Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house the report of the Chignecto canal commission. This is made up of part one, the commission's findings; part two, the surveys and estimates; part three, the extent and scope of the commission's investigation and also a number of appendices and maps which are applicable to the findings.



CONSTRUCTION CAMPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked me a question regarding the camps. I have been endeavouring to obtain some information on this subject but have not succeeded as yet. By to-morrow I shall be able to give a definite answer.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition):	The minister
states that he has not been able to obtain the necessary information but will give an answer to-morrow. I ask the minister if the matter of holding political meetings in construction camps under the control of the Department of National Defence is not a matter of policy which the minister himself must determine rather than anyone else? Could he not say now that within certain limits it will be permissible to hold meetings in the camps in an orderly and proper manner?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The question has several sides to it and I want to go into the matter very thoroughly. By to-morrow I shall be able to give a definite answer.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HEENAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, during my absence from the house on April 24 the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) made a statement which will be found on page 2513 of Hansard. In referring to myself he said:
In the month of March of that year-

Fuel Oil Charges

That is, 1930-
-he drew $520 sessional indemnity, $700 for expenses, and as Minister of Labour he drew $1,200, making a total of over $2,500 for that one month in 1930.
I have waited for nearly three weeks to try to catch the hon. member in his seat, but I have not been successful. I had hoped to make a correction while the hon. member was present, but I do not think the matter should go any further. I just want to say that that statement is not true.



SILVER COVERAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question asked yesterday of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as head of the Department of External Affairs. I should like to know if any negotiations have been carried on between this government and the President of the United States.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I take it the hon. member is
quite familiar with what transpired at the economic conference held in London and with the agreement which was signed by Canada, the United States and other silver producing countries. The action now being taken by the United States affects its domestic policy and what action may be taken by this country, if, as and when that policy is made effective by legislation, is a matter I cannot anticipate. At the present moment we are following with great care the action which has been taken but obviously I can take no further steps at this time.



FREIGHT RATES ON LUMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Robert James Manion: A few days ago the hon.
member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) asked me if I would obtain a ruling supposedly put out by the board of railway commissioners dealing with freight rates on lumber coming east from British Columbia. I made inquiries and the board informed me by letter that they had issued no such ruling. However, having seen several references in the press to lower rates I made further inquiry of the board and I find that they neglected to inform me that the railways had already filed a reduced rate with the board. In fact, I think that rate was in effect at the time they

told me they had made no ruling. They were technically correct in saying that they had made no ruling but I am at a loss to know why they did not inform me that lower rates had already been put into effect. I did not wish to be accused later of misleading either my hon. friend or the house.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: The
minister will correct me if I am wrong but I understand that under the act the railways have authority to make a rate similar to the water rate without consultation with or application to the board. Technically the board of railway commissioners were correct in the statement they made.


Robert James Manion: The railways have to file
it with the board but they do not have to get a ruling. I did not know of their decision to lower the rates and I did not want to give any misleading information.



FUEL OIL CHARGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenayl:	Mr. Speaker, I should like to
direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) to a matter which has come to my knowledge within the last few days. There are certain companies which supply fuel oil throughout the country, such as the Imperial Oil Limited and the Champlain Oil Products Limited. Last year the Champlain Oil Products Limited, which was then operating under the name of the Lasalle refinery, quoted a price of eight and a half cents per gallon for a winter supply of oil, while the Imperial Oil quoted ten cents per gallon. This year the contracts made by these two companies, the Imperial Oil and the Champlain, are at the same price in each case, 9i cents. I have asked these people if either of these companies would quote a lower price, and I was given to understand that there would not be any lower price than 9i cents. I do not know whether this is a combine or whether there has been a bargain or arrangement made between these two companies to keep up the price at a certain fixed level, but if such a thing as that does obtain I would ask the minister if it is the intention of the present price spreads committee to conduct an investigation into the matter.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The suggestion of the hon. gentleman is obviously that a combine exists. Now the Combines Investigation Act provides a very simple method of inquiry. All that is required is for six citizens, I think it is, who

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Fraser (Cariboo)
feel they have a grievance, to make their complaint, and then a preliminary investigation is held. I would suggest that my hon. friend consider making an application in that way. So far as the committee is concerned I am not in a position to make any statement about its intentions in regard to an investigation at the present moment.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I think that some other business and the prices they charge are being investigated by that committee and I do not think in those cases any complaints were made under the Combines Investigation Act. For instance, the rubber industry is going to be investigated by that committee and the tobacco industry is being investigated, but I do not think any complaints were laid in either case under the Combines Investigation Act.
EMPIRE DEFENCE On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister has any undertaking been given by the Canadian government to the British government with regard generally to an empire defence policy, and particularly with regard to aviation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is no.



HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo) moved the second reading of Bill No. 56 with respect to hospital sweepstakes.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I think under existing conditions I should in the first place express on behalf of the members of the house as well as those outside who are in favour of this measure their appreciation of the action of the Prime Minister in allowing this question to be debated and allowing each member to vote on a measure of this kind according to his own best judgment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh. '


Pierre-François Casgrain: Obedient servants.


John Anderson Fraser: Hon. members on the other side of the house seem to be surprised because they can vote the way they like.


Pierre-François Casgrain: And you too.


John Anderson Fraser: 
Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) and second his motion for the second reading of this bill. In doing so I am not committing myself to the support of any and every sec-
3280	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Gagnon
tion of the bill or precluding the possibility of offering amendments; I merely desire now to approve the principle underlying the proposed legislation which as hon. members know has for its primary object to remove from the criminal code the prohibition of the organization and operation of lotteries in Canada. Nor need I emphasize the fact that a member who on second reading supports a bill is not closing the doors on the possibility of amendment. It is a truism to assert that the bill may be changed and modified before it becomes law. In order therefore to make my position clear, I confine my remarks to the propriety of amending the criminal code in order to legalize lotteries, and now refrain from commenting further on the present bill, which has been so very intelligently explained by the hon. member for Cariboo.
My hon. friend has stated that the people of his native province of British Columbia are in favour of setting up lotteries to help hospitals, as the same state of things now prevails in Ireland. As a matter of fact the mover of the present bill in the Senate, where it has been carried by a substantial majority, also comes from British Columbia.
May I give some reasons which apparently guided my hon. friend from Cariboo when he asked me to move the second reading of this bill? In the province of Quebec where I live, there prevails a strong sentiment in favour of lotteries. Newspapers of all shades of thought are overwhelmingly insistent that if the federal government is reluctant to permit or conduct national lotteries, at least the provinces may be given the power to organize, control or permit the organization and operation of lotteries within their borders. During the last session of the Quebec legislature a bill was passed unanimously by both houses in favour of the setting up of lotteries within the limits of the province. I did not at first intend to read the bill, because I understand that the secretary of the province, Mr. David, has sent to every hon. member of this house a booklet printed in the two official languages and containing: (a) a copy of the bill, (b) copy of the speech delivered by Mr. David when he introduced the bill, and (c) copy of the speech made by Mr. Taschereau, the premier of Quebec. But in view of the fact that at least one hon. member of this house has not deemed it wise to read the bill for reasons which he made known to the newspapers, I think I ought to read the bill, which is as follows:
An act to authorize the organizing of a lottery for educational and public charitable purposes.

His Majesty, with the advice and consent of the legislative council and' of the legislative assembly of Quebec, enacts as follows:
1.	The lieutenant-governor in council may organize a lottery called "Lottery of the province of Quebec," and determine the duration, drawings, conditions and manner thereof.
2.	The proceeds from the lottery, after deducting the amounts fixed for the prizes and those required to pay the expenses of organization and of selling of tickets and the other incidental expenses, as well as the salaries of the officers and employees appointed under section 3, must be employed exclusively for educational or public charitable purposes carried on in the province and designated by the lieutenant-governor in council.
3.	The lieutenant-governor in council may appoint the officers and employees necessary for the carrying out of this act.
The remuneration of such officers and employees shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act (revised statutes, 1925, chapter 10).
4.	The lieutenant-governor in council, pending the collection of the sums derived from the lottery, may authorize the provincial treasurer to advance, out of the consolidated revenue fund, the moneys required to pay the expenses of organization and of selling of tickets and the other incidental expenses, as well as the salaries of the officers and employees appointed under section 3.
A special account of such advances must be kept in the treasury department, and the proceeds from such lottery must be used first for their repayment.
5.	The lieutenant-governor in council may enact, amend or repeal regulations concerning all matters connected with the organization of the lottery, and with the carrying out of this act, not provided for by section 1.
6.	The power given to the lieutenant-governor in council by section 1 shall be exercised only if a lottery of the nature of that contemplated by this act is not prohibited by a statute of the parliament of Canada.
Moreover, such power shall not be exercised if the parliament of Canada authorize the Canadian government to organize a general lottery in the whole of Canada, for purposes similar to those contemplated by the preceding provisions.
7.	The provincial secretary shall be charged with the carrying out of this act.
8.	This act shall come into force on the day of its sanction.
The bill I have just read has been passed unanimously, as I said, by both 'houses of 'the Quebec legislature. An address has also been voted by both houses of the legislature and sent to Ottawa. The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) on April 23 last deposited some documents on the table of the house which are: (1) copy of Bill No. 41 which I have just read, (2) the letter from Mr. David to the Hon. Mr. Cahan, which is as follows:
Dear Sir,
You will please find enclosed copy of a resolution that was passed recently by the house, concerning lotteries in the province of Quebec.	Athanase David,
Secretary for the orovince.

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Gagnon
And (3), resolution relating to Bill No. 41 entitled An Act to authorize the organizing of a lottery for educational and public charitable purposes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have just read Bill No. 41, I do not wish to take time to read the resolution, which as you may surmise is along the same lines as the bill I have just read. It may be amusing to hon. gentlemen opposite that it should happen that one of Mr. Taschereau's opponents is in this house supporting his views with respect to lotteries. However, since the bill I have just read has received the unanimous support of all members of the Quebec legislature irrespective of party affiliations, I think I may go so far as to say without Showing any lack of humility that I am in a measure voicing the public opinion of the province of Quebec, which is certainly strongly in favour of amending the criminal code to legalize lotteries.
However, I shall say frankly that in Quebec we believe this bill does not go far enough. If it is a sound principle to permit the setting up of lotteries to help hospitals, why should it not be as sound and reasonable to organize lotteries to help universities and other educational and charitable institutions? The principle is the same, only the mode of its application varies, and that can be adjusted by the legislature in order to prevent fraud and assure a substantial measure of relief not only to hospitals but also to universities and similar institutions, which are now, on account of the crisis, in dire distress. My hon. friend and desk mate the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette), who as every one knows is not only a good friend of the farmers but also a great friend of the university of Montreal, has already drafted an amendment to this bill which he intends to move if it is accorded second reading. I understand that by his amendment he will try to have this house support the principle that lotteries may be established in some provinces in order to help universities and other educational or charitable institutions. Is it necessary that I should state how strongly I would like to help my own university of Quebec, as well as the hospitals of my home town?
At all events, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that we ought not to let this session conclude without thoroughly studying the principle of lotteries which, as you know, has been carefully investigated by the Senate who, for the last two years, have adopted by a substantial majority bills similar to that now before the house. I do not
know of any group of men in Canada who, more than the members of the Senate, are opposed to extreme measures of a revolutionary or extravagant character. Surely the members of that chamber represent the moderate and respectable views of sound thinking, conservative Canadians who are afraid of revolutionary measures. Do hon. members of this house desire to let the people believe that they possess more wisdom, more common sense and more judgment than the members of the Senate possess?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Onésime Gagnon: I leave the answer to the conscience of each and every member. A lottery is not a modern invention; it is not the creation of a decadent civilization. If you go back into history you will find that lotteries have flourished in almost every European country. I found a book written in 1933 by Mr. Pierre Coste, a Frenchman who is an expert on lotteries; from that book I extracted some notes, which I should like to pass on to the house. Lotteries seem to have originated in Rome under the republic before the Christian era, but took a greater importance with Augustus and the following emperors. At the time, they were part- of the entertainments and festivals organized in the capital of the world.
Lotteries, in the modern sense, are to be found in Italy before the end of the 15th century. Lotteries for the benefit of churches and charity are met with as early as 1519 in Belgium. The first lottery authorized by the state in France took place in 1539. They spread quickly and were used for all kinds of purposes; for the construction of hospitals as early as 1658, just as in Ireland; for Paris fire stations in 1701, for the royal military school in 1757. Then the state stepped in and inaugurated its first official lottery in 1717 to redeem the state paper certificates. From that time on, many state lotteries were organized with great success, and in 1776 a permanent state lottery was established and functioned almost regularly until 1832. During its last thirty years, it produced an annual profit of $3,000,000. Since that time, after temporary exclusion, occasional state lotteries were instituted and this year a state lottery was run with great success and will be renewed next year.
In England, state authorized lotteries appeared as early as 1569. Later the state stepped in for its own benefit and from 1709 to 1824 the government conducted annual
3282	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Gagnon
lotteries by which large sums were raised averaging yearly, between 1793 to 1824, about $1,500,000. Now the only permanent state authorized lottery in England, outside of charitable lotteries, is the Calcutta sweepstake.
Lotteries have been popular in almost all countries, Austria, Holland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and even China. Now several countries have made lotteries a state monopoly, like Italy, Spain and Prussia. The most important lottery in the world is the "Christmas Gordo," at Madrid. In several cases the state owned Italian lottery is supposed to have, brought in as much as $20,000,000 a year.
A few moments ago, when I referred to the Senate, I heard some of my colleagues express a doubtful opinion about the wisdom of that body which gave a substantial majority in favour of the present bill. May I tell them that when I said that in England the state organized lotteries for the benefit of the state I was not colouring the truth at all. I would refer those who are learned in common law to one of the greatest legal minds of all times, Mr. Blackstone, and invite them to read his Commentaries on the Laws of England, volume 4, page 164, where the following will be found:
As state lotteries were for many years found a ready mode for raising the supplies, an act was made, 19 George III, chapter 21, to licence and regulate the keepers of such lottery offices. They were, however, suppressed altogether by 4 George IV, chapter 60.
Then Blackstone continues:
It was found necessary to pass a special act for the protection of those laudable associations generally called art unions, having for their object the promotion of a taste for the fine arts, and accordingly by 9 and 10 Victoria, chapter 48, any voluntary association constituted for the distribution of works of art by lot is to be deemed legal provided it be incorporated by charter or the deed constitu-ing the association and its rules have been given, submitted to and approved of by a committee of the privy council.
Then through you, Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the house: If it is moral and legal in England to conduct lotteries for the benefit of art unions why should it be immoral or against the law to conduct lotteries in Canada for the benefit of hospitals? I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Saturday Review of December 5, 1931:
Millions of dollars are going year after year out of Canada to war veterans in Newfoundland, to hospitals in Ireland, and to the winners of the Calcutta sweepstakes in England.

There is but one argument against sweepstakes or lotteries, and it is that it would encourage gambling. That we admit would be a cogent reason why they should not take place if it were possible to encourage gambling, but, fortunately or unfortunately, gambling has already reached such proportions that to talk of its encouragement is as ridiculous as it would be for a nigger to complain of the effect of the sun upon its complexion, and we venture to suggest that if sweepstakes were legalized not one single man, woman or child would for that reason start gambling for the first time.
. . . Moreover, those who are foremost in opposing the legalization of sweepstakes are by no means above the holdings of "lucky dip," and such like gambles, in their own churches and chapels. . . . For the first time for many years, we have a House of Commons alive to realities and determined to get something done. Leave it for the government to legalize lotteries for certain specific objects. In this way not only will some good work be carried on officially but our country will not appear quite such a fool in the eyes of the world.
It is not only gentlemen from the province of Quebec who support this bill. A few days ago I received a letter from the Good Fellowship Association of Toronto, which reads: Dear Sir:
At a meeting of this association it was decided to send the enclosed circular as to why we think you should support the sweepstake bill coming before parliament. It seems impossible to stop our people from taking a chance; then why not have it run fair and straight under government control and put a stop to the bootlegger who is making himself rich in running illegal sweepstakes. The social service at their meeting yesterday asked you not to pass the sweepstake bill. They evidently do not wish the money kept in this country and prefer sweepstakes being run in the illegal way now being done.
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia are overwhelmingly in favour of the bill and we have had no reports from the other provinces.
Thanking you in anticipation of your kind support.
Yours truly,
C.Q.M.S. J. Carroll,
Secretary.
Enclosed in this letter was a resolution which contains some very good arguments in favour of sweepstakes, and I may say that this association is supposed to include in its membership many distinguished citizens of the province of Ontario. It is true that the royal commission in England reported not very long ago that a revival of lotteries in that country was undesirable. It does not necessarily follow however that we ought to adopt the same policy in Canada. In this connection I need only quote such opinions as I have indicated, the opinion quoted from the Saturday Review and those of gentlemen from the province of Ontario and elsewhere.

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Gagnon
Some fifteen or twenty years ago a great wave of public sentiment or opinion swept the whole of the North American continent against the sale of intoxicating liquors. One could not obtain a single glass of wine without exposing himself either to fine or to imprisonment. Surely no hon. member in this house will seriously contend that the standard of morals in Canada or in the United States was higher during the prohibition regime. I have no hesitation in stating that the regime of prohibition is the regime of hypocrisy, and one which generates abuses and which does not lead to any social or moral regeneration. The Volstead Act, which was accepted in the United States in 1918 was repealed by almost all the states of the American union. I am proud to state that in the Dominion of Canada my native province has initiated a policy of state control of liquor which has been accepted by all the provinces, successively. Hon. gentlemen opposite may claim credit for having initiated the policy. I state however that the idea was one which was accepted in 1893 by a caucus of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, when the Hon. L. J. Pelletier, then secretary of the province and member for Dorchester, and later Postmaster General, moved that a policy of state liquor control be accepted. It has been stated that owing to the opposition of the late Cardinal Taschereau this policy was not put into force in Quebec. Be that as it may, but while the Quebec policy may have had and may still have defects in the mam it has been recognized as being based on a sound principle, and has proved to be beneficial to the state. In our province millions have been derived through the state control of liquor, and that money has been spent to help charitable and educational institutions.
May I now come to an aspect of the matter which to me seems amusing. I refer to that which I term the hypocrisy of the prohibition regime. In 1924 I spent a few weeks at Murray Bay, which is situated in the beautiful county of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain). During that summer I happened to meet the former President Taft who, as hon. members know, was in 1924 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and who for many years during the summer months had been a resident at Murray Bay. One of his secretaries happened to be living in the same hotel as I was, and in the course of conversation directed to a discussion of the evils of the regime of prohibition he stated that when he wanted liquor in Washington he used to call his bootlegger over the
phone. I leave it to your sense of humour, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain whether or not a law legalizing prohibition may be surely and effectively put into force in the United States of America when the secretary to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court simply has to phone his own bootlegger when he wants liquor. I leave it to your good judgment, sir, to determine whether such a regime is better than a regime of state control of liquor such as that now flourishing in all the provinces of Canada.
Now, sir, it seems to me that if lotteries are properly supervised and controlled by the state they could not be more harmful to society than would be the sale of liquor. I shall not go farther in my attempt to establish that the principle of lottery is sound, and that it is not conducive to immoral consequences. If we agree on that proposition how are we to proceed to legalize lotteries? Opinions on this point are divided. I share the views of those people who state that if in Canada we legalize lotteries we ought to keep them under our own control and organize a national lottery, the proceeds of which in a time of emergency should be used for national purposes. Some hon. members, however, believe that we ought to use them to relieve unemployment, and others hold the view that it would be better to use the proceeds from lotteries to help hospitals or other charitable or educational institutions.
May I in this connection refer to what was said by Premier Taschereau of Quebec when he spoke in favour of the bill before the legislature of that province. He said:
I would prefer, as far as I am concerned, that we have one great Canadian lottery under the direction of the Ottawa government. We wish Ottawa to create a national lottery like that in France. That would be better than having a lottery in each province because with provincial lotteries there will be competition betwreen them, and we don't know where that would lead. Whereas if we have a national lottery under the auspices of the federal government, I know that apart from being also honestly conducted, the profits will be divided between the provinces on a population basis to be used for charitable and educational purposes.
I have quoted those words to indicate that the Quebec legislature has studied the problem on a rather high plane. Mr. Taschereau concluded his speech in the Quebec Legislative Assembly in using such words as the following:-
If Canada is unwilling to set up a national sweepstake, let Canada permit the provinces to act as they please.
I know of no reasons why parliament should prevent the provinces from organizing lotteries
3284	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Gagnon
within their own borders, if in fact no national lottery is set up. We must not forget that of whatever mind we may be in our opposition to the principle of the establishment of lotteries, tickets for the English, Irish and foreign lotteries are being sold everywhere in Canada, notwithstanding the provisions in our criminal code. Strange to say, I know an hon. member who sits not very far from me who, I have no doubt, will speak against the present bill and who, nevertheless, has in his pocket a ticket, on the English Derby to be run on June 6, 1934. I respectfully invite him to show his ticket when in a few minutes he rises to oppose my views.
Every year millions of dollars of Canadian money go abroad to relieve foreign institutions. Our money goes to Ireland, to Calcutta and to all places where there are sweepstakes. You cannot, by any arbitrary provision inserted in the criminal code prevent a man purchasing a ticket on the Calcutta or Dublin sweepstakes any more than you could prevent him having a glass of beer or wine under a prohibition regime.
May I now say only a few words with respect to the bill introduced by the hon member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain). I would have no objection to voting for his bill which, in all respects, I prefer to the present one. On the other hand, I think we ought not to divide our forces. We ought to unite on the principle of the present bill which embodies the whole matter of sweepstakes. After the house voted in favour of the principle of provincial sweepstakes we could deal with sympathy with my hon. friend's bill.
At this point I wish to refer to the remarks of Premier Taschereau in the Quebec legislature. He spoke as follows:
At the same time, this article of the criminal code makes an exception, and I wonder who suggested it. It permits Canadians to take part in lotteries held in London under the auspices of the Art Union. It is not permitted to spend one dollar in Canada for a lottery, but millions may be spent, even to the last dollar, for lotteries in London. I have enough national pride to believe that we can do the same thing here.
I merely quote what Mr. Taschereau said in order to show that if an amendment to the criminal code was passed in 1900 permitting lotteries for English art unions it was not because of the Conservatives, because that measure was enacted under the initiative of Hon. Mr. Dandurand, the Liberal leader in the Senate. He voted to legalize sweepstakes in Canada to favour the art unions in England. I refer the house to what Mr. 
Dandurand said in 1932, as reported on page 48 of the Senate Hansard. He said:
The Senate in 1900 passed a bill that restricted lotteries to those of the Art Gallery Association of London and one or two others, which I succeeded in having exempted. Those were the only exceptions from the operation of the criminal code.
If hon. friends opposite during the next elections want to make the people believe that we are not true Canadians because Canada favours the art unions of Great Britain, I hope they will remember that the father of that offspring was the Hon. Mr. Dandurand, the leader of the Liberal party in the Senate.
I think I have said enough to make known the views of my province with respect to lotteries. However, I should like to advance another argument in favour of a national lottery for national purposes. I have as my authority an article by Mr. Richard W. Scott which appeared in the Saturday Night of May 5, 1934. This is entitled "There's Money in State Lotteries." I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to note that we in Quebec are always pleased to be enlightened by Toronto when the occasion arises. The subtitle reads, "Here's an idea we could borrow from France, where state lotteries are used to reduce the national debt, satisfy the urge to gamble and actually promote thrift." The article reads:
The first English state lottery so far as can be ascertained was floated in 1569.
Mr. Scott then proceeds to explain that for almost two hundred years England continued to organize lotteries for the benefit of the state. He states that the usual method was to sell large blocks of tickets to contractors who in turn retailed them to the general public. Mr. Scott then goes on to explain what takes place in France. He says:
France, al-ways the great realist among the nations of the world, recognized very soon after the war that she must raise money in hitherto unheard of quantities and recognized also that even her thrifty people whether for good or evil enjoyed nothing so much as a gamble. France was already in the gambling business to the extent that she licensed gambling casinos, as we do race tracks, and took, again as we do, a "cut" on the total amount bet. What then was more reasonable than to ask her citizens to gamble directly with the government by means of a state lottery? France asked and her citizens accepted the invitation with almost unexpected enthusiasm. The French plan is here described because it seems most probable that if Canada does turn to the lottery in a desperate effort to restore her finances we shall adopt something similar to it.
Marianne is nothing if not practical. Are her people of a saving nature? Then encourage them to save. Do they also want to gamble?

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Mercier (Laurier)
Then combine saving with gambling in such a way that both will serve to give the government an ever-increasing supply of ready cash. It would seem to be impossible to combine these three desiderata but that is exactly what France has done and everyone, at least in that country, is satisfied with the result. In brief, France satisfies the great French appetite for an absolutely safe savings scheme by selling low denominational government bonds and, by linking a lottery chance with each bond, satisfies also the inherent desire of nearly every human to "take a chance."
The essential point of the scheme is that the bonds are charged in the government's accounts as bearing interest of (for example) four per cent, but instead of being paid at this rate bondholders receive only three per cent on their capital and the other one per cent is used as prizes given to holders of bonds which are determined by lot. Thus everyone is pleased. The frugal peasant is given a gilt-edged government bond priced within his slender means, the gambler has a chance to win ease and comfort even while saving his money, while the government finds a ready market for its bonds at an interest rate that is pleasantly low.
However, let us leave France and try to apply the scheme to Canada. Is it workable and if so how would it work? The best way to answer these questions is to set up a concrete example. Let us suppose that the government desires to raise $50,000,000 at a very low rate of interest and decides to apply the French premium-bond plan to a loan of this amount.
Instead of following the old practice of issuing bonds in denominations of $500 and multiples at 41 per cent, most of which would be bought by banks, insurance companies and a few rich individuals, the government would issue one million bonds with a par value of $50 each bearing interest at the rate of three per cent per annum and set aside a further one per cent of the principal each year as prize money.
Each bond would bear a serial number and once each year the government would determine by lot which bonds won prizes. In the case of a $50,000,000 issue, for example, this prize money would amount to $500,000 yearly which might be divided something like this:
1 first prize	 $100,000
1 second prize	 50,000
1 third prize	 25,000
10 fourth prizes at $10,000 each. . .	100,000
100 fifth prizes at $1,000 each	 100,000
100 sixth prizes at $500 each	 50,000
750 seventh prizes at $100 each		75,000
903 prizes total	 $500,000
Such a scheme for dividing the prize money is of course only advanced to show one of the many ways in which it could be done. Tt is not in accordance with the French plan which gives many and smaller prizes, but would, I think, appeal to those of us who now waste thousands a year in a vain effort to capture the capital prize in the Irish sweeps.
I advise hon. members to read that well-written article which is very enlightening on the utilizing of lotteries for the conversion of a national debt. It seems to me that the system used in France could be adapted to
Canada. As has been pointed out by Mr. Scott it combines the gambling and the sane investing elements and is not at all against public morals in the broader sense of the word. I am entirely in favour of the setting up of a national lottery for national purposes but if this principle cannot be accepted by the majority of this house, then I ask hon. members to permit the provinces to act as they see fit within their own limits. It is for these reasons that I gladly support the bill sponsored so cleverly and intelligently by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). The province of Quebec is very happy to support the views of the sympathetic population of the beautiful province of British Columbia.


Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: 
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I wish to state my position with regard to this bill. I cannot vote for it because, after careful study, I believe it to be ultra vires of the parliament of Canada. This parliament has jurisdiction in criminal matters, and we enacted section 236 of the criminal code dealing with lotteries. When we enacted that section dealing with the criminal aspects of the creation and administration of lotteries, so far as provincial lotteries are concerned, I think we exhausted our legislative jurisdiction.
By this bill the parliament of Canada purports to authorize the attorney general of any province to authorize a committee created by himself to organize a sweepstake for the purpose of raising money for the benefit of one or more hospitals within such province. I should like some hon. gentleman to inform me where, under the British North America Act, we acquire jurisdiction over the attorney general of a province which would permit us to authorize him to create a committee to raise money for certain provincial purposes. I do not think that power exists within the four corners of the British North America Act. Section 92 of that act provides:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say

7. The establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
This bill deals with the raising of money for provincial hospitals; as I understand it that is the principle and policy of the bill, yet the raising of money for such hospitals, for their establishment, their maintenance and their management, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislature of the province. Therefore I personally raise my objection to placing upon the statute books of Canada a bill at least four-fifths of which I believe to be beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament.
3290	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Cahan
If I may be permitted to do so I should like to examine section 3 of the bill. This section contains twelve paragraphs, by which we authorize the attorney general of the province to authorize a committee to organize a sweepstake for the purpose of raising provincial funds. Under the authority of the attorney general we authorize this committee to specify the hospital or hospitals to be benefited; to specify the person or persons to whom the moneys to be applied for the benefit of the hospital or hospitals shall be paid; to specify the event or events upon which the winner or winners of the sweepstakes shall be determined; to specify when the sale of tickets may commence and when it must cease; to specify the price of tickets; to specify the form and contents of the tickets; to specify what portion or what amount out of the proceeds of the sale of tickets shall be applied for the benefit of the hospital or hospitals, what portion shall be applied for defraying the expenses of the sweepstake and what portion shall be paid in prizes; to specify how many prizes there shall be, and so on. Certainly all these provisions are beyond the authority of the parliament of Canada when dealing with the raising of funds for a provincial purpose. [DOT]


Mr. GIROUARD:: Do I understand the Secretary of State, (Mr. Cahan) to say that this matter comes within the provincial jurisdiction? If so, is my hon. friend of the opinion that the provincial governments have the right to legalize sweepstakes for charitable purposes?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend will allow me to proceed certainly I will not omit some consideration of that point. It is my personal opinion that the legislature of the province of Quebec, when enacting the measure which was enacted with the unanimous approval of the house of assembly and the legislative council, was acting within its exclusive legislative jurisdiction except for one aspect, namely that by section 236 of the criminal code the parliament of Canada has declared that the organization, maintenance and operation of lotteries is illegal and is a crime except for one or two conditions which are imposed by way of exceptions to that measure. Therefore, if we are to approach the real issue it appears to me that it can be approached only by some such amendment to the criminal code as that proposed by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain).


Pierre-François Casgrain: Thank you.
	IH


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The amendment suggested
by the hon. member if I may be permitted to refer to it, declares that "lotteries organized by the government of a province of Canada for educational or public charitable purposes, under a law of the legislature of such province" shall be excepted from the operation of section 236 of the criminal code. If this were a question of the House of Commons authorizing national lotteries to be created and maintained by the government of Canada for all Canada, I certainly would vote against it. I believe there are very strong objections to the organization and maintenance of national lotteries, and sitting as an hon. member of this chamber and dealing with a national question I am bound to exercise my judgment as to the moral or immoral effects of the proposed legislation. But our ideas of morality differ-as between individuals in this house they differ; as between the people resident in the different sections of the dominion, they differ, and I have always hesitated to enact criminal laws which declare to be criminal certain acts which a large body of people in the country regard as legal, moral and defensible. Therefore I think this bill in a rather clumsy fashion, if I may say so, endeavours to usurp provincial jurisdiction. But with regard to whether this parliament should except from the operation of the criminal code lotteries, organized under the law of a province which was passed unanimously by both houses of the legislature of that province and which are to be carried on directly by the government of the province for two provincial purposes, namely hospitals and education-with regard to that principle may I say that if such a measure should come before this House of Commons, I could not give my vote in favour of declaring that to be criminal which the whole people of the province as represented by the unanimous vote of the legislature, have declared to be desirable and moral. Therefore, on that issue if the bill introduced by the hon. member for Charle-voix-Saguenay comes before the house for decision I think my position is clear. Unless I hear some very strong objection which, up to the present, I have not heard, I think I should have to except the provincial law from the operation of the criminal code, and to that end would vote for the measure. So far as any personal request of mine may have force and effect in this chamber may I state I think it most desirable that an opportunity be given by the house to the consideration of Bill No. 83.

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Carmichael


Pierre-François Casgrain: Would the minister permit me to say that I have already asked the Prime Minister for that permission.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am simply asking that
it be granted, that is all. I am not surprised that the hon. member finds it rather embarrassing to have my support for any suggestion he may make.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I am rather proud.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: At the present time however I am simply speaking for myself and recording my views. I certainly cannot vote for the bill before the house because I consider it to be only so much waste paper and that, as an act of parliament, if the constitutional question were raised, it would prove ineffective and inoperative. If this bill purported to authorize a national lottery to be carried on by the government of Canada I would oppose it, but I am not prepared to declare that which in the opinion of the whole province in which I reside, as indicated by their representatives in both houses of its legislature, is moral and virtuous, is nevertheless criminal, and should be prohibited by the criminal law of this country.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to a discussion of the bill I purpose moving the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman):
That the word "now" be left out, and the words "this day six months" added at the end of the question.
I have listened with interest to the debate thus far, and the opinions put forward by the mover and seconder of the motion for second reading. The mover has said that this bill represents a mild form of gambling, and the seconder assured us that the province of Quebec is very strongly in favour of the measure-


Mr. BOURASSA:: Not all of it, please.


Pierre-François Casgrain: And British Columbia
also.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The statement of
one hon. member was that a very large section of opinion across Canada was back of the bill, and I say that in that statement he is not correct. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) reviewed the history of lotteries in England. I noticed however that he did not follow that history all the way through. He began at the right date, namely in the year 1569, in the days of Queen Elizabeth. She had to have money to pay for her expensive wardrobe and to keep up expenses of a very extravagant court. Having 74726-208
exhausted means of taxation for raising money she resorted to lotteries, and as he intimated lotteries were kept up in England for a period of about two hundred and fifty years. Large sums of money were raised at times to support the national government. But the time came when the people of England, which had then become the United Kingdom of England and Scotland, including Wales, thought that from a national viewpoint it would be better not to have lotteries. In the year 1823 the sale of lottery tickets was made illegal in England, and in 1826 lotteries were finally abolished. So that from 1826 to the present date there have not been lotteries in England. It is true that a few years ago, following the heavy expenditures necessitated by the war, and the desire on the part of some people in the United Kingdom to raise much needed moneys, there was an agitation on the part of a minority again to resort to lotteries in England for purposes of raising money. This suggestion was perhaps put forward because of the situation existing in the Irish Free State where lotteries have been in vogue since 1930. Because of this agitation the question came before the parliament of the United Kingdom. The Britisher with his traditional carefulness and caution did not rush immediately into the establishment of a system of lotteries. He took a sensible course and on June 4, 1932, the British parliament appointed a royal commission composed of twelve members under the chairmanship of Sir Sidney Arthur Taylor Rowlatt. This commission was designated "to inquire into the existing law and the practice thereunder relating to lotteries, betting and gambling and cognate matters and report as to what changes if any were desirable and practicable." This commission held a number of meetings, it called witnesses and took evidence from persons representing the following organizations:	The police of the
metropolis, the chief constables of various cities, the Jockey Club, the National Hunt committee, the National Greyhound Racing Society, the hospitals, the British Charities Association, the Church of Scotland, the Scottish National League Against Betting and Gambling, the Salvation Army, the police courts, the Christian Social Council, the Charity Organization Society, the Post Office, the Scottish and Welsh Football Association, the Gaming Laws Reform Association, the newspapers, the National Bookmakers' Protection Association, the National Sporting League, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Convention of Royal Burghs. Sir Josiah Stamp also appeared before the


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Who got the 75 per
cent?


Archibald M. Carmichael: 
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Sullivan):: It is moved by Mr. Carmichael, seconded by Mr. Speakman, that the motion that this bill be now read a second time be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "this day six months" at the end of the question.
The question is on the amendment.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) :: Mr. Speaker, the opinion I humbly wish to express is my personal opinion only, and I shall be very short. I want to speak in favour of the principle of this bill. It has been said of lotteries that they are a tax on all the fools in creation. That in
3294	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Dupre
my opinion is the best argument to demonstrate that every lottery, if well conducted, must be a success.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech delivered a few moments ago by my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), and I noted what he said on the expense and abuses of lotteries. I do not deny his statements but it must be remembered that, all told, from fifteen to twenty countries already have lotteries which seem to be working satisfactorily. May I remind my hon. friend from Kindersley that the profit from the French lottery, for instance, was more than $140,000,000 in one year. Sweden has a lottery, so have Panama and Mexico. Spain has a $25,000,000 lottery. We find lotteries also in Cuba, Belgium, and Italy, where the lottery brings in a profit amounting to $40,000,000. Germany recently organized a lottery to take care of unemployment. There are state lotteries also in Czechoslovakia, Turkey and a few other countries.
Coming to the British Empire, we have the lotteries in the Irish Free State and in India. Once lotteries were permitted in England, and even now under a new law they are tolerated on a small scale, although with many restrictions. We find lotteries in New South Wales, whose one hundredth lottery was drawn recently with ' a total profit of $7,500,000. Australia has its state lotteries which have enabled the Australian government to provide baby clinics, child welfare centres, and dental services for children and the unemployed.
Gambling in lotteries does not differ very much in principle from gambling on the stock exchange or in cards or on races and as Senator Molloy said humorously a few weeks ago in regard to this bill: "This is a poor man's bill. It gives him his stock exchange, his grain exchange and his mining exchange."
I do not wish to comment on the valuable opinion of such a distinguished jurist as my colleague the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). What he has said must, I think, be considered very carefully. Could we not though find a way out of the problem by abolishing the restriction in our criminal code in regard to the subject of lotteries?
Should we refuse any province the right to raise new revenues to take care of its hospitals or charitable institutions when that province unanimously makes such an appeal? I think such a request should be granted and the benefit should be extended also to uni-
versities and other educational establishments. If, as the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) said a moment ago, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) comes along with an amendment to include universities and other educational establishments, I shall be very glad to vote in favour of it.
By clauses 4 and 5 of this bill the operation of sweepstakes would be limited within the province which decides to conduct such sweepstakes.
May I congratulate the mover of the bill, the hon. member for Carihoo (Mr. Fraser) and the seconder, the hon. member for Dorchester?
I suggest that lotteries might be considered as a special measure which can be justified by the abnormal conditions through which we are passing?
May I venture one suggestion: Let us try this for one year only?
Like the premier of Quebec and the hon. member for Dorchester I would prefer a federal lottery by drawing of lots. We should have one federal lottery and not a multiplicity of provincial ones. For instance, the federal government might allow a lottery to take place once or twice a year, the profits to be retained in part by the federal exchequer, the other part to be distributed among the provinces on a per capita basis and the provinces to distribute those moneys as they deem advisable. I do not think many provinces will refuse their share on the ground that lotteries are more or less immoral. If this bill does not pass-I do not know what is ahead of us-might not the following suggestion be considered?
(a)	A referendum on lotteries to be held this summer by the federal government.
If the referendum, as I surmise it will be, is favourable to lotteries:
(b)	A national lottery by drawing of lots, not depending upon the result of races here or abroad could be held by the federal government in the fall-and if it is successful, a second lottery could be held next winter or next spring-the proceeds to be divided among the federal and provincial governments. As a consequence the federal and provincial coffers would be all the richer by an amount varying between $20,000,000 and $40,000,000.
To sum up, I am in favour of lotteries:
1.	To keep our money in this country and to cause millions of dollars from other countries to come into Canada.

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Rinjret
2.	To take to a certain extent the place of taxation. I should call a lottery the best mode of taxation. It is a voluntary or self-imposed taxation.
3.	Because it would stop this general disobedience to our laws, something which to my mind is depressing and dangerous.
4.	As a temporary measure and an expedient in these abnormal times to bring millions into the federal and provincial exchequers.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to express the hope that the stand taken by the Secretary of State (Mr. Ca'han), although very commendable, I am sure, from many angles, will not confuse the issue before the house. We are dealing with a bill to permit the establishment of lotteries. This measure may not be perfect; it may stand amending when we reach the committee stage, but the government has very readily given the house an opportunity to pronounce not so much on every detail of this bill as on the question of lotteries in general.
My first word is to express the 'hope that when we vote on the amendment and the second reading of the bill we shall vote for or against the establishment of lotteries, leaving to the committee stage the objections raised by the Secretary of State. He has not convinced me that the bill is not proper. In the first place, it does not deal so much with the maintenance of hospitals as with authorizing provinces to establish lotteries. They might do this for another purpose. When we reach the hospital clause, we might change that altogether, but I repeat that the main purpose of t'he 'bill is to authorize the establishment of lotteries and this should not be lost sight of. The Secretary of State has also sought to show that there might be a conflict with the criminal code. The bill as drafted and passed in the Senate covers that feature of the matter. In clause 2 there is a reservation v^hioh is quite clear; it states:
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other act.
Then we have clause 8 which states:
The provisions of the criminal code respecting betting, pool selling, bookmaking and lotteries, shall not apply to any hospital sweepstakes authorized under the provisions of this act.
Therefore it seems as if the objections had been foreseen by the Senate and had been dealt with, but even if they had not been dealt with properly, may I express the hope that these objections do not confuse the issue when we have to vote on the amendment and
on the second reading, and that the house shall register its vote for or against lotteries' which is the main purpose of setting this day for a discussion of the bill at present before us.
We have already had exhaustive speeches on the bill by the proposer and seconder and other members, and many figures have been quoted. I do not intend to set a rule for the 'house but I shall set a rule for myself and be content with presenting in a few sentences the arguments which I think are in favour of a measure of this kind.
In the first place I do not see that there is anything immoral about a lottery. Everyone is free to dispose of his money as he sees fit. It has been argued that life itself is a vast gamble. Whether you invest your money in trade or the stock exchange or any other avenue of activity you certainly take a chance, and I do not think there is anything wrong in principle in placing a little money in a lottery. I will go further. In years of depression such as we are going through there is something to be said in favour of allowing a poor fellow to introduce into his life that element of hope and ambition that comes to him by placing a little money in a lottery. Naturally it is only a small proportion who will win, but there is something, I say it very seriously, in having everyone enjoy for a little while the hope of gaining something. If they do not succeed this time they may try again. We should not seek to establish life and social activity on the basis of everyone getting so much a week and having no hope of improving on that. I have stated my views on several proposals of this kind since I have been in the house. I think it is very much like betting or things of that kind; the individual should have the enjoyment of his money, even being free to lose it if he chooses, provided he is not defrauded and provided that the contract, whether it be a lottery or something else, is properly controlled by the state.
It has been shown that many countries have established lotteries; in fact the debate has been in part an interesting course in history, from Egypt and ancient Palestine up to this day. The substance of what we have heard this afternoon is that there is certainly nothing wrong with lotteries so far as the principle is concerned, because quite a large number of countries have tried it. Some have kept it, others have not; but the fact is that lotteries have been experimented with by so many countries in so many different times in our history that we may well argue that there is nothing wrong about the idea and that it is worth trying. At the
3296	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Rinjret
present time we have them in the British Empire, as has been stated by former speakers, especially in Ireland. We all know that, because there is hardly a member of this house who has not got a friend with a ticket on one or two of these British Empire lotteries in his pocket; the Irish and the Calcutta sweepstakes have been very popular. So far as I am concerned I have none and do not intend to buy any until it is legalized; I do not want to be misunderstood as to that. But the fact that these lotteries exist in certain countries is certainly an argument in favour of them.
I hasten to the last part of my speech to make good my promise at the beginning. There are two special reasons which should favour the establishment of lotteries at the present time. The first is the great need of money by all our public corporations. Taxes have reached the limit; you cannot indefinitely increase income or excise tax or any other tax of the kind. I have been through a municipal experiment which convinced me that money is needed in many fields of public activity, yet we do not know where to get it. There is not the least doubt in my mind that there are still many people in this country who evade taxes in one way and *another; the character of their business permits them to do that, it being such that the government cannot lay their hands on it. 'They are the gamblers, and the very people who will buy lottery tickets and buy them in large quantity.
Then as has been said, the purchase of lottery tickets is a voluntary contribution. The contention that part of the money is lost and does not reach the desired end is in my opinion not a valid argument. That condition you have everywhere where money is collected for charitable purposes. Even under the system of the federation of charities, which has become very popular in our large cities, a percentage of the amount collected must be set aside for the collection and administration of the funds so obtained. And what about the euchres, concerts, banquets, all these activities for so-called charitable purposes, in which sometimes seventy-five per cent of the receipts is spent on the very evening they take place? You cannot hold any of these things without most of the money derived being spent on the very evening, and perhaps only fifteen or twenty per cent remaining for the original purpose; yet we subscribe largely to them. With a lottery, even if you have to set aside a considerable percentage for prizes and cost of administration,
[Mr. Riiifret. I
a large proportion will be left to go to the institutions to be benefited, as has been shown in the countries that have made the experiment.
Then there is another argument, perhaps an even stronger one. It is the one that was advanced in favour of doing away with prohibition-the fact that prohibition-in this case of lotteries-is not being obeyed by the public. It is not popular, and as has been said, you cannot enforce a law against popular opinion. I am told on reliable authority that millions of dollars go from the several provinces of Canada, I think from all provinces, for the purchase of tickets in lotteries held in other countries,-the Irish sweepstakes, the Calcutta sweepstakes, and the national lottery in France when it is in operation. So that the question for us to decide to-day is not so much whether we are in favour of lotteries; for we have the lotteries with us. They may be illicit, but the public authorities are powerless to prevent people from patronizing them. So what we have to decide to-day is whether we want a Canadian lottery, or the continued support in Canada of the Irish or Calcutta lotteries. That is my viewpoint. That is one of the reasons why I shall vote against the six month's hoist and for the second reading of the bill.
I just want to add this. I might have preferred a national lottery, as mentioned by the Hon. Mr. Taschereau in his speech and by several hon. members here to-day. It would probably avoid the objections raised by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). But as we realize that several provinces probably are not as much in favour of such a lottery as others, I think it would be more consistent with the spirit of confederation to pass a bill which would allow every province to deal with the matter as it wishes. If Quebec wants a lottery, under this bill it could establish one. If British Columbia wants a lottery it could establish one. If some other province does not want a lottery it does not have to follow suit. For all these reasons-and I will not extend my remarks; I promised they would be brief'-I shall vote against the amendment and in favour of the second reading. I hope that notwithstanding the several objections raised by hon. members, including the Secretary of State, the issue will not be confused in the minds of hon. members. Let us vote on the second reading for or against the establishment of lotteries; then if the bill passes, as I hope it will, we can amend it in committee and make it as good as possible.

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Mullins


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take only a short time, but I want to put myself on record as being absolutely opposed to this bill. We have had enough gambling all over Canada in the past, and to me it is not right to get money in the way proposed by this bill.
I am a life governor of a hospital; we do not want any such money included with our donations. I do not care whether the proposition comes from Louisiana, Quebec, Italy, Germany, or any other place; it is not legitimate money, and God knows that Canada has had enough gambling. We have seen gambling on the stock exchanges, that is what put the country in the position we find it in to-day.
A short time ago I went into the northern part of my constituency to visit some of my old friends who operate small farms there. They have made homes for themselves away from the temptations of the stock ticker and out of reach of the lures of high pressure salesmen of watered stocks and lottery tickets. There I discovered a people who have found economic security, who have time to read good books and to meditate on what they see in the daily newspapers. It needs people of that kind to build a country, and you will not get anywhere by gambling. It is known that many cases of want and poverty throughout this country have been caused by speculation, by people wanting to get rich too quickly. I am sony that I must take issue with my hon. friends, but I have decided that money obtained by gambling in stocks or the buying of lottery tickets is not good money. I know we have sent millions of dollars to New York and other places, but that does not make it right. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has sent me a note; some time I will talk to him about the subject to which he refers.
I am absolutely opposed to this bill; I cannot support it or anything like it that will affect my constituency and my province and country. In this letter from the Good Fellowship Association of Toronto I see no reference to the province of Manitoba, for which I am thankful. The signer of that letter is an old pioneer from Manitoba, now a resident of Toronto; he has asked me to support this bill. I am sorry that he signed the letter, and I am sorry that I must refuse his request. I think we have had sufficient experience in this country to know what results from speculation and gambling. All you have to do is go down the street and sit in the offices of the stock brokers and watch the ladies who are carried away by speculation. Those
I mentioned when speaking the other day were not mothers or homebuilders. They have been carried away by speculation and gambling, and anything we can do in this house to correct that situation should be done. I would say that the man who is peddling tickets around this building should be put out. I have seen a man selling sweepstake tickets in this House of Commons. I have never bought one; I do not want to get money in that way. The only way to get money is by hard wrnrk, and the sooner Canada gets rid of the gambling spirit and buckles down to work the better it will be.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, there are one
or two points I should like to emphasize. I quite agree with the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) that in the speculative transactions on the stock exchange, the grain exchange and the mining exchanges we have the same reprehensible practices that are denounced when we come to so called gambling. Further than that, it always has seemed to me an extraordinary thing that we should exempt race track gambling from the criminal code and that lotteries held for charitable purposes Should be excluded as well. It seems to me that if gambling is anti-social in its character it is not improved because the gains go to church purposes, and on the other hand it does not seem to me that the man who can afford to go to a horse race should be able to gamble while the poor little fellow who cannot afford to go should be penalized.
There is one other matter on which I agree with those who have introduced this bill; that is with regard to the present regulations. I think it is absolutely abhorrent to all justice and decency that we should give the prize to an informer. I hope that at this session of parliament that provision of the criminal code will be changed. If there is anything wrong with gambling the prize should go to the state and not to the "hypocrite," as someone has called him, though I think that term is inadequate to describe him.
There is a very interesting question that has been introduced, and I think perhaps the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) was not quite fair in his presentation of the case. Undoubtedly people differ greatly in what they think right and wrong. The hon. gentleman rather laughed at those who believe in prohibition; he was rather inclined to resent the superior morality affected by some people who denounce certain practices of which he approves. Well, there are two sides to that question. Just for the purpose
3298	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Woodsworth
of illustration, because I do not want to discuss the question, let me point out that a very large number of organizations in western Canada, some of them very reputable women's organizations, to-day are pressing for the right to disseminate birth control information. You cannot say that those people are immoral, yet I venture to say that if I were to introduce a bill making it quite legal to disseminate birth control information there would be a decided protest from a large number of the members of this house on the ground that such a practice would be immoral. Or again, supposing Alberta asks for general legislation permitting sterilization of the unfit, are hon. members in this house, some of whom have spoken in advocacy of this measure now before us, going to take the ground that if Alberta wishes to do that she has a perfect right to, no matter whether or not the rest of the country wishes to introduce measures of that kind. I think hon. members must remember when they are making the plea that certain sections of the country should have the right to any action they wish, whether other sections wish it or not, that that argument may be turned against them, and will be turned against them before very long.
I believe it was the hon. member for Dorchester who said that we might be able to do legally what is not being done legally to-day. The hon. member stated that the regime of prohibition was a regime of hypocrisy. Well, again, I would say that with regard to birth control and some other matters reprobated by certain sections of this house, under the present regime there is being done illegally that which, if certain parts of the criminal code were rescinded, might be done legally, and that the present regime is indeed a regime of hypocrisy.
I should like to point out that once we start in this direction there is no line to be drawn. If these moneys could be used to help hospitals, then also they could be used to help universities. If they are a good thing to help universities, I do not see why we should not carry on the whole business of government in that way. There is no end to it; I think that is a correct statement. We might organize ourselves on a vast lottery scheme. In fact, I do not know why it should be desirable for any of us to go on trying any longer to make an honest living. Why should not everybody get into this game? There, is really no line which could be drawn. It is useless for us to go back and talk about the example set by the Egyptians and the

Romans. They did a host of things which we would not countenance to-day, and I do not think that those precedents are any argument in favour of the introduction of a system of sweepstakes into this country.
Further than that, in passing I should like to protest against upholding the action of the Senate as action which necessarily we ought to follow. The reference may have been made facetiously, but speaking seriously I must say that I refuse to admit that the Senators are any wiser than the members of the House of Commons. We are asked in the bill to permit the raising of money by sweepstakes in order that the sick may be cared for. God pity the sick if we have to come to this way of looking after them. It is said that this is a voluntary tax. That is the very reason I am opposed to it. We are also told that it is the poor man's chance to gamble. This bill means that the poor man is going to be taxed in an involuntary way to support, first, our hospitals, and later on our educational and perhaps our governmental institutions. I do not believe in that procedure. I am irrevocably opposed to that principle. If any man should be taxed it is the man of wealth who ought to be taxed to look after the poor and the sick. There is not the slightest doubt-
Mr. ST-PERE: That same chap may make big bets.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but that is
another matter. I say he ought to contribute his tax in a legal manner, and not in this casual way, to the care of the sick. I think that when we put these matters on such a basis we are off on the wrong line altogether. Even the Solicitor General-and this appears most strange when we realize that he is a member of the government-went the length of suggesting that because of the present emergency we should raise some of the governmental expenses in this way. Well, I knew that the government was in a bad way. I recognize the fact that last year and again this year the government had to borrow money in order to balance its budget, but I did not realize that it was quite so badly off that a member of the government would have to rise in this house and state that we should go into the gambling business, and that that is the only way left to raise money to carry on the affairs of government.
The most fundamental objection I have to this kind of legislation is essentially that it is an encouragement of the propensity to get

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Guthrie
money for nothing. It is not merely a question of taking a chance now and then. We must understand that if we get something in this way, someone.else must go without; it comes out of the pocket of someone else. I was very glad to hear the note of reality introduced by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). After all, we in this country come of pioneer stock. We have been told that the way to gain wealth is by honest toil. Surely we have been brought up to believe that. I quite frankly admit that the greater part of the wealth in this country has not been gained by honest toil. I say that under the conditions which are being revealed in the committee on price spreads we are learning that a great deal of wealth has been built up through the possession of special privileges of various kinds. No doubt that is only too true, but at the same time I should like to cherish the old tradition that the way to gain wealth is by honest toil. One hon. member went so far a few moments ago as to say that he thought it was a splendid thing that occasionally the ordinary poor man should be given a chance to make a bet, in order that he might possibly get something in life worth living for. It is that kind of thing which leads me to protest against a measure of this kind. I say we ought so to organize the industrial life of Canada that in the ordinary course of events the ordinary working man would get a chance to make a decent living, without having to resort to the off chance of getting something through gambling operations. That is the real point.
Mr. ST-PERE: There is a difference between betting and gambling.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall let my hon.
friend explain it.
Mr. ST-PERE: I will explain it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish to point out one fundamental difficulty with this kind of thing. I do not wish to discriminate between rich men and poor men. If the rich man has a right to gamble, most assuredly the poor man has the same right. But I do say that this kind of thing is being introduced in order that the poor man will be placed in the position whereby involuntarily he will be taxed, and further that a very small proportion of the taxation will go to the ostensible purposes for which the legislation is introduced.
There is the even more serious consideration, that we are diverting the minds of our people from real values in life, and emphasizing the view that it is only those who can get something for nothing who can get on in the
world. I should like to see the labouring man adopt some other means of attaining the good things of life than by taking a remote chance, and paying five cents, ten cents or a dollar for some sort of a ticket. I should like to see it possible for a man adequately to care for his family, or for anyone who may be in the hospital, without resort to any such method as this. I should like to see it possible for any man to have an automobile, if he wishes to have it, without having to place his little bit of earnings into some such scheme as this.
For those reasons I must support the amendment providing for six months' hoist.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 16, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Davies.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fraser for the second reading of Bill No. 56, with respect to hospital sweepstakes.
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: I desire to make a few observations
on the bill now before the house-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but private bills have not all been disposed of.


Hugh Guthrie: This is a private bill.


Pierre-François Casgrain: On the point of order
raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), although to-day has been fixed for the consideration of Bill No. 56, this bill has been considered all afternoon and I understand it will be considered again after nine o'clock. But there is another bill standing in my name, Bill No. 83, to amend the criminal code, which should be called for discussion until nine o'clock.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Bill No. 56 was considered this afternoon by special consent and it has now been reached in the ordinary course of business under the heading of private and public bills.

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Guthrie


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My point of order was that we would automatically revert to the consideration of Bill No. 56 at nine o'clock, but that this should not deprive the sponsor of Bill No. 83 of the right to take advantage of the hour allotted to private bills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have reached this
bill and we are going ahead with it. Special facilities were provided for its consideration before nine o'clock, but it has now been reached in its place as a private bill. We are proceeding with the discussion of a bill which is rightfully before the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My ruling is that Bill
No. 56 has been reached in due course and is now properly before the house. As to whether the discussion will continue after nine o'clock is a matter of consent.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Mr. DUPUIS:: May I ask whether the
commission also included stock exchanges?


Hugh Guthrie: I am going to read the
commission so that my hon. friend will have full information. The commission consisted of some ten persons, and the chairman named was a very able English judge, at that time retired, the Hon. Sir Sidney Arthur Taylor Rowlatt. He had associated with him nine distinguished commissioners. The commission reads as follows:
Whereas we have deemed it expedient that a commission should forthwith issue to inquire into the existing law and the practice thereunder relating to lotteries, betting, gambling and cognate matters, and to report what changes, if any, are deemed practicable.
The commission held a great many sittings. It summoned before it men and women of standing in almost every rank and calling. The evidence taken covers between six and seven hundred printed pages. I do not profess that I have read it all but I have read a great portion of it. Some one hundred and seventy witnesses were summoned, including bankers, merchants, shipping men, railroad men, members of the various religious denominations, prison officials, race track operators, proprietors of racing stables, many of the leading racing men of England, bookmakers, representatives of all lines of sport where betting is permitted. I think every kind of gambling was considered by the commission, and men representative of the various business and sporting interests appeared before it and gave evidence. The conclusion of the commission, if I read it correctly, is to the effect that lotteries constitute a menace to public welfare and are economically unsound. The report of the commission is lengthy, but there are certain parts of it that deal expressly with the question of lotteries, and what we are concerned with at the present time is the views of the commission in regard to the single subject of lotteries. The report sets out at length all the enactments which have ever been passed on the subject by the parliament of Great Britain; it gives a very good historical resume of the operations of lotteries from the days of Queen Elizabeth down to the present time, and the conclusions of the commission in regard to lotteries are to be found on page 143, section 495. The commissioner's conclusions on this matter are as follows:
1.	There is no justification for assuming that there is a sustained or insistent demand in this country for this type of gambling facility.
2.	The demand for the legalization of large public lotteries in this country is based upon insufficient appreciation of the difficulties and disadvantages involved'.

3.	It is doubtful to what extent an authorized public lottery in this country would put a stop to the sale in this country of Irish sweepstake tickets. It is clear that even if such a lottery were to be authorized, special measures would still have to be enacted to deal with the sale of tickets in lotteries promoted outside Great Britain.
4.	The existing law in regard to the sale of tickets in lotteries promoted abroad proved unworkable owing to special causes. There are several measures which can be adopted to bring up to date the law against the sale of foreign lottery tickets, and to make it effective.
5.	It is much easier to authorize large public lotteries in this country than to put a stop to such lotteries once they are started.
The commission in its report also finds that there is little or no objection to what it terms small lotteries and it makes no finding as against small lotteries. It deals with small lotteries in section 499 as follows:
We considered' the further question whether very small lotteries or prize drawings, in which members of the public generally are invited to purchase tickets, could be exempted from the prohibition of lotteries. It would in any event be necessary to confine the exemption to schemes which complied with the following conditions:-
1.	that the scheme is promoted by some institution of a permanent character conducted for purposes not connected with gaming, wagering or lotteries;
2.	that the proceeds of the scheme are devoted to some charitable or philanthropic object;
3.	that no profit accrues to any person from the promotion or administration of the scheme, and that no commission is paid in respect of the sale of tickets;
4.	that no administrative expenses are allowed in connection with the scheme except printing, stationery, and postage;
5.	that prizes are in kind and limited in value;
6.	that the price of the tickets is limited in value to a few pence.
The commission concludes that there is little or no objection to lotteries of this kind.


Mr. GRAY:: Does it mention the art unions?


Hugh Guthrie: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You try to.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no penalty under the laws of Great Britain unless a prosecution can be sustained under the old act of 1802 which describes such a man as a rogue and vagabond. There have been a few prosecutions under that old statute, but it is now proposed, in a bill passed by the House of Lords, to adopt practically the same clauses as are found to-day in the criminal code of Canada in respect to lotteries. In England they have, I think, gone one step further than we have. I agree with the comment made this afternoon by some hon. member, I think my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), disapproving very strongly of that clause in our criminal code in respect to lotteries which provides that any person may sue for and recover the amount of the prize from anyone who has succeeded in winning a prize.


Vincent Dupuis: Still more immoral!


Hugh Guthrie: I agree that this provision is not an appropriate clause in our criminal law. In the British bill provision is made for
the forfeiture of any such prize to the crown. I think such an amendment would be most appropriate in the law of this country.
I am aware that there is criticism, which has been urged this afternoon in support of this bill, to the effect that our present law does not prohibit the operation of illegal lotteries in Canada. I am sorry to say that there is much truth in this statement. Hardly a week passes that I do not receive in the Department of Justice from some part of Canada advertising literature, tickets and the like, in regard to some so-called lottery which is being operated in some province of Canada. In my opinion many of those which are sent to me are absolute frauds; there is in fact no lottery. It is merely an advertising device to obtain money under false pretences. When these tickets and circulars arrive in the Department of Justice I send them to the various provinces where the operations are said to be carried on, because the house will understand that in Canada the administration of law, both civil and criminal, is under the jurisdiction of the various provinces and not of the federal government. In provinces in which the mounted police have jurisdiction, as they have in six of the provinces of Canada, I place these documents and tickets in the hands of the mounted police. In the other provinces where the mounted police have no jurisdiction I simply forward them to the attorneys general of the provinces. I have heard it stated that convictions resulting from prosecutions under the provision of the criminal code are very difficult to obtain; that few convictions in respect of lotteries are obtained; that there is little sympathy on the part of the magistrates of the country with prosecutions of that kind. I can hardly believe such a situation exists, but I think a little more effort on the part of the provincial authorities might bring a far better enforcement of the law than we have had in the past. The attorney general of Manitoba has been very active in regard to the suppression of illegal lotteries which have been carried on in the city of Winnipeg. In Winnipeg they have sweepstakes on the various horse races; they have sweepstakes on football matches; they have sweepstakes on the weather and on every conceivable subject. In conversation with the attorney general of the province of Manitoba last January he instanced a number of prosecutions which had been successfully maintained in that province, but he said that the problem was one of great difficulty. In Ontario I am aware that some convictions have been obtained in the last few months. In Ontario it has become very common to raffle articles of value, con-

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Casgrain
trary to the provisions of the criminal code. Our criminal code provides that in case of any church or charitable bazaar, articles of small value which have not been sold but have been offered for sale during the bazaar may be raffled, but it places a limit on the value of those articles of $50, and the raffle can take place only with the consent of the municipal authorities of the place where the bazaar is being held. I know that perhaps all over Canada, certainly in Ontario, the favourite subject of a raffle or sweepstake is a motor car. I understand that these cars, costing from $800 to $1,000, are raffled almost weekly throughout Canada. All these raffles are contrary to law. I would suggest that we give consideration to an amendment to the criminal code to increase the penalties for breaches of these sections of the law. The law to-day in respect to the purchaser of a lottery ticket provides for a penalty of only $20. I think that might well be increased, if the law is to be enforced. On the other hand we might also improve the lottery sections of the criminal code by providing that any prizes won in the sweepstakes or lottery should be forfeited to the crown and not allowed to go to the informer.
I am only expressing my own views in regard to the whole subject. I would advise anyone who really takes an interest in this question to glance through the evidence which was submitted to the royal commission in England and to read the whole of the report made by that commission. It is a very interesting report; it is good reading, and much of the evidence is of very great value. But the only conclusion that I can come to after reading it as fully as I have been able to do and giving it the best consideration I can is that it is the deliberate conclusion of the commission which conducted the inquiry in England that lotteries are economically unsound and in their operation degrading to the community.
For these reasons, which I have stated thus briefly, I propose to vote against this measure.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, as I have a bill on the order paper called Bill No. 83, an act to amend the criminal code (lotteries), which very likely may not come up this session, I think it is my duty to tell the house how I intend to vote on this bill.
I am somewhat in the position of the hon. members for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) and St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and I can also make my own most of the arguments that have been brought forward by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) and

the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). At the present time we have in this country so many lotteries that are operating apparently illegally and taking so much of the money of our good Canadian people that it should be our duty to try to make the best of it and induce our people to keep their money at home. This was one of the arguments advanced when the bill was brought up in the Quebec legislature, and I think we should all give careful consideration to the measure passed unanimously by both houses of that province.
When the present bill was introduced I examined it with some care, and to my mind it did not seem to go far enough in order to reach the object I had in mind, that is, to help our educational and charitable institutions. I also had some such doubts as were expressed this afternoon by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), who said that it would not help us to put this measure on our statute books because we might create some problems in connection with the legislatures. At the same time we are not removing the impediment that exists in the shape of section 236 of the criminal code, which prohibits lotteries with the exception of those especially mentioned in the exceptions. For that reason I brought in Bill No. 83, which provides that the exemptions should include lotteries organized by the government of a province of Canada for educational or public charitable purposes under a law of the legislature of such province. I do not suppose I could say that the entire population of Quebec favours such a bill; undoubtedly there are some who, with my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) might object, but I think this house should take cognizance of the fact that both houses in Quebec were unanimous in support of the provincial act to which reference has been made. I think the criminal code should be amended in order to make it possible for a legislature, if it saw fit so to do, to pass a law organizing a lottery on its own account and conducting that lottery on a proper, equitable and just basis, using the resulting money for educational or charitable purposes.
For some time past there has been some agitation in the province from which I come because the government discovered that many sources of revenue were drying up. Succession duties were bringing in less money; other taxes were very high, and the government could not increase the taxes or find new methods of taxation in order to bring in the money needed for charitable and educational institutions. It is well known that the univer-

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. McGibbon
sity of Montreal recently was in great need of money, and that for some time it was feared that it would have to close its doors for lack of sufficient funds to carry on. I believe if this bill passes it should be amended, as was suggested by my Iron, friend from Dorchester and other hon. members. If they have in mind the amendment mentioned in the bill which stands in my name and to which I have made reference, I shall be glad to support that amendment. At any rate I think I am safe in following my hon. friend from St. James in voting for the bill itself, because I think it contains a principle to which the hon. members of this house should adhere. In voting for this bill I think we are doing something for the common people and at the same time helping our religious, charitable and educational institutions.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a
few remarks on this bill from a little different angle than that from which it was approached this afternoon. I am more concerned with the possibilities for good, with the amelioration of the sufferings of humanity and the lessening of the economic wastage of the human machine through the instrumentality of this bill than I am with the methods or the disputed morality connected with it. That, sir, is my first reason for supporting the bill. My second reason is that I am no respecter of persons or classes, and whether we like it or not this practice is legalized in Canada to-day. During this very day, and within the last few hours, at the Woodbine race track in the city of Toronto sweepstakes or their equivalent have been operated. That practice is made legal by a vote of the House of Commons and the Senate of this country. On my way to Ottawa yesterday I was very much interested in a leading editorial which appeared in the Toronto Mail and Empire, containing a description of the opening of ithe Woodbine track. If I may be permitted to intrude upon the time of the bouse for a few moments I should like to read that very beautiful description:
Toronto is again off to the races. The Woodbine track, at Saturday's opening, was thronged with people from all classes of society. In the members' enclosure one encountered most of his friends from this city and many from outside places. Everybody seemed to be there, including His Excellency the Governor General, Lady Bessborough, Lieutenant Governor Bruce and Mrs. Bruce, Premier Henry and Mrs. Henry. The public enclosure was as tightly packed as a box of sardines. From the grandstand the spectator looked out over acres of headgear wedged closely together. The crowd is said to
have been the largest in four years-that is to say, since the onset of the depression. We thus have fresh proof that the community is recovering from the economic crisis, and that it is still much given to the sport of kings.
The scene was as brilliant as ever. There were the packed enclosures, the beautiful greens* ward, hemmed in by the fine oval track and the waters of lake Ontario, with the famous Nova Scotian Bluenose running before the fresh breeze off shore. The custumes of the ladies and the scarlet tunics of the Royal Canadian Dragoons lent colour to the brave show. Sunshine prevailed for most of the afternoon, and the crowd was in festive humour as it enjoyed the opening events of the season's sports.
That, sir, is what is legalized to-day by the parliament of Canada and enjoyed by the people of this country. I am not complaining; I have enjoyed it many times myself and I hope to have the privilege of enjoying it again in the future. But, sir, on the very next page of the same issue of this newspaper, published in the city of Toronto, I read the following:
For keeping a common gaming house in Alexandria park, * William McQueen and Nathan Rensler were each fined $100 and costs by Magistrate Browne in Saturday's police court.
McQueen, described by the magistrate as the goat, was sentenced in addition to fourteen days in gaol without any alternative. Austin Ross, defence counsel in the case, said all betting operations for a week would be transferred to the Woodbine where there are plenty of silk hats and silk stockings.
I rise to protest against discrimination in the rights and privileges of our people. Inside the walls of the Woodbine or of any other race track in Canada you may, if you wish, go, bet your last dollar, and take the consequences. I am not defending that practice. But outside of those walls, if you dare to imitate the habits and customs of the rich who frequent the race tracks you may be treated as these men were treated, namely, receive sentences and terms in gaol. That is one reason I support the bill now before the house.
I say to the people of this country that they must either cancel the privileges which in this house have been granted to the rich, or grant equal privileges to the man who is able to bet only one or two dollars on the races. Betting on the sweepstakes is to-day a fact. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are paid annually in bets, and all that money is going out of the country. I should very much prefer to have the money stay in Canada, if it must be spent, than to have it go to foreign countries. The bill simply states that if they wish and if they are willing to take the responsibility the provinces may do so and so. I do
3306	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. McGibbon
not know why the House of Commons should hold a club over the provinces, as a father would hold a stick over his child, and say, "You cannot do so and so because you are not capable of managing your own affairs." I should prefer regulated evils to unlicensed evils. In handing this privilege to the provinces we are not taking a stand either for or against betting. We simply say to them, "This is your privilege, and under the law of Canada we give you the right to exercise the privilege which as integral parts of the dominion we think you should have."
But I have not risen to speak on that aspect of the bill. I say quite frankly that that feature of it does not interest me. I am not interested in gambling or in sweepstakes, and I have very little interest in racing, although in times gone by I have had race horses. I have risen to exercise the privilege granted me to-night in this great sounding board of federated Canada to draw to the attention of the people of our country the greatest wastage this country has ever known or will know, namely the economic wastage of the human machine. I believe if the house and the country will listen to me for but a few moments I shall foe able to prove that we are not conscious of the extent of that wastage. I shall be very brief, and shall attempt to outline in but a moment or two the hypothesis upon which I predicate my remarks. I refer to the value of human life. According to those who have spent time, money and talent working out values of human life we learn that a child at birth is valued at $10,000. At fifteen years the person is valued at $14,150; at twenty-five years, $32,000; at fifty years, $17,510; at sixty years, $8,500 and at seventy years, nothing. Predicated upon those valuations I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the great wastage this country is suffering every year, and I shall point out that by the expenditure of certain money there is the possibility of saving vast sums of money.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Is not the hon. member making a mistake when he refers to people of seventy years? I should think a man is just reaching maturity at that age.


Mr. McGIRBON:: I suppose I should apologize to those who have reached that age, but statisticians say that their value to the country is nil. I should like now to draw the attention of hon. members to the wastage I have mentioned.
Statisticians tell us that two per cent of our population are continuously nil. That two per cent at a reasonable salary, which I have

put down as $1,000 per year, indicates an annual loss through preventable sickness of $180,000,000. I submit that that is a considerable sum, especially when we realize that a great deal of this loss could be prevented. We have continuously ill 54,000 adult males and 54,000 adult females, making a total of 108,000. Taking an average wage of $2,500 for the males and $1,000 for the females we have an annual loss or wastage in earning power due to sickness of $189,000,000. If we add to that, as we must, medical care and hospitalization at $19 each per year we find we have another $2,052,000 added to the wastage.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Before the hon. member proceeds further I must call the attention of the house to the fact that the time allotted for the discussion of private and public bills has expired, and unless consent is given we must proceed to consideration of the orders of the day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked, and I think the house granted, that the orders of the day should not be proceeded with until this bill had been considered. Therefore the order of business now properly before the house is this bill, from the Senate, which was to engage the attention of the house, by consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry on.


Peter McGibbon: 
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Donations.


Peter McGibbon: Donations have fallen
practically to zero. Ini a moment I shall read a letter which I received from the president of the Red Cross in Ontario to the effect that they can get no money with which to carry on their work. In times past I have gone to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to ask that the Indians in the north be looked after. Those Indians run wild just like the cariboo and the deer; they suffer and die by the scores, yes by the hundreds and thousands, from tuberculosis and other diseases. They receive no care or medical attention and hospitalization. Why? Because the people who have the responsibility have no money. The federal Department of Health looks after the health of ten million people but this government votes only $500,000 per year for that work. I know the British North America Act stands in the way; the provinces say they have no money, the municipalities say the task is impossible and the federal government say it is not their obligation. When some institution comes along and says they will raise so many million dollars per year for hospitalization, when I know that hundreds and thousands are dying from want, when I know that hundreds and thousands are suffering from disease and the country is losing the vast sum which I indicated, something over $800,000,000 per year, then I say if we cannot get money from the municipalities, from the provinces, from the federal government or from private donations, why not accept it from those who are willing to go out and get it for us? I do not think there is any legitimate answer to that. I have heard none. The betting on sweepstakes is going on anyway and we need not try to be moral about it. We are not one bit better or one bit worse; all that we are asking is to turn this money into channels which will save the health and lives of the people of this country.
Let me show the house some of the possibilities. In 1880 the average span or expectancy of life was forty years, but to-day through medical science and medical care it 74726-209
has been raised to nearly sixty years; I think the correct figure is 59-2 years. That means that an additional fifty per cent of time has been added to the lives of the people; approximately twenty years of life has been added to the lives of ten million people. Based upon reasonable earning powers you then get a figure which my arithmetical ability can hardly reach. And we have not yet attained the limit. It is recognized to-day that seventy years is not an unreasonable expectancy of life for the people of this country to reach even in our day and generation. If proper finances were supplied to the organizations which are working for the extension of human life, the results would be staggering. It has been estimated that $2.50 spent through the proper channel would increase the expectancy of life from five to seven years. What is gained? You spend $2.50 and you get the income of a man or woman for from five to seven years. This offers the greatest possibility for increasing the wealth of this country which can be obtained through any channel of government activity. Yet the municipal, provincial and federal governments are absolutely dead, not only to the possibilities of the future but to the wastage of the present. I should like to read a little article which appeared in the Manchester Guardian. This was written under the name of " Artifex." It reads:
Whereas the publication of the names of the winners in a recent Dublin sweepstake occupied a whole page of a London newspaper on two consecutive days, the same space in every issue extended' over four and a half years would be needed to publish the names of those who won nothing.
What is the good of our trying to fool ourselves? These things are going on right under our eyes and hundreds of thousands of dollars of Canadian capital is being sent out of the country every year. Canada is just that much the loser.
If I may intrude further upon the time of the house I should like to read a letter which I received last year from the head of the Red Cross in Ontario. I do not think I need dilate upon the good work this organization is doing. It is an institution which stands alone in this country. It is the friend of all governments, both in peace and in war, but above all it is the friend of the sick and needy. It pushes its outposts back to the frontiers; it looks after the crippled, the sick, the halt and the blind, but it has to go out on the streets of the cities in order to gather its money. This is a letter that I received last year when this bill was up for consideration in this house:

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Cantley
Dear Dr. McGibbon:
At a meeting of the Canadian Red Cross (central council) held in Toronto on Thursday and Friday last the question of where the money was coming from to carry on Red Cross work was given very serious consideration. What with the grants from the government being cut down very materially and the inability of the patients to pay for their hospital care promptly, if at all, the revenue has been cut down quite a substantial amount.
The need for hospital care is even greater now than in the past, possibly due to the state of affairs in the country at large. Our Red Cross outposts are going to suffer a great deal unless we find some new means of procuring fund's, and this can hardly be expected from those who have been contributing in the past, because many of our subscribers have had their salaries reduced, others have lost in various ways and still others are out of employment entirely. In addition to the above, the government have found it necessary to increase taxation. to many of whom it will mean that they cannot contribute to the Red Cross and other charitable work.
The question of sweepstakes was brought up at the central council meeting last week and the statement was made that millions of dollars were sent out of Canada each year in connection with one sweepstake or another. One delegate present, who is in a position to know, stated that two hundred and ninety-eight thousand' dollars had left one office in Montreal in the last sweepstake.
Think of it

$298,000 from one office in Montreal in the last sweepstakes. The letter goes on:
It was rather surprising out of a group of about thirty delegates present that there was very little objection raised at the suggestion made to have the Red Cross Society of Canada handle a sweepstake for the hospitals. This may come as a surprise to you and may not at the start appeal to you. However, in asking several persons for their opinion of the subject since last Thursday, it has been rather surprising to find that while some were against the proposition on the start, when they learned the facts of the needs, they were inclined to favour the idea.
I do not want to weary the house by reading more. The letter shows that the central council of the Red Cross Society of the great province of Ontario has come out in favour of this bill. Why? Because the thing is going on anyway, for one reason; but mainly because they cannot get the money they require to carry on the great work which has been delegated to them and which they are interested in and want to perform.
The debate on this bill has gone on all afternoon and this evening, and I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to encroach further upon the time of the house. But before sitting down I want to appeal to members of the House of Commons and the people of Canada to consider the great wastage of over eight hundred million dollars per year that is going

on in this country, a large part of which could be saved, and in the light of that not to put any unnecessary obstructions in any channel through which funds may pour into the coffers that will help this society to bring peace, comfort and happiness to the great bulk of the people of Canada.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: 
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, the question before the house, the second reading of this bill to legalize sweepstakes, has undoubtedly been ably presented by those who are in favour of the measure and their arguments have been set forth very clearly. No doubt the viewpoint which they hold is one that is held by many people in Canada. I differ, however, from that point of view, and I think it is incumbent upon me to present to the house a point of view that I know to be held by a very large number of Canadian people.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) upon not living up to his promise when he undertook to speak against this bill. He said that he was not going to discuss the moral aspect of it, but I am happy to say that he did and that he placed himself on record as believing that this measure would lead to the moral degradation of the people. It is that point of view that I shall present perhaps more strongly than the economic point of view, although like the Minister of Justice I hold very emphatically the opinion that the economic consequences of such legislation as is proposed in this bill would be disastrous to the Canadian people.
The bill now before the house comes to us from the upper chamber, a body that is animated by no partisan or sectional interests, a body that is supposed to represent the mature judgment of the Canadian people. We are not, however, necessarily governed by the opinion of the upper house, although the fact that this bill has been passed by that chamber entitles us to treat the legislation with a measure of respect. I trust,
74726-209 J

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Brown
therefore, when I see fit to dissent from the conclusion reached by the other chamber, I shall not be deemed wanting in respect to that eminent body, but if I should seem to be so wanting I trust it will be understood that I consider the question before us of more importance than simply the preservation of the amenities of debate.
The bill under discussion is important also for the reason that it comes with the endorsa-tiom of one of the provincial legislatures. Naturally, when a bill comes so endorsed it is incumbent upon the members of this house to pay due consideration to the recommendations of that body. This is a confederation of provinces and the action of the province must of necessity be given consideration. When a province indicates its desire to deal with questions that it believes to be entirely in its own interests, we have a right, if the unity of confederation is to be preserved, to pay attention to its demand. On the other hand, if we are to preserve harmony in our confederation, no one province has a right to force upon the dominion a condition of things that is abhorrent to a great number of its citizens, and unless very strong reasons can be advanced for accepting the judgment of Quebec as governing the attitude of this house,^ I maintain it is the interest of the great majority of the Canadian people that should determine the matter. Perhaps we will give more consideration to that question when the bill proposed by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) comes before us.
The bill now under discussion is important because it proposes a new departure in financing of public undertakings. Hitherto our public institutions, our social organizations, have been maintained by voluntary contributions or by public taxation. It is now proposed that they should be maintained by lotteries. Many and various schemes have been devised to pull us out of the depression. Some of these are avowedly experimental and the experiments will very likely be cast aside. But this is a new proposal; it is proposed that we take a chance on getting out of the depression by establishing an institution for taking chances.
Before dealing with the arguments that have been advanced in support of the bill I should like to make some reference to an attitude that has been taken in some quarters toward those who have been opposing this measure. I rather hesitate to do this, but at the same time in view of statements that have been made in certain sections, I think it is desirable that we should call attention to the matter. Objection has been taken to the

fact that the Social Service Council has made representations to parliament in regard to this question. The Social Service Council is a very eminent body; it is described as the federal council of churches and other organizations for the promotion of social welfare. I see that three out of the four leading officers are clergymen. I should be the first to resent any attempt at clerical domination of parliament; I believe a church controlled state and a state controlled church are equally inimical to the well being of Canada, but that is no reason why a body such as the Social Service Council should not make its representations to parliament just the same as any other organization might do. What have we received? We have recommendations from the Good Fellowship Association and another from the National Sweepstakes Petition Association. Another comes to us anonymously. We receive these petitions and we treat them as we see fit, but we acknowledge the right of these people to come to parliament and present their views. There, is no reason why the Social Service Council or any other body of a public nature should not present their views to parliament without being told, as practically they were in one quarter, to mind their own business. I hope, Mr. Speaker, I am not wanting in respect for other people's opinions. When a man says in regard to this bill that it provides for simple, unadulterated gambling, and sees no moral or economic evil consequences in that, well, I cam respect his honesty of conviction, much as I regret that any person should hold those views. But when he brings forward arguments to support his position, when he advances reasons why we should pass this bill, we have a right to examine his arguments and reasons as to their validity and see whether they are sound.
In the meantime I wish to express my own conviction that the effect of this legislation would be to undermine the moral and economic well being of our country. I agree with Horace Greeley who said many years ago that the darkest hour in any young man's life was when he first thought he could make a dollar by any other means than squarely earning it. Undoubtedly there are many factors that have combined to bring about the present depression, but I think we will all agree that one of the chief factors was the gambling craze in stocks that swept over the country in the years preceding it. The get-rich-quick craze has been that bane of our civilization. The message that ought to go out from this parliament to the young men of Canada should be not to seek wealth and satisfaction

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Brown
without rendering a proper equivalent; that true prosperity depends on the exercise of the old virtues of industry and thrift; and we ought also to send out to them the message that this parliament considers it its duty so to frame legislation to give men of industry and thrift a chance to reap their proper reward.
I got into conversation the other day with a man I hoped would be sympathetic with my point of view, and I was rather surprised when he indicated otherwise and spoke of this bill as providing a chance for the poor man to indulge in a little gamble. He said there are not very many rich men who would indulge in it in this form, but this would give an opportunity to the poor man. Here we touch again the economic question. Is it wise for us in these times of hardship and distress to encourage men to take a chance on sweepstakes? Is it wise for us to encourage men who ought to be spending their money in providing for the wants of their families, men who are perhaps themselves on relief, to spend the few dollars that may come into their [DOT]hands in buying sweepstake tickets? After all, Mr. Speaker, let us put this matter to the personal test. I say to any business man: Would you put in a position of trust any young man that you knew to be a bettor on races, any young man that you knew to be continuously putting his money into sweepstakes? Would you do it in your own business? You know perfectly well you would not put in a position of trust a man who is addicted to the vice of gambling.
The argument of provincial rights has been advanced. That is perhaps one that will not be given as much weight to-day as it would have been given thirty years ago, for we are beginning to recognize that one of the fundamental weaknesses of the British North America Act is that it puts within the jurisdiction of the provinces many things that might more properly be dealt with by the federal government. However, that is a matter that perhaps we shall be able to deal with more fully when we come to the other bill which will probably be before us.
Another argument which I do not think has any weight or validity is that we should extend the opportunities for gambling because we already have gambling institutions. I do not propose to justify any discrimination between rich man and poor man, but if any one thing is wrong, as evidently those who use that argument concede there is a measure of evil in .this practice, it is no reason why we should wipe out discrimination by extending the privileges to the poor man. Let us
rather curtail the privileges of the rich. Then the argument is advanced that because we have betting on horse races and make exceptions in regard to certain things, we should open the door still wider. For my part I am opposed to all those exceptions. Someone says: W'hat about stock gambling? Well, let us remember that the transfer of stocks from one man to another is not necessarily an evil-


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: What about
gambling in wheat? [DOT]


John Livingstone Brown: The selling of wheat is not necessarily an evil. I am willing to concede that evil practices have grown up in connection with the stock market, and the wheat market if you like. But that is not the question we are dealing with; we are dealing with sweepstakes, lotteries. If any hon. member wants to bring forward a bill to get rid of the evils connected with the stock exchange it will receive my hearty support. It is a matter of regret to me that some of those who are opposed to this bill will even admit that there is validity in that argument. I regret that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), not only this year but last year and the year before, referred to that argument as something that tempted him-he did not use that expression this year, but last year he did-almost tempted him to vote in favour of the bill. Why will the hon. member give countenance and encouragement and comfort to the enemy by even suggesting that -there is validity in that argument?
But the argument upon which the supporters of this bill mainly rely may be stated thus-it was urged this evening by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley): all life is a gamble; we are constantly taking chances; farming is a gamble; business is a gamble; we are never sure of anything; therefore why should we not take a chance on the turn of the wheel or the throw of the dice or the drawing of a ticket out of a hat?


Thomas Cantley: I did not say that.


John Livingstone Brown: That, I say, is the general
argument that is used in support of this bill. To my mind no argument could be more fallacious. It springs from a mind unwilling or unable to discriminate between two .things that are essentially different. Of course life is uncertain. We may make our plans only to find that be they never so carefully laid something over which we have no control prevents their accomplishment. That fact has been the theme of some of our greatest

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Brown
writers, it is not only the wise men of this generation who have discovered the uncertainties of life:
Man proposes, God disposes.
There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will.
But, mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain;
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief and pain,
For promised joy.
Go to now, ye that say to-day or to-morrow we will go into such a city and continue there a year and buy and sell and get gain, whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow.
Well, these are admitted facts, but I protest against this profound truth being prostituted to the support of this bill. Surely the fact that we know not what a day or an hour may bring forth does not justify the passage of this bill. There seems to be some uncertainty in the minds of men as to what gambling is; the term is used so loosely and applied to things which are not gambling in the proper sense of the word. A recent letter appearing in one of the newspapers stated:
In your issue of January 24th appears an editorial entitled "What is Gambling?"
The question has often been discussed, but I venture to suggest to you a definition. Gambling is the taking of a risk which serves no purpose. Speculation is the taking of a risk which must be carried by someone. If I go out to the races and bet on a particular horse, that is a gamble. There was no reason why my money should be risked upon that venture. If, however, I buy ten thousand bushels of May wheat in the month of December and carry it to April before I sell it I am taking a risk which must be taken by somebody. The farmer, the miller or the merchant must carry the wheat until the date at which it can be used.
There is, I think, a clear distinction between these two classes of risks. The speculator helps in the adjustment to the probable. The gambler is a disturbing factor in the operation of the speculator. The gambler is not necessary; the speculator is.
I entered into conversation with the writer of that letter, and he wanted to modify that definition to some extent by saying that the risk should be taken iby some person competent to take it. I am not going to say just how far I agree with that statement; probably I would dissent from it in some particular, so it must not be taken as an expression of my own views entirely. However, there is a thought there which I think we might properly consider when we think what gambling really is, and that is that in some of the risks we take in life there is a definite purpose. What about the farmer? We are

told loosely that farming is a gamble, but it is not. The farmer sows his seed in the ground. He knows there is a possibility that one man may sow and another reap; he knows there is a possibility that one man may sow while no one reaps. Unfortunately that has been only too true during the last few years in the west, but the farmer has a definite purpose in view, and that purpose is to provide himself and his family with food, using the surplus above his own wants to provide himself with other necessities of life. The definite purpose behind the activities of that man is to feed the world, and if men had not been prepared to take these chances in life we would still be naked savages running through the woods and there would not have been any advance in civilization.
That is true also of the trader who sends his ships over the seas. He does not know whether they will ever come back to him, but the fact that he does send out his ships in order to bring back goods tends to the advancement of civilization. Men go up into the stratosphere; they take chances, but they want to advance the sum total of human knowledge. Commander Byrd is spending a winter in the Antarctic; he is taking a chance and risking his life, but it is in order that he may secure fuller knowledge in regard to some phenomena that are not well understood to-day. What about our doctors? Many a doctor has risked his life in order to increase human knowledge in regard to disease. Sometimes doctors have allowed themselves to be infected with disease, knowing that they took a chance; they did so in order that they might advance the sum total of human knowledge and be able to render, with that knowledge, a service to humanity. Yet there are people who would put an action of that kind on the same plane as buying a sweepstake ticket. Surely there is no similarity between the two acts.
We have had the question of insurance brought up in the other house. We will take fire insurance as perhaps the simplest illustration of the principle. What is a mutual fire insurance company? It is an organization of men who have associated themselves together in order to help each other in case of misfortune. That is carrying out the Christian principle that ye that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the marketing
bill.


John Livingstone Brown: I have tried to keep my
remarks from becoming partisan, so I will discuss that phase of the question another

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Barber
time. I said that a mutual fire insurance company simply carries out the Christian principle that ye that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, that the fortunate ought to help bear the misfortunes of the unfortunate. Perhaps the principle is not seen so cleanly in regard to other insurance companies; nevertheless the underlying principle of insurance is that the strong shall bear the infirmities of the weak. Yet we have the argument advanced that this is on the same plane as buying sweepstake tickets. In any case actuarial calculations so far as possible have eliminated those risks.
I have advanced some reasons as to why I think this bill should not be supported. I aim quite ready to concede that there are some sections in the present criminal code that might very well be changed. I am quite at one with those who urge that the very obnoxious clause concerning the disposal of the prize won in a lottery should be wiped out. I think perhaps it will be recalled that last year, when the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) introduced a bill dealing with this subject, in speaking on the second reading I indicated that if the bill went to committee I would bring in an amendment wiping out that clause and providing that the prize should go to the state. I am glad to know that this proposition is now heartily endorsed.
I feel strongly on this question, Mr. Speaker, from the standpoint of its effect upon the morals of our young people. I have said already that we ought to tell the young men of this country that the true source of prosperity is not in taking chances by pulling a ticket out of a hat or in any other form of chance, but that thrift and industry in the end will bring their reward. While it may be and is true that there are things in life which we cannot control, nevertheless it is largely true that men within themselves are able to determine their own destiny, and that is the truth we ought to emphasize.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole;
I thank whatever gods there be For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance,
I have not winced or cried aloud;
Under the bludgeoning of chance.
My head is bloody but unbowed.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How dark with punishment the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.
That is the message to give to the young men, and not to tell them to take a chance, life is a gamble; therefore let us eat, drink and be merry, and make no effort to advance our own welfare and control our own destiny.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in the debate, but after listening to the remarks of the mover (Mr. Fraser, Cariboo) and the seconder (Mr. Gagnon) of the motion for second reading, it seemed to me that they left the impression with the house that the province of British Columbia is favourable to this legislation. I fail to discover any evidence to that effect. It is quite true that a plebiscite was taken in the city of Vancouver, on which occasion I believe ten per cent to fifteen per cent of the citizens of that great city voted for sweepstakes. That is the only evidence we have from the province of British Columbia that this legislation is desired. The government of British Columbia has not intimated that it requires this measure in order to carry on the financing of some of the institutions of that province.
I am not going to touch upon the historical aspect of the matter, nor shall I deal with the moral side of it. The last speaker (Mr. Brown) has dealt with those particular phases of the question. The hon. member who seconded the motion for second reading stated that a man who was sitting very close to him and who would quite likely oppose the bill had in his pocket a sweepstake ticket. I am not guilty. I have not a sweepstake ticket in my pocket, but I have bought tickets on raffles; I have bought the odd ticket on sweepstakes and have taken chances on the horses, with the same results which thousands of others have experienced. All I got out of it was just the kick.
Hon. members supporting the bill claim that the adoption of this proposal is necessary in order that we may secure funds to finance our institutions, particularly our hospitals. I was amused when, referring to this bill, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) said it was clothed in the garb of righteousness. Perhaps that is the reason this measure is entitled the Hospital Sweepstakes bill. In British Columbia we have met with difficulty in financing hospitals, a difficulty which has been experienced in other parts of Canada. We have had difficulty in financing other institutions. During the last three years the churches have had difficulties; educational institutions have had difficulties, governments have had difficulties and individuals have had difficulties. Hospitals are not the only institutions which have had trouble in financing. But we have passed through the most difficult stage in our history, and so far we have been able to maintain our institutions. The courage and sacrifice of the Canadian people have met the situation; they have rallied to the support of their institutions with great credit to themselves and to their country. I be-

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Barber
lieve I am voicing the opinion of the people of British Columbia when I say that they are prepared to continue to make sacrifices and to carry on, rather than to resort to legislation of this kind.
There is just one otheir point to which I should like to refer. The argument has been made by several hon. members that under the present system money is leaving the country, and that for that reason we should step in and set up machinery to carry on sweepstakes, lotteries and gambling, so that the money may be kept in Canada. I question whether there is much force in that argument. The question before us to-day is not that of setting up Canadian sweepstakes and thereby shutting out the purchase of tickets on the Irish and other sweepstakes. That is not the question before us. If the house passes this measure and establishes a system of lotteries, and if it sets up machinery and spreads propaganda are we going to keep in Canada the money which is now going to sweepstakes and lotteries in other countries? Hon. members will recall that only a few years ago the question was raised in the Irish Free State as to what proportion of the moneys received ultimately went to the Irish hospitals. The parliament of the day in the Free State issued a report in which it was indicated that only 20 per cent went to hospitals; that eighty per cent went to prizes and expenses connected with carrying out the sweepstakes. I noticed that the mover of the resolution stated his figures indicated that the hospitals received only 17.99 per cent of the proceeds. At the time about which I have spoken there was a movement in the Irish Free State to increase the amount to be given to the hospitals. It was urged: Why all this effort in the name of charity when the hospitals receive only 20 per cent? The suggestion was made that they should get at least 33 per cent. The proposal was turned down, and why? The reply was that big prizes are necessaiy, and that unless big prizes are offered as inducements a large fund cannot be collected. Therefore it was indicated that it was necessary to keep the prize moneys as large as possible and the charitable donations as small as possible.
Let us apply that argument to the argument urged to-day to the effect that by instituting a system of lotteries in Canada we would keep the money in the country. We will suppose that the canvasser would be authorized under this legislation to go out and undertake to sell $2 or S2.50 tickets on a sweepstake the prize money of which, in the smaller provinces at least, might not be more than $2,000 or
'Vf. Barber.l
$5,000. The purchaser who has been in the habit of buying tickets would say, "Why should I buy a ticket in this sweepstake costing me $2.50 and offering only a small prize, when with the same money I can buy one in the Irish sweepstakes with prizes running up to $150,000?" The fact that a sweepstake is authorized in one province would only mean that another province would have to try to keep within its borders the money likely to be spent upon such an enterprise, and would have to introduce sweepstakes of its own to appeal to its own people. Therefore in every province of the dominion sweepstakes would be organized from time to time and tickets would be sold with the result that the whole country would go sweepstakes mad, and there would be great competition. The value of prizes would necessarily have to be enlarged and commissions to vendors increased. The first of the two results would be that the larger provinces of Quebec and Ontario, with their greater population, would be able to offer greater prizes and would draw the money from the smaller provinces. There has been special reference to British Columbia; in fact I believe the sponsor of this measure in another place based his whole argument on the situation obtaining in British Columbia. The second result is that the money would pour from British Columbia to the eastern provinces because of the larger prizes to be offered there, and the main object of my hon. friend who is fathering this bill, that of aiding the hospitals in his own province, would be defeated.
Is this an opportune time to resort to a lottery system in this country? I was surprised to hear an hon. member state this afternoon that he considered it was. We are just recovering from a world wide depression, a world wide gambling debauch which brought upon us untold suffering and widespread ruin, and I believe the adoption of such a system as is proposed by this legislation would not mitigate but would tend to increase our troubles. I regret that I cannot support the bill sponsored by my colleague from British Columbia.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the corporal's guard that supported the principle of this legislation last year, I feel it is necessary to take a few minutes to give my reasons for supporting it now. Many arguments have been put forward why this bill should be opposed and many have been put forward why it should be supported. The hon. member

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Mitchell
for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) made the observation that it was revolutionary in character.
I always thought that playing poker might be illegal but I never thought it was revolutionary.


Onésime Gagnon: I never said that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Some hon. members
have found fault with the intent of this bill which is to supply needed money for our hospital system. I believe the responsibility for that system should rest upon the state alone. It should be the responsibility of the state to supply the necessary means to carry on this system. I believe that hospitals stand in the same relationship to the community as our schools stood one hundred years ago. One of the great social problems confronting this country is the placing of our hospital system upon a sound basis rather than having it rest upon the giving of voluntary subscriptions. My experience has been, and I speak in a broad way, that those who should support our hospitals on a voluntary basis do not do so.
I listened with attention to the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and while I admit that there may be some soundness in his argument I think he should have carried it out to its logical conclusion. If sweepstakes are economically unsound, so are race tracks, so are stock exchanges, so is the gambling which takes place in the wheat pits, so is the gambling which takes place in real estate and so are the raffles carried on by many organizations in this country. I think it would be a fair observation to make that possibly the present government is gambling in not having an election this year and deciding to wait until next year when times might be a little better.
I am sure the sincerity of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) cannot be questioned. He said that this bill would develop the desire to get money. He said money was the root of all evil.


Archibald M. Carmichael: No, the love of money.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the same thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Humphrey Mitchell: All right; have it whichever way you want. He said that this legislation threw the doors open to gambling. I wonder if he realizes that at the present time, as far as the broad aspect of gambling is concerned, the door is wide open. I think it is fair to say that we have even lost the key.
A practical and realistic view should be taken of a question of this kind, and I do not think it is the business of this house to produce angels. If that is the yardstick by which we must be measured, we have not been very successful. In my opinion the soundness of any legislation is reflected in the effect it has upon the enforcement of other legislation. We might as well admit that innumerable sweepstakes are taking place in this country to-day under various subterfuges. I think it is far better to recognize that fact and regulate things rather than to allow them to pass almost unnoticed.
I do not intend to put myself on the high moral plane upon which some hon. members have placed themselves. I do not gamble, because I think a man who gambles is a fool, but like most hon. members, at the present time my wallet is filled with drawing tickets. The first game of people who have drawing tickets to sell is the member of their particular constituency; he is the first man they hunt up. Under these conditions I do not see how I can vote conscientiously against a bill of this description.
I think most hon. members miss the important thing in buying a drawing ticket. It is not the desire for gain, as has been expressed here, because the chances are very small; it is the thrill which the average man gets out of buying a ticket. Why should we deny him that thrill? One gets so few thrills in life, it is worth something. It is like a woman buying a hat. The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), the lone lady member of the house, is not present so perhaps I may continue. Most of us men folk think that most, ladies hats do not look very much, but if a woman gets a thrill out of buying one, surely it is worth something.
This bill has the endorsation of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, which discussed the matter thoroughly and came to the conclusion that it was far better to recognize a condition that existed than to turn a blind eye.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the house I shall take but a very few moments, but I desire to justify the vote I intend to cast on this bill. My first instinct was to vote against the bill, and although I have tried to reason with myself and sell myself this proposition, I must admit that I have failed. This is why I want to explain the, position I am going to take in voting against the bill and in favour of the amendment.

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Gobeil
When it was first mentioned that everyone would 'be free to vote on this question just as he pleased, I thought I could vote without speaking on the question at all, but owing to the very strong and extended newspaper campaign that has been conducted in the province of Quebec I find it impossible to vote on this measure without first giving an explanation.
It has been stated in the press of the province of Quebec that a large majority of the citizens of the province are in favour of this bill, and the same opinion has been expressed this afternoon by members from my own province who have already spoken. I must say that I cannot endorse that opinion. I have not received a single letter from any of my constituents in favour of this bill or asking me to support it. I am afraid that some members from the province of Quebec have been more impressed by the newspaper campaign than they should have been, and not so much by the sentiments of their constituents as they have had occasion to consult them, as no doubt some have. I was home last week-end and had occasion to meet several people from different parts of my county; I asked those whom I met what their opinions were of this bill, and not one of them told me he was interested, and not one asked me to support the bill.
Another reason why I cannot support the bill is that if we were to have sweepstakes I am strongly of the opinion that the matter should be under federal control. Two members this afternoon, the hon. member for Laurier-Outre-mont (Mr. Mercier) and the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), said that it was not a question of having or not having lotteries, that lotteries were here and we had to deal with them, and that as we had them it was better to legalize them than to let them be conducted illegally as they are now. But is it as sure as all that, that if this bill passes we shall not have as many lottery tickets sold illegally as we have to-day? Subsection 2 of section 5 of the bill reads:
Agents or solicitors for the sale or promotion of sweepstakes tickets shall not be authorized or appointed in any province in Canada other than the province within which the sweepstakes is authorized.
If two or three or five or six provinces take advantage of this law, should the bill pass, in what position would we find ourselves in a province which did not take advantage of the law? Do hon. members believe that agents will not offer for sale in the province of Quebec, for instance, if it did not take advantage of the law, tickets from the prov-

ince of Ontario or the maritime provinces or any other province which did take advantage of it? I believe that if this bill passed we would have more illegal tickets sold than we have to-day. But even if that were not the case, if the situation should remain as it is to-day and as has been described by several hon. members this afternoon and to-night, with illegal tickets now being sold anyway, is that any good reason why we should add one more to the evils already existing? In my opinion we should rather try to restrict the present evils.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would take only five or ten minutes, and I shall conclude as briefly as possible. There is one other aspect on which I should like to say a few words. I am strongly of the opinion that was expressed by an hon. member who has just spoken, that to adopt this bill and to have sweepstakes would be to set the worst possible example and be a most unfortunate inducement not only to our youth of from fifteen to twenty years of age but even to younger children. Judging by the experience of other countries, if sweepstakes are legalized in Canada I think we shall see every schoolboy and schoolgirl trying to save five cents in order to be able to buy a sweepstakes ticket. To my mind that is contrary to the principles that ought to be put into the minds of our youth.
Another aspect on which I want to touch is the religious one. It has been advanced by many, and I have been told by many, that the Catholic church favours sweepstakes. It is not for me to say whether they do or do not, but I do believe that a man can buy a sweepstakes ticket without committing a mortal sin.
Going a little further, the hon. member for St. James said this afternoon that there is nothing immoral in lotteries. I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that that opinion is not in conformity with the teaching of several eminent members of the church, and if I may be allowed I should like to-quote one of them. We all know him in Quebec. Every year the Catholic church authorities invite eminent preachers from the old country to come to Montreal and Quebec and preach in their churches. This winter the Reverend Father Doncoeur from France preached the lenten services in the Notre Dame church in Montreal, and during a retreat for the men of Montreal he made these remarks which I quote from one of his sermons. The quotation was in French, but I have had it translated and I think the translation is accurate. Reverend Father Doncoeur said:

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Sanderson
The divine commandment is that one must *earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow, and it is an act contrary to the moral law to organize sweepstakes.
This is in a few words what the Reverend Father Doncoeur stated last evening at the third conference of men's retreat at Notre Dame church. Money earned without an effort is not honestly earned, he added. The French workers of past centuries were well aware of this; they were only satisfied when the work they had done, for a stipulated amount, was almost perfect. They then took pride in the money thus earned honourably. The eminent preacher recalled that on his departure for Canada the sweepstakes organized by the French state were taking place. Millions were distributed, even five millions to one person.
I suppose that means francs.
Money earned without work! What disorders thrown upon society! For a few favourites of chance we have seen unfortunate people lose their minds.
God's commandment, the preacher repeated, is to earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow. Speculation is the great evil of modern society. One desires to earn money without an effort. Nothing is more contrary to the moral law and harmful to society.
This reverend priest was invited by, and certainly had the approval of, our Catholic church authorities in the province of Quebec. Therefore, although as I said before I do not think this is a dogmatic question and I believe everybody is entitled to vote as he thinks best for or against this bill, I say that those who claim that the Catholic church has been favouring and fostering this legislation are not altogether correct. For these reasons and a few more that I might have advanced had I had time, I am going to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael).
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth); Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this discussion but I should like to make one or two observations. I agree with the remark made this evening by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) that if this bill is passed and becomes law, it will keep in Canada a good deal of money that now goes out of this country in payment of tickets for sweepstakes. But in my opinion-and I speak only for myself-if this bill becomes law and hospitals are permitted to raise money by means of sweepstakes, the matter will not end there. This is only the thin end of the wedge; requests will be made to this and future parliaments for all kinds of societies and associations to have the right and privilege to issue sweeptakes tickets.
I can well understand the attitude of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) although I do not agree with the arguments that he advanced in favour of this
bill. He is a medical man, practising his profession, and I can quite understand that he is in favour of raising money by this means for grants to hospitals; but in my opinion, if the hospitals of this country are going to depend on the money that is received from a source such as this, they are not building on a very sure foundation. If this bill passes and becomes law it will be the means of reducing contributions that are now going to hospitals from private and other sources, and instead of being a benefit to hospitals I believe it will be a detriment. He has, however, voiced his opinion in that regard; I do not take issue with him on that but I do not think he is right in his argument.
This afternoon the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) brought up a point that to my mind was rather peculiar, especially in regard to this particular bill, because there is an air of mystery about this legislation. Last session a similar bill was introduced in another place and passed and came into this chamber where it was defeated. Again we have the same or a similar bill originating in another place and coming to this chamber. Last year the bill was defeated by a very large majority, and I am of opinion that public sentiment in this country has not changed from last year and that there is no demand for this legislation. The hon. member for Dorchester said: Why have any hypocrisy in regard to this matter? We had better make it legal.


Onésime Gagnon: On a point of order, I never said that this bill was a hypocritical measure.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I did not charge the hon. member with saying that. What he did say, if I heard him correctly, was that we had better have legislation than have any hypocrisy in regard to buying sweepstake tickets. Am I correct in that?


Onésime Gagnon: If my hon. friend will permit me, he is still incorrect. I said that the regime of prohibition of alcoholic liquor in the United States and Canada was a regime of hypocrisy and I confined my remarks to the prohibition of alcoholic liquor.


Frederick George Sanderson: The point I want to make in regard to the hon. member for Dorchester is this: I think he said something about hypocrisy this afternoon in regard to purchasing sweepstake tickets.


Onésime Gagnon: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: If he did not say so, very well, but he at any rate implied that. Even if he did not I want to say that since
3318	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Air. Motherwell
I have been a member of parliament there has not been another piece of legislation introduced into this chamber about which there has been more hypocrisy than this bill, for the reason that it is camouflaged and linked up-


An hon. MEMBER:: The marketing bill.


Frederick George Sanderson: An hon. member says, the marketing bill. For the moment I do not want even to mention the marketing bill; I will confine myself to this measure. This bill is camouflaged with the word "hospital" and under the guise of "hospital" it is supposed that gambling will be legal for the Canadian people so far as raising money for hospitals is concerned. I should like to know who is behind this bill. What combination of interests in this country is behind this legislation and hiding behind the question of subsidizing and making contributions to hospitals by this method? It has been stated to-night by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie)-and I think it is correct-that about only eighteen per cent of the money contributed through such sources as this, sweepstake contributions and' prices for tickets, reaches the destination to which it is supposed to go. What becomes of the other eighty-two per cent? I will admit that some proportion of it goes for the prizes, but beyond that it is nothing more nor less than a racket. And it will be a racket in this country if this bill passes the house. Let me say that I am not pretending to be on any high moral plane in regard to gambling, out any hon. member of this house who has oeen a member of the banking and commerce :ommittee this session and has listened from lay to day to the evidence given before that jommittee by the general managers of the oanks will remember that in almost every nstance they have said that the world condition and the condition in which we find ourselves in Canada to-day is largely due to gambling. And this bill, to my mind, has to do with nothing more or less than legalized gambling. If the bill becomes law it will be the beginning of more extensive legalized gambling, and gambling is a disease. I am not going back to ancient history to prove that because I want to deal with present world conditions and present conditions in our own country. It is a disease. Once you get the germ it is pretty hard to shake it. If our young men and young women, the rising generation of this country, are told that it is legal for them to spend their money, to gamble in sweepstakes for the maintenance of hospitals-and if they have not got it themselves they will borrow it or 
get it in some way-you are to my mind building on a wrong foundation for the future of this country.
So I cannot support this bill. It is possible that I might favour some kind of bill for sweepstakes. I am not going to spend the time to say what kind of bill would suit me; I am not absolutely opposed to the sale of sweepstake tickets, but I am opposed to the sale of sweepstake tickets under the guise of contributions to hospitals.
I am sorry if I have delayed the house at this late hour but I wanted briefly to put myself on record, and I hope if it comes to a vote to-night that the bill will be defeated.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only about seven or eight minutes-


An hon. MEMBER:: Cut it in two.


William Richard Motherwell: It seems to me most strange that at this time we as a deliberative body composed of some 240 members supposedly capable of leading our electors and others in any direction for the general benefit of our country should be actually engaged in discusing the pros and cons of affording greater facilities for gambling, of which surely in all conscience we have too many already in Canada. That to me is an amazing thing. And then the reasons given! "The prohibition of gambling does not prohibit." Does the prohibition of murder prohibit? And because it does not would you abolish the law against murder? What arrant nonsense people talk. Does prohibition of anything prohibit? It never has and never will prohibit entirely, but it will not mend matters to open the doors wider and let them go to it. The hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) of whom I think so much, is in favour of it because it gives him a thrill! Would he carry that to its logical conclusion and say that all thrills should be sought and encouraged? The murderer is given a thrill. The man who breaks into a bank gets a thrill because he beats the law. There is a thrill in getting past the law. But that is a dangerous doctrine to follow. There are thrills and thrills, and there are some that we must avoid if we want to escape the penitentiary. I expressed the view last year that I was proud of the fact that all our leaders in both chambers were against this kind of thing-sweepstakes legalized. They are not very audible about it to-night, and that may be the part of wisdom as leaders, but I know where their hearts are. I know where they were last year, and I have no reason to believe that, they are anywhere else this year. I am proud to think that even

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Bennett
if their leadership is not very audible or visible it is nevertheless there. Who could listen to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), especially one sitting on the other side, and not be moved with the desire to follow such leadership in a matter of this kind? I have no desire to be thrown in contact with my hon. friend any more than is necessary, but I am not going to shy away because he leads, do not make any mistake about that, especially in a matter of this kind. I have had the opportunity since coming to Ottawa of having for nearly nine years under the Department of Agriculture had the supervision of race track gambling. I do not suppose there is any race track gambling in any part of the world conducted more decently than it is in Canada, if it can be conducted decently. It is supervised by the police. I know the example that form of gambling is to so many; I recited it last year, and I am not going to repeat it. Nor am I going to talk much longer, only to make one other remark, about regulating gambling.
We have heard a lot about regulating. Can you regulate a rattlesnake? Can you regulate poison? Can you regulate many of these vicious things for which the only cure is- well, something else much more drastic? Restrain it more by circumscribing its activities; penalize it more if possible, instead of opening the doors to it. I am astonished at the so-called arguments used, especially those relating to hospitals. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are many good men who do it-that is the misfortune of it; if it were only the scalawags that liked gambling it would not be so bad, but the world is full of good men and women who engage in it; there is no question about that. But that is all the more reason that those of us who see it otherwise should make our views stoutly known.
I do not think my ten minutes are up yet-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Seven, it was to be.


William Richard Motherwell: Then I will shorten it. When I think of the high and upper source from which this bill has come I am reminded of the old but true saying that "Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do." If I had a hundred votes, yea, a thousand, they would all be recorded against this gambling bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It devolves always upon whoever happens for ,the moment to lead the house, when a matter is under consideration that is not party or political in the broad sense, to make a few observations upon the question which is to be dealt with. In January of this year a discussion took place between the premiers of the provinces and members of the federal executive regarding lotteries and sweepstakes. The government indicated to those present that an opportunity would be given, without any whip being used or any control exercised from a party standpoint upon the members, to express freely their opinion with respect to the matter in hand.
I have only this to say, that as far as my personal view is concerned I am unalterably opposed .to this legislation and shall vote that it be given the six months' hoist. I shall not dwell upon the reasons which induced me to arrive at that conclusion. Suffice it to say that recently, 1932 to be exact, a book was published by a very well known author in which the whole history of lotteries was reviewed at great length and the reasons given why it was found essential in 1823 to pass a statute by which lotteries were made illegal in Great Britain. The law became effective in 1826. In France they passed an act by which lotteries were made illegal; it was not until more recent times, in fact not until the days of Clemenceau and Briand, that the act was amended, and it was only in 1933 that the present provisions of the law were enacted by which state lotteries were made legal.
My reading induces me to believe that the lotteries which began in a small way in England in the sixteenth century, the proceeds of which were utilized to build the British museum, to establish the colony in Virginia, to carry on operations of a public character in connection with the payment of the debt and to raise public money, were in the very nature of things frequently, if not always, surrounded by conditions which could not be supported. This book, Lotteries and Sweepstakes, by L'Estrange Ewen, published in 1932, reviews every lottery in Great Britain from the beginning until the end, and the various chapters dealing with the history of this question certainly are worth reading from any possible standpoint, whether of the history of the race, of its tendencies, of its instincts, or of the development of public morality. However you may look at it the fact is that this book is intensely interesting as the history of three hundred years or more. The conclusion at which the author arrives is one to which I think attention might be directed. I have the fullest sympathy with those who do not share my opinions; they have their reasons for their views and they sustain their convictions on grounds which doubtless they think quite as strong and as
3320	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Bennett
cogent as any reasons I could give as to why I do not support this measure. At page 353 of this book I find these words:
The determination of whether an action is right or wrong is dependent upon the setting up of a uniform standard of morality applicable to all classes in all circumstances, and as the moral theorists have not yet come to agreement on that matter, no attempt will be made in this practical volume to determine in which category of human endeavour participation in a lottery falls. It will be agreed by most students of moral science that the majority of actions upon which personal advancement depends contain elements which may be deemed vicious by the most exacting critic, and. disregarding the views of visionaries, it will be conceded by everyone that it is impossible to eliminate all incentives to evil without at the same time destroying many possibilities for good.
That is the conclusion at which the author arrives, to which I think most of us will agree. There is no absolute rule of right or wrong with respect to this particular matter. Each man must answer that question in the light in which he reads the evidence of the past and the history of days that are no more. That is the only way in which he can arrive at a conclusion, but when I am asked to exercise my vote as a member of the House of Commons of Canada to say that we shall legalize that which has brought the misery to the human race that games of chance and lotteries have brought, I propose to exercise my vote against any such thing. I cannot throw the weight, the prestige and the power of the state into legalizing these lotteries. Here is the epitaph that, after centuries of effort in Great Britain, was prepared by Hone with regard to lotteries, when they ceased to have legal existence in Great Britain:
In Memory of THE STATE LOTTERY the last of a long line w'hose origin in England commenced in the year 1569,
which, after a series of tedious complaints, Expired on the
18th day of October, 1826.
During a period of 257 years, the family flourished under the powerful protection of the
British Parliament: the minister of the day continuing to
give them his support for the improvement of the revenue.
As they increased, it was found that their continuance corrupted the morals, and encouraged a spirit
of Speculation and Gambling among the lower classes of people; thousands of whom fell victims to their insinuating and tempting allurements.

Many philanthropic individuals in the Senate,
at various times for a series of years, pointed out their baneful influence without effect His Majesty's Ministers still affording them their countenance and protection.
The British Parliament being at length convinced of their mischievous tendency,
HIS MAJESTY GEORGE IV, on the 9th July, 1823. pronounced sentence of condemnation on the whole race; from which time they were almost neglected by the British Public.
Very great efforts wrere made by the Partisans and friends of the family to excite
the public feeling in favour of the last of the race, in vain:
It continued to linger out the few remaining
moments of its existence without attention or sympathy, and finally terminated its career unregretted by any virtuous mind.
My reading induces me to believe that every condemnation contained in that epitaph is supported by ample evidence. If I were to sit upon a jury I would have to find that the evidence against lotteries far outweighs any support that can be found either in the past or in the present. To argue that stock and mining exchanges constitute gambling may be and probably are correct to some extent, but to ask the state to establish a lottery, with various annuities and prizes to be awarded to those who are successful in the draw, it seems to me is but to offer one more incentive to the growing tendency not to realize the obligation that rests upon one and all to make some contribution, by real work, to their own fortunes and to the state.
I need not dwell upon the matter at length. What I have said so frequently I repeat, that on the balance of testimony as I see it and read it, and from what I can ascertain from the effect and influence of games of chance upon the minds, the thoughts and the habits of men; from the pernicious influence and the insinuating tendency to induce men to cease to work, as is pointed out in Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy, quoting from a well known statement made in the House of Lords by the Earl of Chesterfield of that day, the effect is ruinous upon the individual. From the moral standpoint,* from the standpoint of the attitude of the individual towards society, towards his fellow and towards his country, I have no hesitation

Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Mackenzie King
in saying that the evidence seems to me so complete that any jury of twelve men should find against lotteries, whether they be state or otherwise.
To introduce the hospitals into the matter of course is something that does credit to those who are anxious that our philanthropic institutions should be maintained. I happened to be in Dublin the day after one of the drawings took place. I know it is true that large sums of money went into that lottery from various parts of the world; it is true that we can advance the narrow argument that by this means we may keep in Canada or in one of the provinces substantial sums of money that might be utilized for some useful purpose. But if we established nine lotteries in Canada under the provisions of this act what would be the effect upon the people of this country? I do not believe there are ten men in this chamber who will say that at this time we should establish a national lottery in Canada. Therefore if we should not establish a national lottery, whether for hospitals, for the state or for any other purpose, can we justify the establishment of lotteries in a single province or in all nine provinces for any purpose that may be named? If we establish lotteries in three provinces and not in the other six what will be the result? The money from the six provinces will go to the three provinces, and so far as that is concerned it makes no difference whether it goes to the three provinces or somewhere else, in view of the way in which the money is expended, since only eighteen per cent of the total takings go to the hospitals which are used as the bait to secure the support of the public.
For these reasons, without reviewing the matter at length, I can only say that I must record my vote in favour of this bill being read this day six months hence, and I do so with as strong a conviction as I have ever held upon any public question in connection with which I have had to make a choice.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the house is anxious to vote on this measure before eleven o'clock, and for that reason in what I have to say I will be very brief. In a word, I find myself in entire agreement with the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). My convictions in the matter are quite as firm, as profound, and as sincere as are his own. I have opposed similar measures when on previous occasions they have been introduced, and on this occasion not only do I agree with the arguments presented by the Prime Minister but in addition I hold to the view expressed this after-; noon by the hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) that this particular measure is ultr^ vires.
I was somewhat surprised to see that one other member of the ministry seemed to take, a different view with regard to the all important matter of jurisdiction. Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite will not wonder that hon. members on this side feel they have reason for the doubts they entertain at times as to, the certainty and unanimity of view existing, in the ministry itself on questions of constitutional procedure and jurisdiction.
May I say of this particular bill with respect to hospital sweepstakes, the hospitals themselves do not wish to have the measure, passed. I have in my hand a copy of an official letter addressed to the Prime Minister by the Secretary of the Canadian Hospital Council, of which body the right hon. gentleman himself is honorary president. In this communication very strong reasons are given as to why the House of Commons should not pass this particular measure. I shall not take the time of the house to read the communication. I need only say that it sets forth in no uncertain terms many of the arguments which have been presented to-day.
As the Prime Minister has said, the principle to be decided with respect to this bill is as to whether or not this house shall endorse legislation which tends to further gambling practices. I believe, in private, gambling should not be encouraged between individuals, and I hold there are even stronger reasons why those who have to do with the shaping of public opinion should not further or countenance any measure which, by statute, would publicly encourage gambling. At this particular time in the affairs of our country and the world I feel there are additional reasons why parliament should frown upon any course of behaviour which is likely to make for more in the way of uncertainty in, the lives of our people and the affairs of our country. What we require in the affairs of individuals and of the nation is less of uncertainty and more of certainty; less of instability and more of stability; less of reliance on chance and luck, and more reliance on judgment and effort. There is no doubt that much of the distress of the times has come about through excessive speculation during periods of prosperity, and far too many people, with respect to their own affairs, have got into the, habit of relying upon chance and gambling in one form or another rather than upon prudent action and reason.
3322	COMMONS
Hospital Sweepstakes-Mr. Mackenzie King
One feature in particular I very much dislike about this measure is that it attempts to effect under the guise of what is laudable something which is otherwise indefensible, a tendency with respect to legislation which is becoming far too general in this House of Commons. We have witnessed the same kind of procedure with respect to not a few other measures. Relief measures introduced to assist the unemployed have been made the means of enabling the government of the day to do away with that control which parliament should at all times have over taxation and expenditures. To meet the alleged necessities of an emergency, the government has taken to itself power to enact almost any measures in the name of peace, order and good government. Other measures, such as the one nominally to regulate marketing, have in reality to do with the restricting of imports and exports. We have had titles introduced in this country, for the purpose we are told of fostering loyalty; in reality they serve mostly to satisfy the weakness of human vanity. This measure introduced in the name of charity in order to assist hospitals, as a matter of fact, is simply the thin end of the wedge of an effort to increase possibilities of gambling, a tendency which at any time should not be encouraged by legislation.
Therefore I am in entire agreement with those who have opposed the measure, and shall most certainly vote for the amendment to give it six months' hoist. If by any chance the amendment should not carry, I shall vote against the bill itself.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Questions


Mr. YALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RUTHERFORD:: I was paired with
the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Fraser) as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 23, 1934