 23 of this year. This is what he is reported as saying:
An organized band of rum-runners and smugglers who by the corruption of Canadian and United States officials, by outwitting the United States guardians of the law, and by the employment, if necessary, of gunmen and hired bandits, forced the forbidden borders of a friendly state and delivered therein to other 
organized bands of law-breakers, the goods banned by the laws of that country. By these methods and with such associates, Canadian brewers and distillers disposed of $27,000,000 worth of their wares in 1928, and pocketed their proportion of the illegal profits made by the venture.
Again:
The organization exists-it is skilled and experienced and absolutely unscrupulous; it is well armed with corruption funds and sawed-off shotguns, and shrinks not at the sight of blood. Why should the Canadian government give support and sustenance to so efficient and soulless an organization?
That question is being asked right across this country from coast to coast: Why should the Canadian government give support to such an organization as that? Let me quote this statement by Sir George Foster which, for me, is unanswerable:
The citizen of one nation who does not respect the law of another nation of equal civilization will not be likely to respect the law of his own, if it conflicts with his own personal self-interest.
I do not know that I can do better than reiterate that statement. It is all I want to say in the way of argument. The citizen of one nation who does not respect the law of another nation of equal civilization with his own will not be likely to respect the law of his own, if it conflicts with his own personal self-interest.
I want to suggest that the practice that now exists, encourages political corruption. The old brewing and distilling firms were well known. They had certain standards of public and private morality. They may have contributed and they did contribute to the campaign funds of at least one of the older parties and, I think, to both of them; some to one, some to the other, but the same corporation did not contribute to both. It was known to which party they contributed and they did so as any other corporation would. These new firms which have had such a mushroom growth and which have made such enormous profits, have the morality of bandits and pirates. They cheat even the government which protects them. I need not go into details but no later than May 16 I read this in the Toronto Star. I happened to be in Toronto on that date, but similar statements can be found in almost any newspaper. The article reads:
The Attorney General of Canada brought action against Hiram Walker and Son, distillers. to recover the amount of bonds totalling $107,000 and given by them on the export of 4.000 cases of whiskey to W. O. Watson, Guatemala, by way of Victoria.
Again:
Captain Nieholles swore that he sailed from Victoria, B.C., with sealed orders, which he

Export of Liquor-Mr. Woodsworth
opened after leaving port. These orders instructed him to be off a port on the west coast of Vancouver island and there to discharge 2,400 eases of whiskey. He swore he did so discharge the cargo to a steamer called the Pascawa, of Canadian register, and that 100 cases of Hiram Walker's was included in this discharge.
Continuing, witness swore that afterwards his orders were to proceed south to a point off the Faralon islands, off San Francisco, and that there he discharged the balance of the cargo, part to another steamer of Canadian register, the Chief Skujuid, and the balance to small boats, that arrived from the American shore.
Captain Nicholles swore he never went to Guatemala nor to Bonaventura, Colombia, that he did not know how landing certificates had been procured.
He swore that for the return voyage he required an outward bound report from the authorities at Bonaventura and a clean bill of health to present to the Canadian quarantine officials on return. These papers, he swore, were handed to him as his ship lay off San Francisco.
This sounds very much like the information that was given us some years ago by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Instead of this having been cleaned up as we had a right to expect, we find that under the present practice these rotten conditions are being continued.


Mr. EULER:: Perhaps the hon. gentleman
would give me time for a question. I am sure he does not, want to misrepresent anything. Can he give the date when this offence was committed?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


William Daum Euler: He will find that is one of
the old cases which is now being prosecuted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad of the
correction. I did not look into the question of the date of the offence. The paper I am quoting from is of recent date. I quite admit that this case does not have any bearing upon or back up my argument at this point.
But to proceed, it seems to me that the refusal of our government to take action along this line constitutes an unfriendly act towards the United States. On June 6, 1924, Canada signed a treaty with the United States "for the suppression of smuggling operations along the international boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States and assisting in the arrest and prosecution of persons violating the narcotic laws of either government and for kindred purposes." Article 1 provides for the exchange of information concerning clearances of vessels, and article 2 provides for the elimination of the practice of granting fake clearances. Almost before the treaty was signed it was found that in practice it was altogether inadequate. So, as early at
least as October 6, 1925, we find the United States officials opening up negotiations with Canada-I have not the earliest letters, but a letter of that date refers to still earlier negotiations-to see whether Canada would not consent to legislation which would make the treaty effective. Under date of October 6, 1925, I find a communication from the United States authorities:
Suggesting, first, that-clearance be refused by the Dominion authorities to vessels carrying cargoes of liquor destined for the United States; second that a convention be concluded for the extradition between the United States and Canada of persons guilty of offences under the customs laws of either government, and, third, that a convention supplementary to that signed on June 6, 1924, be negotiated for the transportation of liquor to Telegraph Creek, British Columbia, via Stilcine river through Alaska.
Negotiations dragged on month after month. At last, on October 6, 1926, the Canadian government asked for a still further delay until after the royal commission had reported. It was pointed out by the Canadian government that:
The order in council instructs the commissioners "to continue and complete the said investigation into the Department of Customs and Excise and also to inquire into and report on the operations of the treaty made between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America dated June 6, 1924, for the suppression of smuggling along the international boundary between the Dominion of. Canada and the United States of America and as to whether the said treaty is being carried out according to the declared intent thereof and as to whether any amendment to the said treaty is necessary or desirable to ensure the suppression of smuggling."
In view of the fact that the above inquiry has been initiated and that the reports and recommendations of the royal commission will be of great value in the discussion of the interpretation and possible amendment of the existing convention and collateral questions, the Canadian government is of opinion that it would be desirable to await its findings before setting a date for the proposed conference between representatives of Canada and the United States.
It is quite apparent from that letter and from the subsequent correspondence that the American people expected, and the Canadian government more or less conceded, that some revision of the treaty would be made. A preliminary conference was asked for by the United States and at last on January 8th, 9th and 10th of this year a conference on commercial smuggling was held. I should like to summarize a few of the important presentations made ait that conference, following the Canadian summary.
First of all the Canadian representatives made it clear that that conference had no real
2686	COMMONS
Export oj Liquor-Mr. Woodsworth
authority. It consisted of officials rather than of members of the government, and they had no authority to determine matters of policy and were called upon simply to bring out in discussion the implications of any proposals made.
The United States representatives showed that there was a growing importation of liquor from Canada. I quote from the summary:
According to Canadian official statistics the export of liquor to the United States for the year ended 31st March, 1928, amounted in duty-paid value to over $18,000,000. It was estimated that the importations from Canada formed the largest proportion of the supplies from outside.
I would urge that the amount of duty-paid liquor does not anything like cover the whole amount of liquor that was taken into the United States. Some of my official friends may be inclined to trust merely to the documents in this respect but some years ago I had some experience in waterfront work, and from inside knowledge I can testify that there is a good deal that goes on that is not found in the official documents.
Again, the American representatives stated:
Contrary to statements appearing in the press the United States officials were seriously attempting to solve the liquor smuggling problem. They had substantially succeeded in cutting off the smuggling of liquor from the high seas but had not been able to stop the flow across the Canadian border, particularly in the Detroit area.
Further:
The fact remained, however, that since the treaty went into effect between 1926 and 1928 the shipment of liquors to the United States, according to Canadian statistics, had increased.
With regard to the vessels that were operating they pointed out that the information as to clearances was frequently not sufficient to permit of identification. Then followed their proposal:
The proposal merely meant that each country should refuse to allow its instrumentalities to be used by persons engaged in breaking the laws of the other country. This remedy could be afforded by treaty amendment to the following effect, or by corresponding legislative or administrative action:
"The high contracting parties agree that clearances of shipments of merchandise by water, air or land from any of the ports of either country to a port of entrance of the other country shall be denied, if such shipments comprise articles the introduction of which is prohibited or restricted for whatever cause in the country to which such shipment is destined, provided, however, that such clearance shall not be denied on shipments of restricted merchandise when there has been complete compliance with the conditions or laws of both countries."
Quoting further from the summary:
It was made clear, however, in subsequent discussion that in addition to the renewal of

clearances the United States representatives considered it would be necessary, in order to cheek the flow, for the Canadian authorities to take steps to prevent the release from distilleries of duty-paid spirits for export to the United States.
Years ago the Liberal party negotiated a treaty for reciprocity between the United States and Canada. I am one of those who believe that that proposal should have been adopted. The failure to carry it into effect has been, I think, a tragedy for Canada from which we have not yet recovered. Here is another reciprocal treaty which has been proposed, a reasonable treaty, which the Liberal government so far has refused to consider. The Americans pointed out that other countries had done what Canada was refusing to do. Mexico and Cuba had taken action along these lines, and I understand, though I do not find this in the memorandum, that Japan has also done so. Norway refused to clear shipments of liquor to the United States, and not only that, but it penalized Norwegian vessels engaged in smuggling liquor into other countries. It was stated that Great Britain had taken action, but I believe that that was later questioned. In any case, Great Britain had gone so far as at least under certain circumstances to extend tSe three-mile limit to twelve miles. Quoting from the summary:
The United States delegation stated that it was their well considered opinion that nothing short of discontinuance of the existing practice of issuing clearances or other official documents permitting the legal exportation from Canada to the United States of goods which cannot be legally imported into the United States, would be of material assistance in dealing with the problem.
So they stated, very clearly indeed.


William Irvine: What report is that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am reading from the memorandum compiled by our own Canadian authorities as to what took place at the conference held in Ottawa between the United States and Canadian representatives in January of this year. I should like, however, to go just a little outside of that official memorandum to quote a couple of paragraphs direct from what was said by the American authorities. I read from the papers laid on the table:
Admiral Billard concluded his statement with a parable, based on the operation of Article II of the present treaty, of a man who asked for a clearance for his vessel with a cargo of liquor to a port in Cuba. The clearance was refused on the ground that the vessel would not be able to make the port specified, and there was. consequently, a suspicion that the liquor might be smuggled into the United States. The man thereupon asked for a clearance to Detroit rvith the same cargo, which was promptly granted, since all suspicion had been cleared away.

Export of Liquor-Mr. Woodsworth
Further, Admiral Billard said:
The treaty with Canada already concluded between the United States and Canada is entitled a Convention "To Suppress Smuggling" between the two countries. It seems to us, then, that Canada has already subscribed to the general policy, not only of reducing smuggling between the two countries, but of suppressing it. In other words, that we are not asking the Canadian government to adopt a new policy on this matter; we are asking them to take the policy they have already officially sanctioned, to suppress smuggling between the United States and Canada, and to supplement the existing treaty into -which they so willingly entered and which they have so thoroughly upheld-to supplement it by accomplishing that suppression of smuggling, to the suppression of which they have already indicated their official willingness.
The Canadian government since the conference has made a suggestion that it might be possible to meet the wishes of the Americans and to effect the desired reforms by permitting the American officials to be stationed at the docks on this side of the line. This, however, is the reply of the American authorities to the proposal. It is dated April 20, 1929. I read simply the essential parts:
In the above communication you were good enough to state that in order to cooperate with and further assist my government in the effective enforcement of its laws, the Canadian government was prepared to permit United States officers to be stationed on the Canadian side of the border, at ports of clearance to be determined, in order to enable the United States officials themselves to transmit immediately to the appropriate authorities in their country information concerning clearances of all vessels carrying liquor cargoes to the United States.
I now have the honour, under instructions of my government, to inform you that it is the view of its competent authorities that the proposed arrangement would not be a solution of the problem.
That letter is signed by William Phillips. Se here we arrive at the same point at which we started back in 1924-a deadlock, the United States asking that we would legislate in such a way as to enable them to carry out their laws, that we would not connive at the breaking of their laws, and we refusing to do what I think the world would consider to be a very neighbourly sort of act.
What will be the next move of the United States? Well, I cannot tell, but I found this in a recent despatch from Washington:
Someone here put it this way-"Canada has been asked to stop the rum-Tunners from her side before they start. Failing that, by far the biggest effort yet will be made to prevent them from finishing. If the Canadian government does not make shipment of liquor to the United States illegal, then the United States will talk to the Canadian distillers and their* rum-runnning agents in a language that they will understand."
If in this effort it becomes necessary to stop and examine everybody and everything that 78594-1U
crosses the border by auto, by boat, in railway cars; to stop and examine all express and freight shipments, there will be delay, discomfort, inconvenience and friction. It is to be hoped that this will not be necessary, but if the present temper on the United States side of the line persists, however reluctant the authorities may be to adopt such drastic measures, there is a feeling that whatever it is necessary to do will be done, but that rumrunning must and will be stopped.


An hon. MEMBER:: What paper is that
in?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is an article published in the Toronto Star of April 10 from a special correspondent at Washington.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't they stop them?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely it is not
necessary to say that to-day, when the American representatives themselves have shown so clearly that under existing conditions it is next to impossible for them to do so. They ask our help, at least to a degree that we will not actively connive at this traffic, that we will pass legislation that will prevent clearances to rum-running vessels. But further than that, I find this statement, which was published, I think, in nearly all our papers. I read this in the Toronto Star of April 12:
"Only when it is apparent that a boat trying to escape search is faster than ours is gun fire to be used," an official said to-day. "Even then, under no circumstances, are boats to be followed into Canadian waters. We have warned the officers, in case the zeal of some of the younger men should run away with them in their desire to make a capture."
When the United States prohibition navy-
Mark the words.
-in this sector-
Mark also those words.
-is assembled within a few weeks there are to be twenty-nine "36 footers" capable of a speed of 45 miles an hour, and five "75 footers" capable of making 25 miles in heavier seas. The first twenty-nine will carry machine guns, and the larger submarine chaser type, will mount one pound guns in the bows.
In the whole history of prohibition enforcement along the Niagara river boundary, no fleet to equal this has ever been assembled by the United States to blockade Bridgeburg, Port Colborne, Port Maitland and Dunnville. This flotilla has to cover the shore line from the straits of Mackinaw to Sacketts harbour, opposite Kingston. In places of twenty-five "36 footers" last year, Commander Rasmussen has twenty-nine this season. Last year he had only 250 men, this year he has 300.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that that is rather a serious situation to develop on our great lakes and boundary rivers. I was reading, with a great deal of interest, a speech made by the Prime Minister a few weeks

2688	COMMONS
Export of Liquor-Mr. Woodsworth
ago before the League of Nations Society in this city. Let me quote simply one paragraph:
We are able to point to our unprotected frontier of over 3,000 miles, a frontier stretching from ocean to ocean across an entire continent, along the whole of which not a shot has been fired for over a hundred years.
That sifnply is not true, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that certain types of United States boats are not found on the lakes, but other boats of smaller tonnage are there; and although guns of a certain calibre are not used, smaller guns are. Let me say there is every danger of friction and conflict when that situation exists. Three hundred men in these boats at the present time. I urge that here is a dangerous situation that may easily lead to some most unfortunate incident. In fact we had only last night brought to our attention the I'm Alone incident, and it was declared on the floor of this house that that was a case either of war or piracy. Now, I am not going to discuss that case, but I submit that when words of that character can be used in the Canadian House of Commons with regard to an incident that involved this country and the great republic to the south, it is a serious situation. And even although the orders to the United States officers may be that there is to be no passing into Canadian waters in pursuit of rum-running vessels, is it not inevitable that there will be exciting chases in the course of which there will be a rush to our side of the line? So narrow are these waters in some places that gun fire may endanger the lives of Canadian citizens, and should it unfortunately happen that any of our people are killed or wounded, it can readily be understand there will be passions aroused-well, it is hard to know whether those passions could be held in check. It may well be that the United States coastguards' in the I'm Alone case were in the wrong -I think they were-but are we justified in provoking such acts? That is another question and one we have to answer. Some of us have had to discipline children, either our own or somebody else's in school. Jack is told that he must not hit Mary. We say to him "Now, Jack, it is not nice for a boy to hit a little girl. You must not do it." Then one of these days there is a squabble, and poor Mary comes home crying and says "Jack hit me." I suppose we should then inflict condign punishment on Jack for having done it. Well, I confess that at times, in the case of such domestic troubles, I sympathize with Jack. Mary has been perhaps as tantalizing as girls know how to be-I am glad that the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-
*.Mr. Woodsworth.?
phail) is not here. Undoubtedly they grow better as they grow up, but girls can be very tantalizing. Probably Mary sticks out her tongue at Jack and says smart things-and girls can always say smarter things than boys. Jack of course becomes exasperated and he strikes her. That little incident may, I think, be taken as suggesting the relation between ourselves and the United States in this matter. It may be true that the coastguard exceeded his authority, but at the same time this was. a vessel of Canadian registry; and whether or not the clearance papers had been granted by Canada the fact is that she was smuggling goods, and therefore we are more or less involved. And there are other cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member knows that she did not clear from a Canadian port.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say, whether or
not clearance papers had been granted. I am glad the hon. member has made that clear. She did not clear from a Canadian port, but I urge that irrespective of that fact she was a vessel of Canadian registry. As a matter of fact only to-day a gentleman who has come from the west coast tells me of incidents of this kind which are taking place out on the Pacific.
I have carefully read the statements of Canada's representatives at the conference, and really it does seem to me that after all we are simply offering excuses. That is all I can say. I have tried to find a reasonable ground for our refusal to accede to the request of the United States but I have not succeeded. If the shoe were on the other foot I know that we should be indignant had the United States taken the position that we are taking.
We are maintaining, at enormous cost, an embassy in the United States to promote friendly relations. Are we going to maintain that embassy simply to try to protect international rum-runners, as in the I'm Alone case? I ask this question:	Why should we
shield a gang of outlaws, many of them American outlaws, whose business means gain to a small group of Canadian distillers and their parasites, but is not in the interests of the great mass of the people of Canada? I say this is not decent treatment of a friendly nation. All Canada is asked to do is to refuse to facilitate the operations of law-breakers. I have said earlier-and I do not intend to develop this point-that this trade as now carried on threatens the morality and peace of Canada itself; and that perhaps is even more important than the question of our international attitude. Perhaps I should not say that; I do not know whether it can be

Export of Liquor-Mr. Speakman
more important but at least it is of equal importance. And to recall the earlier part of my argument, since the government had such a clear mandate from this house, and since it had the report of the royal commission which the government itself appointed, it does seem that inaction on the part of the government constitutes a threat to the principle of responsible government itself.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: It has become habitual in this house, so habitual in fact as to be almost a commonplace, for any member who rises to address the house on any subject to refer to that subject as being of such transcendent importance as to constrain him to take part ini the debate. While however this may have become habitual, I submit that the question before us is intrinsically and from the point of view of the Canadian public one of importance. It is, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has said, a subject of importance inasmuch as it involves our international relationships as well as the morality of our own people. As the hon. member was speaking, my mind went back a few days, and I thought of that treaty which was brought before the house having for its purpose the renunciation of war. That treaty was epoch-making in its importance; it was tremendous in its possibilities. It was based, not. upon law but upon the crystallized and articulate conscience of a people, and the measures for its enforcement lay not in legal action nor in legal penalties but in the indignation of an aroused people. And so with this. Many questions of importance in constitutional law are here involved, and there are many problems, staggering in their difficulty, in the way of administration. But these, notwithstanding their importance, fade to my mind inito comparative insignificance in the light of two other factors which arise-factors overshadowing the question of law or the question- of administrative detail, as the oak would overshadow-I was going to say the violet, but that comparison is not so apt-the shrubs and bushes at its roots. These questions may be divided into two; they are two great questions. First is the degree to which our action will affect international peace and international harmony as between two great nations, nations which for decades have prided themselves, and rightly so, on their cool-headed common sense and kindly consideration when dealing with their mutual problems. This matter before us is, I think, one which threatens the very purpose for which the treaty for the renunciation of war was brought forward.
I am not going to speak of connivance on the part of the government, for as I interpret the word "connivance" it implies a certain degree of approval; and I cannot believe that this government would or could view with any approval the actions of certain criminals -I speak of them as criminals, but perhaps I had better say certain men-in their own country. Moreover, I cannot imagine the present minister of the department (Mr. Euler) viewing the situation with approval.
I have known that minister as a private member and as the head of the department for eight years, and during those eight years my respect for him has grown as a man of courage, sincerity and character. I shall not therefore speak of connivance in that sense. But to the degree to which connivance may be interpreted as a knowledge of what is going on, without any effective steps being taken to curb the situation, I might possibly use the word. We have watched the effects of this trade, which is carried on legally in this', country although it is illegal in the country to the south of us; and we have seen that:, trade leading to conditions which we all deplore. As the hon. member for Winnipeg' North Centre has said, it is leading to the arming of people, a very small percentage of people it is true, in order to defend the laws of the United States against what they believe to be aggressive acts on the part of some of our nationals. You will note that I say aggressive acts on the part of some of our nationals, and I am not in the least confusing individual citizens of Canada with the government of Canada. That is a very different thing, but it has led to the arming of a -people and to the I'm Alone and other similar incidents. I believe that from the point of view of every right thinking man-and I believe every member of this chamber is a right thinking man-it may lead and has led to deplorable incidents.
I intend to speak very briefly on this matter; I wish simply to express my opinions and those of thousands of other citizens of this country, many of whom have communicated with me, and therefore I shall pass to the second phase of this issue, which was also touched upon by the hon. member who opened this discussion; I -refer to the morale of our young people. When you go to the frontiers of our country where this trade is principally carried on you will find men who have grown wealthy from this traffic; I am not sure that you will find women, but at all events you will find such men. The young people of Canada, who see these men and are associated with what is going on day after
2690	COMMONS
Export oj Liquor-Mr. Speakman
day and who see so little effective action being taken to curb it, to my mind are subject to the great danger of setting up false ideas of right and wrong and of the heroic and the base. When they see men enriching themselves in this way; when they see these same men retain their standing as respectable and responsible citizens of the community; when they see that the actions of these men and the trade in which they are engaged apparently do not lower them in the eyes of the adult community, what kind of ideals will these boys and girls have? What will they think; what heroes will they set up? Then, to go into it further, right along our frontiers we find boys and girls and men and women becoming associated with the idea of violence and bloodshed, and I am afraid that we are coming to the point where familiarity does not necessarily breed contempt but where familiarity dulls the keen edge of their perception, wipes out the sense of right and wrong and takes away the right balance of mind.
Let me repeat that I am considering this as a moral rather than a legal issue. I am not qualified by either experience or knowledge to speak of the law; neither am I qualified to speak of the administrative difficulties, but I think I am capable of voicing here the opinions and the best common sense of some people at least whom I know in this country. It is their opinion that we are in <ianger of interjecting into our international relationship, into the international harmony and goodwill which is of such great importance, an element which will threaten if not destroy it, and that we are still more in danger of destroying all that is best in some of our people. I believe we are tearing down the bars which have protected what is best in mind and in conscience of these people who are now becoming accustomed to this traffic, and we are setting up in the place of statesmanship, of self sacrifice and of morality and goodwill an ideal of financial success without regard to how that wealth may be brought about. So it does seem to me, without being able to state definitely just what steps should be taken, that this parliament and this government should approach the subject seriously and with sincerity, and from the moral point of view as much as from the legal point of view. We should do what lies within our power to stop this practice.
I have heard it advanced as an argument against action being taken by our government that the United States is not very sincere or very desirous of seeing these laws enforced; we are told that they would rather

throw upon us the onus of that problem than assume it themselves. I can hardly accept _j,t statement without having very definite knowledge, but I do know that no matter how lax the officials in that country may be or how insincere in their attitude towards their own laws, it does not remove from Canadians the responsibility which rests upon us and for which we alone must account. So once more this parliament and this government have set the stamp of approval upon such repressive or preventive methods or measures as may be brought into force, they represent a people who are moral and peace loving; they are, I believe, individually and as a whole anxious to do the right thing both here and abroad, and in all earnestness and sincerity I appeal to the government and to the house to treat the subject on its merits and to see that at least Canada shall place herself beyond reproach.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker, those of us who were here in 1926-26 will clearly recall that charges were made with regard to the administration of the Department of Customs and that a special committee was appointed to make a very careful study of the whole subject. In one regard at least that committee made a unanimous report to the House of Commons in June of that year, and on June 18 the house approved of the report. Among other things that report urged that:
.... regulations be made to prohibit clearances being granted to vessels carrying liquor as cargo, sailing from a Canadian port to a United States port	
That is a very simple recommendation which anyone can understand. Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, now the Prime Minister of Canada, gave earnest and hearty support to the investigation and to the report of the committee; he pledged himself and his party "to continue relentlessly the investigation of the customs service and to carry out without fear or favour the needed requirements." That pledge was given during the election campaign which followed the investigation by this committee.
Mr. King was returned to power and has done much to make the Customs department efficient. I for one wholly approve of the Prime Minister's selection of a minister for that department; I honestly believe I could not have done better had I picked him myself. During the first session of the next parliament a royal commission was appointed, which spent eleven months in finding out all the facts which were gathered from a very wide field, and that commission aproved of section 10 of

Export oj Liquor-Miss Macphail
the report of the special committee. I read part of this section a few moments ago, but now I would like to read the entire last paragraph:
Doubts have been east upon the sufficiency of existing legislation to prohibit or authorize regulations prohibting the illegal export of intoxicating liquors to the United States. To the extent to which such legislation may be insufficient the committee recommend that it be amended. The committee further recommend that, as soon as possible, regulations be made to prohibit clearances being granted to vessels carrying liquor as cargo, sailing from a Canadian port to a United States port, such regulations to make an exception in favour of liquor being imported into the United States in accordance with the laws of that.country.
Two bodies, a special parliamentary committee and a royal commission, studied this subject much more carefully than any individual could. They made a recommendation and parliament approved of that recommendation but has not carried it out. The next question which occurs to one's mind is: Why has not parliament carried out the recommendation which a committee of this house and a royal commission made to it?
I am concerned with how this matter affects the United States, but I am not going to discuss that phase just now. The speech made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) expresses exactly how I feel about it. There is no use in our talking about the peace of the world and in unanimously approving such things as the pact of Paris until we can deal effectively with an irritating and troublesome question which affects the peace of the world. It is nonsense to think that because the problem is irritating and troublesome to us we can escape the duty of putting a stop to the bootlegging of liquor into the United States of America. From my point of view the liquor business is a dirty business. I have never seen anything good come out of liquor and I have seen a great deal of evil arise from its use. It corrupts all those who touch it, whether they are individuals or groups of individuals. I have no use for the whole dirty business and the fact that we are allowing liquor to pour out of southern Ontario into the United States and are doing nothing effective to stop it is giving to the Canadian people the mentality and the ethics of bootleggers.
Very eminent gentlemen-I think one would call them eminent-are hunting for defences for our attitude. It is quite true that we are making money through the sale of liquor to the United States but what is the use of gaining even the whole world if we lose our national soul? How can we expect the young men and women, the boys and girls of this country to respect the laws of the land if
we do not respect the laws of. another country? Our example will mean more to them than our teaching; our acts will loom so large that they will not hear our words. From the standpoint of morality in this country we should do something about it, whether it be to stop the clearance of vessels or whatever it may be, and we should set about getting it done as rapidly as possible. Supposing we had a bad child in a community-we have been apt to say "bad boy" but I do not want to say that because there are bad girls as well as bad boys-and suppose that only one parent of that child was anxious that it. should be reformed and was doing everything to help the child to a better way of life. But some other neighbour in the community, knowing the will of the one parent, deliberately put evil in the path of the child. What would we think of that neighbour; what would we think of him as a community builder? We would have nothing but contempt for him, ahd that is almost the place we are in as a nation as between ourselves and the United States.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Does the hon. member
not think it advisable that we should dry up our own country before we try to dry up the United States?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: 
William Daum Euler: The question raised by the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), so ably seconded by the eloquent member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), and supported by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), who has just spoken, is apparently one of considerable public interest, perhaps more so in recent years. But upon that question I think all members of the house will admit there is a very sharp division of opinion as to what the

Export oj Liquor-Mr. Euler
policy of the government should be. Undoubtedly there is a very strong body of public opinion which is opposed to the export of liquor from Canada to the United States. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated that that feeling is not confined to those of prohibition sentiments. I was rather inclined to think that such is the case, and 'that is not in any sense to be regarded as a criticism. It is equally true that there is just as strong and possibly a stronger body of public opinion which is entirely opposed to the suggestion that we should, in their words, assist in carrying out the laws of another country. For these reasons the government welcomes a very frank discussion of the whole question in all its bearings. Personally I am glad to have an opportunity of correcting some of the misconceptions that are apparently in the public mind to-day and to review as briefly as I can the situation as we find it. Essentially-and I think most members will agree with me-the situation is one that must almost inevitably arise where two adjacent countries deal with the liquor problem in two radically different ways. The one country, Canada, is "wet"-I think I may use that term-under a system of government control in seven out of the nine provinces: the other, the United States, has a drastic prohibitory law.
Something has been said with regard to liquor and' its evil effects. With some of the remarks I agree, but so far as the average individual is concerned, liquor is apparently a commodity in a class by itself. In my experience, laws with regard to liquor have never been regarded with the same respect as laws with regard to any other matter whatever. People who are otherwise quite respectable -and perhaps I should not use the word "otherwise"-people who are quite respectable, in this country in the past, and no doubt to-day in the United States, seem to have so little respect for prohibition laws that they will violate them apparently with no offence at all to their consciences. Liquor laws, dry or wet, always have had a strong minority, or possibly, even a majority opposed to them. I believe it is literally impossible for a wet country to lie adjacent to a so-called or ostensibly dry country without a flow of liquor proceeding from the wet to the dry. That, of course, is the basic reason to-day for the situation which we are now debating.
During the war Canada had a prohibitory law. The United States continued wet. They were not yet in the war. Liquor flowed freely at that time from the United States to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very little.


William Daum Euler: It is perhaps fair to say
that I have no recollection, and I think no one has any, that the United States, at a time when conditions were reversed, made any effort whatever to stop the exportation of liquor from one friendly nation to another friendly nation which was engaged in a great war. I am not sure that that is an argument, but in any disposition we may make of the question I believe we ought to consider the attitude of the United States itself in regard to this matter. To-day with Canada wet, and the United States ostensibly dry, the flow is from us to them.
I want to congratulate the members in that corner who have discussed the question from a very high moral plane and to assure them that I desire to discuss it solely on its merits. When I ray that, I wish for a moment to take exception to an inference apparently drawn by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that it is at least suspicious that no action is taken in the direction which he desires and that perhaps we may be influenced by money which would flow out of the coffers of the distillers and brewers into party funds. I am not sure whether it is worth while denying that, but if it is, so far as I am concerned I wish to issue an absolute denial. No better proof of the sincerity of that denial can be offered than the fact that in every case where action was recommended against brewers and distillers who had not paid their taxes, that action was proceeded with without any* exception whatsoever. We have collected from those brewers and distillers a good many million dollars, and expect to get some more.
Perhaps I might deal briefly with the subject in chronological order. As has been said, in 1924, a treaty was concluded with the United States for the suppression of smuggling. The chief obligation into which Canada entered was that we should report to the United States authorities whenever a clearance was granted by Canadian customs officials to liquor-laden boats bound for the United States. A good many other things were discussed, but those who are familiar with the treaty will agree that that was the outstanding obligation in it. May I say in passing that the United States government on several occasions has stated officially that the Canadian government, through the Department of National Revenue, has faithfully carried out the obligations embodied in that treaty. But the United States has not been satisfied with the provisions of the treaty. With that I have no particular fault to find. Indeed, before the treaty was
Export oj Liquor-Mr. Euler

made, the United States requested that there should be inserted in it a provision that mo clearances be granted to vessels of the kind mentioned, namely, vessels carrying liquor to United States shores. It was not so included in the treaty. We merely agreed to give notice of clearances that had been granted.
As has already been stated, in 1926 a request came from the United States government for a further conference with the Canadian authorities, their purpose being to persuade the Canadian government, if possible, to grant the very thing which they are again-now asking. That conference, held last January, was attended by certain officials of the United States government and the Canadian government. Suffice it to say that the outcome of the conference was merely this, that the Canadian officials expressed doubt as to the efficacy of the remedy proposed by the United States officials, and that the United States officials re-asserted their conviction that the only way in which the difficulty could be met was. by Canada passing such regulations or such laws as would prevent the export of liquor to the United States. I might say here, although I shall come to that point later, that merely to prohibit the granting of clearances will not remedy the situation at all. To make such a measure effective you would also have to forbid the release of liquor or beer from the distilleries and breweries.
I have spoken of the net result of the conference of last January. Following the conference, the officials made their reports to their respective governments. The report of the Canadian officials was received by the government some months ago. After some consideration by the government a communication was sent to the United States suggesting a proposal, which has already been described by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that it was thought would be of assistance to the United States, namely to permit them to station their agents on Canadian docks from which liquor was being exported, so that they could observe and report to their own government and thereby stop the export to the United States, The United States authorities, in further correspondence, reverted to their former request and stated that the only thing that would serve their purpose would be for this government to stop the issue of clearances. There the matter stands to-day.
I should like, because I think it is of interest and will remove misapprehension in the minds of some hon. members and certainly of some people in this country, to describe what takes place in the exporting of liquor. In the first place it should be understood that liquor
(Mr. Euler.]
*manufactured and sold in Canada pays an excise tax of $9 a gallon. Liquor imported into Canada pays a duty of $10 a gallon-a little bit of protection, as some of my Conservative friends would say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the minister would
say.


William Daum Euler: I will say it myself.


Ernest Lapointe: Both of them say it.


William Daum Euler: It should also be understood that when liquor is bona fide exported to another country and it can be proven that the liquor has been landed in that foreign country, there is no excise tax to be paid.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When was that
excise tax on liquor manufactured in Canada for export imposed?


William Daum Euler: It all depends upon the country to which it is being exported. If the liquor is actually exported to the West Indies, if it actually goes there, the method is this:	The
liquor does not pay an excise tax as it leaves the distillery, but the shipper gives a bond issued by a reliable guarantee company for twice the amount of the excise tax. That bond is released and cancelled by the Department of National Revenue when the shipper brings back from the country to which the goods were shipped a bona fide landing certificate, showing that the goods were actually landed in that foreign country.
Some reference has been made to the fact that in the past a good many bogus landing certificates have been obtained and the bond released when the liquor was not actually landed in the foreign country to which it was destined. I want to assure the house that that practice has absolutely discontinued; that the bonds which are given are bona fide bonds, and that the landing certificates which we receive and upon the receipt of which we cancel the bonds are absolutely genuine; there is no doubt about that.
Liquor exported to the United States is in a different class in this way: It is apparent, of course, to every member that it is impossible for a vessel to obtain a landing certificate for liquor shipped to the United States, that country being under a prohibitory law. Therefore, in order to avoid any difficulty, the practice is for the distillers to pay the excise tax before the goods leave the distillery.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: When did that practice start?

Export of Liquor-Mr. Euler


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, I have only
forty minutes, and although I should be glad to answer any questions if my time were extended, there are certain things that I should like to say. In any case I cannot answer my hon. friend's question; that was before I took charge of the department.
When liquor is destined for the United States, the excise is paid and it is then just as legal to export that liquor as any other commodity-boots and shoes, furniture, iron and steel, or anything else that can legally be exported. So far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned, when the excise tax is paid, all its demands are satisfied and the liquor becomes exactly similar to any other commodity that might be manufactured in Canada. When these liquors are exported to the United States, however, it is necessary that the boat or conveyance carrying them to the United States obtain a clearance from the Canadian customs and fill out the necessary export papers. That is the whole procedure.
Most of the liquor that goes from Canada to the United States is shipped from what we may call the Windsor-Detroit front and the Lake Erie front. Some goes over the border from lake Ontario, and some from western Canada and from Quebec, but not so very much. Most of it goes out from the area I have mentioned in the province of Ontario, and some from the province of Quebec. In every case clearances and export entries are necessary under our law.
I should like to correct a few misconceptions that are current throughout the country. It has been stated that the government loses revenue by reason of the export of liquor to the United States. That is not the fact. Every bottle of liquor that leaves a distillery in Canada, no matter where it goes, pays the excise tax before it leaves the distillery unless it is bona fide destined for some foreign country where bona fide landing certificates can be obtained, and in that case the shipment is made under bond. It is no longer true, as some people believe, that clearances to small boats are issued from our lake ports to countries like Cuba or Mexico. That practice was discontinued even before I took charge of the department. No boat which it is quite evident cannot proceed to the destination designated in its papers can receive a clearance.
Reference was made to a clearance being refused to a boat at Bridgeburg going to Mexico because it was quite apparent that it could not proceed there, and a clearance being given when it was stated that the boat
would go to Detroit. I do not see anything very peculiar in that, because in the one case the master of that boat gave a false declaration, and in the other he did not. In the one case he was violating our customs law, in the other he was not. I think it will surprise the members of the house when I say that when these boats clear from Windsor, we will say, for Detroit, or from Bridgeburg for Buffalo, they go to Detroit and go to Buffalo. They clear for a definite destination. If we know that they are clearing for some destination to which they are not actually going, they are violating our law and a penalty is applied.


Mr. STEVENS:: Do they present their
clearances to the port to which they go?


William Daum Euler: I do not suppose so. I am glad my hon. friend' mentioned that point; I might as well deal with it now. The boats which are smuggling liquor are not violating our law, 'because it is not smuggling while they are in Canada. But when they deliver liquor in the United States they are violating American law, and the boats that are carrying this 'liquor to the United) States are almost 100 per cent United States boats; they are not Canadian boats at all. Not only that, the men who are carrying the goods across are Americans practically 100 per cent, not Canadians. Here is a peculiarity in the respective laws of the two countries. In Canada every boat, no matter how small it is-and most of these goods are carried in small boats-must obtain clearance from a Canadian customs officer. In the United1 States-and these boats are owned in the United States, I should like the house to remember-boats under 5 tons need not obtain clearance, and need not report when they come back. In Canada they must obtain clearance when they leave and report when they come 'back. While the United States are asking that we discontinue clearances to these boats-their own boats manned by their own people-they do not demand clearances themselves from those very boats.


Robert James Manion: Are these boats not treated in exactly the same way as a boat carrying, we will say, a shipload of potatoes? Suppose an American boat came across here for a cargo of potatoes, she would get clearance and would be treated in exactly the same way as these rum boats?


William Daum Euler: Yes, exactly the same. The difference is in the tonnage. In the United States they demand clearance of boats of five tons and over. But the anomaly is in this'

Export of Liquor-Mr. Euler
They now ask us to discontinue giving clearances to their own boats, which in most cases ore less than five tons. They themselves do not require clearances of those boats. I would respectfully suggest that they would have considerably more control over their own boats, manned by their own people, if they would enact a law that those boats, no matter how small, should be obliged to obtain clearances when they leave their shore and report when they come back, the same as we require in Canada. That would give them some control.
The chief export points are the Windsor district and the Bridgeburg district. I have said something which may appear a criticism of the United States. I have no desire to be offensive, but I think there ane some facts I should place before the house in view of the statements made that we are not dealing in a friendly way with our neighbour to the south. It has been stated that these boats go across at night. That is not entirely true. I took the trouble last fall to go down to Windsor. I was offered safe conduct by a liquor exporter and went out on a launch on the Detroit Raver. I could see the United States customs office on the other shore, and I oould also see that it was not difficult to detect any boats that left the Canadian shore to go to the American side. While in Windsor I got into conversation with a man engaged in the business of exports ing liquor. I asked him, "Do you cross in the day-time?" He answered, "Yes, quite often." I said, "How is it they do not get you?" He replied with a smile, "It just happens that they are not there when we go across."
Our inspector went to Windsor not so very long ago. He did not select any special day. While there, on January 14, he observed the following vessels cross the river to Detroit in daylight with cargoes of liquors:
"Ben", J. King, master,
10	quarter barrels beer
11	eases whiskey "Rat", J. Sales, master,
24 cases whiskey 5 cases wine 1 case brandy "Bat", A. Jacks, master,
19 eases whiskey 1 case wine "Rabbi",-


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose he was a spiritual leader.


William Daum Euler: Most of the cargo seems to have been beer, and I am afraid you would hardly call that "spiritual."
"Rabbi", I. Straight, master,
5 half barrels beer 8 cases whiskey 
"Bird", J. Bloom, master,
18 cases whiskey 8 eases bourbon 1 case Scotch whiskey
"Bar", J. Peters, master,
13 cases whiskey 4 cases bourbon 3 cases brandy
That was in one day. Those boats went over in broad daylight. I leave members to draw their own inferences from that state of affairs. From the Bridgeburg district I have a report, in reply to an inquiry, by the collector at Bridgeburg, Ontario, written on April 11 of last year, and directed to the commissioner of customs.
Dear Mr. Breadner:
I wish to give you a short account of the rum-running at this port, and our procedure in the matter.
There are about twelve boats plying between here and Buffalo, N.Y., the river at this point being about half a mile wide. Some days we only have two or three boats out-
I do not think he should say "we" have.
-they have only two or three boats out, and on other days the whole fleet will make a trip.
The liquor and ale are brought from the distillery and brewery by truck, arriving here about two o'clock in the afternoon. The boats are all loaded and clearance granted about 5 p.m. and they are compelled to leave by 6 p.m. Some of these boats carry from 800 to 1,000 cases, and on their arrival on the American side it takes from two to three hours to unload them. No effort as far as we can see is made by the United States authorities to seize any of these boats, as the United States customs are always notified by us an hour or two before the boats leave, and occasionally we notify them as the boats are leaving, giving them the names of the boats and the quantity of liquor or ale on board. We have had high customs officials from Buffalo, special agents, and officers connected with the coast guard come over to the Canadian side, watch these boats load and pull out. It is a well known fact that some of these boats land within a few hundred yards of the United States customs office at the foot of Ferry street and unload without being disturbed.
Some few weeks ago, no doubt you saw in the press where it was stated that a truck had drawn out on the Peace bridge, and unloaded the ale down on the bank on the American side by tying a rope around the cases and lowering them to the river bank. As a matter of fact this ale was unloaded from one of the rum boats plying between here and Buffalo, right under the Peace bridge within a few hundred yards of the customs house.
Our officers who cheek these boats out were informed by one of the rum-runners that they had no trouble in landing their cargo as they were assisted by the officers of the dry squad on the American side, and it would appear that such must be the case when seven or eight boats will leave here, and land their cargoes, sometimes taking them three hours to unload without any casualties.
These boats are loaded directly opposite from the United States customs office at Black Rock. You can stand by the window in that office and look across, and see every case that is loaded on the Canadian side. I know if con-

Export oj Liquor-Mr. Euler
ditions were reversed that we would have ah these boats tied up in less than a week, and if the officers on the American side wish to put a stop to this business they could do it in about the same length of time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Whose report is that?


William Daum Euler: That is signed by F. T. Pattison, collector of national revenue at Bridgeburg, Ontario. I am reading this, Mr. Speaker, not for the purpose of making a criticism against the United States' officials-
I do not question the good faith of the men at the top-but I think it is at least a fair reason for considering whether the Canadian Government would be justified in going to what, I think I can show, would 'be a heavy expense if this law were enacted that is being asked for, in face of the fact that the United States authorities are making no very earnest effort to do it themselves.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I should like to ask the minister a question which it will not take him a moment to answer. Were not these facts known at the time the special committee and the royal commission made their report? Did they not then know that some, at least, of the United States officials were not trying to enforce their own laws?


William Daum Euler: My answer would be, I do not know. But I could hardly understand why they would fail to have knowledge of these facts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why did we endorse it?


William Daum Euler: That endorsation was given in 1926, as I understand it, and if the house desires I will deal with that later, if I have time, but I would prefer for the moment to go on with another phase of the matter.
It has been said, I think by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, that we have done absolutely nothing to assist the United States. I desire to cite some of the things we have done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought I gave the government credit for having done something.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I am accusing the hon. member wrongfully, but I understood him to say that we had not done anything to assist the United States. The first thing we did was to agree to a treaty establishing the twelve-mile limit, which has at times involved considerable difficulty to Canadian boats. That
helped tremendously in stopping the importation of liquor from the Atlantic seaboard. We agreed to give information as to clearances and have faithfully carried out that agreement, as the United States has testified on more than one occasion. We insist on bonds of the kind I described some time ago, where boats laden with liquor come from across the ocean, or from St. Pierre Miquelon, which is the centre of the trade, and enter Halifax harbour; at least they used to enter that harbour in stress or storm or from any other cause. They now must give .a bond in the same way as die others that export to foreign countries. The result is that that business has stopped altogether, and the depots that were formed1 in Nova Scotia, from which liquor was smuggled into the United States, are no longer in existence. In addition to that we closed the export houses to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred. There were in Canada so-called export houses-houses which imported liquor, stored it in these places in bond, and then exported it. I think i't is true to say that perhaps 95 per cent of the liquor in these export bond houses went to the United States. We have closed these and shut out that source of supply to the United States, because this department agreed with the royal commission that these customs bonds served no useful purpose; and although it is quite true that the Dominion government obtained considerable revenue from that source, it was not taken into consideration at all. We passed last session the Intoxicating Liquors Act; the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) piloted that bill through the house. The result is that now, with a few exceptions, no other than the local control authorities in any province may import liquor into that provinoe. That also has prevented the accumulation of liquor which later found its way into the United States. We have limited in Ontario, where most of the export business is done, the number of docks from which liquor may be exported.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How many are there now?


William Daum Euler: Windsor district was the most notorious, if I may use that word1. I do not know the exact number, but there were about fifty places from which liquor went out. There are now ten.


Robert James Manion: Are ten enough to supply the demand?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Private Bills

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Frederick Rutherfoord Zoppi.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Bessie Ruth Glass.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Edith Marie McFarlane.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill	No.	128,	for	the	relief	of	Cleoniki
Paleologou Drakoulas.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill	No.	140,	for	the	relief	of	Nanette
Coffey.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of James Graham McCreadie.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill	No.	142,	for	the	relief	of	Stephen
Dymon.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Marion Isabel Kemp.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Elizabeth Crawford Copping.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Arthur Alder-ton.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Elias Abraham, otherwise known	as	Elie	Abraham	Allen.-
Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Claude Frederick Burgin.-Mr. Geary (for Mr. Lennox).
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Mary Addie Linton.-Mr. Geary (for Mr. Lennox).
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Edna Maud James.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Helen Jane Sim Pittendreich.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 1S7, for the relief of Alfred Roy Edwards.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 189, tor the relief of Molly Vaughan. -Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Myrtle Mary Jane McLean.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Ida Rosenberg.-Mr. Spence.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Thomas South-wood.-Mr. Howard.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Jeanie Mathie-son Howell.-Mr. Howden (for Mr. Ed'wards, Ottawa).
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Gordon Asher True.-Mr. Howden (for Mr. Edwards, Ottawa).
[Mr. Manion.)

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 74, respecting The Premier Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.
Mr. GARDINER:: W'hat is the nature of these amendments?


Mr. LAWSON:: The senate merely changed the phraseology of section 1 of the bill, without, as I am instructed by counsel for the petitioner, changing the effect. I am instructed also that the amendments made are acceptable to the petitioner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) (for Mr. Ferfend) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 70, respecting the Joliette and Northern Railway Company.
Robert Gardiner: What is the nature of this amendment?


Mr. CAHILL:: I am afraid I cannot give an explanation of the amendment.


Robert Gardiner: Never mind, I have it now.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The senate has narrowed the time allowed by the House of Commons and asks that this company show activity within one year instead of within two years.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 78, respecting a certain patent of Zebulum Colvin Ketohum.
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: In the absence of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), who is ill at his home,
I would like to move the second reading of this bill.

Divorce Proceedings-Domicile


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent,
Mr. Hepburn for Mr. Sanderson moves that bill No. 275 for the relief of Clarence Spurgeon White be now read the second time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
NEW BRUNSWICK RAILWAY COMPANY On the order being called for the second reading of Bill No. 282, respecting the New Brunswick Railway Company.-Mr. Bourgeois:


Hewitt Bostock: I am sorry to say that
this bill cannot be proceeded with because there is no petition.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Laura Grace Osborne Lea.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Pansy Jean Van Luven.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Edyth Viola Beacock.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Bertha Nichols.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Albert Victor Walter Holman Homan.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 250, respecting The Dominion Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Grace Viola Byers.-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Mildred Soden.-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Mabel Graham.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Velma Stella Seadon.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Emma O'Grady.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Gordon Hanna. -Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park) (for Mr. Rowe).
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Thomas Horace Sillery.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Gladys Elizabeth Boyd.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Annie Fraser Rice.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 284, respecting a certain patent of Cobb Connector Company.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of George Stanley Warner.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Vincenzina Gramigna.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Kenneth Evan Thompson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Thomas Matthews Moland.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Andrew Towns-ley Hirsch.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from May 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. 75, respecting the domicile of married women in proceedings for divorce-Mr. Ward-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 2-Married woman separate from husband.
Mr. BOTHWELL:: When this bill was
before the house the other evening objections were voiced to it as it stands, and at that time a proposed motion was placed before the house but was not put as there was no seconder. The proposal contained in that amendment was also objected to when it came before the house. The discussion brought out very clearly that there is a real need in Canada for some such legislation as is proposed in this bill. The hon. leader of the opposition, when the bill was up before, explained some of the difficulties that the courts in Canada have to face in- connection with our divorce legislation, and the references that he made to various cases which have been decided showed clearly that there is a real need for some such legislation as is here proposed. In order to meet some of the difficulties that were mentioned in the discussion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk, that sections 2 and 3 of the bill be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
2. A married woman who either before or after the passing of this act has been deserted by and has lived separate and apart from her husband for a period of two years and upwards and is still living separate and apart from her husband may acquire in any one of the provinces of Canada in which there is a court having jurisdiction to grant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii a domicile of her own choice as though she were a feme sole for the purpose of commencing in the province in which she has acquired such domicile an action for divorce a vinculo matrimonii praying that her marriage may be dissolved on any grounds that may entitle her to such divorce in the court of such province having jurisdiction to grant such divorce whatever the domicile of the husband may be, provided that for the purpose aforesaid such married woman shall be deemed to retain the domicile of her husband at the time she was so deserted until she has acquired a domicile of her own choice as aforesaid.
The amendment meets the objection that was raised the other evening that the bill as it stands goes too far and might encroach
Divorce Proceedings-Domicile

upon other situations than that of divorce, because it clearly and definitely limits the domicile to the purpose of divorce. As the bill is changed by this amendment I can see no objection to it.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I objected to the bill on the two occasions when it came before the committee, first, as originally drafted, and afterwards as amended. I must admit that as far as the constitutional side is concerned, the new amendment is not subject to criticism as were the two first drafts. But speaking for myself I am sorry to say that I still object to the bill, and I would regret if it should become the law of this country. I wish to repeat what I have stated as to the various effects of this bill if it passes parliament. For instance, a wife will foe able to take proceedings for divorce in Manitoba or in Saskatchewan, while her husband1 may apply to this parliament for divorce if he still lives either in Ontario or in Quebec. There may be two applications for divorce in two different places. There may be even two divorce trials before two different courts if the wife goes to another province where there is a divorce court. There may foe two actions for divorce, and there will be a race for the better position. I still believe in the soundness of the British doctrine in this respect, that there is only one, and that there should be and can be but one, domicile as long as the matrimonial tie continues, and that only when it is dissolved can there be two domiciles.
My regret more particularly is that this bill if enacted would provide greater facilities for divorce. Public men in other countries have regretted the increased facilities for divorce, but once the door has been opened it is very difficult to close it. We in this country have always boasted that our record is clean in this respect. I admit that I do not share the viewpoint of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, that it is better that we should have the facilities which this bill will provide to avoid the scandal of some of our people going to the country to the south of us and there building up a fictitious domicile to obtain a divorce which has more or less legal effect in Canada. I repeat I do not agree with my hon. friend in that regard. I think it is better for us to keep our record clean in this respect, and that the remedy will be worse than the disease.
Our conditions are very similar in so many respects with those that prevail in the United States that I am afraid the troubles that are regretted over there will become ours if we adopt their system and make our laws concerning marriage and divorce more like those of that country than those of Great Britain.

The strength of our Canadian life has been based to a large extent on our marriage laws, and I do not think there is anywhere in Canada much public opinion in favour of changing those laws. Among all classes of our ipeople marriage is respected. Our people everywhere have always believed that once a man and a woman are united in marriage, the union is for better or for worse, and1 that it is a lifelong contract. This has always been the Canadian conviction, and we have been proud of it. I still think that by the adoption of this measure we should be entering on a new policy fraught with danger to our national life, and for that reason I cannot agree with the amendment and shall register my vote against it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I regret
my inability to agree with the Minister of Justice in respect to this matter. I think he has overlooked one or two essential factors that should be considered. First of all, this bill does not extend the causes for which divorce may be obtained. The only ground upon which divorce may be obtained is unfaithfulness. Secondly, it must be remembered that the wife in order to obtain a separate domicile must be deserted by the husband. If she has lived in the domicile where the husband has deserted her, by this bill she merely will be able to maintain her action there on the assumption that he having gone away, she knows not where, has for the purposes of the action left her with the domicile where she was deserted. There can be no scandal in that. If by reason of her desertion she finds it necessary to leave the community where she lives and go to some other province, she can acquire domicile only by satisfying the court of two facts, because domicile is a question of fact: (a) residence and (b) intention to remain in that jurisdiction. When these two factors are present and the court finds as a matter of fact that the wife is thus domiciled, this legislation will confer upon that court the necessary jurisdiction to enable that action to be maintained. How can it be successfully said in this age, when a woman may hold property and, under the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, shall, if judicially separated from her husband, be regarded as a feme sole and, as such, may for every purpose in the world be deemed an unmarried woman, that she shall nevertheless, for the purpose of separating herself from her spouse, who has been unfaithful, be unable to acquire that necessary ingredient to enable the court to exercise its jurisdiction, namely, domicile? How can we take the view in this day and generation that she shall not be considered to have a separate domicile in a matter

Export of Liquor-Mr. Euler
of this kind, because by a fiction of law "they two are one"? It must not be forgotten that the principle of British law, to which my hon. friend has referred, is a principle based upon that old saying-"They two shall be one, and the husband is that one." In France, in Germany and in other continental countries where the question has been considered it has been conceded that the adandoned wife may acquire a domicile inasmuch as she is in the eyes of the law a separate entity, her existence being no longer merged in that of her husband. And since there is no longer any merging of her identity or personality in that of her husband, and she may exercise the power of a feme sole, as we have evidence of in legislatures and parliament and other institutions of the country, I do not think we are going to the extent indicated by the minister when we merely confer upon the appropriate court the power to exercise its jurisdiction upon its being satisfied that a woman who has been deserted and abandoned by her husband1-he having been guilty of unfaithfulness-has acquired, by virtue of residence and intention, that domicile which will enable her to prosecute and maintain her action for the termination of the marriage tie by reason of such infidelity.


Mr. POULIOT:: Before the bill is carried
I want to state my views on this matter. I wish to say first of all that what astounds me is that every particular case will be decided under this act. Now every case is entirely different from every other. In the province of Quebec, when a wife asks for separation from bed and board, she presents a petition to the judge seeking the right to have a separate domicile temporarily until judgment is given. The judge listens to the arguments in support of the petition, and if he deems it advisable to grant the wife a domicile separate from that of her husband he granted the petition. On the other hand, if, according to the evidence, it does not seem to him proper to grant the petition, he refuses it. The matter is left to the good judgment and experience of the judge. But more than that, judges of the superior court of the province of Quebec very often 'in these cases try to bring the two parties together; in his chambers the judge places the situation before them and hears what they have to say. Sometimes the separation is asked for merely because the parties for some reason or other cannot agree, but the cause of difference is not so serious as they imagine and the judge tries to conciliate them. Consequently the suit is very often abandoned by reason of the very sensible course followed by the judge, who exercises
his office for the benefit of both parties concerned.
Some arguments brought forward in this discussion are rather strange. Someone has said that in such a case the wife should have the same rights as the husband. Well, undoubtedly the wife has as many rights as the husband, but they are not of the same kind; it makes all the difference in the world. For guidance, are we going to go back four centuries ago when the Indians had camps here, and on this very spot where now stands this beautiful parliament of Canada? At that time the squaws had many powers and rights; they used to go out hunting while the husband kept the home fires burning.


William Irvine: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to inform the house whether he is Speaking for the bill or against it? It is nearly nine o'clock and we should like to know.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, you may call this
an exordium; I am giving you the general lines of my speech. Afterwards I shall come to what we call the confirmation of the speech, and I shall then submit stronger arguments to support my view. Someone has said in this debate that the wife should have the same rights as the husband. That may be all right; but that matter is not in question at all. I cannot agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) when ho dismisses as fictitious the idea of unity as between man and wife. It is not merely saying that husband and wife shall be one; it is more than that It is a question of the very existence of the family.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I have listened politely to my hon. friends, and I have the floor now and will hold it. On Tuesday next I will give the house what I call the confirmation of my argument.
Progress reported.



EXPORT OF LIQUOR TO THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) for the house to go into committee of supply.
William Daum Euler: When the house rose at
six o'clock I was discussing the measures which had already been taken by the Department of National Revenue to limit the carrying of liquor to the United States. I
Export of Liquor-Mr. Euler

stated that we had agreed to the right of search within the twelve-mile limit by United States vessels of ships supposed to be carrying liquor to that country. I stated also that we had agreed under the treaty to give information to the United States of all clearances of vessels leaving Canadian ports and carrying liquor to the United States. As I said this afternoon, that agreement has been faithfully carried out, and statements to that effect have been made by the United States government.
I might have made reference to a rather remarkable condition existing at Windsor in connection with the giving of notices to United States customs authorities. As I said this afternoon, Windsor is one of the chief ports of liquor export to the United States. Under the treaty the collector at the port of Windsor did give notice by telephone to the United States customs authorities at Detroit of clearances that had been given. I am not going to suggest any reason, but peculiarly enough we were requested by the United States government to discontinue the giving of telephone notices to the collector at Detroit, and in accordance with that request such notices were no longer given at that port. They asked us then to give weekly reports rather than daily reports by telephone, and we have acceded to their request.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Was that the United States federal government?


William Daum Euler: Yes. I further said that
we are now demanding bonds for all liquorladen vessels coming from abroad and entering Canadian ports, no matter what the reason may be. In the past that was made an excuse for landing some of these liquors in Canada, thus providing a convenient means of later transporting it to the United States. The result of our action in demanding these bonds has been to stop that method entirely.
In addition, we have taken steps to close all the export bond liquor houses in Canada; while I mentioned that fact this afternoon I forgot to mention one other point. These houses imported liquor from abroad and stored it in bond for the purpose of later exporting it to the United States. We decided that these houses should be closed, that they served no useful purpose but promoted the exportation of liquor to the United States, We took action to close them, but under the law any liquor in bond could remain there for two years. No further liquor has been allowed to come into these houses for many months, and the liquor remaining there must
[Mr. Euler.3
be exported in about a year from now, I believe some time in June, 1930. Then this system, which was a very fertile source of exportation of liquor to the United States, will be done away with entirely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many of these
houses remain in that position?


William Daum Euler: I think there are one or two in British Columbia and one in Halifax, but in June of 1930 these places will be out of business and in the meantime they cannot import further stocks. I said this afternoon that we also passed the Intoxicating Liquors Act, which gave to the provincial authorities the sole right to import liquor. That again circumscribes the power of export to the United States.
At six o'clock I was referring to the fact that in certain parts of Ontario we had limited the number of docks from which liquor could be exported, and perhaps it would be interesting to the house if I reviewed what led up to that action. At the interprovincial conference held in the fall of 1927 I agreed to cooperate in every reasonable way with the provincial authorities in the enforcement of the provincial liquor laws. One of the results of that agreement was the passage of the Intoxicating Liquors Act, although that act had been introduced the year previously. We further agreed that no additional licenses for distilleries or breweries should be issued anywhere in Canada by the Department of National Revenue without first consulting with the provincial authorities, and I may say that unless some arrangement had been made prior to the agreement with the provinces, in no case has a license been issued except with the consent of such provincial authority.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does that "consultation"
necessarily mean "consent"?


William Daum Euler: We are not bound by it,
but I may say that the minister has so far followed the wishes of the provinces. I do not think, however, he should bind himself entirely; circumstances might arise which would lead him to believe that such licenses should be granted, but the fact is that no such license has been issued since that arrangement with the provincial authorities was arrived at, and I propose to continue that policy.


Robert James Manion: What date was that?


William Daum Euler: The promise of cooperation was made at the interprovincial conference, and the actual agreement with the provinces was arrived at some months later. I think it has been in existence about a year, or perhaps a little longer.

Export of Liquor-Mr. Euler
Something was said this afternoon with regard to short-circuiting; it was suggested that the export of liquor to the United States made it possible to short-circuit liquor into the different provinces without any great trouble. I believe that statement has been made by the chairman of the Ontario Liquor Control Board, Sir Henry Drayton. I am not altogether prepared to contradict him, but I do not think there is very much short-circuiting of liquor in the province of Ontario, because any man who desires liquor can purchase it without trouble at the stores of the Liquor Control Board. There may be a little short-circuiting which comes about in this way:	Occasionally a boat which sails from
the Ontario side, perhaps from the port of Windsor, finds it impossible to land the cargo on the other side and is forced to turn back and land that cargo of liquor somewhere in Ontario.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That seems to be a rare
occurrence.


William Daum Euler: I think it is quite rare. We
have further instituted a system of checking all shipments of liquor from the docks into the boats; our officers carry on that work. We are also abolishing what was termed the nuisance and abuse of the B-13 forms connected with the shipment of beer; we are now inaugurating a new system of permits which I think will remove most of the complaints of the provincial authorities. As a matter of fact, as I said this afternoon, the number of docks at the border in the Windsor district has been reduced from fifty to ten. That was done absolutely with the cooperation of the provincial authorities; the selection of these docks was made by the collector at Windsor in conjunction with the inspector working under Sir Henry Drayton. Perhaps I should not take any undue credit for trying to assist the United States in regard to the limitation of docks; I will admit that it was done for the sole purpose of assisting in the enforcement of the Ontario Liquor Control Act. It was felt that if the number of docks were limited the Ontario authorities could more closely watch the operations of the exporters and take precautions in order to see that there would be no Short-circuiting. However, the result has been that the United States authorities have been given, if they choose to avail themselves of it, a similar opportunity to watch the operation of these exporters and protect their own shores.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand that we receive no landing certificates for these cargoes of
liquor, but what certificate is received from the American authorities showing that the vessel which cleared from Windsor has arrived at Detroit?


William Daum Euler: We receive none; we are
not entitled to any under the law. We cannot even demand a certificate showing that a landing has been made in another country, when the boat returns to Canadian shores. That question has been brought up before; we have consulted with the Department of Justice and that is the law.


Robert James Manion: Is it not true that a
number of those docks which were closed were merely little unimportant docks or jetties?


William Daum Euler: Yes, that is quite true; some of them were very unimposing places, but still they were shipping liquor. It had been thought, and corresponding criticism had been made in the press until about a year ago, that the Minister of National Revenue had authority to discontinue the issuance of clearances to boats exporting liquor to the United States. Probably my hon. friend, (Mr. Stevens) who was minister for a short time before I took over the department, had the same thought; I may be wrong but I think he found, as I did upon making inquiry, that there %vas no power under the act for the minister to refuse clearances in that way. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that the department and the government have done practically everything which could be done under the law as it now stands to help our neighbours, short of the actual prohibition of exports. It should be remembered that after all Canada is not a prohibitionist country. That fact may be regretted by a great many estimable people, and many of them may be in this house. I have no fault to find with that, but the fact remains that under our law liquor may be manufactured and sold in Canada under certain conditions. We have a system of public control for the making and the sale of liquors and we have been quite consistent in the matter of limiting the number of docks, which implies control but does not imply prohibition.
It is quite apparent that in order to bring about the result which is desired by the United States, and by our friends who have spoken prior to myself, it is necessary that the law be changed before the issuance of clearances can be stopped.
I would like to sum up very briefly what seem to me to be the reasons both for and against a policy of that kind. It has been said that we are violating the spirit of the treaty



Export of Liquor

Mr. Euler
tvhich was made in 1924 by not absolutely prohibiting the exportation of liquors. I cannot agree with that and I do not think it is a fair charge. As I stated this afternoon, before the treaty was actually made the United States asked that the export of liquor should be made illegal, that no clearances should be granted; that is what it wanted but the Canadian government did not grant that. It seems to me that if it was the intention of the Canadian government to stop the export of liquors it would have been specifically stated in the treaty which was made; that seems to me to be absolutely logical, and it is just as reasonable to suppose that what was specifically stated in the treaty was as far as we cared to go at that time. I refer to the obligation which we are carrying out, to give notice of clearance whenever a boat leaves the Canadian shore.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on, go on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is a minister replying.


Hewitt Bostock: With the unanimous consent of the house.


William Daum Euler: I thank the members for their very courteous indulgence and I promise not to impose unduly upon their patience.
This question has been discussed very freely and I tlhinlc it is only fair to give at this time some of the facts which I think have not been brought out. One argument which impresses me most strongly in favour of the prohibition of exports is the moral argument. It has been stated that the business of the exportation of liquor has resulted in the demoralization of people and has increased the disregard for law generally. I believe that, to some extent, that is the fact, a fact very much to be deplored, and one which I do not think any member of this house will condone. It will be agreed that wherever a country is under a prohibitory law to which a very large minority is opposed, the condition which has been described is inescapable.
It has been stated that other countries prohibit the issuance of clearances, and Great Britain was cited by the United States authorities in that connection. As a matter of fact we have made, inquiry, and there is no such practice in Great Britain. That country does not refuse clearances for the exportation of liquor to atiy other country in the world, so far as I know.
Petitions by the hundreds have been presented to this house asking that clearances be
(Mr. Euler.]
no longer issued. I believe that the petitioners have so petitioned because they are opposed absolutely to the traffic in liquor. I do not believe that they were moved primarily by their regard for the feelings of a friendly nation; I believe that the prime motive was as I have stated, but I must say that I have no fault to find with that motive. I might say in passing-perhaps I should not sa]' this, but I will-that to me it does not seem quite consistent that we as a country, or as separate provinces, should permit the legal manufacture and sale of liquor and then place undue restrictions upon the sale of liquor anywhere else.
One of the arguments offered against our prohibiting the issuance of clearances is that the problem which the United States is now experiencing is one of their own making and that we are not primarily responsible. Another is-using the words of the man on the street-"Let the United States enforce their own law." In the light of the statements which I made this afternoon, in connection with the lack of effort on the part of the United States to enforce their own law, I think that attitude is a very human and fairly reasonable one and that we might at least go slowly until we have some assurance and some evidence that they are trying to do for themselves what they are now asking us to do for them.
I mentioned this afternoon the peculiar fact that whereas we in Canada compel all boats, no matter how small, to take clearances when they leave our shores and to report when they return, that practice does not obtain in the United States. All boats under five tons sailing from United States ports are not required to take clearances and do not report when they return, yet practically all the boats engaged in this traffic are of United States registry and the great majority of them are of a tonnage less than five. Perhaps I should not offer advice to the United States as to what they should do, but it seems to me it would not be unreasonable for us to say, when they ask us not to give clearances to small boats, that they should amend their own law and demand clearances from their boats when they leave a port and ask them to report when they return, thus obtaining control over their own boats.
The statement has been made frequently that it is Canadian liquor which is flooding the United States. There is no reasonable doubt that a large amount of liquor does go from Canada into the United States, but relatively speaking the amount is very small
Export of Liquor-Mr. Euler

based upon the evidence of United States authorities connected with the enforcement of their law that it is only from two to five per cent of their total consumption which is imported from Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer the most important argument as I see it. Suppose for the moment that it is thought desirable to accede to the request of the United States and to the requests of the many petitioners who have come to this parliament, and that we pas a law prohibiting the issuance of clearances. In my opinion, if that remedy were adopted it would not solve the difficult}'. Liquor can be obtained throughout Canada quite freely. In the province of Ontario liquor may be purchased in fairly large quantities from the government stores. In the province of Quebec they have the right under their law, although it is not exercised, to sell any quantity for export by the Quebec Liquor Commission. Liquor may be bought in fairly large quantities in almost every province of the Dominion. If clearances were not issued perhaps the quantity exported would not be so large, but there is no doubt in my mind that a great deal of liquor would be purchased throughout the Dominion of Canada for the purpose of exportation to the United States. If clearances would no longer be granted; the result would be that shipments of liquor to the United States w'ould not go from recognized customs ports on the Canadian border, and the traffic would be forced underground to the corruption of Canadian people where perhaps it has not extended to Canada as it has to the United States. That would be a very undesirable situation. Moveover, probably the liquor that now goes across the border might successfully be shipped down to ocean ports and perhaps exported to St. Pierre and Miquelon, which also takes no particular precautions as to where the liquor is going, and from whose exports we in Canada suffer very considerably. One of the worst troubles we have m connection with preventive measures in the maritimes is that the St. Pierre and Miquelon islands lie at our doors and it is impossible to prevent the smuggling of liquor from those islands into our own country. It seems to me that in that case, if the liquor cannot go out through a recognized customs port in Canada, it will go out through perhaps every little landing place that may exist along our boundaries lined with lakes and rivers.


Robert James Manion: And worse liquor.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps worse liquor, and
the difficulty from our point of view will be that it will then be illegally exported. As 78594-172J
the matter stands now, the export of liquor from Canada is absolutely legal. The illegality arises where the liquor enters the United States, because the importation of liquor into that country is against their law. Exportation of liquor from Canada is entirely legal. If we pass a law prohibiting clearance, the liquor will then go out in any case, but it will go out illegally and secretly instead of openly, aboveboard and subject to a certain amount of observation, because we have limited the-number of places from which exportation cart be made.
I mentioned this afternoon that when the-excise was paid on liquor manufactured in Canada, the liquor became free goods and could be exported the same as any other commodity. I repeat that because I want to add this further observation: that being the case, we cannot stop the exportation of that liquor from any customs port in the Dominion. We have limited the number of docks, but that has not resulted in stopping the exportation of liquor through those ports. We can limit the number of docks within any one port, as we did, for example, at Windsor; but we cannot, under the present law, stop the export through any open port in the Dominion. There are those who say-and I have in mind now particularly a prominent Toronto newspaper-that if we passed a law prohibiting the granting of clearances, we would at least have washed our national hands of an offence against a friendly neighbour, and that, having done that, we would be under no Obligation to spend money or time to uphold the laws of the United States. I cannot agree with that view. I cannot escape the conclusion that we then assume a responsibility which now rests upon the United States. As the matter stands, if there is any violation of law it is a violation of United States law. As it would be under the new law, it would be a violation of Canadian customs law. The iaw is the law, and we cannot shirk responsibility as readily as that suggestion would meke it appear. If a Canadian customs law is violated, surely it becomes the duty of Canadian customs officers to see that that violation is punished. I am not trying to exaggerate; I do not think I am drawing a fanciful picture at all, but I say that if we are under an obligation in the Department of National Revenue to see that violations of the law are punished, surely we shall need to establish a preventive force a good deal larger than the one we have now, which, I may say, is giving me enough trouble as it is. I am sure the most ardent prohibitionist wilt not say that this country should be under

Export of Liquor-Mr. Euler
any obligation to spend large sums of money in employing many men to see that that law prohibiting the exportation of liquor is not violated. Nations have not yet become quite so altruistic as that. Besides that, we would not succeed; we could not stop the exportation of liquor, although it might be lessened to some extent. After we had passed a law of that kind and liquor still continued to flow into the United States, I feel sure that our neighbours would yet be much inclined to criticize and we would continue to get the blame.
So far as I am concerned-and I think I can speak for the government in this matter -we are honestly anxious to do all that we reasonably can to assist our neighbours. But I will also say very frankly that I am more concerned with stopping smuggling into Canada than stopping smuggling into the United States. The first is our own particular business and the other is primarily theirs. The Department of National Revenue, as it is now with its many branches and ramifications, provides plenty of work for those connected with that department. It is a fairly big job and I will admit I have no inclination at the present moment to add more duties to that department which has already so many. I am not deliberately looking for more trouble. I admit the problem is a difficult one and it gives the government some concern.
Personally-and I think I may again speak for the government in this-I have received with considerable sympathy and every consideration the protests of those who are opposed to the exportation of liquor, but I sincerely believe that under all the circumstances as related by myself this afternoon and evening, and with all the measures already taken, the government has done fairly well, and has perhaps gone far enough. But the door is not closed; the government is always prepared to give further consideration is developments may justify it. I feel, how-sver, that- before we take any further action there should be more convincing proof that our neighbours are sincerely doing all they can to help themselves. In the meantime the government desires and welcomes a frank discussion by members of all parties of a difficult and vexing problem, in order to enable it to arrive at new conclusions or to be 'confirmed in the position that so far has been taken.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house as a whole will agree with me when I say that the minister has given a very frank and
(Mr. Euler.]
carefully studied statement of a most difficult problem. Personally I congratulate him upon the clarity of his utterances; and with the greater part of what he has said little fault can be found. I should like briefly to bring to the attention of the house one or two points arising out of what he has said.
There are perhaps two main suggestions arising out of his remarks: first, it must be granted by every hon. member that the problem is an exceedingly complicated and difficult one. Second, by the official statements of the Minister of National Revenue in charge of the administration of the customs and excise of the Dominion of Canada made in the house to-day regarding the manner in which the officers administering the law on the other side Of the line have reciprocated, shall I say, the courtesies and the efforts that the minister declares his officers have made, there is presented to the house an appalling situation. The minister told us most frankly, and in clear and unmistakable language, that under a solemn treaty entered into between the two countries Canada had agreed to render to a friendly neighbouring state the service of notifying them when vessels laden with liquor cleared from Canada for points in the United States; that these vessels have been cleared from Canada in a perfectly legal manner for the last few years; that Canadian officers had promptly, and in some cases twice for the same vessel, notified the official at the United States point to which the vessel was going of the name of the vessel, the name of the officer in charge, and the nature of the cargo; that these vessels left Canadian ports, Bridgeburg, Windsor and other points in broad daylight; that they proceeded across the river, and that the actual unloading of the cases of liquor themselves could be seen from the Canadian side, and yet in the work of unloading they were unmolested and not interfered with by the American officers, although in every case the American officers had been advised of the departure or prospective departure of the vessels, in some cases only two hours prior to sailing. Further, it has been declared that with very few exceptions these boats are American-owned boats, the names of which are well known to the officials on the American side, and that finally, little or no notice is taken of this courtesy on the part of Canada in the discharge of her duties under the treaty. The minister further tells us that [DOT] the American government had requested that the notification in regard to the Windsor-Detroit traffic should be discontinued.

Export oj Liquor-Mr. Stevens


William Daum Euler: They requested that the
notification sent daily by telephone should be sent weekly, and not by telephone.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, that the practice
of modifying them by telephone, as was the understanding, should foe 'discontinued and that notification should be sent weekly instead of every day. These statements, coming as they do from a minister of the crown in the House of Commons, and from a minister of the crown noted for the coolness and dieliiberatemess of his utterances, present to this parliament a situation which I think warrants our attention. I miake this suggestion to the Prime Minister-I have not had time to consult either with my leader or with those around me, and. I am therefore discussing this matter on my own responsibility, simply as a member of the house-I suggest, to the Prime Minister that a treaty such as that which we have made genuine efforts to observe, the United States authorities apparently taking no notice of these efforts on our part, might very well be dispensed with and abrogated. It seems to me that the treaty is a farce. I must say that the picture drawn by the minister presents a situation which if I can judge of the temper of the people south of the line will cause them a good deal of anxiety and will perturb the mind at least of the government there for some time to come.
There are two o,r three things that I should like very greatly to discuss. On one of them the minister touched lightly, but I think he will not disagree with me when I say that it is clear that the practice of certain persons, largely American citizens, from what the minister tells us, in continually violating the American laws is building up a spirit of lawlessness which is reflected not only in the smuggling of liquor but in much more violent ways. I think it is known the world over, it is certainly known all over this continent, that in Detroit and Chicago and other American cities the violent crimes directly attributable to this traffic are nothing short of appalling. I recall reading only a few weeks ago an address by the president of the United States to the press association of the United States, pointing to the number of murders 'Committed in one of the great American cities, the number of convictions, and the number of apprehensions due largely, but not wholly, of course, to this traffic. I have not the statement with me, but it seemed to me unbelievable. That feature, I think, warrants the attention of the government of this country as well as
that of the United States. We cannot lightly brush it aside on the ground that some of us may be in favour of a prohibitory measure and some of us opposed to it. That is not the ground from which that class of criminality can be viewed, and anything that contributes to such a situation merits the closest scrutiny of parliament itself.
What is lying at the bottom of all this? At the bottom of it all is the profit that is in it. There is one aspect of the matter which I should like to present to the house and to the government. Last year, according to returns which I have received, the Dominion of Canada collected from the distillers in this country, by way of excise duty the sum of $12,400,000. Of that amount, $7,800,000 was duty paid on spirits exported to the United States, and $4,600,000 on domestic spirits, or spirits consumed in Canada. I pause to impress upon the attention of the house the significance of those figures. Under the Excise Act as I read it there are only two ways in which the release of spirits may be treated; one is for domestic consumption, where an excise duty of $9 a gallon is imposed, and the other is for export, where this $9 excise duty is refunded. But in recent years, owing to the development of this illicit traffic to the United States-illicit only so far as entry to the United States is concerned-we have introduced a third class of duty, namely, the collection of the regidar home consumption excise duty of $9 a gallon on such liquor as is exported to the United States. I submit that in my opinion that excise duty ought not to be collected. I put it upon this basis: After all, the minister was perfectly correct in his statement that this is a legal business in Canada. I made the statement three years ago, and again last year, that just so long as the manufacture and safe of liquor is legalized in Canada, just so long are those in the business entitled to fair and equitable treatment by the administrative authorities of this country, dominion and provincial. I conceive that neither this nor any other government has the right to single out this particular business and say: We will impose a tax upon you in respect of all the liquor exported to the United States, but we shall not impose it upon liquor exported to Cuba, Porto Rico, China, Japan, England, and so forth. A very considerable quantity of liquor is exported to other countries. I have not the figures before me, but speaking from memory, .last year the total export was some 1,800,000 gallons, whereas the export to the United States was 1,100,000 gallons-in round figures showing about one third was exported to other countries.
270S

Export of Liquor-Mr. Stevens
That trade paid no excise tax-it was fully refunded; but the 1,000,000 gallons going to the United States were taxed. To the extent that we collect that revenue and allow the fact of the $7,000,000 from that source to influence the mind of parliament, we are partners in this export business to the United States. I think we might as well frankly face that situation. I know there is a schodl of thought in Canada which argues that if we can make a dollar out of the export of liquor to the United ' States-well, let the Yankee pay it. I remember that one of the witnesses who appeared before the customs committee, a man by the name of Cooper, made an immense fortune out of this business. By the way, it was recommended that he should be sued for some $900,000, but I do not know whether the case was proceeded with or not. He made the statement that it was a splendid thing for Canada to get "the good American dollar," as he put it. I submit it is not in the interests of Canada's self respect that for the sake of a revenue of $7,000,000 we should actually become partners in the business of export of liquor to the United States.


William Daum Euler: I do not like to interrupt,
Ibut may I ask a question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My forty minutes are
just as short as the minister's.


William Daum Euler: I merely wish to ask this
question. The hon. member suggests that we should not collect excise tax on liquors exported to the United States. Does he mean that the liquor should be allowed to be exported without paying the tax?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not put it quite that way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit that this is not a laughing matter.


William Daum Euler: My question is quite serious.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will try to express myself clearly to the minister. I do not think this is a matter that should be treated lightly. I want to say to the Prime Minister and his government that I am not approaching the question in any captious spirit, nor do I intend to do so during these remarks. I repeat, under the statutes as I read them, the practice-leaving out of the question for the moment the export to the United States -in years gone by was to treat the taxing of liquor on two bases, one, that Canadian-made liquor exported was not taxed, that is, the excise tax was not imposed; two, that on

liquor manufactured in Canada for consumption in Canada an excise tax was imposed of $9 a gallon. But there has now grown up a third basis, namely the imposition of an excise duty of $9 a gallon on liquor exported to the United States. To put it a little differently, the exact form of that tax is this: the excise duty of $9 a gallon is paid on all this liquor, and it is refunded where the liquor is exported to foreign countries, except to the United States. I submit that that in a sense makes us a partner in this business of trafficking in intoxicating liquor to the United States-indirectly, not directly. I submit further that that is not conducive to the dignity of this country.
When I was interrupted I was proceeding to say that at the bottom of this business is the money that is in it. Let me give to the house the profit which accrues to those engaged in it. The minister will correct me if I am wrong in my figures; I think I am not. Whiskey constitutes the great bulk of the liquor traffic. Each case of whiskey contains 12 bottles or 2 gallons. The excise tax is $9 a gallon or $18 a case. That is, the Dominion of Canada takes $18 a case in the form of excise tax. If the goods are sold in Canada by some province there is a wide margin of profit. I will give the figures for my own province as they used to be; I think they still apply. They have a profit of $20 a case. That makes the cost $38 a case. According to the returns of the Department of Trade and Commerce, whiskey costs to produce $2.65 a gallon, or about $5.50 a case. On an article worth about $5 or $6 the Dominion tax and the profit of the province represent about $38. In the case of imported liquor it is $40. If the bootlegger or smuggler bringing in liquor from outside can sell without the province knowing it he has a margin of $20 a case upon which to work; if he can evade the excise duties or customs duties, he has another $20, that is, a margin of $40 a case. The point I make is that the monetary inducement to violate the law is simply terrific. Last year I suggested, and I suggest again now, that it would be good business on the part of the parliament of Canada if we made a very drastic revision in the import duties and the excise duties and so take away a substantial portion of this attractive profit offered to the illicit dealer in liquor. Secondly-and perhaps this is not my business, but I will mention it-if the provinces under the government sales system would merely add a profit that would take care of the cost of the distribution of the liquor

Export oj Liquor-Mr. Stevens
with a margin of safety, it would largely do away with the inducement to deal illicitly in liquor in this country.
Now I come to the suggestion of the minister that there would be no advantage in refusing clearances. In one sense I agree with the minister that perhaps there would be no advantage. But I should like to submit this to him. If we lowered our excise and also our customs duty we would of course lose a certain amount of revenue, but I am again pointing out that if you are going into this business for the revenue that is in it, then you must take the consequences of the persistent evasion of the law, whether in Canada or outside of Canada. But I assume that we are not in the business for the purpose of making money. It is a legal business and we want those in it to make reasonable profits and to act legally. Assuming that is the basis upon which we are to deal with it, then I say the minister can very well refuse clearances and not experience the result that he suggests, namely, that an underground system would be worked out. The only reason for an underground method being developed would be the excessive profits in the business. No men will go into this business and risk their lives, as they do daily and hourly-many of them, I think far more than we have any idea of, losing their lives-they will not go into the business except for the exorbitant profits in it. I am not going to take the minister to task on his suggestion that to refuse clearance would simply develop an. underground and illicit trade, but I do wish to suggest to him that at the present time we are actually facilitating the business. Let me put it to the minister this way. Had \ve not charged the distillers of Canada $9 a gallon and then given them in return for that $9 of revenue a free right of way to the export docks, and every possible official facility to get their liquor out of the country -had we not done that, or, to state the case differently, if we surrendered the $9 a gallon, we should not have to give that service. What we are actually doing is giving them that facility, that protection, and collecting $9 for it. In the first place I contend that the minister ought not to collect the $9 a gallon; they ought to be given the right to export, as they export to Cuba or China, or any other country. That is my first point. My second point is that it is not the business of the government to facilitate the moving of liquor to the boundary line for export. That is the business of the dealer in liquor.


William Daum Euler: We don't do that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You do in this way:	I
understand that under the provincial law they
would not be permitted to do it-under this very law which the minister passed last year giving the provinces control. The minister issues a form of permit-X-13 or whatever it is-which accompanies the liquor out. I submit that there is a facility in the movement in liquor resulting from the collection of the $9 a gallon, which I contend is illegally collected; and I venture this statement, that if the distilleries took their case to the courts, and the government gave them a fiat, they could recover the money they have paid in under that practice, provided they could show that the liquor was exported. And the minister knows that it is exported because he would not give them the permit otherwise.
In a return I have here it is shown that we collect $7,800,000 on liquor exported to the United States, which I take it is at the rate of $9 a gallon. It is indicated as from the licensed distilleries of Canada and as Canadian export. We get $7,800,000. But in the trade and commerce returns I find that uip to the end of February, for the same year, we exported to the United States 1,103,000 gallons which, at $9 a gallon, would be roughly $9,930,000. And that does not include miscellaneous liquors; that is whiskey alone. Now if we exported that quantity, according to these returns, hrw is it that we collected only $7,800,000?


William Daum Euler: I might have explained that but I was told not to interrupt the hon. member.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not tell my hon.
friend not to interrupt me; I merely suggested what he himself suggested to me, namely, that forty minutes was rather short.


William Daum Euler: This is a possible explanation-that the $7,800,000 which we collected for liquor exported was for liquor that went directly from the distilleries. But there is no doubt that a good deal exported is sold by the commissions and does not pay the excise duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would not account for the difference-


William Daum Euler: It might.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -because the total amount collected was only $12,000,000, for domestic consumption and export; and if we collected on the 1,103,000 gallons which, according to this return, we exported to the United States, we should have collected $9,930,000.


William Daum Euler: Is there any reason for assuming that the Department of National Revenue's figures are incorrect rather than those of the Department of Trade and Commerce?

Export of Liquor-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, but I am suggesting to the minister the responsibility of explaining this discrepancy amounting to some $2,100,000. Let the minister understand me; I am not making any statement charging him or his officials with anything wrong. But there is an obvious and a serious discrepancy that should be explained. Another point that struck me as extraordinary was this:	There was produced in Canada last year some 9,000,000 gallons of whiskey. It is known that we are releasing this liquor, not under the old law of the two-year period, but within the two-year period. Under certain new processes it is sometimes released after nine months and sometimes after a year and a half. So that there seems to be a discrepancy between home consumption, export and production. I think these figures should be carefully checked up. I am not particularly asking for an explanation, but I submit the problem to the minister as one that merits very careful checking up.
There is another point I wish to bring to the attention of the house, and in this respect I must say I find myself at sharp cleavage with the minister. In 1926 there were fifteen distilleries in Canada, and in 1929, according to this return, there are twenty-five. I take the ground-I have taken it before and I still hold it-that we ought to keep down the number of distilleries in this country.


William Daum Euler: We are doing so now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, there is an increase from fifteen to twenty-five in less than three years.


William Daum Euler: But the sale of liquor has been made legal in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not criticizing that. But I think that the increase in the number of distilleries and, furthermore, in the distribution of the stock, which is a private matter throughout the country, is tending to increase the country's national interest in the business. Now I have no brief for anyone in any attempt to combat the use of intoxicating liquors on the part of those people who so choose; that is not my purpose at the moment.
I am not challenging anyone's right in this matter. But I do say that it is not desirable for the people of Canada to increase the facilities for the handling of liquor and for the production of it. And we are doing both of these things, largely from the inducement of revenue.


William Daum Euler: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but I might answer him in this way. In the first place the minister did not . r|
think that any monopoly should be created in the business; and secondly-I do not think my hon. friend was present when I made the statement-I pointed ouit that for a year at least no licenses have been issued except with the consent of the provincial authorities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think the minister should advance that as a reason. After all the responsibility for granting licenses rests with the Minister of National Revenue, and with him alone. Let me give the minister a case parallel to all this. In years gone by- about 1922-23-24-'there were a large number of licenses or permits issued for export houses, which the minister himself now tells us he is bending every effort to exterminate. And when we challenged that in the house we were told that every license was granted on the advice and with the consent of t'he attorney general of the province where the export warehouse was to be established. Now it will not do for parliament to hide behind the gown of the attorney general of a province; that excuse is without any validity or value. The point I make is that there is a substantial increase in the number of distilleries in Canada. The minister says he does not want to create a monopoly, but I would infinitely rather have seen the distilling business remain where it was ten years ago, in the hands of a few outstanding and reputable firms, than distributed over this long list of some twenty-five distilleries in Canada. I see that in my own city there are four where there used to be one-that is, in the neighbourhood of my city. I am very serious on that; I think it is bad policy for Canada to increase the number of distilleries throughout the country. Then there are the' breweries; I have not the list under my hand but I know there has been a large increase in the number of breweries as well. The minister says he does not want to create a monopoly, but we have virtually a monopoly in this case, with the provinces controlling the sale of liquor as a provincial right and the federal government controlling it by the heavy excise duty. As I said before, we are partners in the business to the extent of the revenue we are receiving, so there is virtually a monopoly. However, there is a tendency to let others into this very choice monopoly; it is a very valuable concession to anyone, and it is against that I am now raising my voice.
It is not my intention to prolong the discussion; I repeat that in his excellent address the minister has given the house a picture in regard to the liquor treaty betwen Canada and the United tSatas which is nothing short of appalling. I repeat to the Prime Minister

Export oj Liquor-Mr. Pouliot
and the government now that a treaty which is held so lightly by one party and which, according to the minister, we have bent every effort to observe, is scarcely worth keeping. So I would suggest that the time has come when we might properly advise the United States that the treaty should be abrogated.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to add to this discussion. First let me sincerely congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) on his very interesting speech, which was delivered, as always, with great clearness. He has his awn views, on the matter, with which we may all agree to some extent, but there are also other important features to be considered.
Listening to the remarks which were made this afternoon one might think that all the crimes perpetuated in Chicago are due to the importation of Canadian liquor into the Lhaited States, but I think this is a great exaggeration. At the root of the liquor trade is not only the profit but also, the pleasure which some people derive from drinking liquor. This has been elementary since the days of Noah; it is quite an old principle, and it is well known that even in the United States liquor is sold on doctor's prescription. However, they take such great care to prevent the smuggling of liquor into that country that even diplomats must drive their own cars when they contain embassy liquor, and I do not mean Embassy Scotch. I have in my hand an article which appeared in the New York Times and which is as follows:
Diplomat Drives Car With Embassy Liquor.
By This Means Load Is Enabled To Pass Safely In Streets Of Washington.
Washington, March 13: The truck was accompanied by a member of the diplomatic corps, who personally took over the steering wheel and drove the truck into the city. In one case an attache of an embassy was following a truck in his private automobile, but this was not thought sufficient to give the truck immunity from seizure for carrying liquors. These warnings were given by the police before the passage of the Jones law, imposing more severe penalties for dry law violators.
This is very severe. I also remember having read in the papers that Lady Heath, I think, came from Great Britain with a bottle of champagne to christen a ship in the United States, and the bottle was seized. I have another clipping from the New York Times which contains the picture of an aviator and his wife, with these words underneath:
The Volstead Act Lays a Hand Upon Seience:
Captain William Lancaster, a British aviator.
holding the compass which was brought from England by Mrs. Lancaster and held up at the customs because it contained four ounces of pure alcohol. It was later passed.
Then I have an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of March 20:
Until Death Do Us Part
Ycars ago Macaulay spoke of the United States as being "all sail and no anchor." Reading the American press these days, with their tales of machine guns in the streets of Chicago, of 10,000 stills discovered in "dry" Pennsylvania, of thousands of undetected murderers, of bandits and crooked bosses, of bootleggers and hi-jackers, of domestic scandals and civic graft, one thinks of Macaulay's phrase.
Further in this article I find this paragraph:
Dudley G. Newcomb had a "love for liquor," said his wife. The judge thought he detected an odour at the hearing. Wherefore the court ruled $75 a month alimony to Mrs. Newcomb. Mr. Newcomib going to jail for contempt because of his aromatic breath.
This happened under American law; and I am not through with it yet. There is not only the comical side of it, which lies in the exaggeration of these people who think that when they have uttered the word "law" they have done everything; there is more. I have another clipping from the Ottawa Journal referring to a despatch under date of December 31. It is a very sad case and will show how stupidly the law is enforced in the United States:
A Legal Monstrosity
A court clothed with the power, and representing the authority and majesty, of a great state of the neighbouring republic closed its record for the year_ 1928 with an act which for its revelation o'f the state of mind and folly that bigotry upon a public question can produce, should not go unheeded. What happened is told as follows in a despatch that appears in the New York Times:
"Lansing, Michigan, December 31: Mrs. Etta Miller, mother of ten children and grandmother of two, and the first woman convicted as a fourth offender under the new criminal code, was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Detroit House of Correction this afternoon, immediately after a jury, which had deliberated twenty minutes, returned a verdict of guilty. Her fourth offence was the sale of two pints of liquor."
When one thinks of Ithe thousands of murderers scot free in the United States, of the gunmen and "racketeers" who ply their trade in Chicago and New York, of the clemency that has been extended to capital offenders and the light sentences imposed upon others, one wonders what is becoming of some of the people who are in authority across the line. To their strange mentality apparently the sale of a pint of whiskey is a more terrible offence than the murderous use of a gun.
The saddest case of all happened in Illinois last March, and that connection I have a

Export of Liquor-Mr. Pouliol
clipping from the Washington Times under date of March 27. This article refers to a woman who had a gallon of wine, not spirits, in her house. She was killed by the dry officers and the case aroused intense indignation throughout our neighbouring country It only shows the stupidity of these so-called dry officers, and I do not think I am exaggerating when I use that word; I should like to find a stronger one to qualify it as it deserves. This issue of the Washington Herald contains the following headline:
Dry Slayer Blames Law


Eccles James Gott: Put it on Hansard.


Jean-François Pouliot: This appears upon the first page of the Washington Herald.


Eccles James Gott: What year?


Jean-François Pouliot: This year. The headline and article continue:
Aimed Shot At Woman In Defense, Agent Says. Prohibition Makes More Trouble Than Good. Is Lament of Illinois Bum Raider.
Aurora, 111., March 27	(I.N.S.)-"I wish
there was never such a thing as prohibition. It has made a thousand times more trouble than it has done good." This was the first declaration made in a 'hospital here to-day by Deputy Sheriff Roy Smith, who killed Mrs. Lillian De King in a dry raid here and assisted in clubbing her husband into insensibility.
This act was committed by a man who had absolutely no judgment but who was authorized to enforce a stupid law. Upon this same page appears the picture of a dry congressman, and beside the picture appears the following :
Dry Legislator Brings In Rum. Representative Morgan Lands In New York From Panama With Four Bottles.
This was afterwards denied, but as the hon. gentleman in question is not a member of this house we are not bound to take his word.
In relation to a question of this kind there are many views. Some believe in moderation, others in abstention-


An hon. MEMBER:: Which is the worst?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not say it is the worst, because I believe that sometimes the people are sincere. Some people abstain because they cannot drink any more; others abstain because they have never tasted alcoholic beverages, and still others abstain because they dislike them. I respect the opinions of others; but it is very difficult for one who is not a doctor or who has not had any experience with the good or bad qualities of liquor to say, "This is bad for everyone." It
[Mr. Pouliot-3
might be good for the man next door, and it is not right to say that it is bad for every man or every woman.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was that a lady
doctor?


Jean-François Pouliot: A lady doctor, yes. One should show a little tolerance in these matters. I find as I grow older that tolerance is not a bad thing. We must accept the other man's point of view. Liquor will not be abolished because a man or a woman is a teetotaller; that would be Utopia. There will be liquor so long as grapes are grown, and when people are careless enough to lose themselves in the lord's vineyard, so much the worse for them. But when that does happen it is not to be expected that they will be followed by everyone, because the majority of the people are in favour of moderation.
They have plenty of liquor in the United States. A friend of mine, bom in Canada but living with his mother in New York or some other big city to the south of the line, told me last, Sunday that on one occasion his mother had wanted a little whiskey and he said he would be able to obtain some for her without having to go more than a block away. She did not believe that one could obtain liquor in that city, but he told me that he knew of four or five "blind pigs" within the block, and he was able to get it without any trouble.	,


Eccles James Gott: Did he get a chaser?


Jean-François Pouliot: He went to one of those
"blind pigs" and obtained a bottle of liquor, to his mother's great surprise.


Eccles James Gott: Or joy?


Jean-François Pouliot: Who can say that that
liquor came from the country of my hon. friend? No one can say that.


Eccles James Gott: It might have come from
Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: We do not carry on that business there. It was probably moonshine whiskey manufactured in the United States. Anyone who reads the American papers knows that there is plenty of moonshine whiskey manufactured in that country. They even work during the sunshine-


Eccles James Gott: Make moonshine by sunshine.


Jean-François Pouliot: As the hon. member
appears to know so much about this matter I will take his word for it. It is a mistake

Export of Liquor-Mr. Fnnsher (Lambton)
to say that all the liquor consumed in the United States comes from Canada. It is a gross exaggeration, and only creates a bad opinion of our country. It would be better for our tourist trade to have the American people who are fond of our liquor feel that they had better come here to drink it on the spot.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre suggested a reduction of the excise and import duties on alcoholic liquor. If a reduction is to be made, it should be made in the excise duty. As I have already said in the house.
I think it would be proper to give our own people a chance to produce liquor in this country instead of importing it from ofher countries. Just in conclusion I will take the liberty of asking those who are discussing these matters, although they are free to say what they like, to be very moderate in giving an expression of opinion as to whether the whiskey and other liquor supplies of the United States come from Canada.


Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, one would think from the discussion that has taken place thus far that the request that clearances should not be granted to liquor cargoes going to the United States was made in the first instance by the delegation which visited Ottawa in January of this year. It is well, perhaps, that the United States delegation brought to our attention some of the recommendations that were made in the session of 1926 when the customs scandals were under investigation. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) this evening reminded us that the Ontario Liquor Control Board had requested one or two years ago that restrictions be tightened up at Windsor. The fact was that conditions became so intolerable in that district that the Border Cities Star, a very influential paper of Windsor, through a series of editorials complained of the conditions existing there. The Ontario government was forced to take action and it reminded the federal government of the recommendation of the royal commission and also of the committee that sat in this house in 1926 in connection with the smuggling situation. The recommendation was that the number of export docks should be reduced, and it was favourably considered by the Ontario Liquor Control Board and by the federal government. We are informed to-night that the number was reduced from about fifty to ten.
I wish to approach this question not from the viewpoint of the request of the United States delegation but entirely from our own viewpoint and our own concern. In the
session of 1926, when it was suggested that clearances should not be granted to cargoes of liquor bound for the United States, there was no thought that we were assisting the United States in enforcing their laws. The idea was that it was for our own good, for the benefit of this country and for that alone, that such a reform should be undertaken. It seems to me rather a superficial view to take of the situation to say that we should go rather slowly in assisting another nation to enforce their prohibtion laws when it is remembered that this question was under consideration for nearly a whole session in this parliament. A committee of this house brought in a report recommending that clearances be refused, and that report was adopted by the parliament of the day with all parties assenting thereto and not a dissenting voice in the whole house. The Prime Minister and the government of the day agreed that such should be dlone. The opposition, under a different leader from the hon. member occupying that position to-day, agreed that clearances should not be granted. The Progressive group in this part of the house were very anxious and insistent that all reforms along this line should be undertaken. As I say, the report of the committee was approved unanimously. Shortly after that the-whole question was thrown into the arena of a Dominion election. Definite assurances were given that the necessary measures would be taken to clear up the situation. The Prime Minister gave a pledge to that effect and' a royal commission was appointed which spent many months in investigating the whole liquor business and smuggling in general, although I may say that most of the smuggling was found to be in connection with liquor. The report of the commission revealed an appalling situation. 1'he liquor trade seemed to recognize no law whatsoever: they would not, in many instances, pay excise tax or make income tax or sales tax returns. I believe that .more than $4,000,000 have since been collected in back taxes from liquor firms.
The report of that royal commission was tabled only a short time ago, after a general election, before a new parliament, before a house whose personnel had largely changed, with many new members, and with a new leader of the opposition. That report recommended that the export of liquor be prohibited; that clearances be not granted. That report again was endorsed by every member of the house, by the government, by the opposition and by the party in this corner. There was not a dissenting voice. Why then should we hie away to the United States for an excuse to evade what at that time we
2714	COMMONS
Export oj Liquor-Mr. Fansher (Lambton)
deemed to be our responsibility in connection with this matter? I want to say at this juncture that a large section of the people of this Dominion has not lost sight of the promises made at that time, of the reports given to the house, and of the way in which they were received. Many of those people are very sincere when they petition the house at this session to have that recommendation enacted into law. The house has received petitions not only from temperance organizations but from women's institutes, township councils and various other organizations of a secular nature urging that the government carry out what both the committee and the royal commission recommended and what two parliaments adopted and agreed should be done. It is difficult for me to understand why this question should not now be considered from that viewpoint rather than from the viewpoint of assisting the United States in the enforcement of their law. The justice of the end sought I think demands that we should enact legislation which would refuse clearance to liquor cargoes going to the United States. Surely we are not interested in the trade to the extent that we are going to assist it by giving clearance to vessels landing contraband stuff in the country adjoining, but we should be interested, and I think we are interested as Canadian citizens in maintaining law and order in this country, and in maintaining the virility of our citizens.
I was astounded when I heard the Minister of National Revenue say that he was more interested in stopping smuggling into Canada than in prohibiting smuggling from Canada into the United States. I wondered by what process of reasoning he could figure out that he could curtail smuggling into this country when he says to the liquor exporters, citizens of this country perhaps only temporarily, but many of them citizens of this country for a good while: Pay me your $9 a gallon excise tax and you will get your clearance papers allowing you to land your cargoes in the United States. When he facilitates the entry of - that liquor into United States, gives the smuggler clearance papers and facilitates him in his work, how can he expect the smuggler to respect his request not to smuggle goods back from the United States into Canada? It seems to me that he cannot expect our citizens to respect the laws of this country so long as our government does not respect the laws of the adjoining country.
It has often been brought to my mind very forcibly that the export liquor traffic, especially in the southwestern peninsula of Ontario, which the trade calls the bottle-neck of the trade-and the bottle-neck it really is, because most of the liquor gravitates into that penin-
sula and crosses over the border at Detroit- has a demoralizing effect upon the citizens of that district, so much so that, as I said before, the Border Cities Star thought it its duty to take a hand in the situation and represent the facts as they were with a view to having the border cities cleaned up. That in a measure was accomplished, but to my personal knowledge, from observation of the trucks that ply our highways day iby day in large numbers laden with liquor for export across the Detroit river, and the certain knowledges of all our citizens that that trade is aided and abetted by the government in giving clearances to liquor laden vessels, it is not at all surprising that there has developed in the minds of the citizens in that district a somewhat lax idea of respect for law in general. It has been mj' observation that there have been more hold-ups on the highways, more bank robberies, more hold-ups of gas stations and the like in that territory within the last few years than there have ever been in the history of Ontario before. Only the other day we had a very unfortunate incident upon No. 2 highway down in that district, when an American citizen shot dead a Canadian citizen who attempted to hold up his car. Knowing, as I say, the state of affairs that exists there, the Detroit citizen was not going to take a chance on what might happen. Surely we owe it to ourselves and to our country to see that the morale of our people is kept at a high standard. Instead of condoning the export of liquor to the United States, the trade which is largely concentrated in that area close to the Detroit river having such a detrimental effect upon our citizens, I say that we owe it to ourselves to use every means in our power to try to stop that traffic.
I was somewhat concerned when the Minister of National Revenue gave us the information that when liquor is exported to any country which does not prohibit its importation the exporter is required to furnish a bond of twice the amount of the excise tax, but anyone who desires to export liquor to the United States is required to pay the excise tax in cash because it was not recognized by the department that he could land a cargo within that country. Then the minister made the observation that the excise tax having been paid and clearance granted it was no more of the department's concern or the concern of the government, but that the liquor was then in the same position as free goods, and [DOT] could go anywhere. The minister, in other words, virtually gave us to understand that having received the money and issued clearance papers, he washes his hands of the

Export of Liquor-Mr. Brown
transaction and says: It is nothing to me; do what you will with this stuff. But is that really the case? I do not think it is. There is a situation developing between this country and the United States that will some day alarm us and we shall be forced to sit up and take notice; and it is developing in that southwestern peninsula of Ontario. We cannot go on indefinitely forcing our goods which are contraband within the United Slates upon that country without engendering their ill-will, and some morning we shall perhaps read in the newspapers that some act has been committed which we shall greatly deplore.
This government has considered the question. It has before it the report.of the royal commission and the endonsation of two poirlia-ments. Then why should there be any excuse offered at this time not to carry out the recommendations made by that royal commission and by the committee of the House of Commons? I eay the least we can expect is that the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition should make a pronouncement upon this question. It seems this debate is going to end without the Prime M-inister and the leader of the opposition being concerned enough about the situation to make a .pronouncement to the house. To my mind this is one of the most important questions 'that has come before the house this session, not only because of the investigation made in 1926 and the recommendation which followed it, but because it involves our honour in connection with a neighbouring nation.
Yesterday I listened very attentively to the remarks of the Prime Minister when he introduced the resolution dealing with the [DOT] Geneva protocol. He stressed the fact that we had to rely on the good faith of the contracting parties. That was the fundamental bond of the whole treaty. Surely in connection with the request of the United States in this regard, good faith means a lot in cementing the international good will that has endured for so many years and that I hope will endure in the years to come. I urge upon the government not to let this matter pass without taking action, but to present to the house a solution for the problem by amending ouir law in the manner recommended by the royal commission which investigated the situation in 1926.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to minimize the importance of this subject. Indeed, in my judgment the control of the liquor traffic is one of the mo:jt important subjects that could engage our attention. Neither do I propose to minimize the difficulties that confront us in dealing with-this particular phase of the liquor traffic. It may very well be that those difficulties peculiar to this phase of the traffic are not sufficiently appreciated in all quarters of the country. Indeed, we shall always have difficulties in dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquor so long as we permit its manufacture. It certainly would be an anomaly if, having granted the distilleries the right to manufacture, we began to interfere with the sale of their product. My own personal inclination would be to stop the whole business, and I hope the time 'may come when the country will see that that is the only way in which the liquor traffic can be handled.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will be a long time.


John Livingstone Brown: The millennium may be a
long time in coming. But I am hopeful the time will come when the general sense of the people of Canada will be in favour of going about the eradication of the liquor traffic in a logical way, in such a way that we will not be confronted with these anomalies that arise from time to time.
We approach this particular question from two different standpoints. We have to approach it from the standpoint of our obligations to our friendly neighbours across the line. It has been urged upon us from some quarters that they have done all they can to control this traffic, and that if we would only do the little bit more necessary to complete their work, their problem would be solved. If that were demonstrated to be true, I should have no hesitation, nor do I think this parliament would have any hesitation, in undertaking to do that little bit more. Unfortunately, as I think has been shown this afternoon by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), there is good reason to believe they have not taken all the steps that they might have taken, and when we are considering the question from the standpoint of our obligations to our neighbours we cannot altogether ignore that feature of the case. If they come to us with the assertion that they have done everything they can to stop this traffic, and demonstrate to us that that is the case, certainly we should not rest satisfied until we had done everything that lies in our power to help them to enforce their own law. Not that the obligation should be thrown upon us to enforce their law, but that we should lend them friendly assistance in that particular. The treaty was entered into with that abject in view, and so far as its
271G

Export o} Liquor-Mr. Brown
terms are concerned, I do not think it can be shown that Canada has not faithfully lived up to them.
Personally I should be very happy to see us go further and enter into a new treaty, if we could help them and ourselves to eliminate this evil. It is true that we might pass a law forbidding the export of liquor, not dealing with it from the standpoint of simply refusing clearance papers, a procedure which might not be as effective as many people seem to think. But I say it is true we might deal with the matter by passing a law absolutely forbidding the export of liquor to the United States. Towards such a law I would be entirely sympathetic, but I would be compelled to concede that tremendous difficulties would confront us when we were called upon to enforce it, especially when we have distilleries situated within a gunshot of the American border.
Let me add what I intended to say at the outset. When I knew that the government had offered the United States every opportunity for their officers to come over to the Canadian side and get full information as to shipments of liquor destined for that country, I was hopeful that the Americans would accept that offer. It seemed to me, whether it would satisfy those who wished for the refusal of clearance papers or not, that such action might be taken as would have all the effect expected from the refusal of clearance papers without any of the consequent difficulties that might result. It is true the Americans have refused that offer. I cannot understand why. It rather confirms me in the thought that perhaps they have -not been dealing with the matter entirely in good faith. I repeat, personally I should be willing and anxious to see Canada take all possible steps to cooperate with the United States in -enforcing that law. But looking at the matter from our own standpoint. I must say that even if the Americans were negligent in the enforcement of their law, from the point of view of a great many people in Canada who feel that total prohibition is the only final solution of the liquor problem, we are -anxious to see the law a success in the United States, and we should put n-o difficulties in the way of their enforcing it. Then, from our own standpoint, wishing to see -their great social experiment a success, I should be still more anxious that we should do everything within our power to curtail the traffic in liquor across the line. On the other hand-, it cannot -be disputed that apart altogether from the question of short-circuiting liquor, which is after all only incidental, the whole wretched business must of necessity have a demoralizing effect upon our own people; and if through any action on the

,part^ of this government in dealing with this particular phase of the situation we could bring about better conditions, certainly I should be only too happy to support any efforts in that direction.
One feature of the situation has been referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) as a third method of dealing with the duties imposed upon this traffic. Undoubtedly it is a new practice that seems to have been necessitated by the peculiar circumstances of the case. The liquor is not intended to go into consumption in Canada, nor can it come under the export laws or regulations that apply to the export of liquor to countries where it may be legally imported. When the minister was speaking I was compelled to do some thinking on that phase of the situation and I may say frankly that, with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, I do not look with any degree of satisfaction on the fact that Canada is reaping a revenue from that particular branch of the traffic. I may say that in regard to the methods of handling liquor in so many provinces of Canada to-day,
I look with a good deal of alarm on the fact that the revenue that is being received from the traffic is making the people just a little less antagonistic to it than they were before.
I know we are confronted with this situation as we were in Manitoba-that we are to consider whether it would be better to take such revenue as comes from the traffic when it is sold at a high price, or to increase the sale by selling at a lower price. Therefore I cannot altogether agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre when he urges that we should not collect the excise on this liquor in this particular form inasmuch as it tends to increase the profits of the bootlegger. I cannot [DOT] see it in that light. It seems to me that if the government refused to collect the revenue from the sale of the liquor it would enable the distiller to pass the liquor over to the other people that much cheaper; they would make just as much money selling it a little cheaper as they are doing to-day, and the possibility is that the consumption of that liquor would be vastly increased. I cannot look favorably on any resolution that would tend to increase the consumption of liquor. So that for my part at the present time I find myself on the horns of a dilemma, as to whether I should accept the situation, much as I dislike it, of receiving revenue from the sale of liquor, or in the alternative increase the sale of that liquor.. I can however agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre when he takes exception to the policy of increasing the number of distilleries.

Questions


William Daum Euler: But we are not doing that.


John Livingstone Brown: I was merely taking the hon. gentleman's statement that the distilleries have increased in number in the last few years. However, if the statement is not correct-	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was correct.


William Daum Euler: It might have 'been correct a year ago, 'but that is not the case now.


John Livingstone Brown: We may take it, then, that it is not the policy of the government to increase the number of distilleries. That attitude on the part of the government will certainly secure my endorsation, which will be given all the more heartily if in some measure they can manage to decrease the number.
The unfortunate thing to-day in the liquor situation in Canada is the fact which is also evident in the old country: So many people are acquiring a vested interest in the traffic that it is consolidating itself more than ever before. The financial interest in the traffic is becoming so widespread that the time seems more and more remote when we shall secure from the people of Canada a vote which will abolish the traffic from our midst. That is one feature of the present situation which I dislike-the fact that more and more citizens are securing a financial interest in the traffic. When that is the case we are not likely to take such steps towards its abolition as many people in this country would like to see taken.
Personally I have this to say in regard to the whole question. I know it is true of many people in this country that they want to see Canada do whatever can be done to help a friendly nation to carry out its laws. I do not altogether agree with what the minister said, that the people were not really concerned about our attitude towards a friendly nation, but were only expressing the views they held as prohibitionists. That is not altogether true, although there may be a measure of truth in it, because I feel that a great many of the honest and right-thinking people of Canada do consider it a reproach to the citizens of this country that we should be engaged in a traffic which is abhorrent to the wishes of our friendly neighbours.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 22, 1929