Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 22) to prohibit the importation, manufacture, sale and use of opium for other than scientific or medical purposes. He said : In 1908 parliament passed a Bill to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of opium. It was found that the manufacture of opium was making considerable headway in the cities of the Pacific, but the law we then passed had the effect of putting a stop to its manufacture, and also largely to its importation. There is reason to believe, however, that a good deal of opium is toeing smuggled, and in many cases sold serruptitiously, and under the existing legislation, it is difficult to obtain a conviction in cases where tnere is strong reason to believe that the provisions of the law have been violated. The Bill I am introducing is an endeavour to make good any deficiency in the existing legislation by giving power to the proper authorities to search, seize and confiscate opium not in the rightful possession of anybody, and by throwing the onus on any one, having opium in his possession, to show that it is held for scientific or medicinal purposes. The Act of 1908 contains no provision with regard to the smoking of opium but this Bill remedies that defect and prohibits absolutely opium smoking. By the proposed legislation we hope to eradicate an evil, imported from the Orient, and prevent its establishing a foothold in this country.
Mr. BLAIN.
Would it not be opportune to embody in this Bill a prohibition of the manufacture and sale of cigarettes?
Mr. KING.
I think it would be better to deal with the two subjects separately. The use of cigarettes is not an abuse so great an evil as the opium habit.
Mr. BLAIN.
It is very much more widespread.
Mr. SPROULE.
It does not seem to me veTy desirable to have two or three independent Acts of the same name. Would it not be better to introduce this Bill as an amendment to existing legislation?
Mr. KING.
The other Act is a very brief one and is repealed by this measure. It seemed more desirable to introduce a new measure than amendments very much longer than the original Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Report of the Department of Justice for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1910.-Hon. A. B. Ayles worth.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
I beg to move:
That Messers. Monk, Harris, Macdonald and Stanfield, be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both Houses on the restaurant, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).
Before the orders of the day are called I beg permission to raise a question of privilege. In the ' Le Devoir ' of last night there is published an article charging me with having in three instances purposely deceived the House by attributing to that newspaper some quotations which, it says, were not published in it. The article is very violent and injurious, and certainly the circumstances do not at all call for the denunciations and the violent language used in it. For instance it states that I read some extracts from the ' Le Devoir ' as having been published on the 30th of October when that day was a Sunday, and contains other statements charging me with having purposely deceived the House. In that connection I may say that I quoted, in the speech I made the other day, several extracts from addresses made previous to the election in Drummond and Arthabaska and also during that election. I quoted from speeches made at St. Eustache, Farnham and Victoriaville-all speeches
made by Mr. Bourassa which, according to the notes I have before me, were published in ' Le Devoir.' I also quoted from the famous pamphlet which was published by * La Gazette d'Arthabaska,' as I am informed. At the same time I gave some three quotations from speeches made by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) during the election in Drummond and Arthabaska. According to the unrevised edition of ' Hansard,' I am reported as having said:
Another gentleman who spoke at those meetings was the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin). I may say that all these extracts are taken from 'Le Devoir,' their organ, and I have every reason to believe that they are correct. Here is what the hon. gentleman said on the 25th of October at St. Louis de Blandford:- ' _ .
You are intimidating the people in waving the English flag, and adding that we must contribpte always and everywhere to the defence of that tormentor of our constitutional liberties; but we will not be made to forget that in 1837 it was necessary to bore holes in it in order to breathe the atmosphere of liberty.
Now the hon. gentleman, the extracts from whose speech I was reading, taken from ' Le Devoir,' took occasion to state that this quotation was incorrect, and that ' Le Devoir ' had misrepresented him. Of course, I accepted his word, for we. must always accept the word of an hon. member of this House in such matters. I went further and quoted two other extracts from the hon. gentleman's speeches, and, to the great dissatisfaction of ' Le Devoir,' I attributed these two extracts to that journal. I may say that in the notes before me at the time was a memo, with the following heading: ' Words uttered by Mr. Blondin, M.P., at St. Louis de Blandford, the original of which is to be found in ' Le Devoir ' of 26th October, 1910,' and in quoting the above extract and the two following ones I attributed the three quotations to ' Le Devoir,' believing that the above heading applied to all those three extracts. It would appear from the information which I now have that I made a mistake in stating that the two last were taken from ' Le Devoir.' The important thing wras to find, not where these statements were published, but whether they had been actually made or not, especially when those speeches were quoted in presence of the member to whom they were attributed. As to the second extract which I read, the hon. member tor Champlain (Mr. Blondin) disavowed the paternity of what I quoted. As to the third, he stated that one phrase only was incorrect. I repeat that the most important thing wTas to find out whether the statements have been made or not, and, though I made a mistake in attributing the two last to ' Le Devoir.' I do not think that that was a reason for
' Le Devoir,' particularly as I was correct in attributing to them the other utterances that I quoted, using the words they used. I say I deprecate the assertion that I purposely deceived the House.
Mr. MONK.
If a reply is allowed
Mr. SPEAKER.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) asked the privilege of raising the question. There is nothing else before the Chair.
Mr. MONK.
I believe that my hon. friend from Champlain desires to make some explanation.
Mr. P. E. BLONDIN (Champlain).
Mr. Speaker, I had intended to rise to a question of order on the same subject on which the hon. minister (Mr. Brodeur) has just entertained the House. I was going to state that the reports which he quoted as being taken from ' Le Devoir ' were denied by me in this House as having been uttered by me, and they are denied by ' Le Devoir ' as having been reported by that journal. I would be glad to hear the minister tell the House whence he took these extracts on which he bases a charge of disloyalty against me in this House. These reports were taken from one of his Liberal newspapers, either ' Le Soleil ' or ' La Vigie.'
Mr. BRODEUR.
My hon. friend (Mr Blondin), I suppose will not deny that
Le Devoir ' published the following as being an extract from