1910-04-06

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I beg to lay on the table a recommendation by the Speaker with regard to the reorganization of the staff of this House.



POST OFFICE AMENDMENT ACT. '

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 197 to amend the Post Office Act. He said: There are only two lines in this Bill. The explanations which are on the order paper are taken into consideration by the . House. This Bill is only to supplement them. I am obliged to transfer the superintendents of Railway Mail Clerks for the operation of the Post Office Act to that of the Civil Service Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
1.	Has the contract for the mail service between Quebec and Levis been awarded? If so, to whom was it awarded? .
2.	How many tenders have been received, and who was the highest and the lowest tenderer ?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1.	Yes, the contract was awarded to the
Levis Ferry, Ltd.	,
2.	Two tenders were received, the higher being from the Quebec and Levis Ferry Company, Ltd., and the lower from the Levis Ferry, Ltd.


INDIAN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
Mr. LAKE:: 1.	What decision has the government come to in regard to the continuance or otherwise of the system of Industrial Schools for Indians? If it is decided to change the system, what policy will be adopted and what measures will be taken to carry the new policy into effect?
2.	Does the government propose to close the Indan Industrial School at Regina? If so, is it proposed to open any boarding schools in lieu thereof?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	The government intends to continue
the system of industrial or rather residential, schools for Indians.	,
2.	Yes. By agreement with the authorities of the Presbyterian Churcn, by whom the Regina Industrial school is conducted, increased residential school and other accommodation is to be given in lieu thereof.
RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS Mr. MACDONELL:
Is it the intention of the government to favourably consider the application of the railway mail clerks for betterment of their position and increased salary made to the overnment in the month of January last?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: The Post Office Department is in receipt of many petitions from the stampers and sorters of the city post offices throughout the Dominion pointing out that a material increase had been granted to the railway mail clerks a- few years ago; that whilst they were doing practically the same work they were receiving very much less remuneration, and asking, in view of the similarity of the work, that the two branches be put on the same footing. It was further pointed out that the mileage granted to the railway mail clerks in addition to their salary placed^ them in a still more favourable condition, and many other reasons were given as to why the stampers and sorters should be placed on the same basis, exclusive of mileage, as

the railway mail clerks. So strongly did the sorters in the city offices put forward their ease that the department has decided during the 'recess of parliament to go into the merits and demerits of the whole matter, and no action, therefore, will be taken this year as regards a change in the status of the railway mail clerks.
lands, in which they were informed that $20 and disbursements was considered a reasonable allowance for their services in each case, but that in case there were more than one lot, the title to which required to be examined, they would be allowed $10 for each additional lot. The letter of instructions is in these words:


DUTY ON LINOTYPE MACHINES.
Mr. BLAIN:: Is it the intention of the government to remove the duty on linotype machines?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING.: It is not the
intention of the government to propose any tariff changes during the present session beyond what are now before the House.


Mr. L. F. CL AERY.: 


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	In what transactions or cases has the government engaged the services of Mr. L. F. Clarry, lately of Hastings, barrister, as solicitor or agent; and who was the claimant, vendor, or releasor with whom the government was dealing in such cases?
2.	What was the nature of Mr. Clarry's
.	'''.""t, and what was the date of his
instructions in each instance?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH:: 


Re L.   F.@: Clarry, barrister, Hastings, Ontario, and Trent Canal claims:
Date of	Docket
Instructions. No.
Jan.	29,	1909....	B.	1191 . .u	29,	1909....	B.	1194 ..Feb.	1909....	B.	1195 ..H	5,	1909....	B.	1190 .II	5,	1909....	B.	1197 ..M	10,	1909....	B.	1216 ..Mar.	25,	1909 ...	B.	1273 ..it	25,	1909....	B.	1274 ..ii	25,	1909....	B.	1275 ..it	25,	1909....	B.	1276 ..M	25,	1909...,	B.	1277 ..M	25,	1909....	B.	1278 ..h	25,	1909....	B.	1294 ..April	5,	1909....	B.	1331 ..it	20,	1909....	B.	1363 ..H	20,	1909....	B.	1464 ..May	3,	1909....	B.	1379 ..Aug.	3,	1909 ...	B.	1546 ..July	30,	1909....	B.	1547 ..It	23,	1909....	B.	1548 ..April	20,	1909 ...	B.	13G2 ..
Claimant.
M. F. Lynch.
F.	Lynch.
A. A. Humphreys.
J. A. Warner.
G.	A. L. Humphreys. John Sergeut.


Hon.  J. C.@: Dickey.
P. Crowley.


John C.: Lynch.
Peter Brady.
F. McGuire.
Thos. Williamson. Jno. Breekenridge. Pat. English.
Chas. Fox.
Mat. Breekenridge. Foulds Co. Ltd.
Thos. Davidson.
Jno. Breekenridge.
A. M. Cameron.


Mrs.   M@: Scriver.
Annexed hereto is a sample of the letter of instructions sent to Mr. Clarry, in these matters, with a printed copy of instructions attached. A circular was sent to him and to the other agents having in charge claims for damages for drowned Mr. LEMIEUX.
January 29, 1909.
Trent Canal,
mchael Francis Lynch.
Sir,
I have the honour to inclose herewith copy of an order in council dated 22nd inst., authorizing the settlement of the claim presented by the above claimant for damages to his hnd by the waters of the Trent Canal; also the agreement from him to settle for $1,050, and I am to request you to investigate the title and obtain a deed of release from him if the title is satisfactory, the release to be for future as well as past damages. A copy of my printed instructions to agents is herewith inclosed for your information and guidance.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY AND QUEBEC BRIDGE-VARIOUS EXPENDITURES.
Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	In connection with the Transcontinental Railway, eastern division, what amount has been paid or agreed to be paid to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for surveys?
2.	What is the total amount outside of the amount paid the Grand Trunk, expended by the government for surveying and locating the line ?
3.	What is the total expenditure to date for engineers and other employees superintending, overseeing or having charge of the work of construction?
4.	What is the total cost to date of and in connection with the office of the Commissioners, including rentals, supplies, salaries, &c., &c. ?
5.	What is the government's 6hare of the total rent to date for terminal facilities at Winnipeg under arrangement with the Canadian Northern, and why should we incur this liability at all?
6.	What was the actual cost to the country of the Quebec Bridge, if anything, before it was taken over from the company?
7.	What amount did the government assume or pay when they took over the undertaking?
8.	What was the total cost of the investigation into and in connection with the collapse of the Quebec Bridge?
9.	What is the total cost of investigation, plans, specifications, advertisements, consultations, advice, expert and other services and preparations for rebuilding the Quebec Bridge?
10.	What are the materials, structures, and works necessary for the completion of the railway, in a condition to be handed over to the company which are not included in the two contracts let; and what is the total estimated expenditure, not including anything for the Quebec Bridge, required to cover these items?

11. What amounts will he required to cover each of the classes of expenditure referred to in paragraph 10, and how much has been incurred or expended to date under each head-[DOT] i*'g?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM.: This is very lengthy and very intricate,, and it will probably take some weeks to get the information asked for. I would ask that this be allowed to stand as a notice of motion.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand as notice of motion for a return.


TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. A. C. BOYCE.: I desire to ask the government whether the report in the New York 'Sun' of March 27 last, a few lines of which I will read, is substantially correct with regard to the negotiations between the President of the United States and the Dominion of Canada on the subject of the arrangement of tariff duties:


Through Dr.   J@: Macdonald, editor of the Toronto * Globe,' the President arranged for the Albany conference with Mr. Fielding, and by his diplomatic tact with the latter he has been able to obtain sufficient concessions to justify him in declaring that Canada is not unduly discriminatory.
I would ask the right hon. leader of the government to state whether that report is substantially correct?.


William Stevens Fielding: There are several thoughts in the quotation. What particular point of my hon. friend's question


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I will read the quotation again.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not want to answer as to words but as to substance. If the hon. gentleman will state


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I ask whether this statement is true, that through the editor of the Toronto ' Globe ' the President arranged for the Albany conference with Mr. Fielding?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not say that it is true, but there is a foundation of truth for it. Mr. Macdonald was in Washington, as any other visitor might be, obtaining impressions as to the situation. On his return to Canada, he mentioned, in the course of conversation with the Prime Minister and myself, that the American government would like to resume negotiations with the Canadian' government, and, if there was an assurance that the Canadian government would be willing to meet them, he thought an invitation would be sent. We said that we would be happy to resume negotiations at any time upon the invitation of the proper authority. Thereupon, the President sent me a telegram expressing his desire to meet me at Albany and expressing also regret that the Prime Minister was not able to be- present. That is the whole story.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Was Mr. Macdonald sent to Washington to


William Stevens Fielding: No. We had no knowledge of his movements at Washington. He" was there as a private citizen, or as a journalist.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: I would ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) when I may expect the return asked for on February 2nd last in connection with the Wingate post office, Manitoba?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will inquire immediately after the adjournment.


Mr. CROCKET.: I would remind the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) of an order of the House passed for a return of vouchers in. connection with the St. John river survey. I would like to have that return before the close of the session.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I am inclined to think that return is ready. I had it under consideration a few days ago. I will make inquiries. and I feel sure I can have it brought down almost immediately.
On the orders of the day being called.
THE BOUT DE L'lLE rsRIDGE.


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I may be permitted to call the attention of the government, and particularly that of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) upon a question of the utmost importance to the county of L'Assomption which I have the honour of representing, and to the other counties in my district. This matter also interests largely the city of Montreal.
By 63 and 64, Victoria, chapter 8, subsection 33, the government of this country granted in 1900 a subsidy of $150,000 to the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company in the following terms:
To the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company, for a single track standard railway bridge, with two roadways 10 feet wide, for free vehicular and foot passenger traffic, the same as upon a public highway, from Bout de L'lsle to Charlemagne, at the iunc-tion of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, $150,000.
I have no doubt that this subsidy has been paid to the company, but I do not know whether the latter have fulfilled the conditions upon which this subsidy has been granted.
Instead of constructing a single bridge connecting Bout de L'lsle to Charlemagne,

the said company, making use of an island-the Bourbon island-which was in the middle of the river, has erected two bridges, one from Bout de Isle to the southern shore of Bourbon island and the other from the northern shore of Bourbon island to Charlemagne.
The distance is twenty-five to thirty French acres which one has to travel in order to cross that intervening island has never been provided with a suitable road so as to permit the passage from one point to the other, and the numerous farmers conveying their farm produce to the city of Montreal and the travelling public in general have been obliged to travel that distance before any work had been done to put that road in order. The result was unavoidable;- that low and marshy ground was turned into a rut almost uninterrupted and often exasperatingly deep. In spite of repeated representations from all quarters, it has been impossible so far to have this unfortunate grievance redressed. The Montreal newspaper, especially ' La Patrie,' as late as last week, in an editorial, demonstrated the inconveniences to which the traveling public of Montreal and of the rural constituencies were subjected to on account of that altogether impassable road. Here is what ' La Patrie ' of the 26th March said:
The Bout de Pile Bridge.
La ' Patrie ' has already called the attention of the federal authorities upon the impassable and dangerous state of the approaches to the Bout de Pile bridge.
Thaw has set in. Loaded or pleasure vehicles, wagons, automobiles, etc., going from Bout de Pile to Charlemagne, or in the opposite direction, are in danger of getting stalled or of breaking to pieces in the deep ruts at the two ends of the bridge. It is almost impossible to pass there. And such is the situation since the bridge has been open to the public.
Upon whom rests the responsibility of making the necessary repairs ? Is it upon the Railways department or upon the Canadian Northern Company P
However it may be, it is really disgraceful to leave an 'important road as this in such a state of rack and ruin.
We do not know whether the contractors were bound to complete the embankment so as to facilitate the entrance to the bridge, or whether the government inspectors have reported. But it is incumbent upon the federal authorities to complete or have completed without delay that which has too long remained unfinished.
The member from L'Assumption shall undoubtedly renew his representations to the government at the re-opening of parliament.
The members of the city and the island of Montreal shall join with him to put a stop to that intolerable situation.
Every summer thousands of vehicles and automobiles cross the Bout <fe File bridge. If the approaches are not soon repaired, accidents will surely happen, entailing probably loss of life.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: We instantly request the government to send an inspector thex-e and to have the necessary repairs made.
Last year, to prevent circulation from being altogether interrupted at that place which, had become dangerous, some people clubbed together in making ameliorations, and I had to put up some money myself towards that and the work we have done has been rather temporary, did not give a very passable road but rendered it less perilous.
And now that road is almost impassable. I think it is incumbent upon the government, who have granted leave to use that island instead of building a bridge over it, to relieve the travelling public which is suffering so much from that situation. Therefore. I humbly suggest to the hon. Minister of Railways that it is high time that redress be given to the thousands and thousands of people using that bridge, and that within the shortest delay an inspection and a report be made if need be, in order to fix the responsibilities of the subsidized company and to have it fulfilling its obligations.
Thus justice will be rendered to my constituents.


Mr. C. A. WILSON. (Laval).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to the remarks of the hon. member for L'Assomption.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I must observe to the hon. member that I cannot allow the discussion to go on upon this question at this moment. I have allowed the hon. member for L'Assomption to state his grievances as a question of privilege, but a discussion upon these grievances would be out of order.


Charles Avila Wilson: (Translation. If I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat. I intended only to endorse the remarks of the member for L'Assomption, and I would have done so with great pleasure, because a great many of my constituents are interested in the remedying of this grievance.


George Perry Graham: I regret that I am not able to answer the hon. gentleman in the language he has used, but I may surprise the House some day by undertaking to do that. In the meantime, I think it will be sufficient to assure my hon. friend from L'Assomption (Mr. Seguin) and my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson) that I am glad they have brought this matter up. As I understand the remarks of the hon. member for L'Assomption, a grant of $150,000 was made for the construction of that bridge. There is an island in the centre of the river, and the bridge really developed into two bridges, using the island as a means of communication between these two bridges. The complaint made is that the

roadway on this island connecting these two bridges is in a very bad condition, and the people complained bitterly. I will take the matter up, and if there is anything possible I can do to straighten it out and have this road put in proper shape I will certainly do so.



WAYS AND MEANS-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means. He said: We have on the order paper now a motion for Ways and Means in connection with the American tariff arrangements, but the debate on that motion was adjourned. I wish it to be understood that that motion will be restored, so that the matter will stand in exactly the same position. I now propose that the House should go into Ways and Means, but we do not propose to take up the American question. Then the former motion will stand again for Ways and Means, and when that motion is renewed, the question of tariff arrangements will be considered. The only point is whether I have the right to move an adjournment.
['I think it would be better to take it up in the morning.']
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: We can easily regulate the matter, but it had better be done in accordance with the rules of the House. The motion which was called by Mr. Speaker was for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion to go into Ways and Means, under which, of course, the debate would be resumed. The minister desires, as a matter of -convenience, that we should not resume the debate at the present moment, but that we should go into Committee of Ways -and M'eans for the -purpose of dealing with another matter. That can be done provided it is understood that we shall have a motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of resuming the former debate, and that the former debate should go on exactly in the same way as if it were an adjourned debate.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so; that is- my proposal, that the matter shall stand exactly as it is for the present as Tespects the tariff debate.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean as to the rights of speaking.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so. Those who have spoken already on the matter have exhausted their rights.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
['Quite so. Those who have spoken already on the matter have exhausted their rights.']
William Stevens Fielding: We are dealing now with the balance of the supplementary estimates for the year 1909-10, which expired a few days -ago. I may remind the House that we dealt with a portion of these estimates several weeks ago, and ultimately, following the usual proceeding, a Supply Bill was passed and assented to. But there was a portion of those estimates which, although voted by the House, was not taken in the form of a Supply Bill. The House had dealt with them in Committee of the Whole, but it is necessary that they should be put into -a Supply Bill. But it will be inconvenient to wait until the -close of the session for that purpose, as it is desirable that the business of _ the year be closed up as quickly as possible. The present proceeding is that we now pass a Supply Bill covering the balance of the estimates for the year which has just closed. These various votes have been gathered in the usual way by the clerks, and the amount of them is expressed in the resolution which I now beg to move:
Resolved, that towards making good a supply to be granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March, 81, 1910, the sum of $1,646,350.28 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 196) for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1910.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second time, considered in -committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

William Stevens Fielding: In connection with the understanding we had a while ago, I move that at its next sitting, the House again resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means, and that it be taken that the debate stands adjourned. I would like the clerk to record it as an adjourned debate, so that the matter may stand exactly as it was before.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, early in the session a Bill was introduced by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) which is Bill (No. 6) on the Order Paper, to amend the Criminal Code so as to prohibit betting on race tracks. That Bill was referred to a special committee which has given it a great deal of attention and has now made a report. The Bill has excited a good deal of public interest and I now move, with the object of disposing of the matter, that item 39 on the order I paper be now called.

Mr. SPEAKEK called Order 39:
House in committee on Bill (No. 6), an Act to amend the Criminal Code (reported from Special Committee as amended).-Mr. Miller.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Is there any understanding as to what length of time the House will give to this Bill?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not
aware there is any understanding. Reasonable time must be given for the consideration of this Bill like all other Bills.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any proposal that the government should deal in a similar way with a number of important items which appear on the Public Bills and Orders. Has the government taken them into consideration?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. When this Bill was read a second time, I gave an assurance to the House that an opportunity would be given during the- session to have the matter dealt with.


Mr. MILLER.: I move that the report of the special committee appointed to consider Bill (No. 61 be now adopted.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the usual procedure is for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have looked for precedents in this matter and I have not been able to find any, although I am quite sure there must be some. When this Bill was read a second time instead of it being referred to a Committee of the Whole it was referred to a special committee. Had it been referred to a Committee of the Whole, and had that committee reported, the question is put by the Speaker:	Shall the report
be concurred in; and then it is open to any member of the House to move either that it be concurred in or that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amending it. True, we have not a report of the Committee of the Whole, but we have a report of the special committee, and I should think that the motion cf my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) would be that this report of the committee be con-. curred in, just the same as if it were a report of the Committee of the Whole.


Robert Laird Borden: When private Bills are referred to a special committee, and when that committee has reported, they come back again to the Committee of the Whole House. Even government measures have been dealt with in that way. I did not know that the point would come up, and hence I have not looked into it, but I never knew of a case in which the'report of the special committee was deemed to be an equivalent, or that it should supersede discussion in Committee of the Whole. I


Wilfrid Laurier: should think that this Bill must in some way get before the Committee of the Whole House.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I agree with the leader of the opposition as to the procedure. Over and over again amendments to the Railway Act have been referred to special committees, but when that special committee reported, the Bills always came back to the Committee of the Whole House. The reference to the special committee has technically no legal effect on this Bill. True, when a private Bill is referred to a special committee, by the rules of the House the special committee may pass or reject the Bill, but a public Bill must always come back to Committee of the Whole House. In fact, the order paper says: that the House go into committee on the Bill, and I submit that is the proper course. The opinion of the special committee may be used for what it is worth in the House, but this Bill being a public Bill the reference to the special committee is merely a cul de sac; it is a lane that it goes down by which it must come back to the House for consideration in Committee of the WUiole. The only regular course is for the hon. gentleman (Mr. .Miller) to move that the House go into Committee of the Whole House on the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that Order 39 reads:
House in committee on Bill (No. 6), an Act to amend the Criminal Code (reported from Special Committee as amended).


Wilfrid Laurier: That settles it,


Robert Laird Borden: The Lord's Day Act went to a special committee in the same way as this Bill, and when the report was made the Bill was considered in Committee of the Whole House.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Miller) had better move that the Bill be referred to Committee of the Whole.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman will have leave to withdraw his motion that the report of the special committee be adopted


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN.: He can withdraw the Bill.
Motion withdrawn.
Mr. MILLER moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 6) to amend the Criminal Code (reported from special committee as amended). He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Bill was referred to a special committee, because that committee has been

able to take a great deal of evidence, which I am sure most members have read, and which tends to prove the great extent of the evil which the Bill is desired to counteract and prohibit. The question under discussion has been very much narrowed in its scope. I refer hon. gentlemen to the report of the committee for the following citation, and I may say that Mr. McCarthy referred to there was one of the solicitors employed by the opponents of the Bill:


Mr. McCOLL.: Do I understand that you are willing to co-operate with the promoters of the Bill, with the committee, in abolishing all the evils, if any, that result from handbook betting, the operations of pool rooms and the sending out of information by telegraph or otherwise.


Mr. McCARTHT.: Absolutely. We do not hope to carry on hand-book betting, or giving information to pool rooms.


John B. McColl: All you wish to protect is

Mr. McCarthy. Is betting on the race track while the races are in operation.
Than the whole point of the discussion narrows itself down to that particular point-all that the opponents of the Bill desire is betting on the race tracks of a duly licensed association and during the meet. We may well ask ourselves why it is that the opponents of the Bill are willing that the scope of the discussion shall be so limited. In the first place, the professional gambling on the race track during the meet is the only thing that brings any revenue to the association, and, therefore, while the opponents of the Bill say they are willing to give up every thing but that) they are very much in the position of Mark Twain who' was willing to sacrifice all his wife's relations. I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not it does not appear to any reasonable, to any sensible, unprejudiced, unbiased man to be rather an absurd thing that while we by our Criminal Code, without any objection from any quarter, make the business of gambling a crime, w'e shall make an exception of the business of gambling on the race tracks. What good reason can there be why that which is wrong on the street or on a lot adjoining the race track should be perfectly proper and within the law when it takes place on a race track. I do not know what virtue there is in the atmosphere or in the soil or the surroundings of a race track that there makes right that which is pronounced to be wrong in every other place. The opponents of the Bill have laid down three prime, main objections. First, that the thoroughbred horse is necessary to the breeding of good horses; second, that racing is necessary to maintain the thorough!)#ed; third, that professional betting is necessary in order to maintain racing, and, fourth, (incidentally') that hoTse racing is the sport of kings and ought not to be interferred with or prohibited. We largely admit the first statement, that the thoroughbred is necessary or of advantage in the breeding of many kinds of horses. But, the second statement, that racing is necessary to maintain the thoroughbred, we will not admit, although it is admitted that the race track is one of the means that is found useful in the development of the thoroughbred horse. The third statement that professional betting is necessary to maintain racing we absolutely deny and refuse to admit. To the fourth allegation, that horse racing is the sport of kings and should not be prevented, we say it has never been the desire or intention of the promoters of the Bill to interfere with horse racing, and we do not think that the Bill, if carried into effect, will do awav with horse racing. Again, as to the first statement-and I dwell upon that for a few minutes because it has been made a very strong argument by the opponents of the Bill-let me say that the thoroughbred horse is never used for the improvement of any of the breeds of draft horses. Dr. Rutherford, the Dominion veterinary, who was examined before the committee as a witness in opposition to the Bill, stated in his evidence that the thoroughbred horse was not being used, so far as he knew, by any breeder of standard-bred horses, or by any breeder of hackney horses, either in the United States or Canada. If, then, it is admitted, as it is, even by the opponents of the Bill, that the thoroughbred horse is not used for the improvement of any of the breeds of draft horses, the standard-bred horse or the hackney horse, then surely the class of horses for which it is important to use the thoroughbred is a comparatively small and unimportant class. The evidence, then, of witnesses who came to oppose the Bill, goes to show that the race-track has been the means of lessening the value of the standard-bred horse. Dr. Rutherford, being asked as to that, said:
Men having speed tnares have brought them to the fastest stallion they could get without paying any attention whatever to the maintaining of the constitution, the conformation and the general symmetry of the horse.
Another gentleman who gave evidence before the committee in opposition to the Bill was Dr. McEachem, the. eminent veterinary surgeon of Montreal. He gave the following evidence:
Q. In breeding the standard bred for extreme speed have they not suffered in other qualities?-A. I think so. There has been a great deal of harm done to the country by breeding from standard bred horses.
Q. Now what I want to ask is whether the same thing has been proved about the thoroughbred, that in breeding the thoroughbred for extreme speed there has been a loss of other good qualities?-A. That is so. It 1 is well known in England that short races

have altered the character of the horses and there is a strong feeling in the United States and I know that the feeling exists in Canada that only heavy honed horses should be used for breeding and light boned horses should be eliminated, and it is quite proper. Speaking generally you are quite right.
When he says, 'speaking generally you are quite right1, he admits that the racetrack has been the cause of deteriorating rather than improving in many instances the thoroughbred horse. He was asked further:
Q. Do you think that the short races in Canada are a real test of proof of endurance on the part of the horses?-A. No.
Q. Then, if horse racing was to he the assistance to horse breeding here that it ought to be one would require to lengthen the races? -A. Yes, would have to breed as large and as heavy as you could get and lengthen the races.
Dr. Rutherford was asked this question :	[DOT]
Q. But talking recently to a man who seems to know a great deal about breeding horses, a lover of horses and a lover of sport, he said to me, and I thought he was very sensible in his remarks, that the present short races rnn on the running tracks of Canada are really no test or evidence of endurance upon the part of the horses engaged. What do you think about that?-A. That man is quite right.
Thus we have the testimony of the highest authorities in Canada that horse-racing has not improved and is not likely to improve either the standard-bred or the thoroughbred horse. The Hon. Mr. Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, was asked as to the necessity of the race-track, and particularly race-track gambling, to the improvement of the breed ofi horses. This is what he said'-he was asked:
Q. Is it your idea that the race horse of England should be produced and refined as he has come to be, is not a useful horse?- A. He is useful for the purpose for which he is bred.
Q. You think for racing only?-A. Well, not altogether. There is no doubt that there are some of the race-horses, perhaps a considerable number of them, who have the bone and the muscle and the necessary formation to be good breeders for any purpose. But. at the same time I have seen, I suppose, a dozen poor things, weeds, on the race courses in England-as I have seen in the few times I have visited the race course in Canada- for one that is any good for 'breeding purposes.
There is the evidence of the hon.' Minister of Agriculture for Canada to the effect that there are on the race courses of both England and Canada a dozen poor horses for every one that would be likely to improve the breed for other purposes! The members of this House will remember very well Mr. Peter Christie, who was a Mr. MILLER.
respected member of the last parliament. We all know him as a practical farmer, whose opinions on matters relating to stock raising were of value, because he knew what he was talking about. Mr. Christie was a witness before this committee.


Charles Avila Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend in his able argument; but he is claiming some rights on behalf of people who are much interested in the passing of this Bill and is quoting from the evidence that was given before the Special Committee which has considered it. I have a copy of this evidence before me; it covers more than 500 pages. It has not been translated into French, and I know that a number of members of this House have not had the time or the opportunity to read all the evidence, and I am told that the great maiority of the members have not read it. To speak for myself alone, I have not had the time to read even one page of that evidence, having been much occupied in the committee dealing with the Lumsden affair, where four of us have to do the work of seven, sitting morning, afternoon and night. Therefore. I am not at all prepared to give my opinion on this Bill or to take part in the discussion, and I would ask my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Miller), in all fairness and justice-and I know he is moved by a great spirit of fairness and justice-not to proceed any further with his argument now, or until, according to the rule and custom of this parliament, in order to give full effect to the right of the minority in this House to the use of the French language, the evidence given before the Special Committee is translated into French, in accordance with section 133 of the British North America Act, which I have now the honour to invoke.


Henry Horton Miller: I believe there is no rule of the House that says that the proceedings of the House must be printed in both languages. I know that there is a rule, No. 71, that says that no Bill shall receive its second reading until it has been printed in both languages. This Bill has received its second reading and has been printed in both French and English.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The point of order, as I understand it, is that the consideration of this Bill cannot be proceeded with until the report of the Special Committee to which it was referred is translated into the French language. There is a custom here that reports of special committees may be made in .either language, and on the day following their presentation they are printed in the Votes and Proceedings in both languages. Rule 71 says that all Bills shall be printed before the second

reading in the English and French language. Previous speakers have held that the point of order that a Bill has not been printed in both languages must be taken before the second reading, and that if it is not taken then it cannot be taken afterwards, and they have allowed then discussions to proceed upon a Bill printed only in one language. In the present case the Bill has been printed in both languages. I have, looked in vain since confederation for a precedent to enable me to decide whether or not this Bill could be considered when the report of the Special Committee to which it has been referred has not been translated into both languages. I have found nothing since confederation bearing in that point. I have found a decision given by Mr. Speaker Turcotte, previous to confederation on the 19th of March, 1863, in which he held as follows:
The adoption of a report of a committee respecting the employees of the House, having been moved by.John Simpson, Esq., an objection was raised by H. L. Langevin, Esq., that the report wTas not printed in French, and distributed to members in that language. After a considerable discussion on the subject, the Speaker was understood to declare: ' that the report could not be considered at present, in consequence of the objection raised.' The subject then dropped.
It is true that section 133 of the British North America Act provides tha't members may speak in either French or English and that both those languages shall be used in the records and journals of this House. The Votes and Proceedings to-morrow will contain the French version of the report of the committee, but naturally without the evidence. Whether or not, it would be proper to stop all proceedings on this Bill now, is largely a matter for the House to decide. It would practically mean that this Bill could not he proceeded with this session. Under the circumstances, I am not prepared to take that stand, seeing that I have found no precedent since confederation bearing on the point of order. I will therefore, allow the debate to go on.
committee on this Bill? The report of the Special Committee has not yet come up for consideration. It may come up afterwards.


Charles Avila Wilson: My hon. friend from Grey is quoting from the evidence.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There is no objection to that, because even if the report were in French, he would have a right to use it in support of the motion he now makes. My decision is that the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) can, proceed with his motion.


Charles Avila Wilson: I respectfully desire to appeal from your decision to the House. I move that the ruling of the Chair be not sustained.
House divided.


Charles Avila Wilson: It is not only a question of considering the Bill. My hon. friend from Grey had to withdraw his first motion. He then made the motion that the report of the Special Committee should now be brought before the House, and that the House should go into Committee of the Whole to examine the evidence. How can we be in a fair position to examine the evidence if it is not translated into French in accordance with the rules oi the House and the British North America Act? I insist on mv point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The only question before the Chair is: Shall the House go into
Messieurs
Armstrong,
Aylesworth,
Best,
Black,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Bristol,
Carvell,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Huron), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer),
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
Maddin,
Magrath,
Marshall,
Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Meighen,
Middlebro,
Miller,
Molloy,

Coninee,	Murphy,
Crocket,	Nesbitt,
Crothers,	Oliver,
Currie (Prince	Owen,
Edward),	Pardee,
Donnelly,	Paterson,
Douglas,	Perley,
Edwards,	Pickup,
Elson,	Proulx,
Emmerson,	Prowse,
Fielding,	Pugsley,
Fisher,	Rankin,
Fowke,	Reid (Restigouche).
Fraser,	Robb,
Girard,	Roche,
Graham,	Ross (Middlesex),
Guthrie,	Rutan,
Henderson,	Savoie,
Herron,	Schaffner,
Hodgins,	Schell,
Hughes,	Sexsmith,
Hunt,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Jameson,	Sifton,
Kidd,	Smith (Middlesex),
King,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Sperry,	
Law,	Sproule,
LeBlanc,	Stratton,
Lemieux,	Taylor (Leeds),
Lennox,	Templeman,
Loggie,	Thoburn,
Lovell,	Tolmie,
Maclean (York, S.),	Warburton,
McCall,	Wilson (Lennox &
McCoig,	Addington),
McColl,	Wright.-99.
Motion negatived.


Henry Horton Miller: Before the interruption which has occurred, I was reminding the House of the evidence of Mr. Peter Christie, who distinctly stated that the Bill, if passed, would not to any extent affect the interest of the Canadian farmer or stock breeder. At page 153 of the evidence will be found the statement of Senator Douglass, an experienced live-stock breeder of the western provinces. At page 430 will be found the evidence of Mr. Gunn, the vicepresident of the Dominion Grange to the same effect. At page 443 is the statement of Mr. C. J. Smith, an experienced horse breeders are to the same effect.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would it not be fairer, and would it not be better, as a matter of policy in winning support for his Bill, to read as little as possible of this evidence, and to make his argument as much as possible independent of it. in view of the fact that hon. members here have state!) that they cannot understand it, My mind is open on this matter, and I submit this point to the. hon. gentleman.


Henry Horton Miller: I have no objection to complying, as far as possible, with the request of the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster).
I think, however, that wishing to be reasonable, we may all recognize the fact that there is not a member of this House but Mr. C. A. WILSON.
lias been able to read the evidence, and all the evidence, in the form in which it is printed. I was saying that Mr. C. J. Smith, than whom, perhaps, no other man in Canada has had a greater experience of breeding racing horse3, has stated emphatically that- the thoroughbred horses of to-day are not better than those of thirty or thirty-five years ago, notwithstanding the racing that has taken place in Canada, and the race-track gambling, in the meantime. Major William Hendrie, in giving evidence, recalled the fact that his father raced horses and bred thoroughbred horses years ago, when there was no professional race-track gambling, and when no large purses were being offered. Now, I wish to quote the opinion of Mr. Albert Dyment, a former much respected member of this House. We know that Mr. Dyment is a prominent horse breeder, and that he takes a very laudable and proper interest in horse-racing. In order to show that the passing of this Bill would depreciate the value of race-horses, representing in the aggregate a very large sum of money, he mentioned that horses in the state of New York, for which $3,000, $6,000 and $10,000 apiece had been paid, after the passing of the Hughes law could have been purchased by him for from $100 to $300 each. The fact that the thoroughbred horse which is purchased at one-time for $10,000 is then offered for sale at $100 to $300 because of the passing of a Bill prohibiting racetrack gambling, but permitting horse-racing, shows conclusively that there is no value in the thoroughbred horse as a means of improving the breeds of utility horses. It is conclusive proof that there is no value in the thoroughbred horse other than as a racing machine. If the farmers of the progressive state of New York believed otherwise, these horses would not be sold at any such prices. I wish to point out also that it is not the first object of the gentlemen in Canada who own thoroughbred horses and conduct the race-establishments of Ontario, and of Canada generally, to encourage the breeding of good horses in Canada. The question was asked Mr'. Dyment: 'Where are your thoroughbred stables?1 and his answer was that they were at Barrie. There was then the following question and answer:
Q. Have the farmers around that locality the privilege of using any of your thoroughbred sires at prices at which they can afford to use them on their ordinary animals?-A. No.
Here we have one of the leading breeders of thoroughbreds in Canada, one 'who maintains a stable of thoroughbreds, and he states that the sires they have in their stables are not kept for the use of the farmers of the neighbourhood in their live

stock enterprises, and that the farmers of the neighbourhood are not permitted to use these animals in that way. Therefore, the object is not the improvement of the breed of utility horses.
It is contended by the opponents of the Bill that this country ought to be willing to perpetuate race-track gambling in order that the improvement of the breed of horses should be carried on. Are we so philanthropic. as a Canadian people, that we will tax ourselves, or allow ourselves to be taxed, to encourage the breeding of good horses, not in Canada but in the United States? The evidence of Mr. Orpen, found at page 122, shows that not more than twenty or twenty-five per cent, of the racehorses found on Canadian tracks are Canadian-owned horses. Therefore, whatever sacrifice we may make, whatever perpetuation we may permit of race-track gambling, it encourages the development of the thoroughbred, not in Canada so much as in the United States. Mr. Fraser, secretary of the Ontario Jockey Club, says, at page 135, that the Ontario Jockey Club and the Woodbine race-track are perpetuated as ' a highly social and sporting concern.' So, this has not to do with the breeding of horses or keeping up the supply of horses, but simply keeping up a social and sporting concern. In order that we may measure what the race-tracks of Canada have done in thirty-five years for the improvement of the breed of horses, let us take the evidence of Mr Nelson, the sporting editor of the Toronto ' Globe,' who has, perhaps, as much knowledge of horse-racing and of horses as any other man in the Dominion. His evidence, as it appears at page 563, is as follows:
Q. 1 am told the net result of the last twenty-five years running races, thoroughbreds have been the reduction of the mile record by two seconds?-A. Oh, much more tiiau that. The mile record is 1.35$- now, aud 1 think twenty-five years ago it would he something like 1.40.
So, by the evidence of Mr. Nelson, this man who knows, the whole result of twenty-five years racing in Canada has been to lower the speed of the thoroughbred horse *by 4$ seconds to the mile. But, as was pointed out by Mr. E. King Dodds, late editor of the ' Canadian Sportsman,' the reduction of 4$ seconds is not attributable to the breeding of the horses, but largely to the improvements of the tracks, the tracks of to-day being very much better and faster than were the tracks of twenty-five years ago. The most conclusive evidence * that the horse-breeding industry does not depend to any extent upon the perpetuation of professional gambling is that afforded by the agricultural journals. Every farm paper of prominence in Canada has spoken editorially emphatically in favour of the Bill. The ' Farmer's Advocate,' the ' Canadian Farmer,' the ' Farm Journal,' the
204	-
' Nor'West Farmer ' of Winnipeg-these and other agricultural journals have spoken emphatically in favour of the Bill, and not a single letter, I believe, has appeared in the -columns of any agricultural paper from any subscriber or reader connected with the live stock industry in opposition to the Bill or to the editorials that have appeared in its favour in these papers. The superintendents and presidents of agricultural colleges have spoken in favour of the Bill; the farmers' institutes have passed resolutions -in support of it; the Dominion Grange, at the head of which is Mr. E. C. Drury, son of the late Charles Drury, at one time Minister of Agriculture of Ontario, has spoken emphatically in favour of the Bill.
Sir, the question has been raised as to what Great Britain is going to do for army remounts if this Bill becomes law? It is said that without the thoroughbred horse and without the race-track and without race-track gambling. Great Britain cannot obtain her army horses. This argument was put as forcibly as possible by Mr. Ryan, of Montreal. I would refer to the evidence of Mr. S. Gammon, of Nova Scotia, at page 105 of the evidence. He stated that in Nova Scotia there is no book-making or professional race-track gambling. He stated also that, at the time of the Boer war, when Great Britain was purchasing horses, many hundreds of horses were sold in Nova Scotia to Great Britain to be sent to South Africa. I would like to call attention to an annual published by the ' Live Stock Journal,' of London, England, which is considered to be the most authoritative live stock journal published in Great Britain. The article I read from is entitled ' Horses for the army ':
The army requirements in times of peace are only a little more than 2,000 horses annually, and therefore it is evident that it would never do for breeders to depend on this market alone.
The same article says:
There are many people adds Major Fife, who are under the impression that there are not horses in the country to meet our present peace supply, and in consequence our army is under-horsed. No greater nonsense was ever talked. There are more horses than enough at the present moment for all requirements, hut we must look ahead, aud therefore we should not he satisfied with this, and allow ourselves to be dependent on importations in time of peace which would be liable to be cut off in time of war.
Again the article proceeds:
Unfortunately the national horse supply is not sufficiently popular with either political party to enable public money to be spent on it, to a sufficient extent. The only course open to the pioneers of the movement is to be perpetually calling attention to the matter with the object of getting a government



grant, for no good can possibly be done until horse breeding is subsidized by the treasurer.
Now there is a statement from a very reliable journal, that two or three centuries of the breeding of thoroughbreds in Britain, two or three centuries of racing in Britain, and many years of book-making in England, have not afforded England a proper supply of army horses, and that the only hope of the people in Britain, who are interested in this subject, is in government subsidies. They have racetracks in France, they have professional race-track gambling in France, but they obtain their remounts and their army horses by direct subsidies and direct regulations of the French government, and not from race-courses, and they are not dependent on race-track gambling. I have stated that it is not the object of the promoters of this Bill in any way to interfere with racing, that is not the intention, not the purpose, and not the expectation. Dr. Mc-Echern, of Montreal, made a statement before the committee that it was very possible, in his opinion, that if this Bill went into effect it would add to the quality of the attendance at the race-tracks, and would perhaps in the end increase rather than decrease the attendance. Mr. Hugh Paton, of Montreal, a prominent business man, and a prominent horseman, who has been racing horses for many years, stated to the committee that he had been raising and racing thoroughbred horses since 1875. Reminded that in 1875 no large purses were being paid and no book-makers operated, he said that in 1875 he raced his horses for the honour of the thing. When asked why, if people did that in 1875, they could not do it in 1910, his reply was that he would now let younger men engage in the sport. Mr. Peter Christie was of the opinion that the passing of this Bill would not at any rate do away with racing. Mr. Boyle, a son of Mr. Charles Boyle,-late of the* town of Woodstock, Ontario, who is a well known turf man, said that since 1865 his father had been racing and raising thoroughbred horses. Reminded that in 1865, and for long years after, there were no large purses paid, and no professional gambling, he admitted the fact, but said that they raced for smaller purses, and engaged in racing as they do to-day. If hon. members will refer to the Toronto 'Star' of the 3rd of February, they will see a programme, of the racing associations for the state of New York for the year 1910, and they will find advertised there thirteen different meets that is, a meet on every one, I think, of the important racing tracks of the state of New York, to continue from 12 to 20 days at each meet; so racing in the state of New York does not appear to have been much interfered with by recent legislation in that state. I think that the Mr. MILLER.
House will admit that there is perhaps no greater authority in Canada on horse-racing and racing matters generally than Mr, E. King Dodds, who was, until less than two years ago the editor of the Canadian ' Sportsman ' of Toronto. Mr. Dodds published a book in the latter part of 1909, entitled ' Canadian Turf Recollections and Other Sketches.' Without wearying the House by reading it at length, I might refer to what Mr. Dodds says on page 18 of his book:
There are certain owners so closely mixed up with book-makers that grave suspicion attaches to the combination, and it. is not going too far to say that their horses are often run in the interests of those which lay the odds. Much of the trouble is directly traceable to the fact that a low class of Tew gamblers have, during the past few years, invaded the ring and may now be said to practically control it. A liberal percentage of them are absolutely devoid of principle and act on the belief that their mission in life is to get money; make it honestly if they can, but make it anyhow.
There is the statement of Mr. Dodds, the editor of the Canadian 'Sportsman,' that betting on the Canadian tracks to-day is largely under the control of a class of Jew gamblers, whose motto is to make money, no matter whether they make it honestly or otherwise. Again on page 54 of the same book, Mr. Dodds says:
Though much pleasure was taken out of racing in the days of yore there was not much profit. The almighty dollar was not appreciated then quite as much as it is at the present time. The sons of Israel had not swarmed upon the race-course trying to occupy every corner where a nimble dime could be made. Men went to the races not altogether to bet money, but to meet their- friends and enjoy a pleasant time. The enjoyment was great, but the profits were small. The balance sheet at this Carleton Park meeting, after all expenses were paid, [DOT] showed a profit of $79. Yet, strange to say, it was then considered as satisfactory when the income balanced the expenditure. Truly the times have changed. There is now a different class of owners and the present ones are nearly all out for the dollar.
Again Mr. Dodds says on page 115:
There are some new-fledged turf men who pretend to believe that racing in Canada thirty or forty years ago was of no account. True, the tracks then were not as fast as now, neither were their furnishings as liberal, nor the purses as large in amount as those offered at the present day, but the charge for admission was small and the public then, as now, were liberal in their patronage. Prominent men from distant sections of the country used to foregather and there was more friendly intercourse and social enjoyment at those early meetings than at the present time, in a word, there was more pleasure and less business, more keen enjoyment of the racing through enthusiasm for the sport than for

It ha3 been .said that the Bill before the House is a product of the preachers of Canada. I want to read just two short letters out of about twenty received by Mr. Templeman from business men of the city of Victoria. The first letter is from E. B. Marvin & Co., large ship chandlers, of Victoria, and it is addressed to Mr. Templeman, and reads:
Victoria, British Columbia,
December 31, 1909.
Sir,-We would strongly urge the passing of a Bill by the Dominion government which will stop gambling on race-courses.
The effect of the recent meeting in this city, at which a great deal of gambling was carried on, should convince any one that it does great harm to the community. Money is staked and lost, which should have gone to pay just debts, which injures the storekeeper and general business man. Besides this, the habit of gambling is most demoralizing for both men and women, and we feel sure a law against the practice of it will be a benefit to the community generally.
We are, Sir, yours obediently,
E. B. MARVIN & CO.
Another letter is from Moore and Whittington, contractors and builders, of the city of Victoria, and it reads:
Victoria, British Columbia,
December 30, 1909.
Dear Sir,-In response to your request as to our employers of labour for our experience and views in connection 'with the recent race meet held in the city, we must state emphatically that we believe it to be detrimental to the financial and moral interests of the city.
Some of the workmen left their work and neglected their families for the summer and attended the races regularly, others incurred heavy liabilities, other men were arranging to build homes, but lost their money at the track. When out collecting accounts it was a prominent excuse, ' I have not got the money, I lost it out at the races/
Wre express the hope that race-meets, as we experienced them here, will he a thing of the past.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) MOORE & WHITTINGTON.
Then, we had the evidence of Mr. Ralph Lawton, an insurance agent, of Toronto, who had lost his position, lost his money, and had been reduced to poverty by betting on the race-track. Then we had the lamentable _case of Mr. Fred. Hart. Mr. Fred. Hart was a young man engaged in a trust company in the city of Vancouver, and during the very time this Bill was before the House it became the duty of the police magistrate of the city of Vancouver to sentence this young man to one year at hard labour in the common jail because of embezzlement which was the direct consequence of betting on the racetrack in that city. In passing sentence the^ police magistrate said:	* This is a


Henry Horton Miller: case where you have pleaded guilty to a serious charge, that of taking $1,000 when you were in a position of trust. I have considered your previous good character during the long number of years that you have been in similar positions of trust, and this is the first time you have fallen. I must consider the circumstances surrounding the case, this race-track gambling, and the temptation you were put to. It is unfortunate that the young men of our city should be subjected to such environment.' Perhaps it will be some comfort to this young man, Fred. Hart, to know in jail, that he was contributing to the improvement of the breed of thoroughbreds in Canada. Here was Mr. Hart, a young man who for years had been in a position of trust in Vancouver; he had never before taken a single copper that did not belong to him so far as we know, but is it any comfort for that young man to remqmber as he now serves twelve months in the Vancouver jail, that he was encouraging the breeding of good horses to a very great extent. I want to know if that young man's mother; -I want to know if that young man's father; I want to know if the employers of that young man who had heretofore found him to be a man of principle and integrity; I want to know' whether they do not think that it was at very very great cost indeed, that he encouraged the breeding of thoroughbred horses.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at Three o'clock. -


Henry Horton Miller: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at one o'clock, I was speaking of some of the evil effects of race-track gambling. I mentioned the case of Fred. Hart, a young man of Vancouver. I wish now to refer to the case of Thomas W. Batt, who gave evidence before the special committee. He was a young man who had gone from Newfoundland to Toronto some 13 years ago to engage in business as a butcher. He said that for the first three years that he had been in Toronto he had saved from his business an average of $1,000 a year. At the end of the three years he began betting with the book-makers on the track, with the result that in ten years he had lost all that he had saved in. the three years, and had become from $1,500 to $2,000 worse off than nothing, while in the meantime his family had not been properly provided for. I know there has been some disposition on the part of the opponents of the Bill to ridicule the strong evidence given by Mr. Batt. On this point I quote 'the following from the Canadian ' Collier's ' of March 5 last in reference to Mr. Batt and his evidence:
A Toronto butcher, who wishes his name suppressed, gave testimony before the Miller

Committee as to the evils of race-track gambling. Loud laughter greeted this man's homely, earnest protest.	The idea of a
butcher giving evidence! The idea of a butcher wanting his name kept out of the papers! Really, it was the drollest thing! Pray consider,^ too, the spectacle of a humble butcher and his lit! It1 family being ruined by the thoroughbred ' merry-go-round.' Also ponder on the courage of the humble little butcher facing the inquisitorial knives of the lawyers at Ottawa, his only motive being to save others, if it might be, from the misfortunes that overtook him. After all, it is not funny. Our little butcher s testimony was a human document. He is one of the few witnesses who knows what he is talking about and knows that he knows.


This Thomas W.: 
John B. McColl: Because the exposure of money gives them a great ormortunity to snatch money and tickets, and pick pockets.
There may be members in tnis House, I trust their number is not large, who say: 'I do not care about the moral or irnrAoral effect of race meets; that is nothing to me; if a man is strong, he ought to be able to take care of himself, and if he is weak, he might as well fall with the race-track gambler as in any other way.' To men who take that uncharitable position the economic argument in the case may appeal. There are men opposing'this Bill who oppose every kind of trust, trade combination end monopoly, on the ground that they take money unjustly out of the pockets of the people. Let me point out to these gentleman that these race-track associa-

tions and these professional race-track gamblers are every year taking a very large amount of money out of the pockets of the Canadian people for which they give no value at all. Mr. E. King Dodds has said over and over again, in his book recently published, that these men who take away the money of our people in large sums are not Canadians, but foreigners, mostly Jews. Let us try to estimate what amount is lost to the Canadian people from the fact that in the year 1909 the book-makers paid for the betting privilege on the Hamilton racetrack, $74,800, on the Woodbine track in Toronto, $67,700, and on the Blue Bonnet race-track in Montreal, $76,650; a total of $219,150. These figures do not include the rqoney paid by the book-makers for bookmaking privileges on the Canadian tracks at Windsor, Dufferin, Fort Erie, Vancouver, Victoria and a few others which hold meets throughout the Dominion. We may, therefore, be well within the mark when we say that the book-makers paid in 1909 for betting privileges in Canada over half a million dollars. In addition, each bookmaker, according to the evidence of Mr. Orpen, on page 118, employs five assistants, to whom he pays $10 per day.
Referring to the evidence of Mr. Fraser, page 132, secretary of the Ontario Jockey Club, I find that on the Woodbine track the book-makers average 50 in number per day. Each of these has to pay five assistants at $10 per day. In addition there are the expenses of the book-makers and -the large profits made by them out of the betting public, so that the whole tax on the Canadian public is probably $2,1)00,000 in twelve months. By whom is that paid? Mr. Nelson, sporting editor of the Toronto 'Globe,' says, at page 564 of the evidence, that it is paid by the betting public. Mr. Blain asked him if he thought that was not as good a way to raise the money as the present system. Mr. Blain was referring to the English practice. Mr. Nelson replied :
I think the money is still raised from that portion of the public who bet in either case; the book-maker is only a collector, that portion of the public who bet put up their money to-day, whether they call it book-making, the Pari^ mutual or auction pool-selling. The money comes from the public who want to bet, and those who do not want to bet do not have to contribute.
Therefore, according to the evidence of Mr. Nelson-and it appeals to the common sense of every man-all the expenses of the book-maker and all of their profit come out of the Canadian public.


William Findlay Maclean: Out of the betting public.
Mr. MILLER, Out of those who bet. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Mr. MILLER.
Maclean) and many others are laudably engaged in protecting, not all Canadian citizens, but those who do business, from having their money taken away by mono-plies, and it seems to me that they should be ready to extend the same protection to those who have their money filched from them by the book-makers. The opponents of this Bill are quite willing to do away with the hand-book men up towm and poolrooms, which bring no revenue to the racing associations, but they want book-makers to be allowed on the tracks. Inspector Duncan, at page 204, gives evidence as follows:
Q. Has the individual betting on the race track amounted to anything?-A. I do not think it has.
Q. Can you give us any better reason for cutting out by legislation the hand-book man up town than the book-maker on the track. Is one worse than the other, or are they in the same class?-A. They are pretty much in the same class, I would say.
Q. You can see no particular difference?- A. No, if it is right to bet down at the Woodbine, I would say, give then the right to bet up town, that is if you are going to allow it at all.
Inspector Duncan took the logical position that if it be a crime to bet up town, it must be equally a crime to bet with a book-maker on the race-track. Inspector Archibald gave evidence, page 217:
From that standpoint I think these places are worse in that respect than the. Woodbine. But, if you want my opinion as to whether the Woodbine, as a place for betting on horse races, in contrast with those places, is the more dangerous, I say by all means the Woodbine.
They are worse in as much as the handbooks are in operation all the year and the book-makers on the track only during the meeting. He added:
But if you want my opinion as to whether the Woodbine, as a place for betting on horse races, in contrast with those places, is the more dangerous, I say by all means the Woodbine.
Again Inspector Archibald said:
But there is an expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars at the track in place of that many cents in the city.
Q. The evil is greater in the Woodbine, you mean?-A. Yes.
Inspector Archibald was asked this question :
Not referring alone to those particular cases cited by detective Duncan, but the class of cases that come before your notice, would you say the larger number of them arise from betting on the race-track, or does a larger proportion of them come from betting with the hand-book men up town ?-A. By long odds the larger proportion from the Woodbine; no question about that.

Mr. Batt gave his evidence as to the comparative evils resulting from the betting on the tracks and the hand-book men up town:
Q. Now as to making a comparison between the harm that comes or that follows from betting with the book-makers and the harm that comes from the practice of betting with the hand-book men, which do you consider the greatest evil, which brings the worse results?-A. Betting with the hand-book or on the track?
Q. Yes, which ruins the most men?-A. The track.
Q. There is no doubt at all of that in your mind?-A. I know it, yes, because a man will go to the hand-book and will bet $5 or 50 cents or $2 and that is all he will bet that day. A man will go to the track and will take $300 or $200 or $500 with him, and he will loose every cent he has got if he happens to strike a bad day, but when betting with the handbook he bets that much and then stops there, but it is the race-track that gets the bunch of them.
Q. Take the man who follows the races, who bets on the horses, does he usually begin by betting with the book-maker on the track or betting with the hand-book man up town; where does he usually begin his betting career?-A. Usually at the track he starts.
Q. You have no doubt as to that?-A. No, sir.
Again he said:
Q. The large number of persons you have spoken of as having ruined themselves, as having suffered the loss of their business and so on, would they in your opinion have suffered those losses and ruined their lives to the extent they did, had it not been for the book-maker?

A. No, I don't think they Would have. No, they would not. They lost it on the track practically.
Again speaking of the comparatively greater evils resulting from betting on the track, he said:
A man goes to the track, he takes his wad down with him, and if he loses $10 on the first race he tries to make it up on the next race, and if he loses it on the second race he , tries to make it up again on the third, and before he goes back he is broke. But on the hand-book they aint got that chance to do it.
There we have the evidence of Detective Duncan and Inspector Archibald and this man Batt, who has had great experience on the race-track, and their evidence is to the effect that the evil resulting from book-making on the track is infinitely greater than what results from the hand-book men up town. I was talking to one of the leading criminal lawvers in Toronto, and he told me that whatever knowledge he had gained of Tace-track betting was from his defending criminals in Toronto, and he told me that if I could get this legislation on the statute-book, I would accomplish a great deal of good. Can any one doubt that young men do not learn
to bet and become addicted to betting on horse-racing with the hand-book men up town, but with the book-makers on the track? I have always known it to be the case that the opponents of a Bill, when they cannot meet the argument squarely; when they cannot defeat the measure on its merits, will say that it does not go far enough, that there are loop holes in it, and that it will not have the results intended. And so, they sav. if this Bill becomes law, there wili be the private bettor in disguise. Mr. Orpen, giving his evidence, said-page 123-that the interpretation the courts had giveu to the present law, that the book-keener must keep moving about, has so injured the business of the book-maker that he himself has gone out of the business and that it is impossible to carry on the business with anything like the' profit, that was possible before that interpretation was placed on the law. I argue that if the present interpretation of the existing law has driven Mr. Orpen as a book-maker out of the business there would be no possibility at all of the book-maker plying his calling as a disguised private bettor under this measure. Inspector Duncan was asked questions as reported at pages 203-4:
In most of the cases that you have spoken of, and most of the cases that have come to your knowledge, have most of them been the result of betting with book-makers, or have they been the result of private bets?-A. With the book-maker op the race-track or the hand-book man up town.
Q. In almost every instance that has been the case?-A. Yes.
And Detective Sleeman-page 377:
Q. Do not let us quarrel or quibble. If you do away with the book-maker, and there must be betting, with whom is the man going to bet?-A. I do not think we will have very much betting if the book-maker is done away with.
That is the evidence of an experienced detective of the highest standing. I want to give the House now the opinion of Mr. Counsell, one. of the solicitors who appeared in opposition to the Bill, a gentleman of high standing at the bar in the city of Hamilton, Ontario. And I desire to say that I agree with what appears to be his opinion. He said in questioning Mr. Batt:
Q. There is just one question I want to ask about betting by individuals; there is very little betting by individuals on the racetrack, is there?-A. A man that wants to bet bets with the book-maker, there is practically no individual betting at the race-track.
Q. The betting is done with the book-maker ? -A. Yes, it is ivith the book-maker.
And now he says-and it is in this that I agree with him:

Q. You and I cannot make a bet very well without the book-maker at a horse race?-A. Not very well, no.
I agree with Mr. Counsell and Mr. Batt, from the knowledge I have been able to obtain, that if you take away the bookmaker you take away largely the possibility of extensive betting. Mr. C. J. Smith also gave evidence. I may explain that Mr. C. J. Smith is a son of the late joint proprietor in the partnership of Cooper & Smith, wholesale boot and shoe dealers, of Toronto. Mr. Smith stated that he had had large experience as a breeder of race-horses, and as a racing man. His evidence, as it appears at page 451 is as follows:
Q. If a law were passed in Canada to prevent book-making, with that object in view, and if that law were enforced to its full extent as it could reasonably be enforced, could there be any extensive amount of betting going on, on the track with book-makers in disguise who were endeavouring to evade the law?-A. No.
Q. It could not he, it would not be possible? -A. No, no doubt there would be a limited amount, but it would be very small.
Q. Take, for instance, a bank clerk, who was attracted to the race-track through his love of excitement or his love perhaps for horses, would these book-makers in disguise who were endeavouring to evade the law offer to that young man the same temptation to bet on the races as is now offered by book-makers carrying on their business openly?-A. I do not think so, I do not see how it could.
Mr. Penderton was a witness subpoenaed to give evidence in opposition to the Bill. He is, I understand, a detective of large experience, and head of the Thiel Detective Agency of Montreal, an agency well known throughout the United States and Canada. Mr. Meredith asked him:
Q. In your experience at present the average person that bets on the race-course today, does he bet with individuals, or doesn't he bet with the book-makers in preference to betting with the individual?-A. He bets witb the book-maker in preference.
Q. If those book-makers are done away with the parties he will bet with will be the individuals?-A. I do not know who he will bet with and he will find that he does not know either, when he wins.
He, in effect, said that if the professional bettor were there in disguise as a private individual still endeavouring to carry on his business as a book-maker, he would not be there to pay a debt when he lost. How long will men continue to bet with those whom they do not know, and whom they cannot find when they come to claim the payment of a bet?
Another proposition has been made and argued for very earnestly, and that is that we should pass legislation allowing betting with the .book-maker on the" race-Mr. MILLER.
course during the meet, but shortening the length of the meet, confining it, perhaps, to ten or twelve days. In the first place, I desire to read to the House the opinion of the Minister of Justice given in a letter to myself as chairman of the committee, as follows:
Ottawa, February 5, 1910.
Dear Mr. Miller,-I have your letter of the 2nd instant, asking whether the Dominion Parliament has any authority to restrict, or limit, the length of a racing meeting on the tracks of an association incorporated by a provincial legislature.
I think the rational way of regulating such a subject would he by action on the part of the provincial authorities. Such a question seems to me properly a matter of police supervision, and in that view within the jurisdiction of the local authorities. There is nothing I can see to prevent any provincial legislature from requiring licenses to he obtained for the holding of race-track meetings. Under such licenses, they could regulate the days and times that racing could be carried on, charging such license fee as they saw fit. The Dominion parliament has no such jurisdiction, and the only way in which the Dominion parliament could deal with the subject is by undertaking to make it a crime to continue a race-track meeting for more than some given number of days.
I do not question the power of the Dominion parliament to legislate in that majpner, hut it would certainly seem to me entirely illogical to do so. It would be an equivalent to declaring that racing for, say, 30 days was perfectly lawful and innocent, hut that to race on the 31st day was a crime! That does not strike me as sensible or reasonable, and although I think the Dominion parliament has, in its general jurisdiction over criminal law, power to pass such an enactment, it would seem to me that the regulating of the times and manner of conducting race-track meetings was properly a matter for purely provincial attention.
I remain, yours faithfully,


A. B. AYLESWORTH.
William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. member (Mr. Miller) say why he does not take this agitation to that field?


Henry Horton Miller: Because this is one matter, and only one matter, that might be controlled by the provincial legislature. But endeavour to cope with the whole matter and that which we must admit can only be controlled, and ought to be controlled in the Dominion parliament and under the Criminal Code. I think we all agree with the opinion given by the Minister of Justice that it would be within the power of this parliament to enact that racing for thirty days was perfectly lawful, and innocent, but to race on the 31st day was a crime, but we would also agree when he says: ' that does not strike me as sensible or reasonable '. I wish to put the other line of reasoning on a parallel with that and

ask the members of this House whether the position is not very much the same as to say that the Dominion parliament has the power to say that racing is punishable when carried on outside the race-track enclosure, but is innocent, harmless, and no crime if carried on inside the fence that surrounds the race-track. But even if we ^had not the opinion given by the Minister of Justice, we have that of the Hon. Mr. Fisher, who was asked what, in his opinion, would be the effect of shortening the race-meeting to ten days, and he said:
I should think they would be intensified for the. ten days.
Q. In other words, you think they would try to get in the ten days the evil that they had committed in the sixty?-A. I should think
so.
Q. And you do not see any difference between a ten days' and a sixty days' meet in that respect?-A. I think, probably, they could not do as much damage in ten days as they could in sixty days, although they would do as much of their works as they could do in ten.
The Hon. Mr. Templeman was asked his opinion as to limiting the race meeting to ten days, or to any number of days and his reply was: __
I do not believe that if the race-meeting was limited to ten days, and there is bookmaking even to the extent that it might take place in the ten days, that it would meet public opinion in the city of Victoria.
Q- Vou do not think it will?-A. I do not think so. If there is book-making that will permit bank clerks and even young lads to take part in the pools and spend more money than they should, you will never satisfy public opinion.
Now our opponents, with deep concern, tell us that it will be impossible to enforce this legislation, that you cannot enforce the law even though it be the law. I do not know really whether the law could be be enforced or not and again I appeal to Inspector Duncan. In answer to Mr. Moss, page 199, he says:
Q. But you do not expect, as a practical man, to stamp that out by legislation, do you? A. If you want to stamp it out what will you stamp it out with, if you do not get legislation ?
Q. Do you agree with him (Mr. Grasset), that you do not think it can be done away with by Act of parliament?-A. I think it can be done away with.
Q. You think it can?-A. I think it can; you will not eliminate it entirely, but you will get it under control and save a great many people from being ruined.
Then Inspector Archibald, page 226, testified:
Q. Then, if you had a law that was in plain Anglo-Saxon and easy to understand, forbidding betting on the race-tracks through the
book-maker, would it be possible to reasonably enforce that law?-A. Yes.
Q. And suppress the betting?-A. Yes.
Then Detective Sleeman testified:
Q. I am asking you whether, if parliament passed a law making it illegal to bet in any manner, you think, as an experienced officer, that such a law could be successfully enforced ?
I would like to have your candid opinion on that.-A. I think we can. If you give us a law T think there is material enough in the police court and detectives of the Dominion to stamp out the evil spoken of.
Then Detective Carrington, who was brought to give evidence in opposition to the Bill, was asked this question:
Q. Is it difficult to enforce it?-A. Well, I do not think it is difficult, speaking from a professional point of view, to enforce any law if you occupy the position with proper officers.
Detective McMahon testifies:
Q. Do you see any difficulty about enforcing the law against book-making on the racetrack?-A. You can enforce the law to prohibit it, sure.
Now, we have been told that public opinion is not behind this Bill, and that in the absence of public opinion, the law cannot be enforced. On this subject the Hon. Mr. Templeman was asked by Mr. Blain, M. P.:
Q. Would public opinion in the west endorse this Bill?-A. I think it would.
Now, Sir, I will come to the Vancouver Board of Trade. The Vancouver Board of Trade is not made up of parsons, or of men engaged in moral reform movements, but of hard-headed business men, having in view their own interests and the interests of the city, and this is the resolution they passed on the 5th of last November:
The Right Honourable the Minister of Justice, Ottawa.
Sir,-I have the honour to advise you that-
Whereas, the question of race-track gambling in connection with the recently established 'Minoru Race Track' on Lulu island near the city, was fully discussed at the monthly meeting of this board on 5th October ultimo;
Whereas, the opinion was unanimous that in relation to the welfare and business interests of the city and of the community at large, legislation should be sought to effect the suppression of all professional gambling on race-tracks;
Whereas, the hoard is advised by the attorney general of British Columbia ' That the question of the suppression of gambling is one coming entirely within the powers of the Dominion parliament;
It was resolved, at a meeting of the council board held on the 4th inst. That the hon. the Minister of Justice be requested to adopt such legislation as may be necessary to bring the

suppression of race-track gambling within the Criminal Code of Canada.
I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,


WM. SKENE,
[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Mr. Cowan, member of parliament for Vancouver, gave his opinion:
Q. Well, will public opinion in your province endorse this Bill as it now stands, do you think?-A. I scarcely know how it stands.
Q. Supposing it does all we say it does?- A. That it does away with the book-maker?
Q. It does away entirely with the bookmaker?-A. Yes, it will endorse it.
Then Mr. Cowan went further, and said:
Q. I merely wish to let the committee know the status of these gentlemen?-A. I know that not only the directors but the shareholders of this association are beyond criticism, substantial men, men who would not be identified with anything of a doubtful character if they knew it.
Q. Bo they approve of this Bill?-A. I imagine that the majority of them do.
So we have the statement of a member of this House that the men who compose the Vancouver Racing Association are in favour of this Bill, and will support it. Inspector Archibald again testifies:
Q. You are in a very good position to have some knowledge of what is public opinion on this very question: if there should be a law passed now to entirely prohibit race-track gambling through the book-maker, do you think there is a public opinion that would assist you in enforcing that law?-A. I am very strongly of the opinion that there is already that public opinion.
Mr. Moss asked Detective Sleeman this question:	.
Q. You think you can stamp it out altogether?-A. I will do my part.
Q. Bo you think the community will acquiesce in that?-A. I think you would have the community with you if you would stop book-making.
Now, Sir, let us no longer ask whether there is or is not public opinion behind this Bill, because the evidence is very clear that there is. Mr. E. C. Drury, master of the Dominion Grange, says:
I am fullv convinced that popular feeling among the farmers stands behind Mr. Miller's Bill.
Let me point out to you also, Mr. Speaker, that all the church papers of Canada are strongly in favour of the Bill. The Toronto ' Globe,' the Toronto ' Telegram,' the Toronto ' Star, the Canadian ' Courier,' the Canadian ' Collier's,' and the local press throughout Canada, and most significant of all, all the farm papers and live stock journals have expressed themselves as being entirely in sympathy with the Bill now before the House. And last, but not least let me say that the Orange Lodge of Mr. MILLER
Canada, in session recently, expressed itself very strongly in favour of the Bill; and no other resolution passed at the meeting of the Grand Lodge was so unanimously and so enthusiastically supported as was a resolution favouring this Bill. Now, Sir, why should there not be public opinion behind this Bill?
We have had similar legislation in the state of New York, in the state of Michigan, in nearly all the leading horse-breeding states of the American union. With a larger and longer experience than we have had, they have passed legislation prohibiting race-track gambling in those states. I do not say that in legislation, along the line of moral reform or otherwise, we should always follow their example, but I say that in legislating along these lines we have usually supposed ourselves to be at least up to as high a standard as the citizens of the United States, and I ask whether it is to be tolerated, whether it is to be supposed that we will continue to make Canada a dumping ground for the professional gamblers of the race-track banished by this legislation from the racetracks of the American union. It has been said that we ought to follow English precedent, and that in place of that we* are in this legislation seeking to follow American precedent. Let us see whether we have any precedent in following American rather than English precedent. At page 563-4 of the evidence, Mr. Nelson, sporting editor of the Toronto ' Globe ', in replying to Mr. McCarthy explained the English system. He said that the system at the English race-tracks is that the book-maker is not allowed to be at the grand stand, or in the ground with the ordinary attendants at the races. The book-maker is shut off in a pen or inclosure for admission to which he pays a £1 entrance fee. The ordinary attendants at the races do not come in contact with the book-maker at all; if they want to get in contact with him in his inclosure they also must pay an additional £1. This is in itself a great protection to the young men of Great Britain, and to men who have not become addicted to racetrack gambling. Mr. Blain asked Mr. Nelson:
Do you think that would be a desirable change for Canada?
And Mr. Nelson's reply was:
No sir.
The chairman said:
You do not believe, then, that in all things we should follow the English practice?
And Mr. Nehon's reply was:
No.
If the men who carry on the races persist in following not the English, not the

British, but the American system, they cannot, I think, find fault with us if we endeavour to meet the conditions they make with legislation more similar to that of America, than to that of Britain.
In conclusion, it has been said that Dr. Shearer has been at the bottom of all this agitation, that the legislation is really his legislation, that this whole matter has come from the agitation of preachers and pastors. I wish to read from the argument of the counsel opposed to this Bill. At page 9 they say:
The undersigned do not desire to cast any reflection upon the many excellent and eminent ministers of the church who have been induced to lend their names to the agitation fostered by Dr. Shearer, nor to minimize the service they can do the community in uplifting its moral tone by exhortation and example, but ft is respectfully urged that the promotion of legislation forms no part of the professional duty of a minister of the gospel.
Note the argument and turn to page 49 of the same argument where you will see:
The supporters of the Bill have tried to lay stress on the fact that some of the racing clubs derive an income from the sale of telegraphic information in regard to the racing and betting. There is no law prohibiting the sale of this information, and it is quite natural that the clubs should sell it if some one is willing to pay for it, and if they did not do so, the information would be obtained notwithstanding.
We have the statements of the opponents of the Bill that they have been selling information from their race-tracks for the carrying on and maintenance of pool-rooms in the United States, and in distant cities. They admit that it is not a right thing to do, and they say they do not want to be longer permitted to do it, but are willing to abandon it, as a thing that ought not to be continued. But how long would it have taken the appeals and exhortations of ministers to prevent these men from continuing to sell racing information? It was only the prospect of legislation that made them abandon this, as they are now ready to do. How long would it take these men to be influenced in any degree by the example and exhortation of ministers? I am prepared to admit that no minister or pastor ought to endeavour to or be permitted to dictate as to what shall be the legislation of this House; but I do contend that it is the right of a minister of the gospel to suggest legislation. Men supporting this Bill have been accused of being narrowminded. I have myself been accused of being narrow-minded in supporting this Bill, as have many others. Can there be any greater evidence of a narrow mind than this, that a man when asked to support a Bill will say:	In whose brain did
that Bill originate, in whose brain was it
formed? Then, if it is the suggestion of a minister: I will not support it. If it is the suggestion of some other man: I will. Is that a broad way to look at legislation? Will not the broad-minded man say: If this Bill is reasonable and right I will support it, if it is wrong I will oppose it no matter whence it comes? No minister has ever endeavoured to control my course in any legislation, and no minister of the gospel need try, because no minister can.
I would not ask any member to vote on this or on any question as he may have been dictated to by any one. I have not seen any evidence that any minister of the gospel has endeavoured to dictate to any member how he shall vote. It has been said that the public opinion in favour of the Bill is largely the result of petitions and circulars. The repeal of the Corn laws in Great Britain, the reform law of 1832, the emancipation of the Catholics, all these great reforms were the result of long-continued agitation, and arguments, public meetings, the agitation of the public mind in every possible way, and in that way they were carried. In that way all such legislation, and all great reforms have been brought about and carried. It has been said that you cannot make men good by Act of parliament. It was a saying of Mr. Gladstone-that it is the duty of parliament to make it as easy as possible for men to do right, and as difficult as possible for men to do wrong.
I have been glad to see the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) who is chairman of the Conservation Commission taking notes, and I assume he will speak on this subject. I have no knowledge nor is it any business of mine whether he will speak in favour of, or against the Bill; but as a great Canadian, as a man who has taken a great interest in the conserving of our natural resources, I cannot believe he will fail to realize that the greatest natural resources we have are Canadian men and women. I cannot but believe that the chairman of that Conservation Commission, who endeavours to protect the water-powers of Canada, will realize that the greatest power Canada has is the power of Canadian men and Canadian women. I cannot but believe that the chairman of that commission, who endeavours to preserve the small trees in our forests, will endeavour to preserve to Canada the small boys, the young men of Canada. I cannot but believe that the chairman of that commission, who endeavours to protect for Canada, gold, coal, iron, and all the ores that exist in the country, will endeavour to protect the gold in the pockets of Canada, and not permit it to be taken away by American book-makers who invade our land. I cannot believe that the chairman of the Conservation Commission who says
[Stage Direction]
that no American shall interfere with our waterways will permit a herd of American book-makers to control our race-tracks in Canada, and deteriorate the morals, and take away the character, the reputation, and the respectability of the Canadian people. The names of people in high places whom the rules of parliament prevent me from mentioning have been invoked in this debate; their practices have- been quoted by the opponents of the Bill. I say, Sir, that is hardly fair to gentlemen who occupy places of high position m the land, because these gentlemen on account of their position cannot reply to the statements made. I may say, Sir, that a certain gentleman in England occupying the highest position; one who is sometimes referred to as the first gentleman of Britain wrote a letter a little while ago on this question of gambling, and that letter is reported in the Toronto ' Star,' of February 24. The item says that the Reverend Montague Fowler, lecturing on the subject of racing, and gambling quoted the following from a letter written by this high personage:
I have horror of gambling and shall always do my utmost to discourage others who have an inclination for it, as the spirit of gambling like intemperance is one of the greatest evils than can afflict a country.
I am not by the rules of the House permitted to mention the name of the person who wrote that letter, but I do say that when that personage writes that gambling is one of the greatest evils that can afflict a country, we cannot be found fault with by that gentleman or by the gentleman who represents him in Canada or by any others who are loyal British subjects if we support this Bill.
In conclusion I may say that when we get into committee to deal with the Bill section by section, I shall offer amendments that will make it perfectly clear that section 227 does not relate to bets between private individuals and which will make less drastic the provisions of section 235 as to the publication of racing information.
Mr.  J. B.@: McCOLL (Northumberland, Ont. W. R.) My hon. friend (Mr. Miller) has referred to what he calls the opponents of this Bill. Mr. Speaker, there are no oppo-ments to the general principle of the Bill. There are no opponents to the leading features of this Bill, but there are opponents to the drastic, extreme, unjust, and unfair provisions of this Bill. Now, what is the general principle of this Bill? The general principle of the Bill is to amend the Criminal Code in such a manner as to make the law more effective in restricting and abolishing gambling and the evils resulting therefrom, and particularly that class of gambling known as race-track gambling. And, what are the leading features and pro- 1 Mr. MILLER.
visions of this Bill? The leading features and provisions of the Bill are to broaden and extend the definition of common gaming house, common betting house, and disorderly houses to make the law more effective in abolishing that class of gambling carried on by means of what are known as hand-books or hand-book operators; to abolish what are known as toots and tipsters and the operations carried on by such persons; to abolish the sale of tips, the sale of racing information publishing odds on races, and the advertising of racing information. Now, what are the drastic ahd extreme and unjust and unfair provisions of the Bill? This proposed legislation invokes the Criminal Code and makes criminal certain acts and courses of conduct which a large portion of the public, perhaps the large majority of the people of Canada, look upon as absolutely a harmless and innocent recreation. Any such legislation I submit is drastic and extreme. This proposed legislation in its present form, according to the overwhelming weight of evidence presented to the committee will seriously affect if not totally abolish the noble and royal sport of horse-racing; a sport that has been fostered, encouraged, promoted, and patronized by the kings of England for the last 200 years, and which is being encouraged and promoted and patronized today not only by the present King of Great Britain but by other crowned heads and governments of Europe. I submit that any legislation that will seriously interfere with or abolish such a sport is drastic and extreme. Then, according to the evidence submitted to the Committee the Bill in its present form would certainly affect the light horse-breeding in Canada and the result in great financial loss to the importers and producers of the thoroughbred, standard breed, and other light horse breeds of Canada by depreciating the value of their stables and business. I submit, Sir, that any legislation having that result is unjust and unfair. Then, according to the evidence the Bill if passed in its present form would cause great financial loss to the jockey clubs and other racing associations by depreciating the value of their properties and plants. Therefore the features of the Bill in that respect are unjust as unfair.
Now Mr. Speaker my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) quoted from the evidence to show that the real issue between what he calls the opponents of the Bill and the promoters of the Bill was narrowed down to a very fine point. In fact he quoted from the evidence to show that the so called opponents of the Bill were ready and willing to cooperate, and I may say they did co-operate with the promoters of the Bill in amending the Bill so as to greatly improve on its original form. Then, the only point of difference between the promoters of the Bill

and the so-called opponents of the Bill is this: That the promoters of the Bill desire to abolish absolutely all kinds of public betting on a race-course while the race is in actual progress; and the so-called opponents of the Bill desire to protect the racing, by permitting, as has always been permitted in Canada, the privilege of betting upon the race-course during the actual progress of the race meeting. Now Sir, my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) in the course of his remarks frequently used the expression ' race-track gambling,' and it appeared to me as if he liked to use that expression as often as possible. I am going to argue Sir, that what takes place on a well regulated race-course such as some of the racecourses we have in Canada is not race track gambling, and that the evils admitted on all hands which do result from race-track gambling do not occur upon the race-courses, but outside of the race-track altogether. When I am arguing in favour of race-track associations or jockey clubs, I mean those conducted by the class of men who are in that business for the sport that is in it, and not race-tracks that are conducted purely for business purposes or perhaps for gambling purposes. In this connection I wish to quote a statement made bv Mr. Raney, solicitor for the promoters of the Bill, made at the beginning of the proceedings and before any evidence was taken. It will be found at pages 7 and 8 of the proceedings. He said:-
There is a broad line of demarcation separating these tracks into two classes, and I may classify them in this way: on the one side of the line are the Woodbine, the Montreal track and the Hamilton track. On the other side of the line of demarcation are the Fort Erie track, the Windsor track, the British Columbia track. These tracks are divided, as I say, by a line of demarcation, and I will define at once what that line of demarcation is. To illustrate it, I will refer to two tracks-the Woodbine on the one side and the Fort Erie on the other as types of these two classes. Now the Woodbine race meet is essentially a social and a sporting event; attracting many of the best people of Canada, with race-track book-making as an attraction and as a principal financial support. This race-track is managed as you have heard from Mr. McCarthy, by eminently respectable men, strong men financially, all Canadians.
It is the class of race-track which Mr. Raney has there described that the so-called opponents of this Bill desire to protect. What I say is this-and I speak not only from the overwhelming evidence that has been brought before the committee, but also from personal knowledge of what I have seen and observed on the Woodbine Tace-course at	Toronto-that
practically all the betting that goes on there is not gambling in the strict sense of the word. What is it? In tbe first
place, I will refer to my own riding, and I will ask every other member of the House also to bring his mind to bear on what exists in his own constituency-the class of people in his constituency who go to the Woodbine or any other race-track of the class I have described, and say whether or not he would consider them to be gamblers in any sense of the word. Probably not more than a dozen, or twenty at the outside, of my constituents ever go to a race-track where book-making or pool-selling takes place. These men are not gamblers in any sense of the word. I can recall two of them who do not even know how to play a game of cards, who do not bet on hockey matches, baseball or prize fighting. These men go to the Woodbine ; they look forward to spending a day or two there during the year for the sport and recreation they get. While there they bet. They may bet $2 or $5 on a race. Generally six or seven races take place in a day. They may win or they may lose. As a result, they may be $10 or $20 ahead or they may be that much behind. But, whether they lose or not, they have enjoyed their sport, they have had their outing. That is the form of recreation they take. They are not injured by it in any way, and to call these men gamblers would be absolutely wrong. With regard to the betting that takes place there, whether it is right or wrong, it is something that has grown up among the British people and has been going on for centuries. It is an incident of the great national sport of horse-racing that betting takes nlace on the results. The betting is an incident to the sport. Probably 90 per cent of the people who go to a race meeting conducted as the Woodbine is, and bet at all, are of that class of people. They bet as an incident of the sport, not with the gambling instinct at all. It has been said that if we abolish book-making and public betting on the race-track, it will not interfere with racing. But one of the proofs that the betting privileges are a great attraction for those who go to race meetings to enjoy the sport is that if these are removed, the attendance falls off, the races are not patronized, the gate receipts go, and the whole thing eventually fails altogether. To take the other side for a moment, I may be asked, do you pretend to argue that there are no evils resulting from race-track gambling? Certainly, very many evils have grown up from race-track gambling. What are 'they? What takes place in the pool rooms and on the streets? What takes place by the operation of handbooks, in barber shops, in third-rate hotels, in butcher shops, and so on? We had it clearly demonstrated before the committee that in the city of Toronto to-day there are probably from 300 to 500 hand-book

operators. How do they operate? What do they bet on? There are no races going on in Toronto to-day. Their betting is done on race-meets which are going on in the United States-at Jacksonville, Tampa, Oakland, California, and so on. How is that done? By means of reading the newspapers. In the early morning they see the entries that have been made for the races at Jacksonville in the afternoon, and there is thus an opportunity for them to go out and make their bets. They go around canvassing people on th*. streets. They canvass workmen, even going to the Massey-Harris factory, and make bets of from 25 cents to $2, or even more. How do they decide the bet ? The next morning the reports come out in the newspapers showing what horses won and the odds against them, and those who risked their money, are paid off according to the published results. The unanimous opinion of the committee was that it was highly desirable to abolish all that class of gambling, which is going on from day to day in the way I| have described. That is what can bei termed strictly race-track gambling. WhatJ I have described as taking place at a well; conducted race-meet is not race-track gambling, but an act which is an incident and an incentive to horse-racing.
My hon. friend has tried to impress upon the House the idea that book-makers are very undesirable men, whose principal business is to rob the public. Let us be just and consider for a moment what bookmaking really is and how it is carried on. This Bill aims at prohibiting pool-selling and book-making. What is pool-selling? That is something which is practised principally at trotting meets, but at running meets of the various jockey clubs, bookmaking takes the place of pool-selling. At the trotting meets both are carried on, but it is chiefly the pool-seller who operates. What are his operations? He acts as an agent for the public who desire to bet. He sells the pools and takes in the cash, and when the race is over, he deducts his five or ten per cent, and the rest of the money is divided among the winners. So that what money the pool-seller takes in goes back to the public, less the commission which he charges. The book-maker, who carries on his legitimate business, is in exactly the same position. His position is as close to that of a stock-broker as you can imagine. That was the general tenor of the evidence before the committee. Poolselling appears to jbe a very satisfactory way of betting at a trotting race. There you would probably have two races in the afternoon.. The races are run in heats, the best two out of three or three out of five. At running meets, however, the contests are all dash races, there may be six or seven a day, and an entirelv different class of horses come out in each race. Pool-Mr. McCOLL.
selling is, therefore, not a convenient or satisfactory way of betting at such meets, the book-maker consequently takes the place of the pool-seller. I might just mention that a book-maker on a race-track of an association such as the Woodbine is a different man altogether from the bookmaker who may operate in a pool-room or upon that other "class of tracks to which I shall refer later. The book-maker on tracks such as the Woodbine are under regulations. Every precaution is taken to protect the public, and they almost invariably stick to their legitimate business, which is this: The book-maker takes the horses which are to start in a certain race and puts up their names on a blackboard. He then gives the odds-one at even money, another at two to three, and so on. Under ordinary circumstances the book-maker- it is a mathematical calculation-ought to make ten or five per cent profit out of his operations, just the same as the pool-seller does. His calculations may go wrong. On one race he may lose and not make any percentage; on the next he may win. But if he carries on his legitimate business, he starts on a basis of making five or ten per cent, and on the average he does so. But if he should step outside legitimate business and go into speculating himself, he may win or lose, just the same as any other speculator. It is the public who really make the odds. You will continually see the slate changing. A horse quoted at one price may be quoted at an entirely different price in another minute. It all depends on how the public bet. The bookmaker, in order to protect himself, has to change the odds, and his object is to take in something on every horse. There may be ten in the race. He has a better chance to come out even on the ten, because if all the public bet on the one horse, and that horse won, the book-maker would be broke. Every book-maker on a well regulated track is nothing more than an agent of the public^ doing business in the way I have described. He is not that terrible individual which many people, who know nothing about the subject, imagine him to be, or my hon. friend would have the House believe he is.
What further do we see at the Woodbine? Every precaution is taken to protect the public. It is well provided with police. The local Toronto force is there, and in addition, special Pinkerton men are engaged at the expense of the club. These men appear on the course in plain clothes. They collect information and report to the local police, so that if the police see any parties who are undesirable, these parties are at once dealt with. What I am stating appears in the evidence taken before the committee, and I do not propose to take up time by quoting page after page of that evidence.

Again, we find that before the race-meet takes place, the authorities are in communication with the Pinkerton or other detective agencies, which they require to be on the lookout for any undesirable class of people about to leave Chicago or New York or Chicago, or elsewhere, for Toronto. The local force is on the lookout for just such people as soon as they arrive. If these suspects turn out not to be too hard looking, they aTe allowed to go free on condition that they leave town; but if they are considered too dangerous to let go, they are kept in custody until the meet is over. These are things that are done, these are provisions that are made, to protect the public against the undesirable classes that are likely to come to any large gathering. According to the evidence before the committee, there are far more offences in the way of pickpocketing and such like at the Toronto exhibition than at the Woodbine. As I say. there is an undesirable class, pickpockets, thieves and fakirs of different kinds, that are attracted to every large gathering.


Mr. TALBOT.: They follow every crowd.


John B. McColl: Yes. So long as horse-Tacing continues, that class will endeavour to get there, and the most that any racing association can do is to take the greatest precautions to protect the public against them. That is done, and done at great expense, at the Woodbine. Again, they protect the public in the matter of betting in this way: A race-horse owner comes there with his stable. He has a good horse. The horse starts on the opening day, and the public, knowing it from reputation, bet their money on it. But he shows poor form, makes a bad showing and the people lose their money. A day or two afterwards, the same horse appears and. there is a great reversal of form, but the public, thinking that the horse is out of form do not bet on him, he is a long price in the books; but that day he goes out and wins. If that occurs at the Woodbine, what is done? The owner and trainer are at once brought before the stewards at the jockey club, and if the owner cannot give a satisfactory explanation-sometimes there may be a satisfactory explanation, for the horse may have been interfered with in the race or may not be in proper form- but, unless the explanation is satisfactory, that man is ruled off the course, he and his stable, ejected from the Woodbine and not permitted to race there any longer. That is another means that the club takes to protect the public. It sometimes happens that the jockeys may be bribed to pull a horse or to do something wrong in that regard. That very Tarelv happens, if it happens at all, at a well conducted race-track, such as the Woodbine. Ami why? These jockeys are licensed, they
are paid large salaries, their business is like a profession, and if they are found doing anything wrong or crooked, they are at once brought before the stewards, their licenses are cancelled and their business is taken from them. I might mention other ways in which a race-track such as the Woodbine takes every means in its power to protect the public.
There are, however, race-tracks of another class. I do not know whether they exist in Canada or not. It appears from the evidence before the committee that Fort Erie and Windsor at one time were objectionable, but they are not so now. But, if there is anything wrong at any racetrack, I submit that that is a matter for regulation and not for invoking the Criminal Code. Why should the men at the head of Tacing associations and jockey clubs such as I have described be brought before the public as criminals, or as consorting with criminals, when these meets could be regulated by the proper authorities? If we have not the jurisdiction, then go to the authority that has the jurisdiction and ask for regulation, but do not take the drastic means of invoking the Criminal Code. Reference has been made to the Vancouver race-meet that took place last year. That was an exceptional case, and, in dealing with it, I will give the substance of the evidence before the committee. It appears that men interested in the racing business organized a racing association at Vancouver and built a new race-track which they named the Minoru after King Edward's Derby winner of last year. Instead of operating the track last year, they rented it to an American concern, and, unfortunately, rented it for sixty days or ninety days-I have forgotten the number. Last year, a fair was .going on at Seattle which brought large crowds of people to that city. It appears that there are boats plying regularly between Seattle and Vancouver. Extra boats were put on to take the crowds to this race meet, and, according to the evidence before the corn-mitte-e, a disgraceful state of affairs existed there, something that should be entirely prohibited, something that no one would justify. The local authorities could have stopped it-so it appeared from the evidence before the committee-had they seen fit to do so; they could have cancelled the contract they had with the Americans. That probably would have meant an action for damages, and _ the payment of money which, it is to be supposed,	they	did not	wish	to
be called upon to pay. It will be seen that there were special circumstances there that are not likely to occur again, and the concurrence of which could be prevented by action of the local authorities. I see it stated in the public press that the muni-

cipal authorities of Victoria have already taken steps to prevent occurrences similar to those of last year. So, if there be objectionable race-tracks, there is a means of regulating them, otherwise than by invoking the Criminal Code as proposed under this Bill.
Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) quoted a great deal of the evidence and referred to a number of witnesses. But, I think that if you will read the evidence of these several witnesses that he quoted-read the whole of their evidence-you will find that my hon. friend, perhaps, was not entirely fair in the impression that he tried to give to the House of that evidence. Again, it would appear to me to be only a proper thing, if he wished to be fair in laying the matter before the House, to give both-sides, if there be two sides to it. He quoted the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and tried to give great weight to the evidence given by that gentleman. But read the evidence of the Minister of Agriculture and you will find that he admitted that he practically knew nothing about the thing at all. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has not yet established a racing branch in connection with his department. As against the evidence given by the Minister of Agriculture. I will refer to that of Dr. Rutherford. Dr. Rutherford also was quoted by my hon. friend; but I ask any hon. member of the House to read the whole of Dr. Rutherford's evidence. In the first place, before he became a veterinary director general, he managed a large racing-stable in the United States. Besides, he was a breeder of thoroughbreds. He spoke from a personal knowledge of the racing business for years. Read his evidence in full. That evidence clearly establishes, in the first place, that the thoroughbred is a very important, probably the most important, breed of horses in the world to-day. It is established that the thoroughbred is the foundation of all the light horses of the country, that the thoroughbred is used in improving the hackney, the standard breed of all the different classes of light horses in Canada. It is also established in Dr. Rutherford's evidence that racing is necessary to develop the thoroughbred, to develop his intelligence, his courage, his stamina and so on. Let me say that witness upon witness came before the committee giving _ evidence along the same lines, and establishing that the thoroughbred was very necessary for the breeding industry of the country, that racing was necessary to develop that horse, and that in order to promote racing it was necessary to have some kind of public betting on the racecourse. and thaMf that were abolished, not only would racing deteriorate, but would probably die out. Witness after witness testified along these lines, and I appeal to Mr. McCOLL.
any member of the committee, that when it was proposed to bring further witnesses, the committee were unanimously of the opinion that these facts had been fully established, that there was no dispute, and that it was unnecessary for those who were opposing the drastic provisions of the Bill to bring further witnesses. I may mention a few who testified before the committee: We had Dr. Rutherford, we had Mr. Dy-ment, ex-M.P., we had the Hon. J. H. Hen-drie, one of the greatest 'breeders of thoroughbreds in the country, Dr. McEachern, Major Wm. Hendrie, Mr. Yager, of Sim-coe, a breeder of hackneys that he crosses with thoroughbreds. We had a large number of witnesses who gave evidence along the lines of indicating that I have indicated, and a greats many more could have been produced, but the committee thought it wTas not necessary. So, when my hon. friend to-day undertook to show that the thoroughbred was absolutely of no use for any purpose -whatever, and I think he went to that extent, I was very much surprised, because that was entirely contrary to the evidence.
Now, my hon. friend has quoted some other authorities. You will remember he quoted from a book of Mr. E. King Dodds, he was for many years editor of the ' Canadian Sportsman.' Now, I am willing to admit that Mr. Dodds is one of the greatest authorities perhaps on this question that could be quoted, and perhaps my hon. friend would agree that if Mr. Dodds has expressed any opinions on this particular Bill, he would he inclined to agree with them. Now. I happen to have a long article written by Mr. Dodds in the last week's issue of the ' Canadian Sportsman,' in which he discusses this very Bill. I did not intend to make any reference to it, but as my hon. friend has quoted Mr. Dodds as an authority, I think it is proper for me to give his opinion on this particular Bill. I will not read the whole article, because it is somewhat lengthy. Apparently what brought forth the article was the argument of Mr. Raney, solicitor for the oromoters of the Bill. Let me read the head notes of the article:
The anti-betting question. Mr. E. King Dodds replies to Lawyer Raney's so-called argument against betting at the races-facts against fiction-tlie evidence of jailbirds not entitled to consideration. Hand-books flourish when betting on the track is prohibited, a greater evil therefore increased. If betting is declared illegal on the race-course the Ontario Jockey Club will close their gates and the echo of the hoofs of the galloping thoroughbreds will no longer be heard at the Woodbine Park.
Those are the head notes to the article written by Mr. Dodds. From that article I quote:
If betting under any and all systems is prohibited oh Canadian race-tracks, the clubs

must either close their gates or offer such small purses that it would be impossible for a horse owner to pay running expenses, even should he win a liberal proportion of the prizes offered. The abolishment of horseracing at Woodbine, it has been officially announced by the old jockey club, would result if an anti-betting law is passed.
Again:
Mr. Raney's contention is that betting at the track, even during the progress of the racing, is not essential, and that its elimination would not injuriously affect the interests of horse-breedineg.
That is Mr. Raney's contention. Now take Mr. Dodds' comment on that, and the proof he adduces;
Devoid as he is of experience, his opinion on this question is valueless. The so-called Hughes law in the state of New York provides ample testimony to the contrary. Stakes like the Brooklyn and Surburban handicaps, the value of each of which, previous to the passage of that law, -was $25,000, have been cut down, so that in 1909 the value to the winners was only $3,850 in each event. Other stakes previously worth $10,000 were reduced to $2,000, and over-night events of $1,250 and $1,500 have shrunk to $400 and $500, while the attendance of spectators at the Metropolitan meetings fell off from an average of 12,000 to less than 3,000 per day. Such great racing stables as those of Messrs. Belmont, Vanderbilt, Keene, Whitney and others, have been forced to transfer their horses to Great Britain and Prance where wiser laws govern the sport.
My hon. friend read a long list of events that are announced to take place on the New York tracks during the coming season, I think he read 15. But he did not compare the purses given during the coming year with the purses given in the past, and, perhaps, it might be well for me here to refer a little to this Hughes law. Two years ago the law was passed in the state of New York and some other states of the union abolishing betting at racetracks, abolishing the book-maker. What is the result? Has the Act been a success? What do we find this year? There are three Bills before the New York legislature proposing changes in the Hughes law. That law did not abolish gambling as expected, according to the evidence brought before our committee by representatives of the Pinkerton and Thiel detective 'agencies. Assuming that this Bill would have the same effect as the Hughes Bill, what would be the result in Canada? Whereas, now public betting is allowed to book-makers under regulation by the association, if the book-makers were prohibited from going to the track, any betting that took, place would have to be done by private betting, which my hon. friend says is not to be interfered with by this legislation. I have said that the large majority of people who go to the Woodbine or to places of that 205
kind, to a track conducted first for the sport, go there and bet from a sporting instinct and not from a gambling instinct. But when there is a chance to bet, gamblers bet with the book-makers and among themselvea Abolish the book-maker. Then the gambling element would go there just as before, but while they used to bet with the book-makers, they would have to find some one else to bet with. They would be able to say they were only private betters, that they were not making books, and that under the law they were legalized and recognized. In Toronto or New York all that gambling element who would go down and bet with the book-maker under present conditions would go there and bet in their private capacity, taking in as many of the other visitors to the races as tney possibly could. We will suppose that a man goes to the race-track to enjoy the sport, and that there is no book-maker present. He would like to bet $5 on a race. The promoters of this Bill say that he should find out his friends and bet with them. He may have no friends there. Then they say: give it up altogether. Yes, the man may give it up, but it will be found that there are any number of men of the class I have spoken of, men who may have been objectionable book-makers under other conditions, ready to accommodate him and take his bet. He will then be betting without any protection, and if he wins the chances are he will not get his money. He is betting with strangers, and the result will be that that class of better, that is the sporting element, will not take their chances of betting with strangers, they will keep away from the track, and racing will deteriorate. That will leave a larger field for the regular gambler. They will go down there and bet among themselves or with others, they will bet orally, they will make no books, and the evidence is that that has been the result of the operation of the Hughes law in New York, and that the real evils of gambling have been largely increased rather than diminished by its operation. That in effect is the general result of that law. Racing has been deteriorated, the sporting element who formerly patronized these tracks and their large stables have gone to Europe, to England and France. The other patrons of the track who would go there to enjoy the spoTt keep away, and the race-tracks now are in full control of the gambling element. The pool-rooms in New York have increased largely since the Hughes law went into force. That has been the result, and I think it only fair to assume that it may be the result here if this Bill passes in its present form. If there be any doubt as to whether or not it would have that effect, would it not be better to take no chances on it? The Bill goes very far. It is in-



tended to remove all the admitted evils of race-track gambling. Then it appears to me it would be wisdom all round not to go too far, but to concede the small provisions that the so-called opponents of the Bill desire. In that way we would be protecting the sporting interests, we would be protecting horse-breeding in Canada, and we would not be inflicting serious injury on any one.
Another question to which my hon. friend referred was the economic question. He stated that the jockey clubs and racing associations obtained large revenues from the sale of book-making privileges. That is quite true, but if this legislation goes into force, as the majority of the committee desire, if all the provisions about which there is no dispute go into force, then they will not have that large revenue, and they will be losing to that extent. My hon. friend tried to lead the House to believe that something like $2,000,000 was taken annually from the people of Canada by book-makers from the United States. That was entirely erroneous. The evidence before the committee was that almost invariably, particularly at the spring meeting at the Woodbine, the book-makers actually lost money. You would say why would they give large sums for the racing privilege if they were losing money by them? The explanation is that as a part of the privileges they get tliey have the right to have a telegraph office at the Woodbine, and to send information on the races to the United States. It appears that there is an association known as the Interstate News Company, whose head office is in New York. As each race is run at the Woodbine, information regarding that race is sent to that Interstate News Company. For instance, you will see alongside of this telegraph office a man with a field glass calling off the horses at their positions at the post and at each quarter pole, The odds that the public make on the racetrack are also telegraphed to that Interstate Association. Then the company telegraph that same information to all the pool-rooms in the United States, so that while the races are actually taking place at the Woodbine, under conditions that have grown up in recent years by allowing that information to go out, a system of gambling that is purely race-track gambling is going on in all the pool-rooms of the United States. But, you say, how do they make their money? This is how. It appeared in the evidence-and that from witnesses brought by the promoters of the Bill-that it was a practice in the poolrooms, where the betting took place, to give just double the odds against the bettor that would be given on tne race-track, so that the book-makers might be losing a large amount of money at the Woodbine, 1 Mr. McCOLL.
and yet in the pool-rooms away from the track, where the odds *were doubled against the bettor, they might be able to make a large amount of money. It is because of that privilege of having telegraph companies upon the race-track sending out the information that they can afford to give the money they do for the betting privileges. All are agreed that that condition of affairs should be stopped. I would here point out that although this practice is of no special injury to Canada, because the gambling takes place in another country, yet it is no doubt an injury to our neighbours to the south of the line, as it enables them to carry on a large system of what is actually and truly race-track gambling, and it would be our duty, I believe, to prohibit that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As good neighbours.


John B. McColl: tions that are genuinely submitted by the people of a locality in regard to some grievance, under which they suffer, are entitled to a great deal of consideration; but petitions that are worked up by people who live probably hundreds of miles away, and are signed by the class of,people who know nothing about the question at issue, are entitled to very little weight. Let us consider how this agitation arose. I suppose there is no doubt-in fact, it appears from the resolutions taken from the minute books and recorded in the evidence before the House-that the prime mover in this matter was the Rev. Dr. Shearer, who is at present connected with the social and moral reform movement. I believe that Dr. Shearer is acting in the very best of faith, and is impelled, by the very highest motives in bringing about this agitation. But at the very beginning Dr. Shearer made one very great mistake, and it is a mistake that has not yet been rectified. It is a mistake which has largely influenced a great many people who do not know any better. In the first place, in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church a resolution was passed with a recital to the effect that the intention of parliament was being violated by these racing associations. The meaning of that is this, that what parliament intended, when it passed the Criminal Code seventeen years ago, was being violated and had been continually violated during those seventeen years by the racing associations throughout the country. We have had it clearlv demonstrated that the very opposite is the fact. Dr. Shearer and the promoters of this Bill know better now. They learned that when they came before the committee, if they did not know it before; but apparently no steps have been taken to remove that wrong impression from the minds of the people among whom it was circulated. As proof of that, I quote a sermon which was preached on this gambling question in a Presbyterian church in Toronto, only a week ago by the Rev. Dr. Fasken. It was reported in the 'Globe'; probably some hon. gentlemen will remember it. This sermon was preached on this gambling question by the Reverend Dr. Fasken, and in that sermon he reiterated, as late as the 20th March, after this Bill had been reported to the House, that mistake which existed in the beginning. Here is what appears in the 'Globe':
Mr. Fasken then proceeded to speak of the provisions of the Criminal Code and the bearing upon them of the Miller Bill. That Bill had sought merely to do what the law meant to do in the first place.
There you have the statement that all which the Miller Bill intends to do is to make effective what was the intention of parliament in the first place. The wrong Mr. McCOLL.
iflipression, repeated as late as a week ago, got among the people in the beginning and' has not yet been removed, and I have every confidence that when the people understand even that one point only, that public opirn ion, which does exist in favour of this Bill, will change.
While I commend the motives of the promoters of this measure, I do not think I can commend their methods. How was this agitation brought about? In the first place, the promoters got together and passed resolutions and came before the government in order to have it made a government measure. I am speaking from the extracts from the minute-hook of the association which appeared in the evidence. The government declined. Then the promoters undertook to operate on members of parliament. A petition was prepared in Toronto and circulated throughout the country. Accompanying each petition was a circular letter in which instructions were given how to get signatures. The petitions were to be signed at the church doors, or to be given to sympathetic merchants, and so on, who would request signatures. Then they were to be sent back to headquarters. In that circular, another instruction was given, and that was to be sure and see your member before parliament meets; it meets on the 15th of November, so see your member and get him to use his active support in favour of the Bill. And remember there was then no copy of the Bill, and no one knew what it was going to be. Later on, the promoters arranged to have a number of letters sent each member from his constituents, urging him to act. I do not know whether any hon. members have received letters of that kind.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Lots of them; they all came by the same mail.


John B. McColl: In that the promoters were only following out the original programme. What I say is that a public opinion worked up in that way, and worked up among people who know nothing about the matter, who are not affected or injured in any way by race-meets, is a manufactured public opinion to which we should be careful in giving any weight.
I have taken up much longer time than I intended. There are many things I have probably overlooked, but when we go into committee on the Bill there will be ample opportunity to go into the details. In committee I intend to move an amendment along the lines I Have suggested.


Mr. O. J. WILCOX (North Essex).: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to make a few observation upon this Bill. Recognizing that I am but a new man in this House, I have refrained from taking an active part in discussion, but as the. question we are now considering is one which affects the con-

stitueney I have the honour to represent, I could not possibly deem it consistent with my duty to give a silent vote. I may say that I have received communications and petitions containing nearly 600 signatures of the best citizens in the riding of North Essex, nearly 400 of whom are representatives of the agricultural class, asking me, as their representative, to oppose the provisions of this Bill on the ground that they are too drastic.
I have also received a few communications asking me to support the Bill.
At the outset, let me say that I have every sympathy with that class of good and noble citizens who have joined this moral reform association. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller), who introduced the Bill in a very able manner, and who addressed us this afternoon with his usual eloquence, complained that the opponents of this measure spoke of him as being narrow, and also stated, that certain references had been made toward Dr. Shearer which were improper. I might, however, remark that I have taken rather an active interest in this question myself, and that the reflection -which my hon. friend drew to our attention was new to me. This is the first time I heard it made. While I recognize that the work which the Moral Reform Association is doing is very important, yet I am inclined to the view that it is impossible to make a people moral by legislation. All we can expect parliament to do, is to regulate the evils at the race track. There-being no pretense by the Bill to nrevent racing itself.
My hon. friend from West Northumberland (Mr. McColl), in the very fair argument which he presented this afternoon, dealt largely with the question from the standpoint of the jockey club and the working out of bookmaking generally. It seems to me that there is one side to which my hon. friend did not refer, and that was the evidence pointing out the fact that the thoroughbred horse is the fountain of light-horse breeding. I concur in the remark of my hon. friend from West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) that my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) was not fair in the evidence he submitted this afternoon. When he quoted the evidence of the veterinary director general, Dr. Rutherford, as favourable to the passing of this Bill, I am inclined to the view', from a very careful perusal of that evidence, and from having had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Rutherford when he was before the committee, that Dr. Rutherford's evidence was conclusive that the passage of this Bill would affect, and affect seriously, a very important industry in this country. I desire to quote from Dr. Rutherford's evidence, and I shall not take a clause here and a clause there as it may support the theory I hold
or help out the argument I desire to present, but I shall quote from the beginning. Mr. Moss, who was the solicitor representing the horse breeders' associations, conducted the examination of Dr. Rutherford as follows:
Q. What is your position?-A. I am veterinary director general and live stock commissioner.
Q. Of Canada?-A. Yes.
And let me say that Dr. Rutherford does not possess any interest in any jockey club in this country, he has no financial interest in breeding, and, holding the high and important position he does, he would give an unbiassed opinion upon the question which we are considering this afternoon:
Q. How long have you occupied that position?-A. I have been veterinary director general for nearly eight years, not always by that title, and I have been live stock commissioner for three years and a half.
Q. And previous to that did you have experience in horse-breeding?-A. Yes.
Q. I understand, to shorten the matter up, that you have had experience in that business all your life both in the old country and on this side of the Atlantic, and perhaps you will indicate briefly just what that experience is? -A. Well of course I have been connected with horses all my life. I have been a veterinary surgeon for upwards of thirty years. I was for neafly two years manager of a very large racing and breeding establishment in the United States. I have been connected with horse-breeding. I was for five years president of the Horse Breeders' Association of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. I have bred a number or horses myself and have always taken a great interest in the subject.	. ,	.
Q. At the present time you have no interest -no financial or other interest-in any racing track or anything of that sort?-A. None whatever.
Q. What do you say, Dr. Rutherford, I am going to ask you the question broadly, as' to the importance or otherwise of the thoroughbred in connection with the horse-breeding industries of the country?-A. The thoroughbred horse is the foundation of all light horse breeding. Without the thoroughbred horse you can have no really good light horse breeding.
Q. Will you explain a little more fully what you mean by that?-A. Well all our breeds of light horses, with the exception of some of the breeds of ponies in which it cannot be traced, owe their best qualities to the thoroughbred horse. The American bred horse for instance is descended direct from the English thoroughbred Messenger imported during the latter part of the eighteenth century. The Hackney horse owes its best quality to the thoroughbred horse. The great progenitor of the hackneys was a thoroughbred horse also imported about the same time, a horse called Blaze. Take the various breeds of coach horses, both British and continental and they have all been built up by the use of a very strong infusion of thoroughbred blood. The common horses in the country, the half-

breed horses that are for hunting and military purposes in all countries in the world, m the present day owe their best qualities- their excellences, their endurance, their strength and their courage to the use of the thoroughbred blood.
Then, at page 13:
Q. In your opinion is Canada a country that ought to develop a large light horse breeding industry ?-A. Yes.
Q. Is it suitable for that purpose?-A. Very suitable.
Q. In what regard, Dr. Rutherford, would you explain that more clearly?-A. Well-
Q. I mean that is your opinion, now give us the reasons for that opinion?-A. Well, we breed in Canada at the present time a very large number of light legged horses, but there are many, a majority of those horses, useless nondescripts, because insufficient care and attention is being devoted to the selection of proper sires for use on the common mares of the country. If we were to use more thoroughbred blood in this country we would have an infinitely better class of light horses for general use. Not only that, we would be doing our share in furnishing our quota of the horses required for military purposes in the event of the empire being engaged in war. That we are not doing at the present time. JBut we found that there were purchased in the United States during the Boer war something like 113,000 odd horses and mules; they bought in Austria-Hungary a very large number, they bought in Italy, they bought in opam, they bought in Argentine, they bought wherever they could buy because the Boer republic not being a sovereign power there was no objection on the part of neutral powers to allow the purchase by the British war office of horses in those countries, except on the part of the United States, which, towards the close of the war, summarily ejected the agents of the British war office and told them they must get out of the country and must not come back any more. The other countries however, raised no objection. If this republic had been a sovereign power, Great Britain would have been unable to purchase horses except in her own territory or in that of an ally or friendly nation, with the result that the 800,000 odd horses which were used up in the Boer war^ would not have been available and the empire would have been seriously crippled.
Dr. Rutherford, speaking on the question of the development of thoroughbreds, also states:
Q. Then is the maintenance of racing necessary to maintain the supply of thoroughbreds?-A. I think it is, absolutely.
I might also quote Mr. Duncan McEach-ern upon the same point, I might also quote Mr. A. E. Dyment, men which have no financial interest, and are qualified to express an opinion on this question, to back up the evidence submitted by Dr. Rutherford, the veterinary surgeon, and live stock commissioner of this Dominion. Their evidence seems to me almost conclusive that the thoroughbred horse is an important
Ul- Wilcox.
horse, and that he cannot be developed to his best without racing. It would take a great deal to convince me that such is not the fact, because I have bred horses myself. I have to-day on my own farm, horses that furnish living evidence of the truth of Dr. Rutherford's testimony, so it will take a great deal to convince me that the breeding of light 'horses in this country is not largely dependent upon thoroughbred horses. I may say that I have never in my life attended the race-track, I have never registered a bet with a book-maker in my life. But from the evidence I have seen of the evil which is caused by racetrack gambling, I think the situation could be met by an amendment which will be submitted to this Bill. We are in favour of this Bill with one exception. We believe in doing away with the hand-book, we believe in doing away with the communication from the track, but we ask that, as the Bill does not prevent individual betting, it shall simply provide the means of regulating betting. There is no other means, to my mind, that can be adopted to regulate betting without permitting the book-maker to operate upon the track for the number of days which the race is allowed to be carried on. Now let me read one or two communications from the most prominent business men we have in the city of Windsor. Windsor has a population of 17,000 people, and we have had one of those meetings 'successfully carried on there for the last ten years.;


Mr.   O@: Wilcox, M.P., Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-As a citizen and business man of Windsor and one who has had considerable experience with the Windsor Racing Association in a business and pleasure capacity, I beg to voice my sentiments in favour of the continuance of this favourable sport. I do not believe there is any organization in Canada to-day that is more exacting and strict in enforcing their code of rules than the Windsor Racing Association. As far as I could observe the meetings have been carried out in the most decorous manner. Drunkenness, rowdyism or anything of this nature. I can safely say would not be tolerated for a moment. In conclusion I feel it only just as a florist to commend the association for the beautiful and well kept grounds and flower beds. The business effect of the meetings is certainly beneficial to Windsor merchants. I am well informed that many thousands of dollars are spent daily in our city to maintain the supplies requisite to the life of men and horses, and as a great deal of our money finds its way to Detroit for pleasure it is indeed a good feature to have something in our city that at least results in bringing some business to our merchants.
I could quote many communications of that nature. Now I desire to read an extract from the Windsor ' Record,' a paper published in the city of Windsor, and which is a leading paper in the county of Essex.

This paper has been in existence in Windsor for a great many years, and I have always known it to oppose anything which is injurious to the public interest. Here is what it says in respect to this particular Bill, in its issue of March 18:
Evils, as they exist in all walks of life, can sometimes, by judicious legislation, be regulated, but not entirely suppressed, without great injustice, and this method is what is required in Canada, so far as protracted race meetings are concerned.	'
Reflecting men who know of what they speak express the view that the most direct and effective way to ultimate reform would be to materially shorten the meetings, as well of course as to cut out some other admittedly objectionable features.
Were this done it is probable that public opinion would be satisfied to live and let live. There is no doubt that all clubs have raced too much and some of them have far exceeded the limits of what should be a recreation and a healthy sport; but no fair-minded person can honestly say that that is just and suf-ficent grounds for imposing legislation which will seriously cripple a very important industry of Canada, that of horse-breeding.
One thing is clear to the mind disposed to a reasonable view of the question-it is impossible to have race-meetings without some book-making, and if this feature were suppressed it would simply lead to a condition of evasion such as exists in New York, as clearly appears from the evidence given before the select committee by the officers of the law from that state, as well as the testimony of other reputable witnesses who have been present at race-meetings there, and who have seen betting with unlicensed book-makers going on on every hand, with posters stuck up all over the grounds: ' Betting Prohibited.' In short the Hughes law has largely failed to accomplish what was expected of it, another proof that prohibition does not prohibit and that there are more rational methods of reducing evils of this sort. All will admit, however, that the pool-room and the_ selling of tips should be absolutely prohibited. If this were done much of the evil justly complained of would be eliminated from the race-track.
So far as concerns Windsor, a place which has had a long and intimate experience with the race-track, there are no complaints. The peace does not suffer to a noticeable extent from the periodical presence of the vast racing colony, and the business of the police court derives no stimulus therefrom. On the contrary these events bring an immense material benefit to the city, stimulating every line of commerce, and it is doubtful if there is a business man in the city who would advocate abolition.
That editorial appeared in the leading newspaper of Windsor. I have, as I stated, petitions from nearly 600 representative agriculturists and business men asking that this Bill be not passed in its entirety. We are perfectly willing to amend the law, and will vote to amend it, but we do think that it would be reasonable to place in the Bill an amendment which would not
entirely eliminate that favourite sport. I would quote also from the evidence of John Bender at page 309:	,


Through Dr.   J@: Pender, called, sworn and examined.
By Mr. Meredith:
Q. What is your position, Mr. Pender?-A. I am the assistant superintendent of Pinkerton's International Detective Agency.
Q. The Pinkertons' International Detective Agency has ' offices in Canada and in the United States?-A. Yes, we have 21 offices all over the country.
Q. You have 21 offices?-A. Yes.
Q. Has your agency made rather a specialty of the work of detecting gambling on the track and crime of different kinds?-A. We police and control every first-class race-track on this continent.
Q. Now you have an office iu Montreal?-A. Yes.
Q. The head office in Canada?-A. Yes.
Q. Have you had occasion to personally visit the different tracks in Canada and in the United States, especially in the United States?-A. I have visited the principal tracks in a professional capacity of the United States and I have also been superintendent of the track at Blue Bonnets.
Q. Now, have you had occasion to visit the tracks in New York since the passing of the Hughes' law?-A. I have.
Q. Will you tell the committee iu as few words as possible the effect of the Hughes' law on the attendance, and the class of people attending, &c.-A. As figured by the receipts of the different racing associations. I understand that the figures are that in 1907 prior to the passage of the Hughes' Bill the receipts
of the race-track

By Mr. Raney:
Q. The witness says he understands, could he he a little more definite?-A. Well, it is the published figures given by the controller of the state.
Mr. Raney.-I just want to call attention to this kind of evidence that is all, I am not objecting to it, you understand, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.-The committee will hear it.
A. The figures of the controller show that from the tax they paid into the state the receipts in 1907 were $4,000,000, and the receipts
in 1908, the first year

By Mr. Raney:
Q. The receipts for what?-A. The figures I gave were the gate receipts for all the tracks in the state of New York for 1907. In 1908, the Hughes' Bill had just become operative in that year, the gate receipts were $1,500,000, but the receipts for last year had dwindled down to $600,000.
By Mr. Meredith:
Q. As to the class of people attending before and after the Hughes' Bill passing?-A. The class of people who patronize the track has always been very good, but now we are left with a very poor run.
Q. And wbat have you to say as to the class of horses?-A. The class. of horses has much deterioriated, all the good horses practically have been shipped abroad.
Q. And how about the purses?-A. The purses are much smaller.
Q. And what effect has the Hughes' Bill had on the betting? Would you tell the commit-

tee from your personal observation what effect it has bad on that?-A. In proportion to the population there is just as much money bet now as ever there was, that is in my judgment.
Q. Does the betting go on on the racecourse as formerly, or in other ways?-A. It goes on in a new form, they have what they call the oral betting.
Q. And is the new form of betting worse or better than it was before the Hughes' Bill became operative, in your opinion?-A. In my opinion it is much worse.
Q. What effect has it had on the pool-rooms and the hand-boot men and that kind of thing, has it increased their facilities or lessened them in your opinion?-A. It has resulted in a very decided increase among the pool-rooms, particularly in New York city.
Q. Now does your agency act in the different cities in Canada for large corporations, large companies ?-A. It does.
Q. And does it act similarly in the United States, I do not want to go into particulars? -A. Yes.
Q. And if there is a Bill before this committee which allows apparently according to the understanding of the chairman at all events, individual amateur betting on the race-course, but will have the effect of prohibiting licensed book-makers on chartered race-courses, would you state your opinion as to what will_ result if such a' law is passed ? v\ ill it ameliorate the so-called moral evil, or will it increase it?-A. In my opinion it will increase it.
It seems to me that we can attach some weight to that evidence. It is that of a man who is acting in the capacity of a detective, whose duty it is to see that the law is lived up to, and when he came before our committee, and gave evidence to the effect that the passing of the Hughes law, or the passing of this Bill in its present shape, would make conditions worse than they are to-day, it seems to me that we should consider our course carefully.
I desire to place on 'Hansard' a clause of the petition which I have received from nearly 600 of the residents in and around the city of Windsor where the Windsor races are carried on. This petition says in part:
There is a race-course in the township of Sandwich West in this county, equipped iln first-class condition in every respect, and everything is conducted in a manner to recommend it to the public. To the farmers of the county the races conducted there are of great value by affording a ready cash market, at best prices, for their produce and at a time when it is needed.
And that petition is signed by nearly 400 farmers right in the vicinity where that race-meet is carried on. The petition continues:
It is intended to use the race-track premises for an annual agricultural exhibition, and if racing is impaired the premises cannot be obtained for that purpose.


Oliver James Wilcox: I desire to refer to some of the statements of the learned gentleman who appeared in support of the Bill, Mr. Eaney. I am not a lawyer, I am a layman, but I always understood it was the duty of a lawyer to do his work to the best of his ability for his client. I would be inclined to the view that Mr. Raney would not be doing his duty if he did not do his utmost for his clients in this case, and I believe he did. I understand that when in any case of law a solicitor finds upon the private examination of a witness that the witness is going to give evidence that is not in favour of his case, the solicitor wrould be likely to say to the witness:	Go home, I do not
think I will need you. The point I am coming to is this:	In the argument issued
by Mr. Raney-and with due regard to that gentleman, if I were a solicitor probably I would have done exactly as he did, but I doubt it-in Mr. Raney's argument at page 13 which he published in February, 1910 under the heading Fort Erie and Windsor, he makes this statement:-
The men who control these tracks have been careful to keep themselves and their account books and their money books away from this committee.
Now, Mr. Hanrahan, the secretary of the Windsor Track Association was present and Mr. Raney examined the books of Mr. Hanrahan, and he received such information from them that he told Mr. Hanrahan to go home, that he would not need him to give evidence, and that notwithstanding the fact that he himself had subpoenaed him to Ottawa. And, after receiving that information Mr. Raney in this argument made statements that are absolutely contradicted by the information given to him by Mr. Hanrahan.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Perhaps that is what he calls social reform.


Oliver James Wilcox: Possibly it is. Mr. Ranev made this statement:-
The men who control these tracks have been careful to keep themselves and their account boobs and their money books away from this committee. Being foreigners they are not personally amenable to the jurisdiction of this committee.
Now, the fact is that the original shareholders of the Windsor Fair Grounds and Driving Park Association were a number of residents of Windsor, Walkerville and Sandwich, among whom were such men as W. J. McKee, ex-M.P.

he was very nearly being a real M.P.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: A miss is as good as a mile.


Oliver James Wilcox: Yes. The original shareholders comprised such men as W. J. McKee, Francis Cleary, ex-mayor of Windsor, F. H. Walker, of Hiram Walker & Sons,


Hon.  J. C.@: 
Oliver James Wilcox: Mr. Speaker, before recess I was speaking of the men who own, and control the Windsor race-track. They are W. J. McKee, ex-Member Parliament, W. J. Pulling, E. S. Wigle, and J. A. McKay, all of Windsor, Ontario., W. O. Parmer and George M. Hendrie. Mr. Raney, in his argument, states that this track is owned and controlled by refugees from the other side. I desire to say that you cannot find within the confines of this Dominion any better citizens than the men whose names I have just mentioned. At page 33 of Mr. Raney's argument, he says:
The facts, so far as the trotting association are concerned, being thus reduced to a negligible quantity, there is nothing to argue about under this heading, and we may dismiss the trotting horseman.
During the years 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1909 the trotting meet in Windsor received from the book-makers $19,747, and paid out in purses $31,815. These purses could not have been paid had it not been that bookmaking, and betting were allowed on the track, and if book-making is prevented, it will certainly do 'away with these races. In Mr. Raney's argument in pamphlet No. 2, he states, at page 8, under the heading ' No Argument from Fort Erie or Windsor,' as follows:
The Windsor track has been operated by the Highland Park Club of Detroit since the prosecutions instituted by the district attorney in 1906, which put an end to its gambling operations at the Highland Park track out Woodward avenue.
From the very best information that I can get on the subject, I am inclined to the view that Mr. Raney is entirely mistaken. It is stated that the lease of the Highland Park Club expired on the 1st of May, 1906, and a renewal could not be obtained. On March 23, 1910, Mr. George H.
Hendrie received the following communication:
DeaT Sir,-In reply to your inquiry, would say that the lease of lots 6, 7, and 8 of section C." of quarter-section 4, 10,000 acre tract, between the trustees of the estate of the W. H. Stevens and Highland Park club expired on the first day of May, 1906, and that under the conditions of said lease or agreement said club had a right to remove the buildings situated thereon, and I am informed and believe they did remove the same during the fall and winter of 1905 and 1906. The premises above described were commonly known as the Highland Park club. I may add that after the lease expired the property was placed upon the market for sale.
So that it would appear that Mr. Raney's statement to the effect that this track was operated by Americans, and that they were compelled to move to this side because certain laws were passed on the other side, is not based upon facts. Upon page 7 of the printed proceedings of the committee, Mr. Raney states:
There is a broad line of demarcation separating these tracks into two classes, and I may perhaps classify them in this way; on the one 6ide of the line are the Woodbine, the Montreal track and the Hamilton track. On the other side of the line of demarcation are the Fort Erie track, the Windsor track, the British Columbia track. These tracks are divided, as I say, by a line of demarcation, and I will define at once what that line of demarcation is. To illustrate it, I will refer to two tracks-the Woodbine on the one side and the Fort Erie on the other as types of these two classes. Now the Woodbine race meet is essentially a social and sporting event, attracting many of the best people of Canada, with race-track hook-making as an attraction and as a principal financial support.
Further on Mr. Raney states:
The evidence will show that the attendance at these tracks, especially Windsor and Fort Erie, is from 79 to 75 per cent American, the managament entirely American.
I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that that statement is not in accordance with the facts. The Windsor track is operated, and controlled by Canadians exactly as the Woodbine track is owned, and controlled by Canadians. Mr. Raney says that * the Woodbine race-meet is essentially a social and a sporting event,' so is the race-meet at Windsor. With regard to the provisions of this Bill, I am inclined to the view that if it is not amended in some respects, the operation of it will be very much like an amendment that was made a few years ago in the Ontario Agriculture and Arts Act. I had the privilege of acting in the capacity of one of the executive officers of the Association of Fairs and Exhibitions a few years ago, when there was a good deal of argument upon this very question. A clause had been placed in the Ontario Agriculture and Arts Act prohibiting rac-

mg at agricultural fairs throughout the province, of which there are 367. The Act provided that any agricultural society which held a race-meet at its agricultural show, contrary to the provisions of the Act, would not receive the government grant. Well, Sir, there is not an agricultural society in the province of Ontario to-day that does not hold exactly the same race-meet at its annual exhibition that it did previous to the passing of that Act. The mafiage-ment of those fairs simply insisted on adding what they called ' trials of speed,' but which were really race-meets. So that the very same racing which was carried on previous to that legislation is carried on today; and we may conclude that public opinion in this country is so strongly in favour of horse-racing that the provisions of this Bill, if adopted, will be evaded in some such way.
In conclusion I wish to read a statement from the chief of police of the city of Windsor :
I hereby beg to 6tate that the horse races at the Windsor Racing Association's race track, have been conducted in a proper and orderly manner. I have frequently visited such races with the view chiefly of obtaining a knowledge of the people who attended there, the manner in which they behaved and of the way dn which the races were conducted in general. I have also, at various times, visited the fairs held at Toronto, Ottawa and other places, and to my knowledge, from such observations, the people who have attended the races here behaved themselves equally as well as those who attended the fairs, and in all, I have to state that the race meetings were as orderly and fully a9 well conducted as the fair meetings. Furthermore I have to state that during the race meetings here an average of 3,000 people attended the races daily, yet tho records of the police department show that the number of offences committed in Windsor during any such race meetings is not in excess of the number committed in any similar period of time when races were not held here.


E. WILLS,
[Stage Direction]
Chief of police.
While I am entirely in sympathy with the moral reform association, which has made its influence felt upon this question, I am inclined to the view that the legislation proposed goes just a little too" far. There have been, in my opinion, excesses under the present law, I believe there is a certain amount of disorder which should be prevented, and I believe it would be possible to amend that law so that these abuses would be avoided, and at the same time certain very important interests in the country would not be injuriously affected, the ends of sport met, and a very great improvement brought out in the direction in which my hon. friend from South Grey seeks to legislate. But I am at the same time strongly of the opinion that if Mr. WILCOX.
our young men and women will not be guided by Christian teaching and moral ethics, it will be impossible to make them respect such teaching and ethics and control their acts by legislation. While I am in favour of the principle of the Bill in many respects, I would desire to see an amendment adopted which would not entirely eliminate those meetings, and having due regard for all the interests connected with the matter I believe that is the proper course to take.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).: As one of the members of the committee who supported the measure, I consider it my duty to give reasons for the course I have taken. At the outset I want to make myself perfectly plain with respect to one aspect of the Bill which, I believe, is appealing to a good many who are opposing it. I refer to the question of the rights of the private bettor. I am absolutely in favour of some amendment which will make it certain that these rights will not be interfered with, first because such legislation would be an unwarranted interference with private rights, and secondly because such a law could not be enforced. There is an amendment proposed in the committee by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McColl) providing for the protection of the private bettor, but, in my opinion, that would have rendered the whole purpose of this Bill void, and for that reason it was opposed in the committee. But if any amendment can be suggested to protect the private bettor, I shall be in favour of it. I do not think that this Bill will interfere seriously with these rights. I know that the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) gave an opinion, on the second reading, to the effect that the Bill might interfere with these rights, but I cannot share that view. At the same time I should be in favour of an amendment which would protect the private bettor without destroying the Bill.
In discussing this measure, there is no need to enter into the question whether betting in itself is wrong or right. The only question to my mind is whether we are in favour of permitting book-makers to operate on race tracks. If I understand the principle of the English law which was acted on bv this House in 1892, when it passed the Criminal Code, the motive which led to the passing of these measures was the belief that the business of book-making on race-tracks created an appetite for gambling. I have heard it stated by an hon. gentleman that it was in the nature of the Anglo-Saxon to bet. I believe that statement will be found in the evidence. Well, the book-maker caters to that appetite and becomes a public nuisance; and as soon as that stage is reached, it is the

duty of parliament to prevent that business being carried on at the various race-tracks.
My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. McColl) said that the promoters of the Bill were attempting to interfere with an innocent pastime.. For my part, I have always been in favour of innocent pastimes, but I do not favour a pastime when it degenerates into professionalism. Horse racing, as practised in Ontario and other parts of Canada, has simply become professionalism. There is no desire on the part of those who support this measure to interfere with legitimate sports. My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. McColl) argued that Japan had abolished betting on the race-course and book-making, and after one year's experience had gone back to the old system. Now, the state of affairs in Japan is not that conveyed by the remarks of that hon. member. I have here the weekly report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for March 14, 1910, and, for the purpose of putting this question right, I read a brief extract from that report:
The government of Japan realizing that their cavalry was not as effective as it should have been during the Russian war, and that the main cause was the unsuitable class of horses used, has been trying to improve breeding by encouragement in several ways. Until 1907, the race clubs in Japan were very successful. They used the ' pari-mutuel' system of betting and large profits were made. In consequence of this, numbers of thoroughbreds, stallions and mares were brought into the country for the meets, and with the exception of the best, were all sold ultimately for very low prices. In this way the Japanese farmers obtained a great number of good horses very cheaply, with the result that through the country the improved results in breeding can already be seen1. However, in 1907, the authorities deemed it wise to forbid gambling of any kind at race meets. The race clubs are now in a bad position financially, but at the same time the government recognized the value of these clubs and the service they were doing in improving the breeding. This year several of the largest clubs are receiving a subsidy in order that they may continue importing thoroughbreds and Australian mares.
If this statement means anything, it means that the government of Japan, rather than go back to the old system of the book-maker, and betting on the racetrack, is willing to give subsidies to the race-meet in order to develop the horsebreeding industry.


John B. McColl: If the hon. member (Mr. W. M. Martin) will refer to the evidence of Major William Hendrie, of Hamilton, he will see that it appeared from that evidence that what the Japanese government had done was to appoint a commission to visit the different countries of Europe to
ascertain the systems of conducting their race-tracks with a view of introducing some system of betting upon the tracks in Japan.


William Melville Martin: Now, the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) devoted a considerable part of his remarks to a defence of the Windsor Racing Association. I may say, as a member of the committee, that efforts were made by persons appearing before the comfnittee in support of the Bill to get some one representing the Windsor Racing Association to appear before the committee, and give u3 evidence as to their dealings on that racetrack, but we were not successful; no one appeared. Consequently, we have no information about that association, we have no statement of its financial operations such as we have concerning the Hamilton Jockey Club, and the Ontario Jockey Club. Our only course then, is to class that track among more doubtful race-tracks of Ontario.
Let me refer to some of the main contentions put forward by men opposing the Bill. The first contention, as any one will see who takes the trouble to read the evidence, is that the thoroughbred strain is important in developing the breed of horses. That was admitted by the committee after the first evidence had been put in. There seemed to be no dispute on the point. The second proposition was that racing is necessary if the breed of horses is to be improved; the race-course furnishes the indispensable test by which the relative merit of different strains of blood can be ascertained. This proposition is probably correct, though, on the evidence brought before us, only partially correct. It is correct if you mean the development of mere race horses, for a certain amount of evidence was given before the committee to show that the present system of racing was not really a proper test, and further evidence was given which would go to show that the racing of horses on the track leads to the development of what has been called an ' attenuated racing machine ' and nothing toward the development of the general utility horse of the country. The third proposition put forward is that bookmaking is necessary to maintain racing; without it purses would not be sufficient to encourage breeding, for the revenue derived from the book-makers would cease, and gate receipts would greatly diminish. With that proposition, I, as a member of the committee, could not agree, because evidence was put before us to prove, and we all know as a matter of fact, that horseracing was carried on successfully in Ontario, and other parts of Canada before the book-maker came into existence, and the same is true of England. Furthermore,

horse-racing is carried on in certain provinces of Canada to-day without the aid of the book-maker. I understand, from the evidence given by a man who came from Nova Scotia that there is no such thing as a book-maker operating in that province, and his evidence would lead me to believe that horse-racing is successfully carried on, and that they have as good horses in Nova Scotia as in any other province of the Dominiojp
One peculiar feature of the opposition to the Bill which struck me, was that there was not a solitary farmer, or any representative of a farmers' organization who appeared before the committee to oppose the passing of the Bill. On 'the. contrary^ every man appearing before the committee whom you could count as representing the farmer's interest favoured the Bill. And every farm journal in the province of Ontario, so far as I have been able to find out, is in favour of the Bill. In order to show to the House my position on this phase of the argument, I am forced to ask the indulgence of the House while I read two or three extracts from different farming papers, and also from the evidence. The ' Farmer's Advocate ' of December 16, 1909, said:
An anti-gambling Bill has been introduced into the Dominion House of Commons by H. H. Miller, M.P. for South Grey, one of the members of the House of Commons who seem to esteem it their duty to represent the agricultural community. The Bill has been sent on to a special committee, where the old, exploded arguments are being brought up that book-making i9 necessary to maintain racing, and that racing is necessary to encourage horse-breeding. More absurd fallacies have rarely been offered for the public to swallow. In the first place, it is not true that racing is necessary to improve the breed of horses. On the contrary, it has probably done more to injure two breeds than it has done to improve them. It has converted the standard-bred or the stock from which it has sprung, into an attenuated racing rachine, not nearly so valuable for utility purposes as though it had been bred with more regard to conformation and scale. Undoubtedly, racing focussed early attention upon the breeding of the blood horse, and perhaps helped to develop it by the selection of the fittest, but here again, has it not tended to produce a race of weedy, hot-tempered, and dubiously useful stock? What has racing done to improve the breed of Clydesdales, shires, hackneys, or, in fact, any of our most useful breeds?
And ' Farm and Dairy ' of December 23rd says:
The Bill does not make any attempt to interfere with private betting, but only with the business of book-making and pool-selling. Opposition is being raised to it on the ground that it will tend to discourage the breeding of good horses, the claim being advanced that horse-racing cannot be conducted successfully without book-making.


William Melville Martin: As far as the farmers of the Dominion are concerned, ten have been injured to one that has been benefited by attempting to raise fast horses. The enormous expense that is involved in the handling of those animals makes it an impossibility for the average farmer to raise such horses with success. Efforts to encourage farmers to raise this class of horse should be discouraged rather than encouraged.
And the ' Weekly Sun ', of Toronto, of December 15th last, says:
It may be that the maintenance of race meets is necessary if the breeding of horses of the kind used at these meets is to be kept up. But no really useful purpose is served by breeding horses of that class.
The rest of the article corroborates that which I have quoted from ' Farm and Dairy '. With respect to the men who represented the farming interest, and who gave evidence before the committee, I need only mention three names, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), Senator Do'uglas, of Saskatchwan, and Mr. Peter Christie, from South Ontario. These men expressed the opinion that the passing of this measure would not injure horse-breeding in this country. I will refer first to the evidence of the Minister of Agriculture on that subject. He said:
Although I am not w'hat would be called a freciuenter of race-tracks, still I see the racehorses of the country pretty frequently and in various ways, and my observations of the race-horse, as trained and raised in Canada, is that the large majority of them do not fulfil this condition which I think is necessary for the improvement of stock in Canada, that the large majority of them are weedy in character and fitted only for speed, and that the use of such animals for the improvement of our breeding stock is not likely to be conducive to its improvement. There are thoroughbred horses in Canada which would improve that stock very much. Some of them may be race-horses, but the class of animal that I would like to see introduced into Canada for the purpose of improving the mares of the country for breeding purposes is the stamp of horse to which the King's prizes are given in England, a horse which very seldom goes on to the race-track and is not considered by the racing men, and the men who breed thoroughbreds for racing purposes, at all a style of stallion which they want and which they use.
Then there is the evidence of Senator Douglas, to which I need not refer. I have said that he was of the opinion that the passing of this Bill would not interfere with horse-breeding. Now the evidence of Mr. Peter Christie is very important along this line, because it goes to show that in his experience no farmer who ever had anything to do with thoroughbred horse-breeding ever made any money out of it, and his experience was that the breeding of the ordinary mares to thoroughbred horses had not developed the ordinary farm utility

horses to the advantage of the farmers oi the country. I will read an extract from Mr. Christie's evidence:
Will you tell me what your view is as to the relation of the thoroughbred to horsebreeding in general as an economic factor and from the farmer's point of view?-A. From the farmer's point of view, I do not think he ever wants to go into racing thoroughbreds, because a farmer in my county at least does not farm for fun. He wants to make money out of it, and my experience and my knowledge of my surroundings is that the draught horse, the Clyde horse, is the profitable horse for a farmer to raise.
Q. You say that the farmer does not want to go into the raising of thoroughbreds. Do you mean that it is not a profitable business to breed his mares to thoroughbred sires?- A. No, sir, I could not.
Then he goes on to say:
What is the experience of the farmer who has raised animals of this class, thoroughbred animals, so far as the price he gets for them is concerned?-A. If he happens to get a good one he will perhaps get a good price for it, but the difficulty I have noticed is that they only get a seller perhaps one ill five or six that will bring a big price, and then the ones that won't bring a good price is not nearly as good a horse for the farm as if he had been a Clyde or a draught horse.
Q. Then if there is a good price paid for that horse is it the farmer or the middleman who gets it?-A. My experience is that the farmer don't get the good price, it is the middle fellow, we call him the sporting fellow, who maka9 his living out of that sort of thing.
Now, it seems to me that if the passage of this Bill would be such a menace to the horse-breeding interests of the country, surely some farmer, or some farmers' organization interested in the development of horses, would have appeared before the committee to protest against the Bill. We find that the opposite is the -case. Every man who spoke for the farmers, spoke in favour of the Bill.
A great deal is made out of the argument that by passing this measure you will interfere with large vested interests. Let us see for a moment what those vested interests are. They divide themselves into two clases. The first vested interest is that of the race-track, and the grand-stand, or what you might call the *whole racing plant. Secondly, there is the money that has been invested by horse-breeders in thoroughbred horses and racing horses. There are a number of men in the province of Ontario and in other provinces of Canada who have invested money in the purchase of good stock with which to develop race horses. So we have those two classes of vested interests to deal with. Now, so 'far as the first class is concerned, I do not believe the passing of this measure will interfere to such an extent with vested interests as was stated by some of
the horsemen before the committee. But, granted that it will interfere with the money invested in race-track and racing plants, what do we find to be the fact with respect to these vested interests? As I have said, we have no financial statements from any of -the jockey clubs except those of Hamilton and Toronto. If you look on pages 93 and 94 of the evidence, at the evidence of the secretary of the Hamilton Jockey Club, Mr. Loudon, you will find that they had an actual investment of some $4,000. According to his statement, the assets of the club are now worth $175,000, with $50,000 cash in the bank after a very few years of operation. Now, in respect to the Hamilton Jockey Club, there was some hint before the committee that a large amount of money was invested by men in Hamilton prior to the organization of this jockey club, but there is no definite evidence on the subject, and I am forced to accept the evidence of Mr. Loudon on page 93. We find that from a total investment of $4,000 in this club, their assets have grown to an amount of $225,000 in a very short period of time. Then we find that the receipts of the club in the year 1909 were made up as follows: Gate receipts, $59,405; advance information, $78,800; the bar, $3,850, making the total receipts under these three heads of about $140,000. They paid in purses, $79,850, in 1909. In the Ontario Jockey Club we find a somewhat similar condition of affairs. The total paid-up stock is $10,000. Their net surplus, according to a statement produced before the committee by their secretary, is $337,846, and that is taking the property of the club at its actual cost. I have heard the property estimated at various amounts, but I think a fair valuation is about $500,000. Now suppose that, by the passage of this Bill, these racing clubs were put out of business, to what extent would it interfere with vested interests? Their property can be sold for everything it has cost, and the land itself can probably be sold for twenty times what it originally cost. _ I submit there is no argument at all in the cry that vested interests will be injured, so far as the money put into these race-tracks is concerned. Then there is the other side of the vested interest question, that is, the horse breeders' side. Now so far as I am concerned, and I am sure that is the opinion of every supporter of this Bill, we would be sorry to think that men who have invested money in thoroughbred horses would be put out of business by the passage of this Bill. But I do not think they will, because as I stated a few minutes ago, horse-racing existed long before bookmaking, and perhaps in a more healthy condition than at present. The majority of horse-breeders in Ontario and the other provinces, particularly in Manitoba,

who appeared before the committee, agreed in saying that if the Bill passed, they would1 all close their stables. I would be very sorry to think that such a result would follow the passing of this measure. I find, however, there was one horseman, the Hon. Adam Beck, of London, who said that he1 would not close his stables if the Bill passed. I will read his evidence on the question:
One or two horsemen have given evidence that if professional book-making were stopped on the race tracks they would close their stables for breeding, would you go as far a9 that yourself?-A. No, I would not say I would go as far as that, that is entirely a matter of whether a man is in it for gain or not. You cannot expect people to do anything for fun any more in horse-breeding than you can in anything else. Farmers are not breeding horses for fun but to make money out of it.
There is this fact, however, to be considered. Most of the horsemen who gave evidence before the committee, and others with whom I have conversed, say that there is no money in breeding horses. So, if there is no money in the business, who can be hurt to any great extent by the passing of this Bill?
Now a great deal was made out of the argument of the committee by lawyers representing the racing associations, that in the state of New York the price of race-horses has gone very low, the price of thoroughbred horses is very much depreciated since the passing of the Hughes law. On that point Hon. Adam Beck did not seem to agree with his fellow horsemen: He said:
Q. Do you know whether, since what is known as the Hughes1 law was passed, there has been any depreciation in value of the' first quality of thoroughbred horses in New York State?-A. The first quality.
Q. Yes.-A. Probably the first quality of horses of any breed at the present time is as high as I have ever known it to be in all countries.
* Q. I am told that the first quality of thoroughbred horses in New York state commands to-day a higher price than ever before. -A. That is probably correct.
Q. Then it is said that some stables in New York state have been closed as a result of the Hughes1 law.-A. I know nothing about that.
So, whether the Hughes law in New York state has had anything to do with the price of horses there we are unable to say, but it is in evidence that the price of that class of horses in New York is as high at present as ever it was. It is a question in my mind, in fact. I am rather inclined to the opinion that a race-horse that is sold for some $10,000 has a fictitious value. No horse in my opinion-although I cannot speak as a horseman-can be said to have an economic value such as $10,000. It may have that value -on account of Mr. W. M. MARTIN.
its earning power in winning races. It is always questionable whether a fictitious value of anything is a good thing.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Has my hon. friend ever heard of a cow being said for $20,000? Is that a fictitious value?


William Melville Martin: From the actual earning power of a cow that would be a high price.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Lots of them are sold at that price.


William Findlay Maclean: 
William Melville Martin: That bears out one argument I was advancing that a horse has a fictitious value on account of its power of winning victories on the racetrack.


William Findlay Maclean: It was to improve the breed of horses in the countries to which they were taken.


William Melville Martin: I am quite satisfied to let my hon. friend purchase any of these horses at that figure. The question of vested interests so far as the money invested in horses is concerned, resolves itself into a very small one, for you must admit that the thoroughbred interest in Ontario and Canada is very small, and the number of men who would be affected by this legislation, if it were to have such an effect as is suggested, would be veTy small. In Ontario, according to the report of a commission appointed by the Ontario government in 1906 to investigate the question of the licensing of stallions, there were only 78 thoroughbred stallions in the province, or 3 per cent of the entire number of stallions. There were only 2,273 thoroughbred mares in the province, or 11 per cent of the entire number. Thus racing in Canada since the establishment of the Queen's plate in 1861 has not done much to develop the thoroughbred interests if we judge by the number now in Canada. I am informed that a similar condition of affairs.: exists in the United Kingdom. A year-book published in 1910 bv the 'Live Stock Journal1, the leading live stock paper of Great Britain, contains an article entitled 'Horses for the Army', in which it says:

There can be no doubt that horse-breeding has been declining for some years in the United Kingdom.
Both in this country and in England races have been .carried on under the good influences of the book-maker during all these years. I have shown you what has been done in Ontario since 1861 towards increasing the number of thoroughbreds, and to show that in England racing has not done very much to develop the breed of horses I have quoted this article which says that the breeding has been declining for some years there.
The question of whether betting in itself is right or wrong is not before the House with respect to this measure, it is merely a question of whether we consider that a public evil exists in connection with the present practices on race-tracks, and whether we are in duty bound to protect as far as possible the public from that evil, if it is to be so considered. I agree to a great extent with what may be said by many members who think that if a man wants to bet he should be allowed to bet, but should do so in a proper way. What I do object to is allowing bookmakers to come on the track, pay for their privilege, and take money from the people for nothing. The evidence showed that a tremendous amount is taken annually from the pockets, of the people of Canada, and absolutely nothing given in return. In my mind a book-maker is nothing more nor less than a parasite and when he is allowed to practise his calling in the open, and people are allowed to flock there, and invest money with him he becomes a public menace, and it is something to which thisi House should devote attention with a view to his prohibition, if that is possible. I do not want to get into any discussion of the ethics of gambling, but I do wish to read to the House an expression of Herbert Spencer with respect to gambling. It is a question which must be left largely to the individual conscience of each man. It may be right under certain circumstances for a man to bet, and wrong under certain circumstances. Herbert Spencer says:
Listen to a conversation about gambling; and, where reprobation is expressed, note the grounds of the reprobation. That it tends towards the ruin of the gambler; that it risks the welfare of family and friends; that it alienates from business, and leads into bad company-these, and such as these, are the reasons given for condemning the practice. Rarely is there any recognition of the fundamental reason. Rarely is gambling condemned because it is a kind of action by which pleasure is, obtained at the cost of pain to another. The normal obtainment of gratification, or of the money which purchases gratification, implies, firstly, that there has been put forth equivalent effort of a kind which, in some
nay, furthers the general good; and implies, secondly, that those from whom the money is received, get, directly or indirectly, equivalent satisfaction. But in gambling the opposite happens. Benefit received does not imply effort put forth; and the happiness of the winner involves the misery of the loser. This kind of action is therefore essentially antisocial-sears the sympathies, cultivates a hard egoism, and so produces a general deterioration of character and conduct. -
With that expression of Herbert Spencer I thoroughly agree. I think it sets forth splendidly the injury or deterioration that may come to the character of any individual who practises gambling to excess. It has been said that betting on horse-races is not gambling, I agree that a man may be a bettor, and not a gambler. At the same time the legal definition of gambling as far as I can gather is really the same as a definition of betting. In the work ' Words and Phrases Judicially Defined,' volume 4, gambling is defined as follows:
Gambling is the risking of money or anything of value between two or more persons on a contest of chance of any kind where one must be the loser and the other the gainer.
Betting is defined:
Betting on a horse-race is gaming within the meaning of a statute providing for recovering back money lost in gaming.
There is no question that the great majority of people who bet on horse-races do not do so with any skill or exact knowledge of what qualities the horses possess. As far as I have been able to gather from my observation of horse-races the average man who bets on a horse-race, bets a ad nothing more. He knows nothing about the horse, there is no skill involved, and to my mind there is no question that betting cn horseraces, when practised to excess at any rate, is gambling as here defined.
It is stated that the public get a fair chance with the book-maker. We had very little evidence from the book-makers before the committee. We had the evidence of Mr. Orpen, of Toronto, who has been in the book-making business for many years. This is what he said:
Q. Will you tell me what you mean by bookmaking? How would you define book-making?-A. Book-making is a business, it is a matter of figures, of handling money at diffe

ent prices so as to figure out .a percentage for the book-maker.
There is no question at all but that the book-maker always makes the odds, and if he cannot win on one basis he changes the odds to another on which he is sure to win. The dice are loaded against the public on every occasion. As to the amount of money bet on the race-tracks in Canada every year reliable evidence is not obtainable. Mr. Orpen produced before the committee cer-

tain book-making sheets which he had used on the race-track, and these sheets showed that $850 on the average was bet on each race and, there being six or seven races per day each book-maker handled about $5,000 per day. It has been found that about $450,000 was paid to the racing associations during 1909 by book-makers, and making a rough calculation I find that the total amount bet on the race-tracks in 1909 was $22,500,000. We have no means of estimating what was the profit or loss to those who bet with the book-makers but the evidence is clear that the man who bets continuously always loses. For instance, a Toronto butcher deposed that he lost $1,000 for the last 10 years betting on races and that he knew hundreds of men like himself. I should say, in order to be perfectly fair, that some members of the committee at all events were disposed to take the evidence of men of that type with a grain of salt, but at the same time I am disposed to believe his statement that he lost $1,000 a year. '


John B. McColl: Did he pretend to say he lost it on the race-track or did not his evidence show that he was a frequenter of the pool-rooms and that it was there that he lost most of his money?


William Melville Martin: My recollection is that he said he lost $1,000 a year on the track.


John B. McColl: No, and he also stated that he bet on everything that was going, prize fights, and chicken fights, and although he had taken a pledge not to gamble for a year he reserved to himself the right to bet on the prize fight next July.


William Melville Martin: All that goes to show that this Toronto butcher who said there were hundreds like hiftr contracted the spirit of the race-track. He stated before the committee that he was a reformed man and that he was not going to bet again but that the last betting he did was on the ice races at which he lost some $70 or $80, and he further stated that he had lost a similar sum at the meeting of the Hamilton Jockey Club last fall. The most regrettable feature in the betting business is that the people who do the betting come from the class who cannot afford it. If a man could afford to bet without doing an injury to his business or to himself or his family I do not know that very much harm would come of it, but the trouble is that the great toll taken out of the people of Canada every year by the races, comes from the poor people and from a class who have not sufficient control over themselves to stop_ betting even though they know it is injuring themselves and every one connected with them. I have here further testimony which goes Mr. W. M. MARTIN.
to show that the odds in betting, whether with the book-maker or in the pool-room, are always against the public.	.
Canon Horsley, ex-chaplain of the Clerkenwell prison gave evidence before the Lords Committee in 1902, as follows:
Earl of Aberdeen:-Did you take the prophecies from one of the well known sporting papers?
Answer:-From all of them. I have here a case in which seven sporting papers gave 79 horses; in 74 cases their prophecies were wrong. Another case I have is a case where the f Standard ' selected 79 horses for 179 races; 155 were wrong and 24 right. _ Some sporting paper sneered at that and said that this particular prophet did not know very much about his business. Then I took the chief sporting papers. They had seven races that week and gave 45 hor9es, of which 40 were wrong; another week they gave 47 horses, 46 wrong and one right. Then to take a longer period of a month, there were 156 races for which six sporting papers gave 898 horses, out of which 777 did not win. This i9 the sort of thing I constantly do because I have found with intelligent young men that is the be9t argument when I say ' You know nothing about a race/ and they answer, 'J$o, but so and so does, therefore I follow him/
A great deal is made out of the argument that we should follow the law of England in respect to betting, and while I am always disposed to look with favour on English precedents, yet I am bound to say that if there be a law in the United States which is better than the law of England, I see no reason why we should not take the example of our neighbours to the south. At all events, this is not a new subject for legislation. The Criminal Code at present covers almost everything intended to be covered by this Bill except the permitting of betting on the race-track, and that of course, is the nrincipal issue here. The English statute of 1853 which was practically adopted in sections 226 and 227 of our Criminal Code was directed not against betting but against those who made a business of betting. A decision of 1897 in the case of Hawke against Dunn declared that book-making on the race-track was illegal and the decision practically drove the book-maker out of business, and it remained the jurisprudence of England for many years. Then, what is called a friendly action was taken by men interested in the business, and the result was what is known as the decision in the Kempton Park case which has given rise to the anomalies existing in our Criminal Code at the present time, and which has had a great deal to do with the agitation for this legislation.	_	.
There can be no question in the mind of any one who reads the evidence brought before the committee that many men have been practically ruined on the race-track. It is said that these men

would go wrong any way, that if they cannot control themselves on the racetrack they cannot elsewhere. To a certain extent that may be true, but there are instances of men having been led astray and practically ruined on the race-track. In corroboration of that statement, I can refer to statements of a number of eminent English judges.
Mr. Justice Hawkins says:
I know nothing more likely to ruin a young and inexperienced man than the system of betting which goes on around us.
Mr. Justice Grantham:
Gambling with book-makers is the cause of more crime and misery than anything else in the land.
Mr. Justice Darling:
No one could attend the civil and criminal courts without knowing that many persons spent a much larger amount of time in betting than they devoted to their own business.
Lord Alverstone:
Sport never ought to be by necessity associated with gambling or betting. Those who had to do with the administration of the law knew that there was nothing in their great towns, and he wras afraid in the smaller ones too, that brought more people in the humbler walks of life to misery and ruin than the betting agents.
Mr. Justice Wills:
When I first came upon the bench I used to think drink'was the most fruitful cause of crime, but it is now a question whether the unlimited facilities for illegitimate speculation on the part of people who have no means of embarking on it are not a more prevalent source of mischief and crime even than drink.
Mr. Horace Smith, London stipendary magistrate:
Nearly every case of embezzlement I try has resulted from betting, and then to pay their losses they rob their employers.
We also had submitted to the committee the presentment of the grand jury of the county of York for June, 1909, and a presentment of the grand jury of the same countv for September, 1906, to the same effect,
The opponents of the Bill with one accord say, do away with the handbook, the pool-room, and the supplying of racing information outside of the race-track, but let us have book-making on the race-track. To my mind there is no distinction in principle between betting on the street or in a poolroom and betting on the race-track. If the one is bad, the other is bad; if we prohibit the one, we should prohibit the other. The evidence goes to show that hand-books and pool-rooms are greater sources of evil than betting on the race-track. The only reason for that is that hand-books and poolrooms operate for 365 days in the vear.
On the other hand, certain Toronto police officers stated in evidence that for the time of the race meet, say 20 days, the gambling on the Woodbine is worse than it is for the same time in the pool-room or by the hand-book. Again, it seems to me that if you endeavour to legislate to prohibit the hand-book and the pool-room, and do not cut out the race-track, your legislation with respect to the hand-book and the _ poolroom will be very ineffective. The evidence bears this out. The hand-book and poolroom men cannot operate without the information they get from the book-maker. The evidence" shows that the pool-room and the hand-book are only the branches, while the book-maker is the root of the evil.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does not the amendment proposed by the hon. member for West Northumberland cut out the bookmaker, as well as the hand-book man and the pool-room man, except on the track while the race is in nrogress?


William Melville Martin: That is quite correct, but the argument I am attempting to make is simply this, that if you are going to legislate effectively to cut out the handbook man and the pool-room man, you must cut out the root of the trouble, which is the book-maker. It is most inconsistent to make a law which permits the bookmaker to do as he likes on the race-track, but makes it a crime to do the same thing on the street. That would be making one law for the man who can afford to attend the race meeting and another law for the poor man who has not the dollar to pay for entrance to it. Inspector Duncan and Inspector Archibald who are leading police officers of Toronto, and well qualified to speak on such a subject, agree in their evidence that in order to deal effectively with the outside evil, you must deal with the inside evil, and that is the book-making on the track.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If nobody can operate outside at all, how can there be any mischief outside of the track? Does not the amendment cover that?


William Melville Martin: If you allow the book-maker to operate on the track, you render it possible for him to supply information to any one outside.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But if any one operates outside, he becomes a criminal under the amendment as well as under the original Bill.


William Melville Martin: I do not think I need go any more fully into that matter. It is said that the law cannot be enforced. Such an argument is always advanced against any legislation of this kind. I believe it can be reasonably well enforced, and I am corroborated in this view by the evidence of many distinguished police offi-



cers. For instance, Inspector Duncan, at page 187:
Q. Suppose that a law is passed which will make all hook-making, whether on the racetrack or off it, illegal, will there he any difficulty of enforcing other criminal laws, having regard to your experience?-A. I think there would he no difficulty at all if that was done.
Inspector Archibald, at page 226:
Q. Then if you had a law that was in plain Anglo-Saxon and easy to understand, forbidding betting on the race-tracks through the book-maker, would it be possible to reasonably enforce that law?-A. Tes.
Bernard McMahon, chief of police of Hamilton, at page 338:
Q. Then, Inspector, you do not see any difficulty, or rather you would not apprehend any difficulty, in enforcing a law against book-making, if such a law were enacted?- A. If it were passed in such a way that it was made workable. For instance

These police officers all agree that the law could be reasonably well enforced as well as any similar law.
There has been a good deal said in the House and in the corridors and outside the House regarding the extent of public sentiment which exsits in favour of this measure. I believe that public sentiment throughout Canada is ^largely in its favour. We have had that expressed by the farmers of Canada through the 'Farmers Journal,' we are also aware that the majority of the principals of agri-ciiltural colleges are in favour of the Bill; we know that the Dominion grange, trade and labour congresses and the churches support it. It has been said that the agitation has been largely created by clergymen. Well, I see no objection to a clergyman taking 1 part in a movement of this kind and exercising his influence in its favour. I would just as soon be approached by a clergyman in support of the Bill as by a horseman or lawyer against it; and during all the time the Bill was before the committee, I never had any representation made me by a clergyman, verbally or in writing, asking me to use my influence. On the other hand, I did have influence brought to bear on me by horsemen in western Canada and lawyers who were appearing before the committee to oppose the Bill. The business men of British Columbia, as appears by the evidence and letters sent to the committee, the Minister of Inland Revenue, the hon. members for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) and also Victoria (Mr. Barnard), are in favour of the measure. We have had public opinion [DOT]further instanced by the various petitions presented to parliament. I did not myself have more than two or three petitions from the riding I represent, so that evidently there is not much agitation there in Mr. W. M. MARTIN.
favour of the Bill. As regards the objection that public opinion has been largely stirred up by clergymen, I am disposed to give the majority of the people credit for having minds of their own and for knowing what they did when they signed these petitions.
I have considered the Bill as well as I could with the evidence before me. We heard a great mass of evidence in the committee. I have read the most of the evidence since the committee ceased its sittings, and can only come to the conclusion, that inasmuch as the opinion of the vast majority of the people appears to be 'in favour of the Bill and inasmuch as I consider the measure in the interests of the community as a whole, it is my duty to support it.


Mr. S. BARKER (East Hamilton).: I have no intention of going exhaustively into the details of this Bill, or its object, but desire to confine my remarks to a few facts of which I have personal knowledge; and in that connection I wish to take this opportunity of beginning by a few general observations. I have listened with some interest to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin) who has just taken his seat. As I understand him, and as I understood the hon. gentleman who moved the second reading (Mr. Miller), they take a very broad and general objection to any thing in the nature of betting. Betting in the abstract is a sin, a moral wrong. That I understand to be the broad question which is really before this House. Well, I may say that, as a member of this House for a few years, I have had a little experience of betting in the abstract. In each of the contests "which I have run, I have been met invariablv by very goody goody gentlemen on the opposite side of politics who were always ready to bet two or three to one that I could not be elected. Of course, they were quite moral in their views. They were not trying to make money by their betting. Nothing of the kind. They were simply offering a bet- but with wliat object? To create an improper influence upon the electors. That is what they were trying for. I have had bets against me, and I only mention these, because I know a little more about bets against myself than I do about bets against other gentlemen. And I know that these bets were offered, not for a legitimate purpose-speaking as a sportsman would speak of a bet, which is the groundwork of a bet on a horse race-but with the deliberate purpose of defrauding; and I doubt whether there is one hon. gentleman in all this House who is going to vote on this Bill, who would say that he is innocent of any attempt of that kind. I believe that man after man in this House has encouraged

betting to influence people in their opinions and get them to vote contrary to their belief and their conscience. Then we have insurance agents. The hon. gentleman who moved the Bill (Mr. Miller) has left the House, and I am sorry, because I would like to ask him about the eight or ten insurance men, canvassers, who go to a young and enterprising business man, each of them telling a different story and all of them lying more or less about the facts they represent. These gentlemen represent to every man they desire to insure that his life is uncertain, that it is a thing to bet upon, and that he ought to insure in such a company. And we have one man representing several companies who will say to his agents: Bring all your bets to me and I will see that you get your commission. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman who is at the back of this Bill has ever done that sort of thing. Of course, that is not immoral, that is business. But the bookmaker who goes into that sort of business openly and avowedly is a scamp. But is the insurance agent a scamp? God forbid, they are all hon. gentlemen, good business men. The other man, however, is a rogue and a rascal. Then we have the broker. I wonder whether, on either side of the House, there is one man who has never dealt with a broker. Who is the rascal? The man who is a broker or the man who deals with him. If I go to a broker to enter into a transaction by which I make money, that I am not squarely entitled to, am I less a sinner than the broker, or is the broker less a sinner than I, provided we both know what we are doing. Here you go into a race-ground and you come in contact with the professional book-maker. He is putting his skill, judgment and knowledge, his calculation of chances against your money and you know it. He offers you a bet and you take it. Is he more of a rascal, is he a greater rogue than the broker who leads you into' a transaction or the insurance agent who makes you insure in one company instead of another? Where do you draw the line? Are you going to say that it is unlawful for one man to take one chance and it is morally as well as legally right for another to take another chance? I wonder if these gentlemen on _ both sides who have been displaying their knowledge and their powers of moral suasion upon this subject have ever thought of this? I have been very much struck with the language of a minister of the gospel, a minister of Christ, on this subject, and I would like to ask hon. gentlemen in this House, as men representing six or seven millions of people to quietly consider what this gentleman tells us. I take some of the evidence, and I must say at this stage that I really do consider it a lamentable thing that in a matter of this kind, involving large amounts 2064
of the money of honest and honourable men, we should be asked to deal with evidence covering 500 or 600 pages with such little opportunity for reading as has been afforded us. I voted on the question of this being printed in French, not because' I sympathized with the gentleman who wanted it printed in French, but because of his words preceding that there had been1 no time to read the evidence even in English. I think it is an outrage upon decency that we should be forced to a consideration of this subject-very trifling perhaps, very' unimportant, to many men of this House, but very serious indeed to' many men not in this House-under these conditions. Now, what does this minister of Christ say? The counsel asks him:
Q. You are down here doing your utmost to pass this Bill on behalf of what churches in Canada, I would like to know it?-A. The church of England, Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Dominion Grange, and Farmers' Associations.
Q. And have these churches authorized you to press their Bill which will allow individual betting?-A. No-
Mark this-they have not authorized that.
-for a Bill which will suppress professional betting.
Mark the distinction-not authorized as to a Bill allowing individual betting, but to suppress professional betting. There is casuistry for you. Here is a man representing the churches, a man who is a min-iter of Christ, the highest calling to which a man can give himself, and he declares that he is not authorized to advocate a law putting down individual betting, hut to advocate a law prohibiting professional betting. One would thnk that a man objecting only to one class of betting did inot object to the other. That is what I, as an ordinary person, knowing a little of the English language, would take to be the true meaning.
Q. Well then are you authorized by these different churches which you have mentioned to press for the Bill as drafted, that is what I want to know?-A. I think I am, yes.
If it had been the hon. member for South Grey, or the hon. member for Begina (Mr. W. M. Martin) what answer would have been expected? But what is this gentleman's answer?
I think I am, yes.
There is the stalwart minister of the gospel. These hon. gentlemen opposite are absolutely sure, but the minister of the gospel is not quite so sure. But we in this House are to make the rigid law of the land what this gentleman only ' thinks.'
Q. Are you or are you not?-A. I think I am.

Do you get any expression of that kind from these gentlemen who wish to make this the absolute law of the land?	,
Q. Have you any authorization?-A. I think I have.
This is the stalwart soldier of Christ. This is no politician.
Q. Well, where is it?-A. In the resolutions that are before you, that are before the committee.
Q. You think these resolutions give power to advocate the Bill as drafted by Mr. Miller ? -A. I think so.
The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) has no doubt about it, but the witness, who is on oath, is only able to say:
' I think so.'
Q. Do you see any harm in life insurance? -A. No.
. Q- Do you see any harm in buying stock in the stock exchange?-
And here comes the valiant soldier of Christ again:
A. You would need to be more particular before I would answer that.
Here is a man who is giving his evidence upon oath, and presumably knows what he is talking about. But he would not like to commit himself to what these gentlemen opposite would swear by.


An hon. MEMBER.: It would depend on whether there was a profit.


Samuel Barker: bing the people, and pocketing the money, and here is their profit-and they show the balance sheet of the club. That land has increased not by reason of horse-racing, but by natural increase in value, and is worth some $30,000 more than was paid for it. It might have been bought for a Salvation Army pleasure ground or for the Reverend Dr. Shearer, or for the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Miller), and it might have been left there without a stump being extracted, and that property would be worth to-day three times what it was worth then. The hon. gentleman would be horrified if he was charged with gambling in getting that money, he would say it was a fair and legitimate profit on the purchase.
The late Mr. Hendrie, a well known citizen of Hamilton, a wealthy man, a lover of horses, a man who had the interest of Hamilton at his heart, and who never made a bet so far as is known, on a horse or anything else, put a considerable sum of money into the purchase of this property with eight or nine other gentlemen, having in view the offering of part of that property to the city of Hamilton for use as an exhibition ground, intending to use the other part of it as a race-track, to promote the happiness and pleasure of the citizens and improve the horse business. That is what that fund was for, and those gentlemen spent their money. It happened that the city of Hamilton at that time did not think that the property was going to be valuable as it has turned out to be, and they would not buy it. If they had done so, the city would have been very much ahead to-day -but I suppose that would have been gambling. These gentlemen spent a very large sum. I was not interested in that concern, and I do not profess to give the absolute figures, but these gentlemen spent something like $100,000 in making there one of the best tracks in the country, a double track, in putting up stands, and stables, and a club house, and what was the result? They were ahead of their day, and instead of making an enormous sum as one would imagine from the speech of the hon. member for South Grey, they lost about $75,000.
Some of the partners got faint-hearted and they wished to retire, and the concern was taken over, and the gentlemen who had heart enough remained, and they got others to join them, and they formed another company composed of most of the men who were in it at first, and they turned it over to the new company at less than one-half of their money. I was one of the new concern, and being a man of non-gambling proclivities, I was one of a group who paid $40 and agreed to pay $60 more for one share, and the rent of that property was about one per cent on the capital. That is not such a wonderful thing as the result Mr. BARKER.
of this marvellous gambling. I doubt very much if the member for South Grey would invest $50 with tire possibility of getting such a return; I doubt very much whether these clerical gentlemen who talk about gambling would have taken an interest in it under the circumstances, even though it were not for racing purposes, but for the advancement of the Christian church. The directors of that association worked hard without compensation; they worked in the interests of the city, and in the interest of the farmers in the neighbourhood until between 300 and 400 horses would be brought there for some weeks each year, using up the oats and the hay produced by the farmers in the neighbourhood, and filling up the hotels and bringing American money into Canada. I have heard it said that there has been no great protest from Hamilton, and my own view is that the great majority of the people of Hamilton believe it is a good thing, and they do not question so much the morality of it from the point of view of the Rev. Dr. Shearer. I can tell you that some of those who paid only part of the $40 first instalment for one share did not think it worth the risk to pay the remainder of the $40 and to remain liable for the $60, so they forfeited their shares. Evidently they did not think there was much profit to be made out of this great gambling concern. I have never received one cent of dividend for the little money I invested, but I think the citizens of Hamilton would regard their track as one of the institutions of Hamilton which did a great deal to build up the city and to bring it to the attention of the -world by the advertising it got from the thousands of people who came to the races every year. I thnk if there was a straight vote in Hamilton the people of that city would vote it had been a good thing. There are people, who perhaps give as little thought to it as some gentlemen on the other side of the House have given to the question, and who might be opposed to it. But just as the exhibition in Toronto is looked upon as the event of the. year, so the Hamilton races are looked upon as one of the attractions of the city; that business is benefited; and the belief is that, conducted with proper restrictions, it is a good thing for the city. As at the Woodbine, so at Hamilton, order and decency are maintained at the races. Special detectives are employed, and if any scamp should appear on the ground, he is taken off at once, and the magistrate very soon sends him out of the city. When the hon. member (Mr. Miller) introduced this Bill, he told us a cock-and-bull story, which he now has apparently dropped, about a boy of 12 years, who on the street cars coming from the Woo.dbine boasted of the money he had made in betting on the races. I told the hon. gentleman that it was impos-

sible a boy of 12 'could get into the grounds at Hamilton or Toronto unless he got over the fence or under the fence, and any way he would never get within half a mile of the betting. Then again, if a jockey, or the owner of a horse, or the trainer of a horse be guilty of improper conduct, the men in charge of the races, who are paid salaries of $75 a day for their services, would report such person, and whether he be owner or jockey or trainer, he would be ruled off the Hamilton track, and as a result he would be ruled off every race-track in the United States. What better guarantee of fair-play could you have? There is no track in England, visited by the King or any other man in England, that- is conducted with more care, more honesty, more effort to have everything beyond suspicion, than the Woodbine, the Montreal track and the Hamilton track; and I defy any man, whether it is the gentleman who has introduced this Bill, or any other member of this House, to put his finger upon _ one transaction from the first day the Hamilton club opened to this hour, that is not to the credit of that club.


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Brandon).: My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) has brought my name into this discussion and has intimated that it is my duty to assist him in conserving the morals of the people of Canada. I have to sav to my hon. friend that I am perfectly willing to join him in dome anything that will promote the moral well-being of the people of Canada if my judgment accords with his in Tegard to the measures to be adopted to that end. Since something like 22 years ago I was first elected in Canada as the representative of some of mv fellow citizens, I have never consciously failed to vote where I had the opportunity for any measure which seemed to me to. be designed to promote the peace, welfare and good government of the Dominion of Canada or that part of it with which I had to do. In speaking of a measure of this kind, there are a great many considerations which are pertinent to the subject. There are a good many other considerations which may be dragged into the debate which are not really pertinent to the subject. There are a great many points of view from which the subject should be looked at, if a careful examination is to be made and an intelligent conclusion is to be reached. And let me say that, in the very few words which I wish to address to the House upon this subject, I speak with a full sense of my responsibility not onl5r as a member of the House, but as a citizen, and as the father of a family of sons, some of whom have reached years' of manhood, and whose welfare in the future is much more important to me than anything elsp that can possibly happen in this world. Therefore I think I have as complete a sense of responsibility in speaking of this question as it is possible to have. The measure which has been brought before us has been brought in a somewhat peculiar way. It is promoted by an association or collection of gentlemen whose avowed object is to promote moral and social reform in the Dominion of Canada. There have been some things said of a somewhat unkind character in regard to these gentlemen and their efforts. I do not desire to be understood as endorsing any gibes or attacks which may have been directed against these gentlemen. It may be that in some respects their methods are not all that they ought to be. It may be that sometimes they are injudicious. Nevertheless it seems to me that the work which they have in hand of endeavouring to promote moral and social reform in the Dominion of Canada is a laudable and praiseworthy work. They have been before this House asking for legislation on a former occasion. They came some sessions ago with a proposition that we should pass legislation respecting the observance of the Lord'3 Day. On that occasion they were able to convince the government that it was the duty of the government to stand as the sponsor of the legislation; and I think that the spirit in which the government and the members of the House on both sides met those gentlemen^ in connection with that legislation wasj highly creditable to the House, and showed that the sympathies of the House were almost unanimously with these gentlemen in their endeavours to promote moral and social reform in Canada. Thev have not on this occasion apparently been able to convince the members of the government that the government should stand as sponsor for the legislation which they propose. For my part, I regret that they did not succeed, at least to some extent, in impressing their views on the government, because we think that some legislation is necessary, and it would have been more satisfactory to us if the. government had been able to see its way clear to introduce a moderate measure which could have commanded the general assent of the members of the House. That, however, did not come about, and they have adopted what is their undoubted right of getting their legislation introduced by a private member, who has devoted himself zealously and with praiseworthy capacity and industry to promoting the object he had in hand. The Bill has been brought before us, and it has gone before a committee for investigation, and the committee has held what appears to have been a very thorough and impartial investigation. We have heard the evidence discussed from various standpoints since the House

met to-day. My hon. friend from Grey has given us a very full and thorough review of the evidence. If I were to say anything with regard to that, it would be to suggest to my hon. friend that possibly a more unbiased review of the evidence would have been more convincing to the House. I do not suggest that my hon. friend was consciously unfair; but one could not listen to his discussion of the evidence without feeling that he was laboriously extracting those portions of the evidence which tended to support his con-[DOT] elusion without giving due and proper effect to the evidence of a contrary character. We had a review of the evidence from another standpoint given bv my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Mc-Coll); and again my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) has gone pretty extensively into the evidence. I have no intention of following them in such a review. I only desire in a very few words to express what seems to me, as an unprejudiced onlooker, to be the effect of the evidence given before the committee, and I think I approach the question with as little prejudice as it is possible for any one to have on the subject. I can hardly be accused of any undue sympathy with gambling. I have been in the habit of attending horse-races for the last 30 years or thereabouts, and of taking my family when they desired to go; I. never could see that it did them anv harm. I have never bet a dollar on a horse-race, have never bought a pool, have never been interested in a race to the extent of a copper; I have never played a game in which a dollar was at stake; so that I am as free from any sympathy with gambling as it is possible to be. I cannot plead that my freedom comes from any deep-rooted feei-ing that gambling is immoral. It has rather seemed to me to be an exhibition of stupidity, and I have not felt it necessary to indulge in that particular form of stupidity.
There are some things which, it seems to me, have been very clearly proven by the evidence before the committee. I am not going to discuss the evidence but- simply to point out what appears to me to have been conclusively proven by it. In the first place it appears to me to have been proven conclusively that the English thoroughbred horse is the basis of the improvement of all light horse breeding throughout the whole world. It has been shown that in every portion of the world where a systematic or intelligent attempt is made to improve light horse breeding, that has been done by the importation of English thoroughbreds, the product of racing and racing alone. Then I think it has been shown, not only that racing has developed the English thoroughbred, but that racing Mr. SIFTON.
alone will keep him in his present condition and quality. It has been shown further that the stoppage of book-making upon Canadian race tracks will have the effect of doing away with the conduct of racing by reputable men who engage in it as a sport and expend their means for that purpose. Racing, as the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Miller) truly says, will not be stopped, but racing conducted by men of means will be stopped. It will get into most disreputable hands and the last stage will be worse than the first. I think it has been shown that if the Bill should pass in its present form, the importation of high-class thoroughbreds from Great Britain to Canada will be practically stopped. Further, that our present position which has lately resulted in a very large number of thoroughbred horses being placed for service throughout the Dominion practically free of charge, and without any assistance from the government, will be totally destroyed if racing be put an end to.
But, leaving the horse breeding question to one side, there are other things w'hich appear to me to have been very clearly shown. In the first place, it has been clearly shown that tipsters' advertisements and the advertising of information and the soliciting of betting and wagering is a source of great evil ankfi ought to be stopped. I think it has been further shown that the pool-rooms conducted away from a race-track are a serious evil. Also that the hand-book- betting is a serious evil, which comes within the general -definition of gambling not as an adjunct of sport, but in itself pure gambling, and I am of the opinion that the general' sentiment of the House would be to put a stop to that. I think it has been shown conclusively that when racing is permitted to be carried on for a considerable length of time, for such a length of time that the races cease to consist in real trials of speed, but are simply devices for the purpose of furnishing gambling facilities that constitutes a generally admitted evil and ought to be stopped.
These are therefore four distinct evils which I think have been exposed clearly before the committee and which I think the general sentiment of the House will agree, ought to be prohibited by legislation. I wmuld have thought that that having been shown and there being evidently a clear and definite opinion on the part of almost all members of this House that legislation for the prohibition of those evils would receive a general, an almost unanimous assent, the promoters of the Bill would have seen the desirability of accepting legislation which would do away with these admitted evils and let the matter stand for the present. I am quite satisfied that if I had been in the place of my hon.

friend from Grey (Mr. Miller), if I had been promoting this legislation, if I had been on that committee and had seen the evidence produced, proving that these evils existed, and had seen that the House was ready to accept legislation which would be of the most drastic charactec and do away with those evils, I would have thought that that was enough for one session and would have advised a trial of that legislation to be carried through with the unanimous consent of parliament. It seems to me beyond doubt that that would be the common sense, reasonable and moderate course to adopt.
Going a step further, has it been shown before the committee that in racing, carried on in what we may call the best possible way, as for instance, during the first week of racing at the Woodbine track- has it been shown that the betting on such occasions is such an evil as to demand drastic legislation by this parliament for putting an end to it. I submit there is not a scintilla of evidence before the committee which shows any such thing. I believe it can be said by any reasonable man that when you undertake to take out from the general body of evidence anything applicable to that class of'racemeeting such as I have described and endeavour to make out great evils resulting from the conduct of such races, you have utterly failed to prove any such thing. But admitting for a moment that I am not entirely correct in that, and that there is reasonable ground for difference of opinion upon it, then what is the proper course for this House to adopt? What is the principle upon which criminal legislation, under the British system is based. The principle of all our criminal legislation is this, that it is the crystallized or, if you may so call it, the sanctified common sense of the community. It is the expression of the general assent of the community that such and such an Act ought to' be condemned. Therein lies the strength of our criminal law. The strength of our criminal law lies in the fact that, under the British system, what we may call freak legislation is unknown. It never has been admitted that it is the duty of a British legislature to decide moral questions for the British people. It is the right of the British people to settle moral questions for themselves, and for 150 years they have never admitted the right of any secular body to settle moral questions for them, or to regulate their conduct. It is the right of the individual, the liberty of the individual, and the only way he can develop character is by exercising the right to decide moral questions for himself. If you look through our criminal law during the last 150 years, you will not find in a British colony or
the British parliament itself, any case in which a certain act or certain class of acts, commonly indulged in by a large and reputable section of the community, has been declared criminal by an Act of parliament forced through by a narrow majority, and in the face of strong opposition. I do not think you will find such a case. Now this same question has been before the British parliament within the last few years. What was the method adopted to ascertain what would be the best way of dealing with it? It was sent to a special committee, and the matter was carefully examined into. We too have done that. But when it came before the House for legislation, wa.s any attempt made to pass a law which would confiscate private property, or declare to be criminal acts not recognized as being criminal by- a large section of the community? Not at all; the legislation proceeded upon careful and conservative lines. An Act was drawn by Lord Davey, perhaps the greatest lawyer whom England has produced in the last hundred years. I have a copy of the Act, and in clause 3 we find it expressly provided:
Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any ground used for the purpose of a racecourse for racing horses or adjacent thereto on days on which races take place.
That is the principle upon which the British parliament, after careful and thorough consideration on the part of a special committee, arrived at as a sound principle for British legislation. They do not think it safe or judicious, by a majority if it could have been got, to declare that that which was being done constantly by respectable, reputable citizens of the country, and in regard to which they recognized no moral culpability whatever, should it be branded as a crime without general consent on the part of the community to such a declaration.
What is the basis upon which the administration of the criminal law must rest? The general consent of the community that an act which is forbidden by the law is an act which ought to be forbidden by the law. And if you depart from that principle what results? The result is that you bring the law into contempt. And I put it to the House, and I put myself in the judgment of every member of the House whether in favour of the Bill or not. If this should, be made law, would not one law of the parliament of Canada, at least be brought into contempt with a large section of the community? They would not respect the legislation, they would not regard it as legislation, which the circumstances called for or which parliament had passed in the exercise of due wisdom, and due care; and the result would be that that support which all good citizens give to the law would not

be given to the law passed under these cir

 eumstances. I do not know that it is necessary for me to elaborate that argument, but I desire to follow it just far enough to point out that if you once lay down the principle that because any particular section of the community regard a particular act as being morally objectionable, the section of the community which objects to that act can come to the parliament of Canada, and demand that the ^act referred to shall be declared to be a criminal act, you will open the doors to a class of legislation which will lead you to ends you cannot foresee. You will have introduced into this House a class of discussions in the carrying on of which there can be no possible fixed principle. My hon. friend from Regina (Mr. W. M. Martin) says that the only question we have to decide is whether the members of this House are in favour of book-making upon race-tracks or not. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the question. It is not a question of whether I, or any hon. member here, happens, in his own mind, to be in favour of book-making or of race-track gambling as it may be called-not at all; the question is whether there is a necessity in the interest of the peace, order and good government of Canada that these things shall be prohibited. The question is whether it is our duty, in the exercise of our powers as the parliament of Canada, to make that a criminal offence. What I may think, or what any other hon. member may think personally as an individual has nothing to do with the case. We are not sent here to carry into the criminal law the particular views we may have with regard to any particular thing that is being done by our fellow citizens. If we undertake to legislate within these lines we shall find ourselves involved in all kinds of confusion.
There is one other consideration which I desire to present. This legislation is of an altogether peculiar and unusual character. I doubt if my hon. friends who are supporting this Bill can show a single case in the last hundred years in Great Britain, or can show a single case in the history of the criminal legislation of the parliament of Canada, in which an Act of parliament has been brought in without any public agitation, without any public demand, which practically confiscates a large amount of private property and brands as criminal acts which are constantly being performed by some of the best citizens of the Dominion. I do not think a precedent can be found for such legislation. And I desire to call your attention to the fact that there isi not even the excuse of a public demand. We are here, two hundred and twenty-one members of the House of Commons; "there is not a single one of us, I believe, that Mr. SIFTON.
ever heard this subject discussed on the political platform in the last general election. I venture to say it was not mentioned. Certainly, I never heard it, nor have I ever found anybody who did. We never heard of a member of the House of Commons being asked to pledge himself upon this subject. I have never heard of a public meeting being held for the purpose of discussing this question and hearing the arguments, pro and con. There has been no opportunity for the people of Canada to come to any reasoned and considered opinion upon this subject. My judgment is that the people of Canada have not come to any reasoned or considered opinion upon this subject at the present time. Then, look at the press. Read the newspapers for the last two weeks while this matter has been before the committee. There has been, here and there, a perfunctory article in favour of my hon. friend's Bill, there has been here and there, an article in opposition to the Bill. But nobody who is at all careful as to the statements he makes could, I think, make himself responsible for the statement that there has been in the press of Canada anything in the nature of a concerted demand that this legislation should pass. Is it my hon. friend's position that we should plunge into this extreme, drastic legislation without evidence that the people of Canada have formed an opinion upon it or that they desire it to be passed, without any indication in the press that there is a public opinion on the subject, without any evidence of public opinion except that most evidently manufactured by those who are agitating in favour of the Bill? So, it seems to me that all these considerations point to the conclusion that it would be the part of prudence, common sense and judgment for this House to hesitate before they pass this into law. I have consented to become the seconder of the amendment which my hon. friend (Mr. Me-Coll) proposes to move in Committee of the Whole, conceiving that the common sense and good judgment of the House would see that when legislation is passed which will amply and fully deal with the evils which have been shown before the committee to exist, that will be a sufficient measure, and that it would be unwise and altogether discreditable to our judgment and common sense to go further at the present stage. I hope, without extending my remarks further, that my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) and the supporters of the Bill, before the discussion goes too far, will see that it is the part of wisdom to accept the proposition which is made, and allow this discussion to be sealed by a compromise of that kind.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton).: I have listened with much interest to many of the speeches delivered on this important question. I merely rise to give a hearty

i
approval to the Bill now before the House. Some of the statements of the hop. member for Brandon are very wide of the mark. He says this question was not debated on the public platforms in the last campaign, and, therefore, it should not be discussed in parliament now. Let me ask him: Was the Naval Bill discussed on the. public hustings in the last campaign, a measure of such vital importance to this Dominion? And yet he is a supporter of the government that is trying to force that Naval Bill through the House. Again, he says there is no public demand for this measure. Evidently the hon. gentleman has * not taken the pains to examine the public press for the last year, he does not know' that public meetings in its favour have been held in different parts of the country, or he would not have made such a statement. This has been a live question throughout the country for more than a year, and during the last campaign it was uppermost in some of the counties. He says this legislation is of such a radical nature that he could not think of supporting it. Well, from what I understand in hearing the hon. gentleman discuss the Bill, the only objection they have to it is to that clause which prohibits the bookmaker to carry on his operations on the race-track. When you come to examine the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) you will find that it will not be in the public interest to pass it. Let us examine clause 228a that has been taken from the Davies Betting Bill in the old land:
Every one is guilty of an offence who frequents or loiters in streets or public places, on behalf of himself or of any other person, for the purpose of book-making or betting, or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager, or paying or receiving or settling bets.
This clause is taken back on the following page so far as betting on race-tracks is concerned, and the latter part of clause 235 says this:
The provisions of sections 226, 227, 228 and 235 of this section shall not extend to any person by reason of his becoming the custodian or despository of any money .... provided that no such race-meeting shall continue for more than twelve days.
A number of race meetings last year did not continue that length of time. Twice twelve days a year would be twenty-four days a year for each race meet. If you take the five race meets that are in the Canadian Racing Association, including Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Fort Erie and Windsor, and if you reckon twelve days for each of the five race meets in the spring, you have sixty days, and if you reckon five weeks in the fall of the year you would have sixty days more, that is
120 days. As there are only twenty days allowed already, they are precluded from having a race on a certain track within twenty days after the race closes. Supposing the first race had been held at Montreal, the racing association there would be able to go back to Montreal and hold their first race twenty days after their last race was held there; and in that way you would have continuous racing in the province of Ontario and some of the other provinces for 120 days. In addition to that, if you had a racing association in the eastern provinces that would cover say five race meets, and another racing association in our northwest that would cover say twelve race meets, you would have race meets practically throughout the year in some' other part of the country. We find that the committee has thoroughly investigated this question; they have gone to a great deal of trouble, and have gathered a remarkable amount of information, and they have reported the Bill favourably as a consequence of their investigations. As I have already remarked, the only objection that seems to be made to the present Bill is that clause which prohibits the bookmaker from carrying on his operations on the race-track. Now, I think that clause is in the general interest of the public. Take for instance, the clause with regard to elections. I know one riding in which [DOT]men who are interested in the race meets in that part of the country took up their quarters in a hotel, and they formed a betting pool. They then induced certain persons to go out and see men supporting the Conservative candidate giving them ten, fifteen and twenty dollars to bet against the Conservative candidate, and by betting against him they would be permitted to keep to themselves the amount of money they would make. I know one poor man in that riding that was not able to make such a bet. He bet up to $300, and he stated that the money was not his own, but it came through the betting pool that was formed in the hotel. I could explain how these men carried on their nefarious work, and I trust that this Bill will be framed in such a manner as to cover their case. The hon. member for Braridon also says that this is unfair legislation, that the British Criminal Code would not allow it to be enforced in that country. What about the Sabbath observance law in our country? Let him go to the United States and see how a Bill like this, has been adopted in different states of the union. Let him go into the state of New York, or Michigan, and see how the people are devoted tj legislation like this. Let him go into the state of Illinois, or into California, and he will find practically the same legislation in operation to-day, and he will find that

the enlightened people in those states are alive to the necessity of legislation like this. I have only to say, ir. conclu-ri'.n. that I shall give the Bill my hearty support.


Mr. J. W. MADDIN (South Cape Breton).: 'there seems to be some misapprehension in the minds of certain hon. gentlemen as to what the functions of parliament are in regard to legislation of this nature. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) says there is no precedent for a Bill of this kind, that the Anglo-Saxon race have always looked after their own morals and have accepted dictation from no one within the last 130 years. Let me say to, my hon. friend that parliament does not exist for the sole purpose of building transcontinental lines or of improving the grade of live stock; it has other obligations resting upon it, and these obligations have been acknowledged by parliaments from time immemorial. The morals of the people have been the subject of legislation ever since we have had a law-making body. Parliament in the old country and in this country has legislated with regard to bigamy, polygamy and gambling, and has even made it an offence in England to gamble in private houses. The courts of Great Britain have gone so far in construing the statutes in regard to gambling in public places as to hold that a boat, a tent, a railway carriage, an omnibus, were public places within the meaning of the Acts. Has not this parliament before now legislated with regard to the morals of the people of the country? Was it not in 1878 that the Canada Temperance Act was consolidated? Have we not in the different provinces liquor licenses for the regulation of the sale of intoxicating liquors, with a view to restricting drunkenness? Why is it that the saloons in Ottawa are closed betwe. n 7 and 11 o'clock on Saturday nights? They are open during these hours in the old country. Is it not the duty of parliament to legislate along the lines of social and moral reform? When the editor of the Toronto ' Qlobe ' returned from the old country and wrote up his views of English life, what did he state? That the race was becoming degenerate, that the street^ were crowded with hollow-chested degenerates, and he depicted slumdom. I shall quote some opinions as to the cause of these slum conditions before I have finished, and it will be for us to say whether in this young country of which we are so proud, having the start it has and the race it has, we will maintain that race as it is, and even improve it, or allow it to degenerate as the English race has degenerated in the last 50 years. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) said he heard nothing about this matter at the last general election. Nothing was said at the last election Mr. ARMSTRONG.
about the naval policy of Canada, about the Duilding of a Canadian navy at all, yet a Bill was brought up in this House without consulting the people, and has already passed this House.	,
Among the objections raised to this Bill are that it interieres^with the breeding of first-class horses. Horse-racing does not affect the development or improvement of the breed of horses. The hon. member for Brandon says that according to the evidence before the committee of this House, if this Bill passes, horse-racing will go out of the hands of respectable gentlemen and find itself in the hands of a disgraceful element. In the province of Nova Scotia we have a number of race-tracks. Entering the province there is one at Amherst, one at Spring Hill, one in Halifax, four in the county of Cape Breton, one in New Glasgow, and I think one in Kentville, and during the years racing has been carried on there the book-maker has been unknown, he has not yet got in his work in the province of Nova Scotia, and I hope that after this Bill comes into operation it will be difficult for him to maintain a foothold there. The horse-racing of Nova Scotia is as well conducted as that in any part of Canada, and it is carried on there without the assistance of book-makers or anything of that kind. The gentlemen who conduct the races in Nova Scotia are the equals of those who conduct horse-racing in) any other part of Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it trotting or running in Nova Scotia?


James William Maddin: It seems a very good paying game. I think the government, as soon as they have time, will have to take into consideration whether the law should not be altered. These remarks were called forth by a book-maker who had been summoned, producing a handful of sovereigns, _ and suggesting that it would save time for him to pay the fine at once without the evidence being heard.
Lord Chief Justice (Lord Alverstone) said:
Sport never ought to be of necessity associated with gambling or betting. Those who had to do with the administration of the law knew that there was nothing in their great towns, and he was afraid in the smaller ones, too, that brought more people in the humbler walks of life to misery and ruin than the betting agents.
Mr. Justice Bucknill said:
This betting curse, which is being carried on in a shocking manner, has got to be put down with a severe hand, and, as far as I am concerned I will do so to the utmost of my power.
John Hawke (Hon. secretary National Anti-Gambling League) said:
Gambling is becoming a worse evil and a more serious cause of poverty than drink.
Eight Hon. Henry Campbell-Bannerman
said:
I long ago formed the opinion that betting and gambling come next to drink (and doubt even if they are below it) in the measure of the curse they bring upon society.
In view of these opinions from the most distinguished jurists and social reformers in Great Britain, experience has brought them in personal contact with the sad conditions that exist, and which have been so well depicted by the Reverend editor of the Toronto ' Globe,' no hon. member of this House can shirk his responsibility by saying that the chief of police of Montreal says there is no evil consequence, or very little evil consequence from betting. Why, Sir, I was in Montreal last August, and September, and I was in the police court there when pickpockets in groups of four and five were arraigned before Judge Leet, as they were taken, not from the race-track, but from all the public places in the city, and it was Judge Leet's duty to send them back to their haunts of crime in the United States. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has spoken about sanctified common sense, but in view of the opinions I have cited from these distinguished English jurists can any one say it is sanctified common sense to demoralize the young generation of this country in order that the breed of horses may be improved. Is it sanctified common sense to improve horses in Canada at the price of demoralizing the youth of our country? I submit it is not I support this Bill for the reasons I gave Mr. MADDIN.
on the second reading, and the reasons I give to-night, and I hope and trust that it will become part of the criminal law of the country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Do I understand that we are going into committee now?


William Stevens Fielding: We are in committee.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: It was very quickly and ' abruptly done. There is nothing gained by it. I move that the committee rise and report progress.


William Stevens Fielding: It is rather early. I think we might rise for the evening at about half-past eleven.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The discussion has been cut off very abruptly. I do not blame anybody. I supposed that the debate would have been adjourned between 11 and 12 o'clock.
Mr.- FIELDING. I think tne hon. gentleman can speak in committee.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Yes, but not with the same force or effect.


William Stevens Fielding: If we report progress now, the effect will be to leave the matter in the same position to-morrow. If any hon. gentlemen wishes to speak he can speak in committee.


Mr. STRATTON.: I think the main object of the Bill has been accomplished by our going into committee, and if any hon. gentleman wishes to speak, I know of no reason why he should not.
On section 1,


John B. McColl: As I intimated to the House this afternoon that I proposed to move an amendment when the Bill got into committee, I desire now to do so. Similar legislation to this was passed by the British House of Commons as recently as 1905 or 1906. Hon. members who have observed the Votes and Proceedings are aware that when this matter was before the special committee, an amendment was moved to the effect that the English wording of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code should be adopted instead of the wording by the promoters of the Bill, which follows the American legislation known as the Hughes law. But I think it will be conceded by every one who gives the matter consideration that the English Act as drafted by Lord Davie is in much better form. What I propose to move carries out all the amendments proposed by the promoters of the Bill, except only the saving clause at the end, which provides that these amendments shall not apply to what takes place on a race-course during the actual progress

of a race meet. I move that the following clause he substituted for the provisions of the Bill:
The provisions of sections 226, 227 and 228a and 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 staked, to be paid to the winner of any lawful sport, game or exercise, or to the owner of any horse engaged in any lawful race, or to bets between individuals, or to records of bets made on the race course of am incorporated association during the actual progress of a race-meeting, if the following proviso be observed in regard to such meeting, namely, that no such race-meeting shall continue for more than eight days of continuous racing on days on which such racing may be lawfully carried on, and that not more than two race-meetings shall be held on the same ground in one year, which meetings shall be separated by an interval of at l&ast twenty days between each race-meeting.
Without further discussion at the present time, I beg leave, seconded by Mr. Sifton, to move this amendment. I am moving to substitute the provisions of the English Act for the whole Bill.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: May I suggest to the Minister of Finance, now that this amendment has been read, and it will be printed to-morrow in the Votes and Pro-^r]?s' where.every member can read it, tnat the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


William Findlay Maclean: I think tl amendments ought to be printed befo tile House to carry out what my hoi friend from Gananoque (Mr. Taylor) su


Mr GEORGE TAYLOR.: The amendment of my hon. friend has been read by the chairman. It is a new Bill altogether, taking the place of the Bill proposed. Thj
g	*5e *n the possession of
both the Bill and the amended Bill, and 1 tnink the committee should rise in the meantime.


Mr FIELDING.: I intimated some time ago that I would ask the House to adjourn at. 11.30, and it is now close to that hour. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it understood that the whole of the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Northumberland will appear in the Votes and Proceedings?


William Stevens Fielding: Put them in ' Hansard ' and let the hon. member read them.


John B. McColl: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Sifton, that the following be substituted for the Bill before the committee:
Sections 226 and 227 will remain the same.
Section 228 will read as follows:
228. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who keeps any disorderly house, that is to say, any common bawdy-house, common gaming-house, or common betting-house, or opium joint, as hereinbefore defined. -
2. Any one who appears, acts or behaves as master or mistress, or as the person having the care, government, or management of any disorderly house, shall be deemed 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 real owner or keeper thereof.	.
228A. 1. Every one is guilty of an offence who frequents or loiters in streets or public places, on behalf either of himself or of any other person, for the purpose of hook-making or betting, or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager, or paying or receiving or settling bets, and shall
(a)	In the case of a first offence be liable
on conviction to a fine not exceeding $

;
(b)	In the case of a second offence be liable
on conviction to a fine not exceeding $

;
and
(c)	In the case of a third oi subsequent offence, or in any case where it is proved that the person whilst committing the offence had any betting transaction with a person under the age of sixteen years, be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $

, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months, without the option of a fine;
and shall in any case he liable to forfeit all books, cards, papers and other articles relating to betting which may be found in his possession.
2.	Any constable may take into custody, without warrant, any person found committing an offence under this section, and may seize and detain any article liable to be forfeited under this Act.
3.	Any person who appears to the court to be under the age of sixteen years, shall, for the purpose of his section, he deemed to be under that age, unless the contrary be proved, or unless the person charged shall satisfy the court that he had reasonable ground for believing otherwise.
I.	For the purpose of this section the word ' street ' shall include any highway and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not; and the words ' public place ' shall include public park, garden, or sea-beach, and any uninclosed ground to which the public for the time being have restricted access, and shall also include every inclosed place (not being a public park or garden) to which the public have a restricted right of access, whether on payment or otherwise, if at or near every public entrance there is conspicuously exhibited by the owners or persons having control of the place a notice prohibiting betting therein.
Sections 228 , 230, 231, 232, 233 and 234 will remain as above set out, and section 235 will read as follows:
235. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment, and to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, who
'	(a) Uses or knowingly allows any part of

any premises under his control to be used for the purposes of recording or registering any bet or wager, or selling any pool; or
(b)	Keeps, exhibits or employs or knowingly allows to be kept, exhibited or employed, in any part of any premises under his control, any device or apparatus for the purpose of recording any bet or wager or selling any pool; or
(c)	Records or registers any bet or wager or sells any pool, upon the result
(i)	Of any political or municipal election;
(ii)	Of any race;
(iii)	Of any contest or trial of skill or endurance of man or beast.
(d)	Engages in pool-selling or book-making, except as hereinafter provided.
(e)	Advertises, publishes, exhibits, posts up, sells, or supplies, or offers to sell or supply, any information relating to pool-selling, book-making, betting or wagering; or
Section 225e. Offers to sell any information relating to or intended for use in connection with betting or wagering, or who advertises or publishes any such offer.
(f)	Aids or assists in any manner in any of the said acts which are by this section forbidden.
2.	The provisions of sections 226, 227, 228a, and of this section shall not extend to any person by reason of his becoming custodian or depository of any money, property or valuable things staked, to be paid to the winner of any lawful race, sport, game or exercise, or to the owner of any horse engaged in any lawful race, or to bets between individuals, bets or to records of bets made on the racecourse of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a race-meeting, if the former proviso be observed in regard to such meeting, namely: That no such race-meeting shall continue for more than eight days of continuous racing on days on which such racing may lawfully be carried on, and that no more than two race-meetings shall be held in the same grounds in the one year, which meetings shall be separated by an interval of at least 20 days between each meeting.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have here the proposal that sections 229 to 234 shall remain ' as above set out '. Does that mean as they are in the Bill of the hon. member for South Grey, or as they are in the Criminal Code?


John B. McColl: As in the Criminal Code. I notice there is an omission-the penalties are blank.


George Taylor: That can be done in committee.


William Findlay Maclean: Before we rise, I would make a suggestion that the points at issue in this matter have been narrowed down to one, namely, whether betting can be allowed on incorporated race-tracks for seven or eight days at two meetings a year. In other words, the proposal now is that while last year we had over two hundred days racing, under the proposed amendment we are to have less than one hundred. If hon. members who are promoting the Bill will try to compromise the Mr. McCOLL.
matter as has been suggested, we can get a settlement to-morrow morning without much discussion, that will be satisfactory to them, and to the country. If we do not reach a settlement of that kind, we shall have a prolonged and unsatisfactory discussion, and probably shall pass nothing.


James Robert Stratton: No chance of a compromise on those terms.
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr. SPROULE.: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We will resume consideration of this measure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And what then?


William Stevens Fielding: Several of the government Bills, and, if Supply be reached, the estimates of the Minister of Public Works will be taken up.


George Taylor: I would suggest that the Bill we have been discussing tonight should not be taken up the first thing in the morning, but should be left until three o'clock, so that we may read ' Hansard ' and understand the matter better.


William Stevens Fielding: I think hon. members know all about it.


George Taylor: A great manv are not present. The afternoon would be a better time.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it would be better to take it up in the morning.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.30 p. m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 7, 1910.