April 3, 1916

CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

Of course, if I had any doubt that the wholesale trade coulc^ not be prohibited I would give consideration to the matter. But with all the respect I have for the hon. gentleman's opinion, I have not any doubt that the wholesale trade can be dealt with as effectually as the retail trade. I am dealing now with buying and, selling.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

William Cameron Edwards

Liberal

Mr. EDWARDS:

Do not the wholesalers get their licenses from the provinces?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

I know that in the province of Quebec they issue a wholesale liquor license, and a retail liquor license. The license that comes from the Dominion, as I understand it, is the inland revenue license for the manufacture. As to the manufacture, I am not prepared to speak so positively.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

Then I misapprehend

the hon. gentleman's statement. He spoke of the wholesale trade as contrasted with the retail trade. If it is a question of manufacture, then, to come back to what I said at the outset, we are endeavouring to deal with this thing for the provinces of Canada. Each province can legislate to protect itself against the free use or consumption of liquor, and we are prepared to supplement it to the extent of the suggested amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver, namely, that if any man who manufactures in a province abuses the fact of his being there, so as to violate the provincial law, it is suggested-and, as at present advised, I expect to be prepared to accept that suggestion-that we should withdraw the inland revenue license, which will end his manufacture. The provincial law will protect the people of the province, and all that would be left would be the manufacture for export purposes exclusively1. If a man is manufacturing whisky, let us say, in Ontario-and let us assume for a moment that Quebec is a non-prohibitory province and Ontario is a prohibitory province-what injury will be done the province of Ontario because

whisky is being manufactured within that province and goes into the province of Quebec for consumption there? Or, to carry it a step further, if we assume that all the provinces have declared that they do not want liquor sold within their borders, what injury can come to any province or to the Dominion, if within one of the provinces liquor is manufactured exclusively for export and goes to people outside who do not take the same view of * this subject that we dp? With this suggested amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver, it does seem to me that we come to the assistance of the provinces in creating a situation where the manufacturer who Will not see to it

that his distilling infringes no provincial law, shall have no license.

That would be an end of his business. That would he a prohibition of the manufacture upon any man who does not absolutely conform to the provincial law. If I am right in the view that the importation for unlawful purpose being guarded against the manufacture being carried on in the province, does not injure the people of the province if they are locally protected against it, we should pause and consider what is the evil to-day within Canada that would be remedied by the entire suppression of the manufacture of liquor even for export.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

John Hampden Burnham

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BURNHAM:

I would ask the minister if this principle that he is enunciating is this: so long as we are not injured, we do not care a rap about the people outside? If the province, therefore, not caring about other people and being willing to take the revenue or whatever direct or indirect benefit may arise from the manufacture of liquor, does not see fit to prohibit the manufacture of it, there is no reason why the Dominion Government should prohibit. We might as well have whatever money there is in it as long as we are not injured by the consumption of it. That seems to be the stand of the province of Ontario.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

We are quite willing

to let other people be the judges of what injures them. That, I think, is the better way of putting it. We rather like to think ourselves competent to be the judges of what injures us. Say that the people in South America think that whisky is good for them. Is there any duty upon this Parliament to legislate to protect the people of South America from what they think is good for them? Of course, we may have such a conviction of the intrinsic -evil of this as

to press upon ourselves that in a great humanitarian cause we ought to legislate for the protection of the outside world.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Under this Bill as proposed, it would be legal, would it not, for a distillery in Ontario to sell to a wholesale dealer in Ontario who would tell the distiller that he intended to export the liquor to some province where a prohibitory law was not in force?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

Not if the province of

Ontario chose tb legislate that it would not be. We will not give Ontario or anyone else any more prohibition than they give themselves. Let us say that Ontario prohibits the distiller and every one else from selling liquor for consumption in Ontario; then our Bill will not help them, because they do not need any help. They have authority over the sale by that distiller within the province.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

I am not prepared to

say that they have authority to prohibit the manufacture if the manufacture is being carried on in such manner as not to constitute its consequences a local evil within the province. Although their lordships were careful not to give us any definition of what they had in view, I should suppose that probably the manufacture absolutely and exclusively for export could not come under that definition.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Suppose it were done

in this way. The wholesale men in Ontario have their retail customers in various provinces in the Dominion. Could the provincial legislature prohibit the distillers from appointing these wholesale men as their agents for the purpose of export? If the local legislatures cannot do that and this Parliament will not prevent its being done, the distillers through their wholesale agents could distribute the liquor all through Ontario and so defeat the prohibitory law of the province.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

Any one, whether he is a manufacturer or not, can manage to sell whisky in violation of the law of Ontario. Tim distiller will be like every one else when he is selling his whisky in Ontario, if Ontario prohibits his selling it he will be violating the law.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Suppose he appoints

the wholesale dealer his agent, ostensibly for export, and the liquor is sent to the warehouses of the wholesale dealers?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

The wholesale dealer proceeds to violate the law by selling in Ontario.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

That is what the temperance people want to stop if they can.

Mr. DOHE^tTY: They have their law, and they will punish that man if he violates it. Shall we punish people for violation of provincial laws within the limits of the province? Surely the provinces can take care of that as well as we can, and just as effectively.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

My hon. friend knows that this legislation which he introduced to-day was framed-and it was so heralded -with the view of standing behind those provinces which adopted prohibition. There is a big movement to-day in Canada in favour of prohibition. It is one of the spiritual sides of the present war; the people -I will not say in every province, but generally speaking-are in favour of prohibition. The Government says: Until it is conceded that this is the general feeling throughout Canada in all the provinces, we will leave this matter to the provinces themselves. Can any one deny that at least two and perhaps three provinces are to-day wedded to total prohibition?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY:

Why do they not pass it?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

The province of Ontario, of which I am a resident, is to-day strongly and overwhelmingly in favour of total prohibition.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

April 3, 1916