CHANGE IN MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. J. L. Ilsley (Hants-Kings) be substituted for that of Hon. J. L. Ralston (Minister of National Defence) on the special committee appointed on 7th March, 1930, to consider amendments to the Dominion Elections Act and Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That the name of Mr. M. N. Campbell (Mackenzie) be substituted for that of Mr. J.
S.	Woodsworth (Winnipeg North Centre) on the committee on banking and commerce.
Motion agreed to.	[DOT]

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

Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	During the years 1929 and 1930, what cruisers and other vessels did the government

Questions

have on service for prevention of the unlawful landing of liquors in the maritime provinces?
2.	What was the tonnage of each cruiser and
vessel?
3.	How many officers and other members of crew served on each one?
4.	With what was each cruiser or vessel armed ?
5.	How many preventive officers and other persons were there in service during said years in each province, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, for above mentioned purpose of preventing smuggling of liquors?


Mr. EULER:: 
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: What was the quantity, value and description of liquors unlawfully landed or intended to be landed in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, respectively, seized in each of the said provinces by officers of the Dominion government during the years 1929 and 1930?


William Daum Euler: Province
Description of liquor
Approxi-
Quantity mate gallons duty paid value
Calendar year 1929
Nova Scotia		
New Brunswick	Whisky	
Alcohol	
Assorted liquors	Prince Edward Island	Whisky	
Alcohol	
Assorted liquors	1st January to 15th March, 1930	Whisky	
Alcohol	
Assorted liquors	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Whisky	
Alcohol	
Assorted liquors	Prince Edward Island	Whisky	
Alcohol	
Assorted liquors	Whisky	
Alcohol	
Assorted liquors	
26,108 1,735f 1,027$ 6,0211 17! 46 1,213!
527!
1,186!
115$
8$
38!
618
655$
10$
4$
4$
6$
20$
Nil
Nil
Nil

Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What is the total number of persons in the Canadian Air Force?
2.	How many of these are commissioned officers?
3.	What is the number of each rank of commissioned officers, and what pay and allowances do officers of each rank receive?
4.	How many non-commissioned officers are there in the service?
5.	What is the number of each rank of noncommissioned officers, and what pay and allowances do such officers receive?
6.	What other grades, ranks or occupations are there in the service, what is the number employed in each rank, grade or occupation, and what pay and allowances do the persons of each rank, grade or occupation receive?


Mr. MALCOLM:: Additions
Increases
Officers.
The annual pay of officers is increased by the amount shown below after three and five years' service in their respective ranks.
Rank	After 3 years' service in rank	After 5 years' service in rankGroup captain	$ cts. 200 00 200 00 200 00 200 00 200 00 100 00*	$ cts. 200 00 100 00 100 00 100 00 200 00W ing-com m ander	Squadron-leader	Flight lieutenant	Flying-officer	Pilot-officer	
* After two (2) years' service.
Warrant Officers, N.C.O's. and Airmen.
The annual pay of Warrant officers, N.C.O's. and Airmen is increased by the amounts shown below after three and six years' service in their respective ranks or groups.
Rank
Sergeant-Major, 1st class. "	2nd class.
Flight-sergeant	
Sergeant	
Corporal	
Leading aircraftsman	
Aircraftsman, 1st class...
2nd class...
Standard rates			Tradesmen Groups	
			"A", "B'	and "C"
After	After	After	After3 years'	6 years'	3 years'	6 years'service	service	service	servicein rank	in rank	in rank	in rank$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.	S cts.36 50	54 75	36 50	54 7536 50	54 75	36 50	36 5036 50	54 75	36 50	36 5036 50	54 75	36 50	54 75	36 50	18 25	36 50	36 5036 50	36 50	54 75	54 75	
Occasional Allowances:
Officers:-Staff pay $200 per annum whilst employed on headquarters staff.
Uniform allowance S100 per year for general list officers.
Flying pay $2.00 per day for officers on non-flying list whilst employed on flying duties. .	Adjutants pay $100 per year whilst so employed.
Airmen:-Crew pay 75 cents per day whilst detailed as crew of aircraft.
Flying pay 75 cents per day whilst employed on temporary flying duty.
Flying pay $1.00 per day whilst qualified and employed as airman-pilot.


QUEBEC BRIDGE AND LEVIS FERRY
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Will the government get full information about (a) the previous and existing tariffs of tolls over the Quebec and Levis ferry, and (b) the total cost of the construction of the road for vehicular traffic over the Quebec bridge before the tariff tabs on same, which has been approved by Quebec government, is ratified by federal government?
2.	If So, when?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	(a) The ferry service between Quebec and Levis being an intraprovincial service, is not

in any respect subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.
(b) The total cost of the Quebec bridge roadway will be ascertained when the audit of expenditures-as provided for in the agreement-is made by the federal authorities.
2.	Arrangements now being made for the required audit.


CONTRACTS FOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Did the government give out contracts for aerial photography in 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?

Questions
2.	If so, were these contracts given by tender and to what companies?
3.	What was the total amount of said contracts and the area of each in square miles?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	Yes.
Year	Contract Area
1926	(approximately)	
537	sq.	miles1927	(approximately)	
990	sq.	miles1928	(approximately)	
1,228	sq.	miles1929	(approximately)	
1,564	sq.	miles2.	Yes. In 1926, Fairchild Aerial Survey of Canada, Grand'Mere, Que.; in 1927, 1928, Fairchild Aviation, Limited, Grand'Mere, Que.; in 1929, Interprovincial Airways Limited, Grand'Mere, Que.
3.
Contract price (a)	Amount paid
$20 00 per sq. mile	 $ 8,051 54
$20 00 per sq. mile	 19,803 70
$17 50 per sq. mile	 21,375 00
$20 00 per sq. mile	 nil. (b)
(a)	Subject to deductions specified in contracts.
(b)	No work done.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES BRANCH OFFICIALS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: What office is held by each of the officials named by the Minister of the Interior on March 19, in replying to the question, "What are the various officials of the northwest territories branch of the Department of the Interior"?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Name of Official-Title of office
O.	S. Finnie, Director.
D.	L. MeKeand, Assistant director.
G. P. Mackenzie, Arctic exploration and development officer.
L.	T. Bunwash, Investigator, grade 3.
J. F. Moran, Chief inspector.
A. S. Thomas, Assistant engineer.
D.	H. Christie, Principal clerk.
J. P. Richards, Principal clerk.
E.	M. Phillips, Principal clerk.
T. F. Bracken, Principal clerk.
F.	C. Wilkins, Sr. Engineering clerk.
Miss R. Beilby, Clerk, grade 4.
Miss M. G. Anderson, Stenographer, grade 4. Miss J. Macdoneil, Clerk, grade 3.
A. McCracken, Clerk, grade 2.
Miss V. M. Roxborough, Stenographer, grade 3.	[DOT]
Miss D. M. Clarke, Stenographer, grade 2. Miss K. E. Berry, Stenographer, grade 2. Miss A. A. Beach, Stenographer, grade 2. Miss M. A. L. Bidgood, Stenographer, grade 2. Mis M. E. Morrissey, Clerk, grade 1.
J. E. Fagan, Stenographer, grade 2.
Miss M. K. Parr, Stenographer, grade 2. Miss D. R. McClelland, Stenographer, grade 2.
Miss M. J. McDonald, Stenographer, grade 1. A. E. Porsild, Botanist.
R. T. Porsild, Assistant botanist.
J. D. Soper, Investigator, grade 1.
W. H. B. Hoare, Investigator, grade 1.
J. A. McDougal, District agent-Fort Smith.
2419-55i
G.	D. Murphy, Principal clerk.
P. E. Trudel, Departmental accountant, grade 1.
N. W. Champagne, Clerk, grade 4.
J. B. Leclaire, Packer and helper.
M.	J. Dempsey, Park warden.
H.	McDermott, Game warden.
D. Arden, Game warden.
D. C. Ireland, Game warden.
W. Schaefer, Game warden.
W. J. Taylor, Game warden.
F. C. Campbell, Game warden.
N.	Hoy, Game warden.
F.	Dent, Game warden.
P. Campbell, Game warden.
R, Wylie, Game warden.
C. Gullion, Game warden.
A. J. Knox, Game warden.
C. H. Cooper, Labourer.
Dr. C. Bourget (part time), Medical health officer.
Dr. A. L. Macdonald (part time), Medical health officer.
Dr. W. A. M. Truesdell, Medical health officer.
T. W. Harris, Sub mining recorder.
Dr. L. D. Livingstone, Medical ' officer, grade 2.
Dr. J. A. Urquhart, Medical officer, grade 1. Dr. H. A. Stuart, Medical officer, grade 1. Dr. R. D. Martin, Medical officer, grade 1. Mis3 M. E. McCabe, Graduate nurse.
Miss P. Shepherd, Graduate nurse.
L.	D. Morin, Ice pilot.
Yukon
G.	I. MacLean, Gold commissioner.
G. A. Jeckell, Comptroller.
R. L. Allen, Timber inspector.
R. L. Gillespie, Clerk, grade 4.
F.	G. Berton, Clerk, grade 4.
P. M. Kelly, Clerk, grade 4.
J. B. Deslnuriers, Clerk, grade 3.
Miss V. Faulkner, Stenographer, grade 3.
G.	V. Leslie, Stenographer, grade 2.
M.	L. Schwarz, Stenographer, grade 2.
R. Henderson, Assistant mining engineer. W. Y. Bruce, Clerk, grade 4 (part time).

Questions


CALGARY-CUSTOMS AIR PORT
Mr. ADSHEAD:: Does the Minister of Customs intend to make the city of Calgary a customs air harbour?


William Daum Euler: Applicants for customs air harbour, Calgary, directed to apply to air board. Establishment of customs air harbour joint matter between air board and Departments of National Revenue and Immigration and Colonization, but applications first dealt with by air board.


QUEBEC CITY-ST. JOHN'S GATE
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Has the Minister of National Defence, or any officials of his department, authorized the destruction of I'orte St. Jean, part of the fortifications and of the arsenal, upon rue d'Auteuil, city of Quebec?
2.	Is it the intention to provide a parking place for automobiles at the site of said fortifications?
3.	Are the works of destruction now proceeding or have they been completed?
4.	Have protests been received by said department against the carrying out of such works ?
5.	If so, from whom have such protests been received?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1,	2 and 3. Porte St. Jean (St. John's gate) was demolished about thirty years ago and the street widened. A retaining wall was built on either side of the new street. The north retaining wall has been pronounced dangerous and is being taken down and replaced by another retaining wall, located as requested by the Quebec civic authorities. This location allows for the widening of the street and the area will be taken over by the city of Quebec.
4 and 5. Mr. Armand Lavergne applied for an injunction against the city of Quebec and the Department of National Defence enjoining them from proceeding with the work, but subsequently withdrew his application.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS-REVALUATION
Mr. SPEARMAN:: 1.	How many notices of appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada have been filed to date in connection with the revaluation of soldier settler lands?
2.	Have any of these appeals as yet been heard by the exchequer court?
3.	If so, how many, and in what province?
4.	What is the number of: (a) favourable; (b) unfavourable judgments rendered in such cases ?
5.	If no cases have yet been heard, when, and in what provinces, may we expect the exchequer court to commence its sittings in connection with this matter?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	310.
2.	Yes.
3.	Revaluation appeals from the following provinces have been disposed of by the Exchequer Court of Canada:-
Judgment
Province	delivered
British Columbia	 52
Alberta	 9
Saskatchewan	 65
Manitoba	 27
Ontario	 1
Nova Scotia	 2
Total number of judgments.. .. 156
4.
(a)	Judgments favourable	to	settler....	17(b)	Judgments unfavourable	to	settler..	63
Judgments dismissing settlers' appeals by
consent without costs	 76
Total	156
5.	Answered above.


RED DEER INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL
Mr. SPEARMAN:: 1.	Has the government received any offer of purchase in connection with the recent advertisement for sale of that property known as the Red Deer industrial school, in the province of Alberta?
2.	If so, how many, and from whom?
3.	What, was the amount of each of such offers?
4.	Has any one of these offers been accepted?
5.	If so, whose, for what amount, and on what terms ?
6.	What is the total acreage involved in this transaction?
7.	To which department of the government will the money thus received be credited?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Two; (b) one from R. A. MacDonell; one from A. G. Schock.
3.	R. A. MacDonell, $26,000; A. G. Schock, $30,000.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) A. G. Schock's; (b) $30,000; (c) Ten per cent cash, balance in fifteen annual payments with interest at 5 per cent on the amortization plan; the annual payments for the first five years to be secured by assignment of one-half of total crops grown, the purchaser to break fifty acres per annum during the first five years.
6.	1,113 acres, more or less.
7.	Soldier Settlement Board.

Questions


TOTAL TRADE OF CANADA
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	What was the total amount of Canada's
trade for the years 1921, 1925 and 1929, respectively?	.
2.	What was the total amount of importations and exportations of Canada during the years 1921, 1925, and 1929, respectively?
3.	What was the total value of all farm
products in Canada during the years 1921, 1925, and 1929, respectively?	.
4.	What was the total value of articles entirely or partly manufactured in Canada during the years 1921, 1925, and 1929, respectively ?
5.	What was the total amount of exportations from Canada during the years 1921, 1925 and 1929, respectively?
6.	What was the total amount of exports of agricultural products during the years 1921, 1925, and 1929, respectiely?
7.	What was the total amount of exportations from Canada of manufactured articles during the same years?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1. Canada's total trade for the years ended March 31, 1921, 1925 and 1929, was:
Years		
1921.. .		. $2,450,587,001
1925.. .		. 1,878,294,180
1929.. .		. 2,654,575,166
2. Canada's total imports and exports during the years ended March 31, 1921, 1925 and 1929,		
were:	Tottal	TotalYears	imports	exports1921.. .	.$ 1,240,158.882	$1,210,428,1191925.. .	. 796,932,537	1,081,361,6431929.. .	. 1,265,679,091	1,388,896,0753. Canada's total value of all farm products during the years 1921, 1925 and 1929, was:	Years	1921.. .	. $1,3S6,126,0001925.. .	. 1,166,021,0001929.. .	Note: complete figures	1928.. .	. 1,800,650,0004. Canada'	's total value	of articles entirely
or partly manufactured during the years 1921, 1925 and 1929, was:
Years
1921	$2,576,037,029
1925	 2,948,545,315
1929 (estimated)	 4,000,000,000
5. Canada's total exports during the years ended March 31, 1921, 1925 and 1929, were:
Canadian Foreign Years	produce	produce
1921	$ 1,189,163,701 $21,264,418
1925	
1,069,067,353	12,294,2901929	
1,363.709,672	25,186,4036.	Canada's domestic exports of raw farm products of Canadian origin during the years ended March 31, 1921, 1925 and 1929, were:Field Animal Years	crops	husbandry1921	$ 376,431,435	$53,078,9821925	
322,898,196	39,960,1511929	
501,070,127	47,820,5317.	Canada's domestic exports of partly and fully manufactured articles during the years ended March 31, 1921, 1925 and 1929, were:Partly	FullyYears	manufactured	manufacturedarticles	articles1921	S 193.641,676	$471,446,2631925	
161.376,031	430,222,4481929	
195.144,120	507,170,677


EXPORT OF RAW MATERIALS
Mr. PREVOST:: 1. What was the total value of Canada's exportations of raw material for the years 1920. 1925 and 1929, respectively?
2. What was the total value of Canada's importations of raw material in 1920, 1925 and 1929, respectively?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	Canada's total domestic exports of raw materials during the years ended March 31, 1920, 1925 and 1929, were:
Years
1920	$440,612,2125
1925	 477,468,874
1929	 661,394,875
2. Canada's total imports of raw materials during the years ended March 31, 1920, 1925 and 1929, were:
Years
1920	$294,734,931
1925	 220,901,294
1929	  290,484,449


COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS
Mr. DUPUIS:: 1.	Did the government in 1929 appoint a committee of federal members to inquire into agricultural conditions in Canada?
2.	If so, what were the powers given to it?
3.	Do the names of the following persons mentioned in an article published January 18, 1930, in most of the newspapers of Montreal, correspond exactly to the names of the federal members who the government appointed to carry out this inquiry, namely, Messrs. Mark Senn. member for Haldimand, chairman of the committee of inquiry; W. E. Tummon, member for Hastings South; F. W. Bowen, member for Durham, Earl Rowe, member for Dufferin-Simcoe ?

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
4.	Has the Dominion government any knowledge that said gentlemen carried out an inquiry in the counties of Joliette, Nicolet, Yamaska, Laprairie, Napierville, St. John, Iberville. Sherbrooke, Richmond, Stanstead, Compton and Assomption-Montcalm?
5.	In keeping with the instructions given by the government to this committee, was the latter held to officially notify the members of the various counties above mentioned?
6.	Was it under instructions of the government that they thus went into the province of Quebec during January last?
7.	Was a report made in connection with this inquiry? If so, to whom, and is it available?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1. to 7 inclusive No such committee has been appointed by the Dominion government.


FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR HIGHWAYS IN QUEBEC
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	What is the amount of subsidies granted to the province of Quebec by the Dominion government for highways?
2.	What was the amount allowed for each county of the province of Quebec?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	$4,748,420.
2.	This amount represents Quebec's share of the $20,000,000 appropriated by the government under the Canada Highways Act, 1919. That province had completely earned its allocation by March 31, 1926. The sum represents 40 per cent of the estimated subsidizable cost of constructing or improving 1,004. 77 miles of roadway comprised in 166 different project agreements. It is not possible to state the amount allowed for each county of the province of Quebec, but the final annual report of the commissioner of highways for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1928, contains a statement of the roads that received benefit of the federal subsidy, giving the mileage, the amount paid on account of each road and the type of construction.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: For a return showing a list of all mail carriers and contractors, rural or otherwise, in the employ of the Post Office department, in the county of Cumberland, Nova Scotia, their respective routes, the dates of expiry of their respective contracts and their respective rates of remuneration.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY RUNNING RIGHTS
Mr. MacNUTT:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and agreements, between the government of Canada, and/or any official of the Canadian IMr. Dupuis.]
National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, since the year 1900, having reference to the granting of running rights to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company over the old Intercolonial railway (now Canadian National), between St. John, Moncton, and Halifax.


ROCHES POINT WHARF
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (for Mr. Lennox ):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other documents received by or sent to the Minister of Public Works or any other minister of the government or any official thereof, in connection with the item of two thousand dollars contained in the estimates for repairs to the wharf at Roches Point.


WILLIAM J. KAY-DISMISSAL
George Halsey Perley: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other documents exchanged between any person or persons and any minister of the government, or any official thereof, relating to the dismissal of William J. Kay from the position he occupied as Indian Agent at Sutton West.


LONGWORTH B. C. POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. FRASER:: For a copy of all letters, reports, memoranda, petitions, and correspondence on the files of the department referring to the request for a change in the postmastership at Longworth, British Columbia.


BUFFALO NATIONAL PARK
Mr. SPENCER:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, reports and recommendations with reference to enlarging the Buffalo national park by taking in the following lands, namely: the north half of township 42, and the south half of township 43, range 5, west of the 4th meridian.


RIFLE RANGES, PEEL COUNTY
Mr. SAMUEL CHARTERS (Peel) moved:: For a copy of all letters, advertisements, tenders, contracts, agreements or other papers or documents in any way relating to the sale of the property in the township of Toronto, county of Peel, known as "Rifle Ranges," to Hubbs and Hubbs.


James Malcolm: Mr. Speaker, in regard to this request 'for papers, I would like to state that Hubbs and Hubbs have made an assignment under the Bankruptcy Act, and as the crown has taken action to resume possession of those portions of the property not already conveyed to private parties the

Export Act-Mr. Cahan
whole matter is sub judice; for this reason it is considered that at the present stage of the proceedings it would be prejudicial to the public interest if this notice of motion should be adopted.
Motion dropped.


DUTY ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Anderson Fraser: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question-I think properly-to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in regard to several inquiries I have had from people in British Columbia who are interested in the manufacture of softwood lumber. They point out that the United States has threatened to impose a duty on softwood lumber. The adoption of this duty will mean that lumber mills and logging camps will be put out of business, thus destroying the prosperity of the community, and creating a great deal of unemployment. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what action, if any, has been taken by the government to deal with this situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, there is an
appropriate method recognized with respect to representations on these matters, and I can assure my hon. friend that it has been followed with respect to the matter to which he has referred.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the government to the fact that on March 3, 1930, I asked for the production of certain papers in regard to the supply of coal to the Royal Military College, Kingston, which were brought down as sessional paper No. 142. In that return there is a letter from the commandant asking if a certain tender had been received. It does look, from the correspondence, as if the tenders were called for on the 19th of June, and that one firm has been allowed to tender twice so as to enable it to put in a lower tender, and the question is asked if the usual stipulation as to the weighing of coal, contained in paragraph 4 of the conditions Of contract, had been complied with. There is nothing in these papers to show the weighing of that coal, and that is a very important detail in connection with the papers. I would like to ask the government if this will be brought down.


James Malcolm: I can assure my hon. friend that I had not gone through the file after it had been given to me by the departmental officers, but I will call his request to their attention, and if there are any other papers I will be glad to have them brought down immediately.


CIVIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago
the government accepted a recommendation of a oommittee of this house with regard to the setting up of joint councils in the civil service. A few days after the opening of the session the Minister of Labour told us that within a fortnight he would be able to give definite information as to what action is to be taken. I should like to know when that information may be expected.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still
under consideration. I am sorry I was not able to give my hon. friend the definite answer I promised him within the two weeks; probably I guessed too short a time, but I do hope to be able to give him that definite information within a very short time now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Within two weeks?


Peter Heenan: I said two weeks the last
time, and it was probably too short a time. I expect to be able to make a definite announcement within a very short time.


EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March
14,	consideration in committee of Bill No.
15,	to amend the Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Export of intoxicating liquors.
Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker, before this section is adopted I should like to make a few suggestions with regard to certain amendments and I think improvements which might be made in the bill now before the house.
I have participated in public and political discussions in Canada for nearly fifty years, and upon every occasion I have endeavoured to urge that in our relations with our great neighbours to the south we on our part should
Export Act-Mr. Cahan

endeavour to be neighbourly. I do not agree with the suggestion sometimes made in this house that the United States has been a good neighbour to us, because I think many times officials of the United States have been very aggressive and irritating in dealing with Canada in those international matters which affect both countries. In spite of that fact, as a weaker nation and I think on the whole a nation with a better disposition and better manners, we should endeavour to cooperate, in so far as we can with due regard to our self respect and national dignity, in preventing friction along the border.
The Prime Minister referred to the principle of this bill as being expressed in the terms of the explanatory note, where it states that the purpose of the bill is to authorize officials of the Dominion of Canada to do so and so. The impression left upon the country-I think perhaps unfortunately-was that the bill was not an absolute prohibition, but was a prohibition within the discretion of the officials of the government. Further, in the Prime Minister's address he referred to the bill as proposing to refuse releases of liquor known to be destined to the United States, and to refrain from granting clearances to ships carrying intoxicating liquors when those liquors are known to be destined to the United States. I think those who read the Prime Minister's speech must be under an entire misapprehension as to the real purport and effect of this legislation.
When the Minister of Justice, on behalf of Canada, executed the agreement, or convention, or treaty of 1924 between the United States and Canada for the punpose of suppressing smuggling operations along the international boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the United States, no doubt he was either serious in his desire to carry out that alleged intention of the treaty, or else he had a quiet, sardonic grin when he was signing that treaty, because its clear implication is that it is perfectly lawful, as between Canada and the United States, to transport and export liquors destined for the United States, providing that we do so openly in ships clearing for American ports and not by ships which clear for distant foreign ports when the size and quality of the ships would create the suspicion that they could not reach the distant port in some other country. This treaty recognized as perfectly legal the distillation of liquors in Canladla, the brewing of beers and the fermenting of wines, and recognized also as perfectly legal on * the part of Canada the transhipment and exportation of these liquors to the United States so long as 
we did it openly and gave the United States notice of the clearing of the ship and the nature of the cargo.
Now matters have changed. The Prime Minister is persuaded that the United States is sincerely and honestly endeavouring bo prevent smuggling. I noticed that one of the journals of the day suggested that this measure should be entitled "a bill to ease the conscience of the Prime Minister and to allay his undue emotions with respect to the crimes being committed on the border," but I do not take that view. Personally, from what I have seen and heard, I believe that the Prime Minister has been put under great strain and stress by the officials of the United States in order to induce him to introduce this measure to the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: None whatever.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Pardon me?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been none whatever.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, all I can say is that within a short time before I came to the opening of this session, a very high official of the United States toLd me personally, knowing that I was a member of this House of Commons, that unless this parliament of Canada enacted a prohibition of liquor export, it was the clear determination of the United States to place from 5,000 to 10,000 armed men along the border in order to prevent it.


Mr. POULIOT:: Who said that?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was given that information by an official of the United States, and I inferred that similar protestations must have. been made to the Prime Minister of this country, either directly or indirectly, in order to induce him to take the attitude which he is now taking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might assure my hon. friend that no such representations or protestations have been made either directly or indirectly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Of course I accept the statement of the Prime Minister, but I could give no other colour to the address which he made, having in my own mind a knowledge that such statements have been made by officials at Washington with respect to their intentions on the border unless we prohibit the exportation of liquors to that country. Accepting the word of the Prime Minister, why should we proceed in this hurried manner to enact a bill such as this? Would it not have been far preferable to have negotiated with the United States an amendment to the treaty of

1924 whereby each country would by a reciprocal agreement or by reciprocal legislation outside of the agreement, prohibit the exportation from the United States into Canada of goods the importation of which is prohibited by Canada, or the exportation by Canada into the United States of goods the importation of which is prohibited by the United States?
A reciprocal amendment could have been made to article 2 of the smuggling treaty of 1924. That article reads:
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,
That is a clear prohibition, but the clause does not end there. The proviso reads: 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.
A very simple amendment could have been made to that clause, prohibiting, as the first part of the clause does, the clearance of vessels from Canada to the United States containing goods the importation of which into the United States is prohibited, by adding simply the word "or." It would then read: or prohibition of 'the exportation of similar goods from Canada to ports in other countries 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.
It seems to me that if the mind of the Prime Minister radically changed in August last, as I understand it did, then there was ample time for him to negotiate an amendment to that treaty under which reciprocal duties and obligations would be imposed upon the governments of the two countries. It seems to me that such a treaty would have been far more consistent with the self respect and dignity of this country than to place ourselves in the position, as seems to be the view of many of the leading newspapers of the United States, where we have been compelled to pass legislation because of the insistent demands of the United States that we should do so.
In his address the Prime Minister referred to the fact that a combination of the distillers of this country and the rum runners and smugglers of the United States was-I have forgotten the word-a sort of detestable business and one to be condemned by the
Export Act-Mr. Cahan
people of Canada. The views of the Prime Minister as to the moral obliquity of the distillers of Canada have greatly changed during the last few years. I remember in 1925 when he desired to select an eminent man from the province of Quebec to take the title of honourable for all time and become a member of this government, he chose a very active director of one of the great distillery companies. That man was my opponent in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George and after his defeat he continued to be a very active director of that great distillery company until the services of an eminent and qualified man were required for a foreign post, when he was selected again. Up to that time there was in the view of the Prime Minister no moral obliquity attached to the office of director of a distillery company, or to one who actively directed its business.
This bill should apply to all articles which are prohibited and not to distilled liquors alone, because distillers are certainly regarded as an honourable class of men and their product is a legal product in this country. If we are to enter into a treaty with the United States, let it be one by which reciprocal duties are imposed, and let it be one which applies in both cases to all prohibited goods, whether prohibited in the United States or prohibited in Canada. That is my first suggestion.
My second suggestion is that if we cannot effect this by treaty, we should do it by concurrent legislation. It would be wise to place upon the statute books of this country, as we propose now to do, an act which would refer not only to intoxicating liquors but to the prohibition of export from Canada of any goods into any country by the law of which their importation is prohibited. For instance, the importation of matches is prohibited in France, and it would seem to me to partake of the same moral obliquity to allow the clearance from Canada to a French port of a cargo containing matches, as to allow the clearance from Canada of intoxicants destined for Finland, the importation of which into that country is prohibited, or to the United States, where there is also a prohibition. Let us apply it equally all round. There are a number of articles the importation of which into Canada is prohibited, and it seems to me that we should prohibit export only in respect of importations into those countries which enact reciprocal legislation.
The bill deals with two matters which have no real relation to each other. The first clause of the bill is an amendment to the Export Act, and the second clause refers to the granting of clearances which certainly should come under

Export Act-Mr. Cahan

the Customs Act. In the Customs Act we have the definition of clearances, the definition of entries outward, the definition of manifests, a declaration with regard to the proper officers to issue clearances and the conditions under which they should be granted. If these matters are to be dealt with in such a bill as the present one, I suggest that the bill is wider in its application than is useful and proper under the circumstances.
I cannot rid my mind of the fact, and I think it is entirely consistent with the statement of the Prime Minister, that this bill is introduced not because of any moral reform on the part of the government, not because there is a desire to assume the appearance of virtue at about the political demise of the present government of the day, but because this government feels that if we refuse to pass this legislation we will create continued irritation and opposition and unfriendliness toward Canada in the minds of the officials of the United States government, and possibly in the minds of the people of the United States. I think that was made clear in the Prime Minister's speech. Therefore we do not wish by way of pledge or promise to the United States to pass legislation which it is impossible for us to carry out, and which, if we fail to carry it out, must invoke new criticisms, additional irritation and opposition on the part of the officials of that country. In this bill we undertake that the officials of this government shall not release, from bonding warehouse or other place, liquor destined for delivery in any country into which the importation of liquor is prohibited by law. That imposes upon our officials the duty of completely guaranteeing that the liquor so released is not by some indirect method or indisclosed purpose destined for delivery in the United States, and that is a contention which the United States authorities may fairly set up in the future, after this legislation is enacted. That intention is bound to be a continued source of irritation unless we can absolutely guarantee that the liquor so released will not eventually find its destination in the United States.
The same criticism applies to clearances. Paragraph (b) reads:
It shall be unlawful to grant a clearance to any vessel ^ having on board any intoxicating liquor destined for delivery in any country into which the importation of such liquor is prohibited by law.
If that paragraph is enacted in its present form, it constitutes a pledge on the part of the government that in so far as the United States is concerned no intoxicating liquor shall be concealed on board any ship which secures a clearance from a Canadian port. It will be 
necessary to have at the port inspectors who will inspect the ship from stem to stern and from keel to upper deck in order to be assured that it has on board no intoxicating liquors which are destined for delivery in the United States. Under the present practice a vessel clears for some port. She is not bound to go to that port. Her destination may be changed at sea at any time by the owners who have complete control of the ship, and we shall find vessels -which have cleared from Canadian ports will be overhauled at sea by the United States coastguards, as they now accost and overhaul ships out at sea. When these ships are found to have liquor, which has been surreptitiously placed on board-, no doubt without the knowledge of the customs officer who granted the clearances, these United States coastguards will say: This ship is to foe treated as a pirate on the high seas; she has on board liquor unlawfully shipped from the country from which she cleared and in which she is registered; according to our belief this liquor is destined for a United States port. Under those circumstances they will treat those ships with a ruthlessness which has not yet been attained in the dealings of United States coastguards with foreign ships found within or outside the territorial limit with intoxicating liquors on board.
Furthermore, this bill is not sufficiently comprehensive to carry out the clear intention that the prime minister has expressed. One reason why I would desire that reciprocal obligations should be undertaken by the two countries is this: in Quebec we used to find secret stills illicitly manufacturing whisky blanc in country villages and in the hills, but since the new regime with cheap wines and beers available, it is no longer profitable to distil whisky blanc in Quebec. But there has been growing up in the last few years a considerable illicit exportation of whisky blanc from the hills of Vermont and New York into Quebec. In the northern border states on almost every countryside illicit stills have been distilling spirits at very low cost, much more cheaply than they can be bought in our country, and these spirits are being secretly smuggled across the 'border into Canada. No effort is being made on the part of the United States to restrain such exportation. Indeed, one might hardly expect it when one examines into the nature of -the prohibition laws which prevail in the United States.
I should like to refer for a moment to the eighteenth amendment. It is simply an amendment which empowers congress on the one hand and the state legislatures on the other to enact provisions to enforce prohibition, but if we look through it we shall find

Export Act-Mr. Manion
there is in the United States no prohibition against the purchase of liquor; there is in that country no prohibition against the consumption of liquor; and, under the interpretation given by their courts to their own laws, there is in that country no prohibition against household distillation, household brewing, or household fermentation of grape juice into wine.
Let us look at the facts. The state of California is officially one of the most intensely prohibitory states in the union, but before the Volstead Act the state of California was drying its grapes into raisins and selling them at a very modest profit. Now that the Volstead Act has come into force the grapes of that- state are being sold at six, seven and in many cases ten times the original 'profit. The graipes are being sent, as is also the grape juice, in cold storage cars throughout the length and breadth of the land, so that every householder may ferment and drink his own wines. Prohibition so far as California is concerned is simply a matter of protection for the vineyard industry in that state. Across the border in New York, under the law which prevails, a man may distil 200 gallons of liquor, 200 gallons of beer, 200 gallons of wine in his own household or upon his own premises, for consumption in his own household, so long as he does not sell it. The result is that if you cross the border from Quebec and go into Vermont, New Hampshire or New York state, you will find many country hotels that have a select class of summer visitors. Some of them have brought in brewers from Milwaukee; others have brought in expert wine makers from France, and on the premises they make 200 gallons of this liquor for eveTy man, woman and child in the family and even for everyone employed upon the estate. There is no penalty against giving the liquor away on the premises and those who attend those country places have all the wine and beer they desire given to them with their meals. According to the decisions of their courts it is not sold or paid for. There are more intoxicating drinks being made and disposed of and consumed in the United States of America to-day than ever before in its history. I d'o not think there is any doubt of that. Therefore, I say that we should have either a reciprocal agreement in the form of a treaty or some form of reciprocal legislation, which would give to Canada the same protection from smugglers from the United States as the United States now ask us to give with respect to smugglers of Canadian products into the United States. My years may not be long, but if I live five years more after this bill pases, I am convinced that I will find
that it will cause more irritation and difficulty and disputes between the United States and this country in that time than a continuation of the existing conditions could possibly cause. Furthermore, if we assume the full onus and obligation contained in the implications of this bill, it means that we will have to put from five thousand to ten thousand men on the frontier and along our sea coast, in order to prevent liquors from Canada illegally entering the United States, and to prevent liquors illicitly made in the United States and illegally exported to Canada being reexported back again across the border. It will place upon us a burden and a responsibility and an expense which this country has no right to assume and is under no moral obligation to assume. I am prepared to believe until I hear to the contrary, that the Prime Minister assumes that this bill is simply a prohibition of export and a prohibition of clearance, and that it imposes no unusual burdens upon this country, as indeed he stated in moving the second reading of the bill, but I appeal to him, as an astute lawyer, to look carefully at this bill and consider its implications. I believe it will entail an enormous expenditure upon this country, the adding of at least one or two thousand men to be placed on the border to prevent liquor going across. It also will mean continual differences and disputes between us and the United- States which to a certain extent would 'be eliminated if you would proceed by way of a new convention amending the old treaty of 1924, or if you should proceed by legislation which would be reciprocal as between the two countries, coming into force in this country when the United States has enacted similar prohibitory legislation in respect of exports from that country of which the importation into Canada is prohibited.


Mr. MANION:: I wish to make a few remarks on some of the details of this bill, because its principle has been accepted by the house. When this bill was brought in by the Prime Minister the only opposition of any kind to the principle of the bill, the principle being the stopping of any association between the government of Canada and illegal exporters of liquor in this country to the United States, came from one member behind the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Quebec South. But the details of the bill are yet to be considered, just as the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George has considered them. I entirely agree with him and with my hon-. leader, who took exactly the same attitude, that in justice to Canada we

Export Act-Mr. Manion
might well have proceeded by way of reciprocal legislation, either a treaty or a convention, or concurrent legislation as suggested by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, because in that way we could have obtained for Canada some rights in return for what we are now giving up at the request of the United States.
There is no doubt that the United States has requested this bill. They sent over to Canada a deputation under Admiral Billard to confer with the government, and they certainly asked for legislation such as this. Therefore, sir, I am not criticising particularly what is in the bill so much as what is left out of it, the part that is left out being Canada's vital interests in this matter.
I have no quarrel with the Prime Minister's attitude of high morality and justice, but I submit that we can make a business deal either with another person or another country on the high ground of morality and justice and yet do justice to ourselves at the same time. The Prime Minister, after all, is in this matter a trustee for the people of this country, and I feel that instead of bringing down this legislation by itself, without any concurrent legislation in the United States, he should have done as was suggested by my leader, and later by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, namely, have negotiated a treaty or convention with the United States.


Mr. BENNETT:: They offered it to us.


Robert James Manion: My leader points out that they offered to us a convention or treaty in which Canada would have been given some return for the fifteen to twenty million dollars of revenue which she will lose under this legislation in excise taxation on the export of liquor to the United States. Furthermore, this legislation is going to involve expenditure for Canada. In return for the loss of this fifteen to twenty million dollars of revenue, and for the additional expenditure which this legislation will involve to Canada, what does the United States give us? Though they have asked us for this legislation, they give us nothing. In this connection I quote the last paragraph of an editorial in the Washington Post of March 10, 1930, a few days before this legislation was brought down:
The Canadian government, of course, realizes full well the burdens and the responsibities it will be forced to assume with the enactment of such legislation. Without enforcement there can be no prohibition. If Canada undertakes to prevent the exportation of liquor an extensive enforcement machine will be required. The enforcement machine will deal with the same essential problems that beset the American Prohibition Bureau. There will be a similar effort to evade the law. There will be the 
same tendency toward bribery and corruption. Whether or not Canada will be able to prevent the exportation of liquor remains to be seen. This much is certain: Enforcement of the law will require eternal vigilance, unceasing effort, large appropriations and the sacrifice of revenues that heretofore have accrued from the tax on the manufacture of liquor destined for export, for which there will be no counterbalancing benefits.
Inasmuch as Canada stands to lose so much through enactment of this legislation, the fact that there was a sentiment, the strength of which may be discounted, for its enactment does not fully explain why the bill was introduced. Has Premier King been promised or does he expect to obtain a quid pro quo? If so, who promised it and what could it be?
In other words, the Post asks what does Canada get for giving up this revenue and for the loss to private interest in this business, and for the extra expenditure which will be put upon this country by this legislation? What is the quid pro quo? Do we get anything in return, or are we to draw the conclusion that this legislation, like the Prime Minister's tariff legislation, is a made-in-Washington policy, or a don't-provoke-Wash-ington policy-not a Canadian measure, but a United States measure? There is a biblical injunction that it is more blessed to give than to receive, but sometimes I like the other fellow to get a chance to bless himself. We have been getting all the blessings in our dealings with the United States, and I think it is time that we permitted the people on the other side of the line a share in these blessings by giving us something. We should have, I repeat, either a treaty or convention whereby Canada would reap reciprocal benefits, because, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has pointed out, smuggling across the border is not all in one direction. That is one way in which the United States could have dealt with us.
I hold in my hand a picture taken from this month's issue of the National Revenue Review, published by the Minister of National Revenue, and this is quite appropriate, I think, in view of his speech on this subject last year. It shows the seizure of a large quantity of American alcohol that came into Quebec from the United States. It might have been agreed in a treaty, for instance, that the United States would prohibit the export of alcohol into Canada in return for what we are doing under this legislation. It might have been agreed, for example, that they would try to stop some of the 50 ito 100 million cigarettes that it is estimated are smuggled into Canada every year. That is the quantity estimated foy our officials who have looked into the matter.

Export Act-Mr. Manion
Before I proceed further I wish to say that I am just as friendly to the United States as any other member of this house can be, but I believe that Canada's interests must come first. In this regard I think the statement by the Prime Minister of what be called the "perilous" condition that might arise between the two countries if wie continue to grant clearance of liquor cargoes to the United States was uncalled for. Everybody who read that speech, whether he lived on this side of the line or to the south, inferred that there was a possibility even of war between the two countries-certainly something one would not expect to arise in a great moral cause. To show the house that Americans took the same inference from the Prime Minister's remark as we did, allow me to read a despatch to the Toronto Globe from Detroit, quoting an editorial in the Detroit Free Press:
"At the risk of seeming to look a gift horse in the mouth, we would have wished that, in moving the second reading of the bill, Mr. Mackenzie King had not urged its enactment on the ground that war might ensue between the United States and Canada over the border smuggling		. ,,
"With all due respect to the opinions ot the late Lord Curzon, we have no hesitancy in saying that a war with Canada over the liquor question is both unthinkable and impossible."
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that while I often criticize the United States for what I think has been their rather selfish attitude in trade matters concerning Canada, I agree with the Detroit Free Press that war between Canada and the United States is "both unthinkable and impossible". I do not think the day willl ever come when any difficulty which may arise between these two countries will not be settled by arbitration and conciliation, because war between ourselves and our neighbours would be too much like a civil wiar, and almost as impossible to conceive as a war between Great Britain and Canada.
Now, sir, I think there was a great opportunity for the government to have bargained with the United States in this matter, and I do not think that opportunity has gone by yet; hence mainly the reason why I am making these remarks. What was the particular hurry to bring in this legislation? Is there not time even yet to bargain with the United States? For a number of years the government has willingly collected excise duties from the export of liquor to the United States; they have not only willingly taken those duties, but havq put them into their surplus and boasted of the result. So there should be no such hurry anyhow to ignore Canada's interests as to my mind they have been ignored in this legislation; for in addition to the loss of revenue and extra expense entailed by this measure, its enactment if effective will have the result of intensifying the already serious unemployment situation.
I notice that the labour unions of Quebec and some of the labour organisations of Ontario have been very strongly apposing the action of the government in this regard. Then there is the injury to the shareholders of the distilleries and breweries to be considered. Perhaps some people may think it immoral even to mention the interests of the shareholders in this business, but surely they have a right to be considered. They are in a business which has been encouraged by this government, for in the last three or four years, by granting new distillery and brewery licences, our people have been encouraged to embark in this business. Not only have they been encouraged in that way, but the people of eight out of our nine provinces have voted for liquor control. Am I to draw the conclusion that in this as in other matters only Americans need apply to this government for help? I protest, Mr. Chairman, against the neglect of Canadians in this particular matter, I protest against the one-sided bargain., I protest that this government continually looks at matters apparently through American spectacles instead of Canadian.
Throughout the whole course of prohibition in the United States the Americans have not had much respect for their own law. The Literary Digest at the present time is conducting a straw ballot, and the votes they have received from the various states so far show a majority of two to one in favour either of repeal or some change in the present prohibition law. I could quote many Americans, several of them congressmen, but I will not take up the time of the committee, showing that their countrymen do not pay much attention to their prohibition law. I might also quote the right, hon. Winston Churchill, who passed through the United States very recently, and who said that the whole prohibition law there was a farce. I might quote much more appropriately a speech delivered in this house last session by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), in which he proved conclusively, I think, to this house, and largely to the satisfaction of the country, that not only would such a measure as this be of no use to the United States, but that it would corrupt the Canadian people. Those were his own words; he said it would corrupt the Canadian people, it would lead to underground methods.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: He was talking for the
government then.
37$
Export Act-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: Yes, he was speaking for
the government. May I mention a couple of incidents which tend to make one realize how lightly the Americans treat prohibition? While a member of the Ontario Liquor Control Commission I had occasion to listen to a brewer making a statement before the board. He said that last year he had shipped to the United States 1,400,000 cases of beer, and, he added, "I intend to ship more this year." Let me remind hon. members that he was speaking of cases, not bottles-cases each containing two dozen bottles. Does any one think that 1,400,000 cases of beer could be smuggled into the Lmited States without some connivance on the part of the American preventive officials? Another of the outstanding brewers of Canada came into the boards office to see us, and he said incidentally that when in an American city the previous day he had seen one of his trucks on the street-I do not wish to mention the city, for it might get certain United States' officials into trouble-I said, "One of your trucks! What was it doing there?" He said, "It was delivering beer." "But," I said, "how did it get there?" "How do you think it got there? Do you think it flew over there? It went there across the bridge." I said "What about the customs officials?" He just laughed and remarked, "Oh, the customs officials don't pay any attention to our trucks." Last autumn while in New York city I was taking lunch with my wife in a first class restaurant when a group of people at the next table ordered all the makings of a cocktail except the gin, and this quite openly one of them produced from his hip flask. I mention these incidents to show how little regard the Americans pay to their prohibition law. As the Prime Minister has put this measure on such high moral grounds, I think the United States might have been asked to take a somewhat more exalted view themselves.
Bearing in mind the speech delivered last session by the Minister of National Revenue, it is very doubtful if this proposed legislation is going to benefit the United States at all. He pointed out that to refuse clearances would mean underground smuggling, and they will get worse liquor. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) probably would not admit that there is any good liquor; but smuggling will result in their getting a lot of bad liquor and it will cause greater morbidity and mortality among those who drink it. \vithin the last month I have seen a statement by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company showing that the deaths from alcohol in the United States under prohibition were six times as many per thousand as the deaths from alcohol in Canada.
It was pointed out by the Minister of Na-

tional Revenue, and the Prime Minister repeated his statement last week, that probably only two per cent of the liquor going to the United States came through these clearances which the government had been arranging for shipment to the United States; in other words, with the West Indies route, the air route, the automobile route and the railroad route, none of which will be interfered with by this legislation at all, the people of the United States will probably get all the liquor they wish, and we shall be giving up a revenue of $15,000,000 or $20,000,000. Of course, one must acknowledge that the United States government know their own business, and it is they who are asking for this legislation. But if they want it so badly, must we be the only ones to make sacrifices to put it into effect? Surely this arrangement should not be all one-sided. Mr. Sparks the other day gave a statement to one of the papers in which he pointed out that the United States might well stop smuggling into Canada. But apparently we are on too high a moral plane to ask the government at Washington to do anything for us in return for what they are asking us to do for them. The records of the past show that the United States probably would not under similar circumstances be likely to do as much for us. Take for example the Fenian raid; when we asked for some remuneration for the damages done we did not receive very much consideration. Then when we were in like circumstances, in the early months of the war, when we had prohibition on our sdde of the line and they had not, I do not remember that they helped us very much in keeping the alcohol out of our country. There is this factor that I have shown here, that the alcohol smuggling is still going on; and there is the present United States tariff legislation which will have the effect of preventing Canadian produce to the value of seventy or seventy-five millions of dollars from going to the United States.
The very day the Prime Minister introduced this legislation I picked up a copy of the Ottawa Citizen of March 14, which I hold in my hand, and I read this article: It is headed "Curious Reason for Raising of Duty Advanced." The article is written by Mr. C. O. Smith, the representative of the Southam papers in Washington, a very well known publicist, a man whom I know quite well. This is on the very day this legislation was brought forward by the Prime Minister, all for the benefit of the United States, from a business standpoint. It goes on to say:
United States Senate boosts maple syrup tariff because Quebec government loaned .$1.5,000 to Maple Sugar Cooperative.

Export Act-Mr. Manion
Duties on maple syrup were boosted to-day. The boost was advocated by Senator Smoot and others on the curious grounds that the province of Quebec had advanced to the maple sugar cooperatives of Quebec $10,000 for a sugar plant and had given them a loan of $5,000, this constituting, they claimed, a bounty on sugar and syrup.
This perfectly ridiculous claim was put forward in the face of letters from Quebec and Ottawa which stated specifically that no bounties on maple sugar and maple syrup were paid either by the Ottawa or provincial governments.
Then further down he says:
But Canadian maple syrup and maple sugar must be kept out of the United States if high tariff rates will do the job, so the high rates were passed.
The duty on clothespins has been doubled over the rate first recommended for the reason, as the senator from Vermont absurdly said, that a clothespin factory up in Canada was ready "to flood the United States with clothespins."
And then a little lower down, he shows his disgust with the United States in this whole matter:
If duties are to be raised because of a $15,000 loan, what sort of tariff would be justified by the same logic against the fruits, meats, and other farm products of the United States that are being aided by the $250,000,000 advances of the United States farm board?
That is the attitude of the writer of this article. So I say there was a very great opportunity for negotiations of some benefit to Canada in this regard.
I asked the Prime Minister the other day if Great Britain had stopped its exportations, and he said they had not, and I understand that there is no other country that has stopped its exportations or clearances of liquor to the United States. It is true that the Prime Minister in his speech, in reply to my question, said: That is correct, but he added: Let us give an example to the rest of the world. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have been in most of the countries of Europe on a number of different trips, and I have never come back with the impression that on grounds of personal morality, business morality, or political morality, they were in any way inferior to the people of the Dominion of Canada. Frankly I do not like the Pharisaical attitude that we should be giving examples to the rest of the world; when we get our heads away up in the clouds it might be well to keeip our feet on the ground.
This measure really does not enforce a law of Canada; it enforces an American law. One hundred and ten million people ask ten million people to enforce a law which one hundred and ten million people cannot carry out. Have
we become merely an outpost of the United States? What about that great status that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice refer to so often?
Let me sum up in a few words the various attitudes of this government on this question. In 1926 the Liberal party, supporting the Prime Minister, opposed the report of the customs inquiry committee which suggested that this legislation be put into force, that is, the stopping of liquor export to the United States. The same year they won an election on that attitude, and then from 1926 till 1930 they accepted the profits of this unholy alliance of the government with what the Prime Minister called the bootleggers, the rum runners and criminal gangsters, and they put the profits in their pocket, at the same time boasting of their surpluses. Then in 1929, in the House of Commons, the Minister of National Revenue stood behind the Prime Minister and said he was speaking for the government. He proved conclusively that it would be poor policy for us to introduce this kind of legislation, because it would corrupt the people of Canada and would not do the United States any good, and he gave adequate reasons for that attitude, and now the Prime Minister apparently carried away by high moral forces brings in this legislation.
Has there ever been in the history of this country a government that has wobbled quite so much on any piece of legislation as this government has wabbled an this matter? It is a splendid piece of political acrobatics. In view of all I have said-and I am closing my remarks-I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this is merely another grand salaam to Washington, another obeisance to the blindfolded Goddess of Liberty, another don't-provoke-Washing,ton attitude on the part of the Prime Minister and his supporters. Has this government any Canadian policy at all on any matter? Does this government ever take the attitude where Canadian interests alone are concerned and not the interests of the United States or some other foreign country? I do not know where they do. I do not wish to dwell on other matters at the moment, but there are many others on which I could speak, where the government does not take any Canadian attitude. As a matter of fact,, they do not take a Canadian attitude on anything at all. To my mind, Mr. Chairman, this is just a preelection dodge on the part of the Prime Minister, a sort of deathbed repentance, because he feels that his government is drowning and he is grasping at any straw that floats, with the hope that it will float them into power. It is simply another piece of political expediency,

Export Act-Mr. Manion

the idea being that there will fee an election soon, and they propose by this method to hoodwink the electors as ito the real issues to be decided in this -country. Suppose the Senate should happen to throw out this legislation, then the Prime Minister will journey from end to end of Canada, and tell the people of this country that it is time for another Senate reform.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the last?


Robert James Manion: Well, he said the other day amidst laughter of the whole house he had already started the Senate reform by putting a lady in the Senate. I would therefore suggest to the Prime Minister that the next time he goes to the country he go on sex reform, not Senate reform. If we should happen to refuse this, it would be the great moral issue the Prime Minister would go to the country on. He would fairly blow up with righteous indignation and address meetings all over the country with frenzied eloquence. As a matter of fact, the whole principle has passed the house. But I submit that this legislation should have been brought forward in another way. The principle may well be carried out so far as the government is concerned, but I submit that the government should have obtained some compensation for the people of Canada by securing a treaty or a convention. I charge that this government has been recreant in its duty. There is too much Americanism and too little Canadianism in this government at all times.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: What would the hon.
gentleman say if he were 'opposed to the bill?


Robert James Manion: If I were opposed to the bill I would say what I had to say.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Did the hon. member (Mr. Manion) not say at the beginning of his remarks that by his vote the other day-


Robert James Manion: I did not vote.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: By his reply, that the principle of this bill-


Robert James Manion: No, I did not say that at the beginning of my remarks. I said that the principle of this bill had been accepted by this house almost unanimously.


Ernest Lapointe: Unanimously, not almost.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Does the hon. gentleman think-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.
Mr. 10UNG (Saskatoon): Some hon. members seem to think that all the talking rights are on the other side. There are some hon. 
gentlemen over there who think they have the right to do anything. It is a purely Tory attitude. May I ask the hon. member this one straightforward question? I should like to ask him one straightforward question, and I should like him to give me the same kind of answer. Does he consider that his argument has been in favour of the principle of this bill?


Robert James Manion: My argument was that a
measure of this kind might well have been carried out, but in carrying out the principle we should have looked after Canadian interests and not after American interests entirely.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The question
I want to ask the hon. gentleman is this: Does he agree with his leader, that the government has been too slow in bringing in this measure, or does he say it has been done too quickly? Where does he stand in that connection?


Robert James Manion: I will explain where I
stand on that question if it comes to a vote in the house.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: You have a
lot of explaining to do.


Robert James Manion: I will take my chance on
that, and I think my hon. friend has a lot of explaining to do to his own constituents.


Mr. SPENCE:: Before this bill is carried,
I wish to say a few words and make a few observations from a business standpoint. We have heard the legal and the professional sides, and now I wish to say a few words from the standpoint of the ordinary layman who has to make a living in business.
Associated as I am with the business world and always looking forward to making an honest dollar, I realize that this bill will restrain business to a certatin extent and cause this country a considerable loss in revenue.
I consider this a legitimate business, just as much as any other business in this country is legitimate; it has been authorized by the powers that be. The revenue which will be lost must be made up in some other way, and no doubt this government is capable of devising some plan of digging out of the pockets of the people, probably those in the business world, the revenue which they will lose in this way-people who cannot stand it nearly so well as the people who have paid this tax heretofore. I object to making concessions continually to the United States;
I think we should be getting something for what we are giving. I am not one of those always trying to create an unfriendly feeling between this country and the United States,

Export Act-Mr. Spence
but for every concession we make I feel we should demand something in return. We should negotiate a hard bargain, and I believe the United States would appreciate our independence all the more. We are simply hewers of wood and drawers of water for the United States as far as I can see.
My leader has taken a decided stand on this question, and I believe it is generally understood that this bill will be approved by parliament; but what is going to be the result in years to come if the Volstead Act is repealed? I do not think the United States is very anxious to enforce prohibition. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the principle of not sending to any country what that country does not want, is a good one, and I approve of it, but the principle must be approved by the light of facts. Do the facts justify the belief that the United States does not want our liquor? In that country a written law is one thing, and the acceptance of the law is something else. I have lived in that country; I have travelled backward and forward between Canada and the United States, and I see no observance of very many of the laws on their statute books. The hon. member for Fort William mentioned the straw vote being conducted by the Literary Digest; I listened to the radio the other night, and heard that from the returns already in there was a majority of over a million in favour of the repeal of the Volstead Act. In 1929, I think, the Prime Minister offered to allow American customs officers to come on Canadian soil for the purpose of checking out-going vessels in order to assist the United States to enforce their prohibition act. Did they accept that offer? No, they did not, and that shows again that they are not very anxious about prohibition enforcement. I do not approve of the Prime Minister making that offer, but I presume he did it in good faith, and with his undoubted feeling for the United States, no doubt he thought himself justified in doing so.
Current information has it, Mr. Chairman, that home made or imported liquor can be bought in any part of the United States. I received a paper the other day from a friend of mine who has been in the United States for the last two months; I have it before me, openly listing the brands of liquors commonly sold and the prevailing prices being asked, and I find in going over the list that most of the brands mentioned are not of Canadian origin, but come from other countries. I will refer to a few of the brands on this list, so that hon. members who go to the United States for their Easter holidays will know what brands to ask for, and how much they will have
to pay for them. First they quote a liquor called Vat '69, whatever that means, at $6; then Johnny Walker Black Label, which is familiar to everyone at $7 and Johnny Walker Red Label at $6. The next is a brand called Chivas Regal Liqueur, at $7, and then Dirty Dick's 5-Star, aft $7. King William, a very popular brand in Canada, is quoted at $6; Old Benefactor at S3, and Old Monarch at the same price. Then there is Duffy's Liqueur at $6; Clan Campbell, which no doubt is well known to the Scotchmen in the house, is quoted ait S3, a reasonable price for Scotch, and not much more than we would pay here; Peter Dawson is listed at S3 and John Adair at the same price. Then they have a list of beers, and a list of rums which run from $5 to $7. There is a list of about twelve champagnes, which I do not wish to enumerate because I do not wish to fill up Hansard with a lot of that sort of thing, and the champagnes are all quoted at $10. Then there is a list of Canadian brands such as Walker's American Rye, $3; Walter's American Bourbon, S3, and King Henry IV, S3. Old Mull is quoted at S3; G. & W. Special Gold Label, S3; Old Overholt, $3; Old Hickory, S3; Canadian Club, S3, the same price as in this country, and many other brands. This liquor must be leaking into the United States somehow, when these prices prevail.
Many other brands are referred to in this list, but I do not wish to take up the time of the house in reading them. However, this would go to show that there is not much desire on the part of United States authorities to uphold the Volstead Act. We had prohibition in Canada, and we had bootleggers. It would be hardly fair to say that the two go together, but some people do say so. Even then, however, we did not advertise; we did not make known the brands of liquor available, nor is advertising permitted at the present time in my province, where we are making every effort to enforce government control. We have the people behind us, and now we are creating real temperance, which they are not trying to do in the United States. Education alone and not prohibition is now acknowledged to be the best system of bringing about temperance, by those who formerly were strong prohibitionists. I was in the old country for two months the winter before last and I still have a number of relatives there who are strong temperance people and who were formerly strong prohibitionists. To-day they are all falling in behind the advocacy of temperance and are not in favour of prohibition at all. If you go to England, Ireland or Scotland, you will find that through educational methods, through the shortening of the hours of sale and other



Export Act-Mr. Spence

restrictions which have been placed upon the drinking of liquor, there is not 40 per cent of the drinking being done now that there was when I left there as a boy, and I was very much pleased to see it.
I understand that there are some 30,000 speakeasies in New York alone, where people go in and out deliberately in broad daylight. Did we ever have conditions like that in this country? The answer is no. Even if it is right to adopt the principle of this bill, that principle should be embodied in a treaty, as advocated by the speaker who preceded me, and that treaty should impose equal rights and obligations on both parties. There is no treaty: there are no equal rights or obligations; the obligations are all on the Canadian side. That alone would be a good reason for me to vote against the bill, Mr. Chairman, if I so desired and if it came to a vote.
We all know that hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of silks and cigarettes and other goods are smuggled into this country. Has the United States ever offered to help enforce our laws in that regard? Many stores are feeling the effect of that smuggling, many businesses have been ruined, but we are not asking the United States to help us. Canada does not ask the assistance of the United States to prevent smuggling, and that country has no business to ask such concessions of us without granting reciprocal treatment. We should give more consideration to the devising of some Canadian policy for the Canadian people instead of wasting so much time in trying to please the United States.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Is the hon. member
in favour of this bill or is he opposed to it?


James Houston Spence: It is none of the hon. member's business.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Because of the reply
made to my hon. friend, I would ask the hon. member if that language is Irish as it is spoken the world over?


James Houston Spence: I do not mind the hon.
member's saying that as he is only having a joke.


Mr. EVANS:: Mr. Chairman, unlike the
hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Spence), I will say at the outset that I am in favour of this bill. We are considering what amounts to a moral issue upon which this house has to pronounce its views. The opposition to this bill seems to be based upon the question:	What will Canada get out of
it? The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has asked if the distillers are not an honourable class of men and if their product is not legal in Canada. In

reply to that statement I can only say that by the enactment of this bill Canada will preserve her selfrespect.
The control of the sale of liquor has been delegated to the provinces with the idea that as little as possible may be sold to meet the demands of those people who seem bound to have it. I am surprised that so many hon. members can argue against this bill, and I am surprised to see so many journals throughout Canada advocating the defeat of this measure. This country has to take notice of the sordid and squalid state of mind of those who profit by the manufacture and sale of liquor. The liquor interests have been always in politics and they will continue to be so long as we allow this debasing business to be carried on in our midst. I think it is time that Canada got rid of this business and we should not only prohibit the granting of clearances to vessels carrying rum and intoxicating liquors but we should enact a measure which would prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquor in Canda.
It would appear that the liquor trade is defying the government to pass this bill and is promising support at the next general election to the party who will champion their interests, but I think the country will deal with that party in the way it deserves. I would have liked to have seen this measure adopted years ago, and I believe that the majority of the people of Canada were in favour of it at least four years ago, but I believe that those who are sponsoring this bill at this time will be upheld and I consider it a dangerous thing for the great journals in our cities to be advocating support at the next election for that party which defeats this bill.


Mr. BIRD:: Mr. Chairman, in common
with the members in this corner of the house, I commend the government for this legislation, and I say that without any qualification at all. This would seem to be a somewhat courageous aot on the part of the government as is evidenced by the opposition from its own benches. The power of the distillers and brewers of Canada is something which cannot be considered lightly, and although I am young in the ways olf the world it would look to me that a very lucrative source of election funds is being dried up. We know that the distillers and brewers have been accustomed to deluge not only governments but oppositions with election funds and it would seem to be an act of courage on the part of the government in not only overcoming opposition among its own members but in the giving up of a promising source of election funds on the very eve of an election.

Export Act-Mr. Bird
I am not going to take issue with my hon. friends to my right as to the various motives which they have imputed, except to say that it seems to me rather strange that those motives most creditable not only to the government but to Canada have been overlooked. May I mention one that is very obvious to me, and that is public opinion in Canada? It would almost seem from previous arguments that public opinion on this question has been dormant; that the government has had no support amongst the people of Canada; that it is doing this rash thing without having any widespread support amongst our people. I do not believe that. I know the Prime Minister, in bringing down this bill, will have the commendation of all parties in my constituency. During the recess, after having taken part in the discussion last year, I conceived it my duty on every possibie occasion to divert public opinion in the direction of the Prime Minister. On more than one occasion I succeeded in stirring up dormant opinion and directing it towards Ottawa and I know that others did the same. In fact, in western Canada it does not -take very much to stir up public opinion on a matter of this kind. I think public opinion in western Canada is pretty nearly solid on a matter of this nature.
While public opinion should be given some credit, public opinion cannot always move a government unless a government is movable, and it is only right and proper that we should give the Prime Minister some credit for -being responsive to public opinion on a question of this kind when to all appearances it was not exactly 100 per cent in his favour to take the steip he did. So without qualification I would -commend the Prime Minister for having responded to the public opinion that undoubtedly found its way to Ottawa during the last twelve -months.
It seems to be going far afield to drag in motives that, to say the least, savour of cynicism. I have been lectured in the house in years gone by for being cynical; I have heard lectures from both sides of the house in regard to imputing motives to statesmen. In th-is case it is to be regretted in a very special sense, because in bringing this bill before the house we are acting upon a stage which has the whole of the United States for an audience, and for that reason alone, no matter from what quarter of the house this bill had come, just because we are acting in a very public mann-er, we ought to be careful about this cynical disregard of the better possibilities in our statesmen.
There are positive motives that we might impute to the mover of this bill and that
would be a credit not only to him and to the country, but to parliament. There is, for instance, that of friendship for a neighbouring country. Someone has said that the motive was fear. There is a kind of fear we do not need to be ashamed of, and I apprehend that, situated as we are, in contiguity to that country to the south of us, there is a type of fear that we would do very well to cultivate. The hon. member for Fort William, no doubt with the best of motives, said that there is no fear of war with the United States. The situation that would bring about a war is inconceivable, but I remember as a boy in my teens hearing them say the same thing about Germany. This is always so. Humanity is inclined to develop the blind spot. We cannot afford to indulge in noble sentiments like those expressed unless we are sure that they correspond with the actualities of the situation. Of course there will be no war and of course war is inconceivable so long as statesmen on either side of the line will in public places speak and act reasonably, in a spirit of good will, and restrain themselves when there is a temptation to say provocative things, one with regard to the other. I am afraid some of the things we have heard do not come exactly within that category. War with the United States is almost inevitable if we allow ourselves to be betrayed into that hostile attitude whereby, when overtures are made, instead of receiving them in the spirit in which they are made, we tear them to pieces and, as an excuse for not responding to them, find in the minds of our neighbours some motives that we would not like to have imputed to ourselves.
The Prime Minister repudiated the assertion that this was a prohibitionist measure. An hon. member on his own side immediately took him to task and claimed, in a very attractive speech, that it was a prohibitionist measure. If the case against prohibition always lay in the mouths of such charming advocates as the hon. member for Quebec South, we prohibitionists would have a hard time of it. But I am not ashamed to say that I am supporting this because it is a prohibitionist measure. It may not have been in the mind of the Prime Minister that it should be so, but I know my fellow prohibitionists from one end of Canada to the other regard it as such. I do not know whether the hon. member for Labelle is enjoying himself at my expense or not-


Mr. BOURASSA:: No; at the expense of
the situation.


Thomas William Bird: -but I shall be led aside to the extent of saying this in regard to prohibition; the hon. member for Quebec South
Export Act-Mr. Bird

laid this perverse disposition called prohibition to the Puritan ancestry of some of us, and I think he appealed to the knowledge of history of the Speaker. I appeal to the knowledge of history of the hon. member for Labelle, whose -knowledge is comprehensive and precise to an admirable degree. But as I read history, the Puritans have always stood for freedom, for civil liberty, for the right of the individual to determine his own course irrespective of the restraints imposed by governments. That is Puritanism pure and simple, and nothing else is Puritanism, but an unreasoned demand for personal liberty at the expense of society. It is not the Puritans in the United States that are the prohibitionists. It is a misreading of history to impute prohibition to the Puritans because I can remember in my boyhood days a friend of the Puritan stamp who thought it was an insult to the grace of God to try to keep people from drinking beer. I also remember reading in Sandberg's life of Lincoln, I think, that the Lincoln family minister, a Puritan, used to draw his annual salary in the shape of seven barrels of whisky. So prohibition is not a Puritan quality. I will tell you what it is. This prohibitionist sentiment arises precisely out of the concern which people have in this twentieth century for the stability of society. When the hon. member for Labelle, with his overwhelming eloquence, speaks of the stability of the home and of the necessity of moulding the will of the individual to the necessities of the state, I say that is fine; but I want him and others to take their stand in the same spirit with regard to this liquor evil, which is not only a danger to the state, but to the family. One of the evils that wrecks the family in Canada is drink. So let us be logical, let us be consistent. Remember that we are living in the twentieth century, when the rights of society must be conceded if each one of us is to share the maximum amount of liberty. It may be a confession that does not do the bill any good, but confession is good for the soul, and so far as the motives of the Prime Minister are concerned, I give him my unqualified commendation.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I had not thought of
taking part in this debate for the reason that I have not followed it heretofore, although I have read some of it; but as my good friend from Nelson has appealed to my sense of social order as well as to my knowledge of history, I am afraid I have to contradict him in one respect. If there is anything sure about this legislation, it is that it is not a prohibitory measure. That is absolutely sure. First, it is not prohibitory 
as far as Canada is concerned, because, if it operates, its clear result will be to keep in Canada for the use of Puritans and other people a certain quantity of whisky that previously used to go to the United States. So, for Canada, it would operate in precisely the opposite direction from that desired by my hon. friend from Nelson.
As to the preservation of society by prohibition, if my hon. friend will permit me, I do not think that this is the proper occasion to discuss that. Prohibition, if it is possible of enforcement, which has yet to be proven in any part of the world, is a matter to be decided, I think, according to the morals, education and temperament of a people. There is not the slightest doubt that prohibition of liquor to wild races is almost a social necessity, because history and sociology have proven-we had the proof of it in old French Canada-that these people could not make use of their reason and of liquor at the same time. Of course, if my hon. friend from Nelson believes that in his portion of the country the people are in the same state of uncivilization as were the Iroquois and the Hurons, he is quite right in asking for prohibition; but my experience of civilization in America and Europe has taught me that best of all is the teaching of temperance and the education of children so that they will know how to make proper use of either wine or beer -which I must say is much preferable to whisky-just as they must be taught how to make proper use of bread and butter, meat and vegetables. That I think is the best means of getting a civilized people to drink in a civilized manner. But let that pass.
My main reason for standing up at this moment without any preparation, but after having read carefully the speeches of the Prime Minister and of the leader of the opposition and the excellent speech, it must be said, of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) on the second reading of the bill, is that it seems to me that one aspect of the situation has not been fully covered. May I say at once that although I was not here on the second reading, I would not have opposed the bill. It is not a measure that in my humble judgment I would have recommended the government to adopt; but neither is it a measure for which I would feel disposed to oppose the government. I think it is well, however, before we put this measure on the statute books of Canada that we should realize its possible-not to say probable-consequences, especially so far as our international relations a.re concerned. That is the main aspect which I should like to view to-day.

Export Act-Mr. Bourassa
I leave aside entirely the question of our duty in helping a foreign country maintain its standard of morality, or immorality. Even my hon. friend from Nelson must admit that in working out their prohibitory laws, the United States have done more to demoralize the American nation than anything else that has been adopted in law or in custom in that great country during the last century. I think I am not far astray when I say that all the leading spirits of the United States-whether they are prohibitionists or opposed to prohibition, whether they think that the government is incapable of enforcing its own law, or whether they consider that the government has not done its full duty in that regard,- agree that the manner in which those laws are applied or misapplied, the constant conspiracy between a large proportion of the officials of the American government and the bootleggers, has put a premium on hypocrisy, has led to the 'breaking of all laws, and has had a very demoralizing effect upon the minds of the people. It is making for hypocrisy; it is making for contempt of law. But that again, I repeat, has nothing whatever to do with the principle of prohibition. Whether this government, even with its full administrative machinery, is capable of accomplishing more for the moralizing of the American people than the American government, with the support of various state governments, has been able to do, is a doubtful question. As my hon. friends know, several of the state governments not only refuse to apply the law, but they put all the impediments they can in the way of its enforcement. As an example I might cite the government of the great state of Neiw York. A friend of mine who knows well what he is talking about, and who had his information from the government authorities at Washington as well as New York, was telling me a fortnight ago that to-day in New York there are more drinking places than there were before the adoption of the Volstead Act-drinking places where whisky is poured into the throats of the virtuous New Yorkers, and money is poured in return into the coffers of the people who afterwards join hands with the prohibitionists "on principle" to maintain that law on the. statute books, because they make more money with so-called prohibition in effect than they would with proper temperance legislation. Now, whether we on our side of the border, with this little scrap of paper In the statute book, can do more than the American government, the American nation, the American army force, the American police force and the American naval force-well, may
I express some doubt as to our potency in that regard? But again, let that pass.
What I want to come to is this: either we are in earnest in passing this law or we are not. If we are in earnest, it means that next year, or two years hence, if this law does not operate any more effectively than the American laws operate under the control of the American government, this government and this parliament will be called to account by the American nation and the American government, and rightly so. We now take before the American people and before the Canadian people this position, that in order to maintain good relations with our neighbours, we undertake to prohibit export into the United States of liquor manufactured in Canada, while refusing to take any measures to prevent the manufacture of that liquor. Surely this is not a prohibition law. The distillers of Ontario- because they are the most interested in this matter-will be allowed, under federal and provincial legislation, to go on distilling whisky and to ship that whisky to the most paying market. If we mean what we siay, first in the law and second in the declarations of our statesmen, that hereafter liquor manufactured in Canada shall not find its way to the American market, then we must take proper measures to that end. Shall we do so by sending a copy of this bill to the bootleggers of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? Will they be more likely to respect our law by seeing it printed in the name of King George and signed by His Excellency the Governor General than they respect the prohibition law of the United States, supplemented by constant threats of legal proceedings as well as by bullets shot at them by agents of the American government? No, sir. If we mean what we say here, we must, as an honourable government, an honourable parliament, an honourable nation, take effective means to put the law into force. Not only must we have customs officers at the main roads and on the railways crossing the frontier, but also at every b3Toad where it will be possible for a Canadian car to avoid the customs office and penetrate into the United States, or to connect at the border with some virtuous American oitizen, perhaps accompanied by an American policeman-it is done every day-who will take that cargo of Canadian whisky, which we declare should not be exported to the United States on the grounds of morality and good relationship, but which Canadians and Americans will be still interested in smuggling into the United States in spite of Canadian and American laws. That is the first thing to be considered. What is it going to cost Canada to put this law into execution? Surely we are
Export Act-Mr. Bourassa

astute enough, I presume, not to suppose that at the end of the year the American treasury will pay us a cheque to reimburse us the millions of dollars that we shall have to spend in endeavouring, vainly, I predict, to put into execution our awn law. That is one fault I see in this proposed legislation. But let us go a little more deeply into the subject.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What expense will there be in refusing to give clearances?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is another thing. I am speaking of export.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is all the bill calls for.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There are two clauses. I marked them in blue pencil, because this is a blue measure. I will read it again:
No intoxicating liquor now or hereafter held in bond or otherwise under the control of officials of the Dominion government under the provisions of the Excise Act, the Customs Act or any other statute of Canada, shall be released or removed-


Ernest Lapointe: That is from the distillery?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes:
-in any case in which such liquor is destined for delivery in any country into which the importation of such liquor is prohibited by law.
The other clause deals with clearances. Now, I have had occasion, to talk with some people who are absolutely disinterested in this matter, I refer to travelling agents of our great transportation systems, both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National-not the high officials, but officials who go everywhere, see everything, and talk to everybody. They told me how it was done at St. Pierre-Miquelon. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) referred to our trade with St. Pierre-Miiquelon. We may just as well admit that all the Canadian whisky that goes there is destined to the United States. If the law said we would prohibit the export of liquors "consigned" to certain countries there would be no danger, because then we would be responsible only for what is marked on the clearance papers and on the papers signed 'by the officer of this government at the distillery. But we insist upon the "destination". On this we have our interpretation; but is it not likely, Mr. Chairman, that the American government will put on that word "destined" their own interpretation? We are .passing this law to please our neighbours, to enable them to get rid of what they consider a violation of good neighbourship on our part. When they find out that millions of dollars' worth of Canadian whisky, instead of going across from
[Mr. BourassaJ
Windsor to Detroit or from some port on lake Erie to some port in the state of New York, goes around by the St. Lawrence to St. Pierre-Miquelon, and then is picked up by a rum running boat and carried to its final destination, the United States, is it not likely the American government will tell us: "You have been so deeply impressed with the violation of our own laws by your own people that you have put in your statute books a law by which you undertook solemnly to prevent export of liquor 'destined' to our country-"


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is not destined for any country other than that shown on the clearance paper.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have just said we might give it that interpretation; but is it likely that the American government will give it the same interpretation? We are not doing this merely as a piece of legislation; we are doing it to attain an object. It reminds me of a certain debate in this house, a debate which has taken place elsewhere, also, on the question whether the war of 1840 between England and China was a war over opium, because opium was not mentioned in the treaty. Lord Elgin was sent there to make the treaty of peace, and he put it in black and white in his letters that he felt ashamed at the idea of using British cannon to force the Chinese government, in order to oppress them with poison, to kill off their population. There is something akin in this legislation. We are asked to stop the exportation of liquor by refusal of clearances, and by refusing to let out of the distillery liquor destined for the United States. It is useless to play with words. Everyone knows that practically the whole of the liquor exported from Europe or Canada to Miquelon is destined for the United States. I know, as a matter of fact, that the question has already been the subject of discussion-I will not say officially-between the American government and the French government.
But here appears another aspect of it. I presume it is not the intention of the government or the house, in order to maintain friendly relations with the United States, to bring about strained relations with the French government. This whisky, instead of going straight across into the United States, will follow a roundabout route, through a French colony, before it reaches its point of destination. Do you think it will take the United States government very long to tell us: You must stop shipping your liquor to us through a foreign country which neither of us can reach?
It may be that the American government has asked us to pass this legislation for the same

Export Act-Mr. Bourassa
reason that we are passing it, to make a show of zeal. But that does not mean that it may not bring about very annoying consequences, first as between Canada and the United States, and, second as between Canada and France; and it may be that in endeavouring to pass this legislation, which, in all likelihood will not attain its objective, we will not improve our relations with the United States but simply postpone that annoying moment which the Prime Minister talked about. I am not prepared to accept wholly what the Prime Minister said when he mentioned Lord Curzon. As the leader of the opposition said, Lord Curzon, unfortunately, is no more and therefore cannot explain his words; and it is not at all likely that the fear which existed in 1923 is the immediate cause of this legislation I read very carefully what the Prime Minister said then and later; and I understand that he quoted that instance as an illustration-as a forecast, shall I say?-of another event or other events that may develop. Therefore it is of the present and of the future, not of the past, that we must think. It may be that before the next election in the United States there will be quite a change in the attitude of the American government. A great deal may depend on the partial elections of this year, when one half of the House of Representatives and one third of the Senate will be renewed. But suppose, as we must suppose, that the American government is in earnest and want us to apply this law-because surely we are not going to wait till the Americans apply it; we will have to apply it ourselves and apply it in the spirit of the act-it is most likely that next year or two years hence, this or another government will have to come before parliament and admit that this law has not attained its objective. We should therefore restrict the powers that we are putting in the hands of the government and content ourselves with looking after what is wrong on the first clearance papers, not speaking of destination but simply speaking of immediate consignments, and leaving it to the American police to do what they are doing around their own borders and on the maritime seaboard, that is, finding out in what manner goods consigned to Miquelon reach their final destination, namely the United States. Let me tell the house that it is very cleverly done, and done quite openly, in characteristically French fashion-a bit of cynicism but no hypocrisy. Immense warehouses have been built. French and Scotch, whether Puritans or otherwise, constantly send there millions of dollars worth of wine and liquor. The goods are deposited in those warehouses. Banks advance the money on those goods, just as the banks
here advance the money on the wheat accumulated in the elevators. The goods are consigned to certain houses who have their agencies in St. Pierre-Miquelon, incorporated under French law, and operating quite legally, just as our distilleries do. Then a small boat will come bearing a certain name, registered in England or in Holland, having papers bearing that name, the name of the company, and so forth. They take their consignment. They get their clearance. The bank is paid for the amount of goods taken. Once that boat gets to the open sea there is an immediate changing of the name of the boat. There is a complete new set of log books, and stationery of all kinds, the consignment is prepared for a boat bearing another name, registered elsewhere, and then the cargo is transferred to the real bootlegging boat which comes and takes the consignment at Nassau or somewhere else.
As I say, if we are in earnest in this, we will have to see the final destination, not only through St. Pierre-Miquelon where most of our goods will go, but we will have to find under what process-illegal if you like but mightily successful at the present time- our goods reach the United States after having been purchased by French agents in St. Pierre, consigned by them to a so-called English or Dutch boat, and then transferred by that English or Dutch boat to a boat of another name and another register, and to the bootlegging boat before reaching their final destination-


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Who gives second clearance papers?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The second clearance
paper is given at St. Pierre, and the third is given by the owner of that boat which serves as the intermediary between the legitimate trader and the bootlegger.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How can they blame Canada for that?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Because we have to trace our goods right through to destination.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes.


Mr. KAISER:: Did I understand the hon.
member to say that the goods were not unloaded at all at Miquelon?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, yes, of course they
are unloaded. But why did the leader of the opposition make reference to Miquelon? He was right in his reference. But it was not complete. I am now endeavouring to show what it means. For what purpose was Mi-

Export Act-Mr. Bourassa

quelon brought in? Why was a reference made to the million dollars' worth of whisky shipped there? Why was that done, if the leader of the opposition did not foresee the consequences of this legislation as applied to goods destined for the United States but interrupted for a few days at Miquelon just for the purpose of evading the American law and now our own law as well? Of course our tribunals may put a different construction upon this legislation; but I am not speaking on the legal aspect of the question at the moment; I am dealing with the international question. I am not acquainted with the secrets of the government, nor do I know what is in the mind of the leader of the opposition, but If the object of this bill is sincerely and earnestly to prevent Canadian whisky from going to the United States, I venture the prediction that it will not prevent the exportation of the one-hundredth part of what is being exported at the present time. The profits of the distiller and of the bootleggers will be diminished, because instead of going straight across to the United States, cynically, but with less hypocrisy, now they will go the round-about way. It may curtail their profits, but I can assure you that there will be plenty of it left.
This morning I came down from Toronto; perhaps it is because I have been in Toronto that what remains of my puritanism has been shaken up, but on the way I picked up the Globe and the Mail. I am very impartial as between the two papers and two parties. In one of those newspapers I read of a lawsuit which has been commenced by the American government against a millionaire bootlegger in Chicago or elsewhere. They had such precise information with regard to him that they were suing for nearly $1,000,000 in income tax, all from profits derived from the importation of liquor into the United States. If one man has made such profits that the American government claim nearly $1,000,000 in income tax for three or four years, do you think there will not remain enough profit to enable these people to evade our laws and to laugh at us as they are laughing now at the American government?
I am glad the hon. member for Nelson made this point; the leader of the opposition referred to it also, but happy and witty as he was I do not think he took the possible consequences seriously enough. What is the use of concealing the truth? A nation of 10,000,000 people, with no other neighbour on the continent, is not capable of playing with a nation of 120,000,000 people, as big nations generally play with small nations. Follow the trend of diplomacy, whether it is American,

French, German or English; look at the difference in tone between a despatch sent by a big power to a small power, and the answer of a small nation to a large nation. That aspect of the situation is serious, and it is far better that we should admit it. I know it is hard for the Prime Minister to admit that situation, but I think it would be far better if he did so. The older I grow the more I grow tired of shams and round-about methods of concealing the truth. It may be that the request for this legislation was made in a polite manner, but no doubt it was made firmly; and we know what that means under the hands of statesmen who have at their backs the wealth and the military force, or if you like the economic force, of the United States. From the international point of view, that would be the only reason which would justify us in passing this law.
Supposing British Guiana asked us to pass a law similar to this; do you think for a moment we would even consider doing so? Of course we would not. Even if a country like France or Italy asked us to do so we would refuse, and rightly so. Therefore if we do it because it is the American government, or because of our close neighbourhood, or because of the power of the American government to make good their claims upon us, then let us face the consequences like men. I am quite sure that the pressure which has been brought to bear in order to secure this legislation has been "friendly"; but we may be sure that as time goes on the pressure will be perhaps a little less friendly and a little more pressing when it is found that this legislation is inoperative.
The government, I presume, have a knowledge of the responsibilities which will be entailed by this legislation. I do not ask that the government tell us everything they know; I am not so unreasonable. I think at times all governments conceal too many things, but there are occasions when a government, in the accomplishment of its duty to the state, cannot tell everything, but in such a case it is better to say nothing. A government may say just enough to raise suspicion, to create doubts and bring about apprehension; and we in parliament and the people outside ask, "What is it? what is the danger? to what degree does it extend?" What will be the end of the exigencies of the American government in this matter? We do not know, and I am sure the government does not know. Perhaps even the American government does not know, because like us they are subject to currents and counter-currents of opinion. If as is expected by all reasonable men, the movement

Export Act-Mr. Adshead
against prohibition gains ground; if the unholy alliance between the prohibitionists, the bootleggers and the moonshiners is finally broken up by the common sense and the morality of the American people, what will be the situation? I may say in parentheses that I believe that in the United States, with all their faults, there is still an enormous reserve of common sense and true morality; but, as in other democratic countries, that common sense and morality have not always a chance to reach public bodies and to control electorates. However, if the true sentiment of the United States, what I call common 'sense and reason, prevails and breaks up that unholy alliance between what we might call the powers of good and the powers of evil, then we may rest quiet, and four or five years hence we will hear no more of this legislation than we will hear of the Volstead Act itself. If on the other hand the American nation, willingly or unwillingly, decide to maintain this law and to exercise their unlimited strength, political, social and economic, in having their own law applied, and in praying us first, and gradually forcing us, to apply our own law passed at their behest in order to maintain good relations, then I say we should take this action with open eyes and piepare to do much more than is apparent at the moment. We must prepare to stand by the consequences of our actions, one of which is, that if we want to preserve the friendship of the United States by making this law good, we must be ready to solve a few difficult questions which may arise with France, for example, and perhaps with other countries as well. The process which is going on at Miquelon is also going on, to a lesser degree, in the Dutch Indies. I have just returned from a tour of that part of the world, and I can assure hon. gentlemen that what the American government is complaining about so far as Canada is concerned, is taking place in almost every one of the West Indies, French, British, Dutch, and negro, and what is not unloaded at Miquelon will be carried by Canadian National Steamship boats to Nassau, to St. Lucia, to Barbados, to Bermuda, and to Jamaica, and will then find its way back to its final destination, the United States, the most virtuous, perhaps, but certainly the most thirsty nation upon the face of the earth.
We know something about this in Quebec. When the puritans of the other provinces lift their hands in horror at the amount of whisky consumed in the province of Quebec, they should know, first, that nine-tenths of that whisky is made in Ontario and Scotland, and that two-thirds of it is consumed by the
puritans and the prohibitionists from the United States. In the old days the sanctimonious prohibitionists of Ontario were also responsible for a share. But now, thank heaven, the people of Ontario drink their share in their own province, we drink our share in our province, and all the trouble with excess drinking is found to be between the months of June and September, when the tourists, full of enthusiasm for the beautiful scenery of Canada, come to admire the Laurentian mountains and the majestic waters of the St. Lawrence but nevertheless, and quite rightly, decide that the waters of the St. Lawrence do not make a proper beverage. Before going down to Quebec to admire the old citadel and to see the beauties of the Saguenay, they consume a full and ample share of the liquid distilled in Ontario and sold by the agents of the Quebec government.
Let us face the truth, Mr. Chairman, as nothing is gained by hypocrisy. Rightly or wrongly, Canada has brought about a great improvement in the government control of the making and sale of liquor. This great United States has undertaken to prohibit the making and consumption of liquor but has not succeeded in bringing the whole of its
120,000,000 people in line with its law, and I do not think that Canada is capable of making that nation more dry and law abiding than is the American government itself.
I leave these remarks to the reflection o. the government and of the opposition; because in a matter like this, apart from certain propositions held both by the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, I think it was a great object lesson that the leaders of both parties did not make a party issue of this international affair. They could however have spared themselves the moral portion of their orations; because when two unmarried gentlemen decide to live together and commune on moral issues, I am tempted to say, with the old Latin jurists: "Connubium contra naturam".


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Chairman, I think
the other portion of Alberta should be heard from. I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) with considerable interest, and he seems to have based his whole argument upon the theory that Canada would be responsible for liquor shipments after they had left Canada and reached some other port not within the boundaries of Canada, which shipments might find their way to the United States after a second clearance had been obtained. I cannot

Export Act-Mr. Adshead

agree with that argument, and I do not think the government agrees with it. I would like to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) answer that point. I do not think the members of the opposition who have spoken upon this question entertain that idea at all.
Although the bill reads, "destined for delivery" it is only intended that clearances shall be refused to vessels carrying liquor to the United States. If the liquor is destined for France, whether it be the ports of St. Pierre and Miquelon, or the port of Paris, both places being upon French territory and under the same laws, it could not fee held that Canada would be responsible for such liquor finding its way to the United States under a second clearance. That would seem to be an utterly absurd argument, but the remarks of those opposed to this bill seem to be based upon that supposition.
The hon. member for Labelle stated that he was going to vote for this bill, and yet he speaks with a'lfl his heart and soul against it

 there did not seem to be one thing in the bill which he approved of. This is my fourth year in this House of Commons and I am sorry to say that I am beginning to become rather cynical. I do not know whether it is because I am not trusting my fellow members as much as I should, but it seems that every time a bill is brought uip the sincerity of the mover, the sincerity of the government or the sincerity of the opposition is called into question. I was discussing this question to-day with a few members at the luncheon table, and they seemed to be in doubt as to the object of the government in introducing this bill. They said, "Is it a moral question, is it because it is^ right?" "Oh, no, that could not be." "Why is it introduced, do they hope to obtain the votes of the women of Canada?" Those votes are not sufficient to affect an election, and we could not find any real reason for the ini reduction of this bill unless it were the motives suggested by the right hon. the Prime Minister in his opening address. I would seem to be confirmed in that view by the opening remarks of the leader of the opposition, who said:
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.
We have the leader of the opposition attributing to the Prime Minister of Canada a mantle of assumed virtue, which mantle he proceeded to strip from around the shoulders of the right hon. the Prime Minister, only to
f\Ir. Adshead.]
wrap it about himself. The one takes it from the other.
I am going to support this bill in an effort to strip myself of any cynicism which I have. Whatever may be the motives of the Prime Minister in introducing this bill, I quite agree with the hon. members for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) a,nd Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) when they said that it would remove a certain stigma from the name of Canada, caused by cooperation with the bootlegger. We are making it clear that Canada does not intend to go hand in hand with bootleggers and rum runners.
It has been suggested by hon. members that this measure has been brought forward' at the instigation of the United States, and that, therefore, the present Liberal government is acting under the influence and dictation of the American government. Similar things have been said in reference to tariff measures, and I must protest that when we cannot agree on certain principles the activity of hon. members should not be expended in endeavouring to show that such things are done at the dictation of the United States. Surely we can be Canadians together and surely we can discuss these measures upon their merits as they concern Canada instead of saying that our opponents are taking the stand they do at the dictation of the United States. These things make a new member, one who has not been very long in the house, feel cynical so that whatever the other hon. gentleman is going to say about this matter, we wonder, when he attributes these motives, whether there is any sincerity in the whole business or not.
A good deal has been said about the money loss. So far as I know the liquor traffic, the loss of revenue received from it is far outbalanced by the removal of the consequences of the traffic itself. While I am not an entire prohibitionist, I believe that revenue received from that source is never a credit to any country or any government, and if there is a loss, while it may be a revenue loss, it will be far more than made up by gains in. other directions.
The point raised by the hon. member for Fort William was, I think, well taken, namely, that we might better have had a treaty. In fact, an hon. member drew my attention to a statement, reported at page 621 of Hansard of what Mr. Phillips said when addressing the Prime Minister. He said:
While the government of the United States appreciates the gracious offer of the Canadian 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

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
problem along the border is the conclusion of a treaty amending the convention of June 6, 1924, to the end that clearance be denied to shipments of commodities from either country when their importation is prohibited in the other.
Mr. Phillips expresses the wish that the government make a treaty. I suppose such a treaty would not have been one-sided ; that we would have had a quid pro quo. Mr. Phillips does not in that statement refer specifically to liquor; he refers to any article which may be prohibited from entering one country or the other. I should like to hear from the Prime Minister in that regard whether the United States is prepared to offer a prohibition of any commodity which Canada might not wish to return for the prohibition which we are giving to them in the matter of liquor clearances.
The bill, however, goes a little further. It says "any country," so that it does not apply specifically to the United States. The bill would apply to Argentina, France, Germany, any other country, and while the point made by the hon. member for St. Lawrenoe-St. George this afternoon did' not.strike me very forcibly when I noted it down, after I heard it elaborated, it did, namely, that liquor is at the present time a legal commodity in Canada. Last year the Minister of National Revenue stated the same thing very forcibly; he said that alcoholic liquor was just as much a legal commodity in Canada as cotton .or anything else. Therefore, it was pointed out by my hon. friend, we were virtually saying that if any country asked us to prohibit the entry into it of any commodity that was legal in Canada, this same measure would apply. I think the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George specifically mentioned matches as a commodity which could not be given clearance for export to France if France asked that they should not be exported, because they are prohibited from import into that country. That point might very well be explained by the government in answering criticisms that have been made in regard to this legislation. I do not wish to delay the committee any longer. I am in favour of this measure; perhaps for once I believe the government is sincere in bringing it forward and^ I will do my utmost to make it a success.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: How many countries in the world have prohibition in regard to which this bill would apply? If it applies only to the United States, why was that particular country not mentioned instead of the matter being put in a general way?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid 1 cannot tell my hon. friend how many countries
there are. The bill is drafted in relation to our own officials and it is for the purpose of controlling the actions of our own officials with respect to the exporting of liquor to a country the laws of which it is known prohibit its importation. If their actions should be controlled at all as regards one country prohibiting liquor importations they ought equally to be controlled in that regard toward any other country having a like prohibition. I think that is the reason why the term "any country" is used.
May I say I. have not spoken thus far because I do not wish to delay the passage o: my own measure. I assume, however, hon. gentlemen will expect me to say a word with regard to some of the points which they have raised. I hardly expected that the measure would meet with the full approval of hon. gentlemen opposite. What was most significant in the remarks of those immediately opposite who spoke is the fact that while they all purported to support the principle of the bill, in the speeches they made they were all against the bill itself. As regards the remarks of hon. gentlemen immediately opposite, I think I am correct in saying that they were for the most part either aimed at a postponement of the measure or were critical of its being legislation concerned with a matter of domestic interest to the United States rather than one of immediate concern to our own country. In that particular may I say that I believe much of the criticism has arisen from hon. members not realizing that this is a purely Canadian measure, related exclusively to work of administration by Canadian officials? It is not a measure for the enforcement of prohibition in the United States or which, except as to its possible consequences, has anything to do with the enforcement of any laws of the United States as they exist at the present time. It has to do with our own business and our own affairs, and it is intended entirely and exclusively for that purpose. It is not a measure to prohibit the importation of liquor into the United States under all circumstances and in every way. That is wherein several hon. members who have spoken to-day have entirely misjudged the measure, whether intentionally or not I cannot say. It is a measure to control our own affairs and our own officials, the aim being to prevent officials of the government in the exercise of their official duties from cooperating immediately and directly with rum runners and bootleggers. That is what the measure is for and for nothing more than that.
I might repeat in a word what I said the other day. This measure prevents officials of

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
the government from releasing liquor which is known by them to be destined to a country that prohibits its importation, liquor which is declared in the export entry to be so destined.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then why not make that provision in the bill at once?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill covers the point I am dealing with.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It goes a thousand miles further.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has made his speech; will he let me make mine? In the second place, it seeks to prevent officials from granting permits over their own signatures as officials of the Dominion government for the removal of liquor from distilleries for export into a country which prohibits its importation, permits which in their effect simply enable the liquor to get from a distillery into the hands of criminal gangs and rum runners. That control is all within Canada; not the least part of it up to that point has to do with liquor actually crossing the border. It is simply controlling the actions of our officials who, it is alleged, for the purpose of collecting revenue, sign these permits, which permits when signed have the effect in fact of linking the Dominion government in a way with rum runners in their operations of smuggling liquor into a country which prohibits its importation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has made his speech. I think he should let me make mine.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Are the criminals to whom
the Prime Minister refers criminals under the laws of Canada? The rum runners to whom he refers are a single dozen of them Canadian citizens, who are subject to our own law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, these rum runners I believe are for the most part American citizens. If we are going to cooperate with American citizens, let us cooperate with the respectable element in the United States, and not with the rum runners and bootleggers. The whole purpose of this measure is to lend the control of government, so far as the government has control in this matter, to those elements in this country and in other countries that are seeking to uphold the enforcement of law, and not to permit the officials of this country to become the instruments whereby the work of rum runners and bootleggers wifi be facilitated. That is the whole purpose of the bill. If my hon. friend will believe the wording of the law as it is, 
and not try to make out that it is something that it is not; if he will just look at it as it is drafted and see what it purports to be, he will discover that what I am saying is absolutely correct. This law relates to the officials of the government of Canada, and only to the officials of the government of Canada. It may have as a consequence the prevention of the exportation of liquor into the United States and into any other country which prohibits the importation of liquor, but its primary purpose is to see that so far as this country is concerned, we as a country and this government as a government and its officials do not become parties in any particular to facilitating the nefarious operations of those persons who for purposes of personal gain are engaged in the business of violating the laws of another country. That is the purpose, and as such I would think that it must command the unanimous support of the entire house and of parliament.
Some effort has been made to interpret, or rather should I say, to misinterpret, Dord Curzons remarks, and my own application of them to the possible serious consequences that may come at any moment if present conditions are permitted to continue. May I explain exactly what was in my own mind in what I have said? Hon. members must have noticed a little while ago how quickly feeling was aroused in .this country by the sinking on the high seas of one rum running vessel which was pursued by an American vessel and ultimately sunk with the loss of one life. The person who lost his life did not happen to be a Canadian, but a citizen of some other country.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: He was a Frenchman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members saw how feeling in the country to the south as well as in our own country was aroused over that single incident, an incident which having regard to all the circumstances, but for principles of international law involved, had few if any features to commend it to the attention of anybody. Let us assume, instead of a happening of that kind on the high seas, that to-morrow between Windsor and Detroit, [DOT]as a result of some official action hastily taken in connection with this rum running business, a vessel were to be sunk and a dozen lives lost, six of those lost being Canadians and six Americans, and it were shown that as respects the liquor being smuggled into the United States aboard the vessel, as it could be shown under present conditions, the government of Canada through its own officials had released that liquor from a distil-

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
lery in Canada knowing that it had been entered for export undeT a written statement made by the person who secured its release from the distillery, which statement set forth that it -was destined for the United States; and that it was shown further that the liquor was removed from the distillery to the dock on a permit issued by a government official of this country, the permit itself stating that the liquor was to be removed to the dock from which the vessel sailed for export to the United States, though all the while it was known that liquor could not be legally shipped into the United States; and further, that the liquor was cleared for the United States by officials who knew that it could not get into the United States legally, but that they were delivering it into the hands of rum runners whose purpose it was to smuggle it in illegally.
I ask my hon. friend what position would this country be in, when it came to settling an international incident of that kind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will answer at once. This country is in this position. Under the treaty negotiated in 1924 by your own Minister of Justice, acting on behalf of your own government, this country is in the position that the United States recognizes that it has the lawful right to send liquor out of Canadian ports by Canadian clearances direct to any American port on either the Atlantic or the Pacific. That is the clear implication of the treaty you signed yourself.


Robert James Manion: And we have been doing that for years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are my hon. friends upholding the view that we should continue the practice of having our officials sign these documents?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will answer that at once. So far as I am concerned I view with the utmost astonishment the fact that the Prime Minister in the face of the resolutions of this parliament and the findings of his own commission has continued these conditions down to this day, and I am astonished at the further fact that when invited to make a convention with the United States, which would be equitable and which would be reciprocal for both countries, the Prime Minister refused to enter into those negotiations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The remarks just made by my hon. friend help to illustrate the point I wish to make with regard to his speech. A moment ago he was upbraiding us for hurrying this legislation through.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not a word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If he looks in Hansard, he will find that he used the word "hurried." I noted it at the time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If I used the word "hurried," I meant hurrying now after you have had six months' notification from the United States in which to deal with the matter by treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In a hurried
manner-those are the words my hon. friend used. Now he is saying that we should have acted four years ago.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Hurrying
the passage of this bill, not the introduction of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friends may quibble, but if one takes their remarks as recorded one will see that they have been very largely to this effect: First of all that the government was to be blamed for not having taken this action years ago-that was the tenor of their remarks the other day- and that now the government is to be blamed for taking this action to-day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For taking this action today in such a hurried manner that the legislation itself has been so hastily prepared that it is almost incomprehensible to any intelligent mind, and impossible to be carried into effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The trouble is that my hon. friend gets so excited that he does not comprehend the legislation as it is. He does not see the significance of the language before him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would like to support you, but your legislation is impracticable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend first told us that the legislation was too comprehensive ; in another part of his remarks he said that it was not comprehensive enough.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And I illustrated both.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend certainly is a genius if he feels he can show that the act is at once too comprehensive and not comprehensive enough. In addition, he said that it did not go far enough in the matter of enforcement, after which a large part of his speech was to the effect that it involved a load of enforcement such as the government had never undertaken before, that it went too far in the way of enforcement.

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not say so. I said that it put too great obligations on this government in the way of enforcement without any reciprocal obligations on the part of the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I
wish to make clear is this: It is impossible for the government in any legislation of this kind to hope to please my hon. friend and those who think like him. We cannot hope to bring down legislation that is going to meet his wishes when he tells us in one and the same breath that the legislation we bring down goes too far and does not go far enough, that it does not do enough in the way of enforcement while at the same time it does too much in the way of enforcement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the right bon. gentleman consider that quibbling is fair?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does he think that quibbling does justice to a man occupying his position?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The legislation, my hon. friend says, ought to have been brought down years ago, and now that it is being brought down he says it is being brought down in too much of a hurry.
Hon. gentlemen opposite complain that we did not proceed by way of a treaty. What would have been the criticism we would have heard from them if we had come into this parliament with a treaty made with the United States at this time?


Robert James Manion: It would have been far better for Canada than what you are putting through now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We know what the criticism of hon, gentlemen opposite would have been: It would have been that we had gone out of our way in order to go to Washington again to make a treaty. That is what we would have heard from them. May I tell my hon. friends apposite exactly the position we are in? If they have read the despatches carefully they will notice that at the time of the conference the government directed attention to the fact that the Americans were stressing the need for a treaty dealing only with one thing, namely liquor.; and that we stressed the desire of dealing with merchandise generally.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they consented to it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly. And having consented to it, I imagine they will now be prepared to carry out any undertaking they were ready to carry ouit then. So we 
are in (this happy position to-day: We have hon. gentlemen apposite and their press joining with us in the view that we ought to have a treaty. May I tell them, so that their minds will be relieved immediately, that having cleaned our own skirts so far as the actions of our own officials are concerned, we are proceeding now to get a treaty, and we will see to it that it is broad enough to cover all articles of merchandise. We are in a strong position, we are able to assure our neighbours that on this we are all of one mind. I hope that hon. gentlemen opposite, when the treaty is presented to this house, as I hope it will be shortly, will gave us their unanimous approval of it.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: It has been suggested that we take the first part of section one.
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute or law or of any regulation made thereunder or of any bond, agreement or other instrument relating thereto.


Mr. ROBINSON:: Before that is put, I would like to make a few observations in connection with this bill. In the first place, we have heard nothing from the government as to why they have changed their policy of less than a year ago. That policy was applauded by all the members on the government side of the house, and by a goodly portion of both the press of Canada and the United States. It is my submission that the house is entitled to that information, because one department of the government of the great country to the south of us has practically acknowledged its failure to enforce the Volstead Act, and is now passing the buck by laying the blame on Canada, although only from 2 to 4 per cent of the liquor consume! in the United States is exported from this country. At the present time the Volstead Act is a national joke across the border, and they would now swear in the Canadian government as part of their police force to help enforce this American law. The eighteenth amendment is a political issue in the United States, and that being the case I think it would be well for us to wait a while, and see how they come out with the poll which is being taken by the Literary Digest, and which is showing distinctly that the majority of the people on the other side of the line are opposed to the eighteenth amendment.

89r,
Export Act-Mr. Robinson
I find fault with the proposed legislation for the reason that in my opinion it would be hard to convince the -people of this country that the United States is not interfering with our domestic and internal affairs. That condition is borne out by the fact that the United States government within the last few months sent a delegation to this country demanding, practically, that we should cut off clearances to that country. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Oahan) supports me in that by the statement he made this afternoon to the effect that a prominent official of that country had practically demanded that we would have to meet their wishes in that respect.
In May last, according to the Border Cities Star, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that Canada had gone about as far as it could go, and that the United States was not trying to cooperate with us, or was not taking advantage of our assistance in helping it to carry out its law. May I read what the Border Cities Star has to say in this regard in its publication of May 16, 1929:
The Dominion government has absolutely refused the request of the United States that clearances of liquor laden ships bound from Windsor and other points on the Detroit river and the great lakes for Detroit and other United States ports be refused. The Canadian government believes it would not be warranted in such action because Canadian sentiment would not support prohibition of the export of liquor even to a country in which alcoholic beverages may not legally be imported.
There has been considerable publicity in regard to the city of Windsor, which happens to be in my riding. One would think that we had export docks from one end of the city to the other; the fact is that we have only two. This is the letter dated May 16, 1929, from the Secretatry of State for External Affairs, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, to the charge d'affaires of the United States legation. It is as follows:
Referring to your note number 272 of the 27th November, 1928. and to the discussion which took place at the conference of officials on the subject of commercial smuggling held in Ottawa on the 7th-10th of January, 1929, I now have the honour to state that the Canadian government has given consideration to all aspects of the existing situation, and has examined the report of the Canadian representatives to the conference, a copy of which is herewith enclosed for the information of your government.	_
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 in 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 hate 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.
Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
W. L. Mackenzie King,
Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In answer to that statement we find the following in the columns of the Philadelphia Ledger, a very prominent journal of the United States:
Canada's courteous but firm refusal to take the steps asked by the United States to curb border rum running prevented the antismuggling conference at Ottawa from getting anywhere. The chief proposal rejected was that the Dominion seek to prohibit the exportation of liquor to the United States by refusing clearance to vessels bound to this country with cargoes of alcoholic beverages.
This attitude of Canadian officials is perfectly clear. Their position is that the suggested export restrictions might make every cove along that country's extended coast line a harbour for rum smugglers, entailing heavy expense for enforcement to hold up the Dominion's end of the bargain. Public sentiment is also a factor, for only two of the provinces now favour prohibition.
In view of these considerations, there is nothing unfriendly in the Canadian query as to why the United States could not strengthen her own laws to handle the problem instead of appealing to another country for assistance.
The Dominion has taken certain steps to aid in curbing smuggling, and undoubtedly feels she has gone as far as she can in this direction.
89C
Export Act-Mr. Robinson

After all, this is a problem for the United States to solve, if possible. While further aid from Canada would be helpful, that country cannot reasonably be asked to do more at the cost of undue sacrifice.
Here is a letter from Representative F. H. LaGuardia, Republican of New York state:
Washington, June 4. "Dry" America consumes more Canadian liquor than does "wet" Canada, Representative F. H. LaGuardia (R) of New York declared in the house. He lauded Canada's refusal to make a treaty with the United States forbidding exportation of liquor to this country.
"Canada has done more in helping enforcement of the prohibition laws in the United States than the government of the United States has been able to do," said LaGuardia; continuing:
"The present demands made on the Canadian government are nothing but a confession of weakness on the part of the United States government and an example of the complete failure of prohibition.
"Yet the government of the United States has the audacity to ask the foreign country to do that which apparently it has been unable to do within its own borders."
We might have sympathy with the United States government in the enforcement of their prohibition laws, but it is apparent to every fair-minded person that they are making only a haphazard attempt to enforce the law, and I think I can prove this fairly well later on. They say there are six carloads of liquor going into the city of Washington every month, coming from Canada, although of course I do not know how it gets through. During the past winter the Detroit News had photographs taken of the roads over the ice from the Canadian shore to the American side all along the frontier. They sent a reporter and a photographer up in an airplane, and from two o'clock in the afternoon until five o'clock in the evening they counted 75 automobiles and trucks going over the ice, loaded with beer and liquor from Amhersttmrg docks. No intelligent person can tel! me that the United States, with its army of enforcement officers on the border, could not stop that traffic. We all remember when young Laframboise was shot; the American officers did not take after the boatloads of liquor going across, but chased the chap in the car. I would say there is only a very shallow attempt being made to enforce the law, particularly along the Detroit river and the shores of lake Erie.
The Minister of National Revenue is quoted in the Border Cities Star of July 31 as follows:
Rational Revenue Chief in New Criticism of Washington
The minister drew attention to the fact that under the United States law these small liquorrunning vessels do not require to have registered 
names, but merely numbers. It was an easy matter for the operators to change the numbers, and the Canadian customs officials have no means of knowing whether the number of a vessel being cleared was the registered number.
This is the weak reply of the United States to that statement:
The Canadian authorities had asked the United States authorities if it would not be possible to secure a check-up of the registered numbers so that the vessels might be more closely identified at Canadian ports, which would permit of more authentic information being furnished the American preventive forces. The American reply to this proposal was that they "hadn't" the staff.
Then I have a letter which appeared in the Toronto Globe of February 1, which may be of interest since it was in that great moral daily:
Liquor Export Question
To the Editor of the Globe: The hon. Mr. Euler recently stated that the inland revenue tax received by the Dominion of Canada on liquor exported to the United States in the past year amounted to $13,000,000.
Just recently also the United States congress authorized the expenditure of $33,000,000 to attempt to enforce their so-called prohibition law.
From this it would appear that the United otates are only willing to spend less than 30 cents per head of its population to do this work, but. according to rumour, they are asking the people of Canada to forego a revenue on its legitimate business of at least $1.30 per head.
If the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King really intends to ask the present session of parliament to prohibit the export of liquor to the United States, I hope he is quite sure the people of Canada, especially the thrifty people of Quebec. are so magnamimous that they are willing to have their taxes increased by $1.30 for every man, woman and child, plus several million dollars more for enforcement of such an act, at the suggestion of a country which has never done anything but try to injure Canada commercially. How the United States would jeer at us if the shoe w-as on the other foot.
I have a few articles here which are not my opinions but which contain the opinions of nationally known men in the United States as to what they think of the prohibition law. I am bringing this out in order to impress upon the house that the United States should clean up its own backyard instead of asking Canada to do it. The first article I wish to read is dated February 24, and refers to Senator George W. Norris, one of the dry leaders of the United States:
Senator George W. Norris, leading dry, chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, introduces a resolution for an investigation of the methods of prohibition enforcement and the prohibition department's personnel.
"The object of my resolution," he explains, "is to determine whether or not prohibition can be enforced. In my opinion, an honest

Export Act-Mr. Robinson
effort to enforce it has not yet been made. . . .
I admit that the problem is a very difficult one. But I feel that until the President takes the appointment of prohibition officers entirely out of politics no real effort to solve it will be made. ... I suppose it is a matter of common knowledge that, at present, the prohibition department is entirely shot through with graft and corruption. I have received within the past few weeks a quantity of evidence which shows such condition.
Then I have the opinion of Judge Paul J. McCormick, who was a member of President Hoover's crime commission and who also was a federal judge in New York where he was noted for having padlocked so many of the night clubs. This is dated Los Angeles, December 22:
Federal Judge Paul .T. McCormick, returning here after four months in the east as a member of President Hoover's national commission of law enforcement and observance, said the commission's inquiry had resulted in the conclusion that two major problems demanded immediate settlement. He named these as (1) The solution of prohibition enforcement, and (2) The removal of "governmental lawlessness" itself.
The Deputy Secretary of State for Michigan was reported in the Detroit Fress Press of December 5, as follows:
Michigan's home brew consumption averages 10 pints a month for every man, woman and child. With the end of the first rush for malt tax stamps, receipts from the new law have settled to a steady income of about $100,000 a month, according to Sidney Schulte, Deputy Secretary of State. Having completed a research into the productive qualities of a can of malt, Schulte has concluded every dollar received from the tax represents consumption of 400 pints of home made lager. In placing the average consumption at 10 pints a month Schulte estimates the state's population at
4,000,000.
The first three months of the new tax produced $400,000 but the receipts of the first month were more than double those of any month since, because dealers stocked up with stamps when the law took effect.
"And $400,000 means 100,000,000 bottles of beer." the Deputy Secretary of State slyly pointed out.
Governor Fred W. Green of the state of Michigan is quoted in an article appearing in the Detroit Free Press of October 10, as follows :
Although the files in the state department contain the names of Detroit's several hundred alley brewers, Governor Fred W. Green said to-day that this information will not be turned over to the Detroit police or federal officers unless requested. And even if it is sought by the police the governor is not certain that he would permit it to be used.
The article continues:
The names of Detroit's alley brewery operators are included in the monthly sales reports of malt manufacturers. These reports 2419-57
are submitted so that the state can enforce the new tax of 5 cents a pound and 6 cents a gallon on malt. The secretary of state's department takes it for granted that when a man buys as much as 50 barrels or more of malt a month, he is operating an alley brewery and is supplying beer to some of Detroit's thousands of blind pigs.
And again:
A publication .printed by the Malt Dealers' Association estimated recently that Detroit has 400 alley breweries which buy malt from Michigan manufacturers. Sidney A. Schulte, Deputy Secretary of State, would not reveal to-day whether his files show there are that many large buyers outside of stores.
The following article appeared in the Detroit Free Press of January 5, in connection with a suit brought in the circuit court against an insurance company for the payment of a policy upon the life of a man who had been killed in a blind pig. Apparently this blind pig was a confectionery store upon one of the main highways and it was contended that anyone who was known could obtain any kind of drink in this establishment. The article reads:
Popular acceptance of blind pigs as places of relaxation and the prevalence of drinking in all strata of society were emphasized by Circuit Judge Vincent M. Brennan Saturday when he decided that Mrs. Lulu Anders was entitled to collect $1,000 from the Title Guaranty and Casualty Company of America in indemnity for the death of her husband, killed in a blind pig hold-up.
Judge Brennan continues:
It is true that blind pig patrons occasionally are disturbed by gunmen: but so are clergymen, policemen and judges. The accepted census of blind pigs in Detroit is 15,000.
The judge continues:
Michigan became legally dry on March 1, 1918. The national prohibition act became operative January 20, 1920. After more than ten years' trial of the prohibition law in this state, the court must take judicial notice that prohibition in law is not prohibition in fact.
The time has now come when it is the duty of courts to take judicial notice that liquor is served not only in blind pigs, speak-easies. dives and spots, but that it is also at times illegally possessed, served and consumed in almost every sort of place where human beings foregather in the large cities of this country, with the exception. possibly, of religious edifices, courtrooms, cemeteries, schoolrooms, prisons, reformatories and W.C.T.U. headquarters.
The paragraph continues:
A well-known Detroit manufacturer in a public letter recently reviewed conditions existing under our prohibition laws. One paragraph from his letter is quoted herewith:
"Let's be frank. You and I know that there are enough common people in our great state who are breaking or condoning the breaking of the prohibition laws to possibly fill all the prisons of our whole country. You and I know that the people are going to have and use

Export Act-Mr. Robinson

alcoholic beverages. We know they are being made or used probably in every city block in our great city, and upon almost every farm in the country. And prohibition has been in force about ten years.
These views are merely typical of those expressed by unbiased observers in this country who, with courage and without hypocrisy, are willing to face the facts."
The following is an article which appeared in the Mail and Empire of January 1, 1930:
On the contrary, the chief critic has been Senator William E. Borah of Idaho, a Republican, who was one of the principal supporters of the prohibition plank of President Hoover's platform during the last presidential election in the republic. In a speech delivered on Christmas eve, Senator Borah asserted that the organization in charge of the enforcement of the Volstead Act, as at present constituted, would never enforce the law effectively. Since then he has charged that the administration of the permit system, under which alcohol is sold for industrial and scientific uses, "is a scandal," and that "practically open saloons are running in the jurisdiction of district attorney after district attorney.
The article continues:
"The root cause of the corruption which has dogged the prohibition unit from the beginning" is discussed, for example, in an editorial in the Baltimore Evening Sun. "Educated and intelligent men know," says this newspaper, "that high-grade men won't do low-grade work. They know that men of decency won't sniff around their neighbours' houses, nor snoop and spy upon t' e rest of the community. Since decent men won't do such work, it follows that the indecent flock to it, and graft and corruption are the inevitable result."
Probably my sensibilities for the tender feeling of the United States are not so pronounced as those of the Prime Minister, but that may be because I have lived on the border too long. I know many one hundred per cent Americans for whom I have great admiration, but I cannot say I have the same admiration for the United States as a country or as a nation.
I am of the opinion that this bill is framed for the interest of the United States to the detriment of Canada, and it will cause great injury to Canadian industry and Canadian working men. I think it is borne out by what has been said by the labour unions, especially the unions of Quebec, that this action has been taken at the demand of Mr. Dafoe of the Winnipeg Free Press, Mr. Jaffray of the Toronto Globe and Mr. Atkinson of the Toronto Star, in order that the government may obtain the one hundred per cent support of those papers during the coming election.
It would be well for the government to consider what the enactment of this legislation will mean for this country should the measure go into effect. It would certainly affect a

number of industries in Canada, and industries in Ontario in the last five years were hit pretty hard by the present government, especially the subsidiary companies that supply the manufacturers of agricultural implements. The same thing is true in connection with the automobile industry. Conditions in the automobile industry, so far as the workingman is concerned, would not have been what they were last winter and the winter before if the tariff had not been tinkered with in 1926. I was very much surprised that the federal government of the United States did not ask the assistance of the state of New York and other states in the union to cooperate but they absolutely refused to have anything to do with the enforcement of the Volstead Act.
This measure, when it becomes law, is going to make it extremely difficult for the provinces to enforce their laws. In other words, it is going to send the traffic underground, to a certain extent, as it was before the provinces had what they call government control. An editorial in the Detroit Free Press of March 17 has this to say:
At the risk of seeming to look a gift horse in the mouth, we could have *wished that in moving the second reading of the bill Mr. Mackenzie King had not urged its enactment on the ground that war might ensue between the United States and Canada.
Apparently Mr. Mackenzie King, a personal abstainer and a friend of amicable relations with this country, seized the first opportunity to introduce legislation as agreeable to a large element in Canada as to himself, which did not endanger his party's tenure of office. The effect of the measure will be the same, whatever his reason for delaying its introduction; but it would have come more gracefully if it had not been ushered in by reflections upon the law enforcement efforts of previous administrations in Washington, which seem to have been as fruitful, if not so noisy, as the efforts now being made.
The financial section of the Toronto Saturday Night, under date of March 15, has this to say:
Neighbourliness is all very well, but this stoppage of liquor exports to the United States is going to cost Canadians a pile of money (apparently somewhere between thirty to forty million dollars a year), and it is doubtful, to say the least, if the people of the United States really want them stopped. If they did. they surely wouldn't permit their anti-liquor law to be so flagrantly and universally flouted as it is to-day.
There have been several authenticated cases of prohibition agents on the Detroit and Niagara rivers losing their jobs because they took them too seriously. "Don't be too fussy about stopping 'rummies.' All you have to do is burn up gas and then stand by each month for your pay," was the instruction given one new patrol boat commander, as reported by him in a recent magazine article. The United

Export Act-Mr. Speakman
States should give some evidence of the sincerity of its desire to abolish the liquor traffic before Canada does herself the injury involved in putting the proposed law into effect.
The Toledo Times, on account of the war scare over this bill, has worked out how this military and naval warfare will be carried on. It will be interesting to the house to listen to this. It says:
The fleet conducting the blockade will number more than fifty ships, and the extent of the cordon and its field of operations will be highly remindful of a state of war between Canada and the United States, though such a condition is farthest from the minds of both. But nevertheless the American forces will be there. The old treaty providing for the limitation of armaments on the lakes may go hang. A celebrated German authority once described a treaty as a "scrap of paper," and we are adopting that view.
So now the only question as to how successful this law enforcing performance may become relates to the old problem as to how far we may persuade Canada to cooperate with us. If Canada will be real good, the united efforts of the two nations will undoubtedly make the undertaking a howling success.
Therefore we suggest that Canada should be solicited to duplicate our fleet of more than fifty vessels in lake Erie or anywhere else, according to the extent of our plans. Canada should provide a second cordon of "mother ships" with schools of small speed boats playing between, all equipped with devices inimical to the rum runner and munitions able to blow him out of the water.
Of course, the American blockade will be within the American boundary line, at least theoreticallv. and the Canadians should likewise shinny on their own side. But the boundary is merely an imaginary contraption, nothing to separate fleets on both sides of it by any material distance. Indeed, the two blockades may be located near enough, to one another to enable the crews of the "mother" and other ships to shake hands across the depths of water or to engage in other more convivial exchanges and repartee if they are so disposed.
It is an old philosophy that "one good turn deserves another." Therefore no doubt when we establish our proposed military border force of 10,000 armed men along the whole Canadian border, to enforce prohibition, Canada will again oblige us by doing likewise. Thus the world, may witness the heretofore unarmed border line of 3.000 miles armed to the teeth by land and water and by the naval and military forces of both nations.
It is a glorious picture. Fervently it is to be hoped that Canada will perceive her great opportunity to thus exemplify the spirit of peace on earth by granting us full cooperation in our laudable efforts to enforce our own laws. And if any unfortunate incidents ensue threatening to discontinue that peace with reference to the international border, there can be no doubt that both nations will fight valiantly, reviving the most heroic traditions of the Battle of Lake Erie.
I understand from what was said this afternoon that after this bill becomes law, we' are to make a treaty. If such be the case, I think it would be well to incorporate in that 2419-57$
treaty a provision that Canadians be treated like human beings in connection with deportation proceedings. I will give just two illustrations. A man was a life-saver at one of the bathing beaches at Windsor. A friend of his from Sandwich desired to cash a cheque in a Detroit bank and this life-saver just took out his rowboat and rowed his friend across the river. As he was about to let him off, the immigration officers arrested him while landing on the other side and they put him in jail. Prominent men of the golf club at Sandwich, the mayor of Windsor and other leading citizens gave the man a splendid character and asked that he be released, but the United States authorities would not release him, their excuse being that they were going to investigate. Those investigations take from one to five months and the man had to stay in jail.
Another man went to Arkansas, I think, to visit an uncle and he made up -his mind to live there. He married a Scotch girl and they had one child. Some fellow who wanted his job laid a complaint to the immigration officer, to the effect that the man was not legally in the country. This man, his wife and child were arrested and put in gaol. By the way he was bom in England and came to this country when he was about three years old. After a few days, they were let out of gaol but kept under guard for three or four months. He was not allowed to go to work or communicate with his family. They were shipped to New Orleans, then to New York, to be sent to England, where they did not know anybody. This man, his wife and child were sent to New York where the immigration authorities were persuaded to deport them to Canada. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that if Canadians were to treat Americans in that manner the people of the United States would feel like declaring war against us on the ground that we had committed an unfriendly act. But those are only two samples of what is going on all the time.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: As one of those who
took advantage of the opportunity last year to express a fairly decided opinion upon this subject, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to say a word or two as to the principle of the bill before us and as to the action of the government. May I preface my remarks by congratulating the Prime Minister very highly. I wish to express my commendation of the real moral courage he has shown in bringing this bill forward at this time. In common, I suppose, with all members of the house I have been subjected during the last few months to an inundation of editorials and articles of one kind and other emanating I
Export Act-Mr. Speakman

know not whence, but I should imagine from one person or a small coterie of persons with a single mind, and all written with the object of impressing upon the reader the wrongiful-ness of this action by the government. The arguments were pretty well stereotyped. It was argued that it would cost Canada too much money, that we were attempting to assist the United States in enforcing a law which they themselves were not anxious to have enforced; and there were other arguments along the same line. The ifact remains that the government is at this time taking action which will result in one thing at least, and that is the clearing of the skirts of Canada, in clearing the character of Canada from the implication which whether brought forward by the United States or not, certainly was made by many Canadians, namely, that Canada was both conniving at and cooperating in this nefarious traffic. When I say nefarious traffic, I am not talking about the liquor business, although I might express myself in regard to that traffic in those terms; I aim speaking of the traffic of bootlegging and rumrunning liquor into the United States against the laws of that country. In vieiw of the rather discouraging, I will not say hostile, attitude in the house last year, and in view also of the inundation of literature of which I have just spoken, I think that the government and the Prime Minister in particular have shown great moral courage in taking this action.
There is one more thing I should like to say, and that is as to the reaction of the people of this country to this legislation. 1 had the opportunity of judging as to the reaction of a small section of Canada, because having taken the position I did, naturally I had many opinions expressed to me, and I found general approbation of the government's decision, and a very general desire on the part of the people in my part of the country that such action should be taken, and that Canada should cease to be a partner in that business.
Coming to the bill itself, the main exception that has been taken to it by those who have criticized the bill is that its implications far exceed the expressed intent of the government or the desires of this house and the country. The intent of the bill is very simple and, I think, wholly commendable. As I listened to the Prime Minister I judged that the full intent so far as the government was concerned was that the officials of the government should cease their active cooperation in this business, should cease to attach the signature of the government of Canada to 
the documents of rum-runners and bootleggers to enable them to convey their liquor illegally across the border. It is possible that the bill goes further than that. It states that under certain circumstances no intoxicating liquor shall be released or removed for the purposes of export to a country which has declared import of liquor illegal; in other words, that no liquor destined for export to such countries shall be released by the government officials from the warehouse in which it might be held. Had the bill stated that no liquor would be released when it was designated upon the manifest, permit or other proper document in the case that it was destined for export to the United States or some other country in a similar position, it would be satisfactory. I would like that to be made very clear, and the intent and implications of the bill made perfectly plain. While I am not a lawyer I have listened to the arguments brought forward by the legal gentlemen in this house, and it struck me that they might be correct. It strikes me that under the terms of this bill as expressed, not only would our officials be denied the right to sign the necessary permits or clearances, but it would place upon this country the definite responsibility of preventing such exports whether or not the United States or some other country in a similar position were designated on the permit. If that be the case, it would be going far beyond the intent of this house and far beyond the expressed intent of the Prime Minister in discussing this bill.
W'lth the purpose of the legislation as expressed by the Prime Minister I am wholly in sympathy. With the principle of the bill, which we have all endorsed, I am again wholly in sympathy, but I trust that the terms of the bill itself will make it very clear that it does not go beyond the refusal by our officials to connive at or cooperate in the export of liquor to a country that prohibits its importation, when it is stated on the manifest or permit that the liquor is desined for such country. That I understand is the real purpose of the legislation, and that purpose should be made perfectly plain. I, with other laymen in the house, am dependent on the law officers of the crown and upon gentlemen in the house with legal training. If the bill goes only to that extent, it will receive my hearty support. Naturally I would support the bill in any case. Not only am I committed to it; I heartily welcome it; but I would like to be very certain that we are not committing ourselves beyond the government's expressed intention, and committing ourselves to a course where we would find ourselves involved in greater complications

Export Act-Mr. Baldwin
than are possible at present, finding ourselves committed to enforcing the complete stoppage of export even when the country to which that liquor was to be exported was not designated in the documents. Upon these points I think the house deserves and should receive clear and definite information.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Mr. Chainman, after listening to the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson) describe conditions in Windsor and Detroit I feel impelled to take part, in this discussion. I am pretty well acquainted with Detroit, I have a number of relatives there and this is the first time I have heard of such conditions as he speaks of. With regard to the Volstead Act, it is less than a year and a half since the electorate of the United States gave an overwhelming majority to the Republican party to carry out its .pledge to enforce prohibition. That was the chief plank in their platform. My observations are a little different from those of my hon. friend. If he will come down to the library he will find the Stanstead Journal which is published every week, and in its columns he will read that something more than one hundred automobiles engaged in smuggling liquor across into Vermont have been taken and probably half of the drivers arrested, sentenced and imprisoned. Many of those drivers are athletic men and when they see there is no chance of escaping with their automobiles they abandon them and run across country. We know that since the Volstead Act was passed about ten years ago, conditions have changed wonderfully in the United States. This is seen in the tremendous increase in the savings of the United States people, those savings having doubled, trebled and quadrupled in that time. Then look at the improvement in family conditions. Why, the wives and children now have a fair chance to live; they are better housed, better clothed, better fed, and better educated, and their family life is more wholesome. As regards arrests for drunkenness, under the Volstead Act there is not one arrest to-day where there were a hundred under the bid saloon conditions. Fifty years ago in New York clergymen from all over the world used to engage guides to take them through the Bowery, where it is estimated at least 100,000 people were living in the lowest depths of degradation. Is there any Bowery in New York now? Yes, the Bowery is there, but no longer does it harbour fallen humanity. Then take the condition of those who are socially inclined. People in the big cities want to have parties in their homes. Do they have liquor a.t those parties? No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I am speaking of what happens as a rule; of course there are exceptions to all rules.


James Dew Chaplin: They are on the water
wagon, I suppose.


Willis Keith Baldwin: They may be. A little while ago I saw in a Montreal paper a letter by a wife saying: "What shall I do? I have a little family, we are socially inclined, my husband has a steady income, and we like to entertain. We had a party and gave our guests a small amount of liquor, but since then I have been told so many times, 'Why didn't you have more liquor?' Someone said, 'Well, we did have some, but not enough.' " Less than a year and a half ago, I took a trip to the United States and my stopping places were all in the large cities, Detroit, Chicago, Kansas City, Los Angeles-


An hon. MEMBER:: Salt Lake City.


Willis Keith Baldwin: No. I am a "mixer", and I am no crank on prohibition. I mix everything but whisky, but I do not mix that with anything because I am spontaneously intoxicated 365 days in the year. I did not see a drunken man or woman from the time I touched the United States in the state of Michigan, until I returned a month later. In going about the large cities not once did I see any one intoxicated. I stopped at the best hotels in the land, and in the rooms of those hotels I saw notices to this effect:	Kindly
assist us and do not bring liquor here, because we believe in the enforcement of the Volstead Act. But I have seen at the Mount Royal Hotel and along the fashionable streets of our own cities squads of richly dressed women hanging one to another, just able to keep cn their feet. Furthermore, not a great distance from where we sit in this grand house we see vomitings on our sidewalks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I am telling the truth. I come from a part of Canada where we believe in calling a spade a apade, and where such deplorable conditions as are described by the hon. member for West Essex do not obtain. I can tell the house that the captains of industry in the United States are a unit for the enforcement of the Volstead Act. I do not believe that any of us here will see the day when that act will be repealed, because the .people of the United States know what an untold blessing it has been to the poor people; it has enabled the poor man and his family to live respectably and well. As I have said, the whole time that I was in those great cities of the United States I did not see a single
Export Act-Mr. Campbell

person under the influence of liquor-a most remarkable situation. It has been said thait many of our men have been temipted to become bootleggers, but I can tell hon. members that so far as the Vermont border is concerned not one of our men who has left his legitimate work as a labourer, a farmer, or a mechanic and gone into that business but to-day is in rags and tatters-not one. Yet there was a time when it was said that this or that fellow had a fat bank account as a result of his bootlegging activities. But all those men have been dragged to jail, and they are, as I say, in rags and tatters and in disgrace. Every man of wealth in the United States who has financed this smuggling and bootlegging has become disgusted and glad of any opportunity to withdraw from it. The Americans may make liquor in their own country, and no doubt they do, but as for smuggling it across the border in my part of the country it is a most dangerous situation, I can assure hon. members.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Well, I do not think there is much opposition to this bill carrying, and for that reason I will sit down.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Mr. Chairman, as one of those who made demands upon the government last session for legislation such as we are now considering, I feel it now behooves me to show my appreciation of what has been done, and I associate myself with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speabman) in giving my unqualified support to this bill. I also wish to congratulate not only the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) but also the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in discharging a high moral duty in this case. I know there is a tremendous amount of pressure brought to bear on both parties to oppose this legislation, as is evidenced by the amount of literature with which we are deluged here, literature that can only 'be paid for by the privileged interests. The revelations, too, that we have had of the contributions to party campaign funds also show what pressure is being used in an attempt to influence political parties to throw out this bill. For 'these reasons I think the two political leaders ought to be more than ever congratulated for taking such a strong stand against those influences and coming out so unequivocally in support of this measure. The amount of money invested in the liquor trade runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and that money is not idle. It is used to influence newspapers; it has its effect upon elections, and that sort of thing, and in my opinion it 
is a matter for congratulation by the Canadian people that a measure of this kind, with all the united efforts of those interests against it, can go through this house.
When the group in this comer took its stand last year it hardly expected to see the bill go through almost unanimously, as it will this year. The hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson) cited many instances which would tend to show the inability of the United States government to enforce the prohibitory law. In support of that contention he adduced a good deal of testimony against the principle of prohibition, itself. Now, sir, I do not think that that has anything whatever to do with the issue in hand. I am not particularly concerned with whether the United States are enforcing the law, or whether they cannot enforce it. As a member of this house and as a Canadian citizen I want to wash my hands of the iniquitous thing. If the United States government are not able to enforce it, that is their business and their responsibility; but I say that the minute we refuse those clearances we, as the Canadian people, are washing our hands of it, and I am discharging my responsibility to my people as a member of this house.
When a rum running vessel laden with liquor leaves one of our docks and receives a customs clearance, that clearance is signed by the customs officer. But in effect whose signature is it? It is your signature, and mine; it is the signature of the Canadian people. I for one object to having my signature on the document. Whether or not the United States is able to enforce the law; that has nothing whatever to do with the question. The hon. member for West Essex indulged in a good deal of Yankeephobia. I do not think that gets us anywhere, and it has nothing to do with the case. A great deal of the newspaper publicity with which we are deluged is written and probably paid for by the liquor interests, and tends to raise a feeling of prejudice against our neighbours to the south. I have one pamphlet in my hand relating some terrible incidents that the Americans were responsible for way back forty years ago; it tells how the rum runners and cattle rustlers used to travel into western Canada from the western states, debauch our Indians, steal our cattle and keep our mounted police continually on the job. Strangely enough, this is given as a reason why we should refuse to do the decent thin,-; at this time. To my mind, sir, the very thoughts outlined by this pamphlet are good and sufficient reasons why we should not repeat that kind of thing, and why we should do the decent thing and at least withhold our benediction from that kind of business.

Export Act-Mr. Campbell
It is commonly asserted by many Canadian newspapers that Canada is undertaking to assist in the enforcement of a United States law, and that under the bill we will spend millions of dollars to do so. This is a subtle propaganda that is spread out to Canadian readers and, as I say, there is no doubt that most of it is financed by the liquor interests. Instead of this, I take it that the bill is a belated act of justice on the part of the Canadian people, a pledge henceforth to refrain from conniving at the breaking of the law of a friendly nation. A member for Detroit in the House of Representatives put it very nicely last year. He said, "We are not asking Canada to clean up our backyard, but we are asking her to refrain from throwing dirt over the fence into it." I take it that that is the intention of the bill. We are washing our hands of this traffic. If liquor is bootlegged into the United States, and if these rum runners are still able to get in there, it will be the concern of the people of the United States. We, as a people, will not be responsible for it. I take it that the issue is not one of preventing export, it is one as to whether or not we shall connive at the breaking of that law.
There is a good deal of bantering backwards and forwards as to sincerity and insincerity in this measure. After all, it seems to me that that has nothing to do with the question. I am not concerned with whether the government is sincere or not, but I am concerned as to whether this bill is a proper one. If I oppose this bill, will it be fair to go back to my people and excuse my conduct by saying that I thought the government was not sincere? I am delighted that the government changed its mind from last year, and that the Prime Minister has had the moral courage-and I think we all must realize it took some moral courage-to face the issue this year and bring this bill down.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) had a great deal to say about this measure. I think he was accusing the Prime Minister of yielding to the friendly pressure of the United States. Well, I do not know that there is anything wrong with that, even if it were so. If a neighbour comes along and points out something that my little boy is doing which he should not be doing, I do not call it an unfriendly act. If you call that unfriendly pressure, I think the only decent thing for me to do is to yield to it. I think the inference he intended to leave was that we were afraid of the United States, and that we were doing this out of fear of that country. If I heard the hon. member rightly and understood him correctly, I think he implied that we would not have done it
for France, Italy or some other country a long distance away and of which we were not afraid. I must say that I cannot see it in that light at all. If the same issue came up to-morrow with respect to China, or any other country, great or small, I would take the same stand as I take to-day. I want to do the decent thing, and see that Canada's hands are clean regardless of whether or not the other country is liable to threaten us.
Just to show the kind of traffic that is ' being carried on I am going to quote one or two instances from some articles published in MacLean's magazine last year. These quotations go to show how the present situation affects Canada, regardless of its application to the United States. The quotations I refer to are contained in a series of articles that were published at the beginning of 1929 in several issues of MacLean s magazine, and they are written by a man named Frederick gdwards. They go to show the crime connected with and the amount of money that is being made in the bootlegging business. The articles refer to a man named Cecil Smith, a taxi driver, making very small revenue from his business. He was driving many of these gentlemen interested in the rum running trade and commenced to learn something about the business. He came to the conclusion that it was more profitable than taxi driving, and began bootlegging. Two years after entering the business Smith boasted in open court that during the previous twelve months he had paid more than $50,000 to officials in various grades of service in return for immunity granted in the clearance of valuable liquor cargoes. That is how it affects Canada; our officials are corrupted, our morals are degraded and our public life is held in disrepute. That is the sort of thing from which I would like to get away. Perhaps the bill will not get us away from it, but we will be doing what we can at the present time to deal with this question.
This writer goes on to speak of a man named Kennedy, who was employed by a brewery as a bookkeeper. Apparently he knew something about the falsification of accounts which was carried out by some of these breweries in order to defeat the government revenue. When the royal commission was looking for this man, he suddenly disappeared and spent the winter down in Florida. After the commission had finished its sittings in that part of the province he came back, but a few days after he arrived in Toronto he was served with a subpoena to appear before the commission. One of his friends asked what he would do, and he said he was going to " come clean,"


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman,
I have two small amendments to suggest to subsection (a). The first is to strike out the words "for the purposes of export" in line 15.
If these words remain it might be considered by some that liquor could 'be taken out for the purposes of domestic consumption and then shipped abroad to a country which prohibits importations If these words are taken out the meaning will -be quite clear. Then I think it would improve the paragraph grammatically if the words "such liquor" in line 18 were made to read "the liquor proposed to be removed.' I would suggest these amendments, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Lapointe moves
that subsection (a) be amended by striking out the words "for the purposes of export" in 
the 15th line thereof, and by sti'iking out the words "such liquor" in the 18th line thereof, and substituting the words "the liquor proposed to be removed."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just before the matter
is concluded, may I direct attention to what I conceive to be perhaps an error of memory on the part of the Prime Minister in connection with the proposed treaty which he mentioned before dinner. It is not correct to say that the government of the United States offered any limited treaty; it is not correct to say that the government of Canada sought to have it include merchandise. It is quite the opposite. I hold in my hand the report made by Doctor Skelton and the others who attended with him at the conference held in Ottawa in the beginning otf last year. The Prime Minister, in his despatch No. 24, of March 15, 1929, referred to the enclosure as a report furnished to him and his government by those who attended on behalf of Canada. They included Doctor Skelton, Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Deputy Minister of Justice, and the paragraph to which I refer is paragraph 4 on page 7 of the document in question:
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 persons engaged in breaking the laws of the other country. This remedy could be afforded by treaty amendment to the following effect, or by corresponding legislative or administrative action:
"The high contracting parties agree that clearances of shipments of merchandise by water, air or land, from any of the ports of either country to a port of entrance of the other ocuntry shall be denied, if such shipment comprise articles the introduction of which is prohibited or restricted for whatever cause in the country to which such shipment is destined, provided, however, that such clearance shall not be denied on shipments or restricted merchandise when there has been complete compliance with the conditions or laws of both countries." It was made clear, however, in subsequent discussion, 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.	[DOT]
That, of course, is what the clause which has just been considered proposes to do, and therefore meets the requirements of the United States in that regard. I may say that the draft suggested for an amendment to the

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
treaty was the draft prepared by Secretary of State Kellogg and1 referred to in the despatch which was forwarded to our country. Paragraph 5 continues:
This solution, it was considered, would not only be simple and effective, but was a logical consequence of the action taken under the treaty of June, 1924. The object of that treaty was stated to be the suppression of smuggling. Any supplementary steps necessary to carry out this purpose would seem to be a natural and logical development. Further, it appeared hardly consistent to prevent clearances of small boats from Canadian ports for Cuba or Mexico on mere suspicion that they were really destined for the United States, while at the same time permitting clearances to vessels which openly named the United States as their destination.
The proposal was believed to be in the interest of Canada as well as of the United States. The smugglers and gun-men and racketeers who were assembling in increasing numbers on the Detroit-Windsor border, chiefly citizens of the United States, were a danger to the peace and good government of both countries. and the traffic must, in the long run, have a corrupting effect in Canada, as was already the case in the United States. The smuggling into the United States, moreover, was accompanied by a certain amount of short-circuiting of liquor sureties in or into Canada itself, and the same gangs who smuggled spirits into the United States frequently smuggled silks, cigarettes and other dutiable articles into Canada.
It was further considered that the proposal of the United States was in accordance with responsible Canadian opinion, as evidenced by the report of the special parliamentary committee submitted to the Canadian House of Commons on the 18th June, 1926, and subsequently adopted by the house, which recommended that regulations should be made to prohibt the granting of clearances to vessels carrying liquor from Canadian to United States ports; and also by the final report of the royal commission on customs and excise, which expressed concurrence in the above recommendation as an effective method of carrying out the intent of the treaty of June, 1924.
That was the report made by Canadian officials to the government of the country-after the conference of 1929, which met in this city of Ottawa in the early part of the year. The despatch of the right hon. the Prime Minister to the American minister was dated March 15, 1929, something more than a year ago, and it will be observed that that despatch declines to accept the suggestions made by the American government. In order that the record may be complete I propose to read that despatch without comment. It is as follows:
Department of External Affairs Canada
No. 24	Ottawa, 15th March, 1929.
Sir.
Referring to your note No. 272 of the 27th November, 1928, and to the discussions which took place at the conference of officials on the subject of commercial smuggling held in Ottawa on the 7th-10th of January, 1929, I now have
the honour to state that the Canadian government has given careful consideration to all aspects of the existing situation, and has examined the report of the Canadian representatives to the conference, a copy of which is herewith enclosed for the information of your government.
That is the report from which I read previously. The despatch continues:
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 the Lnited 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.
Accept, sir. the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Ferdinand Lathrop Mayer, Esquire,
Charge d'Affaires.
United States Legation,
Ottawa.
In order that there may be no misapprehension as to what did take place, I now read the communication sent by the minister of the United States to the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country. It reads as follows:
Legation of the United States of America, Ottawa, Canada,


No. 349
[Stage Direction]
April 20, 1929.
Sir:
[Stage Direction]
No.
have the honour to refer to your note 24 of March 15, relative to discussions
Export Act-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
which took place at the anti-smuggling conference at Ottawa in January last.
In the above communication you were good enough to state that in order to cooperate with and further assist my government in the effective enforcement of its laws the Canadian government was prepared to permit United States officers to be stationed on the Canadian side of the border, at ports of clearance, to be determined, in order to enable the United States officials themselves to transmit immediately to the appropriate authorities in their country information concerning clearances of all vessels carrying liquor cargoes to the United States.
I now have the honour, under instructions of my government to inform you that it is the view of its competent authorities that the proposed arrangement would not be a solution of the problem.
Article one of the convention of June 6, 1924 between the United States and Canada for the suppression of smuggling operations provides tor 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 of either country. Such information lias been promptly furnished by the Canadian orlicials 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 go\ ernment to permit American officials to transmit information of this kind from Canady111 soil, it remains convinced that the only effective means of dealing with the smuggling problem along the border is the conclusion of a treaty amending the convention of June 6, 1924. to the end that clearance be denied to shipments of commodities from either country when their importation is .prohibited in the other.
I avail myself of the occasion to renew to you, sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
rn, T,. ,	William Phillips.
The Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa.
It will be recalled-I say this merely to refresh the memory of the right hon. gentleman

that in the address which the Prime Minister delivered the other day to this house he indicated that as early as May of last year he had concluded that it was desirable to pass this legislation, and in August he made that decision known. The despatch of Mr. (Mr. Bennett.]
Phillips is dated April 20, and if within that short interval until August of that year the right hon. Prime Minister was desirous of giving effect to views which he has since expressed, why was not a treaty negotiated before this? Why was not a treaty negotiated between then and now? That seems to be a reasonable question and is one which the Prime Minister will probably answer. Not only were no steps taken in that regard, but when this legislation was introduced the other day it was then found that it was not reciprocal in character and referred only to one commodity, namely, liquor, which might be exported to the United States of America. Without looking at the record it cannot be said, from the statements of the right hon. gentleman, that he or his government was endeavouring to include commodities other than liquor. This suggestion came from Mr. Kellogg himself, and is included in the despatch he sent to his minister, the contents of which were communicated to the government of the right hon. gentleman before the conference was held in Ottawa during the spring of 1929, and which suggestion was refused by the right hon. gentleman in the despatch forwarded under date of March, 1929, which was replied to under date of April 20, 1929.
Let there be no misunderstanding regarding this matter, because the question is not an academic one. What was the right hon. gentleman doing from May, 1929, till March, 1930, and why did he have on Monday, March 24, this sudden conversion as to the necessity of a treaty? Why is it we did not hear about a treaty the other day, or any other day? He now comes to the house and says, "We are about to negotiate a treaty."
Ernest Lapointe: He did not say it in
that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps not that waywith more suavity, more adroitness, but with less conviction. I do not think this is an unreasonable question for the Canadian people to ask, because the difference between the legislation now before the house and the offer made by the United States of America is very, very great. I will say frankly that I was somewhat surprised when I discovered that the United States had made so generous an offer. Their offer included not only liquor but all commodities, and it would have been of invaluable use to this country at the present time when commodity prices are falling as they are , and where there is an incentive among certain traders and dealers to smuggle cigarettes, silks and other small bulk goods into this country.

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
This afternoon the right hon. gentleman made a suggestion which I for one resent very greatly. He said that had he introduced a treaty into this house, what a storm of objection there would have been. It was only on Wednesday last that, certainly as strongly as I could, I affirmed my faith in a treaty or an amendment to the existing treaty to meet the situation. It is all very well to speak of lack of good faith or lack of conviction with respect to these matters, but the conviction that I had years ago I still have in this regard and I propose to continue it. That conviction is that this is the only reasonable method by which the matter can be dealt with. Even Mexico dealt with it in this way and Cuba in like manner. Norway dealt with it in part in the same way. While Great Britain has not refused clearances, the matter is largely dealt with in that sense because in London in 1926 the conditions were formulated which would prevail in treatment of vessels that with the knowledge of British officials carried intoxicating liquor to the United States. But you could not get a clearance for an English ship out of an English port laden with liquor to the United States, for the reason that you could not get insurance at Lloyd's and no other reputable insurance company would insure such a vessel or cargo; because insurance companies take cognizance of the fact that under existing conditions a ship clearing from a port with a cargo for a country into which the importation of such a cargo is prohibited is on an illegal voyage.
When our delegates in Janauary, 1929, sent a telegram to England inquiring as to the conditions under which England was dealing with clearances, the reply was that England was not refusing clearances; that she never did refuse them; but in the same report to which I have alluded-I shall not read it-there will be found at length the arrangement which had been arrived at in England in regard to this matter.
It is not correct for the right hon. gentle* man to say that there would have been to a treaty objections that would not arise in connection with a bill. The treaty was reciprocal. What is more, it went further, it offered extradition with respect to customs cases. It would have been invaluable to the Minister of National Revenue to be able to go to the United States and, with the aid of an extradition treaty, bring back for trial those who had violated our laws and who had slipped across the border and laughed at us because there was no extradition treaty, and vice versa. It was one of the finest proposals that I have seen one nation make to another with respect to a matter of this kind. It was
reciprocal in its character, universal in its application, not only so with respect to the commodities covered, but also as to the method of transportation employed, and this was certainly a long step forward from what took place in 1924. But the basis of the convention in 1924 was the assertion on the part of the contracting parties that they were desirous of suppressing smuggling, and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George pointed out this afternoon that if you stop at the word " prohibition " in the first paragraph of the convention of 1924, you remove all the question about small boats bound for Mexico or other points to which clearances would be refused on suspicion and you leave only one thing to be dealt with, namely, the refusal to grant clearances to ships clearing for the United States of America. I am not going to traverse the ground that I covered the other day, but I shall content myself with directing attention to those words as they appear upon the record lest there be a misunderstanding.
I think the Prime Minister must have spoken this afternoon without having the record before him, because the record is in direct opposition to what he said.
The amendment suggested by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was to clear up ambiguities and uncertainties with respect to one paragraph of the bill. The amendments which the right hon. gentleman has now submitted to the committee cover, I think, tiwo points of some importance. One of them was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in the course of discussion the other day, and the other makes clear a difficulty which was referred to by another hon. member. It is not quite fair to ask the Prime Minister to consider this legal phase of the matter, but the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General are present, and I should like to ask: Is it abundantly clear in the bill that mo obligation is imposed upon us to search ships for contraband of peace, not of wax? That is, in granting a Clearance, must, we assume responsibility, under the legislation as it now stands, if it is subsequently ascertained that a portion of the cargo was intoxicating liquor? I am quite certain from what the Prime Minister said the other day that he had no intention of engaging this country in any such effort as to search ships to determine what the cargo was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is clear. I gathered that again from his statement this afternoon. That being so, I think the objection, shall I say, made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George this afternoon is well
90S
Export Act-Mr. Bennett

founded. An hon. member on this side of the house, who is a layman, and who has had a good deal to do with legislation, said to me: "I am satisfied, under the terms of that bill as it reads, we are bound to search those ships." This is too serious a matter for the Prime Minister lightly to disregard. I put it to the right hon. gentleman only because now that the principle of the measure has been accepted, it is highly important, in fact it seems to me imperative, that there should be in the bill, as it emerges from the ho-use, nothing that leaves in doubt the meaning which the right hon gentleman has attributed to it. Anything we can do to achieve that end, I am satisfied it as our duty on bath sides of the house to do. I am in great doubt, I say to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, whether or not we might not find ourselves in the difficult position of receiving a despatch from our great neighbour, saying: It has come to our attention that ship so-and-so sailed from one of your ports and she put out to sea and discharged into another ship twelve or fifteen miles from the shore, a large number of cases of intoxicating liquors. To avoid that the hon. member for St. Laiw-rence-St. George, as I gather-and I know that is what he had in mind-addressed 'the house this afternoon. It is to avoid that I am taking up ,perhaps too much time this evening to bring the matter to the attention of the law officers of the crown.. I conceive it to be very important that when this bill leaves the house there should not be even a shadow of doubt that we have imposed upon ourselves an obligation to do more than to refuse a clearance when the manifest of the ship shows that there is any contraband of peace, namely, intoxicating liquor in the cargo. If it were contraband of war the situation would be perfectly clear. This is not contraband oif war; it is contraband of peace because under the laws of another country its importation into that country is prohibited. One of our members who has been reading the bill is certain as he reads it that this obligation is imposed upon us. The extract read from the Washington Post this afternoon by the hon. member for Fort William is certainly based upon the assumption that we have undertaken that responsibility, as I daresay the right hon. gentleman observed when he heard it read. When I first saw that I said to myself: This is a very important newspaper which puts that construction on the bill I once more repeat: As I understand this clause of the bill, the right hon. gentleman and his government 'propose to do one thing, and one only, namely, that the officials at the customs houses in Canada shall decline to grant clearance papers 
to ships laden in whole or in part with intoxicating liquors, the importation of which into the United States is forbidden by their constitution.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Prime Minister went
further and said "known to be".


Richard Bedford Bennett: I recall that circumstance, but I am putting, as I understand it, what is the object in the mind of the government. I want to see whether I have fairly put it. The only point I suggest is that apt language should be used to put it beyond doubt that that duty does not extend beyond refusal of clearance if the manifest, what we call colloquially the clearance papers, indicates a liquor cargo.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The entries outward.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, those are the words used in the Customs Act. That gets back to the point made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, namely, that you have two distinct acts and we are amending them by two distinct sections. One is an amendment to the Customs Act; the other is an amendment to the Export Act. The amendment to the Customs Act should follow as far as possible the language of the Customs Act, where each word has a distinct meaning. For instance, the word "entry" has a meaning under the Customs Act that it might not otherwise have; that is, the colloquial meaning does not attach. Similarly, "entry outwards" is the technical term used with relation to clearing from a port in Canada. As I understand it, all we are desiring to do is to see that the entry outwards does not indicate any cargo consigned to the United States that is contraband of peace. Perhaps the Minister of Justice would object to the use of that term, but intoxicating liquor, being prohibited entry by the laws of the United States, is really contraband of peace. I know that is a contradiction in terms; we say "contraband of war"; but under the conditions that now exist between the United States and ourselves, intoxicating liquor going into the United States is contraband of peace. If there is any doubt of that, may I once more urge upon the law officers of the crown the necessity of removing that doubt; because here is legislation that is fraught with possibilities of the gravest consequences if there is any misunderstanding as to its application. Surely it is as much the interests of those who sit to the left as of those who sit to the right of Mr. Speaker to see that the legislation shall express in terms what the determination of the government is and the principle which this house

unanimously adopted. That is the only reason that I venture to suggest that very great care should be taken for that purpose. Personally I am bound to say that we should use words that would make it dear beyond peradven-ture that we are not imposing upon ourselves or upon any of our officials any obligation to search or investigate the cargo of a ship, but that we must take, as we always have taken, and always should take, the manifest in good faith as representing the contents of the cargo; and other countries must accept that in the same good faith.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend at the beginning of his remarks read two or three despatches which he said did not bear out a statement that I made this afternoon.
I quite agree with him that the despatches which he read did not, and for the very good reason that those despatches appeared subsequently to the period of the conference to which my remark related. What I said this afternoon, if I am not wholly mistaken, was that when the United States suggested a conference for considering means of amending the treaty they urged more particularly that the conference should relate to the export of liquor, and liquor only. I said that in one of those despatches to the United States it was intimated that while the present administration was willing to have its officials go into conference, we would like the conference to be broader in its scope than to deal simply with the question of smuggling liquor, that its scope should be wide enough to include consideration of the smuggling of merchandise. That despatch my hon. friend will find there [DOT] of record, but it is prior to the period of the conference, not subsequent to it. That was the point I was seeking to make this afternoon. The United States understand perfectly well that such is our desire, that any treaty to be entered into or any amendment to an existing treaty shall relate not merely to the question of the smuggling of liquor as between the two countries but to the broad question of the smuggling of merchandise of any character whatsoever.
My hon. friend has referred to the fact that the United States made a very generous offer in that it proposed to have the treaty embrace -I do not know that he used the words in relation to the despatch of the United States- but he mentioned silks and cigarettes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said commodities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and gave silks and cigarettes as illustrations. If my hon. friend looks at the despatch of the United States, he will find that it refers to articles which are prohibited entry into Canada.
Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or restricted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Or restricted in that sense-not articles that are simply restricted by a customs duty, but are prohibited from entering the country. When my hon. friend places that interpretation upon the offer which was made, I think he will find that its application was not as broad as he would have the house believe it was. However, now that it has been decided that we shall continue our efforts to get a treaty that we hope will appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite as well as to ourselves, we shall make a further effort to see that the application of the treaty to merchandise generally is taken full note of, and that the treaty goes as far as it is possible to go to improve the conditions of dealing with the problem of goods being smuggled between the two countries.


George Halsey Perley: Would it be reasonable to ask why the government did not accept the offer which the United States made last spring, offering reciprocal terms to cover everything?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not made to cover everything, but only things that were prohibited-


George Halsey Perley: To cover ail articles prohibited.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and at the present time there is absolutely nothing prohibited entrance into this country from the United States.


Robert James Manion: Alcohol is prohibited entry unless it is imported by some of the provincial governments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is imported by the provincial government, it is not prohibited. But my hon. friend was speaking of merchandise outside of alcohol, and I repeat that there is no merchandise that is prohibited entrance into this country except perhaps narcotics.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thought oleomargarine was prohibited entrance into this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One would not have thought so to listen to the discussion the other day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is prohibited, is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I wish to make clear is that the United States proposal related to articles prohibited entry into Canada, and when one attempts to enumerate those articles they do not appear as numerous as the words of my hon. friend would lead the house to expect.

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Sir GEORGE PERLE\ : But Canada might afterwards, in its wisdom, have thought it best to prohibit the entrance of some other article, and then it would have been covered by such a treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's main query was why did we not jump at that treaty at once. For the very simple reason, among other things, that the Minister of National Revenue had given to the house at the last session a full statement of the situation as it existed at that time, and had asked for a free expression of opinion on the part of hon. members as to whether we should go further at that time than we proposed. I did not hear any hon. member suggest at that time that we should enter into a treaty, and I think that if we had proposed a treaty at that time, conditions being what they were, any such treaty would have met with a very poor reception from hon. gentlemen opposite. That was the reason why we did not go into treaty-making at that stage.


George Halsey Perley: That is a mere assumption on the part of the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A very accurate one, I think.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Revenue at that time disclose to the house that such an offer had been made by the United States to this government for their consideration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot remember the speech that was made at that time, but all the despatches were before the house, and the despatches contained that proposal.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Those despatches were before this house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They were not brought down to this house, I think.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were brought down to the Senate-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is another body.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and were open to every hon. member.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We do not search the Senate
records. The despatches were withheld from members of this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was no effort not to give my hon. friend all the in-
formation he wished to have. He had only to ask a question to have it answered and I think he has shown that he is capable of asking questions.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Y ell, I have been spending all my life asking questions in court.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish my hon. friend would let me answer a few.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish I had the privilege of asking you questions and of compelling answers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asks why at the present time we propose to continue our negotiations in the matter of a treaty, why we take this step at the moment rather than having taken it. some little time ago. There has been a great change in the attitude of this parliament towards the whole question since this bill was introduced. We did not hear very much last session from hon. gentlemen opposite in favour of the negotiation of any kind of arrangement with the United States which would prevent the exportation of alcoholic liquors from this country.


Robert James Manion: We did not hear from that side either.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then so much the stronger is the point I am making. Since then we have had from this parliament unanimous approval of the principle of the measure which aims at preventing the exponta-.tion of alcoholic liquors from this countiy to the United States because the Laws of the United States prohibit such importation. But more than that, we have had over and over again from hon. gentlemen opposite an expression of opinion that we ought to go further, that we ought to have a reciprocal agreement in the form of a treaty. Now that hon. gentlemen opposite have come to that point of view, and their press are also in agreement on that point, we have unanimity in Oanada on the desirability of having such a treaty, and we think we will be able to negotiate it with success. At any rate, we will be able to give our neighbours to the south assurance that if the treaty is negotiated we feel that hon. gentlemen opposite will be as good as their word and give us their support when it is introduced here.


Robert James Manion: Does not the right hon. gentleman think we could have negotiated a treaty with a little more effect if we had kept our weapons until the negotiations were completed?

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What weapons? This is not a case of war.


Mr. MAN ION:: The right hon. gentleman talked of war the other day. But trade is war so far as that goes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the language of my hon. friend-trade is war.


Robert James Manion: So it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I always
thought trade was exchange.


Robert James Manion: Yes; but we have tariff wars.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: If you don't prohibit the importation of any goods at all what is the object of the proposed treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will have to ask his leader that question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He will answer it.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I understood the right hon. gentleman to say this afternoon that he was preparing a treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said we were continuing negotiations.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the New Zealand arrangement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope hon. gentlemen will not think I am discourteous if I do not try to answer them all at once. May I come to one or two points that remain in connection with the clause that is before the house? The point on which I think the house wishes to be most definitely assured is that which was raised in a very concrete way by the hon. member for Red Deer, namely, whether this particular bill is-I think I might put it broadly-a bill to aid the United States, in the enforcement of their laws, or whether it is a bill to control our own officials with respect to their conduct where that conduct has relation to the export of liquor to countries which prohibit importation. If hon. gentlemen will keep in mind the distinction between the two and remember that this bill aims only at the latter and not at the former, they will find many of their difficulties vanish.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I dislike asking questions, but this is in committee and I wish to get a dear idea of whait is meant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will let me make my statement he will soon comprehend my meaning.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It becomes more incomprehensible as the right hon. gentleman proceeds.


Ernest Lapointe: He has not said anything yet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the export of liquor from Canada to the United States as the practice is at this moment, where liquor is being taken out of a distillery for export to the United States an export entry is made before an excise officer. The application for the liquor to be entered for export states specifically that the destination is the United States. My hon. friend referred to my having used the words "known to be going to the United States." It is known to be going to the United States to-day because the application states in specific English language that the destination of that liquor is the United States.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then why not use the word
"designated" instead of "destined?"


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will only allow me to get to the point I will tell him in a moment. The reason "destined" is used is amongst other things because the words "destination" and "destined" are the particular words to be found in the forms of declaration that at present are in use in the customs and excise departments. I have in my hand form 13 that has been referred to at different times.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Those forms are not statutory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Here is the declaration made by the person shipping commodities :
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.
My hon. friend must -not get angry, because that is the form.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am infinitely amused.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Or amused
either. I am trying to bell him why the word "destined" is used. It is because the word is generally used by the excise and customs officials in respect to exportation of commodities 'to another country. The first step then is the releasing of the liquor. That is the first step at which the governments' own officials come into the business, and to the extent they enter that liquor for export with the knowledge before them that its destination is the United States the government's officials to-day are facilitating entrance of that liquor into the United States by -those into whose hands it comes at the port from which

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
it is shipped into the United States. Now, the next step that is essential before the liquor oan get from the distillery to the place of export is tihe permit for its removal from the distillery to the dock. That permit-I presented one to the house the other day-states on the face of it that the liquor is to be removed to the United States. That is why I used the words "known to be going to the United States." To-day the official when he signs that permit signs a document which on its face shows that the liquor is to be removed to the United States, although we as a government know that the United States has a law which prohibits its importation; and we know that that liquor cannot get into the United States except by the agency of rum runners and bootleggers, who get the liquor in by violating the laws of that country. The third stage is where the liquor is to be cleared. There the customs official, not the excise official, is the one who has to do with it, and the clearance states that the liquor is destined for the United States. It is known to be going to the United States, into which country its importation is 'prohibited, and yet the governi ment through its officials clears .it in that way. In other words, the government's own officials are facilitating liquor getting 'into the hands of the criminal gangs who make their livelihood and fortunes for others out of smuggling liquor into another country the laws of which prohibit its importation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the Prime Minister
allow me to ask a question? -because I have no desire but to help him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure of that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does he suggest that when
that statute comes before the court for interpretation the court is going to look at these permits and applications and other forms of the Department of National Revenue, which are changed from month to month and from year to year, in order to construe a statute of this parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, for the
simple reason that there will not be any forms or permits to look at after this bill becomes law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then we ought to make the statute conform to common sense and use Anglo-Saxon words with a clear understanding of the meaning of those words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am just as
great an admirer of Anglo-Saxon words as my hon. friend, but I think he is attaching undue importance to the meaning of the word that is used.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Last evening, for instance, I happened to have dining with me a gentleman from Holland who, I think, is one of the best authorities on international law, and without explaining my view I put that bill before him. He said the use of the word "destined" in a statute, enacted under theae circumstances, would mean that in effect this government guaranteed that no exports would be made except under the conditions stated in the permit. If my right hon. friend will use the word "designated" in the application for permit to release, or use the same word in the entries for export or in the manifest, he would make it quite clear. But when he uses the word "destined" you would need the aid of an all-wise Providence to know what is to be the destiny of the liquor when once it is released from the proper bonding house, warehouse or distillery.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must subm:t that my hon. friend has perhaps attached undue importance to the word itself, and that to some extent he is confusing the terms "destined" and "predestined".


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In accord with my faith it
is natural for me to believe in predestination.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The phrase is destined for delivery"; it is the destination that the documents carry on the face of them


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The documents carry on
the face that goods are designated for delivery?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Designation or destination?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is a difference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have to take my advice, at any rate, from the law officers of the crown, and I can assure my hon. friend that the phrase has been looked into very carefully. I have every assurance that the words as they now stand cover the exact meaning that I am trying to convey. The point the house is interested in having brought out clearly is that there is a difference between the agencies of government being used to enforce the law of another country, and the agencies of government being used in a manner which will facilitate the violation of the laws of another country. It is thi= latter use of government agencies against which the bill is aimed and which it is intended to rectify. There is no intention that the government by this enactment shall do more than control its own officials. It is not assuming any guarantee whatsoever with re-

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
spect to what vessels will contain; it is not undertaking enforcement with respect to anything beyond what the statute itself says will be enforced, namely, that its own officials shall not be permitted to do certain things.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The statement made by the Prime Minister discloses very clearly that he never drafted this section, and leaves no doubt as to what his intentions are. But why in the name of common sense should we not draft that statute now, so as clearly to carry out the intention of the Prime Minister beyond any doubt whatsoever? That is all I ask.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I on my part say that my hon. friend has suggested and the hon. leader of the opposition has suggested that we should restrict ourselves to the manifest, that we shall take the manifest, as evidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The words of the statute, "entry outwards."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think it is intentional on the part of my hon. friends when they make the suggestion, but were we to take what they propose it would be very easy for persons who wished to make out false manifests to do so, and our officials, according to the suggestion made, would have to accept the manifests, no matter how false they might be.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If they do not accept it, are they not compelled to make a complete search?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.
I am advised that the most effective way in which to carry out the intention of the measure would be for a regulation to be made under the last section of this Act which will require with respect to every manifest a declaration to 'the effect that there is no liquor whatsoever contained in the cargo.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Prime Minister knows
very well that under the law no clearance can be issued in Canada unless there is a sworn statement as to the particulars of the cargo exported to each and every particular port in the voyage proposed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is that provision now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And an addition that no
intoxicating liquors are included in the cargo is pure surplusage. One is perjury as well as the other.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is
far from that. You might swear that certain things are in the cargo which would be true, but they might not be all; it is far from surplusage.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is in the declaration
now. If you add that the entries for export comprise the entire cargo-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will agree that a declaration to the effect that the cargo contains no liquor of a character which is not permitted to enter another oountry would at any rate be an additional safeguard.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not think so. But
why not make it an obligation that clearance shall be given on such a declaration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That does not help me out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry;
I wish I could meet my hon. friend on the point. If he woidd propose an amendment, however, I would be quite prepared to consider it. In the meantime, perhaps he will consider the one I now suggest; I think he approves of it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Since the Prime Minister
has suggested it, may I say that I had some amendments to propose to the house, but I do not propose to move them now. But why not change the word "destined" in the eighteenth line to the word "designated"? If you wish to make it clearer, say designated in the permit or other document which allows the release from control of the excise or customs. Name the document.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will see that there is a difference between "designated" and "destined." "Designation" might be any place; some discretion should be left to the officials of the government where they have reason to believe that entries are not being made as accurately as they should be.



Export Act-Mr. Bennett


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will say frankly to the
Prime Minister that I was not dealing with the discretion of the official at all. The officials will act on sworn documents, in any case. They have to act on sworn documents now, but I am dealing with this enactment which will be interpreted by foreign governments as a statement of the obligations which we undertake with respect to them.


Mr. CANNON:: We undertake no obligation at all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You undertake an obligation with regard to every other country.


Lucien Cannon: Where does my hon. friend see that in the bill?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not have to see things in the bill.


Lucien Cannon: Where does my hon. friend see that in the bill? It is not in it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I see it indicated in every
statement that the Prime Minister has made to the house regarding this bill.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend said a
moment ago that the statement of the Prime Minister-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Never mind what I said a moment ago, and do not interrupt. I am saying that in every statement the Prime Minister has made to this house, he has indicated that this bill is being passed as an expression of our fulfilment of moral obligations.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the moment that measure is placed upon the statute book of this country, any country that wishes to protest against the export of liquor from our ports will be able to refer to our own statute and say that there is a moral obligation expressed in it and that we are not fulfilling our moral obligation to see to it the liquor is not exported destined to some particular country, however that destination may be concealed from officials at the time the clearance is made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think
the right hon. Prime Minister, in looking over the despatches that were referred to, perhaps had in mind this: On the 1st day of October, 1925-and bear in mind the date-the American government despatched to the British Embassy at Washington a note containing the following :
In the circumstances I suggest that a convention, supplementary to the convention dated June 6, 1924. be concluded between the United States and Canada, containing two articles, the
l Mr. Mackenzie King.]
first of which shall provide for refusal of clearances to ships and read in substance 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.
As I have stated already, that was not answered until February 14, 1927, when Doctor Skelton, writing to the Governor General's secretary, uses these words which I am sure the right hon. gentleman had in mind:
... .1 am to request that His Excellency may be humbly moved to inform the British ambassador that the Canadian government concurs in the advisability of holding a conference to consider the various proposals which have been put forw'ard for further action to ensure the prevention of smuggling. It desires that the discussion should not be confined to the question of the smuggling of liquor, but should cover all forms of commercial smuggling into each country from the other. 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.
Then he says that the royal commission is sitting, and that as the commission has not yet made its report, it is considered that the date of the proposed conference should be left for determination later. I think that is what the right hon. gentleman referred to, but when the conference did come on, the discussion was confined entirely to intoxicating liquors between the two countries.
Then the right hon. gentleman asked if any artidles are prohibited from importation under our tariff. On 'page 1300 of volume two of the revised statutes of Canada, there is a list of prohibited goods covering one full page under our own customs tariff:
Books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious, or of an immoral character.
Reprints of Canadian copyrighted works, and reprints of British copyrighted works, which have been copyrighted in Canada.
Coin, base or counterfeit.
Oleomargarine, butterine or other similar substitutes for butter, and process butter or renovated butter.
Tea adulterated with spurious leaf or with exhausted leaves or containing so great an admixture of chemical or other deleterious substances as to make it unfit for use.

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by prison labour, or which have been made within or in connection with any prison, jail or penitentiary;
That was the subject matter of quite a discussion in this parliament in 1926. Then the nest paragraph prohibits animals suffering from any contagious disease; the next refers to metallic trading checks in circular form. Then the importation of any goods which, if sold, would be forfeited under the provisions of .part VII of the criminal code, is prohibited, and the list proceeds:
Posters and handbills depicting scenes of crime or violence.
Stallions and mares of less value than fifty dollars each.
Aigrettes, egret plumes, or so-called osprey plumes, and the feathers, quills, heads, wings, tails, skins, or parts of skins of wild birds either raw or manufactured; but this provision shall not apply to,
(a)	the feathers or plumes of ostriches;
(b)	the plumage of the English pheasant and the Indian peacock;
(c)	the plumage of wild birds ordinarily used as articles of diet;
(cl) the plumage of birds imported alive; nor to,
(e) specimens imported under regulations of the minister for any natural history or other museum or for educational purposes.
White phosphorous matches.
Then follows a number of animals and, as I have pointed out, it takes up practically a *whole page. Had the treaty been negotiated, it would have had a direct effect upon these *prohibited commodities, because being prohibited by the law of Canada from entrance into this country, they could not, if we had accepted this treaty, be cleared for use in Canada, and the United States would be bound to assist us in this regard.
I should like to say just one word further with respect to the amendment. I am sure from what the right bon. gentleman has said that there is not going to be any difficulty about the use of a word, but I might say to the Law officers of the crown that the word "designated" and the word "destined" have very different meanings. "Destined" indicates among other things the state of mind of the person who is shipping the goods. He may have in his mind a clear idea that this liquor is destined for use in the United States, yet it may be designated in the shipping papers for some other country. How oan a customs officer or anybody else have anything to shoiw what is the meaning of the word "destined" in this connection? Is it not the real fact that "designated" is the word usually used to express that thought? That is, I ship to a designated place; I ship to a designated port; I clear for a designated point. I do not 2419-58)
clear for a destined port; I do not ship to a destined port, for the destination may be one thing and the designated port another. The use of the word "destined", I am afraid, might convey a meaning which, shal I say, savours somewhat of the psychological as distinct from the plain meaning attaching to the word "designated".
That is the only suggestion I have to make to my right hon. friend, and I make it not because of any desire to influence him with the idea that one word is better than another for my purposes, but rather as giving effect to what we have in mind. We should make it clear beyond peradventure that the words we use do give effect to what the Prime Minister has stated. That is all, since there is some doubt about it, and the bill will not I suppose, be taken out of committee this evening, perhaps the law officers of the crown may give some thought to that point, especially in view of what the Prime Minister himself has said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The wording has been, given great thought and care. May I make clear one point, since my hon. friend spoke of it the other day. He made a special reference to St. Pierre and Miquelon. I do not know whether it is his desire that the act should go so far as to prohibit liquor being shipped to St. Pierre and Miquelon; if so, I wish he would so state his point of view, but the act, to my mind, does not go that far. The act deals only with cases where the liquor proposed to be removed is destined for delivery in any country into which the importation of such liquor is prohibited by law. If the liquor is destined for delivery to St. Pierre and Miquelon, there is nothing in the law as it stands to-day to prevent the liquor from being sent to St. Pierre and Miquelon, and this proposed enactment does not go so far as to say that liquor cannot go there. If hon. gentlemen opposite think the law should be amended so as to make it impossible to send liquor to St. Pierre and Miquelon, because it may possibly find its way from here to the United States, they should so state their position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The obvious enactment proposed is that any liquor destined for the United States, shipped from a Canadian port via St. Pierre and Miquelon, or Nassau, or any other place, is to be prohibited under this law. The word "destined" carries the meaning of ultimate destination with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Destined for delivery.

Export Act-Sir George Perley


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, that carries the ultimate destination, whatever it may be in the meaning of the term used, so that under this law as now proposed, you are bound to search every ship to ascertain Whether or not liquor is on board. The entries outwards will not be relied uipon, and i't must be determined whether, in the circumstances of the case, the ultimate destination is a United States port or rum row off the United States coast, no matter what the intermediate port may be at which the vessel proposes to oal(l and for which she may be bleared.


Robert James Manion: I made the observation a few' moments ago that trade was war, and this seamed to be received on the other side of the house with a good deal of jocularity. I notice the hon. member for Weyburn seems to be still enjoying my remark, but that may be because he has only now got the joke. It is a well-known fact that when trade matters are being considered the tariff barriers which countries put up against each other are a very important factor. Trade is a battle for the markets of the world, is a legitimate observation in economics. When I stated that the Prime Minister had thrown away his weapons I made use of another expression used in economics. When trade treaties are being negotiated the weapons used by either side are the tariffs of the respective countries, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this same principle contained in this bill could have been better carried out by this government in the negotiation of a treaty or convention, as suggested by the leader of the opposition, before this bill is passed rather than afterwards.


Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal):: I suggest that the word "consigned" be substituted for the v'ord "destined '.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this argument and I have an intense desire to be convinced that the interpretation placed by the Prime Minister upon the phraseology of this bill is the correct one, but I have some doubt as to the responsibilities which we might be placing upon ourselves by the provisions of the bill. I do not feel competent to suggest an amendment to the phraseology, but I think it cou'ld be amended by limiting the meaning of the W'ord "destined" by the substitution therefor of some such words as "as designated by", mentioning the proper document. I understand that all these documents are sworn to, and uniless the officers of the crown are prepared in a general sense to accept them they must be committed to the doctrine of search.
FMx. Mackenzie King.]
There is nothing in the bill which would *compel the officials to attach their signatures to any of these documents. They are prohibited from attaching their signatures under *certain conditions, but the bill leaves some latitude in their being enabled to refuse to attach their signatures; they could take the matter under further consideration if any doubt existed in their mind as to the authenticity or accuracy of the documents. I am intensely anxious that this bill should pass, but I am also anxious that the phraseology should disclose the real intent as brought forth in this debate. After listening to both sides of the "debate I cannot but think that the phraseology is somewhat ambiguous.


George Halsey Perley: A point has occurred to me in connection with paragraph (b).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are discussing paragraph (a).


George Halsey Perley: We have been discussing paragraph (b) for some time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The word
"destined" in paragraph (a) is what we have been discussing. We could pass paragraph (a) and then go to paragraph (b).


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment
to the subsection carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph (a) as amended agreed to.
On subsection (1), paragraph (b)-Clearances.
George Halsey Perley: Considerable
liquor has been exported into the United States by means of trucks and other vehicles said to contain merchandise of other kinds. I remember one case where a carload of shingles was shipped to the United States, and when the car was opened by suspicious customs officials it was found that beer was hidden inside the shingles. Supposing a vessel cleared for Buffalo with a supposed cargo of hay, and underneath that hay twenty-five cases of whisky were hidden; what would be the position under this bill? It seems to me the United States would have good reason to complain that we were not carrying out our own law. In his remarks the other day the Prime Minister said:
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.
Instead of saying "any vessel having on board any intoxicating liquor" why not say

Export Act-Mr. Bennett
"any vessel known to have on board any intoxicating liquor"? I am not reading the provisions of this bill as a lawyer, because I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that that clause would necessitate the officers of the government taking the steps necessary to satisfy themselves that there was no liquor on board. If the words suggested were included in that section I believe the possibility of a lot of friction with the United States would be removed. The smugglers are bound to attempt to send liquor into the United States in this way, and I submit that this change would help considerably in the carrying out of the provisions of this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a
recognized practice carried on to-day with respect to all goods which are being exported, and that is to make out a sworn statement. At the present time our officials take that sworn statement as being sufficient, and they do not make a search of a vessel to find out whether or not the statement is correct. I do not think we ought to alter in any particular the general practice when the application is to one particular commodity. Rather, 1 believe that the same practice should be followed out all along the line.


George Halsey Perley: What would
happen in the case of a statement to the effect that hay only was on the vessel when in fact considerable liquor wa9 concealed therein? Could not the United States complain that this government was not carrying out its law?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I state
again that this is not a law to enforce the laws of the United States, it is a law to regulate the conduct of our own officials. If anyone makes a false statement he will become liable to the laws of this country; if an officer of the government does not carry out the law in seeing that vessels are cleared in accordance with instructions, he will be dismissed or dealt with according to whatever practice may be made to prevail.
Paragraph (b) agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would move that the following be added as subsection (c):
(c) it shall be unlawful to make any entry for exportation of any intoxicating liquor, destined for delivery in any country into which the importation of such liquor is prohibited by law.
This bill is to govern our own officials. There are ports at which goods are sometimes exported by vehicles rather than by vessels. Customs officers are required for statistical purposes to keep a record of all exports. Since
liquor cannot be legally exported it would appear logical specifically to prohibit officials from making any entry for exportation of any intoxicating liquor destined for delivery in any country into which the exportation of such liquor is prohibited by law. Trucks and aeroplanes, and the like, are used, and this subsection would make it impossible for an official to enter for export any goods the import of which is prohibited by another country. This section would1 render impossible clearances being given to any class of vessel or craft, motor or other vehicle, since such clearances could only be granted after entry for export is made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman asked a question a moment ago with respect to St. Pierre and Miquelon. Obviously he could not have understood what I was saying the other day or to-day. It was merely an illustration of what might happen. We would have no power in that regard. St. Pierre an'1 Miquelon constitute part of the republic of France and we could not very well make this act applicable to that country, even if we wanted to, because there is in that country no prohibition such as there is in the United States. Liquor might be following what was described, I think, in one of the reports as a circuitous route in order to reach its ultimate destination. I think the ministers will remember the case where several thousand miles were traversed to reach what was but one thousand miles distant by direct route. I was using that simply as an illustration. Indeed, we have no justification for taking any action with respect to those islands unless there is prohibitory legislation by the republic of France similar to that of the United States, and I may add from what I know, that is not probable.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection one as amended agreed to.
Subsection two agreed to.
On subsection three-Orders and regulations.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to subsection three I have a section to propose. I do not think it is wholly necessary but it may be as well to insert it. The United States, I understand, permit the importation of alcohol for medicinal, sacramental and scientific purposes and the intention of the act is not to prohibit the exportation of liquor to the United States for those purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think they allow the manufacture of it but not the importation of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It may well be that my hon. friend is right in that regard,

Export Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
but I think it is as well, as the law in the United States may be changed at any time, that a section should be added to make it perfectly clear that it is not intended to deprive distillers or brewers in this country of any opportunity of selling in the United States liquor which may be legally imported into that country. What I would propose is to make the present subsection three, subsection four and to insert the following subsection after subsection two, as subsection three:
(3) This section shall not apply to the exportation of any liquor for religious, medicinal, scientific or other purposes in any case in which the importation thereof for any such purpose is permitted by the law of the country into which importation is to be made.


Mr. STEVENS:: That is the loophole.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear the hon. member for Vancouver Centre saying, "this is the loophole". I just ask him to rise in his place and repeat that remark and I will withdraw this amendment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will gladly tell my hon. friend just what I am referring to. If he will turn back to the records of the special committee of the house, he will find where hundreds of thousands of gallons of alcohol were shipped by the Dominion Distillers alone. His government had a suit for $900,000 of defaulted excise tax on that liquor shipped to the United States under the laws of the United States for purposes similar to those cited in the suggested amendment. It was one of the most prolific avenues of evasion of both Canadian and United States laws. That is what I am referring to, and the amendment suggested leaves that avenue wide open.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I need hardly say that no thought of that kind could have been further from my mind. In view of what my hon. friend has said I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Subsection (3) agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the right hon.
gentleman 'leaves the matter, I should like to point out that the language of what is known as the eighteenth amendment is this:
(1)	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.
It is no longer necessary to discuss it, but the right hon. gentleman will find ilt discussed in the statement on intoxicating liquors issued by the United States Treasury Department in January 1930.
Section 1 as amended agreed to.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On an important measure
like this, should the committee not report progress and have the .bill reprinted in the meantime so that we may see clearly how the amendments appear and the exact meaning of them? I doubt whether any hon. member knows the exact bearing of the amendments that have been proposed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is practically no amendment now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is customary
where you have a bill of this character which is of far-reaching consequences, not to take it out of committee at once, but rather to let the committee have an opportunity of considering it in the light of the amendments. That has usually been the course in regard to a public bill of great importance such as this. I have no wish to delay it, but I think that course is desirable. We can get it out of committee to-morrow and give it third reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will agree to third reading to-morrow, I have no objection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking only for
myself and those associated with .me. I cannot speak for any other group in the house.
Progress reported.


MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Acting Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Militia Pension Act to provide that pension may be granted to the widow of any officer who, at the time of his death being on full pay, dies after a period at which a pension might be granted to him, or who was at the time of his death in receipt of a pension.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Should we not have some
explanation of the meaning of this?

Militia Pension Act


James Malcolm: When we get into committee I shall be glad to give that information.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the ohair.


James Malcolm: This is a very minor
change in the Pension Act, but it is necessary to correct the anomalous position where an officer's widow is not provided for in case her husband dies in service even though under the act he may have been pensionable. There are two classes of pensioners under the Militia Pensions Act; one class of pensioner has to serve for twenty years; the other has to serve for ten years. Provision is made that when a man in receipt of a pension dies, his widow receives benefits amounting to about one-half of his pension. In the case of an officer who is pensionable after ten years' sendee, though he be twelve years in service, and although he would have been pensionable had he retired, if he dies in service, not having served the twenty years, his widow does not receive the pension. The matter has been .referred to the officers of the Justice department, who state that it is an anomaly in the drafting of the act. It is proposed to correct it in a bill by repealing subsection (14) of section 4 of chapter 133 of the revised statutes, and substituting the following:
Any officer who being seconded dies after a date at which a pension might be granted him shall if he is making the contribution hereinbefore required be deemed to be on full pay for the purposes of section 25 of this act.
That in brief is the purpose of the bill.


Mr. CLARK:: What has given rise to the amendment at this particular stage?


James Malcolm: An anomaly has been created in the case of officers dying in the service after more than ten years' service. They would have been pensionable had they retired, but they died in service, and there is no way under the existing act to grant a pension to the widow.


John Arthur Clark: Is there some case under
review at the moment of the widow of an officer who died in service and who would have been pensionable had he retired some years previously?


James Malcolm: I cannot tell my hon.
friend whether any particular case has arisen or whether the officers of the department have simply discovered the anomaly, but I can get that information for my hon. friend.


John Arthur Clark: I think we ought to have it. When was the section passed that is now being amended?


James Malcolm: It is in the revised
statutes of 1927. I do not know when the original act was passed.


John Arthur Clark: We had a revision of this act a year or two ago. I am not sure whether there were amendments to it last year or the year before, but certainly there have been amendments in the last couple of years.


James Malcolm: I will give my hon.
friend all that information on the second reading.


John Arthur Clark: We might as well give the minister notice now of what we want.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What provision is made for the widows of privates and non-commissioned officers?


James Malcolm: The Militia Pension Act, which is copied very much after the English Act, makes no provision for contributions from subalterns and men. The officers make a contribution of five per cent, similar to the contributions made under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, but the men make no contribution, and no provision is made for the widows of the men. There is that difference between the two classes.


George Black: Does this act apply to the permanent force?


James Malcolm: Yes.


George Black: Do the words "dies after a period at which a pension might be granted" mean that a pension may be granted upon voluntary retirement? Is a man granted a pension now if he retires of his own volition, or must he be retired to get the pension?


James Malcolm: It is to cover the case of an officer who has served long enough to have been retired but who dies in the service. Under the act now his widow does not become a beneficiary. It is to correct that anomaly that this amendment is introduced.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the minister should be prepared to explain the last clause of the resolution. Does it apply to a particular case?


James Malcolm: I shall be glad to get that information.


Arthur Edward Ross: It says "or who was at the time of his death in receipt of a pension." Does that mean a war pension or a service pension?


James Malcolm: A service pension. This has nothing to do with a war pension.
Militia Pension Act


Arthur Edward Ross: The widow does
get a pension at the present time?


James Malcolm: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is difficult to
understand just what is meant by this resolution. We have been studying it to see what it means, but for the life of me I cannot understand it.


James Malcolm: Perhaps I can explain
it better by saying this: There is one class which has been neglected under the act. If a man who is pensionable after ten years' service retires, he receives a pension, and if he dies his widow receives fifty per cent of that pension. But if the man who is pensionable after ten years, dies in the service, even after fifteen years' service, there is no provision in the act that his widow may receive any share of the pension. This amendment is to correct that anomaly.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is not to cover any special case, but a general class.


James Malcolm: A general class. The
act as it stands creates a hardship on the widow of the class of officer I have mentioned.


John Arthur Clark: If the minister's explanation is correct, why are the words "or who was at the time of his death in receipt of a pension'' in this resolution?


James Malcolm: I am going to ask my
hon. friends to let me introduce the bill tonight and furnish the information to-morrow. I could not answer my hon. friend's last question without seeing the officers of the department, but the general purport of the amendment I understand very well.


George Black: As the act is to
be amended, there is another anomaly which might be removed. An officer who has as much as ten years' service to his credit, and who has had deducted from his pay five per cent on account of pension, if he retires voluntarily receives no part of what he has contributed, as other civil servants do. The amount is simply confiscated. I do not think that is right. Upon retirement the amount to the credit of the officer should be returned to him, either with or without interest, as in the case of the civil servants who come under the Superannuation Act.


James Malcolm: Is my hon. friend quite satisfied that the statement he is making is correct? I am not inclined to agree with him.


George Black: A case was called to my attention within the past few days of

an officer who had ten years' service to his credit and who retired seeing no future in the service.


James Malcolm: A voluntary retirement?


George Black: Yes. I say that
in that case the amount to his credit on account of pension should be returned to him.


James Malcolm: I want to differ with
my hon. friend. They are in exactly the same position as civil servants under the Superannuation Act. The man who has served under ten years, if he retires voluntarily, gets no return of his contributions. It is the same in both cases.


George Black: Having served ten
years, he gets nothing back if he retires voluntarily?


James Malcolm: No.


William Anderson Black: He should.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The minister stated that there was no provision for deducting five per cent in case of the non-commissioned officers and men, that they did not come under this act. Is it not a fact that they desire to come under it and to get a pension, but that it has been refused?


James Malcolm: No.


John Arthur Clark: W ith all due respect for the minister, I think we should have some bettor explanation of this resolution. He has said quite clearly that this amendment will apply only in case the officer was in service at the time of his death, but the resolution says quite clearly, "or who was at the time of h:* death in receipt of a pension." I assume that 1 r W,aS *n receTt of a pension at the time of his death he could not be in active service and in receipt of full pay. It could not be both; I think I am right in that. This resolution says it is to provide a pension to the widow of any officer who at the time of his death is on full pay, or to provide her for a pension in case he was in receipt of a pension at the time of his death. That is not at all consistent with the minister's explanation, and if it is proposed to amend the act to provide for pensions to widows of officers who were in receipt of pension at the time of death, it is a very radical change. I am not opposing the change, it may be perfectly just; still, I think we ought to have a clear explanation of it.


James Malcolm: I have an explanatory note which I have discovered among the papers

Militia Pension Act
sent to me by the officers of the department, and I think it will dispel my hon. friend's doubts if I read it. It is as follows:
The purpose of these amendments is to remove an anomalous situation respecting the provision for the widow of an officer who dies in the service, when such officer comes within that class of officers to which subsection (2) of section 4 of the Militia Pension Act relates, i.e.- those officers appointed to the force between the 1st of January, 1919, and the 31st of December, 1921, who are required to have ten years' continuous permanent force service in order to establish eligibility for pension, instead of a total of twenty years' service, as is required in the case of all other officers of the force.
Sections 25 and 27 of the act read as follow's:-
"25. Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, the Governor in Council may, as to him seems fit, grant a pension to the widow and a compassionate allowance to each of the children of any officer who, having completed twenty years' service, was at the time of his death on full pay, or who, having completed ten years' service, was at the time of his death in receipt of a pension."
"27. The pension of a widow shall, if her husband was at the time of his death on full pay, be an amount equal to one-half of the pension to which he would have been entitled if he had been retired compulsorily immediately before his death, or, if at the time of his death he had been pensioned, an amount equal to one-half such pension."
It will be noted in the case of an officer who dies in the service that section 25 requires said officer to have completed twenty years pensionable service in order to enable a pension being granted to the widow. On the other hand, if an officer, coming within the ten year class, dies in the service after completing ten years' pensionable service, but less than twenty years' service, his widow is precluded from receiving a pension, though if he, in fact, had been retired with pension immediately prior to his death his widow would have been eligible to receive one-half of said pension.
In the case of an officer who dies in the service before a period at which a pension might be granted him, subsection (3). of section 11 of the act provides that there may be paid to the widow a gratuity equal to the deductions made, pursuant to the act, from the officer's pay during his service.
If, however, an officer coming within the ten year class mentioned, dies after completing ten years' pensionable service, but less than twenty years' service, his widow is, as stated, precluded from receiving not only a pension but the gratuity- authorized by said subsection (3) of section 11, for the reason, that her husband died after a period at which a pension might have been granted him had he been retired immediately before his death, but with less than twenty years' pensionable service, which, under section 25, he is required to have had in order to enable the grant of a pension to his widow.
It will thus be noted that an anomalous situation exists, and the purpose of these amendments is to remove the same, so that in the case of any officer who dies in the service after a period at which a pension might be granted him, his widow w'ill be eligible for the grant of a pension equal to one-half of that
which might have been granted the officer had he been retired immediately prior to his death. The provisions of the act, relating to the grant of a gratuity to the widow of an officer who dies before the period at which a pension might be granted him, will remain unaltered.
The words underlined in the sections of the draft bill indicate the amendments to the present sections to which said amendments relate.
I think probably my hon. friend understands the memorandum submitted by the officers of the department.


John Arthur Clark: When I read it maybe I will.


Mr. GARDINER:: The minister stated a moment ago that there was a deduction of five per cent from the officers' pay. Is that sufficient to cover the pension or is there a contribution by the government to the fund?


James Malcolm: No, it is not. The five per cent deduction from the officers' pay and an equal amount contributed by the government would carry the pension to the officers; but there are the subalterns and the men who make no contribution, and in that case the government has to pay all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it would be necessary to pay the widows.


James Malcolm: Yes. So as it stands I am informed by the officers of the department that the Pension Act takes about two dollars from the treasury for every dollar contributed. The reason it takes more than the genera! civil service fund is that a great part of the staff make no contribution whatever; in other words, the common soldier pays nothing.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are pensions given to the widows of private soldiers and subalterns?


James Malcolm: No.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But to the officers' widows pensions are granted?


James Malcolm: Yes, and they contribute towards them.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why?


James Malcolm: In the case of the officers a contribution is made; that is the difference between thte two classes. The officers pay five per cent of their salary as a contribution to the pension fund, and another five per cent is contributed by the government. In the case of the privates and subalterns the whole ten per cent is paid by the government.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If the subaltern wanted
to pay five per cent would he be denied?


James Malcolm: I think any civil servant could have elected to come under the pension act.
Privilege-Mr. Boulanger


Arthur Edward Ross: I wish the minister would let us have that statement to read. I do not know whether anybody understood it or not; I know I did not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be in Hansard.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is about as clear as many of the pension sections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the fact that this affords an opportunity of discussion which otherwise might not arise, and as the memorandum will be in Hansard-


James Malcolm: The bill will be printed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill will follow the usual technical drafting.


James Malcolm: The memorandum that
I have read is printed as an explanatory note to the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not afford the same opportunity for discussion.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the resolution
carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; it is eleven
o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Several members desire
to discuss it.


James Malcolm: It is very simple when
you read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be
taken up to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and we can expedite the first and second reading.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 25, 1930