May 22, 1934

CON

Thomas Cantley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CANTLEY:

I did not say that.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
LIB-PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Liberal Progressive

Mr. 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.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

That is the marketing

bill.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
LIB-PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Liberal Progressive

Mr. 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.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
CON

Harry James Barber

Conservative (1867-1942)

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.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
LAB

Humphrey Mitchell

Labour

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.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
CON

Onésime Gagnon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GAGNON:

I never said that.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
LAB

Humphrey Mitchell

Labour

Mr. 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.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
PRO

Archibald M. Carmichael

Progressive

Mr. CARMICHAEL:

No, the love of money.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
LAB

Humphrey Mitchell

Labour

Mr. MITCHELL:

That is the same thing.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
LAB

Humphrey Mitchell

Labour

Mr. 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.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
CON

Samuel Gobeil

Conservative (1867-1942)

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.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
CON

Onésime Gagnon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GAGNON:

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

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson

Liberal

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?

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
CON

Onésime Gagnon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. 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.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson

Liberal

Mr. 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.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
CON

Onésime Gagnon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GAGNON:

No.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson

Liberal

Mr. 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-

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

The marketing bill.

Topic:   HOSPITAL SWEEPSTAKES
Subtopic:   BILL TO LEGALIZE LOTTERIES WHEN CONDUCTED BY PROVINCES
Permalink

May 22, 1934