1930-03-14

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 31, respecting jurisdiction in proceedings for divorce.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Explain.


Mr. WARD:: Mr. Speaker, this is the same bill, with some slight modification, that stood on the order paper in my name Last year and which passed this house but was defeated by a very small margin in the Senate. The purpose of the bill is to establish for the women of Canada the right of equality in applying for divorce.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE-MR. SPOTTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. GEORGE SPOTTON (North Huron):: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to make a few observations on a considered article printed in the Ottawa Citizen. Had it been in the nature of a neiws item I would have been pleased to let it pass, but since it is a considered article, as an editorial, and in which I am named, and grossly misrepresented, I rise to a question of privilege in the matter. The editorial is as follows:

Privilege-Mr. Spot ton
Divorce still in Politics
The House of Commons had the opportunity to rid itself of the obnoxious business of sanctioning hundreds of divorces every session. Mr. Woodsworth's bill would have given the province of Ontario authority to establish divorce courts, as they are established in every province outside of Quebec. Last Tuesday night, however, when the house divided on the proposed measure, the majority voted against it.
Criticism is being voiced in some quarters that the French-Canadian members are denying Ontario the right to have divorce courts. After last Tuesday's vote, this criticism is unwarranted. The house divided on Mr. Woodsworth's bill, 78 for and 79 against. One vote made the difference between approval and defeat. Protestant members from Ontario, including some Orangemen on the Conservative side, decided the issue by voting with the Roman Catholic members to defeat the bill.
Under such circumstances, it cannot be said truthfully that Quebec is denying Ontario the desired legislation. French-Canadian and other Roman Catholic members were in the minority.
I am glad to know that some have the definition much clearer than I have. They apparently have a few more degrees.
Political Orangemen, including W. F. Garland of Carleton county, James Arthurs of Parry Sound and George Spotton of North Huron, provided the necessary majority to defeat the bill. [DOT]
After Tuesday's experience, Mr. Woodsworth's energies in parliament can surely be conserved to better purpose for the consideration of economic issues. The game of sectarian politics as it is played for generation after generation between Ontario and Quebec is largely a waste of time. It is certainly a waste of energy for intelligent members like Mr. Woodsworth who are among the few_ to be genuinely interesting themselves in social and economic reconstruction.
Parliament has voted to keep divorce in politics. Some members would be lost without it as one of the issues to be produced from the political conjuror's box of tricks on election platforms in Ontario. Mr. Barnum will never be dead so long as the political hocus-pocus between Ontario and Quebec can be kept alive.
I am free to admit that I am an Orangeman, and I am proud of it. I would expect any other brother of the dust in this house to be proud of any organization to which he may have subscribed. I do, however, take objection to this official organ of the Orange order, the Citizen, telling me when and how I should vote. I strenuously object to the imputation and the implication in the sentence:
Protestant members from Ontario, including some Orangemen on the Conservative side, decided the issue by voting with the Roman Catholic members to defeat the bill.
I was one of those Orangemen who so voted, and I am prepared to vote that way again regardless of the criticism of any organization, society or newspaper. I am unalterably opposed to making divorce any easier to 2419-38
obtain in this country, and, I will not change my vote. I claim the proud privilege of voting with the Roman Catholic members of this house if I see fit to do so, and I am not dishonouring my name, the name of my predecessors or the reputation of my constituency in so doing. I wish boldly to repel the implication that an Orangeman cannot register his conviction in a certain way because he is walking hand in hand with men of another faith with the purpose of restraining a great evil in this country.
I am an Orangeman, but I am not a political Orangeman. The Orange order to which I belong asks nothing for itself that it is not willing to give any brother in this country.
What matter that at different times Our fathers claimed the sod?
What matter that at different shrines They prayed unto one God?
In fortune and in fame we're bound In stronger links than steel;
And neither could be safe or sound But in the others' weal.
I am sent here to represent the people of North Huron, not the Ottawa Citizen or an occasional wild man from Borneo who may go from Toronto to attend the Grand Lodge of Western Ontario. I am here, sir, to register my conviction as representing my constituency and not as an Orangeman I am not ashamed of voting hand in hand with the French Canadians, and my Roman Catholic fellow citizens in this house.



CORRECTION-MR. BOURASSA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. BOURASSA:: Onice more I wish to
apologize to the house, and more particularly to the members from Ontario, for another mistake I made with regard to the vote on the second reading of the bill proposed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I stated yesterday, as appears in Hansard at page 548, that twenty-three members for Ontario voted in favour of the bill, and twenty-eight members instead of twenty-six voted against it. A friend of mine called my attention to the fact that I was wrong again in my second calculation; and that twenty-nine members instead of twenty-eight voted against the bill. We compared notes, and the explanation of my mistake, which I admit quite freely, is that I counted our friend from South Bruce (Mr. Hall) as one of the representatives from Quebec. He looks so respectable, so amenable, that I always thought he belonged to the eastern townships of Quebec; but I found upon inquiry that he belongs to that noble

St. Lawrence Waterway

section of Ontario which does not want to be dictated to by westerners as to what they want or want not.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been called to an article in a Halifax paper which is headed "C.N.S. Steamers Are To Call At Boston." The text is as follows
The Canadian National steamers on the eastern service-Lady Nelson, Lady Hawkins, Lady Drake-are calling at Boston north and south bound starting with sailings from Boston on May 1, south bound to Bermuda and West Indies.
North bound, the steamers will call at Boston on May 28 and fortnightly thereafter during the period of the summer service.
May I ask if these steamers built at the cost of many millions of dollars paid by the taxpayers of this country for the express purpose of carrying out the treaty between Canada and the West Indies are to be permitted to make a foreign port, that of Boston, the home port of that line of boats. I call the attention of the government and particularly the attention of the Minister of Railways, to that situation.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I may say in reply to my hon.
friend there is no foundation for the article he has just read.


William Anderson Black: I am very glad to hear it.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY IMPROVEMENT OF CHANNEL BETWEEN LAKE ONTARIO AND PRESCOTT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Before proceeding with the
orders of the day I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott), pursuant to notice I gave him as to whether or not an article is correct which appeared1 in this morning's issue of the Ottawa Journal from the Canadian Press staff correspondent at Washington indicating that Canada was to be given the right to use American channels in cutting a waterway which will enable vessels of considerable draught to proceed from lake Ontario to Prescott. I would also ask whether or not in the event of it being correct the whole cost is to be borne by Canada.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works intimated to me that the leader of the opposition, prompted by the article in the paper to which he has just referred, had directed his attention to this matter. As it relates to international relations, I might be permitted, on behalf of the government, to make reply. The question of providing improved navigation facilities between lake Ontario and Prescott has certain international aspects that have been under consideration with the government of the United States but no final reply has as yet been received by our government from that country.



IMPORTATIONS OF COAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), if he has any evidence or knowledge that United States coal is being sold to Winnipeg dealers at a price lower than it is being sold in the country of origin; that is, if there is actually dumping of this coal.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: Complaints came to the department some months ago regarding the alleged dumping at Winnipeg of American bituminous coal. Careful investigation was made and it was established that in the case of every shipment received during last August at Port Arthur, Fort William and Winnipeg, the invoice price corresponded with the price at which the coal was sold in the country of origin.
For the information of my hon. friend and of the house, I would say that the importations of bituminous coal two years ago amounted to something like 176,000 tons, but that importation has dropped during the last nine months to about 36,000 tons.



EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15 to amend the Export Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, before I begin to
speak on the second reading of the bill which is before the house, might I ask if hon. members would be so kind as to permit me to make my statement with as little interruption as possible. If there are any questions to be asked, I shall be very pleased to answer them at the end of the time which I wish to devote

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
to making my remarks. If by any chance I should make a statement which, in any particular, may be inaccurate, I would of course, be very glad to be immediately corrected. Apart from that, I should like to have the privilege of making my statement as free from interruption as possible.
As explained at the time I introduced the bill, which is intituled An Act to Amend the Export Act, the amendment proposed is to authorize officials of the Dominion government having charge of liquor in bond and the granting of clearances to vessels to refuse to release such liquor, or to grant such clearances where the granting of such release or clearance in any case, would facilitate the introduction of intoxicating liquor into a country where the importation of such liquor is forbidden by law.
First of all may I direct the attention of the house to the fact that this is a Canadian measure and relates exclusively to Canada. It has to do with our own government officials: it does not in its provisions go beyond controlling the actions of Canadian government officials. It is an act for the governance of officials who have to do with releasing liquor or intoxicating beverages for export, or the clearing of vessels carrying liquor or intoxicating beverages for export to any country the laws of which prohibit their importation. It is a law to prevent the instrumentalities of government being used by persons who for purpose of unlawful gain are engaged in breaking the laws of another country. May I point out also, that in no particular can the bill be construed as a prohibition or temperance measure. It has nothing whatever to do with the question of temperance in Canada, and nothing to do with the question of prohibition so far as Canada is concerned. If this bill i3 passed, it will in no way restrict in any particular the right of any Canadian to purchase whatever he may wish to purchase, and is permitted to purchase, in the way of alcoholic or intoxicating beverages. In that regard it cannot be classed among those measures which in any way directly or indirectly are concerned with temperance legislation or the enforcement of temperance legislation so far as Canada is concerned. The measure is one which aims at the prevention of smuggling, and it might be described as an act to assist in the prevention of international smuggling. It might be described also as an act to prevent the official countenancing of smuggling upon the part of the government of Canada or of any agents of the Canadian government. That, in short, describes the essential features of the bill.
2419-3SJ
Perhaps I could not better explain the significance of the act than to give to the house in as brief form as I can the procedure which at the present time is followed by the Department of National Revenue in regard to the sale of liquor for consumption in Canada or the sale of liquor for export out of Canada. In this regard may I say, first of all, that the Department of National Revenue is concerned primarily with the collection of revenue. It is a department for the purpose of collecting revenue derived, in addition to other ways, as a consequence of duties imposed in the form of excise and customs duties. I wish hon. members to keep that point very clearly in mind, because in considering the procedure of the department and the work of its officials, it will make a great difference in the way in which their actions are capable of being viewed if we understand that under the law as it is to-day their duties are simply to help to collect in accordance with the laws of the land, such revenue as it is possible so to gather, and to prevent in as many particulars as they can any loss of revenue to the treasury.
The customs and excise laws were enacted in this country long before any other country-had laws which prohibited the importation of liquor into its territory. That point also should be kept in mind, because the legislation under which we are working to-day in the Department of National Revenue relates to laws which were drafted, for the most part, at the time when liquor could be freely exported to any country in the world, and at a time when there were no prohibitions on the part of any country upon the importation of intoxicating beverages.	.
The department, as I have said, in dealing with intoxicating liquors, is concerned solely with the collection of excise upon their sale for domestic purposes, and with their release for export purposes. In regard to the sale for domestic purposes, the procedure adopted by the department is something as follows: Parties who wish to obtain liquor for consumption, apply first of all to the department, either on their own behalf or through the distillery or brewery concerned, for the right to enter the desired articles for the payment of duty. The articles are entered for the payment of the excise duty, the official makes a record, and when the duty is paid the articles are released, and permission is given to remove them from the brewery, the distillery, or from whatever premises at which they may be located to the point where the purchaser may desire to have them delivered.
For the most part in the different provinces of Canada, the sale of liquor is controlled by
[Stage Direction]
Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
liquor control acts. That is true at the present time of seven provinces out of the nine, and when Nova Scotia puts into final effect the law which she is contemplating, that province also will be under liquor control with respect to the sale of liquor within its territory. Prince Edward Island is a prohibition province, and as a consequence the laws there are somewhat different. Therefore to-day, where there is a desire on the part of anyone to procure liquor for consumption, he is obliged in the different provinces to do so through the agency of the liquor control offices. In Ontario, for example, the commission controlling the liquor traffic is the body which alone has the right to purchase from distilleries or breweries any liquor for sale for the purpose of consumption in the province.
Let me deal now with the matter of the sale of liquor for export. I would like to speak first of the law as it relates to export to any foreign country other than the United States. I say "other than the United States," because since the United States has become a prohibition country the situation with regard to that country is a little different from what it is with regard to the others. In the latter, where there is a desire to obtain liquor for export, application therefor is made to the national revenue officers. Inasmuch as the liquor is for export no excise duty is imposed upon it. After the application is received the goods are entered for export, but the department instead of requiring an excise payment, exacts from the parties who wish to export the liquor a bond, for double the amount of the excise. The excise duty [DOT]on liquor sold for domestic consumption is $9 a gallon. That would mean that in	the	case of	liquor	for export	toforeign countries a bond to the amount of	$18	a gallon	would	be exacted	by
the department. After the bond has been secured by the department, the liquor is released on a permit issued by the department to be used in transporting it out of the country, and from the port of shipment to the foreign country to which it is destined. When a certificate of the landing of the liquor in the foreign country to which it is destined has been obtained, it is returned to the department and if on examination it is found to be satisfactory, thus affording to the department a guarantee that the liquor has actually been landed in the country to which it was shipped, the bond is then cancelled. That, I think, is the procedure generally with regard to export.
In the case of the United States for some years past, a different procedure has been
JMr. Mackenzie King.]
followed. Where it is desired to ship liquor into the United States an application to that effect is, as in the case of liquor for consumption in Canada or for export, made to the department in the first instance. The application states that the liquor is to be exported to the United States, and the place in the United States to which it is to be exported is named. In that case the department exacts, before the liquor is released, the payment of excise to an amount similar to that which is required on liquor to be sold for domestic use. In other words, the person applying to have liquor taken from a distillery or bonded warehouse for shipment into the United States has to state in his application that the liquor is to be shipped to the United States. This requirement having been met, the Department of National Revenue demands that when the goods are entered for duty the applicant shall pay $9 per gallon excise on liquor thus destined. When the excise has been paid, a permit is granted to take the goods out of the distillery or bonded warehouse, or wherever they may be, to one of a certain number of named ports in the Dominion itself. The goods are transported there under this permit, which states that they are destined for the United States. When they reach the end of steel nearest the port from which they are to be shipped, they are taken from the transportation agency by which they are brought to the wharf or dock whence they are to be shipped, and are put on board vessels known to be sailing to the United States. After they have been put on board they are inspected by a customs officer, who makes certain that the goods so put on board correspond with the goods named in the permit given by the customs officials. When he is satisfied on that point, the permit is removed and the clearance is then given to the owner or master of the ship permitting him to take those goods to the destination named in the United States.
There is this additional feature with respect to liquor being shipped into the United States; when the Department of National Revenue issues the permit to take the liquor from the distillery to one of those ports for export, the department sends to officials designated by the Ontario Liquor Control Board a copy of that permit. Thus the Ontario Liquor Control Board has full knowledge that the liquor is being shipped from a distillery in Canada to the United States, and when the shipment is made the commission is advised of the fact, as are the officers of the federal government.
There has come up in that regard a question which, I 'believe, is capable of explanation

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
but which is apt to give rise to some confusion. It is perfectly clear that the Ontario Liquor Control Board must regard as liquor for purposes of export, liquor which the Department of National Revenue at Ottawa regards as liquor to be sold for consumption in Canada, because only liquor that is sold for consumption in Canada pays this excise duty. All liquor for export other than liquor that is going to the United States is exported without payment of any excise duty; the bond to double the amount of the duty is all that is required.
May I again pause to say that all I have described relates to a situation which has to do with the collection of revenue and nothing more? Distilling and brewing is a perfectly legal and legitimate business in Canada, and is so regarded. The laws of this country as they stand require that the government shall raise revenue from excise in the case of intoxicating beverages for consumption within the country, and this is the method which the department takes, through its officials, of collecting the revenue and making perfectly sure that it is collected. At every stage the Department of National Revenue, rightly and properly, safeguards the revenue of the country. The purpose of issuing the permits, of requiring the examination of shipments at the dock and elsewhere, is to see to it that the liquor is not shortcircuited and sold for domestic consumption; that it actually will be exported out of the country. The reason that the Ontario government is supplied with copies of those permits is that its officials also may see that in no particular _ is this liquor shortcircuited back into Ontario.
That would all be simple enough and subject to no question from any point of view provided the process related in no particular to imports into a country which, it is known, prohibits the importation of liquor. However, the government of Canada, its ministers, its officials, the members of this house who vote the appropriations to pay the salaries of the officials, know that liquor cannot be imported legally into the United States, that liquor can get into the United States from distributors in Canada only through the agency of rum runners, of bootleggers, of criminal gangs which make their profits out of violating the laws of that neighbouring country. Such being the case, the whole process, which is perfectly legal from the point of view of the collection of the national revenues, becomes, to say the least, a very questionable process when adopted in relation to the exportation of liquor from Canada to the United States, with the laws of that country what they are to-day. In other words,
to state the matter as I believe some so regard it, the officials of the government of Canada themselves become the necessary link between the breweries and distilleries that wish to export liquor into a country into which it cannot legally be imported and the bootleggers and rum runners and criminal gangs that make their profits out of importing the liquor into the coimtry prohibiting its importation. That is a condition which I believe the citizens of this country, once they understand it aright, will not wish to have countenanced or continued for a single day. The fact that it has continued has undoubtedly been due to the circumstance that the aspect which I am now describing has never been fully comprehended, or indeed so much as thought of by many who have given much thought in other particulars to this very vexing problem.
Again may I point out the connection which the officials of the government make between the distillery and the rum runners. The liquor to be exported is for the United States. The application is made to the excise officials to enter liquor for export to the United States. That liquor cannot get out of the distillery or the brewery until it has been entered for payment of excise. The official who has to do with that matter knows in performing his legal duty that he is entering for payment of excise, liquor which is to go" to the United States and which because it is prohibited entry to that country by the laws of the country cannot enter the United States except by violation of the laws of the United States through the agency I have described namely that of bootleggers, smugglers and rum runners.
Similarly, when permits are issued they bear on their face that the liquor is destined to the United States. The officials who make out these permits while performing their legal duty, know that the liquor cannot legally enter the United States, nevertheless they are obliged to sign the permits because as the Canadian law stands at the present time there is nothing in it which makes illegal the shipment of liquor into the United States.
When it comes to the matter of export at the docks, there again the officials in the discharge of their duty legally performed clear vessels knowing that the liquor is going to the-United States. They have the evidence before them in documentary form, they know that the liquor can enter only in violation of the laws of the United States and by the criminal agencies I have described and yet in the discharge of their duty they are not able to do other'than clear in accordance with
598	COMMONS
Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
the law as it is to-day, because at the present time it is not in Canada illegal to ship liquor into a country which prohibits its importation.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to make that sort of thing impossible in the future. It is to prevent the countenancing by officials of anything in the way of smuggling, or of that which involves smuggling into another country. This bill declares that hereafter excise officials shall not release from any distillery or brewery liquor known to be destined to any country which prohibits its importation or to clear any vessel known to have aboard liquor destined to such a country. In other words, if an application hereafter is made for the export of liquor to the United States, so long as the laws of that country remain what' they are, the applicant will be told that parliament has passed a law which prohibits the export of liquor into a country which prohibits its importation, and that the application cannot be received or entry made for that purpose. If a permit is requested to transport liquor from a brewery or distillery to an export dock, and that permit requires a statement to the effect that
the liquor carried by it is going to the United States, it will not be legal for such a permit to be issued. Similarly, if anyone asks for the clearance to the United States of a vessel which is known to have liquor on board, that clearance will have to be refused. In other words, our excise service, our preventive service generally, will hereafter in no particular countenance the export of liquor into a country into which its importation is known to be prohibited.
I would like, if I may, for the sake of accuracy, to place on Hansard in abbreviated form the procedure with respect to the sale for consumption in Canada to a provincial liquor control board, and the sale to a purchaser for export to a foreign country other than the United States as for example the West Indies or the Argentine, and the sale to a purchaser who purchases in order to export to the United States. I have prepared with the supervision of an officer of the department a statement which in three parallel columns sets out the procedure which I have briefly outlined. If the house will permit me I would like to have it placed on Hansard just in the form in which it is:
Governmental Procedure in Case of Sale of Liquor by Distillery
The primary concern of the Federal Government in the case of sales of liquor, as in the case of sales of tobacco or any other commodity on which an excise duty is levied, is simply to collect that duty. The procedure followed vanes somewhat according to the purchaser and destination.
I. Sale for consumption in Canada, e.g., to a provincial liquor control board	II. Sale to a purchaser for export to a foreign country other than the United States, for example the West Indies or Argentine	III. Sale to a purchaser who purposes to export to United States1.	Board makes bargain with a distiller for purchase of liquor in a bonded warehouse. 2.	Purchaser or distiller notifies collector of desire to remove liquor for consumption (which becomes liable to excise duty on removal) and provides by entry for payment of duty, say $9 a gallon. 3.	Collector issues a "Permit to remove spirits" (T. 204) after duty is paid.	Purchaser makes bargain with a distiller for purchase of liquor in a bonded warehouse. Purchaser or distiller notifies collector of desire to remove liquor for export; he furnished a bond in double duty, S18 per gallon, (D.57), and files entry for export. Collector issues "Permit to remove spirits'' after bond is filed.	Purchaser makes bargain with a distiller for purchase of liquor in a bonded warehouse. Purchaser or distiller notifies collector of desire to remove liquor for export (which becomes liable to excise duty on removal) and provides by entry for payment of duty, say $9 a gallon. ' Collector issues "Permit to remove spirits", in duplicate, after duty is paid. In say, Ontario, one copy of permit is sent to Ontario liquor commission.[DOT]r.Mr. Mackenzie King.]﻿MARCH 14, 1930 599 Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King Governmental Procedure in Case of Sale of Liquor by Distillery-Concluded The primary concern of the Federal Government in the case of sales of liquor, as in the case of sales of tobacco or any other commodity on which an excise duty is levied, is simply to collect that duty. Ihe procedure followed varies somewhat according to the purchaser and destination.	I. Sale for consumption in Canada, e.g., to a provincial liquor control board	I. Sale to a purchaser for export to ] a foreign country other than the United States, for example the West Indies or Argentine	II. Sale to a purchaser who purposes to export to United States4. Dominion officers have no further concern.	rhe liquor is transported, still "in bond", under control of federal officers, to the port of exit. The exporter fills out an entry form for export to a specified foreign port. One copy is sent by the collector at the warehouse point to the collector at the port of exit; this is returned immediately after export is completed, with endorsement of evidence as to export. Another copy goes to the agent of the exporter, is endorsed by the master of the vessel on which the liquor is loaded, and is later endorsed by the collector or British Consul in the foreign country and returned. The bond for double duty is can* celled upon its return, provided upon examination by the federal authorities at Ottawa it is found satisfactory.	The Dominion officers have now collected their excise duty, and might be supposed to have no further concern till the liquor reaches a port of exit. They do however direct the procedure to be followed in transit. See Memo 689C (issued May 15th, 1929, following conference with Sir Henry Drayton) "for the guidance of licensed distillers and brewers when shipping intoxicating liquor upon which duty has been paid for export to the United States via the St. Clair and Detroit river frontiers". The memo provides: "The original permit when issued to the distiller, or brewer, is to be attached to the bill of lading, and it is important that it accompany the goods to avoid detention and delay during transportation. . The duplicate copy is to be mailed immediately by the officer in charge of the brewery to the provincial official designated by the Chief Commissioner, Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Toronto." It also specifies certain docks at which customs officers will be stationed and from which alone liquor may be exported. The exporter at the border point fijf in export entry form B. 13, statithe quantity and kind destination. The master of the ship (or ro^r* boat) fills out a "Master's Report Outwards", giving quantity, description, consignees, etc. The customs officer takes these two statements, goes on board, checks the cargo, and issues a clearance (C.8) giving the name of the master, number of crew, name of vessel and itemized cargo. [DOT] The original permit, ("after it has served the required purpose, namely, showing that the liquor is legally in transit") is surrendered to the customs officer for cancellation and filing.
500	COMMONS
Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
I should also like to place on Hansard a department, and in that connection I hold in copy of the permit which is issued by the my hand permit T-204, which is the one used.
Excise Act Permit T. 204
General number	 Local number	
Permit the removal in(')	
from(')	to(*)	
of the undermentioned spirits, equal to(I * * 4 *)	gallons of the strength
of proof being the property of(6 * * *)	
of(*)	and about to be transferred into the possession
of(J)	of(*)	
the duty having been (*)	,	
This permit is valid for(10)	days from date and no longer, and
on or before the expiration of the said (")	days it is to be delivered
into the hands of the collector or sub-collector of customs and excise for the port of (ls)	
and cancelled
1	2	3	4	5Number and marks of barrels, casks, kegs, or puncheons	Numbers and gallons in each package	Strength	Number of gallons of the strength of proof	Name of person or corporation in whose custody the spirits will be during removalNo.	Gallons	No.	Gallons	No.	Gallons	No.	Gallons	
Permit granted at.
This	day of	19.... Collector of Customs and Excise
I would draw the attention of the house to
the fact that it requires the owner to state
in full his name and occupation and place
of business, the name and occupation in full
of the person into whose possession it is to
be transferred, his place of business and the
number of days which in the opinion of the
officer granting the permit may be necessary
for the removal; the period named for the removal; the port into which the spirits are removed or in which the removal from one place to another takes place; the mode of conveyance, as via the Canadian National railway or steamer, or whatever it may be; the warehouse, its locality, and the place to

which the spirits are to be removed. In other words, I want to make clear that on the face of it the permit carries with it the mention of the country to which the goods are destined.
I have in my hand a copy of what is known as circular 689C of the Department of National Revenue, issued on May 15, 1929. It may help to illustrate what I am seeking to make apparent as to the different effect the wording of these circulars may create when it is understood that in some cases they may relate to countries to which liquor may be exported, and in other cases to countries to which liquor may not be exported. It is

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
a circular signed by George H. Taylor, the Commissioner of Excise, dated May 15, 1929. It is addressed to the collectors of national revenue and others concerned, and reads:
Departmental Regulations Respecting Exportation of Duty-Paid Intoxicating Liquors
You are advised that the following regulations are issued, effective forthwith, for the guidance of licensed distillers and brewers, when shipping intoxicating liquor, upon which duty has been paid, for exportation to the United States, via the St. Clair and Detroit river frontiers.
Certain docks have been established and operated at which customs-excise officers will be stationed for the acceptance of entry and clearance of such goods for export.
In other words, the chief of the excise department, the Commissioner of Excise, in accordance with what is essential for the collection of revenue and wholly legal under the law as it stands, instructs his officials that certain rules have been laid down for the guidance of distillers and brewers to enable them to export to the United States, though it is known that the liquor cannot legally get into that country, and they are given directions which will facilitate the liquor in reaching the United States in the only way in which it can reach that country, namely through the medium of rum runners and smugglers. Section three of this circular has the following:
(3) Intoxicating liquors may not be exported from any place, dock or premises along this frontier, other than those defined in the preceding section as customs-excise officers will be stationed only at these points for this purpose.
(5)	During transportation and upon arrival of the intoxicating liquor at the ports designated above, the provincial officers will exercise such supervision as deemed necessary to ensure that same is discharged in entirety at the docks named in section 2, and in accordance with the marks and numbers on the packages containing such goods, as detailed in the permit.
(6)	When entry (form B-13) is presented for the exportation of the goods, the customs-excise officer stationed at the dock will check the cargo to see that it agrees with the export entry and master's report outwards, before issuing a clearance to the vessel.
These export entries are to be sworn to by the exporter, or his duly authorized agent, and when checked, as above, are to be certified by the officer clearing the goods for export, as per instructions previously issued in that regard.
(7)	In order to provide for the proper identification of the packages thus shipped, and to enable the provincial officials to maintain requisite control, each case of spirits delivered for exportation from the distillery duty paid shall, in addition to the usual excise numbers shown thereon, be legibly and indelibly marked with a serial number, commencing with No. (1) in each fiscal year, these serial numbers being shown accordingly on the official permit issued under the provisions of section 173 of the Excise Act.
Then as respects beer permits:
(9) Brewers shipping for exportation to the United States are required to legibly and indelibly number each carton of bottled beer, or bag, or wooden package, with a serial number, commencing with No. (1) in each fiscal year. These serial numbers are to be shown accordingly on the beer permits.
(11)	The original permit when issued to the distiller, or brewer, is to be attached to the bill of lading, and it is important that it accompany the goods to avoid detention and delay during transportation.
The duplicate copy is to be mailed immediately by the officer in charge of the brewery to the provincial official designated by the chief commissioner, liquor control board of Ontario, Toronto.
(12)	After the permit has served the required purpose, viz., showing that the intoxicating liquor is legally in transit, it is to be surrendered to the collector at the port of destination for cancellation, as indicated thereon, and for file.
(15)	Officers in charge of the respective breweries are authorized to issue permits on the official form and to sign same for the collector, care being exercised to ensure that they accurately correspond with the requisition.
(16)	While the foregoing regulations have special reference to exportation of duty-paid liquor, via the ports mentioned, to the United States, they shall, so far as applicable, be observed as respects all exportations of duty-paid liquor via the frontier ports in the province of Ontario.
May I point out that the designation of certain docks as the only places from which liquor can be shipped into the United States was in accordance with the desire of the national revenue department to ensure more completely the collection of revenue, and also to avoid the short circuiting of these shipments. Incidentally, it was believed that this procedure might also help the United States officials to watch for liquor that was being shipped into their country if the docks from which it could be shipped in accordance with the regulations of the Department of National Revenue were definitely known and restricted in number.
Then I should like to draw attention also to a memorandum, No. 222, of the Department of National Revenue, dated Ottawa, 15th of May, 1929, and which refers to the particular circular which I have just read. It is signed by Mr. R. W. Breadner, commissioner of customs, and is addressed to collectors of national revenue, agents of railway and steamship lines, and others concerned. The memorandum is headed:
Department of National Revenue, Canada, (Customs Division).
602	COMMONS
Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
The paragraphs to which I wish to draw attention are the following:
A system of permits to be issued on release of intoxicating liquors from distilleries and breweries for exportation has been adopted for the purpose of safeguarding such goods and preventing diversion during shipment to the port of exit. In this connection see circular No. 689-0 excise, bearing this date.
The export entry (form B. 13) shall in such case be made at customs at the port of exit from Canada and the customs officer supervising export and receiving the export entry shall
carefully check the goods laden on the outgoing vessel or other conveyance or vehicle to see that the goods laden correspond with the goods described in the entry.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to place on Hansard form B. 13, which is used in connection with the clearing of vessels, and to draw the attention of the house to the circumstance that the form distinctly provides that the country of final or ultimate destination must be given in filling out the form.
Export Entry
Report No	
Entry No	
Form B. 13-(Amended 1928.) 1,000,000-1-29
Customs, Canada
(Place of lading)
Entry and list of articles of domestic production and foreign articles, which are not subject to export,
customs, or excise duties, delivered by.
(Address of owner or agent)
to	for exportation to	
(Name of railway or vessel, &c.)	(Country of final or ultimate destination)
via	consigned as below:
(State if shipped via United States port or direct from Canadian port)
N.B.-Goods must be described accurately as "Canadian" or "Foreign," and correct details must be given of quantities, values and ultimate destination of exports.
Address of consignee and marks on packages	Number of packages	Articles Describe the articles fully as, canned pork, printed cotton cloth, printing presses, apples, oats, wheat, &c. General terms such as meats, dry goods, machinery, prints, &c., will not be accepted	Quantity State number of pounds, tons, gallons, yards, &c.	Value at time and place of shipment	
				Domestic products, including imported goods re-manufactured in Canada	Foreign or imported products in same condition as imported
					
					
					
					
					
Stamp of port of exit
I	
(owner, shipper or consignor), hereby certify that the above is a full and true statement of the kinds, quantities, values and destination of all the articles delivered by me for exportation as aforesaid.
Signed by	
Residence	
	 Date	
Officer of Customs and Excise
Regulation 7 of the instructions which appears on the back is as follows:
The country of ultimate destination to which the goods are destined for a market is to be stated in the export entry as the country to which exported, and this rule is to be strictly observed.

There is also the form of clearance and the report outwards. Taken together, it will be observed that what is aimed at by the Department of National Revenue-and I cannot make this too clear-is the collection of revenue in the surest and most effective way.

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
That is the business of the Department of National Revenue. But, Mr. Speaker, when we consider the effect of these regulations in their international bearing-and that is why I am introducing this bill in my capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs as well as Prime Minister-when we consider their effect in relation to the actions of rum runners, smugglers and bootleggers, they come to have an entirely different significance and one which is anything but satisfactory. In a word the system devised for the sake of obtaining revenue becomes a system which affords, in the person of government officials, a series of links between the distillers and breweries which wish to export to countries into which importation is prohibited and the criminal gangs that are required to get the liquor through into the country to which it is destined and into which its entry is prohibited by law. Mr. Speaker, I think I need hardly do more than explain the situation as it actually is for hon. members to see that our country cannot afford to have its position in this matter capable of interpretation in any such light either in our own eyes or in the eyes of any other country in the world. Certainly it was never intended that regulations made for the purpose of collecting revenue for one government should be made to serve the purpose of defeating the laws of another government by facilitating the operation of criminal groups of the most desperate character in their efforts to make gain by illicit traffic in liquor.
The question which naturally will present itself to the minds of all who have listened to what I have just been saying is, I am sure, this-and it is, I am equally sure, what my friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Ben-net) will direct his attention to when he speaks: How is it, if such is the situation, that this has been permitted to go on for so long? Why was not immediate action taken to prevent the possibility of anything of this kind?
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear hon.
gentlemen saying "hear, hear," and it is a very fair and proper question to be asked. In reply, may I say, first of all, that new practices created as a result of conditions heretofore not existing do not grow up in a moment; they develop over a period of time, and the most effective way in which to meet them is not always apparent at the outset. Indeed, in seeking to meet a problem in one way it is often found that the remedy proposed may be even worse than the disease. Other and many remedies are frequently essential in order effectively to deal with a new situation
The question of smuggling, rum running and bootlegging into the United States came up for consideration in a prominent way first of all, not in relation to anything that had to do with the frontier between Canada and the United States, but rather in relation to the shipments of liquor into the United States from the Atlantic. And here may I pause to say that, according to American authorities themselves, the total amount of liquor that goes from Canada into the United States does not exceed 5 per cent, and may not exceed 2 per cent of the total liquor sold in the United States. According to their own authoritative statement, that, I believe, is the view which the Americans themselves take. The great quantity of liquor that is illegally sold in the United States is either manufactured there or is brought in by means of rum runners and bootleggers from the Atlantic ocean.
As I have said, the question came up first in relation to the shipments on the Atlantic, and it came up not through representations by the United States government to the gov-vernment of Canada but by representations of the United States government to the government of Great Britain. When the imperial conference of 1923 was held in London, one of the subjects that came up for consideration was the request of the United States government to the government of Great Britain that they, the United States, should be given the right of search of vessels on the high seas that were suspected of being in the business of rum running; that there should be, in addition, the right of arrest where it was found that such vessels were engaged in that kind of traffic in violation of the laws of the United States. If there is one principle above another which Great Britain has stood for, it is the sac redness of the three-mile limit in regard to all matters that affect the seas. To ask Great Britain, the mistress of the seas, as she has been called, to allow another country to search ships carrying her flag at a distance not of three miles from shore but of twelve miles from shore, which was the request, seemed to be going pretty far. However, that was the request which the United States made to Great Britain, as a friendly country, to assist the United States in carrying out her laws with respect to prohibition. When that matter came before the conference it was referred to a special committee, and of that special committee the Right Hon. the Marquis Cur-zon, at the time Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, was the chairman. All the dominions were represented on that committee; I had
Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King

the privilege of representing Canada on the committee. I remember very well the discussions which took place with respect to the matter in Lord Curzon's office at the Foreign office, and also in the conference itself.
The result of the work of the committee and of the conference as a whole was to recommend that the request of the United States government should be met. It was not thought desirable to specify a distance of twelve miles, inasmuch as often it might be difficult to agree exactly upon what is twelve miles from a coast line that varies considerably; instead there was substituted the equivalent of an hour's sailing from shore, which would be determined by the oapaciy for sailing of the particular vessel that might be concerned. As a result of the unanimous recommendation of the conference, which included the dominions of Australia and New Zealand; South Africa, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, Canada, and of course, Great Britain herself, a treaty was negotiated with the United States and subsequently ratified by His Majesty the King. I have in my hand a copy of the treaty. It is entitled: "Convention between His Majesty and the President of the United States of America respecting the regulation of liquor traffic, Washington, January 23, 1924; ratifications exchanged May 22, 1924."
May I pause to remind hon. members who were not in the house between 1921 and 1925 that this treaty was before the House of Commons of Canada, and before the Senate, and was approved by both. It was approved by the House of Commons on March 21, 1924, and by the Senate on April 4, 1924. I shall read only a paragraph or two from the treaty:
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
And the President of the United States of America;	_
Being desirous of avoiding any difficulties which might arise between them in connection with the laws in force in the United States on the subject of alcoholic beverages;
Have decided to conclude a convention for that purpose;
May I commend to the consideration of hon. members in the wording of the preamble to the treaty, the purpose of it:
Being desirous of avoiding any difficulties which might arise between them in connection with the laws in force in the United States on the subject of alcoholic beverages;
Listening to some of the discussion in different places on this question, one would be inclined to think that in our relations with the United States the last thing we should aim at is any endeavour to avoid difficulties with that country as a consequence of its prohibi-
tion laws. But may I remind the house and the country that the British Empire, as a whole, has in this treaty laid down as a principle, and it is sacredly enshrined there, the desire to avoid any difficulties which might arise between the British Empire and the United States in connection with the laws in force in the United States on the subject of alcoholic beverages.
Now, what are the provisions of the treaty? Article I:
The high contracting parties declare that it is their firm intention to uphold the principle that three marine miles extending from the coastline outwrards and measured from low-water mark constitute the proper limits of territorial waters.


Article II:: (1)	His Britannic Majesty agrees that he will raise no objection to the boarding _ of private vessels under the British flag outside the limits of territorial waters by the authorities of the United States, its territories or possessions in order that inquiries may be addressed to those on board and an examination be made of the ship's papers for the purpose of ascertaining whether the vessel or those on board are endeavouring to import or have imported alcoholic beverages into the United States, its territories or possessions, in violation of the laws there in force. When such inquiries and examination show a reasonable ground for suspicion, a search of the vessel may be instituted.
(2)	If there is reasonable cause for belief that the vessel has committed or is committing or attempting to commit an offence against the laws of the United States, its territories or possessions, prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages, the vessel may be seized and taken into a port of the United States, its territories or possessions, for adjudication in accordance with such laws.
(3)	The rights conferred by this article shall not be exercised at a greater distance from the coast of the United States, its territories or possessions, than can be traversed in one hour by the vessel suspected of endeavouring to commit the offence. In cases, however, in which the liquor is intended to be conveyed to the United States, its territories or possessions, by a vessel other than the one boarded and searched, it 6hall be the speed of such other vessel and not the speed of the vessel boarded which shall determine the distance from the coast at which the right under this article can be exercised.
That treaty, which is in force at the present time, is the expression of the views of the British Empire as a whole as to the attitude which should be adopted towards the United States in relation to its laws prohibiting in that country the sale of intoxicating beverages.
Not only are we a party to that treaty, but we have made with the United States a treaty of our own.
When the matter was discussed in 1924, at which time there was a conference between

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
United States and Canadian officials, it was believed that an arrangement whereby the customs officials of both countries would exchange information in regard to anything in the nature of attempted smuggling or rum running might prove sufficient to meet the situation. That view was embodied in the treaty which was made at that time. It is known as "A treaty for the suppression of smuggling operations along the international boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States, to assist in the arrest and prosecution of persons violating the narcotic laws of either government, and for kindred purposes." It was signed at Washington in the month of June, 1924, on behalf of Canada by the Minister of Justice of the present administration (Mr. Lapointe), and by Hon Charles Evans Hughes the present Chief Justice of the United States for the United States. It was approved by the House of Commons of Canada on March 3, 1925, and by the Senate of Canada on March 11 of the same year. It was ratified by His Majesty the King on July 17 of that year.
Let me at this point read the preamble of the treaty to which I refer, and in doing so may I again direct the attention of the house to the fact that the aim of the government In all these measures has been to suppress smuggling and rum running along the international frontier. This parliament has committed itself over and over again to that principle, and by means of treaties and in other ways it has repeatedly given expression to the course it thought wisest in the furtherance of that aim.
The preamble of the treaty is as follows:
His Majesty, the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, and the United States of America being desirous of suppressing smuggling operations along the boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America, and of assisting in the arrest and prosecution of persons violating the narcotic laws of either government, and of providing as to the omission of penalties and forfeitures in respect to the carriage of alcoholic liquors through Alaska into the Yukon territory, have agreed to conclude a convention to give effect to these purposes and have named as their plenipotentiaries:
Article 1 follows:
The high contracting parties agree that the appropriate officers of the governments of Canada and of the United States of America respectively shall he required to furnish upon request to duly authorized officers of the other government, information concerning clearances of vessels or the transportation of cargoes, shipments or loads of articles across the international boundary when the importation of the cargo carried or of articles transported by land is subject to the payment of duties; also to
furnish information respecting clearances of vessels to any ports when there is ground to suspect that the owners or persons in possession of the cargo intend to smuggle it into the territory of Canada or of the United States.
(2) The high contracting parties agree that clearance from Canada or from the United States shall be denied to any vessel carrying cargo consisting of articles the importation of which into the territory of Canada or of the United States, as the case may be, is prohibited, when it is evident from the tonnage, size and general character of the vessel, or the length of the vovage and the perils or conditions of navigation attendant upon it, that the vessel will be unable to carry its cargo to the destination proposed in the application for clearance.


Mr. CAHAN:: Why not have prohibited clearances to the United States at that time, and ended the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my
good friend from St. Lawrence-St. George will be kind enough not to interrupt until I have finished my remarks.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg your pardon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend; I knew he would be so kind. I will answer his question, however. The reason why at that time clearances were not prohibited was that it was believed by those who had to do with the negotiation of the treaty that the exchange of information as provided by that treaty would be sufficient.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Assuming that the United
States would utilize that information, which they never have done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will have his chance to speak a little later on.


Mr. MANION:: What is the date of that treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is dated July 17, 1925. That is when it was ratified, but it was negotiated during the year 1924.
There are two features to which I wish to direct attention. First, there is the obligation on the part of our officials to supply officials of the United States government with data respecting vessels laden with liquor wishing to clear, and also the undertaking that the government authorities would not permit clearance of vessels for foreign ports where it was evident that the port was one that the vessel, owing to its size and the perils of navigation, could not be expected to reach. At that time rum running was carried on to a great extent by vessels leaving certain ports for destinations such as the West Indies, described as foreign ports other than those of the United States. These were vessels of a size which it was perfectly apparent could never hope to get
606	COMMONS
Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
that far on their voyage. They were at the outset cleared in the regular way, because they made out their statements to the effect that they were going to these foreign ports, but instead of doing so they would put in at some port along the United States coast. At that time it seemed that stopping this practice and exchanging information might be perhaps sufficient to enable the practice of rum running to be suppressed along our international frontier. As representations were made from time to time as to the manner in which liquor was reaching the United States from Canada, other steps were taken to meet the situation. As these matters came to the attention of the government they were dealt with individually. For example, for a long time we had bonded warehouses to which liquor was brought from foreign countries and stored, and it was found that much of this liquor was finding its way out of those warehouses into the United States by a system of smuggling. The Minister of National Revenue, carrying out the wish of the government in the matter, decided to abolish altogether those bonded warehouses, and that has been done. It was found also that vessels were in the habit of coming into ports such as Halifax with liquor aboard and after staying in port a short time, unloading the liquor for subsequent smuggling into the United States or for smuggling into our own country. The departmental officials required that a double bond be given guaranteeing its export in order to prevent the liquor from being brought ashore and thus finding its way into the United States through ports in Canada being made a base for smuggling operations. It is quite true that all the steps taken were not adequate, from the point of view at least of the United States, to enable it to cope with the smuggling evil along the international frontier, and to our government the question of what it was most advisable to do became more and more a matter of very grave concern.
With regard to many matters, but particularly with respect to such matters as those which relate to temperance and are considered by many as moral rather than legal questions, there is the necessity of an administration having the backing of public opinion before it can effectively take any step whatsoever. It sometimes takes a little while for public opinion to ripen sufficiently to make itself felt throughout the country. When, but a few days ago, it was announced that the government contemplated taking the step which we are taking to-day, there was a feeling, I think, in many quarters that we were still ahead of public opinion, that we were

moving altogether too rapidly, and that any administration which attempted a step of the kind would find that it vras doing something which would be disastrous to itself. Certainly such would appear to be the view of the Conservative press even to-day. As I have said, in all these matters time is a factor, as well as all the existing circumstances. When over a year ago we were debating in Council the question whether or not we would then take the step which we now propose, information was brought to our attention of a character which to-day aroused the ire of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and which was to the effect that notwithstanding the fact that we were, through our officials, giving information to the United States officials concerning vessels which were clearing from Canadian ports with liquor aboard, no attention was being paid to that information. In other words, the United States officials were not seeking, as far as we could see, to enforce their own laws. We went the length of offering to the United States the opportunity of placing their officials upon our docks where they would be immediately given a copy of the clearance of every vessel as it left the dock, and I confess that when the United States government refused to avail itself of that opportunity, I for one felt that before we took another step forward we would have to be pretty well assured of the real intentions of the United States government with respect to the smuggling of liquor into that country. The course adopted by the government at the time was to bring the whole matter to parliament, to disclose the situation openly to hon. members of the house, and to invite a full and free discussion as to how far in the circumstances the government should go.
At the express wish of the government my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) last year gave to this house a straightforward, candid statement of the entire situation as it had been disclosed to us in the cabinet, and he asked hon. members to express their views as to what further steps, if any, should in their opinion, be taken by the government. I did not hear the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George advocate at that time that we should discontinue entirely the granting of these clearances. I do not think I heard any hon. gentlemen from the other side of the house suggest that the government should go any farther than it was going at that time, but the invitation was there and it was made with a desire of ascertaining-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, no.

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -how far the government could count upon the support of this House of Commons in the policy which it was about to adopt.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There was no invitation in the words the hon. Minister of National Revenue uttered on that occasion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says there was no invitation from the minister asking for an expression of view of the kind from members of the house. I have a copy of the speech delivered by the minister on May 21.


Mr. STEVENS:: What page?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give my hon. friend the page. The date is May 21, 1929, and the words with which the minister concluded his remarks to this house appear on page 2706 of Hansard (unrevised), as follows:
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 as developments may justify it. I feel, however, 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.
I do not see how an invitation could have been given more cordially.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no reference made to clearances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not see how it could have been given more generally than it was.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There was no reference made to the stopping of clearances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The whole
speech had reference to what the government had sought to do up to that time to prevent international smuggling.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was an expression of indignation on the part of this government at the attitude of the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
their law on the international frontier; that they are genuinely in earnest in regard to the matter, and for that reason we are prepared to take the further step which to-day we are asking the house to take.
That step would have been taken last summer if it could have been taken then. As long ago as August of last year we sought for authority by order in council to prohibit the granting of clearances. After my hon. friend made his speech; after public opinion had expressed itself in this country and after the United States had taken note of what had been said and had given evidence of its intention to do more on its own behalf, we were then and there prepared, if we had had the power to do so, by order in council to prohibit the clearance of vessels. But we ascertained, on referring the matter to the Department of Justice, that we could not proceed in that way and that legislation would be necessary. I made a public pronouncement to that effect at the time. We have therefore taken the first opportunity of bringing forward as the first measure of the government at this session, the bill that is before the house at the present time.
One of the most experienced men in public life in Canada, one who for a time held the position of acting leader of the Conservative party, is the Right Hon. Sir George Foster. Sir George Foster has had a very long and a very wide experience in public affairs, and particularly in international affairs, and I am inclined to attach much weight to what he has to say on a matter of this character. Interviewed a few days ago, Sir George Foster is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of March 12, 1930, as having spoken as follows-and this is apropos of the reasons why in matters of this kind it is wise to proceed step by step:
"These things have a way of ripening, if you give them time," Sir George replied in answer to a question if he felt the move to be long overdue. "It has given us time to consider the question, and it has probably led the United States to stiffen up its enforcement of prohibition. No nation likes to have its neighbour carrying on a business against its laws, least of all when the motive is to make a little money out of it, and thus the feeling diplomatically between the United States and Canada will doubtless improve."
I think in that statement we have in a word approval of the course which the government has adopted of allowing public opinion in this country to ripen before going the lengths which we are proposing to go to-day.
What are the arguments that can be put forward against this measure? The one thing that is being said-and I suppose we shall

hear it over and over again from hon. gentile-men opposite-is that this step is being taken at the dictation of the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought some of my friends opposite would interject "hear, hear". May I say to my hon. friends opposite that as I shall show in a moment, this step is not being taken at the dictation of anybody except, in so far as its action may be called dictation, by the House of Commons. The government is taking this step because it feels that it should not countenance on the part of customs or excise officials, any procedure, however legal or innocent, that might cause it to appear that the government is facilitating by its own officials the nefarious work of rum runners and smugglers. As I have said, it is a purely Canadian measure intended to safeguard the moraile of our own public services and to enable us to do our own duty as we see it towards our neighbour.
While it is true that there has been no dictation from the United States, is of course equally true that representations have been made by the United States as to why a measure of this kind should be enacted. In other words, the United States has proceeded with respect to its representations concerning rum running from Canadian territory in precisely the same way as it proceeded in its representations to Great Britain with respect to rum running from the Britain Isles. I have already referred to the representations that were placed before the imperial conference in 1923, representations that had been made by the United States minister in London to the Marquis Curzon, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, and brought by him, as I have described, before the conference. May I read the paragraph in the report of the conference stating its conclusions in the matter? It will be found in the summary of report of the proceedings of the Imperial conference of 1923. At page 12 of the report as issued by the King's printer at Ottawa, appears the following paragraph:
During the session of the conference, the question of the regulation of the liquor traffic off the American coasts and of the measures to be taken to avoid a serious conflict either of public opinion or of official action was seriously debated. The conference arrived at the conclusion that, while affirming and safeguarding as a cardinal feature of British policy the principle of the three-mile limit, it was yet both desirable and practicable to meet the American request for an extension of the right of search beyond this limit for the above purpose, and negotiations were at once opened

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
with the United States government for the conclusion of an experimental agreement with this object in view.
What we are attempting at the moment is in a way, a direct parallel of what was done by the Imperial conference, and the reasons for the action we are proposing are identical. What the conference was concerned about was the measures to be taken to avoid a serious conflict either of public opinion or of official action. Who in Canada will say that as between this country and the United States to-day there is not the possibility of serious conflict of public opinion or of official action, and who will say that it is not in the interests of both countries that measures should be taken to prevent any such conflict developing? Who will say it is not both desirable and practicable-to use again the words of the Imperial conference report-to meet the American request in the case of Canada where it is similar to the request made to the British Empire as a whole and acceded to by the Empire as a whole with respect to rum running from the Atlantic? That is the position we take to-day in asking parliament to adopt the legislation now before the house.


Robert James Manion: Have the British Isles
stopped clearances to the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer my hon. friend's question a little later. I am not, I suppose, at liberty to disclose all that took place at the Imperial conference in the consideration of this matter, but it has always been definitely understood in connection with the proceedings of the conference that while certain proceedings were confidential, any delegate to the conference would be at liberty, on his return, to inform his own parliament of the reasons which governed any action the conference might take. I purpose, therefore, to mention to the house the reasons which led the Imperial conference to accept the report of the sub-committee of the conference of which Lord Curzon was chairman, and which resulted in the enactment and ratification of the treaty to which I have referred.
Briefly, there were three. The committee thought it desirable, first of all, on moral grounds. I have heard it said that it is not the business of this parliament to be concerned with questions of morality, national or otherwise. I cannot agree with that point of view. I believe that a country above everything else is concerned with the moral standards of its people and of its laws, and with the enforcement of those laws. I remember very well the forceful presentation 2419-39
which Lord Curzon made to the committee. He said that no country could afford to be indifferent to the moral sentiment of a great nation where that sentiment had found expression in legislation and had thus become part of that nation's law. He emphasized the fact that it mattered very little whether we thought they were right or wrong, whether they were properly administering their law or not. The fact that was significant in international relations was that where a country, owing to the views of the great majority of its people, had put itself on record as to its attitude with respect to a great moral question, its views were entitled to and should receive the respect of other nations. I think that is sound reasoning. I think it is as sound in Canada as it is in Great Britain.
The second reason advanced was with a view to maintaining improved, relations with the United States of America. Do I need to argue the wisdom of a course like that in this parliament, to plead that it is not a national wrong for us to seek to improve relations with the United States? The silence at the moment is expressive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The silence is behind the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One would
think to listen to some of the discussions one hears that any attempt to improve relations with our neighbour was a move in the wrong direction. I am inclined to believe that it is one of the first duties of government to do what can be done to maintain _ and further friendly relations with all countries.
The third ground which was urged was that a step of the kind was desirable in the interests of British commerce. May I, without quoting what was said by Lord Curzon, paraphrase in a general way what was said by him to the conference as a whole-because again I say it presents a parallel to the situation which we are now discussing. As I recall his words they were something to the effect that the spectacle of rum running, as it is called, in which British ships were largely engaged and in which great profits were being made by British firms, was one that was far from pleasant to contemplate, and that there aroge-and perhaps not unnaturally arose- very different feelings in the United States. The United States government had committed themselves, whether wisely or unwisely, it was not for us to say, to a policy of prohibition. All our information was that that was a policy to which they proposed to adhere; it represented the settled convictions of large masses of people, and, whether it was or was

610	COMMONS
Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
not carried out in a fair way, at any rate it was a matter of domestic policy of a great foreign state with which we had neither the right nor the power to interfere. On the other hand, so Lord Curzon said, the spectacle which he had described could without difficulty be presented as an attempt on the part of the shipping of another state to run counter to the settled legislation and practice of the United States. If the then position continued without any relief he could but think that "a very delicate and disagreeable situation" would be produced. Fortunately, the American government had throughout adopted a line, apart from their actual conduct in searching ships, of conciliation and of desire to settle the matter on friendly terms. The British Empire shared that desire, and accordingly consideration had been given by the committee to what could be done to carry it into effect.
May I direct attention to those particular words of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. British foreign ministers employ great caution in the choice of the words they use. Lord Curzon said, in so many words, "If the present position continues without any relief I cannot but think that a very delicate and disagreeable situation will be produced." The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Great Britain was seeking to avoid a delicate and disagreeable situation arising between the United States and Great Britain. If that was his objective, why should it not also be ours? If under the circumstances then existing a delicate situation was likely ;o arise so far as Britain was concerned, what is to be said of the situation that at any moment may arise with conditions existing as they are at present along our international frontier? That is a question which I feel cannot be weighed too carefully in this house.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that it was not at the dictation of the United States that this action was being taken by the government, but that if there were any dictation at all it was dictation by this House of Commons. Hon. members will recall that in 1926 we had an investigation by a select committee of the house into the customs service of this country, of which committee some hon. gentlemen now opposite were members. That committee brought in its report, a copy of which I have in my hand. It appears in the votes and proceedings of the House of Commons of the 18th of June, 1926. At page 444 will be found the introductory words with reference to the report of the committee:
{Mr. Mackenzie King.]
Mr: Mercier (St. Henri), from the special committee appointed to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise, presented the third and final report of the said committee, which is as follows:
The special committee appointed to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise, beg leave to present the following as their third and final report:
I shall quote only the section which deals with the question of clearances, which will be found at page 446. It reads as follows:
Doubts have been cast upon the sufficiency of existing legislation to prohibit or authorize regulations prohibiting the illegal export of intoxicating liquors to the United 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 laws of that country.
That report was presented to this house while the present administration was in office, but it was not adopted until after the present administration was out of office and hon. gentlemen opposite had come into power for the few days in 1926 during which they occupied the treasury benches. In those few days certain amendments were made to this report. The report was presented to the house and its adoption along with the amendments was recommended. In the votes and proceedings of Tuesday, June 29, 1926, at page 496, will be found the following record:
And the question being put on the main motion as amended; it was agreed to. on the same division last above recorded, and is as follows:
The main motion referred to there included the paragraph which I have just read with respect to clearances.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did the hon. gentleman
vote in favour of it?
* Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	No, I voted
against it because of some of the amendments, but my hon. friend, I think, voted for it. The vote is recorded here. My hon. friend will find it on pages 495 and 496 of this same issue of the votes and proceedings.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thought the Prime Minister was assuming an appearance of virtue for having voted for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was mistaken. There is the record at any rate. The point I wish to make clear is that this House of Commons itself was the body which declared that steps should be taken

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
similar to those which we are taking at the present time.
The present government when it came into office appointed a royal commission to continue the work of investigation into the administration of what was then known as the Department of Customs and Excise. This commission was appointed, amongst other things, as the fulfilment of a pledge which was given by myself during the campaign of 1926. The orders in council respecting the appointment of a commission will be found under date of July 20, 1926,-this, the first order, having been passed by hon. gentlemen opposite; the next is dated September 28, 1926. The final order was put through by the present administration on January 14th, 1927, under it three commissioners were appointed to go fully into the various phases of the situation. Let me quote a paragraph from the last order:
that a supplementary commission do issue to the said the Honourable James Thomas Brown, the Honourable William Henry Wright, and the Honourable Ernest Roy, authorizing them, in addition to the powers already conferred, to inquire into and report upon all matters coming under the administration of the Minister of Customs and Excise which affect the public revenue of Canada or relate to the operations of any person or corporation owning, operating or employed in connection with any business carried on under the provisions of the Excise Act or the Customs Act or any regulations made thereunder, or which are incidental or closely related to any of the matters or things hereinbefore or in the said commission mentioned or referred to. and that they be authorized by the said commission to be issued in that behalf to exercise all or any of the powers mentioned in section 11 of the Inquiries Act.
At page 24 of the report of that commission will be found the following recommendation:
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.
There is more of the authority or "dictation," if there be such, under which the government is moving in this matter-dictation from this House of Commons, dictation from a royal commission appointed by the government itself; in no sense dictation from any authority beyond the country's borders.
There remains only to consider the other arguments, if there be any, which can be urged against a step of this kind. Let me first of all briefly review what has already been referred to. There is the argument that 2419-39i
this is a prohibition measure. I think I have effectively disposed of that argument by making it clear that in no sense does this act restrict or affect in any particular the rights of any individual in Canada to purchase intoxicating beverages.
Then there is the argument that this step is taken at the dictation of the United States.
I have just referred to this and, I hope, satisfactorily disposed of it as well.
Then there is the argument that this will mean loss of revenue. Well, supposing it does? It will mean loss of some revenue. But is there any hon. member of this house who will stand in his place and say that the government ought to raise revenue out of association of its officials with rum runners? Is there any hon. member of this house who will say that we should raise our revenues by the known violation of the laws of another country? I think I need not more than state the position, now that it is known that liquor cannot possibly get into the United States except by the aid of rum runners and smugglers, to assert that there is no desire, so far as the present administration is concerned, and, I believe, so far as the country is concerned, to raise any revenue in that way.
Then we have been toilid that the enforcement of a law of this kind will mean an enormous expenditure. Those who put forward that point of view seek to construe the purpose of the government as a law to enforce the laws of the United States. I have made very clear, I think, that this law is intended solely to control the conduct of our own officials, its provisions once enacted instead of adding to expenditure will do away with a great deal of expense that at the present time the country is being put to in the administration of its excise and customs laws. After this law is 'passed there will be, as respects liquor destined for the United States, no further need for entries with respect to liquor for export from breweries and distilleries, there will be no further necessity of issuing permits, there will be no occasion to have officials at the docks to certify to the liquor that is being cleared and to give clearance to vessels carrying liquor to the United States; all of that and the expense incidental thereto will be done away with. We believe that one of the effects of the measure will undoubtedly be to make it easier for United States officials to enforce their laws; but certainly so far as any expense to Canada is concerned, it will be lessened rather than increased by the enactment of this law.
Then it is said1 that the manufacture and sale of liquor for consumption and export is under our laws a perfectly legitimate business.
612	COMMONS
Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
I do not dispute that for one minute. But all domestic business, whether it relates to intoxicating liquors or anything else, is subject to great national considerations that are of paramount concern, and also necessarily subject to great international considerations that in their importance are of world concern. Any business, no matter what it may be, if so conducted that it involves violations of the laws of another country, must to the extent that this may be the case bow to the superior, paramount consideration of the national interest as a whole.
I have already touched on the question of national morality. May I say this further word? Apart from the possible effect upon the morale of our public service, it is a pretty serious thing to contemplate what in the long run, if the present practice is permitted to continue, may be the outcome of allowing this country to be made the base of operations of criminal gangs such as the people engaged in this rum running business comprise. From a small illicit traffic in liquor the business of bootlegging and rum running has come to be one of the most gigantic highly organized criminal businesses of the world to-day. That this country should countenance anything of that kind along its borders, that it should lend assistance through the instrumentalities of government to the people who seek to make money in that way, or to facilitate their activities by actions, however innocent, of its own officials is something too abhorrent to contemplate-I think the mere suggestion brings its own denial. No one who has at heart the well being and the interests of this country could tolerate for one moment or view with any favour a possibility of the kind. A frightful nemesis would certainly await a nation that was indifferent to the moral right or wrong of a situation such as is involved in a procedure of the kind. One of the worst things that could possibly happen to our Dominion is that in any way we as a government or as a people should allow this international smuggling to gain any foothold along our frontier.
May I come now to another argument, and it is one implied in the question which was asked by my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion). He asked whether Great Britain has prohibited clearances. In answer to that I say, each country like each individual must be the keeper of its own conscience. It is not for us to ask what another country is doing; it is for us to ask ourselves what ought to ibe done by us. And if there be something in the way of example needed it seems to me that the greatest thing this country can do is to offer to the rest of the world the right kind of example.

I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that fundamentally, the question we are considering is one of international relations, and it is one which involves important international considerations. As Secretary of State for External Affairs it is my duty to advise my colleagues, and to advise parliament, with respect to any situation of an international character which because of its seriousness I have reason to feel should be brought to the attention of the cabinet and of parliament. It is my duty, further, to direct the attention of the government and of parliament to any dangers that I see in any existing situation. May I say this, that I think the dangers which Lord Curzon foresaw-the danger of possible delicate and difficult situations arising between Britain and the United States over rum running incidents on the Atlantic-are as nothing compared to the delicate and difficult situations that at any moment may arise on our international frontier if this linking of distilleries and rumrunning through the agencies of government is permitted to continue. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that so perilous do I believe the situation to be that I would not longer assume responsibility in the matter of external affairs were I not assured of the support in this parliament of a policy which I believe to be necessary to the avoidance of a condition which might any day prove perilous to this country; or failing the support of this parliament in a matter as grave as this is, the support of the people of Canada. I say, Mr. Speaker, that I regard this matter as one of grave concern to the people of Canada as a whole. I have stated the position to parliament as I see it. It is now for parliament to express its view in regard to the legislation that has been placed before it.
May I add that I have no fear as to what parliament will do in the matter. I venture to say there is not a member of this house if he has regard for the feeling of the constituents he represents, who will rise in his seat and vote against this measure. Hon. members cannot afford to ignore what they know to be the sentiment of the constituencies, and the sentiment of the nation as a whole, in regard to an issue of this character. As members of this parliament we are here as lawmakers, not as law-breakers of our own laws or the laws of any other country.
May I say this final word? We on this continent have in our international relations, worked out something of which we are justly proud, something with which nothing else in the affairs of nations is comparable, namely, a system of international relations between neighbouring nations which is an example to the world in friendliness and good-will. For

Export Act*-Mr. Bennett
over one hundred years we have lived side by side with the United States, with a frontier extending for four thousand miles from sea to sea and our boast is that during that century and longer not a shot has been fired in international enmity, not a single fortification erected which could mean aught in the nature of a menace to the other country. Are we to let this international frontier, the problems of which are dealt with by the International Joint Commission-a commission that on the one hand is being heralded as an example to the nations of Europe and on the other to the nations of the orient-become a by-word and a hissing, or is it to remain as it is, a monument to civilization itself? That is the question which this parliament is called upon to decide, and I have enough faith in my fellow members of the House of Commons, and above all in my fellow citizens of the Dominion of Canada, to know that when that question is put to them the answer will be that they wish to have done what is fair and decent and right by their neighbour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in common, I
fancy, with most members of this house, I have listened with profound amazement to the speech that we have just heard. If "the delicate and disagreeable" situation referred to by Lord Curzon existed in 1923, where has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) been since that he has not told the Canadian people of it? If the integrity of this country has been menaced by the attitude of our friends to the south, why should we, for the first time to-day. on the eve of an election, hear of it from the Prime Minister? Why should seven years have passed since Lord Curzon- now dead-sitting in the foreign office in England. told the committee of the imperial conference of the danger, if that be true, and we have not heard of it. before? Why is it, if as the Tight hon. gentleman says an understanding existed by which reports of such proceedings were not usually made known, he now ventures to use them to influence the action of the Canadian parliament?
I shall endeavour-and it will take some little time-to strip from the right hon. gentleman that mantle of assumed virtue that he has worn to-day. Remember, sir, that - the Prime Minister who has spoken is the same prime minister who but for a few months has been Prime Minister of this country since 1902. 'Remember, it is the same prime minister who received the report's of the special committee of the House of Commons on customs and excise. Remember it is the same prime minister, siir, who appointed a royal commission of three judges to deal with this matter. It is the same prime minister who assumed the mantle of righteous virtue in 1926, and in a full page advertisement of the Toronto Globe of September 11, 1926, told the Canadian peqple over his signature that if returned to .power he would continue relentlessly the investigation of the customs sendee, and carry out without fear or favour the needed requirements. The Globe has said, that the needed requirement was the prohibition of clearances, and now in 1930, wrapped in the mantle of righteous indignation and perfervid eloquence as to the virtue of the cause, the right lion, gentleman asks us to do what he promised he would do in 1926 when seeking the support of the electors of Canada. And, sir, it is a matter of some satisfaction to some of'us who sit t-o the left, who were on the special committee, which made that recommendation, to know that at least we can support that measure which we could not introduce under the rules of this .parliament, but which we have waited four years to hear introduced.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before I conclude my observations hon. gentlemen who were not in the house at that time will understand the matter. In those days they sought support from and alliance with those whom they now condemn. The evidence given before the royal commission, for which Hon. N. W. Rowell acted as counsel, brought out the fact that it was the contributions of the same men that are now being attacked in this house that enabled the government to defray the election expenses. Here is the evidence given before the royal commission under Mr. Rowell's questioning as to the "rat fund." That was the term used when Mr. Rowell was questioning the witness. He said, "We called it the rat fund." Then he was asked, "What happened to the rat fund," and I have here the names of men who secured the fund, and the amount they received when liquor was sent across the boundary. They received so many cents a case for beer, and so much for hard liquor. For what purpose? It was partly for the persona! enrichment of the gentlemen who received it, and partly for the campaign funds of the Liberal party of Canada. Here are the words with respect to it. Mr. Rowd.l said to the witness, "We did not think it was fair to leave Windsor after taking the small ones without taking you." The answer of the witness was, "I think it is quite nice for you to come to Windsor so that we may tell about the rat fund. You had a snake fund down east, and we 'had a rat fund here."
Export Act-Mr. Bennett

Then he told the story of the rat fund; he told who was the big fellow to whom the money ultimately went-the custodian of funds for the Liberal party during the election of 1926 and the .preceding .election. These men, sir, who are now denounced in words of righteous indignation, were those who supplied the necessary funds to 'carry on the campaign when the hon. gentleman was seeking position and power. Is it any wonder that the people of this country who read and understood the evidence given before that royal commission are getting a little weary of this high, moral indignation about conditions at the boundary line? Is it any wonder they are getting a little weary when they hear these reiterations about international goodwill and moral delinquencies when all the time, with their tongues in their cheeks, the Liberal party are the beneficiaries of the very men whom they now condemn.
Let us look at these things fairly. I have in my hand the summing up by Hon. N. W. Rowell before that commission with respect to these matters; I have the precis of the evidence given by those witnesses at the border points as to what took place, as to how money was paid the times they made their contributions and what they made them for. Those statements are here, and now in a fine frenzy of moral indignation we are told that to save Canada from a war with our good friends to the south-who never thought of it-we must be prepared to adopt this measure. It is hard for the Minister of Finance to keep his face straight, the silence is so impressive.
Let us remember what is the crux of the * matter. The American republic, for reasons of its own and within the exercise of its powers, adopted a constitutional amendment known as the eighteenth amendment. That amendment provided in clear terms that there Should be no longer any importation into or manufacture of liquor in that country. Let me read the terms of that amendment in order that .we may fairly begin this discussion:
fl) After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for .beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
(2)	The congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(3)	This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the congress.

That .resolution was duly submitted to congress and to the several state legislatures, and on. January 29,	1919, the United States
Secretary of State proclaimed its adoption by thirty-six states of the union, and declared it to be in effect on January 16, 1920. So on the last mentioned date the eighteenth amendment to the United States constitution, familiarly known as the prohibition amendment., came into force.
The right hon. gentleman indicated this afternoon that some time elapsed before we were advised as to what the attitude of the Unified States might be in connection with this matter. I find, however, on reference to the parliamentary proceedings as reported in Hansard for June 25, lQ28i, that in the preceding year the United States had directed attention to the question of the enforcement of the smuggling laws between that country and Canada. On the date I 'have mentioned the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, then leader of the opposition, called attention to a despatch from Washington, and Right Hon. W. IL. Mackenzie King, then and now Prime Minister, said:
I am obliged to my right hon. friend for bringing up the matter, because, having read the despatches to which he refers, I think they are calculated to create an entirely erroneous impression. It is true, the government has received from Washington a communication asking if it would be possible for the Canadian government to assist in promoting the observance of certain liquor laws of the United States. The communication relates to matters particularly appertaining to the export of liquor. When the communication was received it was referred to the departments of government concerned. The reply sent to Washington related exclusively to a statement of the law as it stands and the position of the Canadian authorities in meeting the request that has been made. There has been nothing sent forward to Washington with respect to the government's policy in the matter of endeavouring to cooperate with American authorities in securing observance of their laws. So far as the government's policy in that matter is concerned,
I would say that we have every desire to cooperate with the American authorities in helping them to secure the observance of their laws in precisely the same manner as we would hope to have the American authorities cooperate with ns in securing the'observance of our laws. Such action as has been taken up to the present has been entirely of a departmental character.
Then the leader of the opposition asked! a further question as to when the request had been received, and .the re.pf.y finally given by the Prime Minister was:
My impression is that it was about three months ago, the request was received. There was no intention of delay in the matter. It was dealt with entirely departmemtally. As regards the larger question, that of policy, the government would like to be able to view all sides of the situation before taking final action.

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
So that three years alter this amendment to the constitution of the United States became effective, the right hon. gentleman was still in the cloudland of conjecture and doubt as to the high moral issues involved. His mind was not then settled; his opinions were not then made; an election was not to be held the following year. It was not important that he should frighten the Canadian people into the belief that they were menaced by the great republic to the south. On the contrary he said, "Our opinion is not formed, our policy is not settled." That was in June, 1923, three years after the constitutional amendment had become effective in the United States.
Then the Imperial conference was held in London, at which the right hon. gentleman attended, and we are told now that at that conference-it is the first time we have been told so publicly, but he himself admits it- when that great foreign secretary of Great Britain, Marquis Curzon, was dealing with the question of the right of search by American coastguard ships of British vessels carrying liquor, and other kindred and allied matters, he indicated that this situation was "so delicate and disagreeable" that it involved consequences of the gravest character. But Great Britain did sign the treaty and this country ratified the treaty made between Great Britain and the United States. The right of search was extended, as you will remember, for a distance of an hour's run of the ship out to sea. As was stated by the right hon. the Prime Minister to-day, there were three matters to be considered, one of which was British commerce. Inasmuch as British ships plied between New York and the cities of the old land, it became necessary that it be determined whether or not they would be permitted t.o enter the harbour of New York with liquor in their stores, and I fancy that if he were so minded the right hon. gentleman could tell this house what is so well known by those who have taken the trouble to ascertain, that the commercial side of the situation became one of the most potent factors in bringing about the end obtained. It was quite clear that British ships would not be permitted to enter the harbour of New York even with their liquor sealed, unless some arrangement were made whereby the United States might search ships suspected of carrying contraband liquor within a distance of one hour's steaming from shore. That was in 1923.
What do we find in 1924 and 1925? There was an election in 1925, and what condition do we find obtaining in this country at that
time. A part of the evidence is the report of the royal commission arising out of the proceedings before a select committee of this house, which sat in 1926. That evidence disclosed a condition the like of which had not been disclosed heretofore in any part of this count,ry, and to which the right hon. gentleman alluded a moment ago when he was dealing with the report made by the committee. The report of the committee as amended was adopted by a majority of ten in this house at a time when the house was very closely divided along party lines. That majority comprised a group of members who were not actuated by strong partisan feeling, and in view of the fine frenzy of this afternoon, I would ask the house to keep in mind the following words contained in that report as amended:
The evidence further discloses that ministerial action has been influenced by the improper pressure of political associates and friends of the minister, or acting minister administering the department, resulting in the suspension and in some instances the abandonment of prosecutions against those charged with violation of the statutes and in the loss of revenue to the country. Moreover successful appeals have been made to the minister and acting minister administering the department to improperly interfere with the course of justice between the conviction of the offenders and the execution of judgment thereon.
I ask if, in any condemnation that has ever been made of a government of this country, you can find words such as appeared in that report, as follows:
The Prime Minister and the government had knowledge for some considerable time of the rapid degeneration of the Department of Customs and Excise, and their failure to take prompt and effective remedial action is wholly indefensible.
Remember, sir, that is the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What the hon gentleman is reading from is an amendment moved by the Conservative party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am quite willing to listen to any questions asked by the right hon. the Prime Minister, because I know he is seeking onlly for information and I Shall be glad to gratify his desire. The right hon. the Prime Minister has asked if this was not an amendment1. Certainly it was, and it was adopted by the House of Commons by a majority of 10.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An amendment of the Conservative party.


An hon, MEMBER:: While you were the Prime Minister.	,
Export Act-Mr. Bennett


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nfo, it was not while I was tlhe Prime Minister.


Mr. CANNON:: Carried: by a government which was defeated a few weeks afterwards by the peopfle of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) has1 spoken.


Mr. CAHILL:: That is not the report of the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I said.


Frank S. Cahill: It is an amendment to the report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think so.


Lucien Cannon: They were kicked out: a few weeks afterwards.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After these very happy observations which have been made by hon, gentlemen opposite who feel so keenly about the matter, may I direct the attention of the house to the fact that the vote was 119 to 109. The Conservative party did not at that time number in this house any such strength as 119; it was the great body of independent thought in this House of Commons which condemned the Prime Minister and the government, and not the Conservative party. Had the Conservative party had 119 votes in this house, it would have been in power from the early part of that year instead of in June. Had they elected 119 members to the House of Commons they would have been in power but it was the independent members, some of whom still sit to my left, the men and the woman who weighed that testimony and recorded their judgment as a judgment upon the government and the right hon. the Prime Minister and his associates. That was the judgment of parliament, to which the right hon. gentleman referred. It is true, as the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) said, that that government was defeated a few months later, but this vote shows that they were defeated by the active support of the forces-


An hon. MEMBER:: There is the evidence.


Ernest Lapointe: You cannot help smiling when you say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having come down to the year 1924, I point out that no action was taken in 1925, but I will come presently to something more important than that. In 1926 we had the customs inquiry and it will be observed that in the report which was made by the chairman a supporter of the government, the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier), it was provided that the investigation should be carried on further to indicate 
how far the corruption had gone and how far the iniquities disclosed had prevailed. That is what happened.


Lucien Cannon: During the Conservative regime.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been no Conservative regime from 1921 down to the present day except for a few short months. The responsibility rests with the Liberal party and with the Liberal administration, and no casuistry can for a single moment change that fact.
Now, sir, in 1924, in consequence of efforts made by the United States authorities to secure an arrangement with Canada to prevent smuggling, a treaty was negotiated by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Secretary of State for the United States, Mr. Charles Evans Hughes. That treaty bears date, Washington, June 6, 1924, and we now know something more than heretofore of the circumstances under which it was negotiated. But let me make reference to the following words which appear in the very preamble of the treaty:
Treaty 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.
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, and the United States of America being desirous of suppressing smuggling operations along the boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America.
And so on. Not regulating it, but suppressing it. When, sir, you heard to-day read to the house the regulation sent out by Mr. Breadner as to how and where liquor could foe sent across to the United States, those were regulations to assist the bootleggers to get liquor into the United States, whereas the treaty was for the suppression of smuggling. That is how the government suppressed smuggling. That is the method by which it was done. Could anything be more hypocritical than that? This is the treaty to suppress smuggling, and the regulations read to-day are for the purpose of getting the liquor out of bond, into the hands of bootleggers and so into the United States.
Let us turn to article 2 of the treaty. Perhaps it would be better to deal first with article 1 which provides for certain information being given concerning transportation of cargoes that were subject to duty, then for information concerning clearances of vessels

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
to any ports where there was ground to suspect that the owners or persons in possession of the cargo intended to smuggle it into the territory of the United States. Following that we have this:
The high contracting parties agree that clearance from Canada or from the United States shall be denied to any vessel carrying cargo consisting of articles the importation of which into the territory of Canada or of the United States, as the case may be, is prohibited-
It did not stop there. It then proceeded:
-when it is evident from the tonnage, size and general character of the vessel, or the length of the voyage and the perils or conditions of navigation attendant upon it that the vessel will be unable to carry its cargo to the destination proposed in the application for clearance.
Let me put this to the house: suppose, under the regulations that were issued, you desire to export fraudulently 100 eases of whiskey to the United States. You have a little motor yacht and go up to the customs house and say: "We want a clearance for Santa Cruz or Havana." "Well," the customs house officer says, "what is the size of your boat?" "Oh, she is a little motorboat of four or five tons." He replies, "It is perfectly clear that you do not intend to ever go to Havana or Santa Cruz with that boat from Windsor," and therefore he refuses the clearance. But if the next day the same man went up to the Collector of Customs and said: "I want to export 100 cases of liquor to the United States." the officer would give him a clearance. That is as the treaty was negotiated, after listening to the wise words of Lord Curzon. That is the treaty negotiated in view of the peril to the British Empire and to Canada. Let my hon. friends go back and tell their constituents that this government which they cheer so lustily, negotiated in 1924 a treaty that permitted them to refuse, in fact more than that, it prohibited the granting of clearances to small boats that cleared for Mexico or Havana, but permitted clearance to be granted to a boat that cleared for Detroit. I did not realize the true significance of this until I heard the observations this afternoon from the right hon. gentleman. With his statement as to what Lord Curzon had said, I can understand how his conscience has been bothering him all these years and 1 can realize, the enormous worries he must have had in consequence of having negotiated a treaty like that, or an arrangement that is dignified with the name of treaty.
Let us go a step further. This treaty was not ratified until 1925. As a matter of fact it was not ratified until July, 1925. Therefore, in 1925, if we take this chronologically, we had in force this treaty made with the United
States of America. Of course they believed that we were acting in the utmost good faith, and we bellieved that they were, because, mark you, the terms are reciprocal!. Not one side only is affected; both are affected. They undertook to d'o for us the same as we undertook to do for them. The present legislation is not reciprocal. The treaty was reciprocal. By the provisions of this reciprocal treaty made between the United States and Canada under the circumstances to which I have referred, we issued the regulations, the permits, the forms produced by the Prime Minister this afternoon. We prepared them and under them shipped out of this country hundreds of thousands of dollars, yes, in the aggregate more than $100,000,000 worth of liquor into the United States and cleared it for the United States, although if some one with a five-ton boat, thinking he could only do this fraudulently said: "I am going to Havana," he could not get a clearance at all.
We will leave that and turn to what happened in the ensuing years. It is right that the Canadian people should know what took place. Here is the correspondence which was produced by the Prime Minister yesterday, which was laid before the Senate last session and which indicates what was taking place between Canada and the United States in connection with these very matters. The law officers of the United States were plainly observing the operations of the treaty ns I have pointed out. They were indicating how ridiculous it was that this situation should exist. They were asking: Were we sincere? Why did we not make a treaty, a real treaty like the one they wanted us to make? Mark you, the evidence in these despatches is that they asked for a treaty, prohibiting clearances, and the government refused. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who is sitting opposite, knows that is what they sought. That is evident from these despatches, but the Prime Minister refused to agree and all the time he was refusing he knew of the terrible menace to the life of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say to my hon.
friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right. Let my hon.
friend continue.


Ernest Lapointe: No. My hon. friend's friends do not want me to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure I shall be glad if my hon. friend desires to ask a question.
Export Act-Mr. Bennett


Ernest Lapointe: I know my hon. friend
has the courtesy to permit this, but I shall not take advantage of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If for a moment my
friends were emulating my hon. friend's friends, they will now forget it. May I proceed? I am now speaking of the year 1925, and the matter is becoming somewhat important. On the sixth day of October, 1925, the British embassy, there being at that time no permanent ambassador at Washington, Mr. Chilton being the charge d'affaires, wrote a letter to Lord Byng, then Governor General of Canada. May I ask you, sir, to listen attentively to these words:
With reference to previous correspondence respecting the agreements now in force between Canada and the United States for the prevention of liquor and drug smuggling across the international border and the extradition of persons charged with offences in connection therewith, I have the honour to transmit to Your Excellency herewith copy of a note with enclosures from the United States government suggesting (1) that clearance be refused by the Dominion authorities to vessels carrying cargoes of liquor destined for the United States, (2) that a convention be concluded for the extradition between the United States and Canada of persons guilty of offences against the customs laws of either government, and (3) that a convention supplementary to that signed on June 6. 1924 be negotiated providing for the transportation of liquor to Telegraph Creek, B.C. via the Stikine river through Alaska.
The date of that is the sixth day of October, 1925, and the note enclosed by the Secretary of State, Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, under date of October 1, which is a rather lengthy document, contains a draft of a supplementary convention. He deals fully with the matter and said: I suggest to the Canadian people that here is the language that should be used in a supplementary convention or treaty dealing with clearances. The draft was as follows:
The high contracting parties agree that clearance 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 shipment comprises 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 of the laws of both countries.
Sir, nothing could be clearer than that statement. Mr. Kellogg submitted a draft of a paragraph to be introduced into a new convention, not in the terms of the bill that is before the house to-day, which is jug-handled, but a provision for a reciprocal arrangement between the United States and Canada declining clearances by water, air or land from any of the ports of either country

to a port of entrance of the other country, not of liquor, but of merchandise of any kind wherever, which under the law of the country to which the shipment was destined was prohibited or restricted. There you have as clear a statement of what the requirements of the United States were at that time as you can possibly conceive of being given. The despatch of Mr. Secretary of State Kellogg covers five or six typewritten pages in small type. He dealt with the matter at length. What did this government do then? Were the words of Lord Curzon then ringing in the ears of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)? Did he believe them then or not? Was he then giving leadership to the Canadian people? Did he then indicate to the Canadian people what the real situation was? Were the Canadian people being told then that there was a serious menace to our country and of the difficulties of a delicate character that confronted us? Did the Prime Minister at that time feel it his duty as leader, not of a party, but of this house, to tell the Canadian people what the situation was?
On December 11, 1925, Sir Esme Howard advised that he had not been able to secure the view of Canada on the suggestion of a new conference. Mark you, that was in December, 1925. The elections in 1925 were over, and no answer had been given at that date to the suggestion that came through the British embassy in Washington to our governor general with respect to a conference. In April, 1926, Sir Esme Howard again wrote to Lord Byng asking for information on the suggestion of a new conference. Sir Esme Howard again intimated that he had a further inquiry from the government of the United States of America. The despatches are in the file that has been brought down for our consideration. Sir Esme Howard went further. On June 21, 1926, he telegraphed to Lord Byng. Not only had he written without reply, but he telegraphed and in these words:
Manchester, Mass.,
June 21, 1926.
My despatch No. 237. State department inquire whether it would be possible for the Canadian government to arrange, within the next ten days, for the signature of the proposed supplementary conventions, so as to complete action in this matter before the recess of the United States Congress.
(Signed) Esme Howard.
What did Lord Byng reply? On June 25, 1926, he replied as follows-these are the vital words:
Canadian government is in substantial accord with the proposals of the United States government-

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
Listen, sir, again to the words:
Canadian government is in substantial accord with the proposals of the United States government and is prepared to arrange a conference at the earliest possible moment for the discussion of these proposals and of collateral questions. It is, however, not possible to say at the present moment whether such negotiations could be concluded in time to permit of approval by the Canadian parliament and the United States Congress before adjournment. A further communication will be forwarded on this point as soon as possible.
(Signed) Byng.
On the 25th day of June, 1926, the Canadian [DOT]government, speaking, of course, through the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister as Minister of External Affairs, the despatch being his, and not the Governor General's said: We are in substantial accord with the proposals of the United States government for a convention prohibiting clearances from this country.
What followed? Sir Esme Howard on September 14, 1926, sent a further communication to the Governor General enclosing a letter from Mr. Kellogg to the British embassy, *dated September 10, 1926, asking that the matter of a new conference be further considered.
Then the 6th of October, 1926, arrived. The Canadian election was over. According to the evidence the friends of the Prime Minister and the government on the border had done their duty. On October 6, 1926, we have this reply:
From His Excellency the Governor General of Canada
To His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador at Washington.
It is in this letter that reference is made for the first time' to the parliamentary committee and to the setting up of the royal commission. Listen to these words:
It is desired, however, to call attention to the fact that by order in council of the 28th September. 1926, the royal commission, appointed to continue inquiries which have been proceeding for some time into customs administration, has been instructed by the Canadian government to make an inquiry into the operation of the convention of June 6, 1924, and particularly as to whether any amendment is necessary or desirable to ensure the suppression of smuggling.
Those are the words of the government of that day. Then follow the names of the members of the commission, and its powers as indicated by the order in council already read this afternoon by the right hon. the Prime Minister. The letter continued:
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 the 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.
I shall be grateful if Your Excellency will bring the views of the Canadian government to the attention of the Secretary of State of the United States.
That was sent by Lord Willingdon. On October 21, 1926, Lord Willingdon telegraphed the British ambassador that the Hon. N. W. Rowell had been appointed counsel for the commission, and it was desired that he should have opportunity of conferring with representatives of the United States government regarding the operation of the present smuggling treaty between the United States and Canada so as to bring before the royal commission all relevant matters.
On November 9, 1926, Lord Willingdon again telegraphed to the British ambassador at Washington saying that the Hon. Mr. Rowell would be in Washington on the 13th of that month. Then the charge d'affaires of the British embassy, Washington, telegraphed to the Governor General, Ottawa, on November 10, indicating that Mr. Rowell's visit could be arranged. Following that, Mr. Rowell did in fact visit Washington and he found how the convention was operating. Mr. Chilton wrote to the Governor General on December 8, 1926:
The proposed conference appears to have been fully discussed with Mr. Rowell, who will doubtless have full information on the subject.
On December 7th of the same year, Mr. Secretary of State Kellogg had written a letter to the charge d'affaires, British embassy, Washington, in which he recited what had taken place, spoke of the early adjournment of congress, and asked what the government was prepared to do. He said:
As Mr. Rowell suggested that the situation be explained fully to the Canadian government. I have the honour to inquire whether you will be so good as to ascertain whether the Canadian authorities would be disposed to arrange for the proposed conference at an early date, since it is felt that a discussion of the problems involved will be mutually advantageous to both governments in preventing violations of their respective laws.
Not their laws, but their "respective" laws. Then followed a despatch from the Governor General dated February 15, 1927-still nothing done-in which he advised the British ambassador that he had received a letter from the Department of External Affairs setting out the views of the government on the subject, which he enclosed. The letter referred
Export Act-Mr. Bennett

to is dated February 14, 1927, and is signed by Mr. Skelton. In the course of the letter he said:
It is the view of the Canadian government that the conference should also consider whether any of the recommendations to the governments of Canada and the United States which may be made would most appropriately be carried out by a supplementary convention, by concurrent legislation, or by administrative regulation.
Now, sir, mark the date of that letter, the 14th of February, 1927. It will be noticed that months went by, and the months ran into a year, and not until the 27th of November, 1928, was any further action taken, after the Hon. William Phillips had come to Canada as the minister from the United States. Then you find that once more the question was raised. But during that long interval, despite the danger that attached to this country's very existence by reason of the conditions referred to by the Prime Minister not a single word was said, not a single line was sent to safeguard Canada from the imminent peril which confronted us.
I then come to the letter of the 27th November, 1928. And that is the first intimation, mark you, between then and the date of the preceding letter which I have quoted, that any action was taken. But perhaps I can call it six o'clock and deal with this letter after recess.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 27, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (division of capital stock). -Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 28, respecting the Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company.-Mr. Black (Halifax).
Bill No. 29, to incorporate the Saint Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association.-Mr. Lueh-kovich.
Bill No. 30, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (branch lines).-Mr. Power.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. N. SMITH (Stormont) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26, to incorporate The Cornwall Bridge Company.
Mr. SPENCER:: Explain.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: This is a bill to incorporate a company to build a bridge

from a point at or near Cornwall to Hog: island and then across to St. Regis island, to a point at or near St. Regis village. The whole of the bridge would be in the Dominion, of Canada although the southern end of it would be only about 500 feet from the United States boundary and state highway. So that we would have the advantage of an international bridge, yet it would be in the Dominion of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act.-Mr. Ladner.
Mr. LADNER:: Mr. Speaker, last year an intimation was given, rather of a positive kind, that the government would introduce legislation to the Copyright Act, and as there is a possibility of that legislation covering a considerable portion if not all the amendments proposed in the present bill, I would like to ask the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) whether there is any likelihood of the government introducing such legislation during this session.


Mr. RINFRET:: It is the intention of the government to introduce very soon a bill to amend the Copyright Act, and that will give my hon. friend the opportunity to discuss the amendments proposed in his bill. In the meantime this bill might be allowed to stand.
Bill stands.



EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 15, to amend the Export Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was directing attention to a communication sent by the American minister to the right hon. the Prime Minister under date 27th November, 1928, in which he directed the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that nothing had been done, and suggested that a conference be held at Ottawa to deal with the questions at issue. To that a reply was sent by the Under Secretary of State, on December 12, 1928. and in

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
the end a conference was held at Ottawa in January of 1929. The American delegation comprised:
Admiral F. C. Billard, Commandant United States Coast Guard, head of group;	_
James M. Doran, Commissioner of prohibition, Treasury Department;
E.	W. Camp, Commissioner of Customs; _
Ferdinand L. Mayer, Counsellor of American
Legation, Ottawa.
Irving N. Linnell, American Consul General at Ottawa;
Francis Colt de Wolf, Assistant to Solicitor, State Department;
Harry J. Anslinger, Liaison Officer between State and Treasury Departments;
Arthur W. Henderson, Special Assistant to the Attorney General;
Lynn W. Meekins, Commercial Attache, Ottawa;
Frank J. Murphy, Treasury Department, Technical Assistant;
Elmer J. Lewis, Treasury Department, Technical Assistant;
Miss Clara Borjes, Secretary to Delegation.
The Canadian delegation comprised:
Doctor 0. D. Skelton, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs;	.
W. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of
Justice;	.	.	,	,
R. W. Breadner, Commissioner of Customs;
G.	W. Taylor, Commissioner of Excise;
C.' P. Blair, Assistant Commissioner of Customs;	_	.	_F.	W. Cowan, Chief, Customs Excise Preventive Service;	.William Ide, Acting General Executive Assistant;	.	.
E. Hawken, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Marine;
C. H. L. Sharman, Narcotic Division, Department of Pensions and National Health:
H.	L. Kennleyside, Third Secretary, Department of External Affairs.
Meetings were held at Ottawa in the early part of January, 1929. As a result of those meetings reports were made to the respective *governments, nut only hy t!he Canadian delegation but also toy the American delegation, and in the end the American Secretary of State sent to our government a copy of the precis of the proceedings as presented to his government by the American representatives. On March 15, 1929, the Prime Minister sent a letter to the American charge d'Affaires, in which he pointed out.:
As you will observe from an examination of the report, the conference devoted its attention almost exclusively to discussion of the suggestion made by the United States representatives that the Canadian government, in addition to the numerous steps already taken, which facilitate the enforcement of the United States laws against the importation of liquor and which are summarized in the report, should prohibit the export of intoxicating liquors to the United States, without making at the present time a final decision on this proposal, the Canadian government is in accord with the opinion expressed by the Canadian representatives that
the problem of enforcement facing United States officials, particularly on the Detroit and Niagara border, might in large measure be solved by a further extension of the system of furnishing information as to shipments of liquor provided by the convention of June, 1924. It will be noted from the report that instructions have been issued to Canadian customs officials to provide more detailed and exact information as to shipments, and that more recently steps have been taken to reduce the number of export docks, which will facilitate securing more complete and accurate data. To cooperate with and assist further the government of the United States in the effective enforcement of its laws, the Canadian government is 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 the United States information to be furnished by the Canadian customs officials as clearances are obtained as to the clearance of all vessels for the United States carrying liquor cargoes.
Any further suggestions which would make for increased speed, accuracy, or precision in the conveyance of information to the appropriate United States officials will be sympathetically considered.
That was signed by the right hon. Prime Minister as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In due course the United States made reiply indicating that in the opinion of the government of that country such a proposal was not acceptable. The reply was dated April 20, 1929. It is important to remember three paragraphs in that despatch, which is No. 349, from Mr. Phillips to the right hon. Prime Minister:
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.
Article 1 of the convention of June 6, 1924, between the United States and Canada for the suppression of smuggling operations provides for the exchange of information between the appropriate officers of the respective governments concerning clearances of vessels to any ports when there is ground to suspect that the cargo is intended for smuggling into the territory ot either country. Such information has been promptly furnished by the Canadian officials to the designated American authorities, except in a very few cases which were speedily adjusted by the Canadian government as soon as its attention was called to the matter. But the necessary information to identify the vessels engaged in liquor smuggling has not been available because the data furnished to the Canadian authorities and transmitted -to the American officials, were in most cases fictitious.
Canadian officials have faithfully discharged their duties under the Convention, and there is no reason to believe that the information would be more accurate or more helpful if transmitted through American officials stationed on the Canadian side of the border.
While the government of the United States appreciates the gracious offer of the Canadian
Export Act-Mr. Bennett

government to permit American officials to transmit information of this kind from Canadian soil, it remains convinced that the only effective means of dealing with the smuggling problem along the border is the conclusion of a treat}' amending the convention of June G, 1924, to the end that clearance be denied to shipments of commodities from either country when their importation is prohibited in the other.
As I have said, that was signed by Mr. Phillips, the American minister.
It will be observed that the date of that communication is April 20, 1929. It summarized the conclusions arrived at by the American government after the conference had been held in this city, at which conference the views of Canada and the United States respectively were canvassed by all parties interested with great care and precision. The precis supplied by the Canadian government to the responsible ministers indicated with some fullness of detail just what took place, and the American Secretary of State, Mr. Kellogg, sent to his minister here the complete report made by the United States delegation. We have before us, therefore, the precis of not only our own representatives but also of those of the United States.
I again ask this government, as I have done so frequently, why it is that with that report before it on April 20, 1929, it did not then avail itself of the offer made by the United States to frame a new convention or treaty prohibiting not only clearances by sea, but the smuggling of any commodities by air, sea or land into Canada that were prohibited by our law. In the same sense, similar arrangements would be made with the United States. Parliament was in session, and the matter came before this house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Subsequently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It came before parliament at that very session, and it will be found that the discussion that took place last session, to which the Prime Minister adverted this afternoon, was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). The discussion was precipitated on the motion to go into supply. On that occasion, instead of moving a vote of want of confidence, the hon. member discussed the matter with great frankness. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) followed; the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) spoke also, and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) made the defence, or shall I say the statement, on behalf of the government.
I was rather amazed at certain observations made this afternoon by the right hon.

Prime Minister in connection with the Minister of National Revenue speaking for the government. The principles of cabinet solidarity of course prevail. When the Minister of National Revenue spoke last year in the house he represented the government, and what he said bound the government of the day because it was a statement made .by the minister on a question of policy. As has been pointed out by text writers in recent years, nothing is more important than the principle of the solidarity of the cabinet and the position occupied by each minister of the administration, for it is recognized that when a minister speaks he speaks for the cabinet, and all the cabinet is bound by his observations. There is no more striking illustration of the soundness of that view than in the letter which was addressed by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Mr. Tarte on the occasion of his resignation. The principle of cabinet solidarity is one that strikes at the very root of responsible government. When the minister spoke from his place last year, there were most vociferous cheers on the part of the government supporters behind him- loud and prolonged cheers-when he proclaimed that the Americans had neglected to observe the duty cast upon them by the laws of their own country, namely the duty of enforcing the prohibitory laws of the United States. He said that Canada did not propose to assume the responsibility of carrying American legislation into effect, and hon. gentlemen will recall the cheers with which those observations were received.


Frank S. Cahill: And the support of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Pontiac says "with the support of the opposition ", If he will read the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) he will find it difficult to reconcile with the statement he has just made. At any rate, that was the position taken at that time. The Minister of National Revenue pointed out that he had made a visit to Detroit and had observed the operations of the law in a manner which indicated that it was being entirely disregarded by the people of the United States. Perhaps hon. gentlemen will recall that within a very few days that statement was challenged, and was later denied in the United States congress. Perhaps they will also recall that in the course of the discussion that took place in this city it was indicated that the reason why the provisions' of the treaty were not effective for the purpose of suppressing smuggling was that the information given by those who cleared their ships was not in accordance with the facts,.

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
and the clearances being false the information supplied to the American authorities was false also and therefore of no benefit.
I propose in a moment to read into the record a few observations made by members of the delegation that came to Ottawa which will indicate the inefficiency of existing laws, and the reasons why they were inefficient. To my mind that is rather important. The statement made by the Minister of National Revenue that afternoon was relied upon by the Prime Minister as holding out a hope for what? As holding out the hope that the Canadian people might express themselves so freely that the government would know what policy to pursue. Is that the right hon. gentleman's idea of government? Is that the idea that the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) for instance, has as to government? "Wait a while; wait and see; ascertain whether public opinion leans this way or that. If it leans this way I am with it; if it leans the other way I am against it." Is that the conception of government held by the right hon. Prime Minister? Is that his view of responsibility, especially having regard to the fact, sir, that at that critical moment he had in the back of his head, something that was not known to us, the realization of the danger to the national life of Canada.
I commend to those who speak so readily of representative institutions and responsible government under democracy the fine leadership given by an attitude of that kind towards a great international question. I commend it to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) with whom I have so much in common. He must, with his attitude of mind toward public problems, feel proud and happy with leadership that, realizing a danger to our country, remains silent and quiescent, waiting to see which way public opinion wiil lead. That is leadership that follows, but which does not lead. There the matter ended.
There is not in the papers as produced a singlle line, not a communication, from either the minister of the United States or the Department of State from the date of that letter of Mr. Phillips. I would like to inquire what the verbal representations were that indicated this imminent danger to the body politic.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Lord Curzon's ghost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Banquo's ghost, I imagine it was in this instance.
Has any member of this house ever heard of a country being in danger in consequence of its relations to another, which danger was not indicated by a despatch? Go back to the days of the Venezuela trouble, go back
to the days when Sir John Macdonald was having trouble in connection with canal tolls, and you will find in the records of the British foreign office details of everything that took place. We have not a single word from April, 1929, to indicate that a situation had arisen which was in any sense different from that indicated in that despatch. Does the house think that the Prime Minister has any warrant for making this cry of danger when our minister at Washington has not placed upon the record any despatch with relation to the situation? So far as I have been able to study diplomatic usages and understand anything of them, there never ha; been in the history of nations, even at the critical moment when war between the great powers of Europe was hanging in the balance, a time when despatches have not been exchanged between the nations concerned. Yet, from April 1929 to date there is not a single line, not a single word which would indicate, on the one hand, that the United States was not satisfied with the attitude we had taken and that hostilities were pending, or, on the other hand, that Canada was making any extraordinary effort to deal with the situation in any different sense than it had previously. The right hon. the Prime Minister said that the United States had made added efforts to enforce the law. Where is the evidence of it? Is it upon these records? It is not. Who said it? Who told someone to tell somebody else? This is the new diplomacy. Where are the despatches which deal with these matters. Moreover, this house was not caled to transact business until February 20, and I ask the house if the speech from the throne contained any reference to this matter.
Was it of such transcendent importance that the Prime Minister should stand here this afternoon and cry out about facing the future, the dark and dismal future, if this house did not approve of this legislation? It was of such importance he said but he could not refer to it in the speech from the throne. It was not worth while to tell the Canadian people and the members of parliament about this great, vital matter. If the words uttered this afternoon appear exactly as I heard them, and I think I heard them correctly, there never has been made in this parliament a statement which indicated a greater danger to this Dominion. And yet there is not a word of corroboration upon the written record of strained diplomatic relations between the two countries.
With all frankness I say that I decline to be made fearful by the observations of the right hon. gentleman. I decline to believe
Export Act-Mr. Bennett

that this great and friendly power is secretly endeavouring to terrorize the Canadian people. That belief would not do that country justice, and I decline to believe that they are sitting behind closed doors devising some secret scheme whereby, if we do not do something, they are going to do something to us. I require some evidence in formal despatches. Such evidence will be found in the despatches in connection with any other matter of an international character. The records in the foreign offices of the different countries show clearly what took place between the middle of June and the outbreak of the war in August. This is a matter to which I think any house of commons, properly constituted, would at least take exception.
Had we not the right to know the seriousness of this matter as declared by the Prime Minister? Had we not the right to know it in the speech from the throne, and if conditions were as serious as the observations of the Prime Minister indicate, then why was not parliament called together at once to deal with it? After the election of 1926, parliament was called in the fall by the Prime Minister to deal with governor general's warrants. In the face of what was said this afternoon, was it not worth while to tell the people of Canada in the speech from the throne this year of the serious situation?
I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister, if there is nothing further in the way of despatches, and he has said very frankly that there was not, and if there is no record, the sooner our minister at Washington put this in shape so that parliament may know just what the representations made by the United States Secretary of State to Canada were, the better it will be for our diplomatic service and the better it will be for the country. We have a right to know. We have no right to be dragooned into action because the Prime Minister says that he entertains views as indicated. If we take action, let us take it because we as Canadians think it should be taken, not because we are fearful that if we do not do it, somebody will do something to us.
Before we proceed further, let us analyze the position taken by our delegates at the conference in Ottawa, and see what attitude was taken by the Americans on that occasion. Admiral Billard has had considerable experience. Those who know speak of the United States coastguard as being one of the greatest services in the world. The men are very highly trained. I daresay that most hon. members like myself saw a recent article in one of the magazines outlining the conditions

under which men become members of that service and the training they receive before undertaking their duties and responsibilities. This report indicates that the United States took the view from the beginning of the conference, as Admiral Billard clearly stated, as Mr. Doran stated and Mr. Camp stated, that the treaty of 1924 had been of no value whatever. In fact I shall read presently what Mr. Camp said, that makes it an amazing thing that with so strong a statement before them, the representatives of our country took the view stated. But at page 7 of that report we read:
The only solution of the problem therefore appeared to be to ask the Canadian authorities to stop the traffic from the Canadian side. In proposing this action the United States representatives stated that they were not asking Canada to assume responsibility for the enforcement of United States laws. The proposal merely meant that each country should refuse to allow its instrumentalities to be used by per sons 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.
Once more may I direct the attention of the house to the language of the proposed amendment to the treaty:
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 shipment comprises 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 restrictive merchandise when there has been complete compliance with the conditions of the law of both countries.
That was the proposal of the United States in 1929. It will be observed that, unlike the bill, it was reciprocal in its character; unlike the bill it referred to clearances of shipments of merchandise by water, air or land; unlike the bill it did not in any sense deal with liquor alone, but it dealt with all forms of merchandise.
At this point may I make an observation, because I intend to deal with it later a little more fully: when a country of 110,000,600 people offers reciprocal benefits to this country by water, air or land, and asks us to agree, it may well be that within a very short time this country will prohibit the entrance into Canada of various commodities now produced in the United States of America; and had this offer been accepted we would have had a reciprocal treaty dealing with the matter. According to international law

we can legislate only for Canada, and not the United States. The better way by which to establish a contract between another country and our own is by a treaty or convention. That the United States delegates offered; that we declined to accept. It was not a case of accepting or refusing at the moment, but a matter of expression of opinions, and we expressed an adverse view ito that expressed by the American delegates.
It was made clear, however, in subsequent discussions that in addition to refusal of clearances, the United States representatives considered it would be necessary, in order to check 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.	.
This bill does that. As I shall presently point out, it deals with two matters, one a customs matter and the other an export matter, and in the latter instance the bill meets the requirements that the United States say should be provided in order to prevent the flow of liquor into their country.
The report indicates further that the United States has made a somewhat similar agreement with Cuba and Mexico, and other countries had taken steps to meet their views by a multilateral treaty signed in August, 1925. The Baltic States, Germany, Denmark, Esthonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Sweden, the free city of Danzig, and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, agreed with one another to prohibit vessels of less than 100 tons register from transporting alcoholic liquors from the territory of the one to the territory of the other and in addition provided for information being supplied in terms similar to the agreement between Canada and the United States. The representations made with respect to the quantity of liquor that was imported into the United States from Canada is indicated on page 11 of the report signed by our delegates:
A recent unofficial estimate by Major Chester P. Mills, formerly in charge of prohibition enforcement in New York city, was to the effect that 98 per cent of the supply in the United States was produced within its own borders. Precision in such estimates was from the nature of things impossible, but even assuming that the Canadian supply vras double the estimate, it still remained a minor factor, so far as quantity was concerned.
It was indicated that our labels were copied and liquor sold as Canadian liquor which was in fact spirits made in the United States and which had injurious effects on their own people.
Attention was also called by the Canadian representatives to the frequency of shipments in daylight along the Detroit and Niagara frontiers within sight of both shores. Photo-2419-40
Export Act-Mr. Bennett
graphs had been taken showing ^ boats with liquor cargoes crossing the river in open daylight.
Hon. members will remember that this was in 1929. Then the steps taken by Canada were indicated, as was mentioned by the Prime Minister this afternoon, especially with respect to changing our laws concerning export houses and limiting the number of export shipping docks along the frontier. Then we have the report made by the members of the United States delegation to their government indicating clearly the strong views entertained by the Americans because Admiral Billard, in closing, left with our delegation an expression of opinion which he said was something for thought. He said:
In the entire history of the world there have never been more friendly neighbour nations than Canada and the United States.
He went further. He said:
Realizing the special conditions, your government was good enough to conclude a smuggling treaty with the United States on June 6, 1924, which treaty, it was hoped, would stop smuggling activities across the international frontier. This treaty, as we all know, has not accomplished the purpose for which it was designed.
He gave particulars of the reasons for his views and once more quoted the language of the proposed amendment to the existing convention. He also mentioned that the value of the whisky exported to the United States from Canada had increased from $12,000,000 in 1927 to $18,000,000 in 1928, and as most hon. members know, while the entire quantity of liquor shipped to the United States in 1929 for the twelve months ended January last has decreased, the quantity of certain forms of spirits increased a little over the figures mentioned by Admiral Billard for 1928. He made this statement, and I quote again:
I may say it would appear that some people feel that in proposing such an amendment to your government the United States is asking Canada to do something new and unusual and, in effect, to assume responsibility for the enforcement of American laws. I am_ sure that you gentlemen understand that nothing can be further from the facts. All that this amendment purports to provide is that Canada and the United States will refuse to allow their instrumentalities to be used by persons engaged in breaking the laws of one or the other of the two countries.
He gave instances and illustrations as to what had happened and then came to the point to which I direct the attention of the house as being of great importance. The people of the United States were not unmindful of what we had been doing in Canada through parliament and the royal commission. So it will be found in the report made to his

Export Act-Mr. Bennett

government that Admiral Billard directed attention to the fact that his delegation had relied upon the report of the parliamentary committee and also on the report of the royal commission. The report of the royal commission he quotes in terms as well as the report of the committee and he asks, not unfairly, it seems to me, why some action had not been taken in that regard. This of course, as might be expected, is done with diplomatic care. It will be found at page 6 of the report and to that I shall again refer presently. Some of the gentlemen who spoke on behalf of the United States indicated clearly that the result of the treaty of 1924 had been wholly unsatisfactory and they gave the reasons why. There is one paragraph I should like to point to in particular. This is what Mr. Anslinger stated as reported on page 11:
There is not one instance where a seizure had been made as the result of information furnished by the Canadian authorities because of its fictitious nature.
That is the result of the treaty in operation. The reason he gave for it was that the information furnished was in practically every instance fictitious, and therefore it did not become of any value at all. The attitude of our delegation as reported to the United States government might be summarized in this way: Mr. Hawken, Mr. Breadner, Mr. Stuart Edwards, Mr. Cowan, head of the preventive service, indicated first of all that if the American views were met Canada might seem to be taking some responsibility with respect to the enforcement of American laws and this they thought we should not do; secondly, that in any event the liquor would get into the United States by indirect methods instead of by the direct methods then followed, and that there would be many points from which it would be sent rather than from the limited number from which it was then going. They indicated that they felt the question of expense might be involved and that it might place upon us an increased burden of financial responsibility. This summarizes very shortly the position taken by the representatives of the Canadian government. They felt especially that there might be great difficulties because of the fact that as Mr. George Taylor put it, it would result in decentralization whereas now the traffic is centralized, which enables the American authorities to centralize their efforts since they know where the liquor is coming from. That point was met by frank discussion.
There was one other position referred to by the delegation which I think the government must consider, and I shall presently invite the attention of the government to the provisions

of the statute. Mr. Cowan felt that if you proceeded to deal with it in the way suggested, our people would be involved in searching cargoes to ascertain whether or not the ship's manifest correctly indicated the cargo. In other words, he said that it would put upon us the intolerable burden of searching each ship to ascertain whether the cargo did or did not contain articles the importation of which was prohibited by the United States. That position I think will be clearly met when the bill is in committee by indicating the desirability of providing that the ship's manifest shall be the indication of its cargo, and that it will be impossible for us to give any guarantee whether or not smuggling in the cargo is going an. I should like to quote the words of Admiral Billard as the conference closed. He said:
I would like to leave a thought witil you as we are adjourning. The discussions have been most interesting. I am going to ask yon to take this thought away with you-that we shall not be like the chap who could not see the forest on account of the trees. Our purpose is fundamental. It is not whether, under a certain program, certain practices are carried out. It is a matter of a great, friendly power that has been assisting us in this work right along-of a great, friendly power now sanctioning the importation into its neighbour's territory of an article strictly prohibited by that neighbour. There has been just a bit of inconsistency in the matter.
Some of you have brought out the lack of legal obligation on the part of Canada to help us, others have brought out most gratifyingly a disposition to help as you have helped. I just wish to leave this thought with you-of two great neighbours, friendly, with mutual interests, and a situation whereunder you sanction the importation of an article into a sister country, the admission of which is absolutely prohibited.
That was the position taken by Admiral Billard, and he said that no remedy short of a refusal to give clearances would bring about the desired result.
Now let us ask ourselves what the Prime Minister meant this afternoon when he said that he did not propose that the instrumentalities of government, namely, the customs officials of this country, should become parties to these illegal transactions and be compelled to do that which in all conscience they should not do, namely, sign their names to papers which they knew to be false and give the support of their signatures to statements which they knew to be untrue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think I said anything of the kind. I never said "statements that were false". I said that they were signing statements which from the point of view of the law as it stood were absolutely

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
correct, but which, having relation to the situation as it is in the United States, were capable of being misinterpreted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon. gentleman is perhaps dealing with another phase. I am coming to the second phase of his observations. But the first part of his observations dealt with those cases in which we had given clearances knowing the ships would never go to the ports designated, that the officials were signing fictitious papers, which they knew in their heart and soul and conscience were not true. There is no doubt about that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not make that statement, though.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly think that that was the sense of what the right hon. gentleman said, but I am bound to accept his statement that he did not say it. I will put it this way: It was brought out clearly by the customs committee that clearances were being given to ships that never could reach the ports they were apparently destined for, and signatures were placed upon documents required by law, which signatures in point of fact were made by men who knew when they made them that they were certifying to something that could not possibly be correct. There is no doubt about that. That point has been canvassed so often that I do not need to devote any more time to it.
Now I come to the question of existing conditions, namely the signing of clearance papers to the United States by the officials who know when they clear the ship that she never will land at the port to which she is legally destined-never. Therefore, so the Prime Minister argued, our officials were being asked to become parties to the violation of the laws of another country and to do something which, although under our laws not criminal, was in morals and international comity an offence against friendly nations; I will put it as broadly as that. Now I want to ask the right hon. gentleman this: Since when did his solicitude become so keen? Why this sudden solicitude? W7hy was the solicitude not expressed in 1926, or in 1927, or in 1928, or in 1929? Why did it manifest itself only in 1930? Was the evil greater in 1930 than in 1929? W7as it greater in 1930 than in 1928? Could }rou say in any one instance that the evil had become so monstrous that it must be destroyed? Whs its magnitude any greater in 1929 than in 1928? The figures indicate clearly that whatever that evil was, it existed in 1929 as it did in 1928, and there is no great increase in the volume of liquor exports to 2419- 40$
the United States in the twelve months ending January, 1930, over the twelve months ending January, 1929. Then why this sudden change of heart? WThy then, this sudden solicitude for the instrumentalities of government? Why this desire to save them from doing this evil thing? That is the question. Is there any answer?
Further, if it was all right in 1929, why is it to become wrong in 1930 when there has been no change in the American law? W7hen the Minister of National Revenue from his place in the house last year made a statement with respect to the attitude of the Canadian People on this question, the prohibitory liquor article of the United States constitution was in effect as it is to-day. Why in February, May and June, 1929, have one view, and suddenly a new view in 1930? There is nothing upon the record to explain it. Perhaps like Saul of Tarsus, journeying down to Damascus the Prime Minister has seen a great light. That we do not know, but this we do know, that there has been no change in the law of the United States with respect to this matter, and the conditions that obtained in the United States at the time of the inquiry by the customs committee and by the royal commission are the conditions that have prevailed up to this day. There has been no change in their law, and so I ask, why this sudden solicitude? The other day the Prime Minister said that Sir Robert Borden made certain statements on one occasion because he thought an election was coming. Judging from the closing observations of the right hon. gentleman, that is the reason of his sudden solicitude. He has come to the conclusion that the balance of public opinion is against rather than for the position taken by the government last year, and so he is going to change with it.
I am going to ask the right hon. gentleman another question. It deals with a matter that, after all, is of great importance in this country. It was of such great importance in this country that it was one of the issues, perhaps obscured by other matters, that brought the Prime Minister back to power in 1926. I wonder if this house remembers the exact terms in which the customs committee made its report with respect to clearances. When paragraph 10 came before the committee for consideration the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St.-Pere) and the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) did not agree with the terms of that recommendation of the committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they did not agree.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did.
Export Act-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that there may be no misapprehension on that point I will read from the records, page 1 of the minutes:
Clause 10 was read and the question being put, the committee divided as follows:
Yeas, Messrs. Bennett, Donaghy, Doucet, Goodison. Kennedy and Stevens, 6. Nays, Messrs. Bell and St. Pere, 2.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Now, sir, at that time we had in parliament a statement that that report was to be adopted. When the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) moved the adoption of the report, it met apparently with the unanimous approval of the house. I quite agree with the Prime Minister that so far as the main report that came from that committee was concerned, on which there was a majority of the supporters of his administration-it was under their control; I will put it that way- that report met with the approval of this house. When I say that the committee was under the control of the supporters of the administration, I should add that of the nine members one was of the Progressive party. It is possible that the membership was equally divided as between Liberals and Conservatives with the Progressive member. I speak subject to correction on that point. But at any rate it met with the support of the chairman, a Liberal, and he made the report to this house, which report contained clause 10. An amendment passed by the house made it impossible, as the Prime Minister properly observed this afternoon, for him to support it because it censured his administration. Therefore he was not prepared to vote for it. But apart from that, the committee made a report after careful study of the situation, and that report was adopted by this house. There were differences of opinion with respect to certain clauses, as mentioned by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) this afternoon, but with respect to the report itself there was no difficulty except the difficulty to which I have just alluded. There were other votes also in the committee, but in the end the report was as I have indicated.
Now, just for a moment may I direct attention to the language of paragraph 10. This afternoon the Prime Minister indicated his high regard for this parliament, for the views that it entertained with respect to this matter, and the desirability of the government giving effect to them. Let me read these words from the report:
Doubts have been cast upon the sufficiency of existing legislation to prohibit or authorize regulations prohibiting 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 accorance with the laws of that country.
"As soon as possible." I read this afternoon the promise given to the people of Canada by the Prime Minister in the advertisement published in the Toronto Globe, that when the report came from the royal commission he would see that its recommendations were implemented. Does "as soon as possible " mean four years later or not? Four years later! Aye, but it did not stop there. He asked the United States authorities to stay their hand in their endeavour to secure a conference-until when? Until after the royal commission, as indicated in the despatch he himself sent to the government of the United States, had made its report. Let us look at the language of the report made by the royal commission. And that royal commission certainly was not partisan in its personnel. It consisted of three judges, the chief justice of the King's Bench in Saskatchewan, an Ontario judge and a distinguished jurist from Quebec; all it is true, Liberals before their appointment to the bench; but that had nothing to do with their views; they were judges a'jd they heard the evidence. Their counsel was the Hon. N. W. Rowell-certainly not a Conservative, certainly not prejudiced against the administration which he was supporting. Let us see what that commission said in its report:
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.
_ Such are the words of those three eminent judges. They adopted the recommendation of the select committee that asked that this matter be dealt with "as soon as possible." Further, they said that this would only give effect to the true intent of the treaty of 1924. The right hon. Prime Minister, when he was faced with the situation that the intent of the treaty was as I have indicated, sent a despatch to the American government over his own signature in which he said: this matter has also been referred to the commission, and we will wait until we see what they report. You find that the paragraph that I have quoted,

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
which is next to the closing paragraph of the report, deals with the treaty, that is, the treaty with the United States, and says:
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.
Then, sir, if that be so, why have the government waited since 1927 until this year before taking action? What is the answer? If the government were sincere, if they were really interested in this matter, if it was of tremendous importance to Canada that they have indicated, then tell me how you construe the words " as soon as possible " to mean four years later. The royal commission approved the recommendation of the special committee that action be taken as soon as possible. If that was the true intent of the recommendation, how do the government justify this delay? It is all right for the government to wrap themselves in the mantle of righteousness, but it is not sufficient to say that that answers the question. What is the answer? Let the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) go back to western Canada and tell them what the answer is.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: What reference did you make to it in western Canada this year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not refer to it this year, and I will tell you why.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: We know why.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You certainly do know; there is no doubt about that. Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for this occasion; I knew it would come, and it has come. I never had a moment's doubt that the forces that were arrayed against my friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), the effort that was made to destroy him in his constituency because of the position that he took in that committee, would one day in this parliament give me a chance to make the very observations that I am now making. If the hon. member for Saskatoon wants to know why I did not discuss, antecedently to the government making known their policy on this question, I tell him they would have complained that I had impeded them in the discharge of their duties. Not only, sir, has that complaint been made in respect to this matter, but also in respect to other matters that I could mention. It is the policy and practice of the Liberal party whenever it suits them to say: We could have done so and so but for the fact that the Conservatives
did so and so. They say we are jingoes, that we have impeded their efforts to bring about friendly relations with another country because of the attitude that we have taken.
I have remained silent in regard to this matter, and now I put the responsibility where it belongs, on the shoulders of the government. There is where the responsibility rests. The hon. Minister of Railways may laugh, but there is where the responsibility belongs. The responsibility rests with the government of this country and cannot be placed elsewhere; let them accept it.
When the moment came they had to discharge that duty, they could not rise in their places and say that this great party had in any sense impeded them in their effort to bring about a solution of this difficult problem. They could not point to any observations of ours and say that those observations had in any sense restricted or hampered their efforts. Rather this is the situation, that when the conference met at Ottawa in 1929 the American government officials relied upon two matters: the report of the special committee of parliament, and the report of the royal commission. They had a right to. What does "as soon as possible" mean? Can the Prime Minister of this country say that he has discharged his duty to the people of Canada to act "as soon as possible" when hc-has taken four years in which to do it? Answer that. Can he say he has done his duty in 1930 when he gives effect to a report of three eminent jurists appointed by himself, and whose efforts were assisted by one of the most eminent lawyers of this country, the appointee of the government itself? That is the matter to think about. My hon. friends can point to no single act or word of ours that in any sense lessened their ability to deal with the situation by unfair criticism, or prematurely judging the case. The observations made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre last year on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) were directed to the very points to which I have referred. There is the position. I submit, sir, that the people of this country require some answer as to why action was not sooner taken, in view of the recommendation of this parliament, unanimous so far as that phase of it is concerned, except, I should say, for my friends the member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere) and the member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell)-that action should be taken "as soon as possible."
Now, sir, there remain for consideration the terms of the bill itself. On the second
Export Act-Mr. Bennett

reading of the bill we approve its principle. I naturally have no difficulty whatever in voting to approve its principle, as my vote in the committee in 1926 indicates. But, sir, what have we here? We have amending sections to two statutes of Canada involved in one bill-an amendment to the Export Act on the one hand and to the Customs Act on the other. And we have something more. We have failed to avail ourselves of one of the fairest offers that could be made by one nation to another, namely, to make reciprocal the operations of a treaty. They say, you give us this, we will give you the same. Moreover, sir, I might again point out that the proper method of international contract is by treaty or convention. As I pointed out a moment ago, this parliament cannot legislate for the United States of America. The United States Secretary of State said: Let us make a new convention amending the old convention. Let us provide that the movement of commodities by air or sea or land shall be prohibited by similar regulations in both countries. If Canada prohibits, then they will not give clearances to Canada on any goods so prohibited, whatever they may be. Liquor is only incidental. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it enters largely into the discussion, but, as they point out, and as pointed out by the conference, it is not liquor only that is concerned; it is commodities. On any commodities prohibited importation into Canada the United States pledged themselves to sign a treaty agreeing that they should not be exported from their country into Canada, and they asked us to do the same, whether by the new means of transport, aircraft, or by sea, or by land. And, in that regard reference was made by the Prime Minister this afternoon to conditions with respect to the liquor commission of Ontario. The liquor commission of Ontario, of course, is very greatly interested in the operation of the act as it now stands, because they must see, under their law, that when from a distillery there are released spirits of any kind for export they are exported and not used in Ontario. But if under the proposed legislation, there is in any of the provinces a release of spirits said to be destined for some other country, then if it be moved by land the question of clearances does not arise. This bill refers only to clearances for transport by sea. If by air it is not covered. There is the position.
Now, is that important? Let us see. I took the trouble to have secured from the Department of National Revenue a statement of the exports of liquor from this country during the calendar year 1929. Those exports were very heavy in volume and value. Ale

and beer, for instance, sent to the United States, had a value of $2,787,000; gin, a value of S300,000; whiskey had a value of $17,565,156. Other spirits only had a value of $26,000, and wines a value of $107,000. But here is a figure to which I direct attention, and it is a figure of great consequence in view of the provisions of this bill; the export of whiskey to St. Pierre-Miquelon last year amounted to $4,172,470. The population is a little less than
4,000.	That means that last year from Canada alone they imported whiskey to the extent of $1,000 a head for every man, woman and child in St. Pierre-Miquelon. Of course it is obvious that it was not intended to be used for domestic consumption but for reexport. The same could be said with respect to other figures of the same character, but not the same volume.
Now, I put to the government this question: If we pass legislation such as this bill contemplates, having regard to our desire not to engage our officials in any questionable effort or work, may we do indirectly what we are not going to do directly? From the Atlantic seaboard and through the gulf of Mexico, a great deal of liquor has entered the United States. That has in many instances come from islands in the West Indies to which the liquor has been previously shipped. We would have avoided any question of that kind if we had adopted the treaty suggested. I do think that before this bill is finally passed there should be inserted in it some provision dealing with manifests, and of the ships' manifests being taken as evidence of the cargo, because the Canadian people never can undertake the duty of searching ships for smuggled goods after they have been cleared. I think that must be plain to every hon. gentleman here. That, among others, is one reason I have asked the government why they should deprive Canada of the reciprocal provisions offered by the United States.
I want to go one step further. I have pointed out to this house the conditions that have existed since 1922, when this government came into power. There is one matter, however, to which I have not referred. In one way it is not a matter of transcendent importance, but in another it is of very considerable importance. Because the government failed to implement the direction given by this house to take action as soon as possible, the number of distilleries and breweries has been greatly increased. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman has looked at the figures contained in the return I sought the other day. On the 31st of March, 1922, when the present government came into power, there were ten

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
distilleries in Canada; to-day there are twenty-seven. When the right hon. gentleman received that recommendation on the 31st March 1926, there were eighteen distilleries in Canada, to-day there are twenty-seven, or 50 per cent more. I say, sir, that the government of this country must accept the responsibility for encouraging the increase in the number of distilleries in Canada because they failed to take action "as soon as possible" upon the recommendation contained in that report.
That is not all, however. Let us go a step further. It is true there has been a greater consumption of spirits in Ontario and Quebec and other communities. Since 1926 the province of Ontario has voted for government control, and the same condition prevails in other provinces of this confederation. But look at the figures as to the spirits in bond; look at the tale they tell. When this government came into power in the year 1922 there were only 8,000,000 gallons of proof spirits in Canadian warehouses. In 1926 there were 11,000,000 gallons in bond; on January 1, 1930, that figure had increased to 36,593,869 proof gallons. On January 1, 1929, that volume was only 27,615,539 gallons. In other words, the bonded spirits in this country increased in the last year by 9.000 000 gallons. This increased accumulation of spirits results from the fact that four years were permitted to go by and the recommendation to act "as soon as possible" was not acted upon by this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is all right to say " oh, oh." but everybody knows that those engaged in that industry believed, and not without cause, that the government which permitted the expression " as soon as possible " to mean one, two. three or four years was the government that would not confiscate and destroy their business. There are the facts.
I have not dealt in this discussion with the numbers of people who hold securities of these industries, but last year the sum total of the highest day's value of beverage securities on the market, including distillery, brewery and soft drink stocks, was over $300,000,000. Probably that is not a matter that should enter into a discussion of this nature, but it indicates that new conditions have arisen by reason of this government's failure to act. If there is one principle understood more than another in this country, and particularly well understood by lawyers, it is that delays are always dangerous in matters of this kind. In this instance the government was directed by parliament to act " as soon as possible."
That finding was approved by the royal commission. but the recommendation by the royal commission was not implemented and no action was taken. Hence the number of companies which have their capital invested in distilleries alone has risen from ten to eighteen in 1926 and to twenty-seven in 1930. I am not dealing with the breweries because the total value of beer exported to the United States in the last year was only about $2,000,000. We will leave the breweries out of the picture, although as the return shows they increased from seventy-eight in 1926 to eighty-six in 1930. Those are the figures indicated by the return.
My hon. friend who sits beside me points out that the last clause of the bill provides that the governor in council may make regulations.
1 am sure there is no student of legislation in this house who has not read the recently published essay of Right Hon. Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice of England. He says that the encroachments of the executive by orders in council upon the rights of parliament, whether it be in England or elsewhere, are becoming well known, and describes it as the new despotism. What these regulations may be I know not, but in so far as they affect conditions that may arise between two great powers, our own and another, whether it be the United States or some other country, they should be the subject matter of legislation in this parliament and not framed by delegated power exercised by the governor in council. That has become more and more a fundamental rule of government. The Lord Chancellor, as soon as this matter was brought to his attention, appointed a committee in Great Britain to inquire into the whole question and to deal with the problems thus presented.
I have nothing further to observe in respect to this legislation. As I have said the principle of the bill deserves and will receive my support. There are those on both sides of the house who hold very different views; there are those who. as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, look upon this as a matter in which we are concerning ourselves with the business of other nations with which we should not be concerned. Our complex life, places upon the citizens responsibilities and obligations. Those responsibilities and obligations are national and international; they affect the life of the citizen in his own country, in his domestic relations and his social activities; they concern his health and happiness; they concern the trade and commerce of his country. But these are matters we must deal with in terms of the welfare of our own country and no other. Our national obligation and duty are to Canada, but in matters that touch the life of
o32
Export Act-Mr. Bennett

this nation in its relationship to others we must never forget that there are obligations which cannot be lightly undertaken or easily discharged. Amongst those obligations are those that arise by reason of nations making laws which provide that they will not permit certain goods to be imported into their territory. We recognized that on the special committee when, as you will see, without a dissenting voice-with the exception of two-we concluded that as soon as possible steps should be taken to place this country in the international position which this bill now purports to do. We voiced our profound conviction as to the obligation of Canada in international relations; that was our view, and it was sustained by jurists of repute. This afternoon in his peroration the Prime Minister stated that he could not and would not continue to bear the burden imposed upon him by his office unless this parliament or this country took such action as would enable this legislation to be passed. I say to the right hon. gentleman, "Where has he been these last four years?" Is he a Rip Van Winkle? Has he only awakened to this situation? Was the moral standing of our officials affected only to-day or yesterday or the day before? Every fact mentioned by the Prime Minister this afternoon has existed for four years, and every condition that has existed, has existed in the face of the recommendations of that committee for its betterment. No action; no activity. Four years too late, and then an endeavour to induce the House of Commons to believe-and I protest against it-by quoting the words of a statesman no longer living, that we must pass this bill else we perish. As I have said before, there is no record of there being a single unfriendly word written to this country by that republic or by any other government, dealing with this question. I for one refuse to be terrorized; I refuse to become afraid; I refuse to be fearful because the Prime Minister conjures up the ghosts of the past, the speeches of those who are no more. Because I believe in my country, because I believe as I did when that committee was sitting, as I did when the judges of this country made their report, I shall support this bill and vote for the second reading. It gives effect to a principle in which I believe, but I will leave to those who have different convictions the right to voice them in any way they desire when the opportunity arises and the necessity demands.
Mr. WffLLIAjM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, in some respects I think this is the most remarkable debate I have ever lis-

tened to during my experience in the House of Commons. In the first place, it is remarkable because it is brought about by a measure which has been proposed primarily to save the good name of Canada. So far as I am aware, there is no economic return or financial advantage in the bill; it is one which endeavours to remove from the name of Canada a stigma which has been put upon it through the relationships which unfortunately had to exist between our officials in the carrying out of their duty in respect to Canadian law and the bootlegging activities across the border. It is remarkable also because it has been devised out of respect for law and order in a neighbouring country. These things are very important, and they are perhaps of more value to Canada in the ultimate than had they implied some great monetary or economic return. For these reasons I feel sure that Canadians will be proud that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speaking for the country, has taken such a high stand.
Then I think it is a remarkable discussion because the opposition critics are castigating the government for not having sooner taken this stand. The opposition criticism is well taken, but it does not often happen that the opposition complains that something the government is doing to-day should have been done several years ago.
I would like to make a comment or two, Mr. Speaker, on what seems to me to be the most important aspect o,f the discussion, the political aspect. I do not refer to international politics, but rather to the political aspect as it concerns Canada, and particularly as it concerns the major parties in respect to the next election. I must say the Prime Minister made out an excellent case for the bill, but of course he had some good grounds to work upon. He also made a very skilful argument in favour of the delay to which exception has been taken by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), but I think the leader of the opposition has punctured successfully the Prime Minister's explanation of that long delay.
I desire to make a correction of a statement made by the Prime Minister. I make this correction because I know he is meticulous of his statements, and would not want to make one which was not absolutely accurate. He said that the subject matter of this bill had been brought before parliament last year by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) speaking for the government, and that on that occasion an invitation was given to the hon. members of this house to express themselves freely in regard to the

Export Act-Mr. Irvine
matter. 1 would point out that the Prims Minister was hardly correct in that regard, for it will be discovered by turning up Hansard that this matter was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) on the motion to go into supply. It was discussed under that condition, and when the minister spoke, he did so in defence of the government and in reply to the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think some ten members from this corner took part in that debate. I took part myself, and I think I supported it less than any of the others. I was in agreement with the sentiment, as I am now, that something should be done to clear the name of Canada from such an unfortunate association, but I suggested then, and I am going to suggest later in my remarks to-night, that we should go much farther in that connection. I suggested then that we should go so far as to take over the whole distillery business of Canada, and in doing that we would secure absolute control of all our export liquor trade and it would not be necessary to pass any such legislation as is now before parliament.
I desire to point out in the debate on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre last session, ten hon. members from this little corner spoke in favour of the principle of the bill now before parliament, but what support did we get? First of all, let us look at the government side. I think the only hon. member who spoke from the government side was the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), and to use his own phrase, he merely declared to the house that he was upon the horns of a dilemma. I hope he is not upon those horns still, because the result may be serious.


Mr. BROWN:: Did I use that expression in the debate?


Mr. IRVINE:: I think the hon. gentleman did, and if he will look up the record he will discover that I have not misquoted him. There is no reason why any hon. gentleman should not be uipon any kind of a horn which he wants to be upon. I am not blaming the hon. gentleman for being upon the horns of a dilemma; in fact, the subject was of such a character that anybody might have been upon any horn. I merely wanted to point out that that was the extent of the support which came last year from the government side.
What support did we get from the opposition side? So far as I am aware, there were only two hon. gentlemen who spoke, one being
the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) who, I think, spoke in favour of some such measure as we are now discussing, and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Therefore, if there is any particular credit to be taken for this bill, it rests right in this corner. I am not so sure of course that it will turn out to be credit; I am going to be very careful about the credit, but if there is to be any credit this is the corner that must receive it.
The Minister of National Revenue made a speech for the government, on the occasion referred to, and I think his speech was an able one. In my remarks I supported him and so far I have nothing to take away from them. I believe he spoke in conformity with the facts before him and as a man in his position under the circumstances should have spoken. But after his speech some of the papers declared that the minister had greatly increased his prestige by the remarks which he had made on that occasion. I wonder whether, if he speaks on the issue now, they will say he still further increases his prestige by taking the opposite position.
I should like to quote a few lines from the minister's speech indicating his attitude. He said:
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 particular business and the other is primarily theirs.
Referring further to the remarks of the Prime Minister, he said that public opinion had to ripen and inferred that the ripening process was the cause of the government's delay. I agree that public opinion should ripen in some cases; however, public opinion became over ripe before the Prime Minister took any action. In this case I should like to ask just what the Prime Minister and the government did to help to ripen opinion. That is the chief criticism which might be levelled against the government in this respect, but I am not going to criticize the government very much about it. The government deserves a good deal of credit for having done something eventually. I can point out more important measures than this that have not been brought up yet and it will be perhaps twenty years before the government bring them up. Those are the matters I want to criticize the government about and not so much in regard to what they have already done. I say frankly I am glad they have at least done this.
Let me now turn to the bill itself. It means a step in advance. It indicates Canada's
Export Act-Mr. Irvine

desire to keep its name unsullied; it indicates our respect for our neighbouring coun-try!'s laws, and it makes for a better feeling between us and the United States. In these matters the bill is of great value. But I believe there could have been a more dignified way of bringing this about, and, moreover, a more advantageous way. It would have been better had this arrangement been effected by means of a treaty agreement with the United States, which treaty would have been reciprocal in character and perhaps more befitting to the great nation which Canada is.
But I do not think Canada has much to be ashamed of in respect to the condition which made the legislation necessary. It was only an unfortunate incident that Canada's officials in carrying out our customs laws should in this matter have been associated with bootleggers. This was inevitable under the circumstances, but it was not Canada's fault, and I do not for a moment think there is any danger of the sinister suggestions and implications in the Prime Minister's remarks in this regard becoming realities. Surely Canada has a right to make her own laws and enforce them without endangering her position with other nations. Surely there is no particular or immediate danger of the United States making any attack on Canada for carrying out her own laws in respect to her own people. I do not think we have anything to be ashamed of in the condition which has made this legislation necessary. It was merely an unfortunate circumstance over which we did not happen to have control. I wonder very much whether, if the United States had been in the opposite position, that country would have taken action similar to that which we are now taking? Let me point out here that I am not saying this as an argument why we should not have acted. I agree with the Prime Minister on the ground he takes there that we ought to be in a position to act for Canada and for Canada's good name, regardless of what other nations may do. But I cannot forget that some years ago we found it necessary to ban a certain publication of the United States for having published things which we did not like about the royal family. The United States government did not come to our aid by refusing to gave clearance to the United States mails for their salacious literature.
Let us take a more recent case. Let us take the attitude of the United States at the naval conference: they apparently refuse to agree, under the Kellogg pact, to stop supplying contraband to aggressor nations, 
and this is a much more serious matter than we have to deal with in this case. But I say again that the fact that the United States might not have taken similar action only makes it the nobler for Canada to have taken this action. Nevertheless, we have nothing to be ashamed of in our previous position. The Prime Minister waxed rather eloquent and spoke with considerable scorn in his voice about anyone who should suggest that we should continue a business of this kind in order that we might put revenue into the treasury of Canada. There is a great deal to be said for that attitude. Very few people would feel proud of such a condition of affairs. I suppose he referred to the bootlegging business. Nevertheless the bootlegging business belongs to the United States, but much of our revenue, both federal and provincial, comes from the liquor business. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that some of the revenue which has come in through excise taxes from liquor shipped into the United States in the last year or two should be devoted to establishing a business of some kind for the brewery workers who may be put out of employment when this bill becomes effective. Someone suggests that this is tainted money. Very well; I think the whole business is tainted, so far as that is concerned; but I do not think the brewery workers will mind the taint. Just try them with it. If the government feel diffident on moral grounds about retaining this money in the treasury, let them try it on some of the fellows who will be put out of work through this legislation.
I want to say a word or two about another way which, I think, would have been a better way of meeting the situation than is found by the measure before us. The government should have taken: over the distillery and brewery business of Canada. If they had done so they would not require to stop any clearances because they would have full control, not only of the manufacturing of the commodity, but of the export trade. To have done so would have been in keeping with the expressed opinion of the Canadian people, for in every province except one the people have voted for government control of the sale of liquor. That evidently is the opinion of the Canadian people at the present time. But surely if this business is to go on, it ought to be properly controlled, and if it is to go on, the business itself should be made to pay for some of the wreckage which it brings on the Canadian people; for as everyone is aware it is a business that increases the expenditure on the part of the public for the

Export Act-Mr. Power
upkeep of our asylums, prisons and enlarged police forces. Therefore I suggest that while the Canadian people vote for the sale of liquor the government should see to it that the business pays for the damages it brings on the Canadian people, rather than permit its profits to make millionaires of a fow. I do not propose now to enter into details how that might be done. Perhaps at some future time I shall have an opportunity to discuss my resolution on government ownership of distilleries. In my opinion, to take over the distilleries would have been a better way of bringing about what the government have in mind than by this legislation.
I conclude by saying that I am glad to support this measure, not because I am satisfied that it is the best way of doing what we are trying to do, but because it is one way of doing it, and the only way so far proposed by the government. I support it also because I am assured that there is a very strong public opinion in Canada demanding it. Indeed, I have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers' organization in the province of Alberta has passed a resolution urging that legislation exactly as has been brought down should be introduced this session. So I suggest to the hon. members who are iooking forward to being the government after the next election, if they want a real political hunch, that they watch what the members in this little corner are doing, because they will find that the things we advocate to-day become so popular to-morrow that politicians of the highest order are glad to sail into power on them.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: If I
rise to take part in this debate it is not that I have anjr hope or any desire to influence the course of the legislation. It is because I feel that I owe somewhat of a personal explanation to the people who sent me here with respect to the position which I intend to take on the bill now before the house.
When I first came into this house some thirteen or fourteen years ago I was struck by the attitude taken by very influential members of the house, both on the government side and on the opposition side, who appeared to believe that they could best contribute towards the winning of the war by imposing on the people of Canada, on the plea of righteousness and godliness, the most restrictive legislation. They endeavoured in their own righteous way, and to their own pious satisfaction, to regulate not only the lives of the citizens of Canada who were here at that time but the lives also of those who were at that very moment defending the interests of Canada in another country. I took
strong exception to the point of view which was laid down by these gentlemen, and I think I have pretty consistently taken the same attitude during the years which have followed. The people of Canada by a certain revulsion of feeling and reaction have been drifting away from the position taken by these gentlemen, and to such an extent that I believe the attitude which I then took is finding some justification to-day.
I wish to state now that I am opposed in principle to any such legislation as this. It is perhaps well to say at this juncture that I am not interested financially or otherwise, directly or indirectly, either through the ownership of stocks, bonds or other securities, in any brewery or distillery. I make that statement because it has been my experience in this house that the more righteous the cause in which people are engaged the less of Christian charity do they observe towards those who are opposed to them. I have some respect and admiration for the men who are supporters of temperance. I can readily understand, even if I do not approve, the position taken by prohibitionists. I can and do respect and admire the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for his very able and very eloquent address this afternoon. I may pay the same tribute to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I might almost say, indeed, that he pleaded the case of the Prime Minister perhaps better than the Prime Minister himself could have done. I can say with respect to the Prime Minister that only a man with firm, sincere and deep-rooted convictions such as he has could have first persuaded and overcome the objections of his colleagues, and next succeeded in getting the support of his followers, and then, perhaps the saddest part of all, obtain, as he apparently will obtain, the reluctant and somewhat dubious assent of this house to the legislation now proposed. I regret personally that I cannot do more than pay him the tribute of my sincere admiration. I would feel very much better if I could show my support in a more substantial way, but believing in the things which I do believe, and having, as one of the firm convictions which I have retained after some twenty years of practical politics, the conviction that this kind of legislation does not appeal to the people of Canada, and certainly does not appeal either to my beliefs or to my conscience, I would feel-and I say this without reflection on any member of the house-that were I to give to this measure even conditional support or silent acquiescence, I would be indulging in humbug, cant and hypocrisy. And much as I cherish the relations which I
Export Act-Mr. Power

own province we will transfer the activities of those Detroit gangsters and gunmen to our peaceful highways, there to degrade and corrupt our own God fearing, law abiding population. So I say that if we wish to do away with any association with the bootlegger and the criminal gangs, that object will not be attained by the legislation now before as.
We have been told that unless this bill passes there is grave danger of creating an international situation at our border. I ask myself whether this same danger will not continue to exist even if the bill becomes law, and if it will not be even accentuated to a certain extent. It must not be forgotten that even though we pass a bill prohibiting clearances, bootlegging will continue and the United States will be obliged to keep up the border patrol. We, by our own act, will say to the United States of America that every one of our citizens who is implicated in this business of rum running becomes an outlaw. Knowing the character of the border patrol, as we who have followed the newspapers do know it, does anyone believe that that border patrol, largely made up of fanatics, men who are reckless and heedless of human life, will hesitate for one moment if they suspect that a Canadian is endeavouring to cross the boundary with liquor? Will they not follow the well known American axiom and shoot first and investigate later, saying, " This is only a poor Canuck anyway"? I very much fear that we will create such a situation on our own borders if we withdraw, by our own act, the protection to which every citizen of this country always should be entitled.
Then there is a further consideration with respect to bloodshed on our border. I followed the statement of the Prime Minister carefully when he said that this legislation would not involve us in any further expenditure, because we would withdraw from the distilleries and breweries the government officials who are now there giving out permits. Surely we must remember, however, that if this bill passes and we pledge ourselves to prevent the exportation of liquor from Canada, we must take every possible means in our power to prevent that exportation. Our national honour will be engaged, not in the mere letter of the law but in the spirit as well. We will be obliged to take every reasonable means and precaution to see to it not only that clearances are refused to ships but that persons having stocks of liquor in their possession in vehicles or on railway trains are obliged to stop at the border with that liquor. If we take that position, as I think we must if we adopt this legislation, I fear that there will be incidents on our own
[Mr. Power. 1
border which we may regret. Does any member of this house wish it to be said that an officer of the Department of National Revenue, in the exercise of a duty imposed upon him by this parliament, shot and killed a Canadian citizen who was endeavouring to cross the border with some liquor? I leave that point for the consideration of hon. members and ask whether they are prepared to shoulder that responsibility. I submit, sir, that the first incident of that kind would cause a very large number of people, who have not given this subject very great consideration, to pause and ponder it.
I must say, having listened very carefully to the remarkably eloquent addresses made to-day by the leaders of both parties in this house, that I am not convinced by their arguments that either is right. I believe that on grounds of economy and for national and international reasons the position they have taken is not sound. It is not sound on national grounds because we are endeavouring to put into operation a law which has not the support and the assent of fhe whole people of Canada; it is not sound on international grounds because I fear that though we have reached a position of equality of status with our sister nations in the commonwealth of British nations, it may be that through legislation of this kind we will find ourselves subservient to another nation on the North American continent.
I object to this legislation as a citizen, because I am opposed to having my conscience influenced by persons from a foreign country; I object as a representative of the people because I do not believe the electors of my constituency or of those of the constituencies generally throughout the country will support the measure, and I object as a Canadian because I believe it will bring about a moral degradation instead of a moral uplift. I object also as a Canadian because I am convinced it will bring about externa! humiliation


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker, until we heard from the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), I had not thought of taking part in this debate. Before dealing with the remarks of the hon. member, I should like to say a few words on the subject in general. I am sure we must pay tribute to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr Power) who, in the face of what he must know to be a very large majority against him, had the courage to express his convictions.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to offer any defence for the government with regard to the delay in taking action. Personally I should have liked to see that notion taken long ago; I know, however, that

Export Act-Mr. Brown
a feeling of great relief and joy went over Canada, when it was announced that the gov-srnment proposed to bring in a bill forbidding the issuing of clearances, and I know there will 'be also a feeling of great rejoicing when it is known that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has climbed up on the band wagon.
There is one point to which I think we should direct a few observations, as the leader of the opposition put things in an entirely unfair position. He properly referred to the great evil of accepting from the liquor interests contributions for political campaign purposes. I am at one with the hon. leader of the opposition in my abhorrence of that method of obtaining election contributions, but I differ from the hon. leader of the opposition in viewing with equal abhorrence the contributions made either to the Liberal party or to the Conservative party. I do not intend to advance this as a tu quoque argument, but since the matter has been mentioned I think it should be pointed out that the investigation made by the royal commission showed that contributions were made by the liquor interests to the political campaign funds of both parties.
I would like to read a few extracts from the record of that commission. The evidence to which I will first refer is that of Mr. Robert Fiddes, and the questions asked were put by Mr. Rowell. Since his name is being mentioned, I might say that Mr. Rowell is a gentleman of very high legal ability and of unimpeachable moral character, and it should be a tribute to the government that such a man as Mr. Rowell was chosen to act in this investigation. The evidence I wish to read is that of Mr. Robert Fiddes of the Consolidated Exporters Corporation, and is as follows:
Mr. Justice Wright: That American liquor brought in under those applications was duty paid?
Mr. Rowell:	Yes. duty paid into Canada.
Q. In exhibit 257 in an account, copy of certain items appearing in the books of B.C. Breweries, representing insurance and protection. I notice two cheques issued to you, one October 5. 1925, R. Fiddes, $4,800, and another of August 25, 1926, R. Fiddes, $6,000?-A. What date?
Q. One is October 25, 1925, $4,800; and August 25, 1926. $6,000-what do those items relate to?-A. Campaign funds.
Q, Which you received from the B.C. Brewery?-A. Yes.
Q. Were you collecting from the different breweries-how did you come to receive these amounts from the B.C. Brewery?-A. Because I handed that over to the manager of the campaign.
Q. Were you handing them over as part of another sum, were you collecting certain sums
from the different breweries?-A. Yes, I believe I got-no, just the B.C. Brewery, I think that was the only one.
Q. I notice opposite that is the item "Memo; our proportion of $10,000"?-A. That may be.
Q. I want your recollection of what it is?
*-A. Campaign funds. I think these are items relating to the Dominion elections 1925 and 1926.
Q. How did you come to be getting them from Mr. Reiffel?-A. Just because it was arranged I would hand them over to the campaign management.
Q. Did you collect from the other breweries? -A. I don't think so; the B.C. Brewery I think is the only one; the others handled their own campaigns probably in Victoria.
Q. Here is a cheque to Robert Fiddes dated August 5, 1925, $4,800 signed on behalf of B.C. Breweries by Mr. Marling and Mr. Twittey?-A. Yes.	.
Q. And then the voucher for the amount and charge protection account?-A. Yes.
Q. That is part of exhibit 247; and this one is August the 25th, 1926. $6,000 signed on behalf of the company by Mr. Marling and Mr. Howatson and Henry Reiffel?-A. Yes.
Q. And the note on it "Our proportion of $12.500"?-A. I don't know about that notation, but that is what that cheque was got for and paid.
Q. Was it part of $12,500, or was it only $6,000- was this the only brewery?-A. I cannot remember; we paid our proportion I know.


The Chairman:: What do you mean by your
proportion-was there some understanding?- A. There was an understanding of the breweries that they would pay so much to these campaigns 1925 and 1926.
Q. How much was that?-A. I do not remember. but that is our proportion individually, that is the proportion of the B.C. Breweries, and we paid it.
Mr. Rowell: You paid your proportion?- A. Yes.
Q. Did you give contributions to both sides? -A. Yes. to both sides.
Mr. Justice Wright:	Equal amounts?-A
Yus.
Q. That is impartial?-A. Yes.
Mr. Rowell: What was the reason you gave these contributions?-A. It is a custom; we have always given contributions.
Q. Always given to both sides?-A. To both sides.
Q. And always treat them equal?-A. Yes.
Q. You are strictly impartial?-A. Strictly impartial.
The next is the evidence of A. L. McLennan, the questions being asked by Mr. Rowell:
A. Well, there is a Ripstein that I met in London by the name of H. Ripstein. I know he is in the liquor business on the east coast, the Atlantic.
Q. In the liquor business on the east coast? -A. He handles agencies for Great Britain. I happened to meet him in London this year.
Q. Why would you be paying money to Ripstein?-A. I haven't the remotest idea. I only met him this year.
Q. Here in July is another payment to Ripstein of $2,000. The first was $5,000?-A. I didn't know he ever got a cent. I don't know what the transaction is at all.
Export Act-Mr. Brown

Q. You initialled it?-A. That is quite possible.	*
Q. You have initialled it and he is a man you have met and you didn't know he ever got a cent?-A. I didn't know we ever had any business with him for him to receive any money. AVe may have. I don't know.
Q. Do you handle any political contributions? -A. Yes.
Q. For the Consolidated?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. For which party?-A. For the Conservative party.
Q. The Conservative party. Did you handle all the contributions for the Consolidated to the Conservative party?-A. On two occasions, I think, Mr. Rowell.
Q. Are those amounts in that list?-A. I don't know.
Q. Dili you handle any for the Liberal party? -A. No, sir, none at all.
Q. You are high up in the other party?-A. I wouldn't like to say that.
Then comes the evidence of Mr. Thomas H. Kirk, who was questioned by Mr. Rowell as follows:
Q. You reside in Vancouver?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have for many years?-A. Twenty-nine years.
Q. I see your name mentioned in connection with certain payments in the B.C. Breweries charged under assurance and protection account. Did you get any payments from the B.C. Breweries?-A. I can recollect getting a small cheque; the larger amount mentioned in the papers; I probably could identify it if I could see the cheque.
Mr. Justice Roy: AYhat is your occupation? -A. Retired, a gentleman of leisure.
Mr. Rowell (showing two cheques to the witness):	The two cheques part of exhibit
247 appearing in your name you received, did you?-A. Yes, I received both those cheques.
Q. For what purpose?-A. $100 I solicited from Mr. Reiffel for I think it is in July on behalf of the picnic fund; the $5,000 cheque I received during the campaign period of 1925 as treasurer for greater Vancouver for the Conservative party.
Q. They were both then for political purposes; you had no interest in it yourself?-A. None whatever.
I have no defence to offer for these practices which I have endeavoured all my life to combat, and I am quite satisfied that when the hon. leader of the opposition spoke this afternoon upon this matter he was not ignorant that such facts were in that evidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that I have not seen that British Columbia evidence; I was dealing with the Detroit river.


John Livingstone Brown: I must say that it is rather strange that a gentleman of such eminent ability as the hon. leader of the opposition, one who is accustomed to search at great length through interminable files, one who undoubtedly reads the newspapers published from one end of Canada to another, should have failed to see those little reflections which

were cast upon the Conservative party. He has heard all about the " rat " fund but of the other fund he knew nothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had seen in the public prints that contributions had been made to the Conservative party-do not misunderstand me for a moment-but I had not seen the British Columbia evidence.


John Livingstone Brown: Is that not an awful confession? The hon. gentleman saw in the press that these contributions had been made to the Conservative party, and he did not think it worth his while to look up the evidence. Further, because he did not undertake to inform himself on those particulars in regard to his own party, he comes into the house and makes charges against the other party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned at all in a discussion of this bill about making any political capital out of it, and I am rather sorry to see that the discussion has turned along party lines. We are considering a bill that is going to mark an epoch in Canadian history. Public opinion has ripened until the government at last has been compelled to introduce legislation which will discontinue the issue of clearances in connection with the rum running traffic. 1 am hoping, too, that very soon public opinion will ripen to the extent that we shall deal with the liquor traffic as a whole and get rid of the accursed thing in our midst.
I am in thorough aocordl with the government in the introduction of this bill. Whether the United States are doing their duty or not in enforcing their prohibition law should be no concern of ours. That the whole traffic is evil I think no one will deny. The acceptance of revenue from such a source is not, I am glad to say, in accord with the wishes of the majority of our people. The Dominion should make known to the world that it has ideals which make it impossible for it to benefit from revenue drawn from a trade that prospers on the depraved tastes of human beings. We should have a national pride and confidence that forbids participation in a traffic that taxes the ability of our government to find excuses for its continuance. I am glad indeed that churches and other bodies have taken the matter up. I received the other day a letter from the Saskatoon Presbytery urging on the government and parliament to cease to give clearances to rum running craft along our border, and commending the government for its introduction of the legislation that is now before the house. I am surprised to see so many Canadian citizens, and so many Canadian journals such as the Montreal Standard, the Montreal Gazette, and the Financial Post, justifying this traffic. These journals are doing it in their editorial columns largely on the assumption that the traffic will go on anyway. The Toronto Globe has been doing all it can to create public opinion in favour of this bill. The Financial Post, in

d42
Export Act-Mr. Evans

answer to the Globe, sees evil in the fact that underground methods will be used anyway for the export of liquor. The editorial in the Financial Post takes the ground that if an, evil is rampant, it should be legalized. These things make one wonder who controls the Canadian press. There is a lesson here for our citizens from one end of Canada to the other to be careful as to who controls the means of creating public opinion. These editorial concoctions I have no doubt come right from the still, right from the vat, whence such poisonous gases may well be expected to emanate. Well might we ask who controls our newspapers.
The liquor traffic in every nation has always been one of shame. Canada's honour is now at stake and the best elements of the nation are wholeheartedly behind the government in its courageous action in bringing down this legislation. I say courageous, because it did take some courage in the face of opinion created by certain influential journals, so called, for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to bring in this legislation. I am thankful that he has done so and that we can wholeheartedly approve of the bill.
Looking at the bill from the distiller's point of view, that of Canadian business, is it good business to countenance a traffic the only results of which have been evil? Is it really good business to have our country become the scene of the murders, hi-jacking, slugging, kidnapping, bribery, and intimidation of officials which mark the slimy trail of the liquor trade everywhere? Those who profit by the manufacture and sale of liquor never did keep the law'. We have tried in many ways to control the liquor evil in this country, and I say that those who handle liquor and make a profit by it never have kept the law. We had prohibition in Saskatchewan at one time, and I know who broke the law; it was the liquor interests. When we had the open bar, it was the liquor interests who violated the law. They could not sell enough to make any man drunk in Saskatchewan and keep within the law, and so the law was broken day after day and all day by the liquor interests. What kind of argument is it to-day that we should cater to their desires and make it still easier for them to carry on their nefarious business? Surely it is unthinkable that on our borders [DOT]we should allow to exist the open sore that has festered there during the last five or six years, and the far-reaching results of which no man can foresee.
The passing of this bill will mark a step forward in Canadian progress and civilization. The best elements of our population will re-Mr. Evans.]
joice at its passing and that we shall no longer be countenancing an evil by giving official sanction through clearances to rum craft, a course which has made every citizen a partner in the dirty business. There is no better indication of the efficacy of this bill than the fear of the distillers and bootleggers themselves, who have been active in trying to create public opinion against it. I will read a letter that appeared in the Toronto Globe, and which was reprinted in the Montreal Weekly Witness. It is dated Amherstburg, Ontario, February 25, 1930:
Dear Sir:
There is some indication that the Dominion parliament at this session will deal with the question of export of liquors to the United States, and it is thought in some quarters that an effort will be made to make parliament pass a law preventing the same. If this is done, it will greatly curtail the buying power of ourselves, and all other distilleries. As your concern is one which greatly benefits from distillery business, inasmuch as a great quantity of rubber stamps, inks, etc., are purchased from you, we would appreciate it very much if you would write a letter to the Hon. W. D. Euler, Minister of Customs at Ottawa, pointing out to him the disastrous effect such a law would have upon your own business.
The letter goes on urging this firm to get others also to write to each of the cabinet, ministers to use their influence to prevent the-passing of legislation such as we are now considering. I think this letter is sufficient to show our people the reasons for the opposition to this bill. It is sad when men will base their opposition to the bill on the loss of business derived from such a nefarious traffic..
It is freely whispered that the senate will not pass this legislation. Neither should that; be the concern of the House of Commons. Whether that will be its fate or not I do not know, but if the senate discard the bill, I say the bloody consequences will be on the head of that public body too. Should that body of men, all of mature years, prevent the passing of this bill and favour the system of trade carried on by a gang of outlaws, all belonging to the underworld, I hope the pressure of public opinion that has compelled the introduction of this legislation will also be strong enough to abolish the reactionary forces that may prevent it becoming law. I care not for party credit; I am thankful that the government has at last had the courage to introduce such a measure. When we in. this part of the house last session advocated such a measure, we met with hostility from both sides of the house. Public opinion did not take long to make its influence felt once the thought of organized bodies was turned in

Business oj the House
this direction, and I appeal for the unanimous consent of this house to the passing of the bill.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No Mr. Speaker; other hon. members may wish to continue the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
On section 1-Export of intoxicating liquors; clearances.
Richard Bedford Bennett: As there are a number
of hon. members who desire to discuss the terms of the bill, I suppose the right hon. gentleman will move that the committee rise?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, March 17, 1930