CANADIAN STATE CONTROL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 345, 16 August 1930, Page 8

CANADIAN STATE CONTROL

Sir, —Your correspondent, “T.C.L.’’ says quite truly that tho Canadian experiences in regard to so-called State Control of liquor have not been impartially represented. It is true, and true of his own report. For example, he says:—

1- “The main principle of all the systems is the elimination of private interest. ” 2. He says, ‘‘The issue of licenses enables authorities to maintain a strict supervision over individual consumption.”

3. He says, 4 ‘ln Canada they have removed the control from the arena of politics or the possibility of political interference.”

There arc many points in 4 T.C.L.’s” article that deserve to be canvasscl, but let us stick to those three and see whether ho has presented tho matter impartially. I make no charge against “T.C.L.’s” good .faith, but I am sure his short visit has enabled him to see one side only—that of the drinking people. Firstly then, he is wrong about elimination cf private interest, because there is not a single province in Canada where tho manufacture and sale )f alcoholic liquor in Government hands. Tho Government, is in every case a vendor only and buys its supplies from private breweries, distilleries and importers. Of 5133 liquor selling establishments only 575 are owned and operated by the Government, 4560 arc private concerns. In some instances, i.c., Quebec and British Columbia, private interests are permitted to advertise on a huge scale to stimulate sales. Just how nicely private interest works under State Control is made evident from tho statement of Mr A. M. Manson, ox-Attornoy-Gencral for British Columbia. The now (government in that province have found it necessary to introduce fresh legislation making drastic changes in the liquor laws and abolishing licenses for export houses because they had been doing whocsale bootlogging. Mr Manson, while he was Attorney-General, declared that the brewers broke every law and regulation that was ever made. In March this year he said “Rules of business morality aro totally absent when it comes to dealing with tho liquor people. Tho liquor traffic had pri vileges and abused them. There is no law they will respect or honour. This is harsh language, but I use it after eight years’ experience with those people.” So that it is obvious private interest has not been eliminated, but is, as ever, working against tho interests of the community. Secondly, we are told that a “strict supervision over individual consumption” is kept. Police Court cases certainly reveal an effort to supervise, but it does not seem to bo successful. Hnre are some actual cases; one permit showed n purchase of 900 quart* of liquor in five weeks; another showed 621 bottles of liquor in 73 days; an other showed 18 bottles of spirits and 1200 of beer between July 26 and August 13, Whilst another showed 562 quarts of beer, 22 bottles of ‘spirits and sundry wines in 72 days, which the individual assorted ho had drunk himself. I could give- you scores of detected cases, and we all know that for one detected hundreds Tfiust escape. How otherwise . could bootloggers flourish? The chairman of tho Quebec, Liquor Commission has said, “Some people find it more fun buying from a

blind pig than from a Government, store, and some would rather get it where there is a woman than drink *t alone.” That Quebec. Commission has nublicly stated it will never be able to suppress bootlegging. Iremicr Tob inie, of British Columbia, said that large quantities of liquor had been cleared by liquor dealers allegedly for export and then 44 ‘bootlegged” in the proving. 44 50 that the 4 strict supervision f does not seem to amount to much.” Thirdly, it is said that the so-called State Control system in Canada has “removed the control from the arena of politics and tho possibility of political control.” Well, sir. that is just what it has not done. A Royal Commission investigating Customs frauds brought to light the fact that from one end of Canada to the other, the liquor interests were spending millions of dollars for corruption of officials and as contributions to party funds. I could give you chapter and verse if you need it. For example, in Ontario alone the distillers paid over 400.000 dollers in contributions to political parties disguised as “protection of trade marks, etc.” The Toronto Globe, of June 24, 1927, summing up the above Royal Commission report, said, ‘Systematic and organised payments to and corruption of officials and agents, railway employees and police, switching and amouflaging cars of beer in order to pass them into the United States . . . sales of beer in Ontario in violation of provincial law, falsification of records . . . these aro among the findings,” and very choico findings, too. Finally, may I give a brief summary of conditions during partial prohibition and following State Control. From 1914 to 1923 wrs tho partial prohibition regime (Canada nas never boon able to prohibit the manufacture of liquor), and from 1923 to 1928 was the so-called Government Control regime. Let us try to give the conditions. The figures in parentheses relate to the years between 1923-28 under Government Control: 1914-23 Prohibition.—Population of Canada increased 18 per cent (increased 7 per cent); manufacture of spirits shrank 45 per cent, (increased 200 per cent.); manufacture of malt liquor shrank 34 per cent, (increased 58 per cent.); import of spirits shrank 68 per cent, (increased 103 per cent.); import of malt liquors shrank 97 per cent, (increased 332 per cent.); imports of wine (increased 268 per cent). These results are from official figures published by the Canadian Government.

The object of sound government is to reduce the consumption of intoxicating beverages because of the harm they do physically, mentally, morally and economically. But the Quebec Government deliberately set itself out, in the interests of French wine-grow-ers, to increase the consumption of winos, which are, of course, highly alcoholic, ranging from 8 to 24 per cent. Note the increase under 1923-28. If the so-called Government Control system is so wonderfully successful and satisfactory, how does it happen that in Alberta already some dozen districts have voted for No-License, that crime all over the country has increased and some pob’ce officials definitely say it is duo to the now liquor regime, that motor-car accident insurance premiums have been increased because of tho increase in accidents since the new liquor regime, and that violations nf the liquor laws have increased 194 per cent. 4 4 T.C.L.’’ asks us to believe that under prohibition people would not even rrspect the game laws, but now, according to him, the whole community is like a Sunday School where everybody observes the laws, but liquor law violations have increased 194 per cent, in Ontario, where the “wet” Premier recently declared “the almost universal fisregard for all law has dinsappeared.” 7t “makes to laugh” as the French say. No, Sir. if your readers could have placed before them fully all the facts about so-called Government Control of liquor in Canada, they would, like tho late Sir Joseph Ward, who studied it for himself when in Canada, declare that they do not want that system in New Zealand. That was Sir Joseph’s declaration in 'the House after his return. In 4 T.C.L.’s” case it is an instapce of i a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. 8. M. DIXON, Area Secretary, N.Z. Alliance.