TEMPERANCE ACTS AMENDMENT

BILL.

THIRD READING.

The Order of the day being called for resuming the adjourned de bate on the Mr. Almon's motion in amendment of the motion of Mr. Vidal "That the Temperance Acts further Amendment Bill" be now read the third time, and which is as follows,

viz. "That the said Bill be not now

read the third time," but that it be further amended as follows: Page 2. line ult. After thereof" add clause B:

"CLAUSE B.

"That the dealing in ales, porter, lager beer, cider and light wines under 10 per cent of alcohol, be exempt from the operation of the Canada Temperance Act of 1878."

general wish of the country passed by an enormous majority, and passed to meet a grave emergency, but we have an Act on the statute book which enables a small minority of the inhabitants of any district of the Dominion to coerce the great majority of that district, and to prohibit the exercise of their free will on a matter as to which all men further on, in the course of his speech, are sensitive. The hon. gentleman made an allusion which hardly had the force he intended to give it, and which, perhaps, is hardly applicable to a dis

cussion such as this is. He referred to

the receipts of revenue derived by the Government from customs and excise as "blood money" extracted from the people; and yet the hon. gentleman when he made such a remark as thatwhen he so described one of the princi revenue of this

blood money, as he sits in this House, and gives his attention to the affairs of the country, for which services on his part he is paid a certain allowance.

take my share of the responsibility.

Hon. Mr. FLINT — I am willing to

Hon. Mr. CORNWALL- The hon. gentleman who succeeded him (Mr. Reesor), I was glad to find, was in accord with the principle which is advocated by the motion now before the House. He went so far as to say that under the circumstances he would be inclined to support that motion, although at present he did not feel that it was brought forward in a proper or satis

Hon. Mr. CORNWALL said: Since the motion which is now before the pal sources of the House was first made yesterday after-country must have been aware that noon by my hon. friend from Halifax, he himself was participating in that three hon. members of this House have spoken in opposition to that motion. I am sure we all listened with interest to the manly, straightforward address that was made by the hon. gentleman who first opposed the motion- the hon. gentleman from Belleville (Mr. Flint.) I admired the address, particularly from one point of view, inasmuch as he expressed himself as distinctly opposed to coercion in any shape or form. In referring to the question of compulsory voting, the hon. gentleman said distinctly that if it ever occurred that he might be lawfully required to vote on any particular question, that in place of registering his vote under such coercion, he would rather go to prison and be sub-factory way. However, we ject to the penalties incurred by his refusal. Now, I admired the hon. gentleman in enunciating such a principle as one which every honest, manly Englishman or Canadian would more or less echo from the bottom of his heart; but I was surprised that the hon. gentleman should give expression to such a feeling when he was supporting from his place in this House a Bill which is coercive, if nothing else.

may feel sure that, whatever may be the result to-day of the vote on this motion before the House, hereafter we shall have the valuable assistance that that hon. gentleman is able to afford us. The hon. member from Ottawa also addressed the House in the distinct and earnest manner with which he always approaches a question such as this, which in my mind, is a serious question; but at the We have heard of coercion | same time he made certain sweeping in another place lately. Our attention assertions which I do not think will bear has been called to the Coercion Bill, which looking into, or which should have the has recently passed the Parliament of force of argument when addressed to a the United Kingdom, but that Coercion deliberative body such as this. In the Bill has been passed in response to the early part of his speech, he quoted the

borne out by facts, or that it is borne out by experience. When a house is licensed, it is a public house. It is a house that is open to entrance at all seasonable hours. Any person can go into that house and see what is going on. It is open as well to ordinary persons as policemen, and under such circumstances it is very difficult for any seller of such compounds to deceive the general public as to the character of the articles which he is dispensing. In England many public houses are licensed merely to sell beer, and I have never heard that such a license is made use of for improper purposes, or that under a license to sell beer ardent spirits are

made a still more sweeping assertion than that when he said in so many words that it was almost impossible to build lunatic asylums rapidly enough to afford shelter to the number of insane persons who were brought to that con

statistics of crime which had been given in Massachusetts to a certain Commission that was sent there by the Government of the Dominion to inquire into the subject of the effect of prohibitory legislation, and he attempted to show that in a certain year when the prohibitory law in Massachusetts, was not in force that the amonnt of crime was far in excess of that of any other year in which the prohibitory law was in force. Now, it is very well understood that statistics are only valuable to a certain extent. It is known that it is easy to put any interpretation on them that the speaker or writer wishes to impress upon the public. Looking on this particular point, I should dispensed. But the hon. gentleman imagine that those statistics to which he alluded, only proved this fact that most probably in that year to which he alluded when crime was much larger than in the succeeding year, the state of depression in business affairs, and the destitution existing in Massa-dition through the use of intoxicating chusetts, most probably afforded ample liquor. ground for that increase. It is well known that a year of depression or a year of comparative prosperity can be clearly marked by the increase or diminution of crime. In a good year year in which the country is prosperous, when there is plenty of labor offering to those in search of employment, and consequently through that abundance of employment the necessaries of life are easily procured by the population there is nothing like that extent of crime existing which is always found when circumstances of an adverse kind exert their influences on the great body of the people. So that, I think, if the argument which the hon. gentleman adduced had any force at all, it is only to show that, in those two successive years in Massachusetts, one year was a year of plenty, and the other year was a year of comparative want.

a

Hon. Mr. DICKEY That must be since the Scott Act passed.

Hon. Mr. CORNWALL.-All the medical men who have seats in this House will agree with me that the true cause of the increase of insanity throughout the whole world is due, not to the consumption of spirits, but to the increased worry, bustle and excitement of life. We all live at railroad speed now as compared with the state of existence in the last century, or even in the earlier half of this century, and to that, no doubt, is due the fact that insanity has been during a certain number of years past largely I do not think it can on the increase. be at all established, either by statistics or argument, that that increase of lunacy is traceable to the increased consumption of ardent spirits.

Hon. Mr. SCOTT It is one of

Hon. Mr. SCOTT 1867 and 1868 the elements. were the years.

Hon. Mr. CORNWALL Then the hon. gentleman expressed his fear that the selling of beer and light wine, as permitted under this amendment, would be used as a cloak by persons licensed to sell them, under which to sell stronger stuff. I do not think that argument is

Hon. Mr. CORNWALL -The hon. gentleman from Ottawa afterwards made an appeal to some of us not to interest ourselves at all in this matter; he said that there were certain parts of the country in which such a law as this could not take effect for an untold number of years to come, and therefore he thought

of professional and scientific knowledge,
and I feel sure that every member of this
House listened with interest to the re-
marks which he made, and the illustra-
tion which he afforded. He has treate i
the subject from a professional, as well
as from a common sense, point of view,
but it is to the latter point of view alone
that I must confine myself. I do not
know that it is necessary at all to enter
into the question of the right of Parlia
ment to enact such a law as this which
we are now discussing; in such cases as
these, might is right essentially, and
Parliament has exercised that right
already. I even believe that Parliament
might, if it saw fit, in furtherance of
that National Policy scheme which has
received such acceptance from the public
generally, enact that in future all
Canadians should drink nothing but milk
and water, or should be vegetarians, or
should live entirely on oatmeal, or
in future clothe themselves only in Cana-
dian home spun cloth. Looking at it in
that way there is no limit; Parliament
can enact any laws which it sees fit, and,
in that connection, I remember now that
the hon. gentleman from Markham
the other day
reference to

we need not trouble ourselves about it, but leave it to persons who represent some parts of the Dominion to legis late on such an important subject. Now, if that be the case, and I believe to a certain extent it is the case, would it not be better to wipe a general law [of this sort altogether from the statute book? Why should we encumber the statute book with laws which can only affect comparatively few parts of the Dominion? If it is to apply only to that particularly virtuous province of Ontario, why is it that Ontario has not enacted some stringent local license law under which her local courts and police can better enforce the provisions which our so called temperance friends wish to see carried out, than under the general law known as the Canada Temperance Act. But, independently of what has been said by those who preceded me, 1 think it is just as well that this Temperance Act should be, year by year, brought before the notice of this House for the continuous amendments that seem to be necessary. Otherwise many hon. Senators would gladly forget that this Senate had ever committed itself to the principle of this Bill or signalized itself at any time by ever having enacted such a a certain celebrated divorce case law. More than that, the constant re- which several years ago occupied the atsuscitation of it before the legislature, tention of this House for one or two year by year, must ultimately end in consecutive sessions. In making that some radical change being made in the reference the hon. gentleman naively reprovisions of that Act, if, indeed, it does marked that the learned judges of the not end in its total repeal; and I think Supreme Court have to this day pointed the time may even now be come when to that particular divorce act as the majority in this House will show example to what lengths Parliament that they are in sympathy with the mo- could go when it chose to do so. tion of the hon. gentleman from Halifax. hon. gentleman forgot to mention, howThat motion involves principles which ever, that such references on the part of should never have been lost sight of dur- the learned judges must have been aling the passage of this Act in 1878. The together made in surprise and wonder at hon. gentleman from Halifax eloquently such action of Parliament, and not as pointed out the difference that exists be- tending to show that the judges were imtween the disastrous effects of the use of pressed with the wisdom of Parliament ardent spirits as compared with the ef- when they did pass such an act as that fects produced by a sensible use of manu- to which he alluded. So it is with the factured beverages which are absolute- temperance question; Parliament may ly innocuous and in some cases doubtless do what it sees fit, but, for the beneficial to all human beings. Owing sake of any reputation we may have for to his practice in that honorable deliberative wisdom, for the sake of our profession to which the hon. gentleInan belongs a practice which I am informed has been both varied and extensive he has been able to bring to the discussion of the question the light

an

The

reputation for fair and honest dealing with all classes of society and all sections of the people, and for the sake of the high obligations and duties which are incumbent on each and all of us, let

552

as a

Temperance Acts

[SENATE.]

us be careful how we act in this matter,
and that we
do not become parties
to injustice from a disinclination to
combat the extreme views of those who
have made hobbies of this question, but
who, we must confess, have certain moral
grounds on which to found their argu-
ment. I take it that a member of Par-
liament who sanctions the passing of a
law of this kind, without taking the
trouble to oppose it, because of a certain
feeling of disinclination to taking an ad-
verse view to those who take certain
moral grounds for their advocacy of any
particular measure-I take it that one
who does this, and perhaps on such in-
sufficient grounds supports such legisla-
recreant to his du-
tion, is absolutely
ties
House
member of this
or of the Lower House. I look upon such
a representative as nothing more or less
than a time server, who, for the sake of
his own immediate convenience, neglects
the high duties that have devolved upon
him, neglects the interests of the people;
and I appeal with confidence to the Sen-
ate of Canada to throw off the apathy
which has hitherto characterized their
action in this important matter; and to
remember that there are higher duties
than, for the mere sake of appearances, to
pander to the wishes of the small party
in this House, or of the small section of
the people who desire this legislation!
I think it is almost unnecessary to
say anything further than what the
hon. gentleman who introduced this
to the
amendment has said
difference which exists between the
effects of the use of such liquors as are
mentioned in the amendment, and the
effects of the consumption of ardent
spirits. It is acknowledged on all sides
that the use of spirits is in many cases
most prejudicial and deleterious to
health; while, on the other hand, we all
know that no such effects attend the
moderate use of milder beverages. The
robust health of the population of the
rural districts of England, who use little
else but beer, proves how harmless the
use of such a beverage is to the human
body. The public houses of the rural
districts of England are licensed to sell
nothing but beer, and the result is
that, although a man may, no doubt,
drink beer until he muddles away his
senses, yet there is not that mad-like and

as

dangerous intoxication resulting from the
use of beer as there is from the use of
ardent spirits. Again, in England beer is
so commonly drunk that in all gentlemen's
houses it is used as commonly as iced
water is here with us in Canada; the beer
barrels are always on tap, and all the ser-
vants in the house, whether male or female,
is allowed to go to the barrel and draw a
glass of beer at any time of the day if
they think fit to do so, and no ill effects
have arisen from such a practice. Again,
there is another point to take into con-
sideration: the difference in the cost of
drinking beer and of drinking ardent
spirits has a restraining influence on
In Norway a country
beer drinkers.
with which I was at one time well ac-
quainted—I remember perfectly that
any man who wished to get drunk could
readily do so on the common drink of
corn brandy for a sum
the country
which does not exceed in value 6 cents
of our money; while, if he confined
himself to the excellent spruce beer,
which is also the production of that
country, he might have drunk until he
So it is
was sick before the same effect could
have been produced on him.
here in Canada with us; a man can for
10 cents provide himself with some vil-
lainous rye whiskey in sufficient quan-
tity to make most men wild and reck-
less; but the same amount expended on
light beer would not procure him more
than a pint of that wholesome beverage,
a quantity which could have no effect
on him; so it seems to me looking at
the matter from this common
that everything points
point of view -
to the wisdom of legislating towards
So it is
encouraging the consumption of beer
It is well known -
rather than of ardent spirits.
with light wines.
it is undeniable- that in wine producing
countries, where the general popula
tion are accustomed to
I am sure
grown light wines, that there intoxication
is comparatively unknown.
that any one who is accustomed to the
healthy, life giving, and invigorating
properties of claret can never fail to
admit the value of that liquid. I be-
lieve that some such stimulant is more or
less necessary to many people; I believe
that people whose ancestors have been
for generations in such positions in life
as enabled them to provide themselves

sense

drink native

with the luxuries of their times abso- | Bill now before the Senate, but against lutely require such light stimulant. On the Act of 1878, and against prohibitory the other hand, if we take the wild legislation in any shape? The whole denizen of the plains, the native red tendency of the arguments which have Indian, whose progenitors perhaps for been brought under our notice has been still longer periods have never been ac- against all prohibitory legislation. I recustomed to drink anything but water, peat, if the hon. gentleman had acted I think we may well make a comparison with the uprightness and fairness we between him and the white man as to should expect from one of his standing, intelligence and physique, and it will and which he claims to be guided by, he be largely to the advantage of the latter. would have brought in a bill to repeal I think that experience and common the Act of 1878, and not attack it in sense combined point to the consumption this underhand manner by an amendin reasonable quantities of wholesome ment which strikes at its very existence. manufactured beverages as absolutely It is useless to deny that this is the obsalutary and necessary to civilized man;ject which hon. gentleman have in view. and I should like to see this proposed It is useless to stand here and say that amendment made to the Temperance Act so that in counties which avail themselves of the general provisions of that Act, those accustomed to the use of such beverages should not in future be denied them.

if

Hon. Mr. VIDAL- Hon. gentlemen, you have been paying, as I presume you have, the same close attention to this debate that I have, I think you must have been struck, as I have been struck, with the entire absence of any reference to the Bill which I have introduced into this House, and the third reading of which I have now moved. It is most extraordinary that all the arguments advanced in this discussion, from beginning to end, have apparently been directed against a law which it seems to be the desire of some members to repeal, and which repeal has no natural or necessary connection with the Bill which is now before us. I must confess that, considering the character for fairness and upright dealing for which our hon. friend the Senator from Halifax is distinguished, or claims to be distinguished, I am surprised that he above all men perhaps I should speak in the language of the ring to be fully understood by him should strike below the belt in his present action, for really the amendment which he has moved to the Bill which is now before the House for the third reading is an amendment of that character, an unfair attack on the Temperance Act of 1878. I appeal to hon. gentlemen, has not every argument which has been used by himself, and by every one who has supported him in this House, been directed, not against the

the amendment can be attached to the
Act of 1878, and that Act remain in full
force and effect. I contend it cannot be
so, and however innocent this amendment
may appear at first sight it will destroy
the usefulness of the Act of 1878. I
speak not merely in my own name. I
am not giving utterance merely to my
own personal opinions, but I speak as the
accredited mouthpiece of thousands and
tens of thousands of the people of this
country when I say that the Act on our
statute book, which has never been
fairly tested, and against which no com-
plaint has been made, would be virtually
repealed and its usefulness destroyed by
the adoption of this amendment. We
should be acting with great inconsistency
in the discharge of our legislative duties
were we to do so. How did we get that
valuable law? Was it not shown to you
yesterday by the hon. Senator from
Ottawa that that measure was the result
of an agitation carried on for years, an
agitation which at last culminated in the
laying on the table of this House peti-
tions signed by about 500,000 of our
people? In answer to those petitions
this legislation was granted, and against
that Act not a single objection has been
presented to this House. No one has
complained against it as a measure not
calculated to promote the prosperity and
happiness of the country; but, because
an individual takes a fancy, instigated,
probably, by some whose interests are
greatly at stake in this matter-
by per-
sons interested in the manufacture of
liquor

Hon. Mr. ALMON I rise to a question of order. The hon. gentleman