Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):

I beg to move:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House doth disagree to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 107, entitled, "An Act to confirm the Order in Council of the 24th day of February, 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of the 12th day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof," for the reasons mentioned in the resolution adopted on Thursday the 26th day of June.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I beg to lay on the table of the House copy of an opinion of the Minister of Justice, given on the 6th day of March, 1918, and also copy of an opinion of Mr. W. Stuart Edwards, Acting Deputy Minister of Justice, dated the 20th day of June, 1919, both relative to the powers of Parliament in respect of legislation affecting transportation of liquor between the provinces.

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):

Will the Prime Minister have any objection to putting these opinions on Hansard ? They are important and should be known all over the country.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Not the slightest objection. Perhaps the House will dispense with my reading them.

Mr. BUREAU:

Yes. If the Prime Minister will hand them over to Hansard we can dispense with his reading them.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it the wish of the House that the hon. gentleman have leave to incorporate these opinions in Hansard ?

Consent of the House given.

March 6, 1918.

Hon. N. W. Rowell. K.C..

President of the Privy Council,

Ottawa.

Dear Mr. Rowell,

Referring to your letter of the 26th ultimo, with regard to the prohibition of inter-provincial trade in intoxicating liquor, and submitting the

41,34

question as to whether in view of section 121 of the British North America Act 1867 the Dominion has the power to prohibit this trade between provinces, I observe that section 121 applies only to articles of the growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces, and as to such intoxicating liquor, as is of this description, I am of the opinion that this section does not limit the power of prohibition possessed by the Dominion, because the object of it is to declare immunity from taxation rather than, to affect the power which the Dominion otherwise has to prohibit exportation from one province to another of articles which parliament may consider ought not, for the peace, order and good government of Canada, to be admitted in the latter province. Section 121 occurs, as you will perceive, in a fascicle of clauses entitled revenues ; debts; assets; taxation; and is not directed as I eonoeive, against the prohibition of commodities, or trading inter-provineially or otherwise in commodities which in the general interest it may be deemed desirable to forbid.

While for these reasons I do not consider that there is any ground for substantial doubt of the power of the Dominion.to prohibit interprovincial trading such as above referred to I would suggest that the possibility of questioning the validity of the proposed legislation as to transportation of intoxicating liquors would be very much reduced, or in fact entirely disappear if in the proposed legislation the terms of the announcement of the 22nd December, 1917, were adhered to. That announcement did not refer to inter-provincial transportation of liquor in particular but simply declared that transportation of liquor into any part of Canada wherein the sale of intoxicating liquor is illegal will be prohibited on and after April 1st, 1918.

Dealing, with the matter in this way has the advantage of making clear that the purpose of the legislation is not to interfere in any way with inter-provincial trade as such, but to ensure the due observance of the legally enacted laws in all parts of the Dominion. The Canada Temperance Act contains an analogous prohibition as to the transportation of liquor into districts where that Act is in force and legislation in the terms I now suggest would be in effect merely extending that prohibition so as to cover the transportation into any area wherein the sale of liquor is by or under any law. Dominion or provincial, prohibited.

Dealing with the matter in this way would I think, make it clear that the legislation was by reason of its unmistakable purpose, clearly enacted in the exercise of the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada and preclude any suggestion that it was intended to hamper in any way interprovincial trade as such.

In view of these consideration, I would advise the matter be dealt with in this manner.

Yours sincerely,

C. J. Doherty.

Ottawa, 20th June, 1919.

Dear Sir,

Your letter of the 17th instant to Mr. New-combe re inter-provincial traffic in intoxicating liquor was received after his departure for England.

I have perused Mr. Doherty's opinion and the Bill now before Parliament, and I am of opinion thait there is nothing in the amendments pro-

vided therein to conflict with the advice given by Mr. Doherty.

Yours truly,

W. Stuart Edwards,

Acting Deputy Minister of Justice. Hon. N. W. Howell,

President of the Privy Council,

Ottawa.

Mr. SPEAKER:

This motion can only be entertained by unanimous consent.

Mr. McKENZIE:

Explain.

Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:

The principal .portion of the measure has to do with amendments to the Code regarding sedition as recommended by the special committee of Parliament and concurred in by the House unanimously. The Bill goes on to amend the Code with respect to the carrying of concealed weapons except by permit; with respect to trespasses on militia property; with respect to neglect to support wife and family; with respect to protection of booms, chains, lines and shackles; with respect to preventing the election of accused for speedy trial except up to within a certain limited period-40 days-of the sitting of assize; and with respect to the challenging of jurors who stand by.

It appears that the effect of the clause as passed has been found by the courts not as intended but to be an absolute prohibition of the right to challenge on the part of the Crown after jurists "stand by," merely by the word "and" being inserted instead of the word "or."- I think that covers the extent of the measure.

Mr. MURPHY:

May I make a slight correction in the statement of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen)? I refer to his observation that the report which deals with the question of -seditious conspiracy was unanimously concurred in. My hon. friend was in the House and he will recollect that I pointed out at the time that a number of members

of the committee took exception to the report.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is correct.