Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John. City and Counties of St. John and Albert):

Is this treaty reciprocal? I mean, is there an extension of the old three-mile limit on behalf of the British Empire, or any of its component parts, commensurate with the right which is given to the United States? Or does the treaty

provide only for the protection of the United States against the infraction of its prohibitory law, while leaving certain provinces of Canada, which have equally rigorous laws, subject to the old three-mile limit?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think it was considered by the British government that the treaty had distinct reciprocal advantages.

know, as I intimated in the course of my lemarks, that the British shipping interests considered it of the greatest importance that they should have the right to go into American ports with liquor aboard their vessels under seal, whether taken to and fro across the Atlantic or in transit to some other port. Eiom the point of view of commercial interests I believe there was felt to be a distinct advantage to the shipping interests, whether they were in part Canadian or largely' as I believe, confined to the United Kingdom!

Mr. BAXTER:

I Jo not think I have

made myself quite clear to my right hon. friend. I appreciate what the Prime Minister says about the shipping interests,.but let me put a concrete case to him. Take the shores of New Brunswick, fur instance. There we have a prohibitory law as rigorously drafted and as unrigorously observed as any law on the continent. Now, assume what is highly improbable, an attempt to invade the province of New Brunswick with liquor. Have we a twelve-mile protection within which the government of Canaria can seize an American vessel which is seeking to infringe our prohibitory law?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That particular phase of the matter was not considered in the discussion, but I have not the least doubt whatever that if my hon. friend feels the need of such legislation there will be no difficulty in securing it.

Mr. BAXTER:

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

M. BAXTER: If I may be permitted to

proceed a little further?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Bv unanimous consent.

Mr. BAXTER:

If there is no objection.

I understand the British shipping interests have gained a substantia' advantage as under this convention they are able to take liquor within the confines of the United States, something which they could not have done before. I would ask my right hon. friend whether there has been any attempt on the part of the Dominion government to demand

Prohibition in United States

from the United States the letting down of the same barriers against Canadian interests as a consideration for this concession, which must be of very great value to them morally and on other grounds? In other words, what do we get out of it, from the Canadian standpoint?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Of course, no objection

has been raised to this cross-examination and as the question is a very important one, affecting vitally the interests of both countries, by unanimous c msent I have allowed these questions and answers, but such procedure is not in accordance with the rules of the House under which each member may speak only once. However, I am in the hands of the House.

Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):

Mr. Speaker, although undoubtedly under this treaty the right of Great Britain to send British vessels into American ports with liquor has been finally admitted by the United States, it should never have v been necessary to have such admission, as Great Britain undoubtedly always had that right. In addition to the apparent omission which the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) has called to the attention of the government, I would mention another Canadian problem which I think might very well have been discussed and settled in connection with this treaty. It concerns the province of British Columbia and the Yukon territory. Because of the geographical situation it is impossible to send anything into the northern part of that province and the Yukon territory except through Alaska. Now, the United States in the interpretation of its prohibition law holds that it is illegal to send liquor across any portion of the United States. In British Columbia and in the Yukon territory liquor is handled solely by the government. Up till 1922 no objection was raised by the United States authorities to the importation of liquor across Alaska for the use of northern British Columbia and the Yukon, but early in that year they announced that no further importation would be permitted. I understand negotiations have taken place between the government of Canada, on behalf of the government of the Yukon territory, and the government of the United States, but that as yet our neighbours are unwilling to concede us-shall I say this privilege? I prefer to call it our right-they are indisposed to revert to the former practice, although tine liquor is sent up the coast in Canadian vessels in bond, unloaded into railway cars at the dock and within a period of two hours transported across

United States territory in bond into Canadian territory. Consequently we are prevented from receiving any further importations there. The attitude of the United States, to my mind, is nothing more nor less than that of the dog in the manger; they will not themselves have liquor in Alaska, and they will not let us have it in the Yukon.

There has been no illicit traffic in liquor from Yukon to Alaska. As a matter of fact the government of the Yukon territory imports only such a moderate quantity as, after careful calculation, they are assured is sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of their population. I submit the same question as that put by the hon. member for St. John in the language of the United States: What do we get out of this? That is the question the United States' asks on every occasion, international or otherwise. I submit there is not enough in this treaty for us, and if by holding up its ratification the government can bring about a restitution of the right of importation by the government of British Columbia across Alaska into the I ukon territory, most certainly this course should be taken. It is a very important matter for the people of that part of Canada. The governments of British Columbia and the Yukon derive quite a large revenue from their control of liquor. There is no intemperance because the government importations are, as I have already stated, strictly limited to local needs, so that naturally there is an absolutely temperate use of liquor. In the old days saloons were just as numerous there as in other parts of the Dominion, but under the present system the use of liquor is not abused.

The action of the United States in this matter is decidedly unfriendly and absolutely unnecessary, and could be reversed quite easily if they wish to convenience us. Although, I understand, correspondence is now proceeding between the government of Canada and the government of the United States in relation to renewal of our right to import liquor across Alaska for government purposes yet the earlier correspondence extending over the past two years has been entirely without avail, and I submit that once this treaty is ratified and the United States get what they want, Canada will never secure what she is entitled to. I would therefore urge that the government should take into consideration this very serious problem of the Yukon territory and northern British Columbia and withhold consent to the treaty until the United States changes its attitude in the matter.

Prohibition in United States

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) closes the debate, if any other hon. member desires to speak he should do so, now.

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):

Mr. Speaker, those who are interested in the province of Queb'c were made aware some months ago that there is quite an industry there in the smuggling of liquor into the United States. It may occur also from the United States into that part of Canada, but not to the same extent. I notice the treaty refers to water-borne traffic more especially. I should like to know if any negotiations have taken place with the United States with a view to putting a stop to this illicit traffic from Quebec, and, if so, with what result

Mr. MACKENZIE KING Beginning last fall, negotiations took place, first by correspondence and subsequently by personal conference, between representatives of our government and of the government of the United States with respect tc enforcement of laws to prevent the smuggling of liquor from Canada into the limited States, These negotiations have been cuntinued, and I hope very shortly to be able to report to parliament the reside This, I think, answers what is in the mind of my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). -ihe question to which the hon. member for the Yukon has referred has been carefully considered. The view of our Canadian government was that it was not advisable to confuse the two discussions, the one relating to the right of search on the high seas, and the other a matter of negotiations between Canada and the LTnited States respecting amongst other matters the importation of liquor into the Aukon. The subject of which I am speaking this afternoon has relation only to questions affecting the high seas.

I may say to the hon. member for Yukon iMr. Black) that the remarks he has made on this occasion bear out the very strong representations made by the government to the United States authorities in this matter. I would not like to suggest and the House has apparently not thought so-that this treaty should be held up, for the reason that I have m my hand a message from the Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald asking that if possible the matter be proceeded with with as little delay as possible, as the British government are anxious to have this treaty ratified just as soon as it can be arranged.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

Once this treaty is out of the way, has Canada any leverage on

the United States by which it can obtain from them the rights she now seeks?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The United

States have made a large number of requests of our government in the matter of assisting them in the enforcement of their laws, and we have the leverage that is afforded' there in helping to solve the problem.

Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):

I

would like to ask the government two questions; first, is it the intention of the government this year to introduce the Canadian National Railways branch' lines bill in the Senate before it comes to this House? If not, how soon may this House expect the branch lines bill to be brought down?

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM: (Minister of Railways and Canals): The reply to the first question is. no; the reply to the second, next week.