1969-04-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimali-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-189, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the present Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act which was passed in 1964 has been unsatisfactory 'in that it requires1 us to do certain things. It ties fishing zones to base lines drawn along the shore. The purpose of this amendment is to allow all waters above the continental shelf to be declared fishing zones exclusive for Canadian fishermen, without going into the question of territorial seas, headland to headland base lines or other similar problems which are at present confusing the problem of exclusive fishing zones.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Translation\


Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament and as the leader of a recognized federal political party, I wish to protest strongly against the treatment I was given by a Crown corporation, namely the C.B.C., last week in Western Canada.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was to be interviewed last week on the national telecast called "Les Affaires de l'Etat", on the French network, and "Nation's Business", on the English network. I wanted to have the program pre-taped in a Vancouver studio of the C.B.C. and the producers asked me to fork out $300 when they had contacted the C.B.C. authorities in Ottawa. The same thing happened in Edmonton at the C.B.C. studios.
Mr. Speaker, as it is only in the house that a member may object to the actions of a corporation whose operations will cost $166 million this year to the Canadian people, and which is unable or unwilling to use the facilities of the Corporation outside Ottawa and Montreal, I want to bring this fact to the attention of the minister responsible and of the house, so that everyone will know that last week we did not appear on the program "Les Affaires de l'Eltat." I suggested to the C.B.C. to invite instead Charlie Chaplin or the president of this Crown corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have a grievance, but I doubt that his question of privilege is justified.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether he has requested the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities to present to the secretariat of the constitutional conference specific proposals for participation in future conferences by official representatives of the municipal governments of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: To be more precise, Mr. Speaker, it was Mr. Lawless, who I believe is the research director or permanent secretary of the Council of Mayors and Municipalities, who suggested they would submit to the conference

April 22, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry secretariat the type of recommendation the Leader of the Opposition suggests. He mentioned something to the effect that they would be represented in some way at the federal-provincial conference. I said I approved of the method in which they wanted to proceed. If they had any such submissions to make, they should not be made to the federal government directly, but to the secretariat, which is at the disposition of the provincial governments as well as the federal government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that the Prime Minister contemplates requesting that the terms of reference of the constitutional review be enlarged, as requested by the mayors yesterday? Is the Prime Minister going to consider and eventually define the most appropriate means for the inclusion of municipal representation on intergovernmental bodies which deal with policy of major municipal concern?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. It means that in so far as the constitution now exists and in so far as arrangements for federal-provincial meetings now exist, it is up to the provinces to decide how their representation should be composed.
I suggest that if the provinces decide to bring as part of the provincial delegation representatives of the municipalities it would, of course, be their right to do so. As things now stand under the constitution and arrangements, Mr. Speaker, the federal government cannot by itself invite the municipalities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand, of course, the provinces can bring along municipal representatives to the constitutional conferences as observers or indeed active participants in their delegations. Is it not correct that the Council of Mayors and Municipalities proposes to submit to the secretariat of the constitutional conference specific proposals which would enable municipal governments in the future to participate actively in the deliberations of intergovernmental bodies which involve matters of municipal concern? Is this not what the Prime Minister has agreed to the association submitting to the secretariat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was no discussion or agreement on the substance of their submissions. In a very general way, Mr. Lawless said he wanted to submit to the

secretariat of the Federal-Provincial Conference certain proposals concerning their representation.
To repeat my first answer, I said that was the proper procedure, rather than making representations to the federal government. If they have representations to make along these lines, they should either be represented as part of the provincial delegation or, if they wanted to address themselves to the conference proper, they should do it through the federal-provincial secretariat, not through the federal government.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to strengthen the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, would the Prime Minister undertake to consult with the provinces with a view to reaching some agreement as to the techniques by which the municipalities could be involved in having a voice in the various federal-provincial meeting, where decisions affecting them are being discussed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no objection to this consultation!, Mr. Speaker, apart from any that might be proposed by the provinces themselves. It seems to me the provinces would be on justifiable ground if they were to say to any such consultation, "Well, we will decide how you will be represented." That is why, to repeat what I said in my answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I prefer that the initiative come through the secretariat which serves both levels of government. If it were to come from the federal government it would more likely bring about resistance from the provinces, based on the question of constitutionality.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to consider having placed on the agenda of the conference the advisability of setting up an urban affairs council on which all three levels of government would be represented, for the purpose of discussing the co-ordination of the three levels of government on matters affecting particularly large urban municipalities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am inclined to think that such an initiative would be premature on our part. The question of the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces under 'the constitution is a subject
April 22, 1969

which is being discussed now at the official level. This, it would seem to me, would be the proper way in which the question of municipal representation and jurisdiction under the constitution should be arrived at, as part of the discussion of the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister considering or is he prepared to suggest to the constitutional conference that its terms of reference be broadened to include a consideration of participation by municipal units in inter-governmental conferences?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be unwise to do so. The municipalities, legally speaking and constitutionally speaking, are creatures of the provinces. I hope this subject will be brought before a conference, but I do not think it would be proper for the federal government to press it or to impose it on the provinces, I hope it would come by way of initiative from the municipalities themselves, as they suggested they would do, or by way of provincial action at the first initiative; but I repeat that the federal government would of course be very happy and anxious to discuss all these aspects of it.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether, in agreement with the provinces, he would put on the order paper an item for the consideration of the possible use of the Bank of Canada to help finance municipalities?



OPPOSITION REPRESENTATIVES AT MEETINGS HELD IN CAMERA

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the information which the Prime Minister gave the house some days ago, that this time the conference would be in camera, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether, in spite of the fact that it is not going to be open to the public, he and the prime ministers of the provinces are giving consideration to inviting members of opposition parties as observers to these in camera discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This had not been contemplated, Mr. Speaker, for the reason that I gave the other day
Inquiries of the Ministry about holding the conferences proper in camera. They will not be conferences merely of the representatives of the public, the ministers and the prime ministers, but will be conferences which officials will also be attending. This mixture was requested by some of the provinces themselves. It was not a federal initiative, but we agreed to it because it seemed like a plausible and acceptable idea. When we have such a mixture of ministers and officials we feel the conferences should be held in camera.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as a further supplementary question, precisely because of the nature of the meeting I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not reconsider the refusal, and again discuss with the prime ministers of the provinces that because the conference will be held in camera, there would not be value in having other members of parliament and other members of the legislatures in opposition parties knowing what is going on in this on-going dialogue about the constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be prepared to hear representations from the provinces on this, but I stated my own personal inclination and 1 understand that is also the inclination of the provinces. If they feel otherwise, I would be prepared to reconsider.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I understand that the Prime Minister would object to a member of an opposition party being included in a provincial delegation to the conference? Does he not feel it might increase national understanding, or the understanding generally in respect of the problems involved in constitutional reform, if observers from opposition parties both at the provincial and federal level were included in this confidential discussion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, in so far as the Leader of the Opposition is repeating part of the question of the member of the New Democratic party my answer is the same; but if he is suggesting that some province might wish to include any member of the opposition as part of its delegation, then it is up to the officials of that province if they want to be assisted by persons from the opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I understand my hon. friend to suggest that he does not require any assistance from us on this side of the house?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a different matter, Mr. Speaker.
April 22, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADA COUNCIL


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
I am informed that Mr. Chandler Davies, from the University of Toronto, considered as a notorious Communist in the United States, received last year from the Canadian government a $6,350 grant for research purposes in Russia and that this year he will receive $15,130 for research purposes at the University of Toronto.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to set up some kind of inquiry to find out whether or not Mr. Chandler Davies is indeed a notorious communist?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this grant has been given by the Canada Council. If such is the case, I think that the question should be directed to the Secretary of State.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the statement made by the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs to the effect that choosing Ste Scholastique as the site of the new Montreal international airport will cost the province of Quebec an additional $120 million, can the minister explain this difference for the guidance of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that, in those terms, the question-


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Yes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

The hon. member is asking the minister to make a statement and explain the difference between two amounts. To my mind, the question should be expressed differently.


Roch La Salle: Is it true that because of the site chosen for the airport, the project will cost $120 million more to the province of Quebec?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The figures which were prepared and which were made public by the Department of Transport at the time the government decision was announced were based on the cost of providing ground transportation to service the airport, the traffic to the airport and the extra traffic generated as a result of the location of the airport. This was a consistent yardstick which was used in the evaluations of each of the sites.
The province has added the additional cost of supplementary road systems necessary or perhaps desirable to provide economic growth along the corridor bordering the river. They have also added a part of the cost of the trans-Canada highway. This of course may be a desirable expenditure but it is an expenditure which, as is apparent, is not directly related to the airport. If one were to do an evaluation on that basis he would have to add the same kind of additional costs to each of the figures in order to have a fair comparison. The answer is that the figures we gave were quite correct. These additional figures are related to consequent industrial development, which is desirable but not an essential part of the cost of the airport.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
According to a statement made by Hon. Robert Lussier, Minister of Municipal Affairs of the province of Quebec, the purchase of the land will cost the Canadian taxpayers $91 million more than that of the land located south of Montreal. Will the minister tell us whether the government will reconsider its decision and begin discussions with the Quebec government?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not have too much confidence in Dr. Dussier's figures, Mr. Speaker.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They are just as good as yours, if not better.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I prefer to use our own which were arrived at with care and with the same kind of comparison as to the various sites.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ^ask a supplementary question.
Since the government of the province of Quebec has produced an estimate concerning
April 22. 1969



the cost of the new airport that is at variance with that provided by the federal government, would the Minister of Transport look into the matter to see whether it would be advisable to review both studies to arrive at a proper conclusion, for the Canadian people are anxious to know what they will have to pay for that airport.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we did re-study it. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and myself spent three hours with the representatives of the provincial government a few days ago, at which time we looked at the figures they had. As I indicated subsequently, there was nothing new. They had added the cost of supplementary roads desirable for the future economic expansion of that part of the province of Quebec. If one were making that comparison, he would have to do so in respect of the other potential sites as well. I have confidence that the comparisons reproduced were as fair as any comparison could be, with the information available, and I can see no reason for reopening the discussion in so far as the basic data is concerned.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether in arriving at the estimates he or the government was able to draw upon the same expertise which was used in connection with the Bonaventure and the National Centre for the Performing Arts?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The expertise was not identical, Mr. Speaker.


Roch La Salle: Could the minister tell us today whether the decision of the government is final?



DRUMMONDVILLE, QUE.-RECOMMENDATION AS SITE FOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the house if, during the negotiations concerning the international airport the provincial government recommended to the Minister of Transport the site of Drummondville?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government indicated its preference for one of two sites
Inquiries of the Ministry on the south shore of the river. One of those was near Drummondville and the other was close to the United States border. In both cases there were technical objections, cost considerations and considerations of the accessibility for passengers and other users of the airrport, which we felt were over-riding those reasons advanced for choosing one of those sites.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is he aware that yesterday afternoon the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs stated that his government had never recommended that the new airport be built at Drummondville?



AIR CANADA


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the air strike has the minister had any negotiations in respect of the transportation of perishable goods by certain Canadian industries, such as chicks by the poultry industry and flowers by the florists, using C.P.A. or other companies?


An hon. Member:: What kind of chicks did you have in mind?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not the kind that have been written up recently in a weekly magazine by some of the girls.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I did not quite catch (the first part of my hon. friend's question. Did he ask whether I had received representations from these people?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not to my knowledge, but they may have come into my office since I have had a chance to check.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the minister would consider the representations from this side of the house and see if those perishable goods could be moved across the land in the fashion followed by Air Canada, because there is no room for them in the aircraft of other air companies in

April 22, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada. As a result, this situation is costing the industry millions of dollars.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to check on the chicks, and make every possible arrangement to see that the needs of the shippers are met within the capability of the equipment available.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the minister is trying to be humorous, Mr. Speaker, but I am talking about all perishable goods. I am asking him whether he will make a serious representation to these companies to assist Canadian industry in the transportation of perishable goods.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. I am sure they are already aware of the problem. I will be glad to pass on my hon. friend's representations, together with my own.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport. I point out that when the strike was first anticipated last week I asked the Prime Minister whether any consideration was being given to the matter of alternative forms of transportation for perishable commodities. He said that a committee of cabinet was doing this. When I asked him on Friday to what members the representation should be made, he named the Minister of Transport. Since that time, after contacting the minister's office and the Board of Transport Commissioners I can find no arrangements at all. I am wondering whether the minister would undertake to make a statement tomorrow as to what alternative arrangements have been made for the movement of perishable goods. I think in particular of perishable goods from Vancouver Island to the prairies, which are adversely affected by this strike. I ask the minister to make such a statement so that the public will know what arrangements he has made. At the present time we have been unable to obtain any information in this respect.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would like to give me specifics, such as the one he has just indicated, I would be glad to look into the matter. But as he knows, the Canadian Transport Commission have authorized a number of temporary routes, with the end in mind of doing exactly what has been suggested, namely providing service to the Canadian travelling public. I am sure that where excess space is available, cargo will be carried as well.



STRIKE OF MECHANICS-DEPARTMENTAL AIRCRAFT TO HANDLE AIR FREIGHT

David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to answer the question I asked him yesterday concerning the possibility of using D.O.T. and D.N.D. aircraft to transport the mail, so as to liberate freight space on C.P.A. and other air lines, thus making it possible for flower growers and other people to make use of commercial air transport services.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minisier of Com-municaiions):: Mr. Speaker, my first responsibility is to ensure that the mails go through.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: When do we start?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You have not yet accepted your responsibility.


Eric William Kierans: We have not yet found it necessary to look for aircraft from D.N.D. Perhaps my colleague could liberate some of his own aircraft for the transportation of chicks across the country. We are quite satisfied at the moment with the facilities that are being made available to us to transport the mail across all areas of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this one, last supplementary question. Can the Minister of Transport tell us which crisis he will end the sooner, the housing crisis or the transportation crisis?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. As a result of the recent visit of the agricultural committee to the west, where they found ample evidence of economic stagnation, does the minister intend to recommend to the government that emergency assistance be provided, in line with the Prime Minister's concern over regionally depressed areas, in the form of acreage payments or any other form which would alleviate the situation temporarily, pending further action?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I returned to Ottawa just this morning. I am
April 22. 1969

expecting to have a report from the agricultural committee which made a tour of western Canada, as soon as it is convenient for them to meet with me.



POTATOES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ASSISTANCE TO P.E.I. GROWERS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made earlier by the minister in the house with regard to the meeting he had with representatives of the agricultural industry in Prince Edward Island with respect to the very serious situation there in terms of potato markets, and the plight of the growers for this season, would the minister be prepared this week to make a statement on policy as to the form of assistance his department will give in order to alleviate this very serious situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that we initiated the diversion of some of the inventory of potatoes to starch plants. This program is now operating to the full capacity of starch plants in the maritime provinces. Whatever favourable effect this diversion program had on the potato market of New Brunswick is, of course, reflected in the market for all the maritimes. I am prepared to admit that it has not been significant. But to date the plans that have been presented to us by the government of Prince Edward Island would not in our view be practical inasmuch as they have been tried before and have not proved satisfactory.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that time is running out for the growers this season, would the minister reconsider the action taken by the government last season? While he himself expressed some reservations about its effectiveness, I believe it was as effective as possible, in terms of a short term solution, in easing the situation of Prince Edward Island farmers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have considered this a number of times, and on balance I am persuaded by the representations that have been made to me, namely, that the program we undertook last year was not particularly popular or favoured among the producers themselves.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



POTATOES-PROGRAM FOR QUEBEC GROWERS

Mr. Gaslon Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
If a second assistance program for potato-growers were established, would Quebec potato-growers be able to take advantage of it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will admit that his question is hypothetical.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It certainly is with this government.



WHEAT-SUPPORT PRICE AND TWO-PRICE SYSTEM

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question1 to the Minister of Agriculture.
Couild he tell us whether he supports the two-price policy requested by the Saskatchewan farmers and the Saskatchewan "Wheat pool"?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, 'the "two-price policy for wheat" is a pretty vague term that is subject to many interpretations. I am sure my hon. friend realizes that there are many specific details that are attached to the term "two-price system". But, generally speaking, we have taken a number of measures in order to alleviate the serious situation, and we are willing as well to consider specific proposals respecting this concept.


Gerald William Baldwin: The government's policy is pretty vague, too.
WHEAT-SALES UNDER COMPETITIVE PRICING Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan. Could the minister inform the house what significant sales of wheat have taken place to foreign buyers since the Wheat Board decided recently to adopt a policy of competitive pricing?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, it is the custom to answer questions of that sort by saying it is not the
April 22, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry custom in this house to report on sales of wheat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see quite a few hon. members rising to ask supplemen-taries on this question. I wonder whether all should be recognized, because we are running short of time. Perhaps the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), who raised the matter originally, might be allowed a supplementary question.



WHEAT-SALES TO JAPAN

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply to my question indicated that he had just returned from a visit to Japan. We notice that he inspected some fish during that visit; but I wonder whether, for the benefit of the wheat farmers, he could indicate if there have been any sales of wheat in that area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown).


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question-


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member for Selkirk is rising on a question of privilege.


Edward Richard Schreyer: My question of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker. The matter raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie is vital and urgent. Inasmuch as no member of this party, representative as we are of several hundreds of thousands of wheat producers in western Canada, has had an opportunity to ask a question on this subject, perhaps Your Honour would allow one further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point is perhaps well taken. As the hon. member for Selkirk and a few other hon. members, I understand, are anxious to speak on this question, perhaps I might allow a few supplementary questions after the hon. member for Brant has asked his question.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern

Development. Would the minister advise the house as to whether the government will make sure that the new Indian Act will be drafted in simple, basic English and French, and not in legalistic terms, so that all Indians in Canada may comprehend it without difficulty?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I can
assure the hon. member that the new policy which will make Indians of Canada equal citizens in this country will be very clear and simple.



WHEAT-MINIMUM GUARANTEED PRICE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he in a position to indicate to the house what action the government proposes to take in terms of establishing a minimum guaranteed price for wheat in order to meet the present marketing situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member is well aware of the price ranges that are spelled out in the International Grains Arrangement, and I am sure he is also well aware of the fact that the Canadian government is playing a very positive role in attempting to encourage the countries of the world to respect the terms of that agreement.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that the prices are not being maintained at the minimum level specified in the International Grains Arrangement, will the government establish a minimum price for the farmer, so that he knows what his income will be?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is the hope of the government that the minimum price range within the I.G.A. will be respected.



WHEAT-SUPPORT PRICE AND TWO PRICE SYSTEM

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, in his desire to have specifics on the two price system, and in view of the briefs presented by the premier of Saskatchewan on behalf of that government and of the briefs of the Saskatchewan wheat pool and of the government of Alberta, he would now advance the proposal to his colleagues that sufficient specifics are available for the
April 22, 1969

implementation of the two price system. I should also like to ask him whether, as a further source of specifics, he would read his own speeches which he made when he was a member of the Social Credit party on this side of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: That would be too much to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the reported drop of 40,000 immigrants' allowed into Canada in 1968, would the minister at an early opportunity announce what plans the government has to remedy this serious drop in entries into this country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: There was a drop-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that this question is in order only to the extent that the hon. member is asking whether a statement will be made. Otherwise the minister cannot make a statement now.



RUDOLPH HOLATA-PROTEST AGAINST HOLDING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Steve Eugene Paproski: May I take this opportunity to put another question to the minister. Has the Canadian government made a strong protest regarding the holding of Ruddlph Holata, head electrician at Vancouver International Airport, by the government of Czechoslovakia, without trial and without a charge being laid?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not identified the case which my hon. friend mentioned but I will investigate it and give him the information.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact that Mr. Holata has been in custody since January 6, and if a strong protest has not been made, why not? I should like to point out, sir, that he is a member of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And we should know what is going on there.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his representations to the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMISSION OF DRAFT DODGERS AND DESERTERS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to ask him whether he will soon be making a statement on motions dealing with the question of the admission as immigrants of so-called deserters.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot exactly forecast when I will be able to make a statement on this subject. The matter is under consideration, and as soon as the consideration is completed I will be making the deliberations known to the house.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: desire to direct a question of the utmost importance to the west coast to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Canadian Merchant Service Guild are prepared to consider a tie-up of all steel-hulled tow boats on Canada's west coast following the sinking of the Emerald Straits, with a loss of three lives, adding up to a loss of 29 men in similar tugs since 1958, will the minister immediately take into consideration an investigation of the possibility of accepting a previous safety recommendation for a one-compartment subdivision in the construction of steel tug hulls?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the guild are being investigated by the department on an urgent basis.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


David Réal Caouette: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Communications.
Following the numerous changes made in the Post Office Department, several publications no longer enjoy second class mail privileges, and I wonder whether the minister could tell us why the following publications: Canada-Vietnam News Letter, Combat, Progressive Worker, American Exile, Lagos, La Lutte Ouvriere and The Workers' Vanguard
April 22, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry
which are all communist-slanted, are still	HOUSING
considered as second class mail in Canada?	c.m.h.c.-criteria applicable in projects


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This type of question should be put on the order paper.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In his absence yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he had any information to give the house in connection with the tragic railroad accident which occurred near Toronto a few days ago. Can the minister give us any information on that now?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not sure that I can add much to what has already been reported publicly, but, as hon. members know, at 5.35 p.m. on April 20, C.N.R. train number 151, consisting of two diesel electric units and six cars entered the facing point switch of Dosco siding, mile 12.4 Weston subdivision, where it struck an empty tank car, derailing both locomotives and five cars.
One employee, the locomotive fireman, and one passenger were killed. Two employees and 24 passengers were injured; the engine-man's condition is reported to be critical.
The switch was found lined for the siding with the lock in the keeper. Investigation has revealed that the loop of the lock was cut through by hacksaw. The target was not displaced and indicated the switch lined for the siding.
The matter is under investigation by the Canadian Transport Commission, the investigation department of Canadian National Railways and the Ontario Provincial Police and metropolitan Toronto police.


William Marvin Howe: In view of the situation that has developed 'in this regard in Toronto, what steps are being taken to make these types of switches electrically controlled, particularly in areas where trains are travelling fast, to ensure that such an accident could not occur again?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think I should take that question as notice. This type of accident is most unusual and normally cannot occur. In this case there has been evidence of some unusual action. A deliberate attempt has been made by someone to cause an accident.
[Mr. Caouette.l


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: May I ask the Minister of Transport, in this Don Messer hep week, on what day of this week the minister expects to place before us the new criteria for public housing programs.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We were discussing them this morning and made considerable progress. I hope to be able to make them available to my hon. friend fairly soon.



SURVEY OF URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On the premise that the minister visited the cities of Vancouver and Calgary, can he now assure the house that no further trips are envisaged before he is in a position to bring down his conclusions with respect to urban renewal and public housing? I ask this question because it appears to me that at one time the minister indicated to the house that he was going to visit eight or nine cities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FRENCH COMMENTS FOR PROJECTION OF SLIDES

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that the minister has stated on two occasions that he would show slides with comments in French for the benefit of French-speaking members of parliament, in connection with the inquiry on housing, may I ask him when his promise will materialize?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and it arises out of a meeting held by the minister some time ago with the Dieppe Prisoners of War Association. I should like to know whether the minister's department has begun or completed the research work on its files requested by the Dieppe veterans.
April 22, 1969


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the research work has begun. It has not yet been terminated.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouih-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Further to a question which I attempted to ask the other day, and in order to offset any detrimental rumours, I wonder whether the minister could briefly report on the trials of the hydrofoil?
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as every member of the house knows, I hope, we have had very successful trials with H.M.C.S. Bras d'Or. I do not believe we are experiencing any serious difficulty, though there were some rumours that we were experimenting with hydrodynamic vibration, when the ship was in transit, from hull to foilborne. These are matters that we would like to know more about, but they are not of a serious nature. We expect the experiments that we are conducting now will prove that they have been worth while.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order at this point for the information of members. Because of certain confusion may I ask the house leader when the recorded votes will take place in respect to the first 11 amendments?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the disposition of the Chair would be to put the votes at the end of the debate on the first 11 amendments.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 21, consideration of Bill C-150, an act to
Criminal Code
amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. And the motion of Mr. Knowles:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting from clause 13 thereof paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 179-A of the Criminal Code.
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were discussing a motion to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) designed to make it illegal for the federal government and the provinces to set up a lottery.
Last night, at the beginning of my speech, I listed some arguments to justify my opposition, not to the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but to the provisions of clause 13 of the omnibus bill.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I am not against lotteries, but rather opposed to the reasons, avowed or not, which prompt the federal, provincial or municipal governments to set up a lottery for their benefit rather than in the interest of the Canadian people.
I said last night that the intent of starting a national, provincial or municipal lottery was an admission of the inability of the present Canadian monetary system to finance the public sector, at a time when demands of citizens are ever increasing.
Mr. Speaker, I unreservedly support the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because I feel that it will not solve the problem and that it will only defer its settlement.
In my opinion, hon. members should be serious and responsible enough to take over the administration of public affairs. It is disgraceful to make annual journeys to New York, France and other countries to obtain the necessary funds to finance the administration of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the governments can no longer tax directly or indirectly nor overtax the Canadian people.

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
The people are overtaxed, their purchasing power is inadequate and the unemployment rate has reached its maximum level. It is more than ever advisable to take our responsibilities and to ask ourselves whether a national lottery can truly improve financial conditions in Canada.
Even if we have nothing against lotteries, we have to ask ourselves whether they can still improve the situation. I feel, Mr. Speaker-
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be allowed one more minute.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to let the hon. member carry on his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think that if it is logical and rejects the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg-North-Centre, not because lotteries are immoral and a bad thing as such, but because they fail to provide an answer to the major problem facing Canada at present, the government would be wise to seriously consider the possibility of making use of the Bank of Canada, which is a tool which should be of use to the Canadian people. In fact, one could resort to the Bank of Canada to finance the public sector, the construction of roads, bridges, schools, and help the provinces.
It is obvious that municipalities and governments both federal and provincials are in a financial state of stagnation. This should prompt us to assume our responsibilities, instead of being satisfied with a makeshift solution, such as lotteries. Let us tackle the real problem and particularly let us make use of the Bank of Canada.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to what the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) just said.
First of all, I must say that I agree with him about the advisability of a bank reform. In fact, many years ago, I was advocating the establishment of banks which would be the counterpart of those which now exist in Europe, under the name of "communal funds" and which are designed to assist municipalities and school boards.

Of course, the hon. member for Lotbiniere would have to show me how that can be carried out but I recognize in principle the merits of the solution he proposes.
However, I might bring some clarification concerning his arguments against lotteries.
By this bill, the government wishes to relinquish exclusive control over lotteries and to stop prohibiting them as it used to, giving the provinces the power to allow charitable organizations especially to conduct lotteries, that is to levy taxes without it being too painful, as the mayor of Montreal is now doing.
As long as our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste fail to reform the monetary system, that could be useful. However, I would remind the hon. member for Lotbiniere that during conventions of the Union of Quebec Municipalities and of the Canadian Federation of Mayors, the Quebec mayors have moved, for a great many years, resolutions requesting the provincial and federal governments to transfer control over lotteries to the provinces.
Naturally, if the federal government gives the provinces control of the lotteries in their territory, it can reserve the right to establish a national lottery, but that is unlikely for the time being. It does not seem to be its desire, but we cannot stop it from doing what we authorize the provinces to do.
I believe that the hon. member for Lotbiniere will admit that it is significant that the mayors of the province of Quebec, for at least 12 to 15 years, promoted the idea that the federal government should leave the control of the lotteries to the provinces, that would operate them for purposes they would deem acceptable.
I remember that, in 1963, when the Canadian Federation of Mayors held its annual conference in Toronto, the mayors of the province of Quebec brought forward this idea which has been discussed now for at least twelve years and which has always been rejected. In 1963, the majority of the Canadian mayors present accepted the proposition of the mayors of Quebec to recommend that the federal government hand over to the provinces control of the lotteries established for charitable or other purposes.
Of course, I do not think it necessary that we discuss the morality or the advisability ol lotteries. It will be each province's responsibility to decide if it can be done.
April 22. 1969

In Montreal, a lottery has been created, even though it was given a structure which is more acceptable than a lottery as such. It can be useful, until such time as our hon. friends of the Ralliement Creditiste manage to reorganize the international monetary system, which will provide us with banks, provincial or municipal, designed to help finance municipalities and school boards.
Is it justified to prevent the federal government from giving control of lotteries to the provinces? My hon. friend must have noted that I did not try to make fun of him and did not even mention the opinions he has expressed on the reorganization of the monetary system, because I support them to the extent that they are feasible.
However, I want to say that if most mayors in Quebec, within the Union of municipalities and the Canadian Federation of Mayors have seen fit during the last 12 years or so to exert pressure on the federal government to bring it to transfer the control of lotteries to the provinces, I think this recommendation should be supported.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us is extremely important. I was surprised and shocked last night to hear the minister give a very inadequate explanation for the proposal to amend the Criminal Code to authorize the federal and provincial governments to establish lotteries if they see fit to do so. Instead of the cavalier way the minister dealt with this matter last evening I should have preferred to hear convincing arguments, if they exist, in support of his proposition. The only explanation the minister gave, I believe, appears at page 7780 of Hansard where he is reported as having said:
It seemed logical to the government that if the criminal law were to be withdrawn from lotteries managed by private organizations, charitable and religious, or by agricultural fairs, an option should also lie with the provincial government itself or with an agent of a provincial government, and, since this was being done, that the criminal law should be totally withdrawn in its application to the federal government in this area as well.
It was most illogical of the minister to talk about lotteries, raffles and binigoes conducted by charitable organizations and then make a transition in his argument and ask the house to legalize the entry by the federal and provincial governments into lotteries. Most of us know that when we buy raffle tickets or take part in various innocent games of chance we are really making contributions to charities.
Criminal Code
Added to our contribution is the extra excitement of knowing that someone, somewhere, will win a prize-very often one he does not need and does not want. But the excitement makes it easier to sell these raffle tickets. While these innocent games of chance cannot be construed as any form of crusade for the carrying out of charitable work, I doubt that we can stop them and I do not think it is wise to try. But saying that we are willing to allow charitable organizations, religious bodies and agricultural fairs to conduct small games of chance is totally different from saying that we will permit lotteries in general-


Mr. Mongrain:: Will the hon. member
permit a question? Is he convinced that the raffles conducted by charitable organizations are legal now? As they are now operated in Canada, do they come within the law?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty well conceded that many of them are not legal. I presume that is why the code is being liberalized, if I may be pardoned for using that word. We want to put a stop to a great deal of misunderstanding that has surrounded this question. The administration of the law affecting games of chance, lotteries and bingoes has been left almost exclusively with the provincial attorneys-general. In many cases they have simply shut their eyes to these small games of chance, especially where they have been convinced that they are being carried on for charitable purposes and that someone is not trying to make a quick profit or get rich quickly. I do not complain about liberalizing the Criminal Code to allow people, within proper limitations, to conduct raffles, bingoes and small games of chance. But saying that we will allow charitable organizations, religious' bodies and agricultural affairs to conduct lotteries and bingoes is a far cry from saying that we must also give the federal and provincial governments the option of entering into lottery schemes.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
What is the purpose in giving provincial governments and the federal government the power to operate lotteries? It is understandable in the case of a charitable organization. Its purpose is to try to get money and to do so on a voluntary basis. These organizations have no other way of raising funds except by donations from people interested in the cause they are seeking to promote. The government

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
is something entirely different. In our democracy the government is the constituted organization which carries on the business of the people. The government has ways of raising money by means of various forms of taxes. The government has access to the fields of taxation set out in the constitution of Canada.
Why does the government need the power to raise money by lotteries? Does it envisage that the provincial governments and the federal government itself are now going to seek to raise part of their revenue by lotteries? Will they endeavour to discharge some of their responsibilities not by taxation based on ability to pay but by means of lotteries, which is raising money on the basis of human credulity?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the hon. member
answer a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As soon as I finish this sentence. If the government is going to be fair, democratic and just, surely it ought to be endeavouring to raise its revenue on the basis of people's ability to pay, not on the basis of selling tickets to the most credulous. The hon. member wanted to ask a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1 am not being critical, Mr. Speaker. 1 am most interested in what the hon. member is saying. I take it he is really against the kind of lottery being run in the city of Montreal. After all, cities are creatures of the jurisdiction of the province so far as their powers are concerned. That is what I think is being legalized here.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. I am suggesting that any level of government has at its disposal certain areas of taxation. If they are not adequate, then we need some readjustment in our constitutional apportionment of tax fields and sources of revenue. To substitute lotteries based on credulity for taxation based on ability to pay is to reverse the whole process of social justice. I do not know whether the minister has visited any of the countries that have state lotteries, but it is an education to do so. If you go to countries operating state lotteries and which receive a considerable portion of their revenue from that source, you will find that a major part of their revenue is coming from the poorest and most desperate people. These people probably have one hope in a million of striking it rich. They are spending money they can ill afford to buy tickets in state lotteries.

Surely that is not the basis on which we ought to be inviting the provinces or the federal government to finance the requirements of this country. If governments in Canada need more revenue, then that revenue ought to be collected from people on the basis of their ability to pay and according to the size of their income. It ought not to be obtained by appealing to the avarice of individuals or holding out hopes to people who have very little chance of improving their lot by buying lottery tickets. This is a complete reversal of the whole idea of fiscal policy in Canada.
There is nothing in the constitution about governments raising revenue by means of lotteries. The constitution sets out the various areas in which the respective levels of government may levy taxes. I admit readily that the municipalities and the provinces, whose responsibilities have grown whereas their access to sources of revenue has not grown, face very serious financial difficulties. To solve these difficulties' we ought to re-allocate the tax fields or reassess the fields of jurisdiction for which the different levels of government are responsible. We are not going to solve our fiscal problems by allowing provinces to embark upon lotteries. In the long run it will be self-defeating. As more and more cities and provinces get into it, they will be taking in each other's washing. They will be selling tickets to each other in order to solve their municipal and provincial problems.


Mr. Turner (Oitawa-Carleton):: It is a pretty unsavoury thought.


Mr. Dinsdale:: It is a pretty dirty wash.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am really surprised that an
administration which has talked so much about the just society, social justice and economic equity should now suggest that it is prepared to permit the governments of Canada, provincial and federal, to replenish their coffers by selling lottery tickets.
The explanation given by the minister for including the federal government is even more nebulous and irrational than the one for including the provinces. The minister said he had included the federal government because he wanted the bill to be symmetrical. That is not a very good reason. I can assure the minister he is more symmetrical than the bill.
The minister says that the government has no present intention of entering this field. I hope hon. members will take a look at the bill we are being asked to pass because not only does it state that the federal government will
April 22, 1969



have the right, if it desires, to establish a lottery but it will be able to do so by Order in Council without any reference to this house. If a provincial government wants to establish a lottery, it will be required to introduce legislation setting out the terms and conditions under which the lottery will be operated, who will be the agents to act for the government, and for what purpose the money will be used. All the details will be subject to debate and discussion. But if the federal government decides to set up a lottery it will not need to refer to parliament at all. It will be done simply by an Order in Council setting forth the terms and conditions, naming some person or group of persons to act for the government, and, presto, a full lottery will be in operation.
When I asked the minister about this last night, he said we will always have the right to deal with the matter by means of a motion of non-confidence in the house. Isn't that a marvellous concession! Parliament will not be permitted to examine any such proposal, amend it in any particular or, as my colleague points out, even discuss the details of what is a tax proposal. All parliament will be allowed to do is vote yes or no on whether it has confidence in the Order in Council which the government has passed. There are totalitarian regimes in the world where the members of the legislative bodies are strictly limited to saying yes or no, but I thought we had not reached that low level in Canada.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
However, the minister is seriously telling us that he thinks it is all right for the federal government, by Order in Council if it so desires, to set up a lottery, to determine by Order in Council the terms and conditions of that lottery, how it will be operated, how much of the money will go into the federal treasury, how much will be paid out in prizes and the purposes for which the funds will be used, and parliament will have nothing to say about it except that it may be provided with an opportunity on an allotted day to move a motion of no confidence. This to me, Mr. Speaker, is preposterous. It is preposterous for a government that has talked so much about participatory democracy, about the need for involvement, about the value of dialogue and consensus, to say now that a plan can be introduced and that hon. members will have no opportunity to discuss it and amend it in any particular. All they will have will be an opportunity to deal with the matter 29180-494
Criminal Code
by a vote of confidence or non-confidence in the government.
I hope that the Liberal members of the house who support the government will take a good look at this provision. I suggest it is a dangerous- precedent. I suggest democracy means more than just having the right periodically to vote yes or no, and that if parliamentary democracy means anything it means playing a part in the process of formulating legislation. We have a process here whereby legislation is discussed on second reading and then sent to a committee where experts can be called, where discussion can be heard, where it can be amended and brought back to the house to go through report stage and third reading. But this is- the thin edge of the wedge. We are sweeping all that aside and saying that by Order in Council so important a thing as a national lottery can be established and parliament will have nothing to say about it until after it has been established. To me this is shocking and scandalous.
When hon. members on the other side of the house look carefully at the implications of the precedent now being established by the Minister of Justice, I think they will join us in asking him to remove these provisions from the bill. I say that the press has a responsibility to tell the people of Canada what is in this legislation, not just the idea that the federal and provincial governments will have the right to set up state lotteries but also that the federal government will have the right to establish a state lottery without reference to parliament, that it will have the right to bypass parliament, that it will have the right to set up machinery to collect possibly millions of dollars and dispose of that money in whatever way it thinks best, to determine how much will be paid out in prizes and how much will be paid into the federal treasury or into whatever aspect of federal expenditures it decides, without referring the matter to parliament. If the Canadian people were made fully aware of this very serious innovation, and I suggest the press has a responsibility to make them aware of it, I believe they would speak out in no uncertain terms and say that this type of legislation ought not to be passed.
I make an appeal, even to those who are in agreement with the government about the advisability of government lotteries, provincial or federal, that if we are going to have such lotteries then at least the federal government should be on the same basis as the provincial governments. If the federal government is going to establish a lottery it

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
should be required to bring in legislation, submit that legislation to the house, have it examined by members of the house and by the appropriate standing committee, and have it dealt with as any other measure would be dealt with. What we are being asked to do here is to give the government a blank cheque, to say to the cabinet, "You can draft any kind of plan you like. You can completely reverse the process of fiscal policy and take from the many and give to the few, and you can. do this without reference to parliament, without parliament having one word to say about it until after you have established the plan and it is in operation." And the only privilege which the Minister of Justice says that we will be allowed then is that on an allotted day we may say we like it or we do not like it. If that is democracy, then we are going down a very dangerous road toward the kind of totalitarianism that is all too common in other parts of the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Is it his opinion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition but under our Standing Orders my understanding is that the only way he can pose a question is if the Minister of Justice has the floor, and the minister has already spoken-unless, of course, there is unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, to assess the amendment now before us, it is important to analyse the reasons that have led the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to move it.
Under our present economic system, the taxpayer is called to depend exclusively on taxes to promote his welfare, and this brings us to make some particular remarks.
In principle, it is abnormal at this time to rely on the exploitation of some passions to obtain additional revenue, for the fact of exploiting the fondness of the public for gambling is, in my opinion, a tax on passion. Several bodies, among which the various religious denominations of this country, make it clear, from a moral standpoint, that we exploit the passion for gambling through lotteries.

In the present economic system, we endeavour by all available means to tax, surtax and over-overtax. However, there may be a more pleasant way of getting money out of the taxpayers' pockets in order to finance the general administration of the country. Therefore, the legalization of lotteries would be based on the reaction of the people.
I agree with the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) because I know that for many years provincial governments, and more particularly that of the province of Quebec, as well as municipalities have been asking that the Criminal Code be amended in order to enable provinces and municipalities to conduct lotteries.
If one agrees with the distinction I have just made, I think that the people would behave in the following way: they would back the legalization of lotteries not because it is good in itself but because in the present system different solutions must be found, and that lotteries may be acceptable.
It is only in view of those considerations that I say I do not entirely agree with the contents of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
This is proof that members of the Rallie-ment creditiste, are not afraid of freely expressing their opinions. In spite of the fact that our leader (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), have already declared themselves in favour of the amendment, none of us remains silent. We exert no control whatsoever on individual freedom and we are all free to express ourselves. Were all the other members as free as we are, especially on the government side, the administration of the country would be healthier, more efficient, and much more representative of the people. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have requested that this bill be split.
One can readily agree to most of the clauses on this bill and still be compelled to vote against it because of some clauses forced upon us.
To come back to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with this particular part of it which tends to delete paragraphs (a) and (b). The first reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Part relating to gaming and betting, it shall be lawful,
(a) for the government of Canada to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in accordance with regulations made by the governor in council and for that purpose, for any person, in accordance with
April 22, 1969

such regulations to do anything described in any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) or subsection (4) of section 179;
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of deleting that paragraph. I cannot see why the central government which has at its disposal far better means than lotteries, or, as the leader of the Ralliement creditiste termed it, the "national barbotte" would legalize gambling. It could use for instance the excellent means of the Bank of Canada to improve the purchasing power of the people. The government has really no need for lotteries. Deleting that paragraph would be perfectly all right and I therefore support that suggestion.
To my mind, this house would enhance its prestige by saying that it does not see why the federal government should assume certain rights in that field. Why? Because the amendment concerning lotteries was brought forth as a result of certain representations. Whose? Certainly not those of the federal government. They must therefore have been made by welfare groups, charitable organizations, various religious groups and public associations.
In fact, those bodies have been calling for the legalization of lotteries for several years. A little later, the municipalities and the provinces, especially that of Quebec have also asked that lotteries be legalized.
No representations have ever been made at the federal government level asking that it conduct and manage lotteries. I therefore do not see why we should accept that paragraph.
On the other hand, I accept paragraph (b) which would also be deleted through this amendment. I agree with it, Mr. Speaker, all the more so because of the present federalist concept which prevails, especially since the present right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has come to power, whereby it seems that the provincial governments are to be considered merely as large municipalities and gigantic benevolent societies.
That is so true, Mr. Speaker, that we notice, as representatives of the people, that the majority of the requests which are made to us as members of parliament, concern various problems to be solved, most of which fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Provinces have become enormous welfare societies within which there is a run1 on social welfare allowances. As a matter of fact, this run has become a real lottery and people are 29180-4941
Criminal Code
vying with one another to get one as soon as possible.
Provincial governments having become, according to the present federalist concept, enormous charitable societies, it is, therefore, almost normal in 'this crazy system in which we live, that we should avail ourselves of the necessary means to help the large and the small welfare societies solve their financial problems in organizing lotteries, in exploiting the passions of the mass and,-I say so again,-the gambling instinct by which people are possessed.
That is why we should recognize the merits of such a solution until it is understood that we should resort to more realistic means'. But, for the time being, we are against the principle of lotteries.
I have been agreeably surprised a moment ago, to hear the hon- member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) say that he accepted some of the Social credit theories. If he could study them in depth, so as to understand them better, we would be even happier.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
It is almost four years now since I came to this house and I keep harping away at that matter.


Mr.   Maite@: I hope there will be an ever increasing number of my colleagues willing to grapple with the Social Credit economic theories and that they will eventually put them in practice, even only as an experiment.
But we shall not adopt that way of thinking until we renounce tax and surtax as the sole means of administering the country. We shall have to find more palatable means to snatch away-not to say steal-the people's money.
I have nothing against that clause, provided paragraph (a) is deleted. Therefore, to a certain extent, I am in favour of the amendment. Nonetheless, I would like my reasons to be examined and understood, and I think that the real problems which led us to discuss lotteries should be taken into consideration.
I would go even further. I wonder why, for instance, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), of the New democratic party, which, as a rule, is in favour of any measure of socialization, does not support state lotteries. I would even go as far as wondering if it would not be possible, in order to make the piill easier to swallow for the taxpayers, to set up not only a voluntary

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
but a compulsory lottery. It could be interesting to collect an additional $2 from each taxpayer. Then, while paying taxes we would have a chance of winndnig $10,000, $100,000, $1,000,000, and this would be a little more pleasant.
I would go a little further than our good friends of the New Democratic party usually do. I would say that if the provincial government was conducting a lottery, it should make it compulsory, otherwise it would not pay.
That is what happened in Montreal when the mayor threatened to resign. Now, as the Montrealers could not take the risk of losing their mayor at a time when the economy was booming, they saw to it that the lottery regain its appeal and a few months later it is again showing a profit. In fact, a lottery is a rather precarious undertaking since we do not know exactly where we are going. This is why I say that if ever a provincial government decides to establish a lottery it would have to make it compulsory.
Mr. Speaker, within the present system, it is more tolerable to offer a small chance to the taxpayer in exchange for his taxes. Even if it is not everybody who wins in a lottery, deep down there is always the hope that someday one may be a winner.
If we are ready to accept such a solution, why not give serious consideration to some other means? One is always ready to look for revenue sources that are contrary to morality and logic, while one neglects to give thought to real remedies, that is to the reform of our present economic system.
That is evidence of the need for Creditiste members in the house and of the importance of the part they are playing here. We beg the house and the people to give consideration to effective ways of correcting our administrative system instead of thinking always of taxes and surtaxes. In other words, it is imperative that human development be promoted, and that is what we have been preaching for many years.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my contribution to this part of our consideration of the amendments to the Criminal Code. As this debate proceeds it becomes more and more strange and more difficult to comprehend or understand. I am supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because I think it gives the

minister a good out from a very unhappy situation.
For the past several days we have found the state promoting gross indecency. As the result of further amendments in respect of the legalization of lotteries, both private and government, we now find the state promoting one of the seven deadly sins, avarice and greed. I do not think there has been any great public demand for this sort of thing, and I am at a loss to understand why the government is taking such a strong and stubborn initiative in respect of these matters.
We might speculate and say that the motivating principle behind these amendments to the code is to find a panacea to overcome the fiscal situation in which the government finds itself. This is not peculiar to the federal level of government; it applies also to other levels of government.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We have noted the strong protests against exorbitant taxation in the press of Ottawa during the past few days. In promoting the vice of avarice and greed by authorizing the state's indulgence in particular in lotteries, I suggest to the minister that he is dealing with a panacea that is a snare and a delusion. There is no substitute in public finance for the principle of fiscal responsibility. I was reading a commentary on the editorial page of the Ottawa Citizen by the editor of that journal, Mr. Christopher Young, who was reviewing the first year of the just society. In that commentary Mr. Young said that when the just society began it was faced with a fiscal crisis of extreme proportions. That was brought on, of course, by another Liberal administration which practised fiscal irresponsibility.
If the government is moving into the area of lotteries and gambling to get itself out of its dilemma, it is operating, of course, in the same never-never world as the compulsive alcoholic who takes just another drink to overcome the hangover from which he is suffering by reason of overindulgence. Obviously, as I have indicated, the government is very stubborn in these matters and is completely committed, it would seem, to the promoting of these aspects of irresponsibility in the Canadian body politic.
The amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gives the government at least half an out. It simply underlines a principle of government fiscal responsibility which makes it possible for the minister,
April 22, 1969

Criminal Code
without losing any face whatsoever, to remove the government from the support of greed and avarice with respect to public finances.
This debate grows more weird, strange and confusing every day. On the one hand we have the state, with respect to gross indecency, explaining its stand on the ground that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, and on the other hand we have the state saying it does have a place in the gambling dens of the nation. There is a fundamental inconsistency here that must considerably disturb the Minister of Justice. I hope the minister will accept the amendment and at least extract himself from the dilemma in which he finds himself with regard to these very basic and important moral issues.
I know the tendency is to criticize anyone who takes a stand on these issues as being antediluvian, a sort of social jingoist, if I may use that word, or someone suffering from what might be called a residual puritanism. These measures are put forward in terms of reform and progress. This is not a progressive step. This is the most retrogressive step that any government could take. Look at history. The problem of gambling is not new among mankind. Indeed, as I have already indicated, it is one of the seven deadly sins. The progress of the human family has been in the reverse direction; as mankind and his society became more enlightened and progressive, the vice of gambling was gradually abolished. One can follow the pattern throughout most of the western world.
It is governments which are confused about fiscal policy and lack social responsibility which have authorized state lotteries. I can refer, of course, to South American republics. Sometimes I think Canada is becoming more like a South American republic every day under this just society. State lotteries are a retrogressive step; they are a step back into a period when governments were less stable and less fiscally responsible. I urge the minister, because he is responsible for putting this bill through the house, to exert the authority that must be his and not take Canada back in the direction of official sponsorship by the state of the vice of gambling.
I could go on at some length on this matter, but I think the point has been made by many speakers. As a final word may I say that perhaps one of the worst aspects of the state's indulgence in the promotion of lotteries and gambling is the blow it strikes at genuine philanthrophy and charity. It permits the
something for nothing philosophy. It militates against the war on poverty, because the people who tend to be caught up in the vicious grip of gambling are those who can least afford to be involved. It undermines the strength of human personality. It promotes greed and avarice, and it is compulsive like alcoholism.
I am sure that if we took a referendum on this matter the minister would find that the vast majority of Canadians are against the state's participation in gambling and lotteries. As the leader of the New Democratic party said just a moment ago, it is being provided for at the national level surreptitiously, so there is a double affront to the people of Canada. Surely the majority of Canadians have some rights and privileges. I hope the Minister of Justice will not carry the charade further and will accept a reasonable amendment which at least removes the state from this sort of promotion of social vice.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague allow a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I am quite at a loss to follow the trend of his reasoning.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can understand that.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: That is why I am asking him the question. The hon. member has told us about the seven deadly sins, among which are greed and avarice, and the state having to take these measures in order to help its fiscal situation. Am I right?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You have it absolutely right.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: How does the hon. member reconcile this train of thought with the fact that in this country, for as long as I can remember, churches of all denominations have organized raffles and bingoes which are, after all, games of pure luck?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the hon. member missed the point of my contribution completely. We cannot deal with the vices of individuals or of organizations, because ours is a pluralistic society. As a member of parliament it is not my obligation to try to urge that the state legislate morality. Morality cannot be legislated. The point I was making was simply that the state should not promote immorality in this bill.

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code


Mr. Gilbert:: Would the hon. member permit another question? Is he aware of the statement yesterday by the Minister of Justice that it was not the intention of the federal government to conduct a lottery? If so, his argument that the government is proposing this amendment as a panacea to counteract the present monetary crisis has little or no strength.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think that one of the main
evils, if I may use that word, of this legislation was pointed out by the Leader of the New Democratic party-


John Napier Turner: There are some formidable members in that party.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -and it is why I am doubly critical of the legislation. It was effectively pointed out by the Leader of the New Democratic party that the federal government is authorized to introduce a national lottery without reference to parliament, surreptitiously, by bureaucratic means, through an Order in Council. This fact intensifies my opposition to the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because much has already been said on lotteries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. membear for Champlain is anxious to ask a question, provided it is the disposition of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to accept it. However, I should like to caution hon. members against too long an extension of this practice on every speech.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, since he referred to the seven deadly sins whether or not, in his mind, the government is vindicating the seven deadly sins. He talked about lust yesterday; today, it is avarice.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am afraid the government will have to reply to that. I cannot speak for the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I may, I should like to speak on lotteries for about five minutes. I think it is one subject that has not really been understood. In fact, I believe much of this bill has not been understood by the general public. The arguments we have heard this afternoon with regard to lotteries strengthen the argument which was made at the beginning of the debate on this bill that it

should have been divided so that those hon. members who are in favour of certain portions but not in favour of others could express themselves in accordance with their conscience and the consciences of their constituents. Thait is the first point.
We have to differentiate between two principles with regard to lotteries. One concerns state control of lotteries operated by clubs and religious groups set up for charitable or religious purposes, which is an entirely different matter from a state controlled lottery. It means that a province may say to such groups through the Attorney General that this type of activity is good because it has a charitable or religious purpose. In regard to state controlled lotteries, I cannot envisage a provincial government needing consent for that because such a lottery would fall within their civil rights jurisdiction.
Here we are dealing with the criminal law and with matters of morals. The lotteries with which the house is concerned were referred to by the minister last night when he endeavoured to answer questions, as well as by my leader and the Leader of the New Democratic party. It was said that in a bill affecting the criminal law the state is given the right to set up a lottery without referring the matter to parliament. In other words, when parliament closes on June 27-and many of us hope it will close then:-from that date to September or October when parliament meets again the government, provided this bill goes through, could pass an Order in Council implementing immediately without reference to parliament the right of the federal government to bring in a federal lottery and by that method collect the taxes of the land. In other words, they could almost start a new budget by lotteries.
In my opinion this is exactly the point which was made this afternoon by the Leader of the New Democratic party and which was made yesterday by the leader of our party. I do not know where all the members of my party stand in that regard because we intend to have a free vote on this bill. We believe in freedom so far as this matter is concerned. However, I can speak for some members of my party. Some of us are against any kind of gambling or lotteries, and I think the last speaker might be put into that category.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He agrees with me, so I have not misunderstood or misquoted him. However, some of us are not against state
April 22, 1969

controlled lotteries which are set up for charitable or religious purposes, or lotteries the proceeds of which go for scientific or medical research or for other purposes in which philanthropists believe. But on this side of the house the majority of the members question the right of the federal government to set up a state controlled lottery which might be used to raise the revenue of the country. This was the argument which was presented this afternoon by the Leader of the New Democratic party, and I am glad that it is catching on to some extent among the members of that party.
So there are two kinds of lotteries: Those that are under state control and which will be exempt from the code, and those that are run by provincial governments. If there are lotteries such as the one run by the city of Montreal, they would have to be legalized by the provinces because the cities are creatures of the provincial legislatures and their jurisdiction comes from a provincial act. In most of our provinces there are city acts which have been passed by the legislatures. So the powers of the cities, their jurisdictions and their constitutions are really under provincial statutes. This is why I rose to speak on this matter. These amendments are pretty complicated and I hope that when they are voted on what I have said will have clarified them.
I have one last thought on this matter. I and other members of my party have great respect for the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, but this is the way I see the argument. I do not have the statistics before me but a lady in Calgary collected many thousands of signatures-although many people do not know what they are signing when such petitions are brought to them. As a result of her research she found that perhaps $90 million is raised in Canada from the class of people to whom reference was made today, namely, those in the low income brackets, and that great amount goes out of the country to the Irish sweepstakes. If it is right to raise money in Canada for a purpose outside Canada, then perhaps it might be right to raise money here for the good of the people who live within our boundaries. We should give some thought to that point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Of the $90 million for the Irish sweepstakes, which I am advised is a private corporation and not all that charitable, only $6 million finds its way back to Canada in prizes. If those figures are correct,
Criminal Code
$84 million goes out of the country. I got these figures from the lady in Calgary who did much research in that regard and who came to see the then minister of justice, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on this subject. There are lotteries in other countries, tickets for which are sold here.
There is a point here about which I have thought for years. As a member of the legal profession and a member of parliament I cannot believe that we should have a law which, as was said in Oliver Twist, is an ass, in other words, a law which cannot be enforced or endorsed. I am sure there is not a member of this house who, on hearing that Mr. Jones had won $150,000, would pick up the telephone and ask the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General to prosecute the man. If a person wins a sweepstake, accepting the winnings is just as illegal as buying the ticket. Yet there are never any prosecutions in such oases.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Having listened to the arguments that have been made on the other side of the house, I can only say that if we really believe the law is as it has been put forward by my distinguished friend we should pick up the telephone as citizens of Canada and ask for the prosecution of people like Mr. Jones who, having bought a ticket on the Irish sweepstakes and won $150,000, has told the newspapers that he is going to buy a new house for his son, educate his daughter, take his wife on her first trip and buy her a fur coat. If the law is as the minister outlined, then in our consciences and in our hearts we should enforce it. If we do not believe that this is the law, then surely we should accept lotteries for charitable, religious and other good purposes. But again I repeat that this is not an endorsement of the kind of lottery about which the minister is talking, namely, state-operated lotteries.
I must be fair with the minister. If the government were to pass an Order in Council to authorize a state lottery for the purpose of raising revenue I assume that the opposition in this house could move a vote of non-confidence in the government on returning from the recess, assuming the Order in Council was passed while parliament was not sitting, which is the way the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) operates in regard to NATO and some other statements he has made.
The trouble with this sort of thing is that although it may be successful with minority

April 22. 1969
Criminal Code
governments, today the Liberals are saying every day that they have a mandate, that they love each other like brothers and sisters and always vote together, that they always think alike. They are the only party in Canada that all think alike. All I can say in this regard is that when we all think alike there is no thinking. Certainly in regard to matters in the code such as we are discussing the Liberal party is the only party that, irrespective ot its members' religious beliefs and consciences-, puts every member into the same pot and declares they all hold the same traditions and spiritual convictions. To me this: is beyond comprehension. I have often wondered what it would be like to be a Liberal for a short time and find out what goes on in these secret caucuses. Then I would discover how they are disciplined.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: You would be surprised!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I sure would. Of course, the hon. member has1 been out of the caucus two or three times, so he has some experience.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is usually very honest with the house but I should like to make it plain that I have never left the federal Liberal caucus-never.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be the last to be offensive to my hon. friend. I only wondered because he did sit for a time as an independent. It seems he must have been a Liberal when the caucus met but an independent in the house. However, I accept his word in this regard.
When we come to vote, I would ask hon. members to consider the two different kinds of lotteries. First, there are those- that are run for state purposes, controlled and operated by the state. Then there is the kind that is run under state control for charitable and religious purposes. Let us also consider those lotteries operated by other countries that are supported within- this country. These are being endorsed every day as a result of nonenforcement of the law.


John Napier Turner: There will be other opportunities.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister is looking forward to the defeat of several amendments that were moved.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am still ready to listen to the golden voice of the hon. member.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his patience, for he will still require a lot of it. However, some arguments have already been set forth and others soon will be. It is extremely important that this be put on the official report of the House of Commons debates.
I have here what I could call "some portable facts" that I found very interesting and that I would like to put on the official report of the House of Commons debates. These facts will make it easier for us to study these amendments.

Slot machines are habitually rigged so that 40 to 80 per cent of all coins that go into the machine are retained by the owner.
After two and a half centuries of experience the British parliament outlawed lotteries in 1828.
The French government, after five years of public lotteries in the 1930's, abandoned the experiment. Only 3i per cent of the money paid by the people for tickets reached the treasury.
Those are facts.
Senator Wiley of Wisconsin, in advising the new state of Alaska not to utilize gambling, said that every dollar raised from such sources means $5 spent on higher police costs, high court costs, higher penitentiary costs, higher relief costs.
The total income of Irish hospitals from the Irish sweepstakes, counting all money now gathered from Canada, the United States, Britain and elsewhere, amounts to about $4 million a year. This is less than 19 per cent of the money paid by those who bought genuine sweepstakes tickets. (The percentage is still smaller when one takes into account the enormous sums spent on counterfeit tickets.)
In Canada:
-Hospitals for acute disease alone require over $100 million annually:
-Hospital maintenance runs over $800 million annually;
-Construction and renovation costs another $100 million annually.
"The painful fact is that Canadian sweepstakes equal to that created by Ireland for 33 years would keep Canadian hospitals going only for four days, and not a cent toward new construction."
That statement appeared in the Financial Post of October 12, 1963.
No other single act could be as demoralizing to Canadian hospitals as turning from dependence on public taxes and enlightened philanthropy to the dubious resources of a lottery.
A royal commission in Britain has rightly said that no other mode of raising public money has proved "so burdensome, so pernicious and so unproductive".
April 22, 1969



Mr. Speaker, these few facts prove that this legislation that we are asked to approve will bring no real assistance to our charitable institutions, our schools and our hospitals. It is unfortunate to go as far as to want to legalize what they have been trying to legalize in other countries for three or even five centuries. They have given it up because it was thought that despite the few advantages that could be derived from lotteries, it would raise problems and increase governmental expenditures in the field of social welfare and the administration of justice.
It is a shame to see that through legislation we will push the public more and more towards vice.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) mentioned that many mayors have asked to conduct municipal lotteries. However, several municipal councils have passed resolutions asking the federal government to find other means of raising money.
I think the government should have the same attitude in respect of these resolutions already proposed by various municipalities. I could have several put on record.
These same municipalities have also suggested that the federal government use the Bank of Canada to take care of their financing.
In fact, the city of Granby, passed three years ago a resolution suggesting that the Bank of Canada be used to make money available to municipalities, school boards and public bodies. However, the federal government failed to act upon that resolution.
Why not start by enacting some measures that would help financially not just a few individuals, but also our municipalities and our school boards.
Whatever lotteries could bring to municipalities, hospitals, school boards or various organizations would be only a drop in the bucket as compared to their needs.
Why try in 1969 to legalize lotteries, when the government of Alberta tried, in 1935 to put money on the market, not paper money, but credit money? And yet, the Prime Minister of the time, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, had promised, after the general elections of 1935, that he would authorize the Alberta government to apply the principles set forth during the election campaign of Mr. William Aberhart. It had been said that the federal government would create no restriction to prevent the government of Alberta
Criminal Code
from applying the principles the citizens of that province had voted for.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The federal government "will take his hands off". Those were the very words of the Prime Minister of the time. However, after the general elections of 1935, the federal government, as well as the Supreme Court, did everything to prevent the Alberta government from applying those principles.
It was not a lottery, nor some kind of hoax or fraud. It was something really serious and scientific. Why, then, was the government of Alberta not given the opportunity to apply those principles, since it was not a bunch of idiots who had been elected? Why were they not given the chance to carry out the wishes of Mr. William Aberhart?
Why pay attention to mayors when they ask that lotteries be put at the service of the provinces? Why not do what they also requested many times? The mayor of Thet-ford Mines, for instance, once laughed at a resolution passed by the Union of Municipalities asking precisely what the Creditistes have been requesting in the house for 30 years, that the Bank of Canada be used to finance public capital, in order to solve our present problems.
If lotteries were legalized, it would be an admission that there is not enough money in circulation. Despite lotteries, there will not be a penny more in circulation. Lotteries will not solve the problems of hospitals and will not replenish the funds of some religious organizations.
The creation of lotteries is an undeniable proof that our present economic system is unsound. It is not by allowing the provinces to legalize vice that we will settle our financial problems.
If we legalize vice to replenish the Treasury, why not apply the same absurd argument and legalize prostitution also? Why not, like other countries, legalize prostitution to bring money into the Treasury, if we must speculate on vice? Why not, for that matter, make money out of all vices? In that manner, we could replenish the Treasury with all the money that vice monopolizes now.
I have on hand several statements from authorized persons who have already given their views on what we are discussing presently.
First, lotteries will contribute to the exploitation of the poor. They will be lured with

April 22, 1869
Criminal Code
illusory promises which will keep them hoping that they might become rich overnight.
The poor will be taken advantage of. They will be deluded into the belief they might get rich. There will be more and more victims.


Mr. Lansel:: This is human nature.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: This is taking advantage of human nature as the hon. member for Beau-harnois (Mr. Laniel) remarked. We are not here to take advantage of the vices of people, but to protect them from them.
If last year we were deluded into believing that electing the Liberal party would help us find a solution to our problems, we soon found out that we had been entertaining illusions in that respect. Today, we want to establish a lottery; it is nothing more than an economic illusion.
At the same time, this is a wrong conception of morality, since we know by experience that wealthy peoples have lost their fortune by indulging in their vice: card playing or some other form of gambling. We have even seen people lose considerable amounts of money betting on cock-fights. Families who had been led to believe in illusory solutions were ruined. The purpose of lotteries is to take advantage of the vices and of the immorality of the people.
I have here another book entitled: Lotteries, the Great Illusion, written by Mr. E. M. Howse, in which he says, and I quote:

All the old arguments, discredited long since by past misery and corruption, are being marshalled again to promote this sordid device for paying our legitimate bills for hospitals, education and honourable philanthropy.

This means that to save hospitals, to help education and religious works, we are reduced to exploiting vice.
I have just said that the proceeds of lotteries could provide the various religious organizations or hospitals with an income that would enable them to operate four days more, according to the figures supplied to us.

In 1963 race track betters in Ontario alone poured into parimutuel machines $153,606,144-a total of $28,506,000 more than they took out in all their winnings . . .
The Irish sweepstakes annually take from Canadians several times what they return in prizes. (Counterfeit tickets take the gullible public for enormous extra amounts) . . .
It was said of the Bourbons of France, before the collapse of the ancien regime, that they forgot

nothing and learned nothing. Proponents of lotteries as a means of supporting hospitals, education or the vast philanthropies of a democratic people, seem to outdo the Bourbons.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)

It is noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that every country resorted to lotteries before going bankrupt. I believe that today, the fact that we want to legalize gambling in Canada is a premonitory sign of bankruptcy.
It is often said that life is a gamble that life is at the mercy of hazard.

"All life's a gamble." This is nonsense. What people mean is that life has risks. But there is a clear distinction between a gamble and merely a risk. Risk is a necessary element in life, an element to be intelligently reduced. One of the astronauts, when asked about the risks that he took, replied that he took no risk. He was right.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are on the point of legalizing risks. This bill which deals mostly with lotteries, threatens to lead the nation to moral decadence for which we will have to pay later.
It is clear that when vice is rampant and legalized, it is soon necessary to check its consequences. And the amount of money that we will have spent for this purpose will be far greater than what the government hopes to put at the disposal of religious organizations and provincial governments by allowing them to conduct lotteries.
If it is wished to help religious organizations, it should be ascertained that they approve of them themselves. As a matter of fact, I have in hand many documents that I do not have time to put on record, but which prove that even religious organizations are opposed to lotteries, because they prefer to respect their principles rather than to fill up their coffers.
A Baptist organization from Ontario and Quebec has passed the following resolution aiming at a special study of the historic background of lotteries:
Considering that approval of such provisions would be of assistance and accessory to a quick development of gambling in Canada;
Considering that lotteries appeal to the poor, who become the victims of an illusory hope regarding the solution of their problems;-
This organization firmly states its opposition to lotteries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, we believe that the paltry sums lotteries might bring to church organizations are not worth
April 22, 1969

endangering morals. Thousands of people who might trust such illusory solutions may gamble the welfare of their children, in the hope of becoming rich overnight. Advertising will sell them on the idea that such lotteries will allow their lifelong dreams to materialize in dazzling colour.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gilies Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the subject of lotteries.
Mr. Speaker, it seems that some people are made to build and others to destroy. I have the feeling that the government to which I belong falls in the category of the builders and I need not indicate who the destroyers are. We have just heard their remarks showing that they are to accept an opinion contrary to theirs. The worst is that they have not enough common sense to listen to those who intend to express their views as strongly as they do.
Some remarks are called for about lotteries, which through the ages have been seen in different lights. At times, their morality or their opportunity has been questioned, but finally their principle has apparently become accepted almost everywhere.
It would not be exaggerated, I think, to maintain that it is human to want sometimes to try one's luck.
Would I be going too far if I said that in life everything is in a way a lottery. Birth as well as success are the results of chance which sometimes changes completely the life of a man. An unexpected event, a road accident, in short a mere nothing can change the course of his life. Very often man's destiny is the product of chance.
Some sceptics will suggest that I fail to recognize the fundamental characteristics of man, namely will and intelligence, which permit him to make his way alone if he wants to. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I recognize these qualities as essential. I only say that sometimes they are not sufficient.
Moreover, for every human being gambling is an obsession. As I said, every man wants to try his luck. Betting is an ordinary thing, whether it be in sports or in speculations.
Ask anyone if from time to time he does not like to try his luck. If he replies no, take his word for it. If he says nothing, you can wonder.
Lotteries have their roots in man's age-old thirst for gambling. The first are reported 29180-4951
Criminal Code
to have existed in ancient Rome under August tus and Nero. I admit that they had quite a simple form at that time: when games of circuses were being held, small tickets were dropped among the crowd; some of them had something written on them, for instance the words: a slave, a horse or an earthen pot, and others were blank. People hurried to pick them up, and those lucky enough to pick up one with an inscription could claim whatever was written on it.
The first organized lottery made its appearance in Italy in the fourteenth century.
Habits have not evolved much since then, Mr. Speaker, for what I have just said is derived from a speech delivered in 1934 by Hon. Athanase David, then Secretary of the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the more times change, the more alike they are. People think today that a lottery would meet a need.
The best thing would be for Canadians to start saving their money or investing it, but some of them feel they can channel it into games of chance. I do not know how we could prevent them from doing so, but in any event millions of dollars are swallowed up by gambling and go abroad whereas they could be put to use in this country for our own people.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will enable our modern society to go one step ahead.
I ask our friends of the Ralliement Credi-tiste to show enough common sense to join the majority of members in endorsing the principle of lotteries.


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am somewhat agreeable to it. I should like to say that we are not opposed to lotteries, in view of the circumstances but if our economic situation rated better, there would be no need for national, provincial, municipal or school barbottes.
Today reference is made to the legalization of lotteries in Canada and in the provinces especially because the provinces, the school boards, the municipalities, and the religious institutions can no longer pay off their tremendous debts.
I would say to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) that the citizens who wish to buy tickets will have to go and

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
borrow the money because there is not one red cent which has not been borrowed free of interest. However, special taxes and rates empoverish the citizens.
Every time a citizen visits those barbottes he will have to borrow money, go into debt and pay back an interest ranging from 10 to 24 per cent to high finance which has the support of the hon. member for Lapointe and other members of this house, the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau) the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and all those who do not want to listen to reason.
Those who do not want to understand that money is but a tool for the use of man, are inhuman. Money is not a tool for the exploitation of man but they are using it as such and they become themselves exploiters of the nation.
This is the picture of the situation. When the hon. member for Lapointe tells us that we are off our rocker, that we want destruction and ruin, I ask him to tell us who has led this system to ruin?


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Henry P. Latulippe: Who has led it to bankruptcy? Is it the Social Credit or this evil system?


Gilles Marceau: I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Compton in his flight of oratory but the hon. member for Lapointe raises the question of privilege.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind my hon. friend that I never said he was out of his mind. I also wish to tell him that I would not go as far as that but if he himself wants to say he is, I do not want to prevent him from doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Marceau: I do not want him to ascribe to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Marceau: -something I did not say.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no point of privilege here.
The hon. member for Compton has the floor and we will listen with pleasure to the remainder of his speech.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, we are really the real builders of the nation. We are those who want to build upon the ruins of the present system, completely worn out by the extravagance of the old parties during many generations.
They were never willing to listen to reason. They never tried to understand the facts of life. They never wanted to recognize facts and apply solutions to enable a nation to develop itself adequately and freely in a country that abounds in resources. There is no lack of abundance nor of production, but of distribution and consumption, on account of the lack of purchasing power. That is one of the reasons why we are establishing barbottes of all kinds.
e (4:50 p.m.)
I apologize for using such a word, Mr. Speaker, but I have to use expressions of that kind in order to interest the hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend from Lapointe, I have here quotations from the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, who was Prime Minister of this country in 1935. He was a good Liberal, a man who had an understanding of business and a sense of responsibility, in short, someone who wanted to do something good for the nation. Unfortunately, those around him would not understand anything, they called him a bluffer and told him all kinds of unseemly things for he had more insight than they had. We have much respect for that illustrious Prime Minister whose opinions were sound and practical.
This is what he said:
In a world where the priority of financial credit is every day more prevalent, it is easy to understand that the present system which grants to private interests the privilege and the monopoly of establishing credit has met and is still meeting with a strong opposition.
Several Liberals, at that time, were in disagreement with their Prime Minister.
For instance, commenting on the results of the general elections vote of October 1935, the new prime minister of the day, William Lyon MacKenzie King made the following statement:
"The election is an endorsement of the liberal view that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen. It is a verdict against a privately owned and controlled central bank, and in favour of a properly constituted national bank to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue considered in terms of public need. There can be no mistaking the demand for a restoration to the government of Canada of control over credit and currency issue."
April 22, 1969

There is no possible misunderstanding: it means asking to entrust to the government the control over credit and over money.
How is it then that the present Liberal government would disagree and refuse to acknowledge what the former prime minister said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I should interrupt the hon. member but may I remind him that we have now under consideration an amendment on the question of lotteries? I wonder whether this question, which to me seems rather limited, would allow the hon. member to criticize the monetary system of Canada.
I daresay he is going far beyond the limits of the motion we are now considering.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, it may be true that I am going beyond the limits of the motion under consideration but on the other hand this motion is surely related to our economic system.
If we have reached the point where we have to establish such lotteries, it is precisely because our economy is topsy-turvy, is day by day more unbalanced, and leads us to request the setting-up of lotteries to enable us to manage our business.
Lotteries are growing into a necessary financial means. I should point out at what the great men of that time, following the Liberal leader, have demonstrated to the government, to the people of Canada, and to the whole world and that is the necessity for reforms. He specifically pointed at them but no one, I believe, in his government ever understood him.
Today, we are claiming the same thing, and we are scorned by the Liberals.
Everything that is good remains good. We want to build our society, not destroy it. But the citizens do not have the required purchasing power to spend on "barbottes" and we are sure that the people who will gamble will have to find the money somewhere. Social welfare will have to step in to provide for the needs of families at the expense of the taxpayers who earn an honest living.
Mr. Speaker, we must point out the problems and what remedial measures should be taken to correct that degrading, disappointing and economically unhealthy situation.
We are not opposed to the present system, and we would not do away with it, for it is the best system in the world. But we do object to the abuses of the capitalistic system.
Criminal Code
And if we, elected by the people, do not assume our responsibilities with a view to correcting the awful abuses which corrupt this fundamentally good system, then we are responsible for them.
I could quote you Winston Churchill, who said that the monetary system-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member starts reading those quotations to the house, I should like to remind him, as 1 mentioned a moment ago, that the house is now dealing with an amendment on lotteries; the hon. member should limit his observations to that matter without discussing, for the benefit of the house and hon. members, the far more general topic of the Canadian monetary system.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for calling me back to order. I may not be completely in order, but there were others who were not strictly in order. Mr. Speaker, you have more sympathy for some people than for others, but I shall comply with your decision.
I would like to know why they want to legalize lotteries, at the federal and the provincial level. Why are we discussing this ambiguous measure? It is supposed to settle the financial problems of the provinces, of the federal government and of the municipalities, burdened with unredeemable debts, which carry tremendous rates of interest. Lotteries are not a healthy proposition, for they cannot settle any problem.
The city of Montreal has not settled its problems, though it has a lottery. As a matter of fact, the federal government had to intervene and it will have to do so for a long time, for that city cannot repay its debts. Moreover, all municipalities are in the same position.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
On the matter of lotteries, we intend to support the amendment, but we will vote against the bill, because it contains several immoral clauses and it has not been divided. The government has refused to divide this bill as asked by the opposition so that we could approve certain things which we find unnecessary, but that we call urgent, because they could be of assistance to a number of institutions in Canada. We would be in favour of lotteries but as there has been unwillingness to divide this bill and to comply with the will of the people and of the opposition, we will vote against this bill and therefore against lotteries.

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
If it is not too late, I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to divide this bill. We could then decide in favour of some provisions and against some others.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot decide in favour of this bill, although we shall vote in favour of the amendment. We feel, however that it makes sense. We want to help religious bodies and school boards wishing to conduct lotteries in order to pay their debts or to promote education, as they have no other means to do so.
Several other organizations could benefit by it.
Those who want a house would need lotteries, because they cannot afford to build a house and borrow money at a 10 per cent interest rate.
Mr. Speaker, due to all the consequences of the present disastrous administration, we have to resort to means that I would term illegal, because I believe lotteries are illegal. Indeed, it is not altogether legal to squeeze money out of the taxpayers by extraordinary means, on a few individuals' instigation in order to obtain the necessary money to finance various institutions.
On that point, Mr. Speaker, we could say many things.
For example, we might refer to the hospitals' financial problems, even though they are being subsidized by the provinces. The latter can no longer meet their obligations towards the hospitals, and the federal government does absolutely nothing to lower the interest rate in order to allow the hospitals to carry on their work.
Charity institutions are in the same boat. They need capital, and they are provided with money at a 10 per cent interest.
Municipalities do the same when urgent works have to be undertaken.
Many things are physically, if not financially possible. We should take the time needed to face facts and to ask ourselves frankly if we can finance all that is physically possible by other means, instead of amending the existing laws which now exploit the people. We are satisfied with talking of something else, wasting our time trying to impose lotteries and all sorts of systems which can in no way solve the problem.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to solve that problem. We are here to find solutions to the various problems of our system, to build, not only to destroy. The present system is most certainly not constructive, since the 10 per
IMr. Latulippe.l
cenit interest rate is destructive. That is robbery, and it has been the downfall of many economic organizations in Canada. Not one member of the Progressive Conservative party-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

The question is on the amendment by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The house will now proceed-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order and invite the attention of the Minister of Justice and those who are acting as house leaders of the other parties. I am sure we all agree with Your Honour's decision to defer the taking of the recorded divisions on this and other amendments, but I wonder whether I may draw attention to the slight problem we are now running into.
If the debate on the other two amendments included in the first eleven is prolonged beyond tonight, hon. members will realize what this will mean. Tomorrow and Thursday we are to have a debate on a defence and external affairs matter. I presume the debate on the Criminal Code may continue on Friday, but one knows that attendance in the house on Friday is not always 100 per cent.
I wonder, therefore, whether there would not be general agreement in the house to take the votes on the matters that have been deferred at nine thirty o'clock tonight, whatever stage we may have reached? In other words, we could take the votes on those amendments that have been disposed of not later than 9.30 p.m. If amendments Nos. 11 and 9 have also been disposed of they could be voted on at that time. I am not trying to cut off the debate on the amendments that my
April 22, 1969

Criminal Code
friends have proposed, No. 11 and No. 9, but perhaps in view of the broad debate we have had in respect of lotteries on amendment No. 10 the debate on the other two might be shortened.
The sum of my remarks is that we take the votes not later than 9.30 o'clock tonight in order that we may clear up what we have disposed of at that time.


John Napier Turner: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion appears satisfactory to us at first blush. I assume that if we are left with two amendments which have not been concluded by 9.30 the hon. member suggests we group those with other amendments that Your Honour intends to group later for a series of votes.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as far as amendment No. 8 is concerned.
With regard to amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, I do not agree for the reason that they refer to the same clauses of the bill.
According to indications you gave at the outset of the debate on bill C-150, those amendments would be debated as far as amendment No. 11. If we voted as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that might indicate a change in the speeches on amendments Nos. 9 and 11.
For the same reasons put forward with regard to amendments Nos. 3 and 4, we could agree to the proposition made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre until we reach amendment No. 8.
t English}


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think the more logical course would be for us to complete the debate on amendments 9 and 11 since amendments1 10 and 11 fit logically together. At that point we should vote on everything. I understand the hon*. member suggests that if at 9.30 this1 evening we have not completed the debate on amendments 9 and 11 we should hold any recorded votes that arise on amendments preceding No. 9 so we will keep everything in neat packages. This should commend itself to Your Honour as providing some protection to those members in the corner of the chamber to my left who moved other amendments or have not had the opportunity to speak on
them, although the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has had this opportunity. I believe there should be a mixture of both common sense and democratic procedure adopted in respect of these votes.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think the last remark of the hon. member who preceded me was not intended as a shot at the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre, who made it very clear that he did not want to interfere with anyone's right to carry on the debate.
I rise mainly to bring out the following point in respect of this point of order, and I hope the hon. members who gave notice of amendments Nos. 9 and 11 will not take umbrage at what I am about to say. I have not taken part in the debate on amendment No. 10 regarding lotteries but I sat here much of yesterday listening to the debate, which I might add was very interesting.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Let me address myself particularly to the amendments of the members of the Creditiste Party and ask them whether this is a fair statement. I have noticed that the debate so far on amendment No. 10 has by no means always been limited to that amendment. Amendment No. 10 deals only with the deletion from the amendments to the Criminal Code of the reference to provincial and federal lotteries. A number of speeches were not at all limited to that question but dealt with the whole question of lotteries private and public, the whole ambit of legislation concerning lotteries, and the whole ambit of the amendments proposed to the Criminal Code concerning lotteries.
I am wondering, therefore, whether the hon. member for Abitibi, whose contribution to the house and whose sincerity I very much respect, and the other members of his party would not agree that having had this kind of discussion, wandering all over the question of lotteries, we could set ourselves a goal of ending the discussion on amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 by 9.30 this evening. If hon. members of the Creditiste party, or two or three of them, were to speak again on amendment No. 9 or 11, they would merely be repeating what they have already said on amendment No. 10. I have great respect for their ingenuity to say it in a different way, but it would in substance be repetition.
This is the fifth day of the report stage of this bill. There are some 40 amendments; I do not recall how many have been declared out of order and what combinations are being

April 22. 1969
Criminal Code
made. But we are only on the ninth one; it is No. 10 but it is really the ninth because we dealt with No. 8 and went on- to No. 10. This raises a pretty horrendous- proposition.
When we reach the amendments with regard to abortion there will be a great deal of honest and sincere feeling on that subject which will require and should have many days of discussion. I repeat that since we have had last evening and this afternoon, and will continue to have some time this evening, on the question of lotteries, and since many speeches dealt with the entire subject rather than being limited to the narrow points of amendment No. 10, which the Chair presumably could have insisted upon but which in its usual wisdom it did not do. I wonder whether we could not agree to end the debate on amendments 9, 10 and 11 by 9.30 this evening.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or before.


David Lewis: Or before, but at least by 9.30, and take the votes on everything up to No. 11. I suggest this merely for the consideration of hon. members.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), we are bent on extending the debate. I want to make it clear that we intend to do so. It is as simple as that. We have no objection to a vote being taken on everything that has been discussed up to now, including the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
However, I think that amendments Nos. 9 and 11 moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) must also be discussed because we still have something to say, even though we may have to repeat in other terms what we already said, as the hon. member for York South remarked. We can express our argument differently, and we will surely use all our cleverness to stretch this debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. We have now completed up to amendment No. 10 and are down to No. 11. I agree with the suggestion with one exception. Do not let us set the hour of 9.30. We should be able to complete this discussion long before that. But let us set a target of 9.30 at the

latest with respect to lotteries. I agree that the debate has been useful, but everybody who has spoken and to whom I have listened has covered the whole subject in reference to all the amendments. They have not particularized.
In making this- suggestion I am not trying to recommend any form of closure, but surely we should not set a target of 9.30. We have had a full discussion and we might, as reasonable people, be able to finish this matter as early as 5.30 or 8.30. I do not know why we have to say 9.30. Perhaps that is because it is near the closing hour. I think the suggestion made is a good one, but we should be able to complete discussion of this- question before 9.30. We should be able to accomplish what we have to accomplish before that time. There are other points in this bill that I know many members want to talk about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could now make the suggestion that at the dinner hour there be consultations among representatives of the parties to see if we can come to some agreement that will meet the wishes of all of us. I think there is a general desire to have some of the- votes tonight, knowing that we cannot have them on Wednesday or Thursday and that there might not be a universal desire to have them on Friday.


John Napier Turner: We will
have our representative there, Mr. Speaker. Naturally we are in favour of any reasonable arrangement -that -can be made, but we want to reserve our position to see where we stand at 9.30.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know that the original decision was that amendments 1 to 11 would be voted on together. That was the official decision arrived at after hearing the views- of all hon. members. I would not think the Chair could change this position- now, unless there is agreement on the part of all hon-. members. I think the suggestion made by the hon-. member for Winnipeg North Centre, -and concurred in by other hon. members-, is probably very valid but that no change should be made to the original decision unless- there is some measure of agreement following the usual consultations among hon. members. I would therefore proceed at this point to put to the house the adjournment proceedings.
April 22, 1969



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are the following: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnmis)-Combines-drugs-price fixing by B.C. pharmacists; the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-National Parks- alteration of land tenure principle.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Aot, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Gérard Laprise: That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting from clause 13 at lines 41 and 42, page 31, the words: "either alone or in conjunction with the government of another province": and by deleting also at lines 44 and 45 the words: "in that province, or in that and such other province"
Mr. Speaker, I moved that amendment to clause 13 of Bill C-150 regarding lotteries in order to clear up some clauses of the bill.
However, I would have preferred to consider first amendment No. 9 whose effect would be to delete clauses 12 and 13 from Bill C-150. If the house had agreed to delete both clauses, the two other amendments on- the same subject would have been unnecessary and we would therefore have avoided a few more hours of discussion on this subject.
For reasons I dio not understand very well but that I accept, (the Chair has steered us
Criminal Code
towards amendments' Nos. 10 and 11 before reverting to amendment No. 9. During the few minutes allotted to me, I shall speak on clause 13 which deals with lotteries.
The amendment I am moving simply aims to correct subparagraph (b) of paragraph (1) of the new clause 179A which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this part relating to gaming and betting, it shall be lawful
(b) for the government of a province, either alone or in conjunction with the government of another province, to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province, or in that and such other province, in accordance with any law enacted by the legislature of that province and for that purpose for any person in accordance with such law to do anything described in any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) or subsection (4) of section 179;
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment I am moving is to delete certain words from this clause, which would now read as follows, and I quote:
-for the government of a province, to conduct and manage a lottery scheme, in accordance with any law enacted by the legislature of that province.
Then, the government of a province could conduct and manage a lottery scheme, as enacted by the amendment I am moving to clause 13 of Bill C-150.
Mr. Speaker, I first moved an amendment to delete clause 13 completely from Bill C-150, as well as clause 12 which deals with the same subject.
If I moved this amendment, it is because I do not know exactly what the law provides with regard to lotteries in Canada.
I am fairly well aware, however, of the manner in which it is applied in the province of Quebec. I believe that the latitude given by the Criminal Code, with regard to this matter, is wide enough to allow any charitable organization or agricultural fair to set up lotteries.
We also know that Mayor Drapeau has succeeded in organizing his own lottery, which seems quite legal to me, since those who have tried to prevent the city of Montreal from operating its lottery did not have much success.
Proceedings may have been held in Superior Courts to have the Montreal lottery declared illegal, but I think it is already too late and that a precedent has been established. Even if one succeeded in proving that the Montreal lottery is illegal, nothing could be done now, because the mayor of

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
Montreal could not be forced to take back the thousands of dollars he has distributed through his lottery, nor could he be forced to return to all those who purchased tickets the two dollars he received from each of them. He could not be forced either to dismiss all employees who run: the lottery.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is nothing we can say against the lotteries now being operated in the province of Quebec and in Canada.
That is one of the reasons why I appprove the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, even if I have not spoken in favour of it. I support the amendment because it simply deletes paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 13 and leaves charitable organizations free to operate lotteries.
So, whether one is for or against clause 13, that will not have much effect on what presently takes place in Canada.
We are asked to amend the Criminal Code in order to legalize lotteries operated by the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipalities, for certain reasons.
But that has been going on for many years, on the pretext, for instance, of helping municipalities to carry out their administrative duties.
We are told that they could help hospitals to meet their obligations.
Those are not valid arguments, in my view, because there are other means, more efficient and much more equitable, of realizing the same objectives.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If the government has yielded to pressures, it was in order to satisfy the numerous requests made by the provinces. To obtain new fields of taxation, the provinces come to Ottawa, not once but two or three times a year.
Municipalities make pilgrimages to their capital city to get from the provincial government greater powers of taxation.
So, faced with reiterated representations from the various public bodies of the provinces, the government which is no longer willing or able to give such powers, now offers them this indirect form of taxing the Canadian citizen.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this method of disguised taxation is unfair because even a

brief study of income tax will show that is entirely different.
Our fiscal system is based on two distinct sources of revenues: taxes on the income of individuals and corporations, and excise tax.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the merits of the first method, but I deny those of the second, because it is used to levy indirect taxes, both on those who are unable to pay and those who can, while the personal income tax could be set up in such a way as to tax only those who can pay.
Mr. Speaker, when I say that I support an income tax system, I mean that we should leave the worker enough take-home pay to allow him to provide a decent living for his family. That is why we urge that the amount of non-taxable income be raised to $5,000 a year, at least, for married persons.
In my opinion, this way of imposing a disguised or voluntary tax is unjust, because it affects even those who cannot afford to pay taxes.
This new method of taxation is unjust and ineffective, because it is too unsteady a source of revenue. It is therefore surely impossible to use that means of taxation. If we want to allow municipalities to use that tax system- Mayor Drapeau of Montreal was in a position to realize it-no municipality will be able to prepare a reasonable budget based on revenues from a lottery.
This is why we cannot rely on receipts from lotteries to replenish municipal funds or help finance hospitals.
In my opinion, the lottery system is not valid, since changes to the tax structure should be made through adequate legislation based on the opinion of tax specialists, as is advocated by the Carter report and other official documents.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to develop a taxation system, I suggest we should proceed in an orthodox way so that people may know exactly where they stand. This is why I wanted clauses 12 and 13 to be deleted or clause 13 to be amended.
Another reason that made me bring this motion forward is that if a province is permitted to set up its own lottery system, another province cannot be denied that right. Can you imagine what would happen if all ten provinces decided to organize lotteries. It would be a mad competitive rush for the citizen's dollar. Provincial governments would be at each other's throats, and so would the inhabitants of the various provinces, who
April 22, 1969

would resent a neighbouring province reaching from across the border for their own resources. This would cause discord within Canada and would be another subject for the governments and citizens in the provinces to wrangle over.
This is why we think that the present act should not become more lenient.
I have another point to draw to the attention of the house. I have listened carefully to every speech since the beginning of this debate on lotteries and nobody raised that point.
I do not wish to venture into any intricacies, Mr. Speaker, but as far as the administration of the province of Quebec is concerned, I know it well enough to be aware of the greediness of some civil servants. Naturally, this does not apply to all of them, but I know that some civil servants are extremely greedy and this may lead to abuses in the administration and the conduct of a provincial lottery.
The same goes for municipalities. According to the Maclean's magazine, a gang of criminals in the United States earned $13,500 and $14,000 unlawfully.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the danger that the underworld could creep in, even without knowledge of a province or a municipality, to take over the giving of prizes.
We remember what happened not long ago at the Montreal Forum. It was discovered that, unknown to the management, the timekeeping system at hockey games had fallen into the hands of quite unscrupulous persons. It is a danger we could face.
The example of a social club which was for a quite worthwhile project is also quoted. The company involved received $100,000 for the administration, in addition to $69,000 in gifts, while the profits for charitable organizations only reached the sum of $30,000 for a 4-year period.
Mr. Speaker, the dangers arising from the administration of such indirect systems of taxation are very serious and the profits will be small in comparison with the money spent by the people.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is unadvisable to bring in any amendment to the section on lotteries. Anyhow, I suggest to the house, in case amendment No. 9 is not carried, to take at least the trouble of considering amendment No. 11 to paragraph (b) now under discussion which would prevent any confusion should the provinces wish to avail themselves
Criminal Code
of that legislation. This in order to avoid disputes within provincial lottery systems.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend at this stage to continue my comments on the matter. I know that the house is already acquainted with many views on the subject and I will be pleased to hear others which will be stated.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Is the
house ready for the question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I think I should speak on the motion of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) to delete clauses 12 and 13 in the omnibus bill. These clauses, as we know, are intended to legalize national as well as provincial lotteries.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to waste the time of the house, but I should like to put forward some arguments in support of the assertions of the hon. member for Abitibi.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the remarks of the hon. member for Abitibi a while ago, give cause for reflection to all members interested in the administration of our country and give us the opportunity to think about the establishment of a national lottery.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest this afternoon the comments of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) and I am pleased to see that he considers several of our proposals as acceptable.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that members will give more and more consideration to these proposals so as to come to some conclusion.
With regard to lotteries, I think the problem is rather complex. It has often been said since this debate started that the acknowledged purpose of a lottery was to supply an additional source of revenues tc the State.
To confirm such statements, I have here an article of La Presse dated January 20, 1968, which some members may have read. It is excellent and was written by Mr. Andre Be-liveau. I quote:
No doubt that the main quality of a lottery is that it can be a source of considerable revenues to the State.
Mr. Speaker, the reporter even thinks it his duty to recognize that ultimately the object of a national lottery is indeed to provide the State with additional revenues

and that to check this outflow of money we should set up a lottery system.
When you want to control a flooding, you build a dam. You do not bring in more water, because it would not make sense.
Because of the outflow of capital, we should have our own lottery system. It would only be one more lottery. Indeed, if a state lottery were set up in Canada, under this omnibus bill introduced by the Minister of Justice and if the provinces and municipalities were to do likewise, would it be illegal for Canadians to participate in foreign lotteries?
If we do not make it illegal for Canadians to take part in foreign lotteries such as the Irish sweepstake for instance, Canadian capital will not only go abroad, but it will also go to the various provinces and the problem of the outflow of Canadian capital will not be solved.
To prevent such an outflow, we should raise barriers, instead of legalizing lotteries,-as we did for instance during the Kennedy round negotiations.
It would be one way, though possibly not the best, of solving the problem. So this is my suggestion: let us be consistent, Mr. Speaker and stop saying we need a state lottery system under the pretence that Canadian capital is going abroad. Such a suggestion does not make sense, it does not hold water.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) has moved this motion tending to delete from the omnibus bill the clauses pertaining to lotteries, because, as any Canadian, I realize there is a flow of Canadian capital going abroad and also that this solution which is considered as sound, is not really effective and is unlikely to settle the problems of the municipalities, of the provinces and of federal government.
It matters little whether we shall set up 10 lotteries or just one, or whether we shall need 25 lotteries to meet our financial requirements. The basic problem goes deeper than that. We have ignored it for too long and, unfortunately, it is overlooked by too many people.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the house that there is nothing wrong with a lottery system. I believe everybody likes an occasional bet. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with that, provided it is done honestly.
However, they should not try to convince us that without a lottery system there can be no public financing or that such a system stops the outflow of Canadian capital. In my
Criminal Code
opinion, those arguments do not wash from the economic point of view and we are just running around in circles.
Therefore, I deem it my duty-and I hope many members will do the same-to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi.
I suggest that in the interest of Canada's economic growth we give it some serious thought.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?

The motion is on amendment No. 11 by Mr. Laprise amending section 13 of Bill C-150. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the vote on this amendment stands deferred.

We will now proceed with consideration of amendment No. 9 by Mr. Laprise.


Gérard Laprise: That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clauses 12 and 13.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal now with amendment No. 9.

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
The purpose of this amendment, as I pointed out earlier, is to delete completely the new provisions concerning federal and provincial lotteries.
As I already explained, I am not against lotteries, but I believe those who wish to set up lotteries at the present time can do so. Certain municipalities, for instance, have done it. I already referred to the city of Montreal -I do not wish to stress the matter any further. We should leave it at that as far as the lotteries are concerned.
I note that certain charity organizations, social clubs, farm associations, agricultural fairs or local exhibitions may conduct bingos etc., in order to help certain sporting clubs. It is relatively easy at the present time, under the provisions of the Criminal Code, to resort to such means to help out organizations in need of additional funds to pursue their work during the year.
We know also that some catholic parishes have from time to time to conduct lotteries to pay the interest of their debts owing to the construction of churches, for instance. I do not know what goes on in protestant parishes, but as far as catholic parishes are concerned, to build a church, money must be borrowed and the church is thus paid for two or three times over. In order to pay the interest, during the year, raffles and parties must be organized to get some assistance and people may be entertained and practise charity at the same time.
Under the provisions of the Criminal Code those kinds of lotteries are legal. The amendment to the Criminal Code serves an altogether different purpose. It aims at enabling provinces, as well as the federal government, if needed, to conduct lotteries in order to finance Administration out of a concealed tax. The coffers must be filled, for not only are the funds inadequate, but the people are fed up; they pay enough taxes of all kinds, and they balk at each new tax which the government slaps on.
It seems as if, through that amendment, the governments of the different provinces as well as the federal government would be allowed to use an act to extend the tax system and turn lotteries into a hidden tax.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the government has some needs, that it has to meet heavy expenses, to finance public works, at the federal as well as provincial levels, but if the government wants it, it can use any means to reinforce its fiscal system.
[Mr. Laprise.l
I think the government should use, as some of my colleagues have suggested earlier today, a truly Canadian institution, namely the Bank of Canada, to finance public administration-I am not speaking of private business-at any level. Then the government would not have to pass regulations or measures such as we see here this evening to secure additional revenue to finance its administration.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to delete from bill C-150 clauses 12 and 13, which deal with lotteries.
Mr. Speaker, we should consider this amendment, as well as amendments 11 and 10. I think they are similar. As we study them, we come to the conclusion that they recommend the status quo with regard to lotteries.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, towards the end of the afternoon I heard the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) accusing us of making the same speeches over and over again.
Mr. Speaker, I was a teacher for 13 years before becoming a member of this house and I learned that when one has to deal with thick-headed people, with blockheads, one has to keep trying relentlessly and repeat oneself several times in order to be well understood. This is why we want to make sure we are well understood and we are stressing our views on bill C-150 generally and particularly on the amendments now before us, aiming to delete clauses 12 and 13 from the bill.
The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), who moved this amendment, has just given us some reasons justifying the deletion of those two clauses.
I have given my views on the subject of lotteries this afternoon when I said that I am not in favour of the establishment of a national lottery, but that considering the present system, we find ourselves nevertheless compelled to accept lotteries in order to replenish the funds of some organizations, and, in particular, those of the provincial governments or municipalities, as it is now being done in Montreal.
Some religious, social and charitable non profit organizations, manage in this way to collect funds to alleviate poverty and misery.
We are still convinced that the principle of lotteries is somewhat immoral, since we are staking on the passion and the taste for
April 22, 1969

gambling of the people. However, I admit that within some limits, one must give way to one's instincts and this gambling spirit which is linked to the desire to make a fast buck.
Therefore, if we want to replenish the public treasury by exploiting that passion, it is not desirable to that extent, but as has been repeated many times-and we take pleasure in doing so-as long as we do not cure that ill and administer the proper remedy, we will have to accept, whether we like it or not, these various palliatives which are an attempt to solve, in a way, the taxation problem.
I do say "settle in some way" since this morning, in the house, my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), pointed out for a fact that lotteries organized in various countries have only succeeded in financing administrative costs of hospitals for three or four days. So, this is not a very interesting solution. If some consideration had been given to other means, we would not be facing such problems now. Should we favour lotteries or not? It is unfortunate that we have not been able to give serious consideration to other solutions to the financial problems.
And, as lotteries that we are asked to legal-lize, are generally held for the purpose of helping the under-privileged and various welfare institutions, the matter is directly related to the human being.
Instead of letting us debate such matters, the government should propose various economic solutions to be applied in order to avoid surtax, to help the poor as well as such organizations whose object is to protect human beings.
If we had to discuss that, it would be more interesting than to be kept in the dark and to have to wonder whether or not it would be advisable to legalize lotteries. It is not funny really to talk about rather unimportant and artificial things which offer no solution to the economic problems.
Heaven knows how often the Creditistes have put the finger on these problems these past years. And they also suggested true solutions. We must unfortunately realize that we are not taken seriously enough. But some day the reason behind the legalization of lotteries will be taken into consideration and it will be realized then that this was a big step forward. In the meantime, we are in the dark.
Where will the money to be invested in lotteries come from? Will it be a new form of credit? Where will the participants find
Criminal Code
the money? The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) said this afternoon that some people are so eager to gamble that they would go as far as borrowing in order to be able to take part in lotteries. Well, then money is not fulfilling its true function which should be to serve the individual and help him achieve personal development.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about lotteries, games of chance and I would like to indicate that I am more interested than usual in the hockey game, tonight, precisely because I have made a few bets.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to make a few comments on the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) because it concerns lotteries, a subject I have been interested in for many years.
It is probably known, Mr. Speaker, that since 1951, I have advocated amendments to the Criminal Code, to legalize lotteries, both at the provincial and federal levels.
The motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi, intends to delete such amendment to the Criminal Code. I am somewhat surprised since, in the past, some of his leagues of the Ralliement Creditiste, in bills they introduced in the house, sort of plagiarized the one I myself proposed in past years for the establishment of a provincial lottery. I must say that I am somewhat disappointed, since it has taken the house more than 10 years of consultations, discussions, hesitations and studies of all kinds to finally arrive at a solution.
I would have been easy several years ago to make that amendment to the Criminal Code, in order to legalize lotteries if there had been less partisanship in this house on the matter, since most Canadians are in favour of it.
I remember having introduced in this house a few years ago a bill, the passage of which had been moved by a member of the New Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated because it was considered during the private members' hour and time ran out before it could be passed by the house. But on that occasion, all the hon. members supported my motion.
I am pleased, even if it is a little late that this house has listened to reason and has decided that the committee on justice and legal affairs should recommend the passage of

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
that legislation for the establishment of provincial lotteries and giving to the federal government the authority to act in that field.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention now that I had made a study and some inquiries myself. I had written to nearly all the Canadian mayors in order to inquire from the councillors as to whether the people of Canada were in favour of lotteries.
Contrary to what many may think, not a single province in Canada objected to the passing of such legislation.
In a province which I do not want to mention and which was the least in favour of the bill 67 per cent of its citizens approved the establishment of provincial lotteries in Canada.
In the province of Quebec, the figure was over 90 per cent while in Ontario it was over 80 per cent. Most people in all the provinces were agreeable to such a measure.
So we are respecting, I think, the will of the Canadian population which is asking us to legalize lotteries. I should like to emphasize that since the leader of the New Democratic party is against the legalization of lotteries. I would invite him to refer to the official report of the house where he will find that his own party had already recommended and moved the passing of that legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the lottery scheme is a must in the context of modern Canada. Anyone knows that every day millions of lottery tickets are sold in Canada. Lotteries have been established all over the world, in Jamaica, Ireland, Britain, New Zealand, Mexico, and so forth. Over 70 countries in the world have set up lottery schemes. I might point out that New Zealand has set up what is called a "Peewee" lottery, designed to provide the federal government with an indirect source of revenue.
In some cases, it is really an indirect tax, paid, all the same, on a voluntary basis. In that country, the lottery scheme has succeeded so well that the government had to increase the amounts of the prizes and reduce the price of tickets because it showed excess revenues.
Those are facts that the hon. members can readily check through relevant statistics.
Concerning that amendment to the omnibus bill, it remains to be seen whether, by means of the legislation, we shall prevent an outflow of millions of Canadian dollars abroad. According to Progressive Conservative quarters, they are estimated at $300 million. They

serve for such purposes as welfare, social assistance or hospitalization, while we are in great need of them here in Canada.
I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) advocate the passage of a legislation depriving Canadian citizens of some benefits they would obtain without any levy of new taxes.
I regret that it took us so long to pass this legislation.
We are aware of one fact: the Mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, has set up what he calls a voluntary tax, which is in fact a lottery. All this shows the hypocrisy of this government. By its indecision and its delays, it incited people to indulge in this hypocrisy, since a lottery has been simply established under the disguise of a voluntary tax. I want to point out the danger of a government which is not willing to meet the needs and the conditions of our time.
Should we have legalized lotteries a long time ago, we would not have induced the people to indulge in hyprocrisy openly and to scorn the law. As far as I am concerned, Mayor Drapeau's lottery is surely a lottery, and under section 179 of the Criminal Code, it is illegal. I do not want to dwell on this subject, because the matter is before the High Courts. Since this matter is sub judice, it would not be proper to discuss it here.
Mr. Speaker, some people across Canada have shown a very great interest in this matter.
Among others, a lady who had no other obligation left all her savings there. She spent several years to get thousands of signatures in favour of this bill. I am referring to Mrs. Mary English, whom I greatly admire. She travelled across Canada for many years to show the benefits that Canadians would derive from a lottery. Of course, she lost her last penny and the shirt off her back. She made great sacrifices and I am glad of this opportunity to pay a tribute to her. When Canadians really take an interest in public matters, they can accomplish great things for the good of Canada. I have looked into her work and this is why I feel I must speak of it.
It would be useless, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate further on the advantages of lottery and on the proposed amendment. I hope that as soon as the bill is passed in Parliament, the provincial governments will be able, through well-concerted measures, to avoid competition; a non-competitive position is what we are after, and this amendment
April 22, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: As for the amendments on firearms-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I remind the hon. member that we are now considering the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) which reads as follows:
-deleting therefrom clauses 12 and 13.
I do not think that the hon. member should now make the speech he will make on motion for third reading.


Georges-J. Valade: 
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the previous speaker state that the Montreal lottery is going well and bringing in tremendous revenues, I wondered whether he was defending his constituents, trying to make political hay or to make a statement on the amendment concerning lotteries.
Back in Montreal after a trip through Western Canada where I had seen Canadian people living more seriously perhaps than in Montreal, I wondered if such measures as the one before us were not meant to turn French Canadians in Quebec into people like those of ancient Rome, who were demanding bread and games. It is rather funny that a member for Montreal of the Quebec National Assembly proposed that Man and His World be made into a gambling casino. The previous speaker was in favour of gambling of this kind. I for one can speak about the seriousness of the people of Vancouver, Saskatoon, Regina, Edmonton that make them live the life we were living ourselves in the old days. We were living a simple country life and those people are reminding us that we should be less interested in gambling and consider the more serious side of things.
If the young people of today protest everyday, as they did at Sir George Williams University and elsewhere, and do such awful things, it is because they have lost confidence

April 22, 1969
Criminal Code
in us, their parents, we who are proposing measures that bring nothing but opportunities for people to have fun.
If there are so few members present here this evening, it is because there is a great hockey game to watch on TV.
I am not against sport nor against moderate gambling, but when I see men as responsible as the administrators of the country, while we are discussing an amendment to the Criminal Code concerning lotteries, when we see-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I would ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the amendment now under study.


Bernard Dumont: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, because I realize that the amendment is less important than the hockey game. Though I am 40, I am touched when I see people who are not more responsible, an attitude they have been taking since the beginning of the debate on the omnibus bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, I would ask the hon. member to be responsible and to discuss the amendment under study.


Bernard Dumont: There is an obvious lack of seriousness in this discussion of such an important amendment intended to prevent lotteries from proliferating in Canada.
In the province of Quebec several school boards and even several parish priests have asked in the past that bingos be allowed so that every parish might survive and many times those bingos were prohibited, preventing by the same token the financing of religious works.
Today the amendment under consideration would make it possible to continue these bingos in our parishes. That is why, as an exception, I would favour the amendment which would authorize lotteries so that certain religious orders might get the income they lack because of our inadequate monetary system.
Because of that illogical system crops are left to rot in the west and now they would have the people of Quebec enjoy ourselves more thanks to lotteries.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that ancient Rome that asked for bread and games is coming back to life in our midst. We have the proof tonight that this very important discussion is not taken seriously mainly because the government will not express its views. The party

in power would rather laugh and try to stop us from telling the truth in this house, the truth that the people in our ridings want us to tell. This is what we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, are doing; we approve this amendment to prevent lotteries from going too far.
An attempt has been made in Montreal to make it a city of pleasure, and I do not agree. I am no better Catholic than the Pope, but I would not like to face overwhelming temptations.
Mr. Speaker, as anybody else, when I see a beautiful woman or a place where one can get lots of fun, I feel tempted. If we have lotteries at will, what will be left of the dignity of Parliament? People will come and play cards behind the curtains, for there are people like me who do not smoke. If all those things are legalized, we shall take it easy with those swarming lotteries.
Personally, I object to that. I have a family of seven children and I do not want them to be subject to the temptation of all sorts of gambling games which will prolify tomorrow across Canada.
The people of Western Canada have shown us how dignified they are; why could we not follow their example?
They have preserved their sense of dignity, as I said earlier, because they have preserved the traditions we used to have in our families and parishes in Quebec. But we no more have them and to show us how little serious the Catholic French-Canadian nation is, gambling is offered to us. That is why I very much regret that we should not have had our say in drafting of this omnibus bill which tends to prevent lotteries from spreading everywhere. This amendment gives me serious second-thoughts. Actually, it is the fate of the next generation which is at stake. They will not endorse the frolics of our generation.
We should stick together in our effort, including the government members who are laughing from behind the curtains. But they refuse to state their opinion and to allow their constituents to realize what they really stand for. This is the moment of truth. The people should know where are the trustworthy. Where is the truth, where are the electoral funds which enable the government members to laugh at us and to approve, placidly and without uttering a word, an unacceptable bill.
A sensible amendment is being discussed and they laugh instead of talking seriously. They try to make fun of those who speak, but
April 22, 1969

the voice of truth comes out in the end and will finally reach the people.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, last week when I dealt with the clause in the omnibus bill concerning homosexuality, I told the minister that this bill included acceptable provisions and how much I regretted to see him force certain members to toe the party line and vote against the bill. In fact the minister has refused since the outset of the debate to accept the proposal put forward by the opposition, namely to divide the bill into four parts, so as to enable members to vote on each part according to their conscience.
Tonight, we have before us an amendment dealing with lotteries. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I must say I am in favour of the provision of the omnibus bill dealing with lotteries. Its object is to legalize something which exists already in practice almost everywhere in Canada, and more particularly in the province of Quebec which I know better, and where lotteries, bingos, serve to finance our recreational activities and charitable organizations. In practice, we want to prevent charitable societies and organizations from being liable to criminal proceedings whenever they wish to raise funds in order to pursue their work. Therefore I am in favour of the lottery bill.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a digression and say that this house has been hearing about lotteries for a long time. I believe that every year since 1958, a bill concerning lotteries was put on the order paper and the sponsor of such a measure was, in most cases, the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) that I wish to congratulate tonight because in fact, he reaps the benefit of his work. The government is asking us to pass a measure designed to legalize lotteries and that is what the member for Sainte-Marie has been asking for since 1958.
Mr. Speaker, lotteries will allow Canadians to keep their money at home. How many Canadians win Irish sweepstake prizes every month or other prices in countries where lotteries are allowed? How many Canadians send money, reported to amount to millions of dollars, to foreign countries, to help their lotteries? The government should legalize lotteries here so that our Canadian money can stay at home and help charitable organizations, for instance, and the provinces to finance recreation which is not a luxury.
Criminal Code
I do not agree with the previous speaker when he claims that we speak of nothing but gain and games, for I say that in a modern society organized recreation is a necessity, and we want lotteries to be legalized so that we can organize recreation.
Mr. Speaker, the bill the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has put before us is excellent, and we should pass it. I would have voted for the legalization of lotteries, but unfortunately I shall have to vote against the bill for, as I said at the beginning the minister did not divide the bill in order that the members might decide, according to their conscience, on abortion, homosexuality, lotteries and firearms. The minister thus creates an illogical situation. I am in favour of lotteries, but I must vote against the omnibus bill because sofne parts of it seem to me unacceptable.
It will be difficult to enforce the provision relating to lotteries, Mr. Speaker. The federal government will allow the provinces to grant lottery licenses. But suppose the province of Quebec decided to use its right to conduct a provincial lottery and that the Attomeys-gen-eral of Ontario or of New Brunswick objected to a lottery being conducted in their province. What would be the position of the taxpayers of the other provinces who would come to Quebec to buy lottery tickets? Those people would come under the ambit of the Criminal Code, since the Attorney-general will be free to conduct or not in his province a lottery that the federal government will have legalized. In my opinion, the minister should, before preparing the provision relating to lotteries', have met the Attorneys-general of the provinces in order to know whether they agree upon that matter. I do not know if the minister was in the house, when I indicated my opposition a while ago. It is possible that the province of Quebec will decide to use the power given to it by the federal government to organize a lottery, and that the Attorneys-General of Ontario or New-Brunswick will refuse to do so in their territory.
I therefore ask the minister to enlighten us on that situation, so that we will know what would be the situation of a taxpayer of another province who would come to Quebec to take advantage of a law accepted by that province, since the federal government has given it the authority to establish a lottery.
That is a problem, Mr. Speaker, which I find difficult to resolve. I hope that when the minister has the opportunity to speak on that question he will agree to provide us with details, so that I will know if the citizens, if

April 22, 1963
Criminal Code
the taxpayers of a province who do not have the right to take part in a lottery, because it will be illegal in their own province, will be punished or if they will be allowed to go and buy tickets' in a province where a lottery is permitted, under the terms of the power given to it by the federal government.
I hope that the minister will help us out by giving details on that point. I also hope that he will tell us if he has discussed that question with the attorneys general of the other provinces' and what conclusions that he will pass on to us the results of such discussions.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I admire the parliamentary leadership of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) who tirelessly participated usefully in this debate, by trying through his amendments to improve this legislation.
The nefarious effects of this bill are being felt already. I wonder if members are aware that a homosexual club has already been opened in Montreal, although the bill has not been passed yet. It is the Gemini I Club, and it has already 4,000 members. Things are moving, Mr. Speaker! If some members want to get a membership card, they should call a gentleman by the name of Bedard, in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, what will be the outcome of this bill when it is passed, if it already worries the people?
It is my duty to take part once again in this debate to support an amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi and which is designed to clarify the situation.
Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) who, considering the innumerable lotteries which seem at first sight prohibited by the Criminal Code, is inclined to favour their legalization.
Mr. Speaker, in our opinion, those are not serious reasons militating in favour of this legislation, even if we do not object to the principle of lotteries, because there is nothing wrong with that. However, we are opposed to the motives for which this government has introduced this bill.
Everyone knows that radio or T.V. "quiz" are common nowadays. Just remember "La poule aux oeufs d'or" and other similar games, which are disguised lotteries.
We could consider all the agricultural fairs, parish bingos, raffles organized by businesses, charitable organizations, churches and schools.
I remember what that wonderful and great

Liberal party organized during the 1965 elections, in order to attract votes.
Mr. Speaker, lotteries are widespread. However, it is interesting to note that under the terms of the Criminal Code, lotteries are forbidden in Canada. In fact, section 179 of the Criminal Code, adopted in 1893, considers lotteries as illegal and even provides for a two-year period of emiprisonment for anyone taking part in the organization or in the management of a lottery.
I think of course, that this legislation is obsolete. However, I cannot believe that one would want to pa* legislation under the pretence that one has lost control over its' field of application. I cannot accept the argument this legislation makes it possible to keep our capital at home while at the same time we are competing with the English lotteries, and with the lotteries of 70 other countries, which allow Canadians to participate in them clandestinely.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think those are valid arguments.
The hon. member for Abitibi was telling us a few moments- ago that bingos and lotteries for the benefit of churches do exist today. Why have we always tolerated such a situation in Canada? The law is not effective. Let us simply delete in paragraph (c) "for a charitable organization", because this is a fact. Lotteries do exist. Unless, of course, we provide more funds for our police forces1 so that they can exercise a stronger control. This situation is difficult to control because lotteries are being practised on a very high scale in Canada, whether it has to do with hockey games, quizzes, or fairs or the bingos I was referring to earlier.
Mr. Speaker, in this regard, I think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi is valid, because it is in line with the present situation. It does not forbid anything more, but it merely allows charitable organizations to continue to benefit from the proceeds of some lotteries that they are allowed to conduct.
Mr. Speaker, the conduct of a lottery in Canada will not solve any financial difficulty; it will only skirt the problems, instead of meeting them head-on.
Governments imagine they will find there a gold mine that will enable them to finance their projects. They are wrong, and if they cling to that idea, it is because they are poor managers. No government should build its budget on a lottery, whether that lottery is
April 22, 1969

federal, provincial or local. The proof of this is all around us.
Nevertheless, it is true, Mr. Speaker, that a lottery, good in itself, is desirable and the present situation leads us to believe that not only could we tolerate this measure but, even pass it, in respect of charitable organizations which have no other financial means.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate to the house that even if the hon. members admit lotteries in principle, whether they are held at the federal or the provincial level, they cannot cast a favourable vote on that point since thereby they would decide in favour of abortion, homosexuality and many other provisions that are unacceptable, at least to us, of the Ralliement Creditiste.
Even while trying to be consistent and recognizing the merit of lotteries, we cannot support such a legislation. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has known for a long time that we cannot support this bill since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) definitely refuses to have it split. He is the only one on the government side to insist on such a procedure.
We are therefore in a rather impossible situation. We can discuss and speak for hours on lotteries. However, when the time to vote will come, even members claiming to be in favour of lotteries will not be able to vote because they will have to vote at the same time for abortion, which is against their principles.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we are once more deluding ourselves with words, with illusions. There is no sense to that. As I said many times, this bill remains a stupid measure, which obliges us to repeat such nonsense for the very simple reason that the debate itself is not logical.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we must be absolutely realistic and ask ourselves whether the legalization of lotteries would be beneficial to the Canadian people and solve financial problems. Then, we should take a stand.
As for us, even if we are puzzled about the value of a state lottery, we are in favour of lotteries organized for charitable purposes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the amendment of Mr. Laprise?

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling in the members I draw to the attention of hon. members that this motion is deferred until we have voted on previous motions numbered 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, and finally 9. Therefore, we will now call in hon. members for the purpose of voting on No. 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I rise briefly on a point of order. We will now be voting on the various amendments you have just identified. I wonder if Your Honour will say something in each case so that people reading Hansard will know what we are voting on. It might also be a good idea for hon. members to know what they are voting on.


Mr. Speaker:: This is precisely the point I had in mind. I thought hon. members might be confused, and therefore before each vote is called the actual motion being voted on will be read to the house for the purpose of the division. Call in the members.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The question is on amendment No. 3 (Mr. Valade) which reads:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 7.
The house divided on amendment No. 3 (Mr. Valade) which was negatived on the
following division:	YEAS
	Messrs:
Alexander	Grills
Asselin	Gundlock
Baldwin	Hales
Bigg	Harkness
Carter	Howe
Dinsdale Dionne Downey Dumont	Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) Lambert (Edmonton
Flemming	West)
Forrestall	Laprise
Fortin	Latulippe
Gauthier	MacEwan
Godin	Maclnnis
783S

April 22, 1989
Division
McCleave
McCutcheon
McGrath
McKinley
Marshall
Mazankowski
Monteith
Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys) Muir (Lisgar) Paproski Peddle
Ricard
Rodrigue
Rondeau
Rynard
Scott
Simpson
Southam
Stanfield
Stewart (Marquette)
Thompson
Valade
Woolliams-48.
Schreyer
Skoberg
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
Sullivan
Thomas (Maisonneuve) Thomson
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) Wahn Walker Watson Weatherhead Whiting Winch
Yanakis-129.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Allmand	Honey
Anderson	Hopkins
Andras	Howard (Okanagan
Badanai	Boundary)
Barrett	Hymmen
Basford	Isabelle
Bechard	Knowles (Winnipeg
Benjamin	North Centre)
Benson	Laflamme
Blair	Laing
Blouin	Lang
Boulanger	Laniel
Breau	Leblanc (Laurier)
Brewin	LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Broadbent	Lefebvre
Brown	Legault
Buchanan	Lessard (LaSalle)
Burton	Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cadieux (Labelle)	Lewis
Cafik	MacDonald (Egmont)
Cantin	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Chappell	MacEachen
Chretien	MacGuigan
Clermont	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Cobbe	Macquarrie
Comtois	McNulty
Corbin	Mahoney
Cote (Richelieu)	Major
Cullen	Marceau
Danson	Marchand (Langelier)
Deachman	Marchand (Kamloops-
Deakon	Cariboo)
Douglas (Assiniboia)	Mather
Douglas (Nanaimo-	Morison
Cowichan-The Islands)	Munro
Dube	Murphy
Emard	Noel
Fairweather	O'Connell
Forget	Orange
Foster	Orlikow
Francis	Osier
Gendron	Pelletier
Gervais	Penner
Gibson	Pilon
Gilbert	Portelance
Gillespie	Pringle
Givens	Prud'homme
Gleave	Reid
Gray	Richardson
Groos	Ritchie
Guay (St. Boniface)	Roberts
Guay (Levis)	Rochon
Guilbault	Rock
Haidasz	Roy (Timmins)
Harding	Ryan
Hellyer 	Saltsman
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Is it the wish of the house that we proceed with the subsequent amendments without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on amendment No. 6 (Mr. Laprise), the text of which is printed at page 914 of Votes and Proceedings for Friday, April 18.

Mr. Laprise, seconded by Mr. Fortin, moved:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting In clause 7 paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 149a.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on
amendment No. 7 (Mr. Woolliams), the text of which is printed at page 918 of Votes and Proceedings of Monday, April 21, as follows:
That Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by inserting in clause 7, after the word "age" on line 9, page 24, the following words:
"except as to bestiality and carnal copulation with a beast".


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	Breau Brown	Harding HarknessThe question is now	on amendment No. 10,	Buchanan	Hellyerthe recorded division	on which was deferred	Cadieux (Labelle)	Honeyearlier this day. The hon. member for Winni-	Cafik Cantin	Hopkins Howard (Okanaganpeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded	Carter	Boundary)by Mr. Lewis, moved the following amend-	Chappell Chretien	Isabelle Laflammement:	Clermont	LaingThat Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal	Cobbe	Lambert (EdmontonCode, the Parole Act,	the Penitentiary Act, the	Comtois	West)Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make cer-	Corbin	Langtain consequential amendments to the Combines	Cote (Richelieu)	LanielInvestigation Act, the	Customs Tariff and the	Deachman	Leblanc (Laurier)National Defence Act,	be amended by deleting	Douglas (Assiniboia)	LeBlanc (Rimouski)from clause 13 thereof paragraph (a) and paragraph	Dube	Lefebvre(b) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section	Emard	Legault179-A of the Criminal Code.	Forget	

April 22. 1969

Lessard (LaSalle)	Reid
Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Ricard
Macdonald (Rosedale)	Richardson
MacEachen	Roberts
MacGuigan	Rochon
Macquarrie	Rock
McCutcheon	Roy (Timmins)
McGrath	Ryan
McKinley	Simpson
McNulty	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Mahoney	Stafford
Major	Stanbury
Marceau	Stewart (Cochrane)
Marchand (Langelier)	Stewart (Okanagan-
Marchand (Kamloops-	Kootenay)
Cariboo)	Sullivan
Marshall	Thomas (Maisonneu\
Mather	Thompson
Morison	Tolmie
Munro	Trudeau
Murphy	Trudel
Noel	Turner (Ottawa-
O'Connell	Carleton)
Orange	Valade
Pelletier	Wahn
Penner	Walker
Pilon	Watson
Portelance	Weatherhead
Pringle	Whiting
Prud'homme	Yanakis-118.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)	
And the Clerk proceeding to announce the result of the vote:


An hon. Member:: Get out.
Another hon. Member. You cannot come in.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that they should neither leave the house nor come into the house during a vote.
I declare the motion lost. There is no difficulty about members coming in between the calling of the vote.


Mr. Monteith:: We had better have the bell.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Perth is asking that the bell be rung. Do hon. members want the bell?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling in the members, I will put the motion.

The question is on amendment No. 11, which was deferred earlier today.


Gérard Laprise: , seconded by Mr. Latulippe:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National 29180-496
Division
Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 13 the words "either alone or in conjunction with the government of another province," on lines 41 and 42 on page 31 and by deleting in clause 13 the words "in that province, or in that and such other province," on lines 44 and 45 on page 31.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is now on amendment No. 9, the recorded division on which was deferred earlier this day.


Gérard Laprise: , seconded by Mr. Gauthier:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National 
Defence Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clauses 12 and 13.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Division


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether at this time the government house leader would indicate when we will resume this debate. Secondly, there might be some disposition in the house not to proceed with the adjournment proceedings tonight. Thirdly, Your Honour might consider advising the Montreal forum that the score at the end of the game in the House of Commons tonight was: Lions, 6; Christians, no score.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We will resume this debate on Friday after the two-day debate on NATO. Perhaps the two hon. members on the "late show" tonight might be agreeable to suspending their questions until Thursday night.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader would permit a question. Would the government consider, in view of the events of the last hour, bringing an electronic voting system into this House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
It being ten minutes before 11 o'clock p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


a
(
*
r.f

Wednesday, April 23, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.