1909-12-02

PRIVILEGE-REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.

Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) yesterday, (December 1), called my attention, as 27
a matter of privilege, to the position of another hon. member of this House who had been returned for two constituencies and had not yet declared or elected for which of the two constituencies he would continue to retain his seat.
The contention was made that a certain sessional order of the House of Commons of Great Britain, requiring a member under such circumstances if within one week that it should be made to appear that there was no question as to his return, &c., was applicable to the case referred to inasmuch as such a case was not provided for by the rules and orders of this House. Rule No. 1 of this House is as follows;
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the rules, usages and forms of proceeding of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in force on the first day of July, 1867, shall be followed.
In the imperial parliament the matter under consideration is dealt with by sessional orders which are renewed by the House of Commons from session to session and which expire at prorogation.
The sessional order on the subject which was, presumably, passed by the imperial House in 1867 may or may not have been in force on the first day of July in that year depending on whether the House was then in session or had been prorogued before that date. Even if that sessional order was in force _ on the first day of July, 1867, the question as to whether that order in all its terms is applicable to the House of Commons of Canada is one of importance and not without difliculty. As far as I have been able to ascertain in the limited time allowed me since the question was raised, I have not been able to find that it has been observed in this country. In fact, from a somewhat hasty consideration of the precedents, I think I would be safe in saying that the practice of this House as to the time in which the member's choice shall be made, has been far from uniform and to the present time no formal ruling on the subject has been made in this House.
The question is, are such sessional orders as are annually passed by the British House of Commons at the beginning of each session included in the meaning of the words ' rules, usages and forms of proceeding ' mentioned in rule 1 of this House. Those sessional orders are clearly neither rules nor forms of proceeding nor in the strict meaning of the term are they to be considered 1 usages ' and consequently are not applicable to this House in cases not specifically provided for. The practice of this House has so far not recognized them as binding.
In 1873, Hon. Mr. Blake having been elected for Durham and Bruce announced his choice of constituency fifteen days after



the beginning of the session, and in 1896 Mr. Dalton McCarthy elected which of the two seats (Brandon and Simcoe) he would sit for, on the seventh day after the opening of the session. The case of the honourable the present Postmaster General, returned for both Nicolet and Gaspe in 1904, is one of the latest in point. He only resigned for Nicolet on the third of December, 1906, and after some fifteen months had elapsed during which he might have exercised his privilege of choice. No doubt a search of the journals and records would show many similar cases.
A strict adherence to the British rule would therefore to a certain extent form an alteration in the customs and usages of this House in that regard.
My ruling is, therefore, that there is nothing in the rule of this House requiring a member who has been returned for more than one constituency to elect within any prescribed time for which of such constituencies he will sit. But, in my opinion, it is eminently desirable that some definite rule and practice on the subject should be established. The House has a Standing Committee for the purpose of considering such questions-the Committee on Privileges and Elections-and I would suggest that at an early date the matter should be considered by the House, or by the committee, with a view to the fixing of a definite period within which such election is to be made.


Mr. GBAHAM :: 1.	W. W. Krick was the government inspector of Port Maitland west pier (not east pier).
2.	He commenced his duties 26th May, 1909.
3.	He resigned by letter to superintending engineer dated 2nd September, 1909, the resignation to take effect September 4, 1909.
4.	Salary $3 per day, 26th May to 30th June, 1909.
Salary $3.50 per day July 1 to September 4, 1909.
Total amount paid him $292.50.
5.	No, although it appears some correspondence took place between Mr. Krick and the superintending engineer.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-BOARD OP ARBITRATORS.

Mr. SAM. SHARPE :: 1.	Who composes the board of arbitrators to decide the question of over-classification in the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway?
2.	Should the board of arbitration find that there has been over-classification, is it the intention of the government to compel the contractors to make good the loss or is the loss to fall upon the people of Canada?
3.	If the government purpose fixing the loss, if any, for this alleged over-classification upon the contractors, lias the government considered the advisability of having the contractors represented by a member on the board of arbitrators



QUESTIONS.


Mr. PAQUET:: How many employees of all kinds were in the service of the Intercolonial Railway and its several branches in the course of the fiscal years 1907-8, 1908-9, and the 1st October, 1909?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM :: Average number of employees of all kinds on Intercolonial railway during fiscal year 1907-8, was 8,861; during 1908-9, 9,285; until 1st October, 1909, 8,610.


W. W. KRICK, INSPECTOR, PORT MAITLAND.
Mr. LABOR :: 1.	Was W. W. Krick, the government inspector of Port Maitland east pier ?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, and on what date did he commence his duties?
3.	What was the date of his resignation ?
4.	What was his salary and the total amount of money paid to him?
5.	Did he report to the government that hi was not satisfied with the work being done and giving that as his reason for resigning?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: 


Mr. GRAHAM :: 1.	Gordon Grant, chief engineer, of the the National Transcontinental railway, ^stern division.
B. B. Kelliher, chief engineer, of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway.
Collingwood Schreiber, chief engineer to the government, for the western division of the National Transcontinental railway.
2.	It is thought inadvisable in the public interest to reply to this question while the matters in dispute are still being arbitrated upon.
3.	The composition of the board of arbitrators is fixed by statute.


EXPORTS OF PULP AND PULP WOOD FROM SAULT STE. MARIE.
Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	What quantity of pulp and puln wood, respectively, were exported from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, during the years 1900 and 1909, inclusive?
2.	What was the value of such exports, respectively ?


Hon. WM. PATERSON:: The exports of pulp wood and wood pulp from the port of Sault Ste. Marie during the fiscal years from 1900 to 1909, inclusive, have been as follows:

Cords.
1900		
1901		
1902		
1903		
1904		10,680
1905		18,694
1906	 (9 mouths)-	20,183
1907		9,551
1908		35,151
1909		35,016
Wood Pulp. Cords. Value. 362.243 71 750 230,389 436,918 366.441 420,810 499,547
42,672		 558,929
120,164 1,061,884 758,463 175,779 1,044,371 876,055
Note.-The quantity of pulp wood was not recorded during the fiscal years 1900 to 1903, inclusive.
Pulp Wood. Value. 155,614 80.389 77,584 22,226 39,080 68,605 75,960
The quantity of wood pulp was not recorded during the fiscal years 1900 to 1907, inclusive.


ACCIDENT TO LOCKS AT SAULT STE. MARIE.
Mr. BOYCE:: 17 What investigation, if any, was made by the government into the cause of the accident which occurred during the past summer at Sault Ste. Marie, by which the gates of the Canadian locks were broken and injuries were caused to shipping in the locks? If so, when and where was the investigation held, and by whom?
2.	Has any report yet been made as a result of any such investigation? If so, when was it made and where is it filed?
3.	What was the total cost entailed upon the government by the accident.
4.	Have any steps been taken to recover this amount from those responsible for the accident? If not, is the department contemplating taking any such steps?
5.	Has the department had any correspondence with reference to recovering compensation for the loss sustained? If so. with whom and with what result?
6.	Who was employed to report upon and estimate the damage caused?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	An investigation was made by the superintending enginneer of the canal under the observation of the staff.
2.	Yes; a report from the superintending engineer, dated June 18, 1909, which is now on file in the department.
3.	Amount of expenditure on account of the damage to date is $67,229.67.
4.	Yes; the matter is now in the hands of the Department of Justice, through whom all negotiations for settlement are being made.
_ 5. Answered by No. 4. The claim is pending for settlement.
6.	The superintending engineer of the canal.


ORDNANCE STORES BUILDINGS AT OTTAWA.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: ![DOT] What are the detailed instructions to the Dominion Police as to the patrolling of the Ordnance Stores buildings at Ottawa?
27i
2.	At what hours did such uatrol visit the building between 6 o'clock a.m. of the 21st November, 1909, and 6 o'clock a.m. of the 22nd November, 1909?
3.	Did the duties of the patrol include visits to the interior of the building in which a fire recently occurred? If not, why not?
4.	Do military customs and regulations require that night guards shall be mounted wherever fires are maintained in store buildings? If so, what official is responsible for the absence of a night guard in the building in which fire recently caused damages and loss estimated at $170,000?
5.	Who is the official responsible for the custody of the valuable accumulation of clothing and stores at the headquarters ordnance station, and has this official made any representations of the lack of sufficient men to carry on the ordinary duties of the service for which he is responsible?
6.	Do the ordnance stores buildings at Ottawa accommodate all clothing and stores on ordnance charged at such station? If not, what nature and quantity of stores or clothing are otherwise provided for, where stored, rental, if any, paid for buildings or space, and what provision was made for night watch thereon ?
7.	Was any insurance carried on stores damaged by fire? If not, why not?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Answers to first three parts supplied by Minister of Justice:
1.	A constable for the past five years has been detailed to visit the Ordnance Stores building three times nightly, going from the Militia Department, where he is regularly stationed. Time 11 to 11.25 p.m.; 1 to 1.25, and 3 to 3.25 a.m., to ascertain that all doors and windows were securely fastened and that no appearance of fire existed. In the event of anything unusual being observed to notify the sergeant on duty at police headquarters, East Block. In event of noticing fire, in addition to above, to turn in a fire alarm, a box for that purpose being installed close by.
2.	As the building was burned on the morning of the 20th it is taken for granted that the question was intended to read from the 19th to the 20th. A constable was on duty at the main door of the Ordnance Stores building on the 19th from 8.30 a.m. till the building closed at about 4.30 p.m. The night visits were made as indicated in the foregoing answer, 11 to 11.25 p.m., 19th; 1 to 1.25 a.m., and 3 to 3.25 a.m., 20th.
3.	Their duties did not require them to visit the interior of the building, the visits mentioned being deemed a sufficient precaution.
4.	No, but the Regulations for Canadian Ordnance Services hold officers in charge of a store building responsible that all fires are made ' safe ' at night.
5.	The_ Senior Ordnance Officer, Ottawa. No special application has been made, but all officers commanding Commands and In-

dependent Districts have recommended increases to the establishment of the Canadian Ordnance Corps, and these have been met as far as funds will permit.	_
6. No. The following are stored, in a rented building on Sparks street, viz.:
Caps, forage, soft band	 3,000
"	" hard band	
2,000Trousers, infantry,	serge ..	..	1,500Pants, cloth	
300Tunics, Hussars	
400Frocks, blue, N. P	
500Trousers, khaki	
800Greatcoats, grey	
6,844Cloaks, grey	
500" khaki	
1,760
The rent of the building is $960. The lessor paying the taxes.
This building is used simply as a warehouse. The building is not heated, and it is only opened when an officer of the corps inspects it, or when articles are required to be removed therefrom. Under these circumstances the appointment of a special night watchman is not considered necessary. The building is under the special protection of the city police.
7. No. The government does not insure.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-MR. McINTOSH.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Is Mr. McIntosh, of whom Major Hodgins complained for alleged over classification and of whom Mr. Grant, now chief engineer, is said to have approved (see letter Major Hodgins to Mr. Lumsden, 14th Sept/, 1907, Exhibit 6, before Special Committee), still in service of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission? If so, where, in what capacity, at what salary, and has his salary been increased since Sept., 1907? If so, from what amount to what amount?
2.	If not in the service of the commission, when and why were his services dispensed with?


George Perry Graham: The Transcontinental Railway Commission furnishes the following information:
1.	Mr. McIntosh was promoted November 16, 1908, from division engineer, division No. 6, District ' F,' at salary of $200 per month, to position of assistant district engineer, District ' F,' at salary of $275 per month, being the salary attached to that position on reports of District Engineer Poulin and Chief Engineer Lums-den. He still occupies this position.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1. Referring to a letter of Oct. 30, 1907, from Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden to the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway, in which he says among other things, ' I can Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
only say that I do not concur with the interpretation placed on clauses 34, 35 and 36 of the general specifications by Mr. Doucet, or the engineers under him,' and after giving his own interpretation and stating the action to be taken, concludes: ' In any event, I ask that this correspondence be at once submitted to the government,' was the correspondence referred to submitted to the government? If so, when and how?
2.	What action, if any, did the government take in reference to that matter, when was the conclusion arrived at, where is _ this recorded and was the result communicated to the engineer and the commissioners? If so, how and when?
3.	Were the records, papers and documents in reference to this matter included in the return brought down on the 22nd of April, 1909, sessional paper No. 46F? If not, will the minister now lay them upon the table of the House?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes; by letter of secretary, Transcom-tinental Railway Commission, dated Nov. 23, 1907, to the honourable the Minister of Railways and Canals.
2.	The matter was referred back to the
commissioners by the hon. the Minister of Railways,, by letter, Dated December 5,	1907, 'for the reason that
by the National Transcontinental Railway Act, full power is vested in the commissioners and the chief engineer to carry on the work, and under the form of contract and specifications approved by the government the duties of the chief engineer are fully set forth. The whole correspondence appears as exhibits in Hodgins' investigation. (See pages 65 and 66, Proceedings of Special Committee).
QUEBEC BRIDGE-TENDERS FOR NEW PIERS, &c.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Has the government asked for tenders for the construction of the new piers for the Quebec bridge?
2.	Are the existing piers in good condition? If not, what is the defect and how was it caused?
3.	Are these piers to be utilized for the new bridge? If not, why not?
4.	What did these piers cost, and are they to be demolished?
5.	What is the estimated cost of the new piers ?
6.	What was to have been the weight of the steel to be used in the former structure, what kind of steel, what is the estimated weight of steel to be used in the new structure, and what kind of steel is provided for?
7.	What is the estimated percentage of increased strength to be secured by the new plans as compared to the former plans?
8.	What is the estimated cost of the new bridge ?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The existing piers have shown no defects whatever.

3.	The south pier caisson will be fully used, and enlarged to carry the greater load that will be required for new superstructure. At the north pier; borings have demonstrated that the caisson can be founded on the rock and the span reduced from 1,800 to 1,758 feet, the existing north pier will then be demolished.
4.	(a) The total cost of the old substructure, including anchor piers and abutments was $1,217,400.	.
(b)	Answered by number three.
5.	Tenders are now before the government, pending action no reply can be made.
6.	The old bridge was estimated to weigh 35,000 tons and was to have been built of carbon steel. The new bridge' will be built in part of carbon steel using nickel steel in the more important members^the weight cannot be given at present pending the receipt of tenders for the superstructure.
7.	Impossible to answer. The new bridge will be strong enough to carry all the loads that may possibly be brought upon it.
8.	It is not in the public interest to publish any information at this stage of the work.


ST. LAWRENCE CHANNEL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK;
1.	What is the total amount expended to date for dredging and deepening the channel from Batiscan, P.Q., across to St. Pierre las Becquets ?
2.	Is the work in question terminated?
3.	What depth has the said channel?
4.	Are any steamers using the said channel to convey passengers or freight to St. Pierre les Becquets? If so, what steamers have used said channel during the past year?
Hon. W. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$27,775.95.
2.	No.
3.	Part of the channel has been dredged to a depth of 8 feet and part to 5 feet.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) Two boats, one gasoline and one steam, have conveyed passengers and freight between Batiscan and St. Pierre les Becquets during the past summer.


DEEPENING OP ST. LAWRENCE CHANNEL.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	What provision has been made as respects arms, clothing, ammunition, &c., to meet any possible sudden increase of the , active militia from training to war establishment?
2.	What provision has been made as to the mobilization stores of authorized establishments being available if required for active service ?
3.	Has provision been made for an adequate reserve of arms, clothing, ammunition, &c., being maintained between the Great Lakes and the Rocky mountains and between Calgary and the Pacific coast?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to establish an arsenal west of Lake Superior?
5.	Has any pattern of gun sleigh been yet approved for the use of the Canadian Horse and Field Artillery?


Frederick William Borden: The kind of information asked for in questions 1, 2 and 3 has not very often been required and, in so far as I know, has never been given, as it is not considered in the public interest to do so. With my hon. friend's intimate knowledge of military customs I think he will agree with me that it is undesirable in this case that it should be given. As to question 4, the answer is: Not at present.
5.	Yes, a pattern has been approved which will be further tested during the present winter.


IMPORTATION OF COAL.
Mr. G. V. WHITE:: What quantity of coal has been imported into the Dominion of Canada and the province of Ontario, respectively, from the United States, during each year from 1905 to 1909, inclusive ?


William Paterson: The quantity of coal
imported into Canada and the province of Ontario, from the United States, during the fiscal years 1905 to 1909, inclusive, was as follows:
-	Dominion of Canada.	Pbovince of Ontario.	Bituminous.	Slack.	Anthracite.	Bituminous.	Slack.	Anthracite.1905	
1906	
1907	(9 mos.)	
1908	
1909	Tons. 4,424,179 4,742,485 4,081,082 7,220,672 6,036,621	Tons. 614,429 750,489 035,726 1,236,503 1,083,207	Tons. 2,584,338 2,152,616 1,991,926 3,056,600 3,022,970	Tons. 4,314,347 4,657,254 3,981,460 6,652,624 5,671,963	Tons. 591,609 730,623 591,633 1,107,756 963,425	Tons. 1,874,068 1,473,753 1,384,094 2,151,077 2,035,117
Lawrence route from Port Colborne to Montreal? If so, what would be the cost of deepening said route to a minimum depth of 22
feet?
the cost of enlarging and deepening the St. Mr. GRAHAM. No.


DEEPENING OF THE ST. LAWRENCE CHANNEL.
Gerald Verner White: Has the government made an estimate of


PERMANENT CORPS.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to increase the existing establishment of any of the permanent corps during the next financial year, or to raise any new permanent corps during that period?
2.	If so, what are the details of proposed increases to existing corps and what station will be affected?
3.	What new units are to be raised, of what strength, and where to be located?


Sir FREDERICK  BORDON@: The answer is : No.
BREEDING OF HORSES FOR MTLTTrEV PURPOSES.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Has the government considered the advisability of starting a government farm or ranch for the breeding of horses suitable for military purposes, and thus providing against the reduction of the normal supply available to the rapidly increasing new settlers, beside ensuring a separate suitable supply for army and military purposes?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER.: The answer is: No.


Frederick William Borden: And also for the Militia Department.


MOUNTED POLICE - ARRANGEMENT WITH SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA.
Arthur Norreys Worthington: What arrangements exist between the federal government and the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta as respects the employment of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police in the administration of law in those provinces?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Each province, Alberta and Saskatchewan, pays $75,000 per annum to the Dominion for the services of the Mounted Police, also sixty cents per diem for the maintenance of prisoners or lunatics in police guard rooms, and the expenses of transportation from the guard rooms to the penitentiary or asylum. The existing arrangement is for five years and will terminate, if not renewed, on the 31st March, 1911.


SALE OF TIMBER ON WATHA INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	Has any timber been sold by the Indian Department on the W atha Indian reserve, in the township of Gibson, district of Muskoka?
2.	If so, how many acres have been sold, what was the price received, how many tenders were put in, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Has there been any timber and bark seized by the Indian Department? If so, how many thousands of feet of logs and how many


George Perry Graham: cords of hark, and has any of this been sold? If so, what was the price received for logs and bark, respectively?
4.	Where sales have been made, who have been the purchasers?


Hon. F. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No land has been sold. Tenders were asked for a number of hemlock trees slightly damaged by fire on the Watha reserve on the 15th of August, 1908, the estimated quantity being 150,000 feet, b.m. Two tenders were received, namely from Jas. Parke, 75 cents per M. feet, b.m., and from F. McGibbon & Sons, $1.75 per M. feet, b.m.
3.	Yes. The exact quantity is unknown and cannot be ascertained until after measurements are made. The department is at present in correspondence with the Indian Superintendent on the subject. The timber seized was cut by Indians without authority. Some of it is green and some is standing and burned.
Tenders were asked for the burned standing hemlock on the 29th of October last, for an estimated quantity of 200,000 feet, b.m., and 75,000 feet, b.m., of green hemlock, also a quantity of hemlock bark. Only one tender was received, namely, from F. McGibbon & Sons, $3,26 per M. feet, b.m., for the burnt hemlock. No offer was made for the green, or hemlock bark.
4.	Messrs. McGibbon & Sons tenders were accepted. No other sales were made.


SHIP-BUILDING YARDS ON INLAND LAKES.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE:: 1.	Will ship-building yards on the great inland lakes be asked to tender for the construction of some of the ships for the Canadian navy ?
2.	Can ships for the Canadian navy be built, armed and equipped in Canadian' ship yards on the Great Lakes without interfering with the terms of the Rush-Bagot Convention of April 29, 1817, between Great Britain and the United States, or any other treaty or con-, veution in force between these two countries?'
3.	Is it the intention of this government to ask Great Britain and the United States to abrogate the terms of the Rush-Bagot Convention or Treaty of 1817?
4.	Could Canada give six months notice of the abrogation or annulling of the stipulation of this convention without the consent of Great Britain?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	This is a question which will be considered at the proper time.
2.	This question will also be considered at the proper time.
3.	It is not the intention of the government to take any steps with a view to the abrogation of the convention of 1870.
4.	No.


SALARY OF OUTSIDE SERVICE.
Mr. RIVET:: 1.	Does tlie government intend to grant an increase of salary this year to the employees in the outside service? *"
2.	If so, will a vote of credit for the purpose be soon submitted to the House?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not when it would involve any expenditure further than is provided in the estimates for the various outside services.


ORDNANCE STORES BUILDINGS AT OTTAWA.
Mr. SPROULE:: 1.	Was the $120,000 worth of militia clothing said to be destroyed in the recent fire which took place in the Ordnance building, a total loss? If not, what disposal was made of it, and how much of it can be made suitable for use by cleaning, pressing, &c.?
2.	What wras done with the $30,000 worth said to be damaged by smoke and water?
3.	Has a contract or contracts been let to do the cleaning, pressing and repairing of it? If so, to whom and at what price or prices?
4.	(a) Were tenders asked for to do the work by advertisement or otherwise; (h) if by advertisement in what papers did they appear; (c) if otherwise, in what way were tenders invited; (d) to whom were the invitations sent inviting tenders; (e) how many and from whom were tenders received for doing the work, what was the price of each tender; (f) and to whom was the contract or contracts awarded, and at what price?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: remaining tender, that of the Ottawa Sanitary Laundry.
(f)	Answered by No. 3.
The condition of this clothing after the fire was such that only the greatest promptitude could save it from much greater damage. Much of it was thoroughly soaked with water and stained with smoke, tar, oil and dirt. It was impossible to dry it in the drill shed, the temporary place of storage, and every day's delay increased the chance of further loss by mildew or staining^ This was understood not only by the' officials of the department but was emphasized by all of the tenderers who examined the clothing.
The necessity for immediate action was therefore urgent. As soon as the clothing was sorted and piled, so as to ascertain the character of the work required, tenders were sought, as nearly as possible, from every laundry or cleaning establishment in' the city. The newspapers were not used because it was believed that time would be saved by going direct to the tenderers by telephone; and the result appears to have justified that view.


TENDERS FOR CLEANING AND PRESSING.
[Stage Direction]
Garments.
Frocks, serge, scarlet	
" n blue or green
ii ii khaki	
Tunics, cloth, scarlet	
ii ii blue or green
Trousers, serge, blue	
"	ii khaki	
ii	cloth, blue	
Pantaloons, cloth, blue ...
I	.. B.C . ...
ii	serge, blue	
Washing, ironing, folding and parcelling white cap covers
| Imperial Laundry.	Ottawa Sanitary Laundry.	Parker.$ c.	$ c.	$ c.1 00	0 75	'0 750 50	0 65	0 650 50	0 65	0 751 00	0 75	0 800 50	0 65	0 750 35	0 50	0 400 35	0 50	0 450 35	0 50	0 400 35	0 60	0 400 35	0 60	0 450 35	0 60	0 405 60	6 75	6 200 50	1 00 per 100.

[Stage Direction]
Garments.	O. S. L.	Martin.	Good Shepherd.	Imperial Laundry.	Parker.Frocks, serge, scarlet	
n -i blue or green	
Tunics, cloth, scarlet	
" ii blue or green	
Trousers and pantaloons, cloth, blue.. * ii serge, blue or green " ii khaki	
Pantaloons, B.C... Garments not requiring pressing will be dried only..	$ cts. 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 05	$ cts. 0 25 0 25 0 20 0 20 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 15-07	$ cts. 0 15 0 15 0 25 0 20 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 15 0 05	8 cts. 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 05	$ cts. 0 25 0 20 0 25 0 20 0 15 0 15 0 20 0 201 602 25	1 37-1 45	1 25	1 65	HOMESTEADS IN SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA. Mr. LAKE: 1. What has been the amount of money collected by the government from the 1st January, 1908, to date, respectively, in each of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, on account of homestead fees, pre-emption' and purchased homstead fees, other payments on account of lands, whether homesteads, preSir FREDERICK BORDEN.	eruptions purchased, homesteads or other lands ? 2. What has been the total acreage of preemption and purchased homesteads sold in each of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, since the 1st January, 1908? Hon. PRANK OLIVER: To 31st October, 1909-Returns for November not complete. 1. Province of Alberta, $1,737,291.98.	
Province of Saskatchewan, $1,081,519.57.
2. Province of Alberta, 1,504,960 acres.
Province of Saskatchewan, 2,625,440 acres.

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR:: What amounts have been paid by the government to the 'Dominion Dredging Company during the present fiscal year to date?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 


LAKE N1PISSING ROLLER DAMS.
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	When were the roller dams at the outlet of Lake Nipissing built, and why?-
2.	What is the total cost of such dams?
3.	Have these dams been removed? If so, why ?
4.	What amounts have been paid as damages for flooding, and what additional claims have been made for damages?


William Pugsley: .
1.	(a) In 1907 and 1908. (b) To raise the low water level of the lake, in the interests of navigation and lumber industry.
2.	$18,778.91. '
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Owing to the extraordinary high water which prevailed for several weeks last spring throughout the entire Nipissing district, as well as throughout the Upper Ottawa river valley, upon representations made by the municipal council of the town of North Bay and other parties, the department deemed it in the public interest to remedy as much as possible this condition, by enlarging the lake outlets and mitigate possible damages to land owners.
4.	(a) 17 claims have been adjusted and
paid: total, $868.	(b) 65 additional claims
have been made, of which 53 have been adjusted.


PAYMENTS TO MR. T. C. NORRIS.
Mr. BRADBURY:: Wliat amount of moneys lias been paid by any or all departments of the government to


Mr.  T. C.@: Norris, of Manitoba, since January, 1902, up to date?


Mr. OLIVER.: As far as the Department of Interior is concerned, $9,096.84.


ALLEGED KIDNAPPING OF CANADIAN CITIZEN.
Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.).: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) to a matter of considerable importance to a portion of the constituency which I represent. It is stated that a man named William J. Kelly, living in Richmond, in the county of Carleton, N.B., has been kidnapped by United States officers and is now incarcerated in gaol in Portland, in the State of Maine. Of course, of this I have no proofs such as might be required in a court of law, but I have sufficient evidence in my hands to convince me that the man has been kidnapped. The circumstances of the case are as follows:


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not think that the hon. gentleman is permitted at this stage to go beyond a question except with the indulgence of the House. Of course there will be a motion later on, at which time this subject may be brought up.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is my intention only to ask a question. It seems that about seven years ago this man was one night teaming a load of produce into the United States and was confronted by a gentleman who turned out to be a United States officer.


Mr. FOSTER.: That is a positive statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot make the matter plain to ask a question without laying some little foundation for it. The result was that the United States officer fired on this man Kelly twice, one bullet taking effect in his cheek and another striking a buckle on a belt which he wore. Kelly seized a stick and in the end the officer was laid out and Kelly returned to his own side of the line. That was seven years ago. About three weeks ago a gentleman came to Kelly's residence in Richmond and wanted to buy some produce from him. Kelly succeeded in selling him some produce at a good price. Then the man wanted him to haul it to the United States but Kelly refused to do so. However, after considerable dickering, he agreed to take it to the boundary line. They started in the evening and came to a place called Union Corners where for about a quarter of a mile the highway road is, for all practical purposes, the boundary line. They had proceeded along this line 30 or 40 rods when a number of men appeared on the scene and Kelly was arrested, gagged, and carried off into the Mr. BRADBURY,
United States. I am satisfied that the boundary line is at least 3 or 4 rods to the west of the point where Kelly was arrested. He is now incarcerated in gaol in Portland and I would like to know if the government have any information on the subject and if they have if they will give it to the House. Will they do whatever is possible in order to have this man set at liberty and to see that the rights of British Subjects are not thus interfered with by American officers?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) has called attention is certainly one of very grave importance and one which will be, I have no doubt, on its being brought to the attention of the government of the United States, given the most careful consideration. I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) that in a very general way the facts to which he has referred were a few days ago brought to my attention in the shape of a letter from a gentleman of the vicinity who stated in substance what my hon. friend has just stated to this House. I replied immediately, pointing out the necessity for the most careful accuracy in regard to the particulars of such an allegation, the importance of establishing, as definitely and certainly as evidence could establish such a fact, just where upon this highway, the actual arrest of Kelly took place and also, if it was possible to establish it, whether or not the men who arrested him and carried him into the United States were officers authorized by any competent authority of either the federal or state government. I have not yet received any answer to the request for this information and until it is supplied in definite form and supported by the ordinary verification of affidavit or statutory declaration, we should hardly he in a position to ask the government of the United States to investigate the matter. But as soon as we are placed in possession of the necessary evidence in that regard, I shall see that steps are taken to bring it to the attention of His Majesty's representative in Washington and through him to that of the United States government.
Such cases as this, I may say, do occasionally arise, possibly from the over-zeal of officers upon either side of the boundary. Occasionally a complaint is received that the sacred soil of the United States has been violated by some Canadian officer and similar cases, such as the hon. gentleman has mentioned, sometimes have been shown to exist where some officer of the United States has undertaken to execute his warrant upon the soil of Canada, which I need not say is equally sacred and which I am sure the government of the United States desires to preserve as equally sacred with their own. There has never been any

difficulty put in the way of the most careful and thorough investigation of such charges when they are made, and if it can be established that in point of actual fact this man was deprived of his liberty while upon the soil of Canada, I think I can confidently assure my hon. friend that the fullest reparation will be made by the restoration of the man to Canadian soil.


George Eulas Foster: I did not catch to whom the minister had applied for information with reference to this matter?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I applied to the gentleman whose letter I had received, a clergyman of the vicinity. I think his name was the Rev. Father Murphy, although I am not certain.


George Eulas Foster: Not through any legal source?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Not a lawyer, a clergyman.


OFFICIAL STATUS OF FOREIGN CONSULS.
Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to ask the government a question with reference to the courtesy due or which should be due the representatives of foreign nations in Canada as a country making her own treaties. My question is founded on an article which I now have before me from the daily ' Free Press,' which reads:
All the Consuls stayed away from it-Drawing Room sees them not because of the
ruling of Downing Street.
None of the foreign Consuls General resident in Ottawa attended the Governor General's ' Drawing Room ' on Saturday night.
There is a reason and an interesting one.
Consuls General have no official status in Canada-they are not officially recognized.
When a new Consul General comes to Ottawa, no official calls are made upon him. He has to paddle around in his own canoe and trust to his own ingenuity in getting acquainted.
A Consul General is the highest official that any foreign country can send to Canada. If they could, some of them would doubtless send ambassadors.
The recent establishment of a Chinese consulate in Ottawa, with a gentleman of very high standing in his own country in charge, was regarded by Canadians as a pleasing development of our nationality. It was a recognition of Canada's growing importance.
It has been said that Germany and France are both desirous of establishing Consuls General in Ottawa. But in the case of each, there is reason to believe that the refusal to grant official status stands in the way.
Although the Consuls General at present resident in Ottawa refuse to discuss the matter, the ' Free Press ' understands that it is for the same reason that none of them attend the Drawing Room.
They do not demand recognition; they do not even ask for it; but they do take the
ground that they cannot permit their respective countries to be discriminated against in Canada's official functions. Consequently they absent themselves.
The official order of precedence at the Drawing Room, published in the newspapers, places the Consuls General at the very end of the list.	_	_ _
In refusing official recognition the Dominion is acting upon definite instructions received from Downing street.
But Cahada's natural reply to this would be that England is able to show official courtesy to these foreign countries by recognizing their Ambassadors, whereas the foreign governments are not permitted to send Ambassadors to Canada.
No general instructions to colonial governors respecting the position and treatment of consuls appear to have been issued since a date nearly forty years ago, when it was intimated that if in any colony precedence was, as a matter of courtesy, already accorded to the foreign consular body, no alteration should be made, with the view of assimilating the practice to that in force in this country, without reference to the Secretary of State.
It was observed, however, that foreign consuls in England have no claim to precedency, and are treated like any other foreigners resident in England.
Toronto ' Daily Star,' Monday, Nov. 8, 1909. r Ambassador from Germany '-New Consulate General at Ottawa to be a Big Thing.
(Canadian Associated Press.)
London, Eng., Nov. 10.-The Canadian Associated Press learns that the German government is considering the advisability of establishing a new Consulate General at Ottawa, which will be almost ambassadorial in its scope, character, and plans. Already plans have been suggested for the erection of a building.
The imperial army and navy recognize officially consuls in every foreign port. Why should not this be in our own country? I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman if any steps have been taken to remedy this state of affairs under a ruling which was made under different conditions. When we had not the power of making our own treaties; and if the government have not taken any steps, I should like to know whether they intend doing something. The consuls general are in Canada the highest representatives of foreign states, and while the matter of attending the drawing room may be, to a certain extent, a small one, still when we consider that the important question as to the size of a lady's foot occasioned a war which consumed millions of money and thousands of lives, this matter may not seem to be one which should be lightly treated.


Wilfrid Laurier: The question which my hon. friend has brought to our attention is an important one, not perhaps so much on account of the drawing room as on account of the duties which consuls general now discharge in Canada. We have

no diplomatic service in Canada, and the consuls general are exercising by tolerance some, I shall not say diplomatic powers, but powers very often cognate to such. The question is one which should be settled, and the matter is now engaging the attention of the government.


THE NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.
George Eulas Foster: Can the right hon. gentleman give any information as to when the Naval Bill will be introduced? I think there is an impression that we were to have a statement from my right hon. friend regarding that matter on some occasion previous even to the present.


Wilfrid Laurier: I thought that we would have been in a position to introduce the Bill 'ere this, but my hon. friend himself has called attention to certain correspondence which it will be desirable to have. We have not yet received that correspondence, and perhaps -we would be better to wait until we receive it before bringing down the measure.


George Eulas Foster: May we expect it next week?


Wilfrid Laurier: I could not say definitely, but have no intention to delay the Bill, and will bring it down as soon as we get the correspondence.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Why should this correspondence interfere with bringing down the Bill? Two weeks ago the right hon. gentleman said the Bill w'ould be introduced soon. He knows that it will have to be printed, which will take some days. Is that correspondence going to affect the Bill? If not, why not bring down the Bill and give hon. members a chance to study it before taking any action on it.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked for some information, which I supposed would be valuable to the members of the opposition and also to the government.


John Dowsley Reid: Why should that interfere with bringing down the Bill. I understood that the Bill was practically all ready some two weeks ago. If it is ready, the House is entitled to have the Bill immediately, and that need not interfere with the bringing down of the correspondence. The correspondence may be brought down afterwards and be made use of during the discussion. Does the right hon. gentleman refuse to introduce the Bill until we have the correspondence ?


Wilfrid Laurier: If the correspondence is to be unduly delayed, we shall not wait for it. I do not think it will affect my own judgment, but I see no harm in having the correspondence before we give our decision. .


Wilfrid Laurier: 


THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
Mr. MONK.: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think it would be possible to give additions to the blue-book, but no doubt my colleague, the Minister of Marine, when bringing in the measure, will give all the information asked for.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT-RACETRACK GAMBLING.
Mr.  H. H.@: MILLER (South Grey) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 6) to amend the Criminal Code. He said: Mr. Speaker, before going into the discussion of this Bill, let me now, lest I forget it, give notice that, when the House is in committee on this Bill, I will move the following:
That the said Bill be amended by adding the following as paragraph (e) to section 230:-
Being the owner or other person in control of premises occupied or used as a disorderly house, knowingly allows any contrivance whatsoever upon the said premises for the purpose of preventing, obstructing or delaying the entry of any constable or officer authorized as aforesaid into any such disorderly house of any part thereof.
The reason for that amendment is that it is complained by constables and police officers that, in seeking to inspect or gain entry to Chinese gambling houses in many cases, they find that the occupants of the house have their inner rooms barricaded with very stout doors, thus preventing the police from gaining entry until the inmates have had an opportunity to escape.
In discussing the Bill itself, I wish first to state what is the object of the Bill. Its object is to utterly, entirely, completely suppress and prevent the business of betting, pool-making, book-making, the busi-

ness of betting or gambling in connection with or upon race tracks in any place in Canada. If the Bill should become law and fail of its object, it will be because the persons who have laboured to produce the Bill have not been able to find language that will accomplish the objec.t. they have in view. And I desire, at the beginning of my remarks, to say that I do not claim the credit, if credit be due to any person, for the framing of the Bill that is now before the House. The Bill that we are "considering is based upon the work of three well known and able members of the legal profession. At least two of the three gentlemen upon whose very careful work the Bill is based have had peculiar experience and occupy positions that have made it possible for them with special ability to frame a law to meet the evils that we are endeavouring to combat. I have stated the object of the Bill; now let me state as frankly what the Bill does not endeavour to do. I want to impress the House with this, that the Bill does not endeavour to interfere in any way or to any extent with the racing of horses. Men will be just as free after this Bill becomes law to race horses or carry on a race meet as they are to-day or ever have been. Neither does this Bill seek to prevent betting upon horse races. If this Bill becomes law, two men will be just as free to make a bet upon which horse will win a race as they will to make a bet upon which of themselves can throw a stone the greater distance. The Bill does not, then, endeavour to affect horse-racing or to prevent betting between private individuals in connection with horse-racing, and I trust that every one who hears me will bear that in mind. Neither is it the endeavour by this legislation to correct any past bungling on the part of this parliament. I say that because many people have had the idea that the present state of the law, which appears to them absurd, is the result of error or lack of skill on the part of legislators of the past. One prominent Ontario newspaper, in a somewhat recent editorial, said:
The Department of Justice has failed so far bo frame a statute that will do what parliament manifestly intended should be done.
Very many people have had that opinion, but the opinion is an erroneous one. Parliament has never, up to this time, endeavoured to prohibit the 'business of betting or gambling upon race-tracks. Quite the contrary is the case, as I will endeavour to show. And I trust the House will pardon me if I take a little time-I shall not be long-to trace the history of the legislation that we have at present and that people have endeavoured to use to suppress race-track gambling.
Several years ago, men in Canada began to recognize the growing evil of race-track
gambling, the business of race-track betting. This was not so much because public opinion has changed-partly, perhaps, for that reason and because, it may be, we demand to-day a somewhat higher standard than we did a few years ago -but more largely because circumstances in Canada have been changing. Racetrack gambling is much more prevalent to-day than it was in Canada a few yeers ago. There are more race horses in the Dominion, race meets are held for a great deal longer time, and the book-maker is doing a work to-day that he did not attempt to do ten or fifteen years ago, that is, to anything like the same extent. I say that the people realized some years ago the grave evils attending race-track gambling. With that realization they turned to the statutes we had then and have now to see by what means they could suppress or prevent this gambling. They turned to the Criminal Code, section 235-which was section 204 of the Code as first passed in 1892. They found that to be the only section of the Code making reference to race-track gambling. That section, under paragraph (a) provides that every one is liable to the punishment inflicted by the section who uses or knowingly allows any part of any premises under his control to be used for the purpose of recording or registering any bet or wager, or selling any pool. Now that section might probably have been used with considerable effect to suppress. racetrack gambling- had not it been that attached to the section as subsection 2 was the following:
The provisions of this section shall not extend to any person by reason of his becoming the custodian or depository of any money, property, or valuable thing, to be paid as a prize to the winner of any lawful race, sport, game or exercise, or to be paid to the owner of any horse engaged in any lawful race, or to bets between individuals or made on the race course of any incorporated association during the actual progress of a race meeting.
Now, this language in section 235 does not appear to have been inserted in error. In order to show that it was deliberately placed there, let me refer to the remarks of Sir John Thompson and others which will be found in the 'Hansard' of 1892, page 2976. In 1892, as hon. members of the House are aware, the Criminal Coda was first placed upon the statute-book. When the House was in committee considering this section 235, Sir John Thompson said:
I suppose it is my duty to call the attention of the committee to the addition of subsection 2, which proposes a relaxation in regard to betting on the race course of an incorporated association while a race is going on.
So, Sir John Thompson frankly said that this was a relaxation of the law in connection with race-track betting. And Mr.- now Sir Louis Davies said:

It is just as well that the committee should understand that we are legalizing betting on a race course. I do not know that the committee is prepared to do that.
Then Mr. Curran said in reply:
The law has always allowed hetting on horse races.
The matter was allowed to drop, and the section was passed, and included in the Code as we have it before us to-day. Then these people who, rightly or wrongly, were endeavouring some years ago to restrict race-track gambling, finding that section 235 was of no avail, turned to sections 225, 227 and 228 which, in the Criminal Code of 1892, are sections 196, 197 and 198. These sections were not supposed to relate to the restriction of race-track betting at all and an endeavour so to use them was only due to the absence of any legislation intended or enacted for such purpose. Section 235, to which I have already referred, had been in the criminal law of Canada for some years before 1892, but the addition exempting race-track gambling during the course of a meet on a race-track association, was inserted in 1892. But the sections 226, 227 and 228 had not been previously in our criminal law, they were adopted in 1892 from the English Betting Act. Without wearying the House by reading sections 226 and 227, I may say that section 226 defines a common gaming house,
227	defines a common betting house, and
228	imposes the penalty for persons who are guilty of a breach of 226 and 227. Sec-227 reads as follows:
A common betting house is a house, office, room or other place opened, kept or used for the purpose of betting between persons resorting thereto.
I will not read the remainder of the section, but that is the part of it that was relied upon to suppress race-track gambling, and it was the only section, together with the following one, imposing a penalty, that would be of any use, or could possibly be of any use, to bring about the object in view. Somewhere about 1906, I think it was, a man named Saunders, and some companions, were carrying'on the business of book-makers during a meet of the Ontario Jockey Club in the city of Toronto. Complaint was laid against them for keeping a common betting house. They were convicted before the police magistrate of Toronto, and convicted under these sections, 226 and 227. They appealed from his decision, and at their request he stated a case, and it was taken to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the magistrate in his decision. Judges Garrow and Meredith, however, dissented, and were of the opinion that the conviction of the magistrate ought to be quashed. The solicitors acting for the defendants in that Mr. MILLER.
case, argued that Saunders and his companions, while they used a booth upon castors which moved from one part of the racetrack to the other, could not be said to be using a house, room or other place as defined by the Act; and if it were held otherwise that they were using such house, room or other place, under section 235 they were exempt, because they did what they did on a race-track of a regularly incorporated racing association. The Court of Appeal, as I have already said, notwithstanding these arguments, upheld the magistrate in his decision. Judges Garrow and Meredith dissented from the other judges, and Judge Garrow said:
The proper construction in a word is in my opinion to bold that sections 197 and 198 (now sections 226 and 227) have no application to the case of betting carried on upon the race course of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a race meeting, whether or not such hetting takes place within or without doors, or in any particular ' house, office, room or other place/ so long as it is within the boundaries of the race course and so long as the betting is confined to the races in progress upon that race course.
That was the view of Judge Garrow. But the Court of Appeal having sustained the magistrate in his decision, the case was carried to the Supreme Court. The judges of the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and in upholding the magistrate here again two judges dissented from their brother judges and gave their opinion. Mr. Justice Davies and Mr. Justice Girouard differed from the other judges of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Fitzpatrick, in delivering judgment, said:
I quite agree that the amendment of 1892 was intended to reserve the race courses of incorporated associations as places where bets might he recorded and registered, and any apparatus or structures used for more conveniently recording such bets or wagers, provided this was done during the actual progress of a race meeting, were exempted from the operation of that section.
But using a place for the purpose of recording or registering bets or wagers is something entirely different from using the place for the purpose of hetting between persons resorting thereto and the owner or occupier thereof.
Chief Justice Fitzpatrick was drawing a nice distinction between the language of sections 227 and 235. Section 235 says that a penalty is imposed upon any person who uses or knowingly allows any part of any premises under his control to be used for the purpose, not of betting, but of recording or registering any bet or wager. Section 227, on the other hand, imposes a penalty on any person who has opened, kept or used a place for the purpose of betting between persons resorting thereto. The one relates

to betting, the other to recording and registering a bet. Drawing this distinction, Chief Justice Fitzpatrick said:
Bets between individuals or bets made on the race course of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a race meeting can be recorded in any place used for that purpose, but to keep a place, whether within or without the grounds of a racing association for the purpose of betting, whether during the progress of a race meeting or not, is an offence under section 197. In my opinion two distinct and separate statutory offences are created by sections 197 and 201, and that which may be invoked successfully as a defence in one case cannot avail in the other. To keep a place for making bets which may be recorded at that place or elsewhere and to keep a place for recording bets wherever made are distinct and separate acts, each of which has been made an offence and. each of which is declared to subject the offenders to a different penalty. The exception created by subsection 2 of section 201 with respect to anything therein, does not apply to those places that are kept for the purpose of betting. I do not understand the rule of construction to be that all the sections of the Code dealing with nuisances are to be read together to see how they can be made to harmonize any more than the sections dealing with offences against the person or against property. Distinct and separate acts are by these sections declared to be common nuisances and the only question to be considered is: Do the facts proved in evidence support that charge as laid in each particular case? The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Mr. Justice Davies quoted the words of Judge Garrow as given in the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless the Court of Appeal decided to uphold the decision of the magistrate. The result of that decision in the Saunders case was this: That a man who used any structure, any house, office, room or other place, including a booth or other such thing which might be designated as a place was subject to the penalties imposed by that section 227. That, then, perhaps, for a time, cheeked the business of race-track gambling, but some time after that a man named Moylett, a book-maker, with his companions at the Woodbine track in Toronto, continued the very same business of race-track gambling which had been done by Saunders, only, in place of having a booth or tent that moved about, they simply stood on the ground within a limited area, walking from place to place and carrying on exactly the same kind of business. A complaint was made against them and the police magistrate, under the same section of the Code, convicted them of keeping a common betting place. Then Moylett appealed, as Saunders had done and tthe police magistrate as he had done in the other case, granted a stated case which was taken to the Court of Appeal. In this case the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of the magistrate and Chief Justice Moss, in giving judgment, said:
The defendants and their assistants did not use any desk, stool, umbrella, tent or booth, or erection of any kind to mark any place where bets were made.
He continued:
Viewed apart from the authorities by which we are bound, the words themselves seem almost naturally to suggest a structure of some sort, and to import fixity or localization.
They also import rights peculiar to the persons designated as the owner, occupier or keeper, which rights are not shared by others. It is obvious that there must be not only a house, office, room or other place, but it must be one capable of being opened, kept or used for the purpose of betting. And there must also be some person who is entitled to exercise the right of opening, keeping or using to the exclusion of the exercise of a similar right by others except with his permission.
He said, in conclusion:
But, whatever doubts might possibly have existed before the decision of the House of Lords in the leading case of Powell vs. The Kempton Park Race Course Company (1899) must now be considered as set at rest by the result of that case.
The Kempton Park case, which ruled in this case, was under the English Betting Act where the language used was almost exactly the same as the language in sections 226 and 227 of our own Code and the judges held that the evidence of the facts in the one case corresponded almost exactly with the facts in the other case. In the Kempton Park case Judge Escher said:
It is not betting, whatever be its kind, which, independent of locality, is struck at; but it is the preventing of a locality for particular kinds of betting which is the mischief to be dealt with.
Again, Judge Halsbury said:
The legislature has not prohibited betting at all; but prohibited keeping a house for betting.
Chief Justice Moss, in giving judgment in the Moylett case, said:
If the user of any place where the better happens to stand, makes the place a common betting house, the words ' house, office or room ' were unnecessary, and the words ' other places ' therefore, necessarily take their colour and meaning from the words which precede them, and must be construed as meaning a place ejusdem generis, e. g. a booth, tent, etc., or otherwise equally clearly defined and capable of being used as the former.
The effect of this decision was that a man carrying on the business of race-track gambling would be practically exempt from the operation of the statute if he kept mov-

ing about, upon the ground and was not occupying any fixture such as a tent, booth or anything of that kind within which or upon which to carry on his business. I quote further words from the judgment of Chief Justice Moss. He summed the matter up in this way:
Betting or the business of a book-maker, whether carried on upon a race course or else-w he re, is not prohibited by the Act. If the legislature intends to prohibit it, it is easy for it to say so. It is the opening, keeping or using a common batting house which is penalized.
Let me repeat his words. He said:
If the legislature intends to prohibit it it is easy for it to say so.
The facts appear to have been as stated by Chief Justice Moss that this parliament never intended to prohibit race-track gambling, and if it be true that it is parliament's intention to prohibit race-track gambling it is easy for it to say so. If race-track gambling is an evil, if it is something that ought to be suppressed, it becomes the duty of this parliament to suppress it and the whole responsibility rests upon this parliament. What we seek to do by this Bill is to amend sections 226, 227, 228 and 235 of the Criminal Code which were never intended to suppress race-track gambling and to change them so as to make them effective, so that they will utterly and completely prevent and suppress the business of gambling upon or in connection with a race track. Now I will point out the changes that we seek to make in the Act as it is. Turning to section 226 of the Code which defines a ' common gaming house ' we strike out the word ' house ' and define not a ' common gaming house ' but a ' common gaming place '. We strike out the words ' a house, room or ' and leave simply the word ' place,' so that the section will read a ' place used by any person for gaming, betting ' etc. Turning to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, an English work, Stroud defines the word ' place ' in this way:
The word ' place ' is generally found in conjunction with other words which give it a colour, and it is usually controlled by its context.
Referring to the words ' house, office, room or other place ' in the English Betting Act he quotes Judge Channell in Brown vs. Patch as follows:
The statute is directed against betting places, not against betting persons.
We are now endeavouring to make the statute apply to betting persons as well as to betting places. Wherever the words * house, room or ' appear in section 226 they are struck out and simply the word ' place ' is left. I have no doubt that the Mr. MILLER.
person who drafted this section intended and endeavoured by the use of this collection of words to make the language more comprehensive, but what he really did was to make the language narrower in effect rather than broader, less comprehensive rather than more so. In section 227 we strike out the words * house, room or ' and leave the one word ' place ' again, and in place of. defining ' any betting house ' we define ' any betting place '. There is another important change in section 227. We add as subsection 2 of this section a definition of the word ' place ' wherever it occurs in the Act.
The word ' place ' as used in this section and in the preceding section, includes any place, whether inclosed or not, whether it is or is not a fixed place, and whether there is or is not an exclusive right of user.
This, then, will do away with the argument that a man standing on the ground is not occupying a place. Section 228, which imposes the penalty, has also the word ' house ' struck out and the word ' place ' substituted therefor. The words ' or other disorderly place ' are inserted after the words ' disorderly house'. Section 232 is amended in the same way to make it consistent with the others. Turning to section 235-and perhaps this section is the most important of any-three important new paragraphs are added to this section the first paragraph of which section defines the penalty which is imposed, that is to say, that every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment and to a fine not exceeding $1,000. These new sections are as follows:
(d)	Engages in pool selling or book-making or in the business or occupation of betting or wagering or makes any agreement for the purchase or sale of betting or gaming privileges.
(e)	Advertises, publishes, exhibits, posts up, sells or supplies or oilers to sell or supply any information relating to pool selling, book-making, betting, or wagering.
(f)	Aids or assists in any manner any of the said acts which are by this section forbidden.
Then, in the present Act that section 235 is amended by leaving out subsection 2, which contains a number of exemptions by which certain persons under certain circumstances are exempted from the penalties provided by the Act. These are the changes sought to be made.
Now, Sir, it may be asked why we seek to amend the law at all, or what necessity there is for the Bill I have introduced. Sir, I am willing to admit that one of the reasons why it has been thought proper to introduce this Bill is because it has been asked for by the Moral and Social Reform Council of Canada. And, whom does this association include? It represents the Church of England in Canada, the Presby-

terian Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the Congregational Church, the Salvation Army, the Canadian Purity Educational Association, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Dominion Grange and Farmers' Association. I have heard it said that no layman has asked for this legislation, that it is a movement upon the part of the ministers, and that the ministers are not practical men and have no knowledge of the subject. But, Sir, let me say that at the various conferences, synods, presbyteries and meetings of the various churches in Canada resolutions have been unanimously passed urging this government to support just such a Bill as we have now before us, and a large number of the men attending these associations have been laymen, business men, men of the world, men having a knowledge of the subject they were considering and which they have asked this House to consider. But if it be contended that these people have been unduly influenced, it may be by the impractical clergy, let me say that legislation similar to that which I now propose has been passed by the following states: New Mexico, Missouri, Illinois, Washington, South Carolina, Colorado, Texas, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Michigan, Louisiana, California and New York, and the last four of these states are among the greatest horse-breeding states in the American union. I take it that the very fact that this legislation has been passed by this large number of the states of the union is an evidence to us of the necessity of such legislation. I say that because these various states, perhaps without exception, have had a greater, wider, longer experience with race-track gambling than we have had in Canada. These states of the American union have not hitherto been .supposed by the Canadian people to live up to any higher moral standard than we live up to. They are not supposed to aim at any higher moral plane than we should aspire to, but these states have practical business reasons for passing the legislation such as we have before us now. I not only ask the House to take this as evidence of the necessity for the legislation, but I ask hon. gentlemen to consider the effect upon Canada and the Canadian people of .the passing of this prohibitory legislation Toy the various states. The effect has been to flood Canada with American book-makers. Prevented from carrying on their business in these several states they have come into our Dominion with the result that racetrack gambling is much more prevalent in Canada now than it would have been had it not been for this prohibitory law on the other side of the line. Recently a grand jury assembled in Toronto declared that the province of Ontario had become a para-28
dise for gambling. That -was not the verdict of an assembly of clergymen, but the verdict of a grand jury. And, if the prov ince of Ontario has become a paradise for gambling, it is not alone among the provinces; because the province of British Columbia is fast becoming cursed by racetrack gambling, and if there be no change in the law, so soon as our prairie provinces have greater population and greater wealth they will be afflicted with the same curse. I have said that race-track gambling is becoming a nuisance in the province of British Columbia. I was speaking a few days ago with a very prominent citizen of (Victoria, British Columbia, and he told me that race-track gambling had become alarmingly prevalent in that city, and a great evil. An editorial in a Victoria daily newspaper, shortly after the holding of a recent race meet in that city, said that the racing was not true horseracing, but racing of horses as an excuse for gambling. The board of trade of the city of Vancouver, after the holding of a recent race meet in that city, adopted a resolution urging this government to pass such legislation as I am now asking the House to pass. Not only that, but Japan has legislated against race-track gambling. We cannot say that the population of Japan are a goody-goody people, but we can say that perhaps more than any other nation in the world to-day, Japan realizes that the strength of a nation 'depends upon the strength of the individual citizens, and if Japan has passed legislation to do away with race-track gambling, it is because Japan wants to have virtuous citizens and to build up a strong people. I have received a letter from Chief Inspector Archibald, of the Toronto police force, and he manifests a great deal of interest in the legislation which is now before the House. In this letter, dated the 16th of last month, he says:
I would respectfully call your attention io subsection 2 of section 235 of the Criminal Code which you will observe has given colour of right and is in the main responsible for the present undesirable conditions; hence the necessity to expunge this subsection from the statute absolutely.
That is what we are endeavouring to do. Now, Sir, for economic reasons, from the point of view of dollars and cents, it behooves us to pass this legislation. The Toronto ' Telegram ' of the fifth of June last describes what took place during the race meeting which was held in the city of Toronto shortly before that date. The Toronto ' Telegram ' said that at the Woodbine the race meeting had lasted last spring for thirteen days, that on the first day there were 72 book-makers on the track and that for the remaining 12 days of the meet there were from 50 to 80 book-makers present each



day. It said that not more than eight or ten of them were from the city of Toronto, the rest being from outside. And the * Telegram ' went on to say that, as I have before stated, the legislation recently enacted in all these states of the American Union had very much increased race-track gambling within this Dominion. Coming to the matter of dollars and cents, The ' Telegram ' said, not as its opinion, not as an estimate but as a fact, that during that 13 days of the race meeting on the Woodbine our people had placed in the hands of bookmakers $2,600,000 or $200,000 a day for 13 consecutive days.


An hon. MEMBER.: The growing time.
Mr.' MILLER. It is indeed the growing time, but the growth is the wrong way. The Toronto ' Telegram ' further says it cost these book-makers to be on the ground $115,000. I ask whether it is a desirable state of things that anything [DOT] should induce or be permitted to induce people, most of whom cannot afford it, to place $2,600,000 in 13 days in the custody of American book-makers.
There are many people who appear to fear that if this Bill becomes law it will interfere in some way with Canadian horses. Sir. there is no man in Canada, who loves a good horse, a beautiful horse, much more than I do. I would say of the man who does not love a horse what Shakespeare said of the man who hath not music in his soul. But there is nothing in connection with this Bill that will in any way affect injuriously horses or the lovers of good horses. Men like clean sport, but they do like the sport to be clean; otherwise it is not sport. I claim that race-track gambling does much to deteriorate sport and does nothing to elevate it and that we can have much cleaner and better sport without the gambling. It has been said that we must have men to ride horses, that it is men who are accustomed to riding upon horseback who will be of use to us in time of war and that for the purposes of our militia, for military reasons, it is a good thing to encourage riding. There is nothing in this Bui in any way to discourage riding. A man is permitted to ride, to ride any kind of horse or to hold any kind of race meeting as surely and as freely under this Act as he could do if there was no such Act. But I want to say more, that while horseracing, and especially race-track gambling, has been rapidly increasing in Canada, horse-back riding has been growing less and less common, and that there are in Canada to-day fewer people who ride horseback than there were 50 years ago. As to the manner in which it'may affect the breed of horses, I wish to say that we have in Canada the draught horse which is not affected in any way by any action that may Mr. MILLER.	.
be taken as regards the thoroughbred. We have the hackney, and the trotting horse and the various breeds-of coach horses which are not affected even by horse-racing et alone this Bill, and for the breeding of which thorough-bred or running horses are not used. There are many counties in this Dominion and in every province in Canada where no thoroughbred horses have been used for breeding purposes, not so many are used, I think, as there ought to be. I go further and say that whether for the improvement of trotting, or saddle or riding or any other breed of horses, the thoroughbred used is not the stamp of thoroughbred that is found upon the racetrack.
I was talking a few days ago to a member of this House who loves horses, as many of us do, and who is fond of seeing a good horse-race. Once in a while he adds to the zest of the sport and the relish of the race by putting up a small bet. He is a man of good judgment-by that I do not mean that he always bets on the winning horse, but that he is a man of sufficient self-control not to wager more than he can afford to lose and he may have bet many times without being injured in the slightest degree. He told me that a short time ago, coming up from the Woodbine on the street car, he saw a little boy probably twelve years old, certainly not more than fourteen, who was exultantly exclaiming to every one in the car that he had won $2 on a horse-race. This member said to me that he thought: Is there not, after all, an element of evil in this whole thing and may not the winning of that $2 injure and probably spoil that boy's whole life? I was talking to a prominent Canadian manufacturer who informed me that he had in his office a young man who had held a position of trust in some financial institution. The young man got to playing theraces, and lost a considerable amount. At first he took a small sum of his employer's money and losing it took out another sum to make another bet, hoping to make good his losses, but with the usual result, the book-maker had the best of the contest,. The young man's losses and embezzlements increased until he lost his situation. His father had to make good the money he had lost, the young man was to that extent disgraced and his father, an estimable man, came to my friend, and asked him whether he would not, for kindness sake, take the young man into his office and endeavour to make something of him. He did so. The young man was an estimable fellow, every one liked him, but every fall or spring, when the time of the races at the Woodbine comes around, he becomes uneasy and makes some excuse or other to get off to the Woodbine. This manufacturer stated that last year he secured $50 from one member of the firm, $50 from another person

and $50 from some one else. He went to the races with the usual result, he lost his money. He said that the young man, not only lost money he could not afford to lose, but he unfitted himself for business and, so reduced his value as an employee that his employer would have dismissed him were it not for the sake of his father.
Personally I represent a rural constituency within which no ' horse-racing takes place. I have not the opportunity, whether I would embrace it or not, of watching horse-races or seeing personally much of race-track gambling. But a sad instance came close within my own view. A young man of my own town, more than ordinarily clever, was given a place of considerable trust in Toronto where he handled a good deal of money. He began to play the races, and embezzled the funds of his employer in order that he might bet on the Toronto race track. He was detected and sent to prison for two years. His young wife, a very estimable woman, whom I knew very well, appealed to me to endeavour, if possible, to have her husband liberated because as he had been the bread winner his family were suffering in consequence of his imprisonment. She had two little children to support whom, she laboured with her needle. I appealed to the Minister of Justice, first having said to the young wife that it would be no use to make an appeal, until after one half the time had expired. After that time I appealed to the Minister of Justice who said to me: Much as I would like to meet your wishes, I cannot do so; I do not think it would be in the public interest or in the interest of this young man that he should be set at liberty until he had served the greater part of his two years. His wife told me very pathetically of the endeavours she constantly made to hide from her little children the fact that their father was behind prison bars. You may judge whether it would be possible to hide that fact from her children. Sir, there are other wives, there are other fathers and mothers, there are other children, who are being cursed by the results of racetrack gambling. I ask you, because of the evils resulting to Canada as a nation and the people of Canada economically, morally and every other way, to support the Bill, and I trust it may become law.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Will the hon.. gentleman allow me to put him a question? Did I understand him correctly to say that the object of the Bill is not to suppress betting, but only some forms of race-track gambling?


Mr. MILLER.: I am glad that question has been asked. It does endeavour to suppress entirely the business of race-track gambling, but we have carefully avoided any attempt to suppress the making of private bets between private individuals.
28i


Glenlyon Campbell: Does my hon. friend think it perfectly right for him to make a bet on a horse-race with any one he choses but illegal to make the same bet with the book-maker?


Henry Horton Miller: We have not endeavoured to suppress the making of private bets between private individuals for two reasons. First because, whatever my own private opinion may be, there are many persons who would not support a Bill to prevent the making of private bets, and I doubt whether public opinion would endorse such a Bill. There are many who desire to do away with race-track gambling but who would not desire to do away with private betting; and if we should enact legislation to prevent the making of private bets, it would be impossible to enforce it.


Glenlyon Campbell: There are many of us who do not understand the methods adopted by book-makers and pool sellers and perhaps the hon. gentleman would explain what are these methods, and what are the objectionable features in book-making and pool selling so that we would be in a better position to exercise our judgment in this matter.


Henry Horton Miller: I think my hon. friend has an experience in these matters which will enable him to give me pointers.


Glenlyon Campbell: That is not an answer to my question. It is purely a matter of opinion and conjecture on the part of the hon. gentleman as to whether I have had personal experience or not. I have asked the question for the benefit of members who do not understand book-making and pool selling.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before the question is put, I should like to offer a few observations. I may say that I did not anticipate that my hon. friend would discuss this measure at this afternoon's session, and consequently am not prepared to go as fully into it as I think it would be my duty to do if I had had sufficient time for preparation. But I would point out that we have in the vicinity of Montreal a very important association connected with racing, and I feel it my duty to offer the House some observations on this measure. There is a point in the remarks of my hon. friend which I think one cannot emphasize too much because the general impression created throughout the country-and it is one which I shared myself to a certain extent-is that those who are pressing this measure are absolutely opposed to betting in any form. My hon. friend, however, has said that there is nothing immoral or wrong in two men on a race-course engaging in any betting operations provided they do not make it a business. I understand from him that a man can go on" a race-course and make

bets with another without doing anything wrong and that there is no intention of legislating against any such transaction, but that the evil is done the moment he makes a bet with a book-maker. If I am wrong, I would like my hon. friend to correct me. The occasion for this Bill has been stated by my hon. friend. It is the invasion into the province of Ontario of American bookmakers.


Henry Horton Miller: Not alone the province of Ontario.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, all of the western provinces. The fact that book-makers have come from certain states of the Union where book-making has been prohibited, is the occasion of this measure, and that the prohibition of book-making, in the state of New York more particularly, has caused that invasion and that some abuses have resulted. I would like to say, with regard to the province of Quebec and more particularly the race-course I have in view in the immediate vicinity of Montreal, that, so far as I have been able to observe, this invasion has not yet reached us to any appreciable degree. The race-meetings I have attended there and the observations I have made myself and those made by others do not bear out the statement that the bookmakers from the United States have invaded that race-course to such an extent that great abuses have resulted. That is one point I desire to make more particularly as regards the province of Quebec, because my observations do not extend outside of that province. I take it as an admitted fact that the racing of horses has the effect of greatly improving the breed of horses. You cannot improve the breed of horses unless you have trials or tests of speed and endurance, and you cannot have these trials and tests successfully unless you * have prizes and betting, and I will even go the length of saying book-making at any rate has been the result of experience. My hon. friend says that there is nothing in his Bill to prevent these trials and tests. That is true, but on the other hand you cannot have these tests which result in the improvement of horse breeding, without the accompanying prizes, the bets and even upon the race-course the book-maker, in order that that betting may be conducted in such a way as to make the race meeting a success.
I would not like to be understood as approving of abuses, nor as denying that abuses do exist sometimes-even often; nor would I say anything derogatory of the bodies and individuals whom my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) has quoted here as having encouraged the movement intended to bring about this legislation-nothing of that sort by any means. But I say that, in my opinion, we can take it for granted that successful race-meetings cannot possibly be Mr. MONK.
held if betting be prohibited, or even bookmaking; and that without race-meetings conducted as they are in England and as we have conducted them hitherto in this country, you cannot have that encouragement of horse breeding that is absolutely essential not only in my province but throughout the whole country. In the province of Quebec-I wish now to become a little more specific-a number of gentlemen of means and immensely interested in the encouragement of horse-breeding and to whom we in that province are greatly indebted for what they have done in that regard, have at very great expense, organized a race-meeting association. And the kind of encouragement that they have given to horse-breeding, even in the short time for which the association has existed, has produced very good results indeed. Of course, in an association of that kind where a large expenditure is made, they must take means to obtain some return. Hitherto, their returns have been very small indeed; I doubt very much, though I am not authorized or qualified to speak for them, that they have realized any dividend whatever. Their object was the encouragement of horse-breeding and not at all the encouragement of abuses in the way of betting or book-making. They have succeeded in improving the breeding of horses in our province, as can be testified to, I am sure, by our agricultural societies and others who are interested in the promotion of that very important national industry. The government of the province of Quebec have realized this also, and have encouraged that association by giving it a grant. I do not know exactly what the amount of that grant is, but I know that the government have testified publicly to the usefulness of the association by making such a grant. But what is more important-and I call the attention of the government and of my hon. friends who belong to the legal profession particularly to this point-the association is working under a charter granted by the provincial authorities of the province of Quebec. That charter, if I am not mistaken, authorizes fully all the operations of whatever nature which that association is carrying on on the Blue Bonnets race-course in Montreal. The reason I point this out to the government, and to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) particularly, is that it seems to me questionable whether we can, by such legislation as this, interfere with the operations of that association, by declaring criminal operations which they are carrying on under a provincial charter-operations, I would furthermore particularly emphasize, which, if this Bill carries, will have to be interrupted, for I start with the principle that it is impossible successfully to carry on a racing association without allowing

not only betting, which my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) states he does not intend to discountenance, hut also that particular form of betting which is carried on by bookmakers.	*
The question presented to my mind is, can we legislate that association out of existence?-for that would be the practical result, as I believe, of such a law as is here proposed.	I
question very much if there does not appear to be there a very serious conflict of jurisdiction between our own power and the power of the legislature. I am not prepared to discuss that at length. But I remember that the question was raised before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Lamb versus the Bank of Toronto. Lamb was a collector of the provincial revenues, and he was endeavouring to collect a tax imposed upon the banks by the province. The decision which condemned the bank was carried to the Privy Council. I have not the report of the case here, but my recollection is that the members of the Judicial Com' mittee stated that if the legislation of the province imposing the tax upon the bank was of such a nature as to strike at the existence of the hank itself the Privy Council would be prepared to pronounce that legislation ultra vires, but they went on to express the opinion that the province had not intended, nor was it the result of its legislation, to deprive the banks of existence or of the power of carrying on their operations, but merely to impose what appeared upon the surface to be a legitimate tax. In this instance-if I am right in stating that to suppress the book-makers would be to render the holding of race-meetings impossible-you could apply the observation made by the Privy Council that it would be a case of legislating out of existence a body created by the province acting within its jurisdiction, by declaring criminal, an operation which, of course, becomes criminal by its abuse but is not criminal if carried on under proper supervision and in such a way as to prevent abuse. I mention this point, because, so far as I have been able to observe, the abuses which exist in the United States, and which since the prohibition there have resulted in the inundation of the province of Ontario and other provinces by the parties guilty of these abuses, have not become evident in the race-courses in the province of Quebec, at any rate in the racecourse in the vicinity of the city of Montreal. In this case, as was recognized, I believe, in the case of the Sunday Observance Act, the duty of enforcing the criminal law, the administration of criminal justice, is, under our constitution, left to the provinces; and it seems to me right that the application of this proposed Bill, should it become law, should be. left in the hands of the Attorney Genera] of each
province. Thus, the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, should the abuse [DOT] of race-track betting spread to that province and be brought to the notice of the government charged particularly with the administration of the criminal law, could, by proclamation, bring this law into operation in our own province. It seems to me that would be just and fair; because the movement to bring about this legislation has resulted, as my hon. friend . has stated, from the chasing out of the United States, or of certain states, the men who created those abuses, or carried on operations in an abusive manner. Their presence, I think, has not yet been felt in our own province, at any rate, on the race courses in question. Why should the men who originated this association, the men interested in horse-breeding, horsemen of high repute-why should these men, having started that association and gone to considerable expense to establish it in an important centre of our province, where their operations are doing good to agriculture, are improving the breed of horses-


Henry Horton Miller: Would my hon. friend allow me a question? Has the association in Quebec a charter to carry on race-track gambling, and if not, how will this Bill interfere with that association, or with its work?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not the charter of that association. But I said a moment ago, so far as I know they are empowered under their charter to carry on betting on their race-track in any form.


Henry Horton Miller: If the hon. gentleman is not certain of that, I think he is mistaken.'"' The charter means that they may carry on racing but not betting.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have great difficulty in finding out what my hon. friend means by race-track gambling. I think he said that it was far from his intention to prevent race-track gambling, my hon. friend began with that observation. What he wishes to repress is the abuse by men who make a business of it, the book-makers. But race-track gambling in the sense in which my hon. friend Understands it, is, I think, authorized by, or at any rate can be implied from, the powers granted by this charter in Quebec. I have no doubt that if this law passes, a conflict will arise as to whether the association in question, chartered by the province, cannot independently of that law carry on its operations. What objection, might I ask my hon. friend, has he to the insertion of a clause in this Bill that the Attorneys General of the provinces themselves should have the power of bringing the law into operation in our province, where the abuses he has pointed out have not, so far as I am aware, yet manifested themselves? Why should we

suffer because the province of my hon. friend is at the present moment suffering from those abuses? Why should our legitimate operations be interfered with?


Henry Horton Miller: If my hon. friend asks me a question I will answer it. If there are in his province no offenders, the law will not apply; but if in his province there are offenders, then the insertion of anything such as he requests in the Act will make it difficult to enforce the Act.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Of course, in a large city like Montreal, I have seen a great many results of speculation, results that, among young men, are indeed melancholy. But as far as I am personally concerned, I have not seen a young man in Montreal yet, or in the vicinity, who has come to grief in the way my hon. friend explained a moment ago, through betting on race-tracks. I have not yet seen any such case, though I have seen a great many eases of young men falling and being sent to the penitentiary through speculation, gambling of different kinds. But of gambling on race-tracks, I have not seen yet any cases. Of course there are abuses in Montreal, as everywhere else. I have seen abuses in bazaars, in kermesses, in election competitions, carried on even for the erection of churches and other laudable objects. But I have not yet seen on race-courses the abuses to which my hon. friend has referred. They have in France a system of betting in which one is not exposed to make great losses or great gains. I would not like the House to think I am a betting man, because I am not, nor am I familiar with that particular kind of betting which is called Pari-Mutuel. But I know it has been countenanced in France, for the reason, I suppose, that the system is carried on under the control of the state, and as it is a source of gain, the state has distributed such gain for agricultural purposes throughout France. The gains resulting from this Pari-Mutuel amounts to millions of francs every year, and this sum the government distributes for public purposes. I do not know whether it would be possible to introduce that system here which exists in different countries of Europe. But it has that advantage that you cannot lose a great deal nor gain a great deal, according to the principle that you cannot have a proper risk without betting. It might be a good idea for the government to allow the system of PariMutuel to be carried on by the racing authorities under proper supervision.


Mr. J. B. McCOLL (West Northumberland).: I am of opinion that this Bill should pass its second reading without prolonged discussion, and should then be referred to a select committee of this House to investigate the whole matter and report.. My hon. friend who introduced the Bill (Mr. Mr. MONK.
Miller) has given an involved legal argument, and I do not think that many members of this House can, by a discussion of these clauses in committee, get at all the abuses that my hon. friend is attempting to suppress. by this Bill. Now, my hon. friend has used the expression, ' Playing the races,' As I understand it, betting upon horse-races takes place every day in the year, and in other places than on the racetracks at actual meetings. But I am of the opinion, although I would not like to be positive, that the greatest abuses in connection with race-track gambling take place in the pool-rooms, or among what are called hand-book operators, betters of that kind. Last night, in taking up the Toronto ' World,' I found on one page nine different advertisements, one of which I will read, as it will give an idea of all the others.
C. R. James & Co.,
Room i, 21 Leader Lane.
Monday I gave out, Patsy 8 to 1, won. Yesterday I gave out, Woolstone, 3 to 1, won.
Follow me at Jacksonville, boys, and you'll get the money.
To-day-8 to 1-to-day.
This is a sure winner and one that you can go as far as you like on. I have the word to-day that there is no chance to go wrong. Don't miss this one, boys.
That is the purport of nine different advertisements that appear In this paper, and all in the city of Toronto. In the first place, I point out that it mentions Jacksonville. There is a race-meeting going on in Jacksonville at the present time, and that would imply that there are eight or nine concerns, in the city of Toronto, doing business and recording bets, or that there was some sort of betting carried on in -connection with the races at Jacksonville. If that be true, that is something that should be prohibited. I am not sure whether tmy hon. friend's Bill covers cases of that kind or not, but I fully believe that the great abuses that exist in what is called playing the races arise from outside betting, that is the betting that goes on from day to day and year to year, and not the betting that goes on at a properly regulated race-course. I heard an expression about pool-rooms, hand-book operators and that sort of thing. I never was in a pool-room, and I do not know how they are operated or carried on. I have never seen a hand-book operator to my knowledge. I do not know exactly how he carries on his business, but I have been at one race-track in Canada on several occasions, that is the Woodbine at Toronto, and I must say that if no greater abuses exist on the other race-tracks in Canada than what I have been able to see at the Woodbine, I do not see very much cause for this legislation. As I say, I have not very much information on this subject, my

information may be erroneous and that is why I would like to see it go to a special committee of the House in order that we might find out all about the subject and be able to legislate intelligently. Betting with the book-maker on the race-track is a different proposition from betting with a bookmaker in a pool-room or on the street outside of the race-track. If I am correctly informed, when you go into a pool-room the book-maker who conducts the business, or the hand-book makeT, fixes the odds and you are betting upon his judgment entirely and upon such information as he is able to get, but when you go to the race-track and bet against that book-maker the .bookmaker does not make the odds; it is the public that make the odds. Everything is done in the open and above board. It is true that the book-maker produces his slate and suggests the odds, but the public actually make the odds. The book-maker may open the betting on a certain horse at ten to one, but the price is brought down to five to one, or perhaps even money. Why? Because the public take up the proposition and force the price down. So, I say that on the race-track the public make the odds and not the book-maker. If the racing association properly regulates its business, and the association is properly regulated, I do not see any very great, harm in betting on the race-track. I am informed, however, that there are many race-tracks in Canada that do not carry on their business in the same manner as it is carried on at the Woodbine. As to that, I do not know. That is one thing I would like to have investigated by a select committee of the House. I am informed that there are race-tracks that are really owned, controlled and operated by professional gamblers or book-makers. They advertise a race-meeting and carry it on for three or four weeks, or thirty or sixty days, so that they are carrying on at the race-track a similar business to that which they carry on in the pool-rooms. If that be true certainly that class of race-tracks should be regulated. That class of betting on race-tracks should be, in fhy opinion, entirely prohibited. How can that be done? Supposing that some Act were passed to restrict the length of these meetings to a week or ten days and to limit the number of meetings in a year, or something of that sort it would have the effect probably of putting that class of race-tracks out of operation. As far as race-track gambling is concerned the foundation of the thing is the regulation of the race-track associations instead of resorting to the Criminal Code. However, as I say, I am not absolutely certain upon this. I would like to see the question referred to a select committee, so that we could get exact, full and complete information regarding it. If what I have
suggested is true I fear that my hon. friend's Bill will not regulate many abuses, that, I am informed, do exist in certain parts of the country.


Henry Horton Miller: Would the hon. gentleman tell me to what particular point he refers now?


John B. McColl: Regulating the length of the meetings. I do not see anything in the Bill that at all regulates racing associations. I think that it is the racing associations, the jockey clubs that carry on race meetings and permit gambling upon their premises that should be dealt with first.
I do not think the Bill touches that feature of the case at all and I think that is the first thing that should be dealt with. My hon. friend stated, and it appears in the numerous petitions that have been presented to parliament day after day for the last week, that race-track gambling had been prohibited in Japan and in several of the states of the American Union. They do not say that it has been prohibited in Great Britain, France, Austria, Russia, Italy Australia, New Zealand or in any of those countries in which horse-racing and racetrack betting were in existence long before they were known in the United States. From that I think I have the right to assume that when, in these countries that I have just mentioned, racing associations are in existence and where betting takes place on the race-tracks, they must have some way of regulating them because the evils do. not exist that appear to exist in some of the states and on some of the racetracks in Canada. It may be that in those particular states that have be^en referred to by my hon. friend the race-tracks are controlled by the book-makers or professional gamblers and not by men who are in the business for the sport that is in it. I would judge that from reading this^ advertisement which I have just now given to the House, because these men pretend to get, and perhaps do get, information from Jacksonville as to what horse is going to win on a certain day.
That would lead me to believe that the track at Jacksonville is operated and manipulated by men who are in the gambling business and not actually in the racing business, and probably such was the reason for prohibiting betting in these various states. I believe there are very many strong reasons why this matter should be referred to a special committee of the House. Horse-racing has been called the sport of kings and I suppose there is no country in the world to which that description more aptly applies than our own, so that, if the absolute prohibition of betting would ruin this kingly sport as is alleged it may be well for us to inquire in the matter. I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that I cannot see very much

' difference-I can see no difference in principle-between private persons betting with one another at a race-track and betting with a book-maker. That is particularly so when you have an even chance with the book-maker. And I maintain that as betting is carried on at the Woodbine you have that even chance. Probably that chance may be modified by the fact that the book-maker has an advantage in that he visits all the races in the country and may be a better judge of the form of the different horses, but at all events he proposes the odds and the people who bet take their chance, and if these race-tracks are properly conducted the public have an equal chance with the book-maker. However, I may be all wrong as to that and so I would like a special committee of the House to consider the matter so that we may know what the conditions are and legislate accordingly. If this Bill should pass its second reading, as I think it ought, I shall move that it be referred to a special committee.


Glenlyon Campbell: I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. McColl) that a special committee should be appointed to inquire into the question of race-track gambling, and particularly so as the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill was unable to explain to us what the abuses were that he asked us to legislate against. When the Bill gets its second reading I shall have much pleasure in seconding the motion that it be referred to a special committee.


Mr. GEORGE H. COWAN (Vancouver).: In so far as this amendment is intended to remove the inconsistencies in section 227 of the Criminal Code I am in favour of it. Section 227 defines a common betting house as 'a house, place, room, or other place', and the courts in interpreting that section have held that a book-maker in a booth or stall or in a hand wagon run about the inclosure commits an offence under the Criminal Code, but that if he walks about even though he has placards all over him declaring himself to be a book-maker, and even though he uses all the arts of a book-maker, he is not within this section. The courts have gone further and have held that if the book-maker is standing on a chair he is liable to a penalty, but that if he gets down from that chair and walks about he is not committing an offence. It seems to me that the provisions of the Criminal Code should square with our moral sense, and our moral sense teaches us that in the one case the crime is as great as in the other. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when he says that book-making is a necessary concomitant of races. I believe that the lover of horses needs no such incitement to induce him to take part in clean races, conducted in a clean way, and I believe that when this parliament Mr. McCOLL.
passed section 227 and gave the definition it did, it really meant to put an end to book-making whether a man stands on a chair, sits in a booth or stall, goes about in a hand wagon, or walks about covered with placards proclaiming himself to be a book-maker. The amendment offered by my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) seems well calculated to remove the anomaly I have referred to and for that reason I shall support it.


Mr. C. A. WILSON (Laval).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I think it is my duty to say a few words in favour of the motion of the hon. member from West Northumberland (Mr. McColl), that this Bill be referred to a special committee.
Without entering upon the merits of this question, and, consequently, without saying what stand I might take should the Bill come back before us, I shall state that the chief motive which urges me in voting for the motion to refer is that, apart from the race track at Blue-Bonnets to which the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has alluded, there is also the ' Montreal Driving Club ' at De Lorimier Park. I do not know what goes on in Toronto, on the Woodbine race track, but I am aware of what happens at Blue-Bonnets and at De Lorimier's Park, and I can corroborate what the hon. member from Jacques Cartier has said on this subject.
I am in favour of referring this Bill to a special committee because both the associations I have just mentioned claim that they have provincial charters, and, consequently, that they are entitled to engage in betting transactions. I know that during last summer war was waged against the ' Montreal Driving Club;' one newspaper has even deemed proper to enter upon a crusade against the association. I am not aware that the association has been blamed or has been warned by any magistrate, but I know that the proprietors of the ' Montreal Driving Club ' claim and assert publicly, as they did at that time, in all the Montreal newspapers, that they had the right to act as they did and that matters were left in abeyance.
We are not here to find out new crimes, especially when they relate to actions that the legislatures permit. Thus, in the province of Quebec, the civil code authorizes betting when it tends to the improvement of the breed of horses.
I shall not dilate longer on the subject and, and as already stated, I shall vote for the motion introduced by the hon. member from Northumberland asking that this Bill be referred back to a special committee for consideration and report.


Mr. THOMAS BEATTIE (London).: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that does not properly belong to this House. The ad-

dress of my hon. friend is an attack upon the province of Ontario within the jurisdiction of whose legislature this matter properly falls. The province of Ontario is one of the best provinces in this Dominion. Such a charge as has been made against racetrack-gambling by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) should not be laid in this House. It is a question with which the local legislature of Ontario alone ought to deal. I must say that I have been on the race-track in Toronto once or twice, but I saw nothing at all like what the hon. member describes. He told a most pathetic story about a small boy going home with $2 in his pocket. I saw a bby going home with a dollar in his pocket "and I asked him how he got it. He said that ten little newsboys each put a ticket in a hat and had each put in ten cents and he happened to draw the lucky ticket. The hon. member calls that gambling. There is no gambling about it at all. I know of no race-track in this country that amounts to much escept the Woodbine in Toronto and it is a credit to Canada. We did have a batch of Americans who came over to Fort Erie and set up a race-track and another similar institution was established at Windsor. These men should have been put out of the country. They were not Canadians .and their race-tracks were not desirable, but they should have been dealt with by the government of the province of Ontario, not by this government. If the effect of this Bill would be to do away with gambling in this country I would be glad to support it, but there is other gambling in Canada far worse than race-track gambling which is not affected by this proposed legislation. This Bill, in fact, only touches the fringe of the gambling in Canada. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) very wisely keeps clear of that. Thousands of petitions have been presented to this" House upon this subject and I have examined many of them. Sir, many of these petitions are signed by young girls who know nothing about the subject and who have never been on a race-track. I am proud to say that I am perhaps the only member of this House who lives in a thoroughly respectable, non-gambling community-I have not received one petition from the city of London on this subject.


Henry Horton Miller: Does the hon. member resent having been so neglected by the young ladies of his Tiding?


Thomas Beattie: No, I am pleased to know that our young ladies do not know anything about the gambling evil to which the hon. member has referred this afternoon. I protest against the hon. member's description of a state of things that I hope does not exist in this country; if it does exist it is the legislature of the province of
Ontario who are responsible for this alleged evil, they should right it and not the Dominion of Canada.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Beattie: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose at six o'clock, I referred to a small boy having won one dollar by ten of them putting up ten cents each and drawing tickets from a hat. I wish to state that did not take place at the Woodbine track, because the Woodbine course is so well conducted that no small boys such as the member for South Grey referred to are allowed within the grounds. I understand this Bill is likely to go before a special committee, and I do not know that I shall make further remarks but wait the report of that committee, and if that committee can show me that the statements of the hon. member for South Grey are founded on fact, I shall only be too pleased to vote for this Bill.


Mr. J. W. MADDIN (South Cape Breton).: I have much pleasure in endorsing this amendment to the Criminal Code introduced by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller). The view appears to be entertained by a numbeT of hon. gentlemen that horse-racing improves the stock of the country, and that for this reason we should allow horse-racing to be indulged in, because if repressed we would thereby be preventing the improvement of the breed of horses. I do not know how that may be in other provinces, but in the province of Nova Scotia, the horses that usually get away with the money in contested events are brought either directly from the United States to take part in those events or are horses that have been imported from the United States, and very few of the prizewinners are bred in the province. Furthermore, the horses which participate in track events, whether running, trotting or pacing are not such as the people of the country are most deeply interested in. But while supporting this legislation, I would venture with some apprehension, to offer a suggestion to my hon. friend from South Grey, and that is to Temedy what I consider an irregularity in the Bill itself. He has told us that the Bill was drafted by three well known legal gentlemen at the instance of the Reform Association in Canada. Well, if I may be permitted to refer to the law as it originally stood, I would mention that under the common law, in the old country, the business of gambling was prohibited, and in the imperial draft code, when the common law was modified, that prohibition was embodied in certain sections from which the general sections in our Code of

1896 were drafted. Sections 226 and 227 of our Code of 1906 follow verbatim the sections 197 and 198 of the Criminal Code of 1892. Section 226, for instance, defines a common gaming house as a house erected or place kept by any person for gaming. Under the amendment now before the House, the word 'space ' is substituted'for house, and a common gaming place is a place used by any one-the wards ' house, room or ' being struck out and the word ' kept,' which is significant, is changed to ' used.' The same is true with regard to 227. Now the punitive ot penal section 228 in the amendment goes on to say:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who keeps any disorderly house or other disorderly place, that is to say, any common bawdy house, common gaming place, common betting place or common opium joint as hereinbefore defined.
It must be quite apparent that the user of the place is not punished under the penal section of this amendment, and as the law stood under the old sections 226 and 227, as was pointed out by hon. gentlemen on this side before dinner recess, if a person making and registering bets, commonly called a book-maker, carries on his nefarious business within a building, room or generally in some fixed place, then the old sections, as they stood, would reach and punish him, but under the decisions of our court, as pointed out by my hon. friend from South Grey, it was found that a bookmaker who moved around on the grounds and in front of the grand stand amongst the crowd and who moved on, when requested by the police, was not such a one as is contemplated by the Code and could not be punished as keeping a gaming place. This amendment then is to reach bookmakers moving about the race-track ground, and whilst the defining sections 226 and 227 would reach him well enough, the punitive does not. Subsection 2 of section 228 says:
Any one who appears, acts or behaves as master or mistress, or as a person having the care, government or management of any disorderly house, or other disorderly place, shall be termed to be the keeper thereof and shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished as such, although in fact he or she is not the owner or the keeper thereof.
Well, if any one who appears to be the keeper of such a place is the one who is to be punished, it must be quite apparent that a book-maker moving to and fro in front of the grand stand and meeting shows very little appearance of being the keeper, and is in fact not the keeper, and so this Bill would not reach him. I venture the suggestion to my hon. friend from South Grey that he would consider the advisability of Mr. MADDIN.
inserting after the first word ' keeps ' in the thirty-first line of page 2 the words ' or uses ' so that the section will then read:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who keeps or uses any disorderly house or other disorderly place, that is to say, any common bawdy house, common gaming place, common betting place or common opium joint as hereinbefore defined.
If the words ' or uses ' were introduced after the word ' keeps,' that would reach a book-maker on the race-track. Then again it would punish unduly the frequenter of a house of ill-fame, which is not contemplated by this Bill. I would, therefore, recommend that irregularity to the hon. member for South Grey in order that he may prepare an amendment at the third reading of that Bill, or in order that it be submitted to the committee should the Bill go before a committee. So much with regard to the Bill itself.
I submit that the benefits to be derived from horse-racing are not commensurate with the evil consequences which flow from gambling on race-tracks. This Bill is intended to punish book-makers, that is, people who make a business of gambling, whilst it does not pretend to punish a person for gambling itself. The real evil flowing from the book-makers' business is that tricksters and people who pretend to give pointers to those who follow the turf, and also to many who know little or nothing about the turf, publish their pointers and tips and circulate their agents on the racetracks and sell these tips at so much per day with a view to leading the unsophisticated and credulous to believe that they can make money by betting to win without any chance against them. The man who deals in pointers, the tipster, is one of the evils incident to the work of the bookmaker. I submit, further, that the business of the book-maker has the effect of cultivating in the young people of our country the habit of gambling and destroys the true sporting spirit of the rising generation, blunting their sense of sporting morality and fair-play.
Now, I have only to say, in conclusion, that I commend the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) for the manner in which he presented this Bill to the House.. Though he is a layman, I think it is safe to say that no member of the bar on either side of the House could have presented the case with greater ability than did the hon. gentleman. He handled the legal aspect.of the subject with all the skill of a trained student of Blackstone, and the moral aspect almost as well as a Spurgeon or a Moody. I am not sure that the isolated instances of moral degeneration and social dislocation which the hon. member has pictured could fairly be called the outcome of race-track

gambling only. Still, I submit that the evils flowing from the traffic of book-making on the race-tracks of this country are such as to warrant this House in passing this legislation. As pointed out this evening, this legislation is not new. The very acts which will make a person guilty under this amendment would always have made a person guilty under the law as it stood if they had been carried out in any fixed place, under cover, in some room, in one spot. It has now become necessary to enlarge the operation of the criminal law in order to catch the book-maker who has been shrewd enough to discover that by keeping on the move, by abandoning any place of abode or fixed point of operation, he can evade the consequences of his conduct. It is in order to bring home to him the consequences of his crime -that this legislation is sought. I support the measure because I believe it in the best interest of the country and because I believe it is right.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).: I have listened with great interest to this discussion, and I cannot let the opportunity go by without putting myself on record as absolutely in favour of the amendment of the Criminal Code here proposed. In fact, I know of no question that touches a greater mass of the people than the question of race-track gambling. I think the House cannot pass a better measure during the present session than this, and I hope it will be passed unanimously/ I must congratulate the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) on the exceedingly clear way in which he placed the question before the House. Personally, I would support this measure if for nothing else than because it properly defines the word 'place' under the criminal law. It seems a most peculiar anomaly of the criminal law that a man can act as book-maker wandering around from place to place and be held quite innocent under the law, but the moment he becomes stationary he is liable to punishment. The question at issue, I think, was well put in the judgment of Chief Justice Moss in the Moylett case. Let me read a word from that decision: In speaking of the so called ' place ' in question in this case, he said: There was _ an absence of ' that measure of localization and fixity and exclusive .right of user which is necessary to constitute a place.'
It is to meet this difficulty, as I understand it, that this measure has been brought before the House. I believe that by passing this Bill and thus defining the word ' place ' we would go far to overcome the difficulty which stands in the way of putting a stop to illegitimate race-track gambling in Canada. I do not know the conditions in Quebec or the maritime provinces, but I do know the conditions in the prairie
provinces. Outside of Winnipeg, the race-meets are small, but at every meet there are a number of people who make it their business to follow the race-track-do nothing else. If a man got a fair deal in dealing with book-makers, possibly it would not be of so much importance to pass legislation. But every body knows that the dice are loaded against the person dealing with the book-maker. So far as the portion of the west in which I reside is concerned, every one will be in favour of this amendment. No better legislation could be passed by this House.


Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.).: I have but a few words to say on this Bill. I wish to go on record as being heartily in support of the measure. I also wish to take exception to a statement of the hon. member (Mr. Miller) who introduced the Bill wherein he represented that there was an extended race-meet in the city of Victoria during the past summer. I call attention to the fact that the meeting was not in my constituency, but in that of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith). At the same time, I am prepared to admit that some gentlemen who reside in my constituency extended a moderate support to that race-meet. But we have had in that constituency an experience of what this business means when carried to the extent to which the people who support it are prepared to carry it. The state of California prohibited betting on race-tracks with the result that we had all the thugs and undesirable characters of the Pacific coast landed on the constituency which I represent for a period of sixty days last summer, and the experience of that town, both commercially and morally was the reverse of satisfactory. I am in hearty support of this measure and will do everything I can to see it carried through.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: 
IF SO I AM ON THE SPOT.
[Stage Direction]
I own a stable of horses and am in the know when many a good thing will be cut loose here this winter. I want to put you next when I have them on tap. I don't want any money in advance, merely the winnings of a two-dollar commission on each horse I send you, and they may be one, or two, or even three, a week.
Can I put you on my list?
I will make some money for you.
[Stage Direction]
Send me $2 (two) American money, as a guarantee that you will accept my wires, and we can do business.

[Stage Direction]
326 West Ashley Street, Jacksonville, Florida.
I will not make any further remarks on this question, as it has been already so fully discussed. But I would like to see an amendment introduced to this effect:
That all advertisements soliciting patronage for betting on race-tracks shall be prohibited.
John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish this Bill to go through without voicing my sentiments in its favour. So far as this Bill is concerned, or any other Bill calculated to effect moral reform, I am willing to support it. What I object to is that the hon. member who introduced this Bill is willing to allow gambling on one side to be( carried. on, while on the other he wishes people to be prosecuted. I would like to see a Bill carried that would make all kinds of gambling illegal, and render every person engaging in gambling liable to prosecution. Now this matter of gambling restrictions was brought to the attention of the government some time ago, and the Secretary of State, instead of taking it into his consideration and trying to carry out the wishes of the people, was willing to legalize it and give the applicants a Bill that made it legal to do gambling throughout the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. MURPHY.: May I interrupt my hon. friend? The Secretary of State never did anything of the kind, nor was he asked to do anything of the kind.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say that an application was made to the Secretary of State to grant a charter that would legalize gambling in the city of Toronto, and the Secretary of State gave a charter which legalizes gambling in the city of Toronto to-day.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my denial that the Secretary of State was asked to issue any charter legalizing gambling, and to assert that he did not do so.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the Secretary of State issued a charter that, perhaps, does not mention gambling, but it is part of the. law to-day that they can carry on bookmaking under the charter that was issued by the Secretary of State, and which legalizes gambling. But I do not find so much fault with the Secretary of State, because he was a young member of the cabinet; but he took good care to go to the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, who was responsible for the whole matter, and the Prime Minister authorized him to issue that charter to make it legal to carry on Mr. ARMSTRONG.
gambling in the city of Toronto. That charter is in existence to-day, and it is a part of the laws of this country that in the city of Toronto they can carry on gambling under a charter issued by the Dominion government, through order of the Prime Minister of Canada. Now, as I say, I would like to see this government pass a law prohibiting gambling of every kind. When the matter came up before the Prime Minister and his government why didn't he suppress that charter? We know that petitions have been pouring in here every day by the hundreds, asking this government to suppress gambling. What did they do in this case? Instead of going to the Minister of Justice and asking him to present a Bill to amend the Criminal Code, the right hon. gentleman hands the matter over to a backbencher and gets him to present the Bill in order to ascertain the feelings of the House before the government acts. Why, Sir, this is one of the most important matters that ever came before this House to improve the morals of this country, and yet the government have not courage to bring in a Bill themselves. Even if they do bring in a Bill, they have to ask one of the backbenchers to present it. So far as I am concerned, so long as this Bill is in the interest of moral reform I am willing to support it.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: I dare say it would be better for me if I held my tongue on this occasion. I am vicepresident of that terribly and horribly wicked concern, the Ontario Jockey Club, and I am not ashamed of it. Now I am a man with a large family, and have seen much of young men. I have always had a belief, and it grows stronger as I grow older, that you may restrict but you cannot suppress vice. Nobody who has attended the Woodbine races but can bear testimony to the strong ground the management of that concern takes in trying to make sport clean and decent. The hon. member who introduced this Bill, if I heard him aright, gave as a very melancholy instance a young man who had been contaminated by winning $2 at a race, and I think he gave his age at twelve years. Now, Sir, one of the strongest rules and regulations of the Woodbine is that no boy or girl under eighteen years of age is allowed on the track. That rule has been carried out in the strictest possible manner. I do not believe that any body who has been at the Woo.dbine races for years past has ever seen a boy-of course a boy of sixteen may say he is eighteen-but you absolutely see no children there.


Mr. BLACK.: Let me ask the hon. member a question. What is the motive of regulating the age in the case of the Woodbine? Why not permit boys under eighteen under sixteen, down to twelve, even little

children, and girls under sixteen-why prohibit them attending the Woodbine?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Let me ask the hon. member, why do we impose any restrictions at all in a family on young children? Why not permit them to do just as they like? Why exercise any control over a family? Why do a father and mother control their children until they arrive at years of discretion?


Judson Burpee Black: May I ask another question?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Only with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I have no objection.


Judson Burpee Black: I have no desire to interrupt the hon. gentleman, I simply want to ask a question for information. In restricting the age of persons going to the race track, is there not an acknowledgment that there is a moral wrong somewhere in the sport?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not think it necessary to answer such a question, if he does not see the difference himself. I cannot explain it to the hon. gentleman if he does not know the difference between ten years old and twenty years old. If I could, by my vote and influence, prevent all gambling I would do it very soon, but my experience is that you cannot prevent by Act of parliament many of the evils incident to human nature. The difiieulty that is before the people of Canada to-day, in my mind, is, to a very great extent, that those who are looking after the morals of the country are trying to put those morals on the lines which they think is right by Act of parliament and not by home and church influences. The Woodbine race track has the approval of all men who are more or less familiar with racing and betting, and I think the testimony of all these men will be that it is possibly the best conducted race track in the world-except none. Yet, with all that, if it were possible by Act of parliament, to stop betting I would give my vote and influence to do it to-day and for all time. I have been in very active business for more than forty years. I have come in contact with hundreds and thousands of young men in banks and offices. My experience may.be quite exceptional but I make this statement now that I have never known in, all my experience, of the case of one young man who has gone wrong from betting on the races.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh,.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I make that statement. It may not be the experience of others. I also make the statement that there is hardly a day in the week in which I do not come
across cruel, hard cases, not only of boys and of young men but of women who have entangled themselves, lost money and brought themselves and their friends into terrible conditions through gambling in stocks. To-day, all over Canada, there is wild gambling in mining stocks. Flotations are put up at one dollar a share and inducements are held out through every advertising medium in this Country to buy these stocks and make a great amount of money. Perhaps it is not necessary to say it, perhaps it is a hard thing to say, and perhaps it may be a thing for which one should not take credit, but for many years no women speculator has been allowed to do business in my office. I have seen the evil of it and I think that the women are the ones in this country who are to be protected infinitely more than the men and the boys who are referred to more particularly in connection with this Bill. Bank clerks, and clerks in offices buy 10, 20, 30, or 40 shares of mining stock. They go into debt for it and the gambling in that particular class of stocks just now is causing infinite trouble and ruin to hundreds of thousands of people in Canada. Servant girls are brought within the range of this kind of stock transaction. If any one going through the city of Toronto will go to any of the evening newspaper offices during a baseball game or a football match he will see thousands-I am not exaggerating-of young men, mechanics and boys, eagerly awaiting the result. I will venture to say that in connection with the football match played between 'Varsity and the Ottawa Rough Riders in Toronto last Saturday, a match played -as cleanly and as finely as any match could be played, more money was won and lost, not only in Toronto alone but all over Canada, than there was lost or won during any week of the Woodbine races. I say that because I saw in my own office, from friends of the clerks, telegrams from many outside points asking them to put up $10, to put up $50, or to put up some other amount of money-not in a business way-but on one side or the other of that football match. In the ordinary everyday life throughout Ontario there is more money won or lost by women and men at games of bridge every day than is won or lost at the Woodbine in a week.


George Eulas Foster: Not excluding Sundays.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Not excluding Sundays. I felt moved to say a few words in connection with this proposed Bill, and I say now that if that Bill could effect the purpose which is aimed at and could suppress gambling, I would vote and work for it heart and soul. But, I do not believe that it will have any good effect. The Woodbine races have become a social affair in Canada, they naturally attract a good deal of attention, and it

is a very easy and pleasant matter for the reformers to train their guns on that one particular event and make very strong and serious statements in connection with it. I know I shall probably be misunderstood very seriously among my constituents and among many of my friends, hut I have here a letter from the clerk of the Presbytery of Toronto in which he writes to me inclosing many petitions signed in connection with this gambling Bill and also one or two petitions signed in connection with immorality and vice. I know a little bit about the reason for the gambling evil, but I must say that when I read the resolution of the Presbytery about immorality and vice I thought I knew a little of the bad that was going on in Canada and that I was fairly in touch with those who do know it because I do not always attend to business and I take a very serious and keen interest in many things that are not business. Than the Presbytery of Toronto, there is no more able* no more sincere, no more honourable body of men. They are men who want to do their very best for Canada and in the interest of morality, but, I read in this resolution passed for the Presbytery of Toronto:
Whereas habitual, open and notorious adultery, and habitual, open and notorious lewd cohabitation are not unlawful in the present state of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Now, the statement is made by that body:
Whereas many of them living in this disgraceful state, having been driven from the American frontier states, are making their homes on Canadian soil.
That assumes that many of the people of Canada are living in that criminal and disgraceful state and that that class is being added to largely by men and women who are being driven from the American border states to live in Canada because the laws of Canada are more lax and open than the laws of the American states bordering on the Dominion. This resolution goes on:
Whereas our Dominion is in grave peril because of this evil, owing to the inflowing tide of foreign immigration, thus threatening the sanctity of marriage and destroying the home;
Therefore this Presbytery would urge the Dominion parliament to enact such legislation as will protect Canadian society and morals against this great evil.
I, for one, as a Canadian, born here, living here all my life, seeing, I think, the ins and the outs and the good and the bad of a great city-and not only of a great city, btft of most of the outlying districts of Canada-I repudiate absolutely that statement. I do not believe that such a state of things exists. I have written to the reverend gentleman who sends me this letter, saying that I, with many members who have re-Mr. OSLER.
ceived that circular, are astonished and pained at it, and that we believe it is a slur upon the morals and the character of the men and women of Canada. Now, the meeting which passed that resolution, also passed that terrible indictment against racetrack gambling, and if the meeting had only the same information as to race-track gambling that they had with regard to immorality and the social evil, I say they are making much of little and that they are trying to have suppressed by Act of parliament that which can only be suppressed by the moral teaching of the ministers of this country and the mothers and the fathers of the children.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (East Hamilton).: I did not intend to say one word on this subject. I was here to listen, and to listen carefully, to everything that was said against racing in Canada, and I was particularly anxious about the matter, because for a good many years I have been connected with the Hamilton Jockey Club, of which for some years, I was president. I gave careful personal attention to everything connected with that club from top to bottom, and therefore I honestly think I know perhaps more about it than the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) who probably has never been at a race meeting in his life.


Mr. HUGHES.: He goes to camp meetings.


Samuel Barker: I do not care where he goes, but I do think it would have been wiser for those who wish some reform in this connection, to have placed the Bill in the charge of a gentleman who can speak of his own knowledge of that which he discusses. I have a great respect for the hon. member (Mr. Miller) as an industrious and indefatigable man in anything which he undertakes, but I always like to hear him when he is talking of something he knows a little about. The hon. gentleman may know something about morals in the abstract, but he is as ignorant as the babe unborn about morals as applied to racing and race-horses. I am sure he w'ill not take any offence when I say so; he will no doubt consider it a compliment. Sir, I have been a member of a jockey club and I am not ashamed to say it. I have watched every act and proceeding of that club, from those of the directors down to those of the men who have conducted what is called ' professional betting ' on the racecourse. I may say that it has been the object of every member of the board of that club, to which I have the honour to belong, to see that everything connected with the Hamilton Jockey Club is conducted in a gentlemanly and honourable manner which would bring the blush of shame to no man's cheek. I am

happy to say here to-night, that I have heard highly respectable men from the United States and from England, express the opinion that there could be no more honourable methods than those adopted by that club, and that everything they did was very very remote, indeed, from the rascality that has been imputed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller). It has been our effort from first to last to stamp out every

evil thing that the hon. member (Mr. Miller) has imputed such a club and to those connected with it. From the day I entered that club, I acted with a view to seeing that nothing was done that could not be published to the world, and that nothing should occur which would cast a shadow of a suspicion on our characters as gentlemen. One broad idea that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) has brought forward here is, that betting is an evil, but he starts out by saying that he does not object to all betting. Betting in the abstract is no sin according to the hon. gentleman, but betting in a particular way is wrong, and I would like to know how much that gentleman knows about the particular sort of betting he objects to. I venture to say he has not the remotest idea about it, and yet he appears here in the parliament of Canada to lecture the people of Canada on their immorality as regards a thing which he knows as much about as he does about the precise question as to whether Dr. Cook or the other gentleman discovered the north pole.
I have been a member of a jockey club for some years, and although a fairly busy man I have given time and attention, without any personal monetary interest, to the supervision of every detail of the Hamilton Jockey Club while I was its president, and I deny what he has charged. That club and every member of it has done everything that could be done by them to put down what is really the mischief, an evil which the hon. gentleman and those whom he represents could have abolished, had they given their attention to it. We have felt that the whole odium of the betting evil is due to a matter with which he does not attempt to deal, that is the maintenance in small shops, barber shops and other small places, of betting places where small wage-earners can wager small sums upon horse-racing, football or any other sport. That evil was known to exist as far back as the passing of Sir John Thompson's Criminal Procedure Act. That, Sir, is the great mischief to-day and it is an evil which is known to every one who chooses to study the subject. The small wage-earner frequents these places, tempted by advertisements such as that read by the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl). In these places betting goes on from New Years Day to the 31st of December. That
is the curse of the business, and if the hon. gentleman has thought of the subject he knows it. These people induce clerks and small wage-earners to speculate for a few cents or a few dollars on races that aTe taking place at San Francisco, New Orleans or New York, betting on the advertisements they read in the newspapers. You never see one of these small bettors at a race meeting such as that of the Woodbine or . the Hamilton Jockey Club. To enter the Hamilton Jockey Club would cost them more than they are willing to venture on their bets. Those who attend these race meets are not the class of people touched by this evil. The injury is done to the unfortunate man who is addicted to betting, as a man may be to drinking or smoking or any other habit. Such a man loses his money in thus betting, because the other fellows live upon his bets. These are the cases you will see in the newspaper reports of the police courts of Hamilton, Montreal, or any other city. At any of the great race meets the people you see around you are not of the class for whom the hon. gentleman is appealing. He tells a pitiful cock-and-bull story about a boy twelve years of age who was boasting to some gentlemen in Toronto of what "he had won at the Woodbine. Does the hon. gentleman himself believe that story? I do not. I know that the whole effort of the Hamilton club is to keep such boys out, and even a member of the club, I myself, if I wanted to bring a son of mine ot a daughter of mine under sixteen years of age into that race meeting, could not do it. Yet the hon.. gentleman tells a story about a boy of twelve years of age who had been betting and making money. If the hon. gentleman had been in the habit of attending these meetings, he would not have told such a story. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has properly said that these things are guarded against by the clubs. I have no doubt that the Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton clubs are as anxious to protect the youth of this country against danger of that sort as is the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller). Does he arrogate to himself a greater anxiety for the morality of the youth of Canada than I have, or than the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has? Does he suppose that because I happen to be a member of a jockey club, I am less anxious than he to guard our youth? The only privilege I enjoy as a member is that I have paid out some money to establish the club. I have never received one cent in dividends or in any form from it and I pay the same as any one else to enter	the club
grounds. I have given labour to protecting and advancing the respectability of the club, to keeping it as something worthy of and not a disgrace to

this country. I have given time and labour and paid out my money, and all the reward I have ever received has been to hear a little abuse occasionally from gentlemen who do not know what they are talking about. Sir, we see the King of England, the ruler of this British empire, honoured and respected by every man and woman in the land, running horses at the races in England. What a rascal he must be! Probably he would even offer ot take a bet with a friend. I do not know whether he gets near enough to bet with any one else, but if he did, I think no man would be afraid of the temptation into which he was running, or fear that he was leading boys of twelve to ruin. The trouble they have in England is that there are a lot^ of touts who use the love that the British man has for a good horse and for the best horse of the day, to draw a shilling or two out of some pooT devil who cannot afford to lose it, and the law's there are framed to stamp out that sort of thing. It has been a slow process, but they are always advancing. But here you do not find the gentlemen who are so anxious for reform trying to abolish the real evils or make them impossible. I heard what the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. McColl) said as to a certain class of advertisements. There is much more in it than appears on the surface. Few men here can appreciate the amount of money that has been expended by gentlemen whose hearts are in the improvement "of the horses of this country. There is a general impression that these men make fortunes out of this thing. Why, the men that spend the most make the least. There are men who have devoted their whole lives to the improvement of horses and who have never made one dollar. The desire for gain is not what moves them. It is the love of the thing they go in for, just as in the case of a great many people who go into trotting racing for the pleasure of seeing tests of speed between good horses. I do not object in the least to what the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McOoll) has proposed. I should be very sorry to object to any full inquiry into a subject of this kind affecting the moral welfare of the country. I would like nothing better, so far as I am concerned, than to submit every dollar that is invested in the club to which I belong to the impartial investigation of a committee of this House which would honestly decide whether, taking it all in all, there is not good done by horse-racing. I do not want to further occupy the time of the House. I did not intend to say one word, but I speak honestly what is in my own mind from what I know, and I can honestly say this, that if .1 had to go back upon the last ten years in which I have been connected with a jockey
club, and go through them again with the proper sense of what is due the people of this country and the upholding of its morality, I would not hesitate to follow the same course, so far as my connection with the Hamilton Jockey Club is concerned.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have listened with much interest to the very exhaustive after dinner speech we have just heard from my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). He seems to think that somebody has evil designs on the Hamilton Jockey Club. At least that is the only logical conclusion tp be drawn from his remarks. Well, he entirely misconstrues the purpose of the Bill. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) appears to have a similar impression regarding the Woodbine Club. Let me say that the hon. member for Hamilton is hardly justified in the severe castigation he has given my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller). Any one who has listened to the very exhaustive argument made by him cannot fail to come to the conclusion that while that hon. gentleman may be a layman, he has given more care and study to the legal side of the case than many legal gentlemen in this House, and presented it in a more masterly manner than many of these legal gentlemen could have done. The hon. members for Hamilton and Toronto take the ground that this Bill is aimed at the respective jockey clubs to which they happen to belong. That is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from their speeches. They practically admit that these jockey clubs would not exist, if these betting arrangements were not allowed. But that is the very thing we find fault with. This Bill does riot say anything about jockey clubs and does not want to put down either the Woodbine or the Hamilton Jockey Clubs. There is nothing in it to prevent these clubs having racing meets unless they are willing to admit that such meets cannot be a success if gambling be not allowed to go on at them. Well, I think that other hon. gentlemen in this House have just as good a right to their views as the hon. members for West Toronto and Hamilton.	Like the hon. member for East Grey I have never lost a dollar in betting on a race-horse, but I think we both know what is going on perhaps as well as the hon. member for Hamilton. He took good care not to make any reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Cowan) who spoke of the influx at those race-meets of American horses and jockeys from California, and what he said can be argued of every race-meet in eastern Canada during the last ten years. At such meets the entries are practically monopolized by American horses and jockeys, and in the great majority of instances there is an arrangement between the jockeys and


Samuel Barker: book-makers and every race is sold out before it is trotted. Consequently no man is safe who goes there and risks his money.


An hon. MEMBER.: You need not buy if you do not want to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says you need not buy unless you chose to, but I ask the best thinking people is it proper that we should allow such institutions in this country, and allow those connected with them to hold out this bait to the people, especially to the younger men? When I say that such a course is not proper, I believe I am voicing the sentiment of the best people in this country. If you take the flood of petitions we have had during the past three or four weeks, you must admit that they mean something. You may say that these petitions are signed by innocent parties who know nothing about race-meets, but I have only to reply that if these institutions were the splendid ones my hon. friend from Hamilton has pictured them to be, it would not be necessary to make any argument against the gambling connected with them. There has been a proposition made this afternoon to refer this Bill to a special committee. That is something with which I have very little to do. My own opinion however, is that if we refer it to a special committee, that will give the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) a chance to bring down the officers of these jockey clubs, and of course they will say there is nothing wrong with these clubs. I do not think that the members of the Canadian House of Commons need the evidence of these gentlemen to inform them whether there is gambling going on at these race-meets or not. Every one here to-night knows that gambling transactions are there taking place. We have as much information on that point to-night as if we were to investigate the matter during months, and I see no reason why we should refer this Bill to a special committee or follow any other course than the one usually pursued. Therefore, I shall vote that this Bill be taken up in the ordinary course and I hope it will pass and become law.


Samuel Hughes: It was not my intention to offer any remarks on this matter; but, as an old sport, I thought that probably-seeing this appears to be a time for a confession of faith on the part of the members of the House-a little of my own experience might do no harm. From my early boyhood, I have been engaged in athletic pports of every description. And I never, directly or indirectly, wagered a farthing on any game in my life. I am not claiming any special virtue for that. All I say is that I was not prevented from doing it by any Act of parliament. Fortunately, I had the training in my home and in my school life 29	'
that taught me that it was not very creditable for a fellow to try to get something for nothing. The virtuous outburst over race-track gambling that we have heard tonight reminds me of two instances in the history of this country. One was .the Sunday Observance law-as great a fake as ever was placed on the statute-book of any land. The gentleman who led in putting that enactment through refused point-blank to make duck-hunting on the Sabbath illegal, but they provided that if a young fellow hired a rig to go and see his best girl he was guilty of a crime. The other incident took place a few years ago in Toronto. The exhibition people there, with the desire of affording those who were inclined to be pleased with the classic in sculpture, organized what they termed 'living pictures'. They picked up a lot of old girls from all over the United States, decked them out in tights and showed them as 'living pictures' at the exhibition. There was a great outcry and the ministerial association of Toronto took the matter up. And, in order to decide whether this thing was moral or immoral, those who were ap-pc inted as a committee went out there day after day. Finally, on the last day of the fair, they reported-well, I really forget how the report ran, but at all events they had enjoyed the exhibition immensely. I do not believe in gambling, but I have read this Bill from start to finish and I do not see that gambling is even attempted to be suppressed by the measure. Book-making is condemned, but gambling is not condemned, and gambling after all is the evil. You start a person gambling for matches in one of these pious games of bridge that are played in home parlours or in church parlours, and it is just as seductive to the youth of our country as to allow a boy to go on the race-track and bet his money on the horses. Now, what is all this agitation for? Why, it is just to let my genial fellow countryman, the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) out of a nice little hole into which he plumped himself during the past year. There was a! little Liberal ring in the city of Toronto, engineered by a very able man connected with some race-track institution in the suburbs. That race-track, owing to offences against decency carried on there, was suppressed by the provincial authorities-and, I believe, very properly suppressed. But these gentlemen said: We will teach this Tory outfit that we have pals at Ottawa. So they came down here, and-I suppose, under the law; I am not questioning the procedure-a charter was granted to this company. Forthwith, there was indignation, and that eminent authority on Christianity, the Toronto 'Globe' came out and demanded-in a moment of weakness-that this charter b.e cancelled. My Irish friend, the Secretary of State, not only stood his ground but went to Toronto to talk it out with them. And it was



delightful to see how the poor old Globe crawled-got under the lid and stayed there for some days until the Secretary of State came back to Ottawa. The next step was to attempt to suppress betting on racetracks all over the country-if gambling on race-tracks in Toronto was to be suppressed, it must be suppressed on racetracks every where. And the pious clergymen-good fellows as a rule; I am not saying a word against them-took up the agitation. But let me say here that if the clergy, instead of trying to govern the people by repression, would follow the lines of education, of building up the individual, there would be less necessity for this racetrack gambling legislation. Well, the ' Globe ' got back in this way, and petitions were hawked about the country for signature. And I asked several splendid fellows in my own county, ' Do you know what all this means? ' Not a man of them could tell me the first thing about it. Thousands of names have been signed to these petitions, but I venture to say that not one out of five hundred of the signers knows the first thing of the history of what he was signing. I want gambling suppressed, whether on the race-track or any where else. At the same time, here in my place in the House I want to place myself on record as believing that this system of governing people by repression is not what has given the nineteenth century the place in history it occupies or that will make the twentieth *century what we hope it will be. We must build up the manhood of the nation, and that repression cannot do. Point, if you can, to any period in history where repression has built up manhood. It cannot be done. It is educational, it is kindly teaching the mother with the child, the father taking his boy by the hand. I have a son -I do not want to bring in my own case but I want to show that I am not afraid to practice what I preach-and I am proud of that boy. He is able to hold his own in any place in which he goes in life. And that boy never was repressed, directly or indirectly, either by his father or by his mother. I resent the effort of any man, in politics or out of politics, to repress me, and I have never sought to repress any man; I have never found it necessary. To my mind, this Bill should be relegated to a committee, in order that we may know what there is in this race-track gambling that should be repressed. I have been at the Woodbine a couple of times, and I have seen young fellows bet their fifty cents or whatever it may be on a horse, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. Whether there was any thing wrong with that I do not say. Let us have the committee suggested by the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) that we may consider what we shall do, not only with race-Mr. HUGHES.
track gambling but with gambling in connection with games of all kinds. Why not consider the gambling in connection with bridge-playing? Why, Sir, in this very city of Ottawa homes- have been wrecked by bridge-playing; whole properties have changed hands and people have been led to ruin through gambling at bridge.
Gambling in bridge is to my mind even more criminal than gambling on a racetrack, because the latter is something for the moment, while the other becomes a craze and is carried to an extreme extent. Let me point out another thing. There was a football match in Toronto last Saturday, and thousands and thousands of young fellows in this city and other parts of the country put up their all on that match and lost. Why is it wrong to bet on a horse-race and right to bet on football? There is another point that I think our hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) might well include in this Bill of his. We frequently find another species of gambling indulged in when a public lecture is advertised, or a football match is advertised, and the admission is placed at a certain figure. The tickets are all corralled up, and when a person wishing to obtain admission and is ready to pay the advertised price, calls for his ticket, he is told: Hand out $4 or $5 or you cannot go through. Possibly1 a thing like that would come under the law regulating combines in restraint of trade, or against increasing the price of commodities. At all events, it is a species of gambling, and to my mind it is more contemptible than gambling on a horse race. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, I am not 'a horse-racd>
gambler; I claim no credit for it, because I never had any inclination for it. I was trained in my infancy by a good mother to believe that there was nothing honourable in it, but that on the contrary it was disi-graeeful to be connected with a horse race. I would therefore make a suggestion to those gentlemen throughout this country, the clergymen, and they are a lot of fine [DOT]fellows, a great many of them, a splendid lot, but they are a little too prone, as I have told them on more than one occasion, to take a crack at the politicians. Now politicians are no better than they should be, but I will say this, that I think the politicians of the parliament of Canada, take both sides-I will include the other side too, although it will bring down the scale a little-I say the politicians in this House will compare favourably with any other class, even the clerical class, in the Dominion of Canada to-day. But I wish here, from my place in the House of Commons, to give a word of suggestion to the clergymen, that splendid lot of fellows in this country, and that is that they should direct their zeal along other lines than the present line. It is so convenient to press\

and to grind people down, to crush somebody, and I would suggest that another plan be taken, that they try to reach these people who are going wrong, to extend to them the right hand of fellowship, and show them a better way of earning money than to indulge in gambling, in the effort to get something for nothing. Let the clergymen develop that feeling in the individual, and in their congregations, and throughout the nation, and there will be no longer any need of laws against race-track gambling or any other laws of that nature. But I would say, and I want this to go on record, that I am opposed to gambling; and if my hon. friend from South Grey will make his Bill cover gambling of all classes, betting in every shape, I will support it heartily. To that end I would be pleased to see it referred to a committee, as suggested by the hon. member for West Northumberland' (Mr. McColl), in order that all the facts irt connection with the matter may .be ascertained.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The subject under discussion is a troublesome one to legislate upon, for the reason, I suppose, that in essence the thing struck at by the Bill under consideration is the making or taking part in a bet. Now the trouble is that the making of a bet is not considered by a large portion of the people of this country to be in itself a crime, and that by this legislation which is now proposed, as by legislation already on our statute-book, you are making by statute that thing a criminal offence which, in the eyes of the average citizen, is not an evil thing. It seems to me an innate propensity of the Anglo-Saxon human being to make a bet, to calculate chances, to take those chances, and to stake his property upon his judgment or his skill. The small boy that plays on the sidewalk in the springtime, stakes his marble against that of his playmate upon his ability to make a shot, and if he misses his shot he loses his property, while if he wins, he pockets the marble of his adversary. When that small boy gets a little older, and is able to make or to borrow money enough to waste, he probably ventures into a larger form of gambling, he probably indulges in the purchase of many thousands of bushels of wheat, or many thousands of pounds of bacon or of pork, which the seller never owned and which the purchaser never meant to buy. He simply makes his bet upon his faith that the price of the commodity he purports to buy will rise in the market. Or perhaps he indulges in some other form of stock gambling. Perhaps he goes to the more legitimate broker and engages in speculation by making what is in all substance a merely theoretical purchase of stock in some well known public 29i
company. It may be a company whose stock, if he bought a hundred scares, would cost him more money than he might ever hope to possess. He lodges with his broker a percentage, he takes his chance upon the price going up or going down. He never sees any certificate for the stock he has bought, in all human probability no such certificate is ever issued by the company the shares of which he purports to be dealing in. If the price goes up he sells, he wins the bet, and his broker pays him the difference. If on the other hand it goes down, he probably loses his deposit. Well, everybody I suppose calls transactions of that kind gambling, and it is merely gratifying the innate propensity of mankind, or of English mankind at any Tate, to make a bet.
But these very gentlemen who have been referred to in the course of the discussion to-day as advocating this measure are, I venture to think, perhaps unconsciously to themselves, engaging in substantially the same sort of business transaction, and considering it an eminently laudable thing for them to do. Suppose I go to a life insurance company and want to obtain a policy of insurance upon my life. What else does the company do but avail itself of its knowledge, by experience or by the experience of others, as to the chances that I will die within a year, and make its bat that I will not so die. They calculate the odds, they know what those odds, in the ordinary experience of mankind, amount to, and they tell me, if you pay us so much money, then, if you die within the twelve months, we will pay many times a larger amount. If I die I win my bet; if I live the year out I lose and the company pockets my money-undertaking on their part that if I live they will renew the bet upon the same terms for the succeeding year, md so it goes through a man's life. Such a contract is' in its essence a contract of wagering, a contract of betting in which each party pits his knowledge, or want of knowledge, upon the chance whether or not that particular man will live for a certain prescribed period. Nobody thinks it is wrong, everybody thinks it is right and laudable and this legislation has the defect, that I think every one must appreciate in it that in substance and essence it is running counter to that all but universal propensity-I think I may very properly call it-on the part of the average man to back his judgment or skill by his money.
Now, the practical question here is, I think, whether indulging to excess in this propensity is a thing to be prohibited, or an evil by reason of which you should seek to prohibit absolutely the whole thing, or is a reason why you should seek to regulate it and to prevent, if you can, the excess. Betting upon a horse-race, or upon any


&quot;903 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
trial of skill, has been the subject of legislation in the old country for centuries at least. As long ago as the days of the Stuart kings statutes were passed in the United Kingdom upon this subject. Very probably before that time it was a matter of legislation and some forms of betting upon trials or contests of skill, or speed, or strength, were considered at all times by the parliament of Great Britain as perfectly legitimate. When we came in Canada to frame our Criminal Code, which contains the present law on this subject, that condition of the antecedent English criminal law was perfectly understood by the men of that day and perfectly recognized in the legislation which is now in question. A great deal of ridicule has been poured upon this legislation, or upon the interpretation of it which has been made by the courts, on the part of newspapers and public speakers who have advocated some change in the law -ridicule, which, I think, is entirely unfair and unjust. I have been brought up to believe, and I do believe, that law is the perfection of human reason and I think that our law upon this subject, as it has been interpreted and declared by our judges, is not any legitimate subject to ridicule, but that the judges have correctly interpreted that which the legislature, whether wisely or unwisely, some seventeen, years ago deliberately enacted in this House. They wanted to prevent the keeping of common gaming houses; they were not striking at the individual bet, at one man meeting his neighbour, betting with him upon anything he pleased and depositing the money in the hands of a third person as stake-holder. They were not striking at the comparatively harmless bet of a pair of gloves with a lady, or a pound of candy, or some other trifle of that character, but they were striking at the wholesale, promiscuous betting engaged in in public gaming or betting-houses. They accordingly prohibited, under heavy penalties, the keeping of a public gaming-house or place. In section 235 of the Criminal Code they addressed themselves to the wholesale betting, if I may so describe betting by means of pool selling at race-tracks, or upon contests of that character where the parties to the wagering contract do not individually come at all into contact with each other, but where the bet is arranged through intermediaries on either side, and with the aid, perhaps, of the telegraph wires or other apparatus. Accordingly, they declared by section 235 that every one was guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to one years' imprisonment and to a fine not exceeding a thousand dollars, w'ho did one or the other of several different things-used or allowed any part of his premises to be used for the purpose of registering bets or wagers or selling pools; or kept or used in his premises any Mr. AYLESWORTH.
device or apparatus for the purpose of recording bets or selling pools; or became the stake-holder or recorded or registered any bet or wager upon, among other things, the result of any race. In passing that enactment the legislatures of that day saw, as any one must, on considering it, that it would render the stake-holder in not only the ordinary innocent bet between two men, but also the stake-holder in the case of a contest for a prize, liable to the penalty of the Act. At every agricultural fair in the province of Ontario each fall I suppose one of the most attractive features is the speeding of horses in the ring for a prize given to the fastest trotting animal, or given for other contests of speed between horses. The owners compete and it was never intended by this legislation to make the treasurer of the association, who held the prize money, a criminal liable to be sent to jail for his conduct. Accordingly they provided by a subsection that:
The provisions of this section of the Act shall not extend to any person who has become the custodian of any money, property or valuable thing staked to be paid to the winner of any lawful race.
That was the first exception. That exception is swept away by the legislation of my hon. friend. He proposes to re-enact the clause as it stands already on the statute-book, to make it criminal to be in the position of assisting at anything in the nature of a bet upon the result of a race or contest of skill or endurance of man or beast, but does not include the three exceptions which were deliberately put into the Act when it was passed as part of the Criminal Code in 1892. The second exception which was made and which, at the same time, recognized, what I may speak of almost as a standing principle of English law, so great is its age, was that the provisions of this section were not to apply to the owner of any horse engaged in a lawful race. Legislation against betting upon horse races is as old as the Stuarts. In the days of Charles II, in the days of Queen Anne, during the reign of George I and George II, repeated statutes were passed on the subject in England; introduced into Ontario when the law of England as it stood at the date of the meeting of the First Parliament of Upper Canada was adopted as the basis of the law of that province. Under those statutes of^ Charles II, of Anne and of George II, while_ there was illegality declared in the making of bets on certain kinds of races and under certain circumstances, the owner of the animal was not penalized if he bet upon his own horse in a lawful race. It was as if he were contesting for a money prize, for plate, or for any prize that was offered to the speediest animal. And so our parliament in 1892, recognizing that condition of the English law which had then obtained for

one hundred and fifty or two hundred years, made that second exception, that nothing in this enactment was to apply to the owner of any horse engaged in any lawful race. Then came the third exception, as to bets between individuals; and finally the exceptional specially made and deliberately enacted by the parliament of Canada in 1892 in order to protect racing upon the race-tracks of an incorporated association. S
'Nor to any bets made on the race course of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a race meeting'.
The parliament of that day adopted that final exception with its eyes wide open. Sir John Thompson in introducing the Bill, called attention to the effect of the legislation. Mr. Davies-now- Sir Louis Davies of the Supreme Court-pointedly called attention to it by saying: 'It is just as well the committee should understand that we are legalizing betting on a race-course' The Solicitor General of the day took part in the discussion pointing out that the law had always allowed betting on horse-races, and so, with fullest knowledge in 1892, a law was enacted which permitted betting between individuals, or on the race-course of an incorporated association, during the actual progress of a race-meeting. And just here let me pause to say that it was with some astonishment-unless my infirm ears much deceive me-that I heard a few minutes ago my hon. friend from Grenville charging against the Secretary of State that by some administrative act of his, within the last few months he had legalized betting upon race-tracks in Toronto. Why, the Secretary of State had no need to do anything to legalize betting.	My hon.
friend's honoured chieftain, Sir John Thompson had done that in this country years ago. If there is anything improper in betting upon the race-track of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a race-meeting, you must strike at it as my hon. friend from South Grey proposes to strike at it, meeting it squarely by repealing the exception which seventeen years ago was put upon the statute-book.
Now, the question, I take it, for consideration to-night by this House is, whether or no that should be done. It is simply a question of policy. Those who support the institution of the race-track in its legitimate form say, either impliedly or in so many words, that if you prevent betting upon the race-track, if you destroy the revenue to the association which they derive directly from the sale of book-making privileges, and if you also deprive that association of the revenue which indirectly they make out of the circumstance that betting is permitted upon the race-track and out of the attraction which that circumstance affords to many of those who otherwise would not attend, you are going to destroy legitimate racing altogether. Now,
I do not know for myself, whether that is so or not. Several members of this House during the day, seem to have made more or less confession, and perhaps I may do so
too.	I had lived in Toronto before I came down to Ottawa four years ago, I had lived in Toronto within a mile or so of the Woodbine race-track for thirty-five years or more,
I once went with a friend to see what it was like, I did not stay more than an hour because it did not interest me at any rate, and I never was at the Woodbine under any other circumstance. I never won or lost one cent upon a horse-race-I prefer to take my form of gambling with my broker. In these circumstances, I think I am in the position of the ordinary member of this House, of being able to pass impartially upon this question. Certainly I do not claim to be and do not consider I am in any way a champion or an advocate of the race-track or of race-track associations. But I find this state of things: We have had day after day during the few days this House has been in session, hundreds upon hundreds of petitions upon this subject. Every one knows who has had any practical experience, how readily people sign petitions and very possibly too much credence and weight can be given to petitions. But 1 cannot think that all those petitions are meaningless. I have had the honour of presenting a considerable number signed by men from my own county whom I know personally; petitions signed without any regard to the political feeling of the men who sign, but petitions which I see signed by substantial men of the constituency and not, at all events, altogether signed by women and children, even if women and children are to be ignored. These petitions were signed by the sober, serious minded back bone of this country. I do not think that -we can afford to disregard petitions of that sort. I do not think we can close our eyes to the fact that whether or no it is manufactured, or whether or no it is spontaneous, there has grown up and there does exist in this country at the present time, a strong body of public sentiment upon this question. But, while that is to my mind well established, I think it is equally the fact that public sentiment upon the subject is by no means unanimous.
The debate in this House to-day has demonstrated that and we cannot close our eyes to the fact that if this legislation of my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) would have, in fact, the effect of shutting up such race meetings as those of the Woodbine in Toronto or of the equally beneficial meetings held at Montreal or at Winnipeg or at Hamilton, we should be legislating counter to the sentiments and the views of a great many people who can with all propriety be spoken of as, socially and in every other respect,
[Stage Direction]
among the best people in the community. If we think of the class of people who attend our races, we see among them the highest in the land, and when we know that these race meetings are patronized by people of the best standing, people of repute, people who have the best interests of the country at heart and who would never dream of breaking the law or of doing anything which they thought would work any injury to their fellow man, I think it is a subject upon which we certainly ought not to act without the advantage of all the light we can obtain. For that reason, and just because it would be important to know what the effect of withdrawing the revenue from betting privileges would be upon the race-track meetings of legitimate, incorporated associations, I certainly should favour the course which has been proposed by my hon. friend from West Northumberland (Mr. McColl). It cannot do any harm, the session is young yet, there is ample time and after the special committee has heard both sides of this question, has heard whatever evidence may be offered before it by those who are interested in racing and who want to keep up the breed and the excellence of our horses as well as by those who think that the evils which necessarily attend a race-track meeting are so great that the whole thing ought to be suppressed, we shall be in a much better position to deal with this legislation than we could possibly be at present.
I alluded a little while ago to the ridicule which had been in some quarters poured upon the law and the interpretation of it with regard to the question of its being against the law, an illegal thing, for a man to take a bet in the way of book-making at a race-track if he stood still and not at all illegal if he moved about. Many of the petitions which have been presented to the House have referred to that circumstance as an absurd position of things and they put the fault of it upon the judges and of their work in interpreting this legislation. That, I say is a very unfair thing, unfair to the law and unfair to the judges, and it only needs to be understood to be appreciated. When this legislation was passed in 1892, with the deliberate exception permitting bets made on a race-course of an incorporated association during the actual course of a race meeting, it did not meet the approval of those of our citizens who on principle were opposed to all betting, and it was not long before what was considered a test case was made by prosecuting some one under this provision of the law. It was found impossible to secure a conviction, the case was within the exception. Then the ingenuity of lawyers engaged by those who wanted to stop the betting at racetracks was brought into play and some one conceived the idea of prosecuting the bookmaker who occupied perhaps an upturned Mr. AYLESWORTH.
soap box or stood under an umbrella on the race-track, as the keeper of a common gambling house under the other sections of the Act. That was devised on the part of the godly people. That was an effort on their part to circumvent the legislature and it succeeded to this extent. The court said it does not need four walls or a roof to make a place. The statute prevents any one keeping a common, open gambling house or place, and if he occupies any fixed place, in or on a box, or under a stationary umbrella, any definite fixed location, he may be held to be keeping a common betting place if he holds himself open to the public as a man willing to accept bets from all-comers. Accordingly the law was tortured, if the law ever can be tortured, the law was distorted from the intention of the lawmakers at the instance and upon the argument of those who wanted to repress betting on race-tracks, although it had been deliberately permitted by the legislature seventeen years ago. The next step, of course, on their part, was to attack the man who kept moving about, but the courts said that was going a little too far and they could not say that a man who walked up and down, who was continually on the move, was keeping a common betting house or place even although he was taking bets from every one who would walk along with him. I think then if one remembers how this question has arisen he will acquit our learned judges, who have honestly sought to interpret the law as it was set down for them, from any decision which deserves the ridicule that has been lavished upon it.
I observe in the legislation under discussion that my hon. friend has proposed to get over this last difficulty and, if legislation can do it, to make the man who perambulates about but never stands still for a moment, the keeper of a common betting house, because he takes bets from those who speak with him, and makes bets as he so moves around. The legislation in question proposes, in the second subsection of the second section to define the word ' place ' and it says that the word ' place ' means something that is not a place.
The word ' place,' as used in this section and in the preceding section includes any place, whether inclosed or not and whether it is or is not a fixed place, and whether there is or is not exclusive right of user.
We have all heard the ancient conundrum, ' when is a dog's tail not a dog's tail,' with the answer, ' when it is a-waggin'. It seems to me that this is something of the same sort, when is a place not a place? The definition is that the word ' place ' is to include any place, whether it is or is not a fixed place. Now-to my mind, the Word ' place ' necessarily implies and carries with it the idea of

localization and of definite fixity. I cannot understand a place that is not a fixed place, and I cannot therefore think that the object which the framers of this Bill had in view in endeavouring to get over the decision of the courts I have described, can be accomplished by any juggling with words or verbal trickery such as, it seems to me, with all respect to the draftsman of this Bill, the definition I have referred to, literally amounts to.
Just one word more because of a misunderstanding which possibly exists on the part of my hon. friend who introduced this Bill. I understood him to express the opinion, in answer to the observations of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), that this Bill would not prohibit or affect individual bets between man and man. To my mind that is far from clear. The new section, which is submitted for section 235, in distinct terms, makes it a criminal offence for any man to record a bet, so that if any gentleman, who has made more bets than he can keep in his memory, ventures to take out his pocket diary and make the merest jotting, he would, under the proposed legislation, undoubtedly render himself liable to one year's imnrison-ment and possibly a fine in addition not exceeding a thousand dollars. If the House means to enact such a law, well and good, but it should be pointed out that the whole effect of the proposed legislation is to sweep away the exceptions which were deliberately inserted into our present legislation, when the Code was enacted in 1892.
I sympathize to the fullest extent with the efforts of my hon. friend from South* Grey (Mr. Miller) and those who think with him, to lessen or put an end to the evils of gambling. But if their efforts will necessarily and inevitably carry with them thd destruction of property, which is already represented by many hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments of our race track associations if those efforts will necessarily involve the suppression of our racetrack meetings and the encouragement which they give to the improvement of the breed of our horses I should hesitate before supporting any change in the present law; and just because I want information on that head and because it seems to me that information can best be obtained by a reference to a special committee, such as has been suggested, I propose to vote for the second reading of this Bill and then to support the amendment or motion which the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) says. he intends proposing, to refer the Bill to a special committee of this House.
Mr. STEWART.: Representing, as I do, a constituency which has a race course, I do not think I would be doing my duty to that constituency were I not to say where
I stand on this question. I am in favour of the principle of the Bill but not in favour of the Bill, as submitted to the House, and I think that the proper course would be to give it a second reading and then send it to a special committee, and in that way obtain information on the subject and hear the different views held regarding it better than we can by following the usual course. It is only fair that those who hold different views should have a chance to come here and give expression to their views. We cannot get too much information on the subject before passing a measure which may have such an important effect on this country, and if the Bill were sent to a special committee and there properly threshed out, we could then vote more intelligently than we can at present.


Hon.   .C. MURPHY@Secretary of State: At this late hour I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes. At the outset let me associate myself with the gentlemen in and out of this House who do not believe that you can legislate morality into the people of this or any other country. At the same time I desire to associate myself also with the members of this House who earnestly and honestly desire to correct or remove what they believe to be a very serious evil. For that reason I am in sympathy with the objects of the Bill which has been introduced by my hon. friend from South Grey. It is my intention to vote for its second reading; and if the hon. member for South Grey approves of its going to a special committee, I shall support a motion to that effect. Permit me to say, Sir, that, in common with other gentlemen in this House, who have been sent here to represent public opinion, I resent the attitude of people who are not members of this House and who declare that this parliament must pass this or that measure of legislation. The members of the House of Commons are the mirror of the public opinion of this country, and I submit that it is not competent for any man or set of men to tell us what legislation we must pass and what we must not. Speaking for myself, I am not affected by any views of that kind either in connection with this or any other measure that may come before this or any other parliament.
Let me refer very briefly to one or two observations that have fallen from hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House. I regret that the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) is not here, as I would like to return him good for evil. My hon. colleague the Minister of Justice has made it unnecessary for me to point out to that hon. gentleman that it was not a charter issued by the Department of the Secretary of State which legalized gambling, as he asserted, in the city of Toronto, but it was

the Criminal Code introduced by the late Sir John Thompson. But the hon. gentleman objected to this Bill for the reason that it is proposed to remove the opportunity to bet or gamble at race-tracks. Therefore, it is a fair deduction- that he favours betting and gambling at these race meets. Yet in the very same breath, he condemns the Secretary of State for having issued a charter which, he claims, legalized that very thing. I commend his consistency to the very serious consideration of his mother's son. Then the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), for whose opinion I have the very greatest respect, drew attention to the fact that the race-meetings at the Woodbine track are conducted in a manner which is entirely proper and regarding which he asserted no criticism could fairly be indulged in. He illustrated what he says took place in connection with other branches of sport in this country by drawing attention to the crowds that assemble to hear the results of football matches and baseball games and ventured the assertion that more money was wagered and lost on a certain game of football in Toronto last week than is wagered and lost in any one week on the Woodbine track. _ As to that, I shall not venture an opinion, but let me draw the attention of the hon. gentleman and of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) to the fact that the attendance at these football games, unlike the attendance at the racetrack meets, which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier affirms could not be successfully conducted unless betting were permitted. is not marked by the presence of bookmakers or by the practice of betting, and the same can be said of hockey matches. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that at these matches the average attendance is much greater, I venture to say, than the attendance at race meets. What does that prove? It proves that two of our most popular sports are not dependent upon betting for their existence. I submit that the whole case against the Bill of my hon friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) was given away, to use a colloquial phrase, by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr Monk) when he stated that, in his opinion, horse-racing could not be successfully conducted without gambling. Now, my hon. and gallant friend from Victoria and Hali-burton (Mr. Hughes), whom I am sorry not to see m his seat-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. MURPHY-whom I am pleased now to see on his way to his seah-referred to a family discussion which took place a few months ago in which the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) figured, and with regard to which it is not necessary for me to give the House any particulars beyond those given Mr. MURPHY.
by my hon. and gallant friend. But let me point out to my hon. friend that the charter of the association in Toronto which he was under the impression had been cancelled by the provincial government because of some improper practices on the track of that association, was not cancelled for any such reason. That charter was cancelled because of non-user-because it had not been used at a time prior to its coming into the hands of the gentlemen who were operating under the charter at the time it was cancelled. And, in this connection, it may be well to point out that the cancellation of that charter illustrates a very important, a vital, difference, between the Provincial Companies' Act and the Dominion Companies' Act. Whereas under the Provincial Companies' Act there is provision for cancelling a charter, there is no such provision under the Dominion Companies' Act. So that the strength of lung and quantity of ink expended in demanding of the Secretary of State the cancellation of the charter that he issued was very uselessly spent. All that might have been saved if the gentlemen who were making the demand had only taken the trouble to look up the law or consult the nearest solicitor.
Now, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) has pointed out certain features of the Bill which render doubtful the effect it may have in actual practice. These are matters, which, I presume, can all be considered in committee. My hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Maddin) has drawn attention to what may turn out to be a very necessary amendment in subsection 1 of section 228. That also may be considered in committee. I desire to draw the attention of the House to one or two other amendments that may be made in the direction of broadening this Bill and making it extend to a class of the population who have been very vociferous in demanding this legislation. In my estimation, section 235 as amended by my hon. friend does not go quite far enough. This section provides that every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment and a fine not exceeding $1,000, who -according to subsection (e) as here proposed :
Advertises, publishes, exhibits, posts up, sells or supplies, or offers to sell or supply, any information relating to pool-selling, hookmaking, betting or wagering.
If it is a crime on the part of the men who do this, I want this section 235, so far as I am concerned, extended to the newspapers that assist in disseminating this information. I am going to propose in committee that after the word ' any ' in the twenty-fifth line, the words ' news or ' be inserted. That line will then read ' news or information.' And I will further propose

in committee that after the word ' wagering ' in the twenty-sixth line, these words be inserted:
Upon any horse-race or other race, fight, game or sport, whether at the time of advertising, publishing, exhibiting, posting up, selling or supplying such news or information such horse-race or other race, fight, game or .sport, has or has not taken place.
I submit that the necessity for this amendment must have been impressed upon every hon. member of this House when listening this afternoon to the extracts read by one of the hon. members on this side and by an hon. member on the other side of the House. I do not intend to offer any further observations at this moment, but when this Bill reaches committee, I shall ask the indulgence of the committee to allow me to have something further to say.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I would ask the hon. member (Mr. Murphy) whether he intends to suppress all news relating to the event, or simply betting news?


Charles Murphy: The news relating to the events specified in my proposed amendment.


George Perry Graham: In the case of railway Bills proposed by private members of the House, I have invariably taken the position that where they affect large vested interests, and where there is difference of opinion it is the duty of the House to afford opportunity for those interests to be heard. I think that is only fair. We are here to legislate not alone for the people whose opinions we endorse, but for all the people. If we were sent to legislate only for those who think as we do, we should have only one kind of legislation-and if hon. members opposite were in power, I fear it might be bad legislation. But I have taken the position in railway Bills- fairly, I think and I intend to take it hereafter, that these Bills should be referred to a committee, not in an unfriendly but in a friendly way, so that the people who are opposed to them can have an opportunity to present their views and so that the members of the House themselves can thus be placed in a better position to judge. I am in sympathy with the Bill of my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) and intend now to vote for the second reading to advance it a step and to get it where we can, perhaps, hew it into better shape. But I am strongly of opinion that, in fairness to all classes, and in line with the view I have held on other Bills introduced by private members where interests are affected, we ought to give those concerned a chance to be heard, and consequently will supDort the motion to refer it to a committee.
So far as betting itself is concerned, I believe that the insanity which pervades a portion of the people of Canada on the question of bridge-whist is training people up to be racing touts and book-makers throughout this and other countries, and that the foundation of much of the trouble >ve shall have from betting in years to come is being laid in the homes of this Dominion in playing bridge-whist and other games for money. So far as the sport of horse-racing itself is concerned, I am guilty of liking it. I would rather own a string of fast horses than be the ruler of any of the smaller countries of the world at least. I see nothing wrong in it, I see every thing good in it. The lover of animals is gener-
Uy a man of broad mind, and a lover of humanity also. I am fond of good horses, and I pretend to know something about good horses, and when I am in the vicinity where men are trying to see which horse will go the fastest, call it a horse-race, or a trial of speed, or what you like, I am there to enjoy it. Nevertheless I am opposed to some of the evils that go with it, gambling to excess, men betting their last cent on these races, and I am in sympathy with the Bill of my hon. friend. But in fairness to all classes I take the position I do on other public Bills, and say that all parties ought to be heard.


Henry Horton Miller: I have to thank, in the first place, some members of the House on both sides who said some kindly things of me, much more kindly than I deserve, in connection with my address in favour of this Bill. At this hour of the night J will not keep the House many moments for fear I would lose their good opinion, which I desire to retain for at least 24 hours. I do feel, however, some responsibility in taking charge of a Bill of so great interest to the people of this Dominion. I would like to refer briefly to some remarks made by hon. gentlemen who have spoken in opposition to the Bill. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was the first one to speak. He said that the evil we are endeavouring to combat has not yet reached the province of Quebec. He is fortunate, and the people of Quebec are fortunate that it has not. But I wish to say that when it does reach Quebec, as it will, the machinery of this Bill, if we pass it, will be all ready at hand. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier said that though they had successful race-meets in the province of Quebec, they are not troubled with the evil of book-making, thus proving by good evidence that racing is possible without bookmaking. I think the hon. gentleman was scarcely fair to his own province, which he would have us believe to be very tolerant with and generous to professional gamblers. I think that his words will create a misapprehension that would not be

complimentary to his own province. He said that a certain racing association within his own riding, I think he referred to the Blue Bonnet race-course, had some privilege in its charter that permitted gambling or betting. Now, Sir, I have looked at the Quebec statutes incorporating the old Bel-air Jockey Club, which was at one time one of the first jockey clubs of the province of Quebec, and find that it gives no permission to its members to gamble or to bet, but it does, on the other hand, give them permission to suppress betting and gambling.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The charter of the present association is much more recent than that by letters patent.


Henry Horton Miller: I have turned, not to the charter, but to the Act of incorporation of the more recently incorporated company, that is the Montreal Jockey Club, and the statute, in defining the rights of the jockey club, says:
The club shall not permit any form of gambling to be carried on upon its premises; but this shall not affect wagers upon exercises for promoting skill in the use of arms or upon horse or foot races or other lawful games requiring bodily activity or address within the meaning of the Civil Code.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the date of that?


Henry Horton Miller: 1909. Now the Civil Code of Quebec, speaking of betting says:
There is no right of action for the recovery of any money or anything claimed under a gaming contract or a bet. But if the money or thing have been paid by the losing party he cannot recover it back unless fraud be proved.
The next section says:
Denial of the right of action declared in the preceding article is subject to exception in favour of exercises for_promoting skill in the use of arms and of horse and foot races, and other lawful games which require bodily activity or address.
Nevertheless the court may in its discretion reject the action when the sum demanded appears to be excessive.	.
Now there is no greater right given in the act of incorporating that society, that jockey club, than is given by the Code, and the Code gives no right for professional gambling, or book-making, or anything of the kind, but simply says that there may be betting, and the Bill that is before the House does not in any way seek to prevent betting, as I have repeatedly stated.
Mr. MONK, The Code does not prevent betting.


Henry Horton Miller: Neither does it permit it. Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and others coming after him have spoken of lacrosse and football, and they say that Mr. MILLER. *
the Bill I have introduced does not sav anything either about lacrosse or football. It does not particularly. The Bill I have introduced does not, unless it does what I do not mean it to do, prevent betting upon a horse-race; neither does it prevent private betting in connection with a football or a lacrosse match, but it does prevent the business of gambling and book-making, either upon a lacrosse game, a football game or a horse-race. It has been well pointed out by the Secretary of State that football associations and lacrosse associations forbid book-making or anything of the kind upon their grounds, and they have large crowds to witness their games, they get large gate receipts, and they can continue lacrosse and football without selling or permitting to any body the privilege of book-making. If they can do that, I would like to know why the same thing cannot be done with horse-racing. My hon. friend has said, and others have followed him in the same line, that we must have horse-racing in order to improve the breed of horses. I have spoken of that before, and I will not now speak of it at any length save to say this, that the ' Farmers' Advocate,' the leading agricultural paper published in the province of Ontario, and as good an agricultural paper as there is in the Dominion of Canada, wholly devoted to agriculture and stock-breeding, has been loudly clamouring for the passing of just such a Bill as this, and those gentlemen are at least as solicitous to encourage the breeding of good horses as my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier . My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. McColl) has said that the great evil is the outside betting. Now, I think he will agree with me that the Bill is a good one in so far as that it prevents outside betting. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), the vice-president of the Woodbine association; did not endeavour in any way to deny or lessen the strength of my statement, taken from the Toronto ' Telegram ' that $2,600,000 was placed in the hands of book-makers in the last meet of thirteen days on the Woodbine track. This was not on outside tracks, and was not the outside betting referred to by the member for Northumberland. The hon. member for Northumberland has said that while they have done away with book-making in several states of the union-a majority, I believe, of the states of the union-they have not in Britain, or in Austria, and in some other places. If the abolition of book-making, of professional race-track gambling, is a good thing, must we as Canadians, be the last people in the world to enact such legislation? Must we wait till every other country in the world has so legislated? Sir, 1 am a Briton, I believe a true Briton, but there are many things in Canada that I believe are superior to similar things in

Britain. I believe our temperance legislation in Canada and control of the liquor traffic is vastly ahead of such legislation in Britain, and we have better results on every hand throughout the Dominion. My hon. friend from Northumberland suggested short meets, and in this he has been followed by others. Now, 1 am not seeking to attack horse-racing. I am a lover of horses, and the member for Norhumberland says horse-racing is necessary in order to encourage the breeding of good horses. If horse-racing is necessary to develop a good breed of horses, then surely the more horse-racing we have the better, and it is better that the meet should continue, and that instead of being limited to six days, it should last for ninety days. If horse-racing is going to encourage the breeding of good horses, then the more horse-racing the better. I am not seeking to lessen horse-racing, I am seeking to lessen gambling and gambling has nothing to do with the breeding of horses.
One thing I had thought in listening to the speech of the hon. member for Northumberland; I had thought that he was somewhat conversant with the ways of the race-track until about the last statement that he made. Then he said that the Woodbine is run in such a way that the public have an even chance with the bookmaker. Then I thought that my hon. friend was not so well informed as I had thought he was. Would the American book-makers come every year to the city of Toronto and pay large sums for the privilege of making books on the race course if they meant to give the innocent public an even chance with themselves? The hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) has said that this is an Ontario matter and that it ought to be left to Ontario to deal with. Contrast that with the statement of his friend and my friend, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard) as to the extent of the evil in British Columbia and in his own city of Victoria. My hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) is not in his seat. I was going to say to him that he very much hurt my feelings and pierced my very thin skin when he'spoke of me as a back bencher because I sit one seat farther back than he does. But, Sir, it is not for that that I make reference to him. He said, as other members have said to-night, that I did not oppose gambling in the Bill and that I said I had no objection to gambling. I said nothing of the kind. I said nothing to indicate that that was my attitude. I do not practise gambling for two reasons; in the first place, I do not believe in it, and, in the second place, I would be afraid that I would bet on the losing horse. I have given my reasons why I have not attempted to penalize the man who engages in a private bet. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), a gentleman
whom we all respect, has rather ridiculed the statement that I made as to the boy of twelve or fourteen years of age returning from the Woodbine where he had won his $2. That story was not one which had come to my own norice, but the story was told to me by a member of this House who was on the spot, who saw the occurrence, who would sympathize with horse-racing and the race-track and who will, I believe, vote against this Bill, I do not know whether that bet was made on the race-track or whether it was made with the bookmaker off the race-track, but I have no doubt that it was made. The hon. member for West Toronto told us that he is vicepresident of the Woodbine Association. I fancy the member said this for fear that if he did not make the statement it would be on the tongue or in the mind of somebody else, but I am sure that those who know the hon. gentleman would not impute any action that he might take or any word that he might utter to any wrong or unworthy motive. I would not think for a moment, nor would any member of this House, that the hon. gentleman would be influenced in his action or in his words because of any connection that he might have with the Woodbine. I do not think for one single moment that the hon. gentleman ever invested a dollar in the Woodbine for the sake of making money out of it. If he did go into it as a money-making investment and if he lost the whole cost of the Woodbine it would not make any particular difference to a man of his wealth. But, I do say this that a man who is vice-president of the Woodbine Association naturally perforce, unconsciously, it may be, sees the whole matter from a rather different view point that many other people will. A man having the wealth of the hon. member for West Toronto moves in a circle and upon a plane where he naturally does not come in contact, as other people with less means and different associations do, with the evil results of race track gambling. The hon. gentleman is not any better qualified to judge of the evils of race-track gambling than I am simply because he is vice-president of that association. He has said that this Bill does not provide a penalty to deal with mining stocks and that it does not deal with the playing of bridge. If the hon. gentleman thought that I was going to concoct some sort of a patent medicine for the remedy of every evil man can think of and if I have not endeavoured to prevent the evil of bridge or gambling in stocks it is no reason why the hon. gentleman should oppose this Bill before the House. It may be his duty to introduce a Bill preventing the playing of bridge and preventing stock gambling and if he does I will be glad, for one, to give his Bill my very careful and honest consideration.
The hon. gentleman has said that many women gamble in stocks, and that women

ought to be protected rather than the men whom we are seeking to protect by the Bill before the House. He spoke of the housemaids who invest their money in mining stocks. I want to know which woman is in greater need of protection-the housemaid who earns her $10, or $12, or $15 a month and then invests some of it unwisely in mining stocks, with no family to support and no children dependent upon her, or the wife of the wage earner who invests his wages at the race-track and, losing them, reduces his wife to want and his children to disgrace. The hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Barker), president of the Hamilton Jockey Club, thinks his knowledge of race-track gambling superior to my own. I admit his superior knowledge. I did not take any offence at anything he said respecting myself. I admire the hon. gentleman so much that nothing he would say, I think, could offend me. But, I say to him as I say to the hon. member for West Toronto that while these gentlemen, connected with racing-tracks and associations as they are, no doubt have honestly endeavoured to engage in the sport as gentlemen should do, and while they may not be responsible in other respects for the evils that attend race-track gambling, they and other men who have an official connection with a racing association have this responsibility that they sell and sell for gain and sell as a means of maintaining their race-tracks the privilege to men to make books. For this we will at any rate held them responsible. The hon. member for East Hamilton has told us of their efforts to keep the race-track clean, but he has not given us any evidence at all of the success of those efforts. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) speaks of the petitions that have come before this House, that I thought, was well replied to by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. I had thought that we ought to pay a great deal of attention to these petitions, and that for the most part the people who had signed them knew what they were doing, but I have often thought that the voters in Victoria and Halburton must be a peculiar people. The hon. gentleman says that hundreds of people in his riding had signed these petitions without understanding what they had signed. I think they must have been in the same mood and had the same dazed understanding election after election when they marked their ballots for the hon. gentleman. The Minister of Justice has said that there is, in many transactions, the element of gambling. He said that when a man insures his life or property with an insurance company or association it is a gamble. Sir, there is-absolutely no parallel between the man who insures his life or his property and the man who bets upon the race-track. The man who insures his life gets his policy of Mr. MILLER.
life insurance, the man who insures his barn, or his stock of merchandise, gets his policy and the moment he gets his policy he gets some value for the money he has invested. He gets protection the very moment he pays his money and makes his contract. What protection, what thing of value does a man get who invests his money with a book-maker on the racetrack? I say again there is no parallel at all between the two cases. The Minister of Justice rather conveyed the idea that this Act would penalize the treasurer of any society, for instance an agricultural society who would pay a prize to the owner of a horse. I do not so understand the Act, but I bow to the superior wisdom and great legal learning of the Minister of Justice which we all admire and in which we all have a great deal of confidence. I do not think the Act penalizes the owner of a horse who bets on his own horse. The Act does not mention the owner of a horse, the owner of a horse is at liberty to bet on his own horse or on any other man's horse, but he is not permitted, whether he be the owner of a horse or not, to engage in the business of book-making or in the business of gambling.
The Minister of Justice has said that if this Bill would cause the loss of many thousands of dollars that are invested in racetracks and in racing associations, it would be a matter that would deserve our very serious consideration. Sir, I do not consider, and I do not think this House ought to consider this matter for one single moment; I do not think it has anything to do with the matter before us. If these gentlemen have invested their thousands of dollars for the purpose of perpetuating horse-racing, then I say I have no quarrel with them and I do not endeavour to inter-' fere with their horse-racing-they can carry it on every day in the week except on Sunday, which is forbidden. But, if they have invested their money to carry on a system of gambling then I do not care how much money they have invested it ought not to be perpetuated. Some one has very tersely said that this whole matter is a question of the horse-race versus the human race and if that be so, I, Sir, will endeavour to be the humble champion of the human race. It has been suggested that this Bill be sent to a select committee, and to this I have no objection. I believe I have a very excellent case, I believe that those who with me support the Bill have an excellent case; I am not afraid of all the inquiry that can be made, I am not afraid! of all the evidence that may be produced, and I am willing that it should be referred to a special committee. But I do ask that that shall not be the means of shelving the Bill, I do ask that if it is referred to a select committee, that the committee will act with reasonable promptness so that they may report to the

House in time to have this Bill become law in such shape as it will be agreed upon.
Motion (Mr. Miller) agreed to, and Bill read a second time.


John B. McColl: As I intimated, I shall now move that this Bill be referred to a special committee of the House. In selecting that committee I have thought that every portion of the country shall be represented. I have in no sense considered it a party question and have consequently selected an equal number of members from each political party. Then, as there are legal questions involved, I have selected a number of legal gentlemen and I have thought further that members composing that committee should be selected from those particular localities in which they have jockey clubs and racing associations as these gentlemen would be more likely to know the conditions actually existing. As, for instance, one of the British Columbia members spoke of the position of affairs in his part of the country and I have consequently named him on the committee. I therefore move, seconded by Dr. Black:
That Bill (No. 6) 'to amend the Criminal Code be referred to a select committee of this House composed as follows:-Messrs. Miller, Bristol, Macdonell, Monk, Gervais, Barker, German, Lalor, Harris, Clarke (Essex), Haggart (Winnipeg), Campbell, Neely, Barnard, Macdonald and the mover.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, I am sorry to say to my hon. friend, (Mr. McColl) that I cannot agree to the composition of his committee. The committee proposed by him is too large. It ought to be composed of not more than seven members so that it may be a business committee to work a prompt solution of the problem which is referred to it. If we had such a large committee as that I am afraid that the anticipation of my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) might not be realized and that the Bill might not receive proper treatment. I therefore beg to move as an amendment:
That the committee be composed of seven members, namely: Messrs. Miller, McColl (Northumberland), Monk, Blain, Sinclair Stratton and Martin (Regina).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
George Eulas Foster: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Mr. FIELDING.: The Public Works estimates will be taken up again.	[DOT]


George Eulas Foster: I suppose they will take the whole day.
Mr. FIELDING Unless they can be got through more rapidly than usual.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 1.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 3, 1909.