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.
Subtopic: AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO BETTING, PREVIOUS OFFENCE CHARGED, ETC.