Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the policy of the government not to reveal destinations of exports is purely a war matter. I may say at the same time that this matter gives us a very great deal of trouble. There are certain exports the destinations of which should not be revealed. I personally do not see much harm, if any, in letting anybody know to what country coal and certain other articles are exported, but it is hard to draw the line, and the practice generally followed is to maintain secrecy as to all exports.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition) :

Mr. Speaker, while I have no idea how long the session is to last, there are a number of matters passed as orders for returns and some questions on the order paper the answers to which I would like the Secretary of State not to defer too long. Perhaps on Monday, if he does not mind, he might do as he did prior to the Easter recess, and that is give the house a list of matters which have not been answered or orders for returns which have not been complied with; so that we shall know exactly where we stand in respect to this matter.

Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):

It runs in my mind that of 522 returns ordered,

[ Mr. Hansell.]

all have been returned except 54. About a week ago I asked the official in my department having charge, in view of the fact that we are approaching the close of the session, to do everything possible to expedite these returns. I know he has done so. I shall be very glad to do as the leader of the opposition requests. I take it that what he is asking for is a return as to each item, not just the figures as to it, but each outstanding order?

Mr. GRAYDON:

That is right.

Mr. McLARTY:

I will see that it is done.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

The words "or subsequent" are added-"or subsequent to his conviction." I assume that some case has arisen which makes this necessary in the administration of justice. Perhaps the minister will explain.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: It came about in this way. There was a tesd case before the court of appeal; the magistrate dealing with another case wished to have the benefit of the decision that would be given by the court of appeal before pronouncing sentence, and when the time arrived to recall the convicted person for sentence difficulties arose over this section in the code.

Mr. NEILL:

The same principle is involved here as I was discussing last night in connection with another bill. It presses to an extreme degree the liability to prosecution by the use of language that is so conclusive and comprehensive as to take in almost anybody under any conditions whatever. The section as it stands now in the old act, giving the definition of a common betting-place, reads:

. . . opened, kept or used for the purpose of facilitating or encouraging or assisting in the making of bets upon any contingency or event, horse-race or other race, fight, game or sport, by announcing the betting upon or announcing

Criminal Code-Betting

or displaying the results of horse-races, or other races, fights, games or sports, or in any other manner. . . .

And so on. That is the present definition of a common betting place, and it is now sought to be amended by putting in the words "used or intended or likely to be" used for the purpose, and so on. That embodies the same vicious principle to which exception was taken last night. Section 8, the next section, applies the same principle to newspapers that circulate information calculated to assist people in betting, and now the mere fact of advertising the results of sports-baseball or any other sport of that sort-would render them liable to a heavy penalty. This is an indictable offence, making the accused liable to a year in gaol without apparently the option of a fine. "Used or intended or likely to be used." We know of places such as pool rooms and cigar stores where it is the custom for men to gather in the evening to learn, over the radio or otherwise, the results of sporting events of the day. It is now going to be made a penalty, a very serious offence, if you have a place where you do that, even if it is only "likely" to be used for that purpose-"intended or likely to be used." Is not that going rather far in restricting the liberties of the people? The explanation given on the opposite page is this:

The object of this amendment is to make more practicable the enforcement of the provisions of the criminal code with respect to betting.

I respectfully suggest that instead of making it more practicable it simply makes it easier and more convenient for the officers of the law. It is intended to make it easier for the officers of the law to secure conviction because at present they have to break into a place and find people engaged in betting and so on, and of course the material is there, whatever it may be. Now, however, it is simply sufficient to allege that the place is "intended or likely to be used" for the purposes mentioned. Surely that is carrying things too far. It is the old and evil doctrine of convicting a man first and letting him prove himself innocent if he can. Last night, speaking of a similar bill, the minister in charge, the Minister of Transport, was able to invoke the war as an excuse. It was a war measure, he pointed out, and we have to submit to certain restrictions of our liberty in war time, but that afterwards these restrictions would be removed. But this is not such a case, because we cannot conceive that the success of the war depends in any degree upon some petty cigar store being prosecuted for running a betting-place. And, as I say,

the penalty is severe. Such places are classed along with common bawdy houses as disorderly houses, and the penalty is up to one year's imprisonment and on repetition two years without a fine.

I suggested last night that in modern times the custom has been not to inflict very severe penalties with the idea of preventing crime. We have found that it is better, both from a humanitarian standpoint and as a matter of common sense, and moreover it is more effective, to make the punishment fit the crime without being excessive. Look back over history and you will recall that a hundred and fifty years ago it was' quite a common thing to deport people to Australia as criminals, and sometimes, going further back, to hang women for stealing a loaf of bread. Many instances are on record where such things were done. The idea behind such penalties was that extreme severity prevented crime. But the inhumanity of it dawned gradually upon people so that we no longer inflict such penalties.

I was curious to see what definition the dictionary would give of this word "intended," and I found it meant affianced lover. That did not give me much light. I want to know how anyone can tell what I "intend" to do under any given circumstances. I wonder the press gallery are not interested in this, because they also are liable under section 8.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have not reached section 8. If the hon. member will allow me to intervene at this stage I have an amendment to section 7 which will meet for the most part the objection he has voiced. Perhaps it would save time if I were allowed to put the amendment now. With respect to section 8 I shall have a modification to suggest which may facilitate discussion, but as regards section 7 I would move:

Strike out the second word "or" in line 35 and substitute therefor the following: "to be used or outfitted or equipped in such a manner as to be."

As amended it would read:

Used or intended to be used or outfitted or equipped in such a manner as to be likely to be used.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I do not

think that that carries the minister very far. It is a little more qualified, that is all; but the objection on principle remains. It is a question of intent. What is the equipment or outfitting that is had in mind? A telephone in a library or living room, or a radio might, in the opinion of the convicting magistrate, be sufficient to constitute a common betting-place. I do not know what gives

Criminal Code-Betting

rise to this particular class of legislation. I assume it arises out of the failure of the provincial authorities to get all the convictions they desire. It may be that they are justified in asking the consideration of parliament to this type of legislation. But I do suggest that it is a type which smacks of prohibition days, about which the hon. member for Essex East so often reminds me, and concerning which he expresses some surprise. While I do not think a high court judge would be influenced by this type of legislation to any very great extent, it is the sort of legislation which gives prosecutors and the type of magistrate we sometimes see on police court benches an opportunity to go much farther than they might otherwise go. That might be the effect, if the police magistrate had that particular type of mind which happens to be out on a witch hunt, where he would convict one of anything.

I should like to know the reason for this legislation. I remember in the days of prohibition having been shocked when I read of the sort of procedure, and the sections relating to prosecutions arising from temperance legislation of days gone by. In my early days as a lawyer I had a great deal to do with prosecuting, as well as defending, and most frequently came in contact with the old Canada Temperance Act. I was glad to lay down the burden when prohibition came in, because I did not want anything more to do with it. I suppose that in my lifetime I have been connected with at least five hundred cases having to do with violations of the liquor laws.

Mr. MARTIN:

That is, law cases.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Oh, yes, not the other kind of cases. I was shocked to see the type of legislation these legislatures put into effect. It seemed to me that a good deal of it must have come from some of those fundamentalist states we read about, down in the south, where-

Mr. MacINNIS:

Where they do not believe in evolution.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Yes, where they do not believe in evolution, and where they frown on everything. In principle, this is the same kind of legislation; and unless the minister can show some real cause for it,

I do not think he ought to proceed with his amendment. I was surprised to find this provision in the bill, because from his statement upon introduction I understood there was to be in this measure no new substantive law. This is legislation of that kind, and I do

suggest that it is a widening of the definition of a betting house or a gaming house, and that, therefore it changes the substantive law of the country.

Unless the minister can make out a case, I am opposed to this type of legislation. There is a burden of proof placed on the crown or upon the prosecution, and that should not be eased through the lifting of that burden by parliament, or by making it easy for a magistrate to elect that in the exercise of his judicial discretion he may place an interpretation upon a set of circumstances or a certain position which a reasonable man would not do. That, it seems to me, is the possibility under this amendment. The effect will be to make it easy to get convictions, in lieu of a position under which it was more difficult to do so. I hold no brief at all for betting, or anything of that sort. I do not take part in it.

You should.