1910-04-07

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCRANEY moved that the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders be concurred in.
Mr. SPROULE.: What does this report contain?


Mr. McCRANEY.: If my hon. friend will refer to Votes and Proceedings of March 14th, he will see the report of the examiner

for private bills with regard to this Bill. That report is as follows:
Your examiner has duly examined the petition of C. M. Edwards and others for an Act of incorporation under the name of the Ottawa and Montreal Transmission Company (Limited), with power to generate electric and other energy and to construct a transmission line from Mattawa to Montreal by the north shore of the Ottawa river, with power to expropriate lands necessary for the purpose of their undertaking, and finds that amongst the powers asked for is the right to carry their transmission lines across the Ottawa river into the province of Ontario wherever it may be found desirable in the interests of the company to do so; as this power would carry with it the right to expropriate any lands required for that purpose the notice would, under the terms of rule 90 (c) have to be published in each locality in Ontario which might be affected by the exercise of their rights by the company, but no evidence-that the notice has been so published has been submitted to your examiner; in all other respects the requirements of the rule have been complied with.
This came before the Standing Orders Committee yesterday. No evidence was submitted to the committee that publication of the notice had been made in the province of Ontario and the recommendation of the committee is that the company be given power only in the province of Quebec and not in the province of Ontario.
Mr. SPROULE I think it would be really advisable to let this stand over for a day that we may have an opportunity to look into it, because there is much about it not present to one's, mind in looking over it hurriedly and for the first time. We do not know to what extent it may operate in an injurious way. A short delay will not prevent the measure going on.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Stand until to-morrow.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.



QUESTIONS.

["Some minor Bills. Then we will go into Committee of Supply on the Postmaster General's estimates, and then on the estimates of the Minister of Public Works."]
Mr.  A. J.@: 



Mr. WALLACE:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. A. .T. Gravel, federal inspector of weights and measures at Three Rivers, is, at the same time, said to be acting as a regular insurance agent, being one of the firm of Gravel & Spenard?
2.	Does the government consider that a man can attend to insurance business and fulfil the office of inspector at the same time?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: The government is not aware that Mr. Gravel is acting as a regular insurance 207
agent, or that he is a member of the firm of Gravel and Spenard.
2. It will depend on the circumstances in each case.


Mr. JOHN  E.@: 


SINCLAIR, SUMMERFIELD, P.E.I.
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Is John E. Sinclair, of Summerfield, P. E.I., now or ha6 he at any time been in the employ of the government? If so, what was the nature of his employment and what are his duties ?
2.	How long was he in the employment of the government and what was the" date of his first engagement ?
3.	At what rate has he been paid?
4 How much has he been paid altogether since he ha6 been so employed?


Hon. C. MURPHY:: 1.	John E. Sinclair, of Summerfield, Prince Edward Island, was appointed as a member of the commission sent to the United Kingdom and Denmark by the Department of Agriculture to study swine husbandry.
2.	The term of Mr. Sinclair's engagement was from the 14th June to September 2nd, 1909.
3.	Mr. Sinclair has received no remuneration, other than his living and travelling expenses.
4.	The sum of $793.27.


SCHOOL SLATES AND LEAD PENCILS.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	How many cases of school slates were imported into Canada last year?
2.	What precautions does the government adopt to prevent the dumping into Canada of second and third class lead pencils, which it is alleged goes on at the present time?
3.	Does the government adopt the same methods of appraisement and valuation of these goods as the United States customs officials adopt? If not, what is the difference?


Hon. Wm. PATERSON:: 1.	The imports of school writing slates into Canada for the year ended March 31, 1909, were valued at $29,340. The quantity is not stated in the statistical returns.
2.	The usual precautions as to the production of certified invoices showing the fair market value as sold for home consumption are taken in the case of lead pencils entered at customs. The goods are examined and the invoices and entries reviewed by the appraisers to determine the proper duties payable. In the case of complaints, as to undervaluation of goods, investigations are made abroad by special officers to ascertain their fair market value.
3.	While the methods of appraisement and valuation of goods in Canada and the United States bear a similarity in some re-



spects, the rates of duty on.the lead pencils in question are not based on the same lines in both countries. The Canadian rates being ad valorem only, while United States rates arp combined specific and ad valorem.


DREDGING INSPECTORS AT PORT ARTHUR,
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 
CUSTOMS COLLECTOR AT MAHONE.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 1.	Has the collector of customs at Mahone beeu recently dismissed or removed? If so, when and for what reason?
2.	Who has been appointed in his stead?


Mr. PATERSON.: The answer is no.


DREDGING IN NEW BRUNSWICK.
Mr. CROCKET:: 1.	Were tenders called for the dredging done at Bathurst, New Brunswick, by the firm of A. & It. Loggie in the season of 1909?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received, from whom, at what prices and when were the tenders opened?
3.	When was the work commenced?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1 and 2. In 1908 Messrs. A. & R. Loggie offered to do the dredging required at Bathurst at the same prices as those of their tender for Caraquet, viz.: rock, $3; other materials, 41 cents; which were considered fair and reasonable. A contract was entered into with them and renewed in 1909.
3.	May 10, 1909.


William Paterson: 


Mr. CROCKET:: 1.	What amount is claimed by the firm of A. & R. Loggie for dredging done at Campbell-ton, New Brunswick, since the close of the last fiscal year?
2.	What was the contract price per yard for said dredging?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will observe that the question is what amount is claimed for dredging since the close of the last fiscal year. As the last fiscal year closed on the 31st March the answer would be nothing. I presume my hon. friend means during the last fiscal year?


Mr. CROCKET.: Yes.


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. During the last fiscal year dredging was done at Campbellton, New Brunswick, by Messrs. A. and R. Loggie to the amount of .$4,947.60, at the rate of 50 cents per cubic yard1.


ESCHEATS TO THE CROWN.
Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH moved that to-morrow the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide, in case of escheats to the Crown, that out of any property so devolving the Governor in Council shall have power to make such grants as seem right;	,
(a)	To any person having a legal or moral claim upon the previous owner or a just or natural right or claim to succeed to his property.
(b)	To carry into effect any disposition of such property which the previous owners may appear to have intended.
(c)	To reward any person making discovery of such property to the Crown.


Mr. GERVAIS.: Before this resolution is passed I would like to say that I think it involves an encroachment on the vested rights nf the provinces. I think it is one of their minor prerogatives to benefit by escheats.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: No debate can be allowed now. This is merely a government notice of motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is to escheat a property in our own territory, not in any province.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: But there is no such limitation in this resolution showing the tendency of the Bill to follow, which will prove to be ultra vires. With regard to that I may join issue with my right hon. friend. It is not for this parliament to decide whether these properties which are left in ' desherence ' should be attributed to the federal jurisdiction or to the provincial jurisdiction. I think it is one of the minor prerogatives of the Crown which must not be confounded with the higher prerogatives

of the Crown. So it was held in the case of the Attorney General of Quebec and Monk, and in that of the Attorney General of Ontario and Mercer, and it was so decided by the Privy Council. The minor prerogatives of the Crown are always governed by the civil laws of each province.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: No debate can be allowed at this stage.


Wilfrid Laurier: These properties are in the Yukon.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Even if they are in the Yukon, there might still be great cause of doubt. The English exchequer might claim them.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman will remember what I said, that no debate can take place at this stage.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: But I have a right to join issue with the minister.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: You can do that tomorrow.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I have a right to give an answer to a question put to me, for the right to question implies the right to answer.


THE NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that tomorrow the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient in connection with Bill (No. 95) An Act respecting the Nava] Service of Canada, now before this House, to provide that there shall be a department of the government of Canada which shall be called the Department of the Naval Service, over which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the time being shall preside; and that the Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be the deputy head of such (fepart-ment at a salary of $5,000 per annum, and such other officers and clerks as may be requisite for the due administration of such department, at such salaries as, under the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, are appropriate to the divisions and subdivisions of the services to which such officers and clerks may be assigned.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that Item 38 of the Public Bills and Orders be now called.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: I would ask the leader of the House how long we are likely to he engaged on this Bill, or has any agreement been reached as to how long it should occupy the attention of the House to the delay of other business which is perhaps more important and more pressing.
207i


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no objection from anybody. This Bill, like all other Bills which are submitted to the House, will receive a reasonable consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on Bill (No. 6) to amend the Criminal Code.
On section 1,
William Findlay Maclean: I only intend to take up but a short time in discussing this Bill, as I am anxious, like every one else, to reach a settlement. I believe a compromise may be reached which will be satisfactory to the country, and which ought to be satisfactory to both parties in the House. If the compromise proposed last night by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McColl) is accepted, we will have in this country less than 100 days of racing where now we have over 250 days. We will have the hand-book eliminated and made criminal, we will have tipsters' advertising and tipsters' offers of information prohibited, we will have the advance information in the pool-room prohibited, and the time for racing will be reduced from 250 days to less than 100. Then we will have an opportunity in the next few years of seeing whether that does not substantially reduce the abuses that now exist. I wish to draw attention to the issue as it exists in this country. While you may by this legislation be stopping betting, you may stop racing by stopping betting, and if you stop racing you are not going . to stop betting. That is clear to my mind. It has been attempted before, it has been attempted in other states to stop betting by prohibiting racing, and the attempt has failed. Where such Bills have been passed in the states, betting still continues, only it moves in another circle where you cannot control it as well as you can now. To my mind, this measure will he absolutely futile in the object of stopping betting. Betting is more or less inherent in humanity, people will find a way of betting and, of all forms of betting, that which should be stopped because it is the most scandalous is the betting on the stock exchange. There is far more money lost, there is far more injury done to the public and they have a poorer chance for their money in betting on the stock exchange than in betting with the book-makers on the race-track.


Mr. CONMEE.: Will this Bill not reach the stock exchange?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not know whether this will reach the stock exchange or not.


Mr. GERMAN.: No, no.


James Conmee: Who says ' no? '


William Manley German: I do.


William Findlay Maclean: I am quite sure that this Bill will not stop betting, but it is possible in every British community to regulate any evil. There is a betting evil in this country-we all admit that-there is a betting evil in connection with race-tracks, and the way to meet that evil, and to minimize it, is to regulate it and not attempt to abolish it. We do know that the most satisfactory treatment of the. drink evil is the regulation of the drink traffic, and in Ontario and the different provinces twe have, not prohibition, which han been found a failure, but we have the regulation of the drink evil which is a success, and under that regulation the drink evil is being gradually minimized. It is on those lines that we should approach this evil of racetrack betting and we should minimize it by putting under regulation the conduct of race-meetings controlled by men who take an interest in racing, on its merits, and an interest in stock breeding, and that regulation would best be effected by the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McColl). While you stop racing, as you do by this sweeping law which is now before the House, you do it at the expense of horse-breeding. I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) in his contention last night that an injury is done to the breeding of horses by the stopping of racing. I have represented in past years the constituency in which the Woodbine race-track is located. I have known a good deal about racing and horse-breeding in the country, and I absolutely agree with the evidence and the statement of the hon. member for *Brandon, that horse-racing in some way, is necessary for the maintenance of the thoroughbred horse, and that the thoroughbred horse is the greatest asset in connection with racing horses and the horse industry in this country. I am not going to enlarge upon it. I have had a wide enough experience of it to know-although I do not know what the reason is and nobody can account for the anomaly-that the perpetuation of the thoroughbred horse does tend to carry on the qualities of endurance and stamina which are the ground work of all the lighter breeds of horses. All the good military horses, whether chargers, or cavalry horses, absolutely derive their stamina, endurance and courage from the thoroughbred horse and the more thoroughbred horses we have in this country the better able we are to provide good horses for. the army of the empire and our own militia forces.


Wilfrid Laurier: And thoroughbred men.


William Findlay Maclean: And thoroughbred men. The country that has done that Mr. CONMEE.
most effectively is Great Britain. Their horses are the "best in the world, and they are taken all over the world for military and breeding purposes. Horse-racing is a very old British institution. It has been identified with British life hundreds of years, and it has never been a crime in England-and a great many of our people come from the old land-to bet with the book-makers at race-meetings. In some way horse-racing and the breeding of the thoroughbred are at the bottom of British character. All through British literature you will find these things mingling the world over, and they are represented as the real things at the foundation of British character. There is a love of the country, there is a love of thoroughbred animals, a love of live stock, a feeling of chivalry and military prowess in the British character that in some way is identified with horses and in some way is maintained by horsebreeding and the traditions that go with it. The things that have carried the Britisher wherever he has gone have been his military prowess, his chivalry, and his devotion of horse-racing and sport. These have been at the foundation of British character. It is no new thing-this desire of the British people 'to give race meetings, or to find sport in race meetings and betting on horses. It is almost as old as British character itself, and it runs through all our literature. Through the general literature of the entire world, in some way, there is a regard for horses and a desire to be associated with horses and identified with chivalry, military prowess and things of that sort. The desire of the ordinary British citizen to go to race meetings, to see contests between horses and to bet on horse-races is a part of the British character, and I do not see why we should interfere with that desire ir. the way that is proposed in this legislation.- The Britisher values above all things his liberty of personal conduct and he resents the attempt o'f somebody else to interfere with it. Wherever he has gone, in Australia, in Canada, in South Africa, in India, the Englishman has taken his racing instincts with him, he has taken racing there and he has done nothing of which he ought to be ashamed, but, on Mie contrary, he has maintained those underlying features of British character which are the strength of British character and British government throughout the world. So, this proposition to do awaj7 with horse-racing, to prevent people from going to the races and betting occasionally upon a race involves the placing of a stigma on British character and on things that are at the foundation of it. I happened to know the men who were identified with the starting of the Ontario Jockey Club. They were men of high character. They recognized the fact that

the British public must have sport, that the British public is essentially a sport-loving public and men like the late Mr. Hendrie, the late William Christie, the late Sir Casimir Gzowski, and the late Charles Brown, and the late T. C. Patteson, who established the Ontario Jockey Club had no desire other than to see British institutions and traditions maintained in this country through racing with which they had been identified. They recognize that the public had to have racing and they were willing to take charge of racing in Toronto and to give the public good clean . sport of that kind. They succeeded in giving it. The finest social gathering and the most characteristic gathering to-day in all Canada is that which you wall see at the Woodbine race track during the spring and fall meetings. This is essentially a representative Canadian meeting. It is a meeting of the best collection of men and women that I have ever seen at any place in Canada and to bring within tiie Criminal Code by this legislation now before the House those gentlemen who established racing in Canada and those people who go to the Woodbine race track, Toronto, is to stigmatize the very best citizens of this country who are simply living up to the traditions of their race, to their rights as British subjects and are doing nothing criminal -whatsoever that I can see. It is a pretty hard thing and a thing to be considered with some care, this going out of one man to make a rule of life for his fellow, to stigmatize anything that he thinks he does not agree with and to put that fellow within the Criminal Code The greatest manifestation of the strength of British political character to my mind in so far as our government is concerned, was in what we call the puritan or the presbyterian, or, if you like, the Protestant idea which developed in England many years ago. This- idea was the absolute freedom of the individual, his freedom of conscience, his right not to be dictated to by any one, and the right to make the rule of life for himself. As long as the puritan idea was political, and maintained that lib-erty-things were all right. And the puritan did another thing, he applied his self-denying ordinances to himself, and as long as he did that he was the greatest force in politics, and in morals. But the moment the puritan proposes to make the rule of life for some one else, for you, for me, he transgresses, he abnegates the great position he has, and he becomes somewhat of a tyrant. The strength of British character is shown when the puritan idea is political, and maintains its great principles, when the puritan idea manifests itself by self-control, and self-denial, but the moment it abandons that, and undertakes to regulate the personal conduct of others, it
has failed. That is at the bottom of what is happening in this country. A number of people outside of the cities where racing is carried on are asking for this legislation. The cities have not petitioned for this, one-seventh of the population of Canada is in the cities where racing takes place and not a call comes from any of these cities. In other words, outside places are undertaking to dictate the rule of life to the rest of the people in regard to their personal conduct on race-tracks. That is not liberal, that is not British, and, as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) said yesterday, there is no moral sanction for any such law when an attempt is made to put it in force in a British country, and you must have a moral sanction behind a law if you wish to vindicate that law.


Mr. MILLER.: Is my hon. friend aware that within the last two weeks a meeting of 400 young men of the city of Toronto at which Sir William Mulock was chairman, passed a standing resolution in favour of this Bill?


William Findlay Maclean: That may have been so, but that is not from the citizens of Toronto.


Henry Horton Miller: From 400 of them.


William Findlay Maclean: If they had wished for this we would have heard it here, and I challenge the hon. gentleman, if he wishes to advance this Bill, to bring the people here.


Mr. STRATTON.: Toronto's opinion is no criterion.


William Findlay Maclean: Toronto is a criterion for its own conduct.


Mr. PROIJLX.: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the grand jury


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I am aware of what the grand jury did. What the hon. gentleman wants to do, and is at liberty to do is to regulate his own conduct, and make the law of life for himself, but I wish to be free as a British citizen to make my own rule of conduct, and not to be interfered with in it.
In order to show where the American character begins to differentiate from the British I may say that in the United States they are attempting to abolish betting on race-tracks. It became such a scandal that the legislature had to intervene, and that interference took the drastic form of abolishing it. That course has not succeeded. But there is this difference between the American character, and the British character. In the British character there is a love of liberty, and British institutions are a success. There is a failure in personal liberty in the United Stales, and the result is that American institutions are called

into question. I read a book last year by Captain Lee on * The Ignorance of Valour,' and the whole lesson of that book is that the Americans no longer have the fighting quality, that if they were to go to war with Japan to-morrow the Americans would be defeated, because they have lost their love of liberty, and largely their military prowess. I have here an extract from another American who has been in England, and studied British institutions. This book is by Mr. Price Collier, and is entitled ' England and the English, from an American point of view.' It is one of the ablest books on the English character, and the condition of things in England that has been written in many years. Mr. Collier is forced to admire the conditions of affairs in England. He says:
Sitting on the bench at Bow street with the magistrate, I listened all one morning to his disposal of the cases that came before him. It seemed to me when I left that I had known beforehand what would happen. Quarrelsome women and men, mostly through drink; men and children accused of begging; a few cases of assault or resistance to the constable; all of them, hour after hour, dealt with in a good-tempered, paternal sort of way, with appeals to their own sense of what was right. Only the cases where there had been resistance to the constable who represents British law and order, then hard labour and wholesome punishment.
Here is the point:
Always the same from the King to Bow street. How can we live together amicably, with the utmost freedom for each one? that is the problem. The practical result is-you see it if you have eyes, everywhere you go- a success.
Englishmen are at all times trying to livb together and to give each other the greatest freedom and they do give one another the greatest freedom from the King down. Any one in England can go on a race-track and be doing nothing immoral; he need expect no interference from any one else. But we are setting up the doctrine in Canada that in some way it is our duty to interfere with the personal liberty of one another, and exercise some kind of surveillance one over the other. As the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton^ said last night, if that is started in this country, if we commence passing such legislation in this House, putting the conduct of one another within the Criminal Code, where is the end? Let us respect the liberties of one another, and maintain those liberties; let us maintain most of all those personal liberties which we have. That ought to be the end and aim of our life in this country, to afford liberty and not to afford restriction. There is nothing to-day that forces any man to go to a race-track and bet.. People must learn self-control, and if anybody is unfortunate in going to race-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN
tracks he ought to blame himself rather than the law. We ought to educate our people, our young men especially, to avoid betting and control themselves so that they will not fall into such a trap. If a master finds a clerk addicted to race-track betting, he ought to discharge him or speak to him instead of seeking legislation. Betting is good for no one, but if an individual wishes to make a bet on a race-track in connection with a meeting he is attending, I say he is doing nothing immoral, nothing unBritish. and there is no reason why his conduct should be stigmatized as being illegal or criminal. In the United States they are confessing a lack of military prowess and confessing that in some way Japan may defeat them if they should go to war, and they are trying to improve character by putting restrictions on it, while at the same time the great public rights and liberties that should be maintained are disappearing, and a government by monopoly worse than any government by aristocracy is growing up in that country. Private rights are going, public rights are going, but the tyranny of the great trusts and corporations is growing, yet at the same time they are trying to stop horse-racing, which is one of the simple amusements of the people.	.
I shall not take up much more time but may speak a little later on the various propositions as they come up, but I wish to impress if possible both those friendly to the Bill and those opposed to it that a compromise is the way out of the situation. We can reduce races to less than a hundred days in Canada, we can abolish the attendant evils, and then see the result of the experiment. If in the next three or four years the evil of betting, under the proposed amendments, should become flagrant, we may then bring it under the Criminal Code, hut I do not think that will be found necessary. I believe in regulation and not in prohibition, and under the proposed amendment, two great interests will not be destroyed as they would be by the Bill of the hon. member for Grey. If that Bill should be adopted, the horse industry would be injured and those who invest money in racing would stand to lose, and a great public sport would be legislated out of existence. There will besides be a disposition on the part of a great many in this country to regulate the conduct of others. I would not like to see anything of that kind. What we require is to preserve personal liberty in every possible way. If there be any grievance, regulate it, but preserve personal liberty, because personal liberty is the foundation of the British character and the secret of the strength of British institutions. When a drastic measure is nroposed, when it is proposed to stigmatize a large and re-

spectable section of the community as criminals, there ought to be some kind of moral sanction established to justify that interference, there ought to be some strong public opinion that the thing aimed at is immoral and criminal. I do not know that public opinion is ready to stigmatize the attendance at a race-track as a criminal practice. That is not the case in England. The first gentleman in the empire has been quoted as in some way condemning race meets. I would like to see the hon. member for South Grey quote anything from the eminent personage to show that he was against horseracing or to betting as an incidental in connection with it. Let me refer to the  * opinions of another eminent Englishman Lord Rosebery, but before doing so I shall read another short extract from 'Collier's' work on England and the English.
The English common sense comes to the fore again in an attempt to solve this problem. She is old enough to know from experience that the world is still ruled by men, and in all probability will be for a long time to come. She breeds men therefore as strong and simple as she can. In these islands sport is not a dissipation for idlers, it is a philosophy of life. They believe in it as a bulwark against effeminancy and decay.
There is the very statement I was making a short time ago. The Englishman believes in sport as a bulwark against decay and effeminancy. The Duke of Wellington said that Waterloo was won on the Eton cricket ground. The English military reputation has been attained by men which w'ere fond of the horse and addicted to sport. Let me vive an incident in connection with Lord Rosebery:
A Congregational minister makes a speech in which he confesses to ' a feeling of bitter humiliation ' when he reads that the Prime Minister is the owner of a Derby winner, and stands to. win or lose thousands of pounds on the race. Lord Rosebery's attention having been called to this speech by a political opponent, he replies as follows: 'Sir, I am desired by Lord Rosebery to thank you for your letter and its inclosnre. He will offer no opinion on the latter, for these matters should be dealt with according to good taste, Christian charity, and knowledge of facts possessed by each person who touches on them.' The letter is signed by the Prime Minister's secretary.
According to Lord Rosebery, Christian charity should be exercised, and we ought not to attempt to stigmatize a man because he happens to own a race-horse and attend a race-meet.
Lord Rosebery is one of the most accomplished Englishmen of the day; he considers it lacking in Christian charity to abuse him for owning and breeding a great race-horse. So do probably more than nine out of ten of his countrymen. From top to bottom of English society, from the Prime Minister to the
Yorkshire footballer, sport is almost as much a part of the national existence as eating and drinking.
If there be an evil in connection with sport, let us get rid of it by regulation. And if you regulate horse-racing, as proposed in the amendment, you will introduce nothing improper and do no wrong, and you will not stigmatize decent people as coming within the Criminal Code. I resent the insinuation that my fellow citizens of Ontario, and especially Toronto and the surrounding district, are to De stigmatized and put within the Criminal Code.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: Does my hon. friend understand that book-making is in the Criminal Code? He says that every one connected with horse-racing in Ontario is stigmatized by the provisions of this Bill. To whom does he refer?


William Findlay Maclean: First of all there are my fellow citizens of Toronto who belong to the jockey club. The hon. member from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is on the executive of-that club, so is a senator in the other House. , There are other gentlemen on its executive, and who actually bet on the race-track, and if the hon. gentleman's Bill should carry these will be stigmatized as doing something illegal and immoral. Every one who goes on a racetrack is stigmatized as guilty of an immoral act. Every one who goes to a race-meet will be so stigmatized.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.
Mr. w' F. MACLEAN. Yes, especially any man who wishes to bet


John Howard Sinclair: I do not so understand the Bill. The only prohibition in the Bill is against the book-maker, not against the bettor. There is no pretense to stigmatize ttie private individual who chooses to bet. The sportsman who goes to a race and finds another sportsman to bet with him is at liberty to do so. What is made criminal is the book-maker and no ont else.


William Findlay Maclean: On the contrary, eminent personages in this country have been held up to the people as guilty of moral wrong because they attended the Woodbine. I say there was nothing wrong in that. I have no sympathy with people who undertake to make a rule and law of conduct for others. There is a way of reaching this thing as an evil, and I hope to hear an explanation from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) regarding that letter of his which was read here yesterday. There is a way by which each province can regulate these things. Certainly making acts innocent in themselves criminal is not the way to accomplish anything, and I hope this House will not begin the work of undertaking to regulate the

personal conduct of individuals. I appeal to the common sense of the House not to begin this work, but to maintain and preserve personal liberty. Let every man make a rule of life for himself. There is no compulsion on people to go to race-tracks and bet, and there is no reason why their personal liberty should be interfered with, either as regards attending or refusing to attend r-aee-meets. I have had some experience in Ontario of this attempting to make the law of conduct for other people. Take the instance of the Sunday street cars, which excited so much hostility, but which resulted in the people at last winning the right to travel on Sunday. We were then told that we were doing something immoral, that public opinion was against us, that the cars should not be allowed to run on Sundays under any circumstances. but the public will finally gaiip its end. What we ought to have is not tyranny, but regulation." So I appeal to the common sense of the House to regulate race-meets and not abolish them. I appeal to the House not to interfere with property and private interests, and with such a great industry as" horse-breeding.


Mr.  J. R.@: STRATTON (West Peterborough) I had intended last evening making a few observations, but on account of the abrupt way in which the debate closed, I did not feel it was desirable to detain the House at that time. This question has been before the country for a considerable time. I have listened to the speeches of those opposed to this measure; and giving these gentlemen all the credit for the ability they have displayed, which was very great, in my opinion they have been inconsistent in the arguments they put forward. When an hon. gentleman" says that public opinion is not in favour of this Bill, I desire to take issue with him. When the hon members for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton) and West Northumberland (Mr. Mc-Coll) pointed out that public opinion is not in favour of this Bill, I desire to dispute that statement; and I venture to say that my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Maclean) cannot name five newspapers in Ontario which are opposed to the principle of the Bill. On the other hand, I can name dozens which have urged the adoption of this measure, because it is in the right direction, and because great evils have grown up under the present law. My hon. friend from West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) referred to the thieves and other doubtful characters who attend the Toronto and similar exhibitions. Let me point out that the Attorney General of Ontario sends to such large gatherings detectives and others to protect the public. But if the amendment be adopted the very reverse will be the case. The hon. gentleman desires, as far as race-tracks are con-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN
cerned, to legalize the very causes which attract thugs and thieves to the race-tracks and public exhibitions held from time to time. He referred to the fact that the bookmaker, would be in the same class as the dangerous characters referred to as frequenting large gatherings, so far as access to large assemblages of the public would facilitate the opportunities of his plying his admittedly nefarious occupation. The opponents of the Bill, in the proposed amendment, seek to aid and, if it prevails, will legalize bdbk-making on the race-course. It will license him, it will protect him, while the Bill proposes to do away with the bookmaker, and thus protect those, unable from lack of knowledge or experience of the snares set for them, to protect themselves. Horse-racing, as conducted in Ontario today, can be altered and improved, and a new method adopted by which horse-racing will not be interfered with, but the root of all the evil, the book-maker and book-making, will be abolished. I do not desire to interfere with racing, or the development of the thoroughbred, but I do not believe that it is at all necessary for that purpose to have book-makers on the race-track to rob the public, to contribute to the racing associations, and furnish the purses to be given on the pretext of developing the thoroughbred horse. I do not believe that is at all necessary and consequently I am opposed to any compromise that will have the effect of perpetuating book-making. New York state was referred to by my hon. friend from West Northumberland (Mr. McColl). He pointed to the conditions now existing there and the loss of prestige of the thoroughbred horse owing to the abolition of legalized gambling. Well, there may be a loss of prestige temporarily, there may be a diminution in the value of the thoroughbred as a racer, but there is no reduction in the actual value of the thoroughbred, that I know of, in the state of New York at present. It is not often we look across the line for precedents, but, if we should do so in this case, we would find that the state of New York is not thinking of abolishing their law, but of amending and improving it, so as to make it even more effective than it originally was.
During the Easter vacation I was in New York and took occasion to ask-not the goody goody people, as they are sometimes termed-but men of business whom I met in the financial world-I took occasion to ask them as to the result of the operation of the Hughes law. I asked them was it the goody goody people that were particularly responsible for the passage of that Act. I was informed to the contrary, that of course their moral support was with the Bill, but that the business houses and financial institutions that gave their

support most earnestly to the adoption of the Hughes law were those whose influence was behind its adoption; and it was further stated that those who were previously giving their attention to the race-track and losing their money, were now paying their debts, butchers' bills and rents more promptly than they ever did before. If that be the case across the border I think these conditions could be imitated on this side of the line to advantage.
My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) went on to make a comparison between gambling at the race-track and betting on an election. I do not think there is any comparison between the two. If a man desires to make an innocent bet, on the result of an election to show his faith in the candidate of his party, he has all the previous conditions surrounding the candidate to guide him. He is not held up by the book-maker, but banks on his own judgment, founded on his knowledge of the popularity of the candidates, and the local conditions.
If he desires to bet upon that question he is backing up his political faith. Also, he has an opportunity of judging of the merits of the candidates and of the questions and issues before the people. Making an ordinary bet, he makes it under conditions entirely different from those which face the average citizen who goes to the race-track and makes his bet with the book-maker, for that average citizen has but little chance of winning. The hon. member compared the making of a bet with a book-maker and the purchase of stock with a stock-broker. I think there is no comparison whatever. If a man goes into a broker's office and buys stock, he gets what he pays for. He may be mistaken in his judgment as to the value of the stock, or he may buy more than he is able to take care of. But it is only when he fails to pay his debts that the wrong comes in or an injury is done to any other person. The hon. member also referred to life insurance. Again. I say, there is no comparison whatever. The man who takes out life insurance gets -what he pays for. The amount is paid to his heirs at his death or to himself at the maturing of the policy, as the case may be. In either case, he has paid for what he gets, and he gets no more than he has paid for. It is true, as one hon. member said early in the debate. that there is more or less of a chance in any business occupation upon which a man may enter. If a man takes up the drygoods business he may make a mistake in the quantity, quality or selection of the goods he buys. But in every business a man has an opportunity to exercise his own judgment and in making a purchase, he gets what he pays for. Not so when he deals with a book-maker on the race-track.
My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sif-tonV spoke of what he called the peculiar
method adopted for the promotion of social reform as evidenced in this Bill. The hon. member quite approved of the action of parliament in passing the Lord's Day Bill of a few years ago. But I would ask him to point out any single difference of principle between that measure and this. One is in the interest of the public, and so is the other, and if the Lord's Day Bill is right, there is no doubt, in my opinion, that the present Bill is right also. The hon. member (Mr. Sifton) spoke of the thoroughbred horse and its importance to the farmer, and he also mentioned, if I remember right, the Ottawa association as one that had afforded the farmers in the neighbourhood special opportunities for the improvement of their stock by the use of the thoroughbred horse. We know thkt the farmer does not use the thoroughbred horse to any great extent, and, if what the hon. member says concerning the Ottawa association be correct-and, of- course, I fully accept what he says on that subject-it only shows a desire to create in the farmer's mind an impression that the thoroughbred horse can be useful to him. The hon. member for Brandon also said that confiscation of property was involved in the passing of this measure. If there be a confiscation of property in the difference between 10 per cent and 10,000 per cent on the stock of these racing associations, then there may be an appearance of confiscation. But I contend that there is no real confiscation of property by the adoption of this measure. While there may be a depreciation to some extent in the value of a few of the thoroughbred horses throughout the country, there is no other confiscation that can be so recognized. This parliament, or any legislature, does not hesitate for a moment to amend the law affecting any business, but bases its legislation simply upon considerations of the public interest. And nothing is said against their so doing. If the parliament of Canada can reduce to a minimum the evil of book-making from one end of this country to the other by the adoption of this measure, I believe they will be doing something that will be in the right direction, something for which they will have every reason to expect the approval of the overwhelming majority of the people.
My hon. friend from West Northumberland (Mr. MeColl) has proposed an amendment. the effect of which would be to legalize race-track gambling in its entirety. He would give to race-track associations a monopoly of the betting on horse-racing in this country. And. while my hon. friend from South'York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is willing to extend the privileges to those who are able to attend tbe race-meets of the Ontario .Tockev Club in Toronto, yet bis regard for liberty of action and of speech is not sufficient to cause him to


James Robert Stratton: Under the Bill of my hon. frienl from South Grey, he would not be able to carry on private betting to any considerable extent, but if this amendment is adopted it is sufficiently wide to enable

book-makers to do all the business they desire to do. I think that would be found to he the case, and that they would be able to drive a coach and four through this Bill, as they have done in the case of other legislation. Again the amendment says:
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.
You might as well say that any constable *on the Kingston road may take into custody, -without warrant, any person, because if the person is carrying on betting outside, then he can be taken and carried off unceremoniously to prison. That is what my hon. friend advocated a moment ago. But if the individual is inside the track, if he has the advantage of the law so that he may get inside the racing inclosure, then he is free and is at liberty to carry on betting to the fullest extent. I am absolutely opposed to the amendment I think it kills the principle of the Bill, and I think the desire of the House is that we should adopt the principle of the Bill. I think it is the duty of this parliament to afford the people the protection to which they are entitled. We are not interfering with the rights of anybody further than is necessary in the public interest, even though the Bill went to the fullest extent desired by its most ardent supporters. I believe it should be adopted, and that by doing so we would be meeting the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Canada. I care not whether the Bill has been advocated by the Lord's Day Alliance, or by certain clergymen, or whether petitions have been sent in. We do know that this House was flooded with petitions at the commencement of the session. We are all able to judge of their value. But for us to say that there is no public sentiment in favour of the Bill is a mistake, and any hon. gentleman will deceive himself if he entertains that opinion. There is a strong public sentiment in favour of it, there is a strong feeling throughout the country that something should be done to protect the innocent, to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. I wall not quote to you the remarks of clergymen with regard to gambling upon the race-track; but I think that one of the most powerful sermons ever delivered against race-track gambling was the opinion expressed by the famous Silent Smith who died in Pittsburg a year or two ago, and who had accumulated about $3,000,000 in gambling. This is what he said on his death bed:
Race-track gambling is as insidious as the most powerful drug, gradually developing as if the victim was not strong enough to resist the temptation. Few people have the ability
to be successful on the track. The best evidence he could give of that was that he could count on the fingers of one hand those men who, in the past century, had made money out of race-track gambling.
He said further that:
He would welcome the laws that would prevent the youth of the land spending money and energy in following the ponies.
So, we have from one who followed the race-track for years, who knew what the advantages, and disadvantages of it w'ere, and w'ho made large sums of money for himself in connection therewith, this dying statement. This parliament has a duty to perform in the interest of the youth of the land, and that is to. adopt legislation which wall guard them from the risks that are surrounding them in connection with racetrack betting. One of the greatest horse figures in the United States-Keene, who spent more money upon his horse stables than perhaps any other man in the world, over half a million a year, made a statement upon this subject, and what did he say? Betting is not necessary to horseracing and that he had never placed a bet on a horse. The Agnew Bill in the state of New York is being backed up by the public sentiment of the- state, and the opposition to this Bill which has only developed is being worked up by those who are particularly interested in opposing that legislation, just as an effort Is being made to create a feeling around this building hostile to this measure, because it is claimed that it will interfere with the development of the thoroughbred horse. I do not believe anything of the kind. I believe that the thoroughbred horse will be fostered just as successfully in the future as he has been in the past because the evidence that came before the committee showed conclusively that that development had not been as rapid as could have been desired especially in view' of the alleged benefits of fifty years racing in Canada, and evidence of which w'as the fact that when the Boer w'ar broke out they could not obtain in Canada the quality ' and quantity of horses that the British army required. For my part, I am in favour of the measure now before the House, and I hope that the parliament of Canada will see its w'ay to place upon the statute-book a law that will give protection to our citizens, and that protection which is absolutely essential. If other countries can adopt legislation such as this, the parliament of Canada should meet the wishes of the people in so far as this measure goes, and I believe that by adopting this Bill it will be meeting the wishes of the people.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, before dealing at length with w'hat wras said in the course of yesterday's debate as to the sub-

ject now under discussion, I may be allowed to briefly refer to some statements just made by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Stratton). The hon. gentleman expressed an opinion as to the usefulness of the thoroughbred. He acknowledged in passing that he did not know very much about the matter. That was apparent, that was evident. I take his word when he says that he has no extensive knowledge as regards the thoroughbred. Farmers, he says, are not fond of the thoroughbred. Of course they are right in preferring another type if they want a horse only to hitch to the plough or to draw heavy loads. In that case, I would agree with the hon. gentleman and admit that for such work the thoroughbred is not suitable. But, there is some other use to which the thoroughbred can be put on farms; and I speak advisedly when I say so. To back up that statement I have my own personal experience covering twenty-five years, during which I have had the pleasure, not to say the advantage-as it comes rather high-of taking an interest in farming matters, and I invite the learned members to visit my stables, wherein he will find thoroughbreds of some value.
The farmer, it is said, has a dislike for the thoroughbred, I have just stated the reason. However, in order to make myself clear. I shall further say that the thoroughbred is useful for the improvement of heavy breeds of horses, such as the Ardennais, the Hackneys, the Normans, and the Per-cherons. We even have to-day Brabansons which are too* slow, too heavy to be profitably put on the road. But the Brabansons, as well as the Percherons and the Normans, are great breeds of horses which should be improved, made lighter by crossing them with the thoroughbred.
The thoroughbreds are small, it is urged. Yes, but they are full of stamina; and when desirous of improving our heavy draught breeds, we are very careful to cross' them with thoroughbreds which are the mearis of bringing about a happy medium, that is of breeding horses which can be used on the roads or in the fields without breaking through, as do the Norman, the Percheron. or the Brabanson. Whenever such heavy horses have to be put to work in the fields before the surface is settled down, they injure the sod in meadows and pastures by sinking knee deep into the ground, and besides they are liable to break down fences and gateways, while the thoroughbred goes clean over them without causing any damage.
In the province of Quebec the ' National Breeders' Association ' offers fine stallions which have cost a good deal of money. Henceforth, we have no use for any others. On the other hand the owner of a thoroughbred mare which has been imported Mr. LAFOETUNE.
at considerable cost, will not breed that mare to a thoroughbred, but to a horse of a heavier type, so as to obtain a progeny which may be of service at all kinds of work, whether on the road or in the field. Besides, they may occasionally be sold at high prices, on account of the qualities developed in them by judicious breeding. Such is my answer to the hon. member for Peterborough who has just stated that we have no use for the thoroughbred.
Formerly we dispensed with automobiles, with electric traction, telephone and telegraph lines and even railways. That recalls to my mind an old-timer in my constituency who was averse to the building of a railway line to Montreal; of course that line was built in spite of his opposition, but he would never travel by it, because it had been built by Liberals. He persisted in using exclusively his old grey nag. Those are errors of judgment, exaggerations unworthy of attention. But when we are met by a man who proposes legislating on the lines inidicated and inserting in the Criminal Code a provision such as we find in the Bill under discussion, it is up to us to call a halt.
I have had the honour of being Crown prosecutor for some years past, in the largest judicial district of the province of Quebec. Well, since I have been acting in the above capacity, taking a hand in the administration of justice, especially in connection with criminal cases m Montreal, for a few years back not a single case, not a single complaint of the character referred to has been brought up in court. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) stated last evening in my hearing that, while attending the sittings of the police court in Montreal last autumn, he had been struck by the large number of arraignments. Well, I may say to that gentleman that at any of the sittings he might witness a similar condition of things; but these arraignments are not the outcome of the racing going on at the Jockey Club or at Delorimier park. Presently I shall give the names of the people making up the Montreal Jockey Club and the De-lormier Park Association, and the House will be surprised to find that the list comprises men of the highest standing and perfectly well posted as regards proper administrative methods and public morals.
There are crimes in quite sufficient numbers definied by the common and the statutory law and entailing various penalties; and when I hear the hon. member for Grey requesting the House to still add to ti c list of criminal offences and prohibit racetrack betting, it is time that a stop be put to such legislation.
It is quite useless for him to come to Montreal and proclaim such principles, or to call public meetings in the hope of obtain-

ing support. I understand he succeeded in getting together in Toronto four hundred young men, without any experience of life, ignorant of what is in the best interest of the country, and even that has been effected^ only by means of much publicity. I am' surprised that more people should not have responded to the call in that fine city of Toronto, Canada's queen city, as it is sometimes called, though improperly to my mind. That shows that the Bill is not a popular one, for in our province whenever a popular measure is being discussed, instead of four hundred boys, thousands of people will congregate.
The hon. member has made reference to public opinion. Well, I have lust stated what is going on in Montreal. I live in close proximity, within the county of Jacques Cartier. I regret that the member for that constituency (Mr. Monk) who has a great concern in that question, is away.
I hope he will be back before this debate is over, otherwise, when he appeals to his constituents at the next election, we shall make it a matter of serious reproach for him. He is very well posted and has had a long experience in these matters, and no doubt he would have seconded the amendment which the committee has under discussion. His absence then is the more to be regretted on that account.


Mr. PAQUET. (Translation).: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the member for Jacques Cartier is seriously ill, and that his absence has no other cause.


David Arthur Lafortune: I was not aware of that, and must apologize. I hope he will soon recover, and come back in good health and good disposition.
I was just saying, Mr. Speaker, that the Montreal Jockey Club has its grounds in the county of Jacques Cartier, within the limits of the finest parish in the province, that of St. Laurent, where I have my home. That association has spent up to date a million dollars on its race track. I was proud last autumn, when the opening took place under the patronage of His Excellency the Governor General, to witness the assembling there of more than one hundred thousand people. What a fine sight it was! The best and finest people in the province were in attendance, and in particular beautiful women. And everything went on without any unpleasantness whatever. Notice, Mr. Speaker, that as is always the case, perfect order reigned throughout. There are policemen on the grounds who have an eye on strangers coming and going; as regards the Montreal people, who are all good citizens, such measures are unnecessary; but in order to ensure greater safety, and lest some one might act improperly, the association have policemen on the grounds in sufficient numbers
to prevent or counteract any wrong doing.
It is a day of rejoicing for the farming community; it is a festival of agriculture. Before long, I shall request my leaders to set apart a day as the festival of agriculture, ' farmer's day.' No such day has yet been set apart. Professional men, labour men, have their day; the farming community alone is without a day set apart in honour of their calling, which is the finest under the sun. That request I shall not make just now, but at the next session, and mind you it will have to be granted. I let that stand as a notice of motion for next session.
The hon. gentleman's reference to public sentiment recalled to my memory certain utterances of our opponents on another question. They stateu that public opinion was entirely against us and would bnna about our downfall. As evidence, they pointed to petitions bearing a great many signatures and laid before the House.
I cannot say very much about the petitions in favour of this Bill. I do not know what signatures they bear, but what I do know is that very often such petitions are signed injudiciously, by routine without paying any attention at all, and more than anything else; to please the person who takes the petition around. Several of the petitions which were sent with reference to the Naval Bill had been forwarded from my constituency. On looking into them, I found that the signatures were all in the same handwriting. I made inquiries from several of my friends who answered, ' We never signed our names to that petition.'
' But,' I would say, * I saw your names on the document.' ' Well,' they would answer,
' it was put there by my son, my daughter or my wife.' Of late, when people made inquiries to me about the Miller Bill, they would ask: ' Mr. Lafortune, is that Mr. Miller who is circulating a Bill for the purpose of sending every body and soul to jail, the same man wanted to prevent trains from circulating on Sunday? '-' I do not know, but they read pretty much the same.' ' Is he the same man who wished to prevent us from going out on Sundays -' I do not know, but it looks like it; the principles involved are alike.'
If we were to insert in the criminal code provisions against all those who are guilty of wrong-doing, what great number of lawyers and judges would we not need! Even now it is a difficult matter to secure judges for the settlement of business and other lawsuits of importance. Indeed, many judges would be required to dispose of criminal cases, should we undertake to put a stop to all abuses, wrong-doing and to restrain all those who live beyond their means. That might give me a chance of being appointed a judge before long.


G531 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
No, public opinion is sounder than that; public opinion has matters of greater importance with which to concern itself. I do not wish to be in any way offensive or disrespectful towards the learned gentlemen who support the Bill. But let me say this to them: You should, it appears to me, in the interest of the country, in th.e interest of your electors, busy yourselves otherwise than originating new criminal offences. Crimes are not like mushrooms which develop in the course of a few hours. New crimes should not be imagined in connection with everything. Otherwise, what shall prevent you from legislating against betting on lacrosse grounds. Young men who attend lacrosse matches, who bet large sums on baseball or hockey matches, should also in that case be called to account, prohibited from attending such games, or spending their money in such fashion. Then, why should they not be restrained from going to the theatre, where they have to disburse from five to ten dollars when in compatoy with young ladies? All such expenditure is objectionable. Then, would it not be proper to prevent people from providing themselves with automobiles! Formerly, carts were the great means of travel, while nowadays rubber tires are considered a necessity. If I were permitted to speak out, I would take the right hon. Prime Minister to task for having promoted the welfare of the country. After all, he is to blame if people spend so much today; people are in a position to spend on account of the general prosperity aijd instead of being surprised at the spending of a few dollars on the race tracks, one should express astonishment were the contrary to occur.
I heartily concur in the remarks made by the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean). Possibly it is the first time that I agree with him, but I hope it will not be the last. Come along and Join in with us, Mr. Maclean, join in with the Liberals who are opposed to these proposals which you rightly condemn.
It is urged that the inserting of this clause in the Criminal Code will not in any way affect the race-track. Well, let us see how it would work out in the case of the Montreal Jockey Club, for instance. There are one hundred thousand spectators assembled on the grounds. On a sudden, ten or twelve policemen appear at the meet and proceed to make arrests. You may be sure that racing will not be continued very much longer. Tumult, trouble, a stampede possibly will ensue. The wives and daughters of those attending will feel uneasy; children will take fright. They would be the first to say: Let us no longer go to see the races to be witnesses of such squabbles and excitement. You may be sure that under such circumstances racing Mr. LAFORTTTNE.
would .soon be a thing of the past; race meets would be abolished.
Evidently, these hon. gentlemen have never been on the race-track. At any rate, they have never attended race meets; or they would have been highly gratified at the way things are managed and amusement provided for them. Had the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Miller) been at these race meets, he would not have introduced that Bill. It is the best of sports. English-speaking people are those who show the greatest enthusiasm for such amusements in our country; they are always in the lead, the first to get there, the freest spenders, ever ready to contribute ten, twenty or thirty dollars whenever we Canucks contribute one. They are always in the lead whenever sports are concerned. Racing is the best of our sports, and that is why we propose voting dowm this Bill. I am satisfied that if I voted in favour of this Bill, my constituents would never send me back to parliament ; the people would no longer have any use for me as their representative, and that is a risk I do not like to take, as I am beginning to appreciate my present occupation.
Talk of wu-ong-doing! Inquire from public men, politicians on either side of the House, those who occupy seats here and those who are intent of recapturing their old constituencies, and all will say:	I
have been ruined by politics; I have lost all I had; I am a poor man, I was rich when I entered parliament, but I have spent all I had in political campaigning. Now, should we prevent these people from going into politics? They are impoverishing their families, ruining their health; oftentimes at the close of their political career, they are obliged to apply for a position, not ahvays positions on the bench, but others less exalted. I have, say they, sacrificed myself for the good of the country in the public interest: I have neglected my dearest interests; give me a position which will enable me to support myself and my family for the remainder of my life. The next proposal which I think the hon. member for Grey should take up, after getting this Bill through the House, should be one towards prohibiting men from engaging in politics and thereby impoverishing themselves and their families. The principle is the same in both cases.
Mr. PROULX.: (Translation).	You
would not send them to jail?


David Arthur Lafortune: Certainly; every law should have a sanction. In case of a criminal offence, imprisonment is in order. Do you know of any criminal law that is not enacted under pain of imprisonment?


Edmond Proulx: But there are people who have been sent to jail as
65.33

a result of having lost money on the race track.


David Arthur Lafortune: And there are many who should be in jail, though they are still free.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


David Arthur Lafortune: Mr. Speaker, at recess, I was contending that public opinion which our learned opponents are representing as being on favour of this Bill, is rather in my humble opinion, opposed to it. Public feeling cannot lend itself to giving effect to such personal views in regard to restricting individual freedom, whose defenders those learned gentlemen profess themselves to be.
Let us not interfere with individual liberty. It is an entirely different matter when we are called upon to legislate concerning trade, for instance, or any other matter relating to society in general. Thus when the government submitted an Act in regard to Sunday observance, it was a general law, applicable to all provinces and to all classes of society. However, many persons took exception to that measure as being an encroachment on individual liberty. The majority of the House declared that law necessary; but people went so far as to try to nut a stop to amusements within the family circle and to prevent young people from indulging in moderate, honest and intelligent relaxation. However, that Act for the better observance of the Lord's Day had its good points, and I was, favourable to the principle ol the law, although I did not approve of its rigour.
But in the present case, as I listened to the learned gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Stratton) pointing out as he did to the impoverishment of families through losses sustained by many on the race-track, 1 was tenanted to turn around and ask; What about those who gamble on stocks? What about those who buy stock' which is never delivered to them? What about those business places where numbers of our y.oung men speculate on stocks, and ruin themselves and oftentimes their families? You do not propose introducing legislation with a view to restricting such transactions. And I heard the hon. gentleman stating; There is no comparison possible between gambling on stocks and gambling on the race-track. Well, I think he is right in stating that there is no comparison possible between the two, inasmuch as stock gambling is much the worse evil of the two. Those who go in for betting on the race-track are not guilty of one-hundredth part of the wrong-doing for which gamblers in stock are responsible. Nevertheless, should there be introduced to-morrow a Bill to prohibit stock gambling, that
hon. gentleman would be the first to protest and say: You are encroaching on individual freedom, you are interfering with trade and every day transactions. I might victoriously reply to that hon. gentleman that there is no comparison possible. The farming community, those who take an interest in farming and particularly those who go in for breeding, have a right to the protection of the law. It is contended that this Bill will not interfere with the breeders' business, with the farmers' opportunities. Whereupon I answer to my learned friends that they are astray in their contention that by prohibiting what is now being carried on in an honest, regular and rational way, the breeder's business, which is of interest to us, will not be interfered with.
Wherever racing is being carried on, betting should be allowed, and if betting between individuals only is allowed, and no middlemen permitted to take in the bets, what will become of the money put up in bets? I have some experience in this connection, and I say that if you do away with book-making, you render betting impossible. The money put up in betting will go into the hands of strangers, of irresponsible people, and when the meet is over, it will be found that they are flown. In order to recover the money, recourse to the law courts will be necessary, and a great deal of trouble will be in sight. Betting under such conditions would not be possible, all must agree as to that. Whoever has any experience at all in sporting matters will not say otherwise. As is well known, owners of race-tracks farm out the privilege of book-making to specialists and that is a fair and legitimate way of providing the funds to be given out in prizes.
What was it that induced thousands and thousands of people to gather for last autumn's race meet at Montreal? What was it that drew there 1,500 horses, a good number of which were from across the boundary? What was it, if not the prizes that were offered? Do you think a man in Philadelphia, or New York-there were even one in Los Angeles-would spend large sums to send horses to these race meets, if the stakes were only small sums? Even then, these race horse owners should not be looked at in the light of mere speculators; they send their horses at a loss. They do so for the benefit of the farming community, and in most cases they get only a very small proportion of their outlay. Is f.t fair that such men be subjected to the treatment meted out by this Bill? They spend large sums to promote the breeding of horses on right lines, and the farming community is benefited thereby. I trust, therefore, that the House will sound the death knell of that Bill and will turn down the proposal of these gentlemen,

whose only concern is to originate new criminal offences, and that we will hear nothing more of such theories.
Sir, no good reason can possibly be put forward in support of these contentions. Some latitude should be granted to human nature in selecting amusements, and these cannot be had free of cost. In the same way, the acquirement of learning does not go without fees. Those who attend race meets an engage in betting, acquire experience and that has to be paid for. From what these hon. gentlemen say, one might infer that all are losers at that game. Surely, there must be winners, and who are are they? Book-makers get rich, it is claimed. Of course there are winners in that class, but there are also losers. The money I lose in bets goes into the pockets of the_ fellow who bet against me, barring the amount of a commission of ten per cent generally, which goes to the middleman. That is all the profit the latter gets out of the bettors. On the other hand, the book-maker, who is a dealer in bets, a buyer and seller of bets on the horses listed to run, is himself a loser occasionally. He sells 'horses for first, second or third place, and that horse may come out last, in which case we immensely enjoy taking in his dollars, which you may rest assured, we have no thought of returning to him the day following.
I 'hear the hon. member for Prescott state that the book-maker is not often disappointed. I infer from it that the hon. gentleman has never been on a race-track. Let him come to our meet and he will find out that everything is done honestly, that there is no fraud.
Hon. gentlemen seems to think that there are no means devised towards protecting the individual and putting down abuses. But legal gentlemen who are well up in the knowledge of civil rights and iproce-dure, should not lose sight of those enactments specially designed to protect the individual, whether he be a young man or a father of family, against his own excesses in the matter of gambling or drinking. Have we not such a thing as the privation of civil rights and the family council? If it is shown to the courts that so and so is a spendthrift, a gambler at cards, a drunkard,. a too easy-going fellow, a family council may at once ibe summoned and consulted as to the desirability of interdicting the gentleman and providing him with a curator or judiciary council, whose duty it will 'be to prevent him from extravagant spending. Now it is proposed to have this parliament take the matter in hand and deprive of his civil rights the spendthrift, the gambler, the prodigal. Well, I protest against parliament assuming jurisdiction in matters of this kind. I say parliament has not the right to brand Mr. LAFORTUNE.
any one as a prodigal before his relatives have had their say in the matter. I say that such a course would be an encroachment on individual liberty. I say you have not the right to deal with Canadian citizens as if they were spendthrifts, and restrain their freedom of action without conforming to the rules of procedure enacted by the various provinces of the Dominion. Whenever we are called upon to deal w'ith a prodigal, but not of the most pronounced type, we deprive him in part only of his civil rights, by appointing a judiciary council to prevent him from living in an extravagant manner or spending too freely. Such are the means provided by law to restrain improvident and Teckless people.
Sir, the learned gent who preceded me stated-and I was sorry to hear him say so-: in this connection we prefer following the provisions of the United States law, to following those of the British law. We take after the people of the United States; as to the British enactment, as to the legislation in force in the mother country, they say, we have no use for it, Is that sound reasoning ? To my mind it is a criminal offence, a crime which should be made punishable under our laws, a crime of high treason to thus follow the lead of our neighbours, without paying any attention to what is being done in Great Britain. A Mr. Hughes has been mentioned. I am not acquainted with him, though he may be a very honest man. But I prefer following the legislation in force in the British empire. In support of a bad case, people are ant to make use of every means, good or bad. After centuries of British rule, one should know a thing or two.
I listened with pleasure and a great deal of attention to the statements made last evening by the ex-minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). I have never heard anything more precise and indicative of so great ability and experience. He gave us the whole thing in a nutshell. His arguments are uncontrovertible, and no attempt was made to answer them. The hon. gentleman who hails from those vast territories which are the hope of the Dominion, has Canadian interests at heart. It cannot be said of him that he is a race track gambler or that he has any kind of interest in racing associations. He gave us his word that he never gambled or engaged in betting, and nobody will doubt his word. His opinion should be given still greater weight, seeing that it is wholly disinterested.
Reference has been made to insurance policies, and the hon. gentleman who made such reference contended that the policyholder gets back only what he paid. Such is not always the case. The policy-holder is not always in that position, as I shall endeavour to show. Take for instance the

case of a life insurance policy. The policyholder dies after having paid his first premium and his heirs get a considerable amount of money which the company is bound to pay. Then take the case of a fire insurance policy. The owner of the building insures it for a large amount. The next day, the building is destroyed by fire, and he gets a lot of money, after paying in a small premium only. Will it be contended that in such cases the insured gets back merely what he had disbursed? However such agreements are considered legal, although they imply a contingency, although their outcome is uncertain, hazardous, in the same as with race-track betting. You bet on a horse expecting he will come out first, and very often he comes out last. You are the loser, but some one else is a winner.
My learned friends spoke of the usefulness of the thoroughbred. It is a well known fact among farmers and breeders generally, that thoroughbreds are high-priced horses. They are not plentiful, require much training, and cost a great deal to their owners. On the other "hand the latter expect to obtain a handsome price for them.
Within the last twenty years governments have spent large sums towards promoting breeding. The Minister of Agriculture, agricultural lecturers, co-operative associations, farmers' clubs, agricultural societies have all in turn advocated better breeding methods, and the improvement of live stock, especially of horses. For several years past, a large number of thoroughbreds have been imported to cross with Canadian horses. Thereby, we have succeeded in bringing about a considerable improvement in our breeds of horses. And when these hon. gentlemen contend that it is possible to continue that work of improvement independently of racing, let me answer that, in my humble opinion, that is not possible. Neither is it possible to provide for the upkeep of a race-track solely by means of entrance fees an contributions forthcoming occasionally from individuals or agricultural associations in connection with the meets. That has been attempted in every county throughout Canada. The idea is not a new one. An effort was made at large agricultural fairs to run the show by means of entrance fees alone, and to be content with a few races comprising only a small number of entries, but that always resulted in a failure. On the other hand, how have matters been improved? Success has been attained by acting in co-operation with the management of large associations. In conjunction with agricultural fairs and ploughing matches, we have arranged to have racing, and the owners of these race-tracks have contributed hundreds of dollars. How did these 208
gentlemen come to be in a position to do so? Simply through the association realizing profits, and being on that account prosperous enough to help us. Farmers benefit therebv. The passing of this Bill would inflict heavy losses on those who interest themselves in the improvement of horsebreeding. What would be gained by ruining these men? What would become of these associations who contribute towards the improvement of agricultural methods, the desirability of which is acknowledged by all? Representatives of the people who are desirous of promoting the welfare and the development of the country should not hesitate a single moment to vote against this Bill.
The question has been asked whether or not such a measure would be easy of enforcement. I am now speaking as if the Bill was to pass, although I do not think it will be voted by the House; but, admitting that it will pass, will it be an easy matter to enforce its provision? I have had some _ experience in the matter, having practised law for the last thirty years. I have always been concerned with my professional duties, and was deemed worthy of being appointed Crown prosecutor in my district. For the last four years, I have been acting in that capacity. Numbers of cases of all kinds have been brought up in the meantime, and having that experience, which should count for something, I say without hesitation that it would be absurd to pass such a law, to make betting a criminal act, to deal with bettors as if they were scoundrels and criminals, and that you will fail in getting a jury to condemn people charged with such an offence. Jurymen as a rule are respectful of authority, but they are free and independent men, and called upon as they are to decide as to the fact independently of the law, they will be averse to returning a verdict against that man, large amounts will have been expended in vain, public morals, public interests, nobody in fact being benefited thereby. I say: no, that cannot be. You will not submit that citizen to such vexatious and useless annoyance. Besides, in doing so, you would not attain your object. Your charges would be met by denials and counter charges against the accuser. The putting in our statute-books of such an enactment far from giving security to citizens, would result merely in an expenditure of public funds to the injury of the accused.
Abuses have been alleged; instances have been cited of people who have spent extravagant amounts in betting, or of others who have in consequence committed thefts. That puts me in mind of scenes often witnessed at sittings of the criminal courts; and I may be allowed to recall them to the hon. member who made U3e


G539 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
of that argument, at the same time that I appeal to the experience of those who know what is the general run of things at such sessions. Let us take the- case of a bankrupt. His liabilities aggregate a large amount; he is called upon to explain Low it is that, having a few months previously submitted a balance-sheet showing a rather large surplus, he is now confronted with such a deficit. That man is chary of telling the truth. He does not like the idea of admitting that he has obtained advances from his creditors under false pretenses. He deos not like to say that he was stock gambling, that his expenditure exceeded his revenue, that through speculations he lost money, that his wife has been spending the season at summer re-sorfs in the midst of great luxury, spending freely, or that he has made a trip to Europe when he had not the means of doing so. He will say: I lost money betting on horses. Why does he give such an excuse? Because he is well aware that nobody is in a position to verify his statement, or to find out with whom he engaged in betting. It is the same with those who conceal stolen goods: invariably, they say they have bought the goods from a fellow passing on the street, and whom they do not know. That is the answer always in stock. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, whenever a man has something to hide, some wrongdoing to conceal, some crime to cover up, his last resource is always to say: I have been gambling on the race-track. That is what makes me suspicious of the evidence taken before the committee. Of course, such an excuse may be accepted for once; but when a man says: I have been a regular gambler, I have lost my money betting on the race-track, I say such a man should not ask the government to protect him. His relatives should see to it that he leads a less extravagant life, should see to it that he be, if necessary, interdicted, or provided with a judiciary council.
The instances brought forward by my hon. friends are of an exceptional nature and have not been made the subject of any subject to any special inquiry. They are of such an extraordinary nature that we are warranted in doubting, I do not say the word of those hon. gentlemen, but the truth of the statements of those who represent themselves as victims of such misfortunes, incorrectly so, to my mind. That is the excuse of all those who have n.ot the courage to acknowledge in what way they lost their fortune, in what way they courted ruin and failuie.
That suggests another thought to me. How is it that the French laws which were kept in force at the time of the conquest, how is it that the civil code of the province of Quebec contain provisions permitting gambling and betting on the racetrack? Supposing that Bill amending the Mr. LAFORTUNE.
Criminal Code should come into force, I wonder which of the two would supersede the other? Would precedence be given in this connection to the Dominion law which prohibits such a deed under penalty and imprisonment? But that would not change the provision of the provincial law or of the civil code which allow racing and even grant the right of recovering before the law courts the amount of any deposit made in that connection. Here then we have a subject of His Majesty governed by a double set of laws, under two jurisdictions. Under the one, he may have to appear before the criminal court; under the other he has the right to institute a civil action. Under sections 227 and following of the Criminal Code, that man may be arraigned before the courts of criminal jurisdiction, and penalized in consequence, while under the law of our province, he may enter a lawsuit before the civil courts against the party failing to make good a bet. I do not think that is a very enviable position to be in. It is downright encroachment. That shows how dangerous it is to introduce measures of that kind, to declare applicable to the whole of Canada such provisions, because abuses have cropped up at Toronto or Vancouver. I am in a position to state that not a single case of that sort has been brought to the knowledge of the authorities in my province.
I have not time just now to give the names of the men who compose that fine association of the Montreal Jockey Club and the Delormier Park Association. I shall have an opportunity later on to refer once more' to that, and to acquaint the House with the men who are at the head of those great associations we are so proud of. But when I see an enactment of that kind on the point of being inserted in our statutes, I say it is time we should cry out to the promoters of such a Bill: Stop, you are on the wrong track, you are proposing a law which should not be passed. I hope the time is not far when the movers of such proposals, and their partisans, will find out that the majority is not disposed to subserve the ambitions and aims of a few men madlv desirous of reforming others, though it would be in order for them to start by reforming themselves.
The evidence taken before the committee has been referred to. Mention has been made of a most distinguished gentleman, possessed of wide experience. Extracts have been quoted from the evidence of Dr. McEachern, who formely lived in Montreal and who now resides in Chateauguay county. It -was a matter of surprise to me to hear the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Miller) state that Dr. McEachern approved of his Bill. The evidence show the contrary to be the truth. I state to the House, under my responsibility as one of its mem-

hers, that the evidence given by Dr. Mc-Eachern is in direct condemnation of this Bill. I have gone over all his statements with great care. Dr. McEachern is well known in Montreal. He is a typically honest, conscientious and able man, possessed with wide experience, sensible, distinguished and considered by all. Well, I take Dr. McEachern's own evidence, as being in direct condemnation of the proposal brought forward by my learned opponent. I say that there is enough in such evidence to bury out of sight the Bill now under discussion.
I regret, though not for the sake of the House who may think I have spoken at too great a length, but for the sake of my hon. friends, that I should have to cut short my remarks. However, let them not lose courage, as I have much more yet in store for them. I ask to be permitted to resume my seat until 1 am given another opportunity to speak again.
Mr. AYLESWORTH.: We are now well into the sixth month since the session opened, and I am sure that every one is anxious to see it come to a close. The government have yet many important measures to deal with. The House has been occupied with this Bill for two days, and we are still considering the first clause. In these circumstances I shall try to be as brief as possible and, if I can, to go straight to what seems to me to be the point of the matter for consideration. We have had upon the statute-book now for eighteen years and more our present law, the salient feature of which in regard to this particular matter at any rate is that it excepts from the operation of the section with regard to book-making, bets made on the racecourse of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a race-meeting. I suppose we must take it that that law has been found by experience not to work satisfactorily because this House, I assume, has by passing the second reading of this Bill, and by carrying the. motion to resolve ourselves into Committee of the Whole, adopted the principle that our present law is unsatisfactory, and that some change ought to be made in it. The question then for consideration now is what change we ought to make, and by the motion which was made at the rising of the committee last night we have presented an alternative proposition to that which the special committee in this case has recommended. The feature of the work of the special committee, I take it, has been that they have struck out altogether in the; proposed legislation the clause which in the existing law protects bets made during a racemeeting upon the race-track of an incorporated association. Having done that advisedly, having done that because they thought 2081
that change ought to be made, they propose to further that effort by altering the definition of a common betting place which appears in the earlier clauses of the Bill. As against the Bill drawn in that way the alternative which is proposed by the amendment is that we adopt, with a modification, the present English law, and I must say at once, so far as I am concerned, looking at it I suppose from the standpoint of a lawyer, that to my mind there is no comparison between the language of the draughtsmen, and the method which is used in these two efforts to get at the same result. The English Bill might almost be called a model of skilful legislation. It was prepared, it is said, by the late Lord Davey, and mentioning his name is sufficient to everj lawyer to remind him of one of the greatest lawyers who ever practised, or who ever adorned the English bench. The object of that Bill is accomplished in the fewest possible words, and in clear and distinct language by which exactly what is aimed at is struck, and a result reached about which I venture to think there is no room for doubt. As between the work of preparation, and as between the practical working of the two Bills, if it were a question of either being in operation, I feel satisfied there is every element of superiority in the English Bill over the one which has been reported by the committee, and which I think I may without disparagement refer to as the Yankee Bill, because it assumes to have adopted the same means to reach the desired ends which have been adopted in some of the states of the American union. For that reason I certainly would prefer the amendment which has been proposed to the report of the subcommittee itself.
There is just one other thing I ought to say in that regard. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) read yesterday a letter I had written to him some two months ago on this subject. I certainly have no objection to his putting the letter on the pages of ' Hansard ' although I ought to say I never expected to see it there, and thought'I was merely writing to him as one member of the House might wright to another what my ideas were with reference to this question. The language of the letter expresses in perhaps as concise form as I could use, my views about this matter. I do think it is an extraordinary way of getting at the desired object to resort to the criminal law and to make something a crime which the ordinary sense of the average man does not consider a crime. We are piling up day by day crimes, and under our constitution we are leaving it to somebody else, as we have to do, to enforce these laws which make new crimes, and make people liable to criminal prosecutions for doing things in connection with

which many of us think there is no harm in the world. I do not know where it is going to end. We have had during the short time I have been in this House a very stringent law which makes it a crime to fish or indulge in what many people regard as comparatively innocent amusement on Sunday. We have passed a law making it a crime for a boy, all but grown up, to smoke a cigarette. We are now proposing to pass a law which will make it a crime for a man to make a bet, it may be with a young friend of either sex. Very possibly before the end of this parliament, we shall have a proposition to make it a crime to play cards, or to dance, or to indulge in any of the other amusements which there are some in the community think constitute very nearly, if not quite a sin. I deprecate that manner of legislation, I am sorry it should be necessary, and with regard to the particular thing in hand, the regulating of a race-meeting, I pointed out ig the letter I have been referring to that the right way as it seemed to me to do that was by the conditions upon which a license might be issued. The liquor traffic is regulated under license of our various provincial legislatures, and is well regulated in practice, nobody complains, we know that the working out practically of the regulating system which is under the control of the provincial legislatures by virtue of their power to issue licenses is satisfactory in regard to the carrying on of even so delicate a kind of business as the traffic in intoxicatingjiquor. Is it not manifest that it would be equally easy, perhaps more easy, to regulate the way in which racing associations should carry on their meetings-what kind of betting they should allow or what kind they should prevent, how many days they should hold their meetings, and what intervals should require to elapse between each of two meetings, and every other condition connected with the racing which is sought to be struck at by this legislation- by resorting to the various provincial legislatures and obtaining me necessary legislation from those bodies? I am very sorry that course has not been thought to be the wise one by those right-minded people who want to do what they consider to be for the welfare of the community, and who, instead of taking that course, have been advised to seek to make a new crime, or to add to the list of crimes already on the statute-book, by the legislation now before this House. But the Bills are here, and the question is, what disposition ought to be made of them? For my part, notwithstanding the presence in the draft of the proposed amendment of the clause referred to, providing that if a race-meeting continues for not more than twelve days and after an interval of at least twenty days between each of two Mr. AYLESWORTH.
meetings, the saving clause of the last section of the Bill shall apply to it-notwithstanding the presence of that provision, which I think is to be regretted, I for my part so much prefer that way of reaching the evil which is sought to be prevented, that I intend to support the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from West Northumberland (Mr. McColl). The difference in principle between the two schemes of getting at the trouble is that the English Bill strikes at the person who does the thing which it is sought to prohibit. It provides that every person who does these particular things-frequents or loiters in streets or other public places' for the purpose of book-making or betting-is liable to punishment, The Canadian Bill, or the Yankee Bill, the Bill reported by the committee, proceeds on the contrary idea of striking at the place where the thing is done. It prohibits the keeping of a 'common betting place,' and defines the words 'common betting place' by language wide enough to include everything, even the perambulating of a book-maker about the grounds of a race-track; and the result of so widening that definition is that it exposes to the danger of a prosecution any person on the grand stand at a race-meeting who makes a bet with his neighbour of either sex. That is, I think, an objection to this Bill. Let me point out how that result is reached. In the first place, the protection of the existing law is struck out, so that you have the prohibition, not it may be of individual betting, but at all events of the recording, noting down even in a pocket diary or upon one's shirt cuff, of the fact that a bet has been made, the amount of it, or the odds. Any one who does that, if this Bill as reported by the committee is passed, is liable to a year's imprisonment. That is the distinct provision of section 235 as reported without the saving clause, which is struck out:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to one year's imprisonment, and to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who records any bet or wager upon the result of any race.
Then, the language of this clause, with the saving protection which the existing law contains struck out, is quite wide enough to cover, and I fancy will some day or other be sought to be made to cover, things that are not meant to be covered at all. 'Any bet upon any contest or trial of skill of man or beast.' I wonder if the draftsman thought of the ordinary game of bridge among four men. I think that is a contest or "trial of skill, largely so; and it is not unusual, I am told by those who play, that there should .be money staked upon the result. Then, with regard to the individual bet-using that phrase as in-

tending to describe a bet made between two people who are sitting side by side in the grand stand looking at an ordinary horse-race-the definition of a common betting place is completely metamorphosed. Under the existing law, 'common betting house' was the expression used, and it was defined to be a 'house, office, room or other place.' The word 'place' is used, but is used in such a collocation of words that it derives significance from the preceding phraseology-it means other place of the same character-a house, office, room or other place opened, kept or used. That is the present law. The use of the three verbs, 'opened, kept or used,' indicates at once a continuous and permanent usingopening it, starting it, keeping it, continuing it, using it in that sense-not for half an hour once in a year, but from day to day, continuously, is the idea conveyed. All that has been carefully swept away, deliberately swept away by this Bill, because the proposed amendment as reported by this committee is a common' betting 'place,' not 'house' as at present-'a place,' not 'opened, kept and used,' but simply ' used ' for the purpose of betting between persons resorting thereto,' and second, 'any person using the same.' Then we have at the end of that section this sweeping definition of the word 'place,' which was intended, as I said on the second reading, to get rid of any idea of fixity in the word 'place,' and to make that word include the up-and-down course which any one might take in walking or strolling about a race-track:
The word 'place' as used in this section and in the preceding section, includes any place, whether inclosed or not, and whether it is used permanently or temporarily, and whether there is or is not exclusive right of user.
Now what have we to say about all this? I take the case of two young people sitting side by side in adjoining seats in the grand stand. "Clearly they are occupying a place within that definition. 'Place' is meant to include any place, whether inclosed or not, whether it is used permanently or temporarily. Although persons may be sitting there only half an hour, they are occupying a place within the meaning of this law. Whether they have or not the exclusive right of user, the very fact that they are there on that occasion makes this description clearly applicable to them. Is a person sitting there looking at the races, a person who is using that seat for the purpose of betting with his neighbour? I do not think it would be a far cry for a magistrate so to hold, and I apprehend in all seriousness that, if this measure should pass in the form in which it is reported by the special committee, any one who chooses to institute a prosecution against a visitor at the races for having made a bet of a pair of gloves with his fair companion, will have a perfectly plausible case to present. It may be said that such a thing will not happen. I only point out the distance to which this legislation is going when what many of us at least think harmless is being constituted a crime.


Mr. CARVELL.: I have listened, Mr. Speaker, with great interest to the very learned discourse we have just heard from the Iron. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) and I only regret that my duties in committee have kept me away to-day and prevented my listening to all the discussion on the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. McColl). The hon. the Minister of Justice has brought his great mind to bear on this, and I think has very successfully pointed out all the weak spots of the Bill, but very steadily avoided the main point at issue. I do not want to charge the hon. minister with not treating the committee fairly. It is only due to him to say that, in all probability, he did not know that the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Miller) said yesterday, and has said time and time again, that when this Bill reached the committee stage he intended to move an amendment which would enable two friends sitting at the grand stand in a race meet to bet on the result, if they wanted to do ;o. But the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) and those supporting the amendment would bowl this Bill out because they say it contains that stipulation. I admit that it does and that such a provision is not proper legislation, but I want to see the Bill get before the committee and be discussed clause by clause; and when we come to any clause not in the interests of the public, I reserve my right to vote against it.
We might as well state the issue and that is that the great difference between the Bill as reported by the Special Committee and the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McColl) is that in the one case we are trying to keep the book-maker off the racetrack and in the other we are leaving the door wide open. I propose to vote for the original Bill subject to the right to amend it when necessary, and I vote for it simply because I am opposed to book-making on the track. The Minister of Justice will not attempt to deny that, notwithstanding the beautiful language in which this proposed amendment is clothed, notwithstanding it may have been drafted by one of the greatest legal minds in England, notwithstanding its beautiful phraseology, it allows book-making to be carried on with impunity at any race meet practically in the Dominion. I am not

going into a long dissertation to show why I am onposed to book-making on the racetrack. I have never had the privilege of attending the meets at Toronto, Hamilton or Montreal, but I have attended races in my own province since I was a boy, and I am as much a lover of a good horse as even the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) or the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), and I make the statement that there has been hardly an honest race in the maritime provinces, the last five or ten years. I am not talking now simply for the purpose of hearing my own voice, but I know what I am talking about, I know there are proprietors of racetracks who have honestly tried to prevent these dishonest transactions, but so long as the book-maker is allowed to go on the track and carry on his business, so long will you have dishonest horse-racing. In the maritime provinces, as a rule, the races are sold before they are competed, and the innocent man who bets is simply betting with the dice loaded against him every time.
I am not going to discuss whether we can have horse-breeding without racing. I can only say that twenty years ago when we did not have any of these nefarious practices in the maritime provinces, we bred just as good horses as we are doing to-day. If you go down to the maritime provinces and ask any one who is in the habit of going to the races whether he is going now, he will say, no, that the races are sold out in advance. If you can eliminate bookmaking, you will have honest racing. The opponents of this Bill have done all they possibly could to defeat it. I thought that the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McColl) had made a very fair argument yesterday afternoon, but the substance of it was that if you do not allow betting you cannot have horse-racing. I take issue with my hon. friend. The next argument was that these running horses or thoroughbreds are necessary in the interests of horse-breeding. I take issue with that statement. If you had all the running horses and thoroughbreds in the country, they would hardly run one good farm or lumber camp. If rich people want to purchase such horses, that is their own affair, but such horses are not the class which form the back-bone and wealth of this country. I do not think that 99 out of 100 of our horses would suffer very much if this class were not encouraged. But I do not admit that you cannot encourage it without betting. The only question is * whether or not book-making shall be allowed on the race-track, and being convinced that it should not, and that public sentiment is opposed to it, I shall vote in favour of the Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Mr. LANCASTER.: I quite agree with a good deal that has been said by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), but there is one thing he said with which I do not agree, and that is that, in voting for the second reading, we committed ourselves to an attack on the race-tracks. What I understand is that all we committed ourselves to is the necessity of amending the law in some way so as to prohibit the vice of gambling in toto, so far as we can assume that it is a vice. Now, the question before the committee has narrowed down to this: Which is the best means to restrain the vice of gambling, if it be a vice? I do not say it is a vice; I never gambled myself, but I think a man has a right to gamble if his conscience tells him there is no harm in it. But, while that is my personal attitude, my opinion on the public question is that you cannot build up the manhood of this country by shackling the individual citizen so that it is impossible for him to do anything but what some particular person may think is in full accord with the beau ideal of righteousness. If you wish to build up the manhood of Canada, particularly among the young, you must teach them to resist temptation. You must so conduct public affairs as to appeal to their manhood, and you must teach them that only as they resist temptation will they grow in moral strength. Now, I am interested in voting for what my constituency thinks is best for the moral interest of the country. I have had a lot of petitions sent to me, not exactly praying, but almost commanding me, to vote for the Bill of the hon. gentleman for South Grey (Mr. Miller) in its entirety. I have had sensible' letters and petitions sent from other people asking me to do the opposite in the interest of the horse-breeding industry. Now, what am I to do? I say that my duty is to do what is best to prohibit as much as possible the vice of gambling, if it be a vice. What would this Bill do? It would make illegal every form of gambling in which one has to deal with a professional. But, if you adopt the amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) you permit this kind of betting to be carried on in certain places where it is natural for it to be carried on, but you prohibit it in other places. You have, as it were, a vent-you allow the man who wants to make a bet to make it legally under conditions that are natural. For my part, if I had time, I would go to all the races, and I think I should never want to make a bet at all. But if a man does want to make a bet, is it not better that there should be a place where he can do it without being branded as a criminal? If you tell the people that they must not make a bet anywhere, betting will be carried on in a hypocritical way, these professionals will pretend to be private bettors, the ag-

gregate amount of betting will be more, and it will be done in defiance of the law, which is far worse for public morals than the condition which it is sought here to remedy. 1 believe sincerely that under the amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland there will be less gambling in the aggregate and also less hypocrisy in regard to it. And the development of this hypocrisy is much worse than to leave a man uninterfered with who, as the. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) said, may wish to make a private bet, for instance, at the St. Catharines regatta, or at a football match. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller), in my opinion- perhaps he does not care about that-is making a tactical mistake in the course he pursues in regard to this Bill. I made a suggestion to him yesterday with regard to the reading of the evidence which had only been printed in English. But, though he may not care for my opinion on the matter, I give him that nevertheless. If he is sincere, as I admit he is, I think he would have done better to have accepted the amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland. I believe that under that amendment the country will make more progress in restraining the evil of gambling, if it be an evil, than would be made under the law which the hon. member (Mr. Miller) proposes. One great advantage would be that the House would then be unanimous, and the House being unanimous, the country, public opinion, would be behind it. The disadvantage is that, if we are not united in a matter of this kind, the people tend to take sides. Where public opinion is not strongly behind such a law as this, it cannot be well enforced, and the evasion of the law creates a class of hypocrites. I am bound to say that in the interest of morality, according to my judgment, the amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland is the best legislation for us to pass.
Now, let me say a word about the horsebreeding industry. The gentlemen who tell me that this Bill will interfere with thf horse-breeding industry are not the rich men pictured by the hon. member foi Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) but they include in their numbers the stalwart fruit-growers of the county of Lincoln, who must have horses with a certain speed in their composition. I do not agree with the view expressed by some hon. members that the automobile is going to put the horse out of business. I think that the horse is still the noble animal and man's true friend that we were taught in school t,o believe him to be, and that he has great usefulness still. The fruit-growers of Niagara district need fast-going horses. They need horses with some strength, but they need speed also. Their product, fruit, is a perishable commodity, and it must be sent
out fresh, and to be sure of catching the train which is to carry that fruit to market, horses with some speed are absolutely necessary. That is one reason why I think it is not quite fair to say that this legislation would interfere only with rich people who own running horses or fast trotting horses. For the reasons I have given, 1 feel bound to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland.


William Manley German: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should have a few words to say in regard to this Bill before the vote is taken, more particularly by reason of the fact that one of the racing-tracks spoken of, and spoken of in a somewhat derogatory manner is owned-or rather, hot owned, but operated-in the constituency which I, for the time, have the honour to represent. The learned counsel who looked after the interests of the promoters of this Bill saw fit to place the Fort Erie track and the Windsor track in a class by themselves. and, in his estimation, rather below the standard of such tracks as the Woodbine at Toronto, the track at Hamilton, and the track at Montreal. I presume that he made these statements because he was not aware of the facts as they exist. But I can tell him, as I tell this House, that there is no racing-track in Canada that is up to the standard, as a racing-track, of the track at Fort Erie. It is the best track by far that there is in this Dominion. And it is conducted now, and has been conducted from its inception, in as high and straightforward and honest a way as any racetrack in Canada. It is true that the tracks at Fort Erie and Windsor have had racing days extending over a longer period than other tracks. But why? One reason is that they do not get the same numbers of people as does the track meet in Toronto. Toronto is a large city, and the racing meet is a great social event; all society turn out to attend that meeting, wearing their best clothes and looking very gay and/ happy and comfortable. The association has iarge gate receipts and can afford to pay large purses with a shorter number of days' racing than Fort Erie. In order to get the same class of horses at the Fort Erie and Windsor tracks as they have in Toronto it is necessary, from a financial point of view, to have a longer racing-meet than would be necessary in Toronto or Montreal. But I say, and any one who has visited these tracks, particularly any one who has visited the Fort Erie track during the racing-meet, will unite with me in ..saying, that the racing-meetings at Fort Erie are conducted on as high a plane as those of any of the other tracks in Canada. So. I wish, on behalf of the people of the county of Welland, to repudiate the suggestion that has gone forth that there is any violation of the moral law taking place on the

Fort Erie track other than on anv other track.
Now I was rather pleased to hear the speech of the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Stratton) on this question. He made such a speech as he usually makes in discussing public questions, and with^ a large portion of his speech I agree. For instance, he said it made no difference to him by whom this Bill was promoted, whether by the Lord's Day Alliance or by any other combination of people, and with that I agree. I know that the Lord's Day Alliance so-called, in the province of Ontario at any rate, has done a very large amount of good in maintaining the moral standard of the people of that province. I am quite willing to concede that, and I trust and believe that they will continue to do good. But when they, or when any other person says to me, or to other people in the province of Ontario, that what we have been in the habit of doing, what we have been brought up to believe is not a crime, is a crime, and that we are criminals in doing those things, then I object to that proposition. I do not think that they have a right to curtail freedom of action in those particulars. There is in this country a very wide divergence of opinion as to what can he done within the bounds of moral rectitude, and honour. A large number of people claim that running street cars on Sunday is a crime, that running electric cars through the country on that day is a crime. We know that some years ago when the Toronto Street Car Company desired to get a Bill passed to allow them to operate street cars on Sunday, they met with an enormously strong opposition. Many times that Bill went before the electors, and many times it was defeated, until eventually it was carried. Well, Sir, the street cars have been running in Toronto since then against the -wishes of a large class of people. But I would like to ask any hon. gentleman in this House to-day what they think would be the result if a by-law was submitted to the people of Toronto now to stop the running of street cars on Sunday? Does not any person feel that such a bylaw would be overwhelmingly defeated? The street cars are running to the benefit of the people of the city of Toronto. So it is with regard to many other things, with regard to these finer- moral questions. I can also agree with the statement of the Minister of Justice that we are putting on the statute-book of Canada legislafion declaring matters to be crimes- which the general consensus of opinion throughout the country feel are not crimes at all.
Now there is a considerable degree of misunderstanding in regard to matters pertaining to the race-track. I have heard the book-makers condemned here very severely.
I have no love for the book-makers, I am


William Manley German: not a defender of the book-makers, I do not care anything about book-makers, whether they are on the track or not. But what I say is that we should not by legislation declare to be a crime what is a simple bet between individuals on the track, and that is what this law does, and if this legislation is adopted, that will be the result of it. The law in Canada in regard to this matter stood in one particular way for a great many years. But in 1892 it was thought that the law did not go far enough in exempting betting on race-tracks, and Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Justice, in consolidating the Criminal Code of Canada, introduced into the Bill a further exception. In section 235 of the Act, after the words ' to bets between individuals,' these words were added:
Or made on the race-course of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a race-meeting.
At that time the matter was discussed very fully. Sir Louis Davies, who is now one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, in speaking upon that matter said that parliament should thoroughly understand what they were doing, that they were legalizing bets that were made on the racetrack. That was thoroughly discussed, and understood, and parliament at that time unanimously decided that that should be done, and the law has stood that way ever since. For myself I cannot see that any harm has been done by reason of that enactment, and that is the way that I for one would like to see it stand in the future. I think that this, parliament, in eliminating that exception to the clause 235, is going further than it should go in this direction. There is another section of the Bill which it seems to me is not- at all in the interest of the public, and that is in prohibiting the publishing of racing news. What, would be the result? You would prevent Canadian newspapers from publishing the iftws, whereas the United States papers*, which publish the same news, are delivered in Toronto in the morning almost as early as the Toronto papers, and you would cut off a considerable source of revenue to the Canadian newspapers. People who desired to procure this news would get United States papers instead. It seems to me that this Bill is one that should not pass, at any rate in its present form. The Bill which is introduced as an amendment is one which it seems to me will answer every purpose that is required, and to that I shall give my approval.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I feel great pleasure at being in accord with many of my hop. friends opposite in regard to this measure,
] and particularly I am so pleased to be in accord with the hon. member for Carleton,
I New Brunswick, (Mr. Carvell), that I must

indulge myself in making a few remarks. The hon. member for Carleton has come closer to my way of thinking, and his process of reasoning is more in accord with my own, than that of any other speaker who has addressed the House. In all matters of this character, matters that involve moral questions requiring legislation, we are led to conclusions through instinct, and an impulse of the heart, rather than by a distinct movement of the mind. Having taken up our position, which the great body of the public have taken with us, me circulation of information, and the advance of thought bringing each ultimately -to the same conclusion, we look back, and try to find some process of reasoning, some pathway of thought by which we have arrived at that conclusion. There are two elements connected with the question, the hon. member for Regina (Mr. W.^M. Martin), yesterday stated one of them,* and he conceived it to be all. He stated that all each member of this House had to decide in his own mind was whether or not the institution of betting was a right or a wrong institution. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) took him to task for that statement, and I think rightly, but the hon. member for Brandon substituted in its place the proposition that all this House had to decide was whether it was for the good, the peace, and welfare of society to pass this Bill, or whether it was not, and that in coming to that conclusion the individual opinion of any hon. member of this House, as to the rightness or wrongness of betting, had nothing whatever to do with the case. With the latter statement made by the hon. member for Brandon I disagree just as firmly as I disagree with the statement of the hon. member for Regina. I believe with him that each member of this House, before he can intelligently defend his vote on this question, must decide whether the practice and institution of betting are right or wrong, and whether they are for the public good, the public weal or the public ill, as now conducted. I cannoit conceive of any hon. member of this House voting to place in the category of crimes a practice which he in his heart believes to be good, and right, and in the interests of society. I believe that before he can vote for the Miller Bill he must, as one of the incidents of such decision, decide affirmatively that the practice of betting per se, is wrong as at present conducted. But I feel that he has more than that to decide. I do not think he has proceeded sufficiently far when he determines that in his view it would be better if this institution could be suppressed. He must also persuade himself that the general sentiment of the country, the sentiment of the people for whom he is legislating, is not only numerically in its favour, but is numerically sufficiently
strong, and sufficiently impelling to enable the law to be enforced reasonably once it is placed upon the statute-book. Whether I agree with any other hon. member or not, my line of thought brings me to the conclusion that once an hon. member is convinced that the practice of betting does no good, but does harm, once he is convinced that the putting down of the practice, or a branch of the practice, a branch of the tree or the institution, if you cannot do it. all, will be sufficiently supported by the public to ensure its reasonable enforcement, he must support the Bill and I cannot see how he can defend on the platform a vote against it. Those who agitate for the amendment do not contend, and I do not believe they can contend, that the amendment aims at or pretends to effect any further advance in the suppression of betting than does the Bill itself. The only difference between the amendment, and the Bill, that is in so far as the principle is concerned, leaving aside the details, and the expressions which may be adjusted in committee, is that the amendment leaves out unscathed, and untouched the practice of betting on race-tracks. That is to say that just as soon as the institution of betting stands out exposed, clear, in the light of the public eye, just as soon as we get on. the fashionable race-track, we leave it untouched, we license it, and we declare it to be right. The question of where the amendment will lead is reduced down to one naked principle, and one alone. Whether or not a practice, which, if it is wrong per se, must be suppressed, can be right when it reaches its highest state of evolution, is exposed to the public view, and caters to the young and weak. To my mind' the effort of those who will not support the Bill, and who. dare not oppose it, is to effect their purpose not by denying the passage of the Bill, but by frittering it away by amendments.
I 'stated when I started out that there were two elements to the question under discussion-first of all the rightness or wrongness of the institution of betting, and, secondly, the question of public opinion. For my part I take the ground that the institution of betting in itself has done nobody any .good in this world. I do not believe that under its best conditions it ever does any good, and-I believe it does infinite harm. The institution of betting; when you wipe away the verbiage, when you look down at the prin-eiple of its being, its heart, and life, what is it? It is the attempt to get in this world by chance what should be got only by industry and toil. It is really based upon the desire to get the wages of this life without. working for them. It is an effort to get the rewards of doing well by doing ill, an effort to get the prizes of life by doing in



jury to one's fellows instead of doing them good. I am quite aware that for generations, and generations unknown during the past men have indulged in that practice, but I believe that what in one age may be a pleasureable habit may, in the next age, be a crime. This word ' crime ' has been taken in this debate to mean something much more vicious than it logically should mean in a discussion of this sort? What is a crime? A crime may not be anything so very hideous. A crime is something which, for the purpose and good of society, is condemned as not in the interest of society, whereas, once, perhaps, it was not against the interests of society. It is something that the consensus of public opinion has affirmed that it is better to do without than to do with, though it might perhaps in certain cases do good concomitant with it. What was not a crime in the last century may be a crime in this. What is not a crime in Russia may be a crime in Canada. What was certainly not a crime in the days of Pitt may be a crime to-day. While I may never-have made a bet in my life, may never even have been tempted in the matter, because, aside altogether from the moral considerations, during a large part of my life I had a very good reason for not betting, I am aware that the brightest mind that ever adorned the mother of parliaments was the most profligate bettor in the whole of the motherland. I am aware that the best men or some of the best of men of all ages, have indulged in betting, and I believe they did so conscientiously; and possibly under the conditions of society then existing they were doing no wrong, and it would not have been in the interests of that society to endeavour to suppress betting. But I believe that day has gone by. I believe that betting as they have it to-day has done harm, and great harm. I appeal to the judges quoted by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mir. Maddin), and to the other authorities quoted by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. W. M. Martin), I appeal to the unanimous verdict of bench and pulpit, and to other institutions just as venerable throughout Great Britain, and throughout Greater Britain, and I appeal to my own experience and to my own observations throughout the years I have been able to observe, and I for one am convinced that if this parliament had it in its power to suppress utterly the whole institution of betting they would be doing a good service to society.
I do not follow the argument of hon. gentlemen who affirm that so long as we leave out betting in this form or in that form, we acknowledge the principle of betting to be good. I leave out betting in certain forms, I leave out betting in private houses and in some other places, not because it is not wrong in itself and should Mr. MEIGHEN.
not be suppressed, but because it is beyond the power of parliament and beyond the power of the law to suppress it. and because public opinion is not sufficiently far advanced to warrant such legislation and to ensure its enforcement. When I find the element of gambling removed from the business element and clearly disclosed in its naked deformity, I say it is the duty of parliament to strike at it as soon as we find we effectively can. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) pointed out that the element of betting entered into the practice of life insurance. He is quite right. Another gentleman said that the element of chance entered into transactions in groceries and in stocks. They are right too. But where chance enters into these transactions, it is not the only element, in some it is a very minor element, and it is impossible to eliminate that element of chance in betting and leave the rest. It is monstrous to think we can do so at present. Just as soon as we can I am prepared to legislate against the element of chance in these respects as well as in the form in which we are now attacking it, that is the form of race-track gambling. In that form there is absolutely no other element except the element of gambling, it is gambling pure and simple. With the construction of mind with which I am afflicted I cannot follow the reasoning by which the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McColl) arrives at the proposition that a man might gamble and still not be a gambler. It would be as reasonable to say that a man might murder and still not be a murderer. He might not be a professional gambler, but he could not gamble without gambling any more than he could murder without murdering. I do not wish to place the two in the same category. 1 believe that betting in many ways is but a slight offence and that in many cases it may do no harm, but it never does any good, and as an institution it brings about infinite misery and pain.
Is the public opinion of this country sufficiently strong to warrant this parliament in passing legislation in its present form? There may be a difference of opinion in that regard, there may be hon. members who are in a better position to judge of that than I. The hon. member for Brandon affirms that it is not, and he bases his affirmation on the statement that there was no discussion of this subject at the last election, and on the further statement that no public meetings have been called to demand this legislation, and that there has been no unanimity of opinion among the press of this country. If those three considerations exist and he is right in regard to them he would repeal almost half the whole Criminal Code. In the first place as regards discussion at the last election, every one knows that we were so busy discussing the

hon. member for Brandon and much of his history that we had not much time to discuss gambling and other subjects. But how much of the Criminal Code, what single act or habit which has been denied to humanity by our whole code has been asked for at a general election? What single provision has received the unanimous endorsation of the press? What single provision was passed by parliament by reason of public meetings throughout Canada demanding its passage? To every one of these questions the hon. member for Brandon would have to say, none. He says we have no indication that public opinion is behind this Bill. I ask him what significance attaches to the fact that for months our desks each morning have been covered with petitions like a snowstorm? Has any legislation ever been proposed to us for consideration that has been so thoroughly, so emphatically demanded by the people of Canada as this Bill? I do not know of any,
I have not heard of any, I have not heard that since confederation a single principle -of legislation or a single Bill was ever demanded in the form of petitions as unanimously as this Bill. I look to that, but I look further. I must admit in candour that doubtless a great many signed these petitions without any real appreciation of the legislation for which they were asking. I believe that applies to all petitions. I look to my own constituency, which adjoins Brandon; I believe that in my constituency as in that of the hon. member for Brandon there are a great many good people, better than I am and perhaps better than he is, who are opposed and conscientiously opposed to that legislation. But I believe the great mass of the people in both constituencies demand it, and judging other constituencies by these I conclude that there is a general demand for this legislation. These constituencies are no better and no worse than the average constituency in this country. They are constituencies that may well be taken as examples. There are cities in both, there are race-tracks in both, there are jockey clubs or similar institutions in both; those institutions are at one in demanding the negativing of this Bill, and the remainder of the people demand its passing. Consequently I think that if they may be taken as examples, and I think they should, they will illustrate that the great mass of public sentiment to an extent quite up to that pointed out by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Stratton) is in favour of this legislation. I do not think the hon member for Peterborough at all overstated the case. I believe that if a vote were taken in Manitoba, just as he said if it were taken in Ontario, 80 per cent of the voters would vote in favour of the suppression of race-track gambling. I do not think these figures overstate the fact. It is quite true that there may be constituencies more directly interested which are not of the same complexion; but, taking it all in all, I am of opinion that the public sentiment of this country demands this legislation, and that to deny it would be not to bring the law into contempt, as the hon. member for Brandon suggested, but rather to bring down in the estimation of the people of this country the standard of the parliament of Canada. For these reasons, and for no other-because I arrive at my conclusion by a very simple process-I shall support the Bill, and I hope it will not be whittled away by the passage of this amendment or by any other that may be suggested.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I feel it necessary to call the attention of the committee to a point which probably should have been brought to their notice before. Had I been in the Chair last night when the amendment was offered, I would probably have called attention to it. The argument has turned so much on the proposed amendment that perhaps it has been delayed too long. The rule in discussing Bills in committee is that they shall be taken up clause by clause. This Bill has been announced, and clause No. 1 has been taken up. On this point Bourinot says of a Bill that has reached the committee:
It is then considered clause iby clause. Each clause is a distinct question, and must be separately discussed.
Rule 53 of the rules of the House says:
In proceedings in Committee of the Whole House upon Bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order.
The amendment offered to clause 1 is not strictly an amendment to clause 1; it proposes to introduce a new Bill entirely instead of the Bill before the House. It cannot be accepted as a proper amendment. There is nothing, however, to prevent the hon. gentleman presenting his views, clause by clause, or in any way that he desires; but, unless the committee should otherwise decide, I cannot consider this an amendment to clause 1.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I understand, then, from your ruling that the proper procedure would be this, that a vote should be taken on each clause of the Bill, and if the various clauses were defeated, then it would be proper for the hon. gentleman presenting this amendment to move each clause of it, so that it would became part of the Bill.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. leader of the opposition has expressed my view of the matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: den termination of the debate when the Speaker was in the Chair, some complaint having been made of that, I believe the general consensus of opinion expressed in the House was that those who desired to speak should be allowed to speak generally on the Bill, though in Committee of the Whole. On that understanding the debate has continued since, and, therefore, 1 would not regard it as being out of order. It was practically with the unanimous consent of the House, because as far as I heard, no one objected.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I am not objecting to the debate. I am quite prepared to allow all the latitude which hon. members desire in discussing the Bill; but 1 feel that I cannot accept the amendment as an amendment to clause 1.


William Findlay Maclean: Notwithstanding that it is the understanding of the House that the question can be speedily settled in that way?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I would not desire to place myself in antagonism to the unanimous view of the committee; yet the committee is bound by the rules of the House. The House itself can change its rules;,the committee cannot.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Do I understand, then, that this amendment may be moved w'hen the preamble is moved?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I would think not, unless the committee chose to reconsider what it had already decided; because when the preamble is being considered, this amendment would very likely be a motion to change what the committee had already decided upon.


John Graham Haggart: Then, according to your statement, you have no amendment before you at the present moment which can be moved' to any of the clauses of the Bill?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 
John Graham Haggart: Do I undersand that a portion of this amendment may be moved as an amendment to the first clause?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Any amendment may be made to section 1 that is relevant to the subject it bears upon.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the situation is very clear under the ruling of the chairman. We are now dealing with the proposal to amend section 226 of the Criminal Code, and it is auite open to any hon. member of this House to propose Mr. SPROULE.
an amendment to section 226 of the Criminal Code in any other terms that he may see fit, or to move that section 1 be struck out altogether. But the chairman has ruled that we must take each section of the Bill in its turn, and if all the clauses of the Bill should be disposed of without all the amendments having been dealt with, then it would be proper to add to the Bill any clauses of the proposed amendment upon proper motion to that effect,


Mr. CROSBY.: I understand that the Bill may be discussed, but not the amendment?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Clause 1 is before the committee, and it is the only clause that is before the committee; but. as the discussion has been very broad, I would not at all wish to confine it to that clause if it is the desire of the committee to discuss the principle generally.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then I wish to say a few words with regard to the question. I would not possibly have said a word on the Bill now before the House had it not been for the fact that brought my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) to his feet. He wished to endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). It is because of a broad statement made by the hon. member for Carleton that I feel compelled to take part in this discussion. That hon. gentleman stated that not a race was started in the maritime provinces that was not sold before it started.
Mr, CARVELL. My hon. friend is not quoting me quite correctly, I stated that a very large proportion of those races were sold out before they started, and I repeat it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I accept that, but I took the words down as I stated them. I understand my hon. friend to say now that the greater proportion of the races which take place in the maritime provinces are sold out before they start.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I stand by that statement.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then my hon. friend will have very little to stand on by the time I have made my statement. In the principal province of the maritime provinces we have in the city of Halifax a track second to none, and perhaps the best track east of Montreal. We hold speed contests on that track once a year and for eight or ten days. That track is governed and controlled by an exhibition commission, which is appointed by the provincial government, the city council of Halifax, and the Farmers' Association of Nova Scotia. The best men go there and

no better men can be got anywhere. They control the race-track, they have had that race-track in operation some ten or twelve years, and I never heard any charge that any race at any of these meets was sold. We have no book-makers there and * no gambling. I have been at these races frequently, and have known many very prominent men from New Brunswick to bring their horses there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And get fleeced too.


Adam Brown Crosby: My hon. friend cannot produce any proof of that statement, but from what he has said they get fleeced in their own province. We have no such practices going on in our province as he refers to at the race meets in his. Let me say that the track at Halifax is one of the best, if not the best east of Montreal, and that what we give there is speed contests for which purses are offered. These contests are run under a board of management which would not permit any wrongdoing. If my hon. friend has any evidence in support of the statement he made about the race-track at Halifax, he ought to produce it or else retract what he said.
Being a layman I am not competent to give an opinion on the practical effect of this measure, but judging by the argument of the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), I am of the opinion that there is something in this measure I should not vote for, and that the amendment is one which I can fairly and honestly support. I only rose for the purpose of drawing attention to the statement of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) who has made a most unwarranted charge against prominent men of Halifax, and whose charge is contradicted by the very fact that leading horse-owners in New Brunswick patronize the race track in that city.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not intend to enter into a discussion with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) regarding what takes place in that noble city. I take full responsibility for every word I have said,
. and, notwithstanding the statement made by my hon. friend, I do not propose to withdraw a syllable. I did not say, anything about Halifax, but the trouble with this hon. gentleman is that he has a craze over Halifax, and thinks that Halifax is the only place on earth. It is quite a nice little place, but you cannot bring a subject up from the Lord's Day Bill down to the gambling transaction, but the city of Halifax must be brought into it. The best evidence that there is truth in what I have said will be found in the fact that it is not the people of Halifax or New Brunswick who are to blame, but the Americans who come over there in numbers with their horses and book-makers. It is they who make all the trouble. So great is
the evil that the Maritime Association ha3 passed within the last three weeks a resolution entirely excluding American horses except those coming from the northern part of Maine.


Mr. THOBURN.: It is not my intention to detain the House very long. I do not wish that the few remarks I am about to make shall be construed as implying that I am opposed to any one owning a good race-horse, or attending a race-meet. The only thing I cannot understand is what connection there is between a race-track and gambling and betting. I have heard a good many arguments on both sides upon this Bill, but I have not heard any.,.good reason why I should not vote for it. There has not been a single argument brought forward which could induce me to vote for gambling on the race-track. As I understand this Bill, it is good legislation in the best interests of the people at large. The only great point which I think has been missed in the argument so far, is the influence which has been brought to bear upon the members of this House to vote for the Bill. When the Navy Bill was before us, many hon. members thought it would be a good idea to take the opinion of the people upon it before enacting any legislation. I would like to ask if there was ever a Bill introduced into this House in favour of which more petitions were presented than the one under discussion. Those petitions were scattered throughout' this Dominion. They were not circulated secretly; and if a large number of people are opposed to the measure, as some hon. members would lead us to believe, why have they not sent in petitions against it? I am not aware that a single petition has been presented in opposition to it. I would like to know if those who are opposed to this Bill would make that a plank in their platform at the next general election. Judging from the number of petitions presented, one would be led to believe that any one who would dare to vote in opposition to this Bill would be elected to stay at home.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not afraid to go back, and would like to fight the issue out with you.


William Thoburn: We would see what the result would be. Hon. gentlemen opposite would lead you to believe that the Bill was opposed to the race-track. I do not understand it so. As I understand the Bill, it is opposed to the pernicious gambling that takes place on the race-track. It was argued by some hon. members that race-meet-inss could not be maintained without betting or gambling. I am informed by one of the hon. members for Prince Edward Island that they have good race-meetings there without betting. And the hon. mem-

her for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) has just told us that they have the best race-meetings, attended by the best class of people in this Dominion-most successful meetings-and no betting. And what was the testimony of the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin)? That hon. gentleman told us yesterday of ten places in Nova Scotia where they hold successful race-meetings without betting. Let me quote a few words from the hon. member from South Cape Breton as to how race-meetings are conducted there without gambling:
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.
Now, I would ask the House: If you can have race-meetings in these different places successfully carried on without betting, why cannot we have them in Ontario and Quebec?
Again, we are told that we have no right to legislate for what is considered in the best interest of this country. I would like to know what the Department of the Minister of Justice exists for if it is not to legislate in the best interest of the people? The good book tells us: Thou shalt not steal. And we do not hesitate to legislate against stealing. Has not the parliament always legislated against evil? And, if that is the case, why should we not legislate against gambling at race-track meetings? I have here a document which was received, I think, by every member of this House, and perhaps by every member of the Senate. It reads as follows:


THE MILLER BILL.
[Stage Direction]
Methods used to influence members in its behalf.
The following is a copy of a letter sent broadcast throughout Canada to the clergy by S. D. Chown, general secretary of the Methodist Temperance and Moral Reform Department, and was published in the Toronto 'World' of March 28, showing the means used to influence the members of the Senate and House of Commons in securing their vote for the Miller Bill. The appeal is addressed to the dear brother, and reads as follows:
It would be of the highest importance if you would preach upon the subject of gambling on Sunday, April 3, or as soon thereafter as possible. If we have not already done so, we will supply you with material, immediately upon reuuest, which will be of assistance to you in the preparation of a suitable sermon. We have reached the crucial stage and must strain every nerve to succeed. If you could induce any of your influential men wisely to approach your representative in the House of Commons and any senators they may know-, in the interests of the Miller Bill, it would be well done just now.
William Thoburn: This has been the system employed by this organization to secure the abolition of racing.
What do you think of it?
Now, I happen to know the gentleman referred to in this paper, Rev. Dr. Chown, and I want to say right here that there is not a clergyman in the Dominion of Canada who is held in higher esteem by the denomination to which he belongs than is Rev. Dr. Chown. It is for that reason that he was elected by the church to which he belongs to travel over this whole Dominion in the interest of temperance and moral reform. I am personally well acquainted with him, and I have never known him to issue a statement, in the press or otherwise, that he was ashamed to put his name to. But whoever issued the document I have just quoted was ashamed to put his name to it, and he winds up by asking: ' What do you think of it? ' I would ask any hon. member to point out a sentence in the address issued by Dr. Chown to his clergymen to which objection could be taken, coming from one in his position. And when this document winds up by asking: ' What do you think of it? ' 1 can only say that, so far as I 'am concerned, if race-tracks can only be maintained by betting and gambling, then, in the best interest of the -people of Canada, let the race-track go.


Robert Laird Borden: Just a very few words in connection with this Bill. So far as the promoters of the Bill are concerned, I am not inclined to agree in the animadversions passed upon these gentlemen, for I have no doubt that they have the best interest of the country at heart. Whatever may be said as to the advisability of some of the arguments put forward, I entirely agree that these gentlemen are engaged in endeavouring to deal with what is an admitted evil, and one which requires some legislative remedy. The debate, so far, has been upon the Bill as a whole. I do not want to deal at this moment with the Bill as a whole, nor with the amendment as a whole. I will speak of that a little later. There are some provisions in the Bill which I think are extreme. There are some considerations with respect to the amendment which lead me to believe, that, as it stands, it is not wholly satisfactory.
But first I wish to point out the remarkable situation with which parliament is confronted at the present time. The government of any country enjoying British institutions is supposed to deal with all legislation of an important character coming before parliament. The control of that legislation is with the government, and modern constitutional authorities, as well as those of not so recent date, impose upon the government the responsibility of dealing with matters of this character. I do not know of anv subject in respect

of which a greater responsibility is imposed upon the government of this or any other country than the control of criminal legislation. Surely, if there is one subject more than another as to which a government should be disposed to accept responsibilty, it is the framing and moulding and amendment of the criminal law. This Bill is legislation which the government of Canada considers of such great importance that it interrupts the government business for two days, and *calls upon parliament to deal with it. And we have the extraordinary spectacle of the Minister of Justice standing up in his place and saying that this Bill, for which the Tegular business of the country has been delayed, is not only of an extraordinary, but absolutely of an outrageous character.
I do not think any parallel to this situation can be found in the history of parliamentary proceedings in recent years. What is the modern rule with regard to responsibility of the government? Let me quote from Mr. Low's well known work on the ' Governance of England,' published in 1904:
That the ministry should initiate legislation is a characteristic part of our system. The cabinet drafts its measures and submits them to the legislature, which considers and discusses them, as a body, of persons arranged in parties, not as a collection of individuals, each entitled to have his own opinion on public policy and allowed some opportunity of carrying, his views into effect. Every transaction, every project of law, comes before the House as an act of the ministry and an act of the party. If it fails, or should be condemned, the result is a blow to the executive, and indirectly to that portion of the electorate by whom they are appointed. The system checks irresponsible sciolism, and hasty experimentalizing. It may render legislation slow, but it prevents it from becoming fantastic.
Further on he quotes the language of John Stuart Mill, which it may be worth while for me to quote also:
When, said John Stuart Mill, in a speech in the House of Commons in 1863, a popular body knows what it is fit for and what it is unfit for, it will mor(e and more understand that it is not its business to administer, but that it is its business to see that the administration is done by proper persons, and to keep them to their duties. I hope it will he more and more felt that the duty of this House is to put the right persons on the treasury benches, and when there to keep them to their work. People will more value the importance of this principle the longer they have experience of it.
Then the author continues as follows:
The operation of the principle has been carried much further since Mill spoke. It is not merely a question of cabinet initiative and direction, but of cabinet authority over legislation, almost unrestrained.
That is the modern doctrine in Great Britain, it is the modern doctrine in Canada. Yet, we see the government of this country, in respect to a matter of vital importance to the public welfare, abdicating its functions, interrupting the business of parliament, while allowing this debate to go on entirely irrespective of government responsibility. I eould quote further from this book in support of that principle.
I will also quote from Mr. Todd's book in support of the same principle. In Mr Todd's well known work on Parliamentary Government in England, he says, on page 500. volume 2:
It has been shown that whereas, by modern constitutional practice ministers are required to initiate Bills upon all questions affecting the public welfare-it being in the power of private members likewise to introduce similar measures-it is customary and expedient that considerable latitude should be granted to the legislative chambers in amending or rejecting the ministerial measures, without it being assumed by any such proceeding that they have withdrawn their confidence in the advisers of the Crown.
Then, further on:
But we find no example of any Bill being permitted to pass through both Houses to which ministers were persistently opposed. Where the opinion of parliament has been unequivocally expressed in favour of a particular Bill, regardless of objections thereto expressed by ministers, it has been the invariable practice for ministers either to relinquish their opposition in deference to that opinion, and to lend their aid to carry the measure, with such amendments as might he necessary to conform it to their own ideas of public policy, or else to resign.
That is the doctrine whicn Todd has laid down with regard to ministerial responsibility. But to-day we have the peculiar spectacle of this Bill presented to parliament, not upon the responsibility of the government, but upon the responsibility of a private member on the government side, and the business of the government, at this late stage of the session, being interrupted for two days. We also find the Minister of Justice rising in his place and saying that in his opinion, he being the law officer of the Crown, this Bill so presented is absolutely extreme, and one which ought not to receive the sanction of this parliament. I say again that I know of no parallel to this situation in recent years in the parliament of any English-speaking country, now, with regard to the first section of the Bill with which we are engaged at present, I do not find that it differs very much from the section in the Criminal Code of Canada as it exists today. There are two or three words omitted in different parts of the section, and I am not aware of what is supposed to be the effect of the omission of those words. We

are at this moment not doing the ordinary work done in committee of this House upon the Bill-I am not finding fault with that, I find no fault with the character of the discussion, and have no desire to interrupt it. But I do say that we must get down to business upon this section, and get through with it. I would like to find out, for my own information, what is the effect of the proposed change. At present I see no great objection to it. When we get to the other clauses of the Bill, I shall have something to say as to the effect, which, in my opinion, they would have. But I repeat that I see no great objection to this section. Nevertheless, I do say that in respect to this the whole Bill from beginning to end, it is the duty of the government to accept responsibility for this legislation, to say either that it is good legislation or that it is not good legislation, to accept full responsibility, and not run away from it as they have been doing.
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER. My hon. friend has laid down a doctrine which he would find some difficulty in maintaining in practice in this parliament, The question which he has brought up to-day is not at all new tc old members of the House. Again and again private members have used the privilege they have of introducing legislation, and again and again the government have refused to take up a position either for or against it. If the Bill at present before us is of such a character that it is the duty of the_ government to take a position upon it, it is equally the duty of the opposition to take one side or the, other in regard to it; and if the government is failing in its duty, the opposition is equally failing in its duty. I remember many occasions in former years when legislation for a prohibitory law was introduced into this House, session after session, and the government then led by Sir John A. Macdonald always refused to take the measure up as a government measure. Old members of this House remember that very well. I see before me now men who, at that time, were members of the government, and others who were supporters of the government, and they well remember the cases to which I allude. Here is a question which interests certain members of the community. here is a question as to which men have strong views, and would like this legislation to be assumed by the government. The government, I may say-I am revealing no secret, it is a matter'of public notoriety-the government was approached and asked to make this Bill a government measure, they urged that it was of such an important character as that the government should take a position upon it. The House is aware, and the country is aware, that the government refused to [DOT] Mr R. L. BORDEN.
assume responsibility for the measure, the government refused to take it up. But while the government were of that opinion, men who were promoting this legislation thought that they would use the privilege which is given to every member of this House to present Bills for the consideration of the House. Those men have strong views upon moral questions, and regarded this question as of great importance, and it was the duty of the government to give them an opportunity of presenting their views to the House in regard to it. This opportunity has been given them by the government and having given them that opportunity the government have discharged their duty and are not called upon to do anything more. If my hon. friend thinks that v'e are bound to have an attitude upon this question I will say to him that I have known instances in which my hon. friend has introduced resolutions stating that it was our duty to introduce legislation of such and such a character. I remember that not more than three or four years ago, my hon. friend, in his official capacity in this House as leader of the opposition, introduced a resolution to the effect that it was the duty of the government to take up such and such a question with reference to the electoral law. Then, my hon. friend thought it was a question of such importance that, in the language of the authority which he has just quoted, the government were bound to take a position and to say whether they were or were not in favour of his Bill to amend the electoral law. His position is to-day that it is the duty of the government to announce a policy upon this particular; question. But, it must be remembered that the country at large has not yet formed an opinion upon this question. We know liow in British countries reforms are generally carried out. It does no^ follow that that which is taken to be public opinion will turn out to be a reform. Very often questions are brought up and finally the change is accepted as a reform. We know how many years it took to bring about the great reforms of the last century not only in this country but in Great Britain, and we know how long a time elapsed before they were taken up by the government. Let me take a famous instance, an instance with which we are all familiar-the abolition of the Corn laws. How many, years did it take? How many times was that Bill introduced before it was taken up by the government? ' Was it the first, the second or the third year? No, it was not until five, or six, or if I mistake not ten years had elapsed that public opinion had been brought to that pitch of excitement, to that degre.e of conviction, that the government thought there was need of re-

form, that there was a question to be determined and then they put their hands to the plough and carried out that great reform. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) has brought the attention of the House to this question. It is the first time, in so far as my memory goes, that it has ever come before the Canadian people. There have been petitions presented in favour of it. I have not heard of any counter opinion but the opinion of men is not formed upon it. Some are for it and some are against it. On this, side of the House some are for it and some are against it; on the other side of the House, some are for it and some are against it. I say to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) that whatever may the case in the future, at the present time public opinion has not reached such a point that the government feel called upon to take an attitude upon this question. It is a free question and so it ought to remain notwithstanding that my hon. friend thinks that it is the duty of the government to take it up.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask my right hon. friend if he thinks there is an evil which requires to be reformed?


Wilfrid Laurier: As far as 1 am concerned?


Robert Laird Borden: As far as the government is concerned.


Wilfrid Laurier: This one?


Robert Laird Borden: Is there an evil in respect to the matter brought before the House which requires to be reformed?


Mr. FIELDING.: What does my hon. friend think about it?


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is.


William Stevens Fielding: In that respect my hon. friend and 1 are alike; I think there is an evil which we should make an effort to reform.


Robert Laird Borden: May I be permitted to say to my hon. friend that if there is an evil that the government thinks requires a remedy why does not the government take the responsibility of remedying it?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend, has misquoted what I said; I did not say there was an evil which the government thought should be reformed. He has turned my sentence to serve his own purpose. I said there was an evil which I thought should be reformed, but the hon. gentleman has turned the sentence in order that he could serve his own purpose. I am sorry that the only contribution which the hon. gentleman could make to this debate is 209
'a miserable effort to make party capital out of it. I dissent entirely from the extreme to which the hon. gentleman presses the doctrine that the government are responsible for every measure that comes before the House. If it were so we might have to lay down a new doctrine, and say that the hon. gentleman has as much responsibility as we have in this matter. The hon. gentleman presses the doctrine that the government must take up every question that comes before the House, and he asks for precedents. My right hon. friend the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has given him precedents in the history of this country, and these are certainly more to our purpose than precedents drawn even from the British parliament. I am sure that every member of this House, the older members, and even those who are not old members, can recall cases where questions arose in this House on which the members of the government differed. If they differ, which is the better course-that they should pretend to agree or that they should frankly say: This is not a party question, this "is not a government question, it is a question upon which members of the government disagree, and therefore, we propose to leave it an open question before the House. There is this curious thing that when it comes to a public Bill, or a private Bill, or anything which is in the nature of a Bill, if it so happens that the members of the government unite upon the matter, we are instantly told from the other side of the House that the party whip is being used. That is the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite. When it happens accidentally that a number of the members of the government think alike, and apeak in support of a private Bill, the cry is raised that it is not a government measure, and that we are being brought into line by the party whip. If the facts had been as represented the criticism would be just. Our system of party government calls for unity of action in a great many things, but in all things it is not possible to have unity, and if, in this matter, there be differences of opinion among members of the government surely the most sensible thing is that we should say to my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller): You have brought an important question before the House, we do not all agree on it, let it be an open question, and let each man vote as he thinks best. My right hon. friend cited one of the precedents in Great Britain for the position which he takes. If you look for them I am sure you could see other precedents of the same kind. I have a precedent in my mind that occurred not long ago, the question of Women's suffrage. The question of the right to vote is at least as important a question as that which is dealt with in this Bill



before the House. But do we not all know that the British government have declined to take ground upon that suffrage question? A member of the British government stated at a great public meeting that there was a division of opinion in the House, and in both parties on that great question, and that the government were not prepared to take the responsibility of a' woman's, suffrage Bill. He said that if a woman suffrage Bill was brought before the House, and a majority of the House would vote for it, then the government would recognize it to be its duty to take it up, and give effect to the will of the House, but that up to that time the government was not prepared to act. Is that violating all the traditions of the British parliament? I say that the extreme to which my hon. friend has pressed the matter is not warranted. It is not in accordance with the best practice of the British parliament, and I take the ground that it is not consistent with common sense. If upon any question, not a matter of vital importance, in the view of all the members of the government, there is a difference of opinion which prevents the government uniting, and coming to this House with a measure, the simple common sense method is to say:	This is a fair,
open matter for debate, and each one of us shall vote in accordance with his judgment, so that the will of the House shall be allowed to prevail.


John Graham Haggart: The doctrine laid down by the Minister of Finance is a new one.


William Stevens Fielding: Not at all, it is very old; my hon. friend has practised it. .


John Graham Haggart: The doctrine as practised in this House, and as I have heard the Prime Minister state on former occasions is that the government is responsible for all legislation, private or other wise. There is no doubt as to the responsibility,, and there is no doubt that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is right in saying that the government are responsible for all measures which pass this House.


William Stevens Fielding: That is where they recommend the Royal Assent to them.


John Graham Haggart: Not when they represent the Royal Assent, the government is responsible for the legislation that passes this House. That is the doctrine that has always been held in the House. There is no objection to an hon. gentleman introducing a Bill, and discussing it, but when a public Bill refers to crime, and a minister of the cabinet ridicules the idea of it being a crime, and says that such an absurdity was never heard of, I have only to say that if there is one thing for which the cabinet ought to be responsible it is the definition Mr. FIELDING.
of what is a crime. These gentlemen are capable of holding different opinions upon such subjects. They say it is a duty and privilege of the government for a member of the government, the Minister of Justice, to declare that what the Bill proposes to make a crime is ridiculous, and for these gentlemen to hold different opinions. In England it is impossible for a private individual to pass a Bill, that can only be done by the consent of the government. He may introduce a Bill, and. discuss it perhaps for several sessions, he may impose his opinions on the House, those opinions, may be forced on the government, and the government may introduce the Bill. A Bill of this kind 'could not become law in England without the government consenting to it, and taking it up. I contend that the principle laid down by the leader of the. oppo-tion is the correct one, that the government is responsible for all legislation, be it a railway Bill, or any other Bill. They have no right to have differences of opinion on a question coming before the House. Ministers may have different opinions, but when it comes to legislation they ought to have but one opinion, each measure should have the unanimous support of the government. I should judge from the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that he has heard the opinions of the gentleman who has introduced this Bill, and the arguments on the subject, but does hot intend to let it become law until they have had further opportunity of discussing it, that the government have not formed an opinion on the subject. That is perfectly proper, they have a right to say that. The question has been discussed in this House, they have not come to a conclusion on the subject, but they ought to be prepared to say whether legislation of that kind shall be permitted, and receive the government sanction.


Henry Horton Miller: The leader of the opposition has spoken of the differences between section 226 in the Bill, and in the Criminal Code as it is to-day. That hon. gentleman has said that he had no objection to section 226 as it is in the proposed Bill, but that he would like to know the meaning of the changes that have been made. He will notice that in every place where the words ' a place ' are used in the present section in the Code, the words ' house, room, or other place ' are used. The words ' a house or room ' have been left out.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the object?


Henry Horton Miller: It was held by the courts that the U3e of the words ' a house or room ' rather weakened than strengthened the language, and therefore the words were left out, leaving simply the word ' place ' and in the next section a definition of the word ' place * has been inserted. That is supposed to strengthen the language.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand then that the _ courts have held that the word ' place ' in the law as it is to-day must be construed with reference to the words ' house or room ' and therefore that the meaning of the word ' place ' is not.so wide in connection with these two words as it would be if it wa3 there alone.


Henry Horton Miller: Yes. The great opposition of the Minister of Justice was because the Bill interfered with private betting. I propose when we come to section 2 to add:
The provision of this section shall not extend to the case of a bet between individuals neither of whom is engaged in book-making or betting as a business.
And if the Minister of Justice will say when we come to consider section ^35 that it is necessary to add these words to that section I will be willing to do it so "that it will be clear that the Bill does not interfere with private betting.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. MADDIN.: Before the House rose for dinner, some discussion had taken place with regard to the functions of an opposition on matters of public importance coming before a government. The hon. Finance Minister asked the opinion of the leader of the opposition, and the right hon. the Prime Minister stated that if it were important that the government should adopt a policy with regard to a public Bill of this kind, it was also important that the opposition should do likewise. I would like to refer the right hon. gentleman to a statement made by Edmund Burke in his speech on Conciliation with America, in which he laid down what he conceived to be the duties of an opposition. He said:
It generally argues some degree of natural impotence of mind or some want of knowledge of the world to hazard plans of government except from the seat of authority.
And I have no doubt that when hon. gentlemen on this side of the House cross to the other side, they will not shirk their responsibility with regard to public Bills, as is being done with regard to this particular Bill. Before hon. members come to a conclusion with regard to this measure, I would like that there should be no misapprehension in their minds with regard to the Bill and the amendment. The hon. Minister of Justice, who should be greatly concerned with this Bill, which if it passes will become part of the criminal law of the country, takes up section 227 of the Bill, and reads it as follows :
A common betting place is a place-
(a) used for the purpose of betting between persons resorting thereto and 209*
(ii) any person using the same.
And he says that if a gentleman went to a horse race accompanied by a fair companion and laid a wager with her of a pair of gloves, it would not be a long cry for a magistrate to find him guilty under this Act. Now, I would like to point out to hon. members that it is essential that there be two parties to a bet, and this Act fixes as one of the parties ' persons resorting thereto,' that is, to the race-track, and the other party, as ' the owner, occupier or keeper thereof,' or ' any person using the same.' The Minister of Justice wishes to draw the inference that the ' persons resorting thereto ' are 'users ' of the place. They are not within the meaning of this Act, because the user of a place undoubtedly means the lessee or tenant or some one occupying the race-track. I submit that it is straining a criminal enactment beyond the limits that any court would strain it, in order to put the interpretation on this section that the Minister of Justice does. He was straining at a gnat when he sought to convey the idea that a person would be convicted who would bet a pair of gloves at a horse race. There is absolutely nothing in this Bill which would make a person liable for private betting at a race-track or outside of a race-track. But, says the Minister of Justice, I am opposed to the Bill, and I am in favour of the amendment. We find how he strained at a gnat; let us see how he can swallow a camel. Subsection 4 of section 228A of the amendment reads as follows:
4- Dor 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.
Now, I would like hon. members to keep that paragraph of the amendment in mind. In effect, it operates in this way. A is the owner of a race-track. B is a book-maker. B goes to A and says: ' I would like to make a book at your race-track next week.' A says: 'What will you give me?' B says: 'I will give you 25 per cent.' A says:	'That is not sufficient.' 'Well,'
says B, * I will make my book outside of your race-track.' A says: 'No, indeed, you will not, because I will put up notices prohibiting betting.' ' Then,' says B, ' well, what do you want? ' A says: 'I want 50 per cent.' ' Well,' says B, ' if you must

have 50 per cent, I will give it. A says:
' All right, walk right in, make yourself comfortable, go on with your betting, there will be no signs put up '; and the betting goes merrily on. I venture to say that if the members of the jockey club from whom this amendment emanates had prepared it last summer and presented it to this House this winter, they would not have got ten members -of this House on either side to support it. It simply means placing in the hands of the owners of race-track and gambling resorts the authority to make it legal or" illegal to gamble, according to their own fancy. When this Bill was up for its second reading, the Minister of Justice, poking some fun at the definition of a betting place in the Act, cracked what he considered to be a very good conundrum. He asked:	' When is a dog's tail not a
dog's tail ? The answer was: ' When it is a-waggin'; and he thought it a very good joke. Well, I would like to say that in this subsection 4 there also arises a conundrum. It is: ' When is an offence not an offence'? The answer is: ' When there is no notice on the fence.' Now, this amendment, vesting the right to say that gambling may or may not be carried on, in the owner's and lessees of race-tracks is one of the most flagrant and barefaced pieces of legislation ever offered to a legislative body. It is an insult to this parliament to ask it to legislate in that way. I wish the hon. members of this House, before voting on this Bill, to bear in mind that the Bill as it now stands before the committee does not interfere *with private betting, and that the amendment as proposed clothes the owners and lessees of race-tracks with authority to say whether gambling shall be carried on legally or not, which would be a lamentable state of affairs.
Some hon. MEMBEES. Question, question.


Henry Horton Miller: I want to say a word or two as to the opinion given by the Minister of Justice before dinner in regard to the section of the Bill we are now discussing, and in regard to the amendment. The hon. the Minister of Justice says he prefers the amendment offered by the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) to the Bill as it is before the House. Let me call the attention of the committee to the last paragraph of the amendment:
Provided no such race-meeting shall continue for more than 12 days of continuous racing.
The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) said he thought that would, be a great improvement. I would like to ask where the improvement is in narrowing racing to twelve days per meeting and allowing two meetings in a year.


James William Maddin: 


Mr. McCOLL.: It is eight days in the amendment, not twelve.	*


Henry Horton Miller: That would make it 16 days in the year. It would cut four days off the Woodbine meet as held to-day. It would be an improvement, not to those who are supporting the Bill, but to the proprietors of race-track associations in this way. The law, as interpreted by Canadian courts, compels a book-maker to move about from place to place and prohibits him from locating himself anywhere; but if we pass this amendment, the book-maker will be able to do business as before and be made as comfortable as possible on the racetrack. What I want to get at is the legal aspect of the case, and I would like to compare the amendment offered by the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mb. McColl), and advocated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), with the written opinion of the Minister of Justice as given on the 5th of February.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As the hon. gentleman has mentioned my name, I think the committee should understand my position. I did not say, and I am not concerned in saying, whether we are injuring race-track men or not, I am not anxious to injure anybody by this legislation, and I do not think it was wise for the hon. gentleman to support the Bill by saying that it is handicapping race-track associations. What I did say was that if we confined betting to the race-tracks and absolutely prohibited it outside, we would make a great advance and limit the character and the amount of betting.


Henry Horton Miller: I have no feeling against anybody, and no desire to injure any one. As I have said, I do not want to do anybody an injury, but I do not want to extend the privileges of race-track associations under the colour of advancement in the way of moral reform. The hon. the Minister of Justice advocates the amendment offered by the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl), which would allow a meeting to last 8 days, but in the opinion which the hon. minister gave me on the 5th of February last he said, speaking on this point:
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.
That is what the amendment seeks to do. It seeks to make a crime on the ninth day what is perfectly legal on the other eighti,
I do not question the power of the Dominion parliament to legislate in that manner, but it certainly would seem to me entirely illogical to do so. ,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. minister explained all that to-day.


Henry Horton Miller: What I contend is that if it was entirely illogical to do that on the 5th of February, 1910, it is just as illogical to do it on the 7th of April. I submitted the language of this Bill to the Minister of Justice. I did so in perfect frankness, and no doubt his reply was equally frank. 1 said I wanted his opinion in order that I might use it, and it was with that understanding the opinion was obtained. When I submitted the Bill to my hon. friend, he said he did not think it was his duty, as Minister of Justice, to give his opinion on a public Bill submitted by a private member, but he said that the Bill had been drafted by three most able lawyers, that they had given a great deal of thought and time to its drafting, and that it was admirably drawn. I said to the hon. minister: Do you think any other language could be used which could better carry out the purpose of its promoters. He said he did not. Referring to section 227, he thought it possible that two men sitting on adjoining seat on the grand stand and making a bet, the one with the other, might be held under this Bill to have been keeping a betting place. I said: Do you not think the language would have to be very much strained indeed to come to that conclusion? He replied: Candidly I do think it -would, but no one could tell to what extent a magistrate might strain the language of the statute. Speaking of section 235 he said there was absolutely nothing in it to interfere with private betting, although there -was something in it which would prevent the recording or registering of a private bet. I have here an amendment which I propose to offer to section 227:
The provisions of this section shall not extend to the case of a bet between individuals neither of whom is engaged in any way in book-making or in betting as a business.
If the hon. the Minister of Justice, or the majority of the committee, think that in order to protect the private bettor- whom I do not want to injure-some amendment should be attached to section 235, I am perfectly willing that the one I have just read should be. I want again to call the attention of the committee to this fact that if they carry the amendment offered by the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl), they will be throwing the law wider open and give greater opportunity for the carrying on of professional gambling. If the condition is bad to-day, it would he a great deal worse under the amendment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: On the race-track?


Henry Horton Miller: Yes, it -would increase the amount of betting on the race-track.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Nowhere else?


Henry Horton Miller: Again I appeal to my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), with whom I am sometimes able to agree, and who sometimes has a logical mind


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have lucid intervals.


Henry Horton Miller: I am glad of that, because I think I will have his support.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the hon. gentleman had better get a lucid interval too.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. member for Lincoln will not be able to give any satisfactory reply, just as every other opponent of the Bill, to this question. If it be right and proper to punish and prohibit professional gambling, by what logic can you determine it is quite right to do on a racetrack what, by the Criminal Code of Canada, is a crime every place off the racetrack? If a thing is a crime on this side of the fence, how can you make it innocent on the other side? I would like the hon. member for Lincoln to answer that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Candidly, we have been too long talking on this subject. I would ask my hon. friend which position is the most logical, what I said two or three times to-day about limiting gambling, or his own suggestion that every individual can bet all he has, and all his family has* and do it under the name of private betting? The race-track association controls it, and limits it, and makes it less objectionable than would be an unrestricted amount of private betting. He is throwing everything wide open.


John B. McColl: One word in answer to my hon. friend. He asks why we should prohibit what be calls gambling off the track, and permit it on the race-track. Now, if my hon. friend had heard the proceedings before the special committee and the arguments made before the House, he would have known that the conditions on the race-track and the conditions off the race-track are entirely different. When men are betting off the race-track they see no racing, there is no sport connected with it, it is gambling pure and simple. But what takes place on the race-track is altogether different. In the lirst place, the parties who go there and who patronize it are a different class of people, they are not gamblers in any sense; they go there to enjoy the races, to enjoy the sport, and the betting that they do is only an incident of the snort. Whether that Incident is right or wrong, it is something that has grown up in Great Britain for hundreds of years. As I said before, the men who patronize races in my own constituency never bet on hockey matches or anything else, never plav cards for money, but they go there to enjoy the sport, and as an in-

cident they may bet two or three dollars on a race. That is no gambling at all, and that is all that is done by nine-tenths of the people who patronize a well conducted race-track such as the Woodbine or the other tracks referred to. Moreover, the betting that takes, place on the race-track with the book-maker is done under regulations. The association regulates the bookmaker, sees that everything is done fairly, and takes every means to protect the public, and that cannot in any sense of the word be called gambling.
One point further. You, Mr. Chairman, intimated this afternoon that the amendment before the chair, and which I offered last evening before the House adjourned, was not strictly in order. If that should turn out to be the case, then, before the motion is put, I would desire to move another amendment and put it in another form, clause by clause, which I suppose would be without doubt in order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The amendment moved by the hon. member was ruled out of order, there is, therefore, no amendment before the committee.


John B. McColl: I understood, also, that you suggested this afternoon that, although it was, strictly speaking, out of order, the House had full jurisdiction over its own rules, and that if the House would like to vote upon my amendment, or the provisions of the substituted Bill, it would be at liberty to do so. If that is not out of order, I would like the feeling of the House upon it. I may say, further, that it would simplify matters and shorten proceedings a great deal if a vote could be taken in the way I have suggested. In the first place, this amendment was moved last evening before the House adjourned, and if it was out of order the question should have been raised then. It was not raised then, and we have proceeded to-day, speaking presumably upon the amendment that I had moved. If there is any technical objection to that, it might be waived and we might take a vote.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The amendment moved by the hon. member was discussed at some length. I intimated to him some time before I did to the committee that I did not think it in order. Eventually, I stated that I did not think I could submit it to the committee. Having been ruled out of order, it was open to any hon. gentleman to question the ruling of the Chairman, but that was not done. The rule of the House I think is quite clear. The House itself can change its rules. I do not think that the Committee of the Whole House change those rules, although I would hesitate to place myself in opposition to the unanimous de-Mr. McCOLL.
sire of the committee in its method of carrying on business. However, the proposed amendment was ruled out of order, and I do not see my way clear to take the vote the hon. member speaks of. Any amendment he desires to offer to section 1 will now be in order.


Mr. CYRIAS ROY (Montmagny).: (Translation). Mr. Chairman, I move that you now leave the chair. I will indicate with a few words the reason of my motion. I will not be long and I hope that some of my hon. colleagues in this House, who have the privilege of speaking both languages, will be able to express better than I can do, the motives which we can appeal to, in favour of my question.
The Bill which we are discussing now provides some qiodifications to the criminal law. For my part, I think that in such a circumstance, when an hon. member moves for a change in the criminal law, he should prove that his resolution is not intended to create an offence or to be in contradiction with a law already in force. Now, without mentioning any of the provinces of confederation, 1 can declare positively that in some provinces, what this Bill really asks for punishment is not supposed to be an offence. There are some provinces where the facts which they want to punish as criminal ones are not even an offence. For this reason, I think it would be wise for the House to send back this Bill to the provincial legislature which would discuss, reject or pass it. I consider that the question now discussed is pertinent to the civil code of Canada, Now, there are provinces that have an exclusive jurisdiction that can alone decide on matters concerning civil code. Furthermore, some provinces have an exclusive jurisdiction _ to decide upon the rights which,are pertinent to citizens to dispose of their estates. their money, and of all they own. I will insist no more. I hope we have in this House some representatives more competent than myself to make it understood by the majority that these reasons are sufficient to ask for the postponement of this Bill. I will content myself with these few remarks which I think are sufficient to justify you, Mr. Chairman, for leaving the Chair.


Mr. BELAND. (Translation).: What is your proposition?


Cyrias Roy: That Mr. Chairman do now leave the Chair.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: As I understand, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roy) moves that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.


John B. McColl: In view of the ruling which you have made I will move that section 1 of the Bill be struck out. In tak-

ing the sense of the House on that question, we shall probably have an expression upon the whole of my amendment. We have had that fully discussed, and I think the House understands now why I am put in the position of having to take this course. Section 1 of the Bill now before us reads as follows:
1. Section 226 of the Criminal Code, chapter 146 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, is repealed and the following; is substituted therefor:-
Thus, section 1 repeals section 226 of the Criminal Code, and substitutes another section. The effect of my motion to strike out this section No. 1 is to leave section 226 of the Criminal Code as it now stands. When we compare this section of the Criminal Code with the section as proposed in this Bill, we find that there is very little difference. That was fully explained this afternoon by the Minister of Justice. Section 226 as it now stands provides:
A common gambling house is-
(a)	a house, room or place kept by any person for gain, to which persons resort for the purpose of playing at any game of chance or at any mixed game of chance and skill; or
(b)	a house, room or place kept or used for
playing therein at any game of chance or any mixed game of chance and skill, in which a hank is kept by one or more of the players

and so on. About the only difference between the present section of the Criminal Code, and the section proposed by this Bill is the elimination of the expressions * house/ -and ' room,' leaving only the expression ' place.' The reason the promoters of the Bill have desired to have only 'place' in the section is to give it an extended definition making unnecessary the use of other expressions. The Bill I propose, defines ' street,' and the same thing is effected. So the two Bills are, in that respect, practically the same. Without further explanation I move to strike out section 1.


John Howard Sinclair: Section 1 I consider a very essential section of this Bill, in fact it is necessary to correct the present confused state of the law. It will be known to hon. members who have studied this question that the law on this point is at present in a very unsatisfactory state. The decisions of the court have been to the effect that one is liable to fine, -and imprisonment if the book-maker does.his' betting at any particular place-if, for instance, he stands on a box or under an umbrella at the race-course; but, if he walks about the race-course, or even, marks time, his betting is not an offence. This arises from the peculiar construction given by the courts to the word * place.' It was pointed out to the committee in the investigation that in the butcher shops, barber shops-, and other places in Toronto, it is a common
practice to carry on this race-course betting as a side show to the regular business. It was also shown that when a man carrying on this practice wished to escape liability, under the law he stepped out on the sidewalk, and there made the bet with his customer. The butcher, so long as he remains in his shop and makes a bet. becomes liable to -a fine, but if he stands on the sidewalk in carrying on this transaction he is not liable under the law. And, the book-maker on the race-course, while he moves -about, or even while he marks time may make a bet that is not an offence, but, standing in one place, he is liable to prosecution. I am sure every hon. member ,of this House wishes to have that state of the law corrected. The section that my hon. friend from West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) wishes t-o strike out is an attempt, and, I think, a fairly good attempt, to define what a ' place ' is and to correct that anomalous condition of the law. This does not deal with the main portion of the Bill which we reach later on, and which deals with the question whether betting by the book-maker should be allowed. I therefore trust that hon. members will look carefully into this question before voting. I can well see how hon. gentlemen who are opposed to doing away with the book-maker might vote against the motion of my hon. friend from West Northumberland to strike out this section.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the hon. Minister of Justice fully answered all that has been said by the member for Guvsborough (Mr. Sinclair), I understand him to say- and I quite agree with him-that the evil consists in what is done not in where it is done. As he pointed out, the first section as it stands means that persons sitting side by side are in a * place,' and if they make a private bet they are liable to be sent to jail.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty I feel with regard to the situation, arises, perhaps, from the ruling which, I understand, you have made, that the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl is not iji order. The difficulty in dealing with this section arises from the fact that the various sections of the English Bill which the hon. member for West Northumberland moved en bloc by way of amendment last night are so in-terwoven, so interdependent one upon the other that, unless- you are to consider them all together, you are scarcely in a -position to deal intelligently with the matter. The difficulty which my hon. friend from Guys-borough has pointed out with regard to what he considers the anomalous condition of the law is, I venture to think, nothing of the sort The law was perfect! r

clear, and distinct as it left this House in 1892. The House then, in terms, decided to except from the book-making prohibition if you please, to except from the betting clause of the Criminal Code, a number of things, among which were bets made on the race-course of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a racemeeting. But the wording of the exception limited the exception to that particular clause. The wording of the exception was and is:
The provisions of this section shall not extend to bets made on a race-track during a race-meeting.
Accordingly the law did not prevent a book-maker from making a book on a race-track during the progress of a race-meeting, but that condition of the law did not please the people who want to stop book-making, and accordingly they resorted to a prosecution of the book-maker under this other section for keeping a betting house, to which other section the exception did not, in terms, apply. They procured in that way a fine or conviction to be imposed upon some book-maker, notwithstanding that he had made his bets upon a race-track during a race-meeting, upon the theory that because he stood upon a box or under an umbrella, he was thereby keeping a common betting house. The section dealing with a gaming house is another section of similar character to the section that deals with a betting house, and the proposal now before the committee simply resolves itself into this form. Whereas the existing law, section 226, defines a common gaming house to be a house, room or place,' &c., the amending section which the committee has reported and recommended, proposes to change the phraseology from the words ' gaming house ' to the words ' gaming place,' and instead of calling it a ' house, room or place kept by a person,' &c., it is now to he called a ' place used by a person,' so that it will not necessarily be an inclosure_ at all. but in the language of fhe definition, which, by the next section, it is proposed to apply to this section under consideration, fhe word ' place ' is to include ' any place whether' inclosed or not and whether it is used permanently or temporarily and whether there is or is not the exclusive right of user.' In voting upon this proposition, hon. gentlemen should understand that what they are doing is Teally taking that integral portion of the proposal submitted or reported by the committee with the idea of changing the existing law in order to make ' common gaming house ' or ' common gaming place ' something that is not inclosed, or stationary, or permanently or exclusively used, but something "which is, as it were, just a step toward what I spoke of this after-Mr. AYLESWORTH.
noon, that is getting after the individual bettor if he makes a bet when he is sitting on his seat.


Mr. BURRELL.: I am not anxious to detain the House, but I do not feel like giving a silent vote. I had not intended taking part in this discussion, but some incidents that occurred just before six o'clock impel me to give the reasons for the faith that is in me, a faith that has been seriously deepened by the remarks of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth). As far as the amendemnt proposed by the hon. member for West Northumber-lan (Mr. McColl) is concerned, its adoption would practically mean the voting down of the Bill. His amendment must be regarded as a crucial matter, as the Minister of Justice explains that while the provisions of the old criminal law are for getting after the gambler or the criminal who breaks the law in every place except at a race-track meeting, the object of the amendment to the Criminal Code proposed to the Bill introduced by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) means to go after the professional gambler wherever he is and, if possible, stamp him cut of existence. That, as far as I understand it, is the general principle involved. I think we all thoroughly understand that we are loath 1o be beaten into virtue by legislative enactment. We do not believe that a legislative enactment can improve our moral standpoint or make men law-abiding citizens. It must also be understood that to a great many men, and myself amongst them, race-track gambling and betting have no particular temptation, and we must be all the more careful as we may have other forms of temptation not to
Compound for sins we are'inclined to
By damning those we have no mind to.
We ought, at all events, to give fair play to the gentlemen who are in sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for West Northumberland. The strongest speeches I heard, in following this debate, against this proposed amendment to the law were made b,y the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sift-on) and the hon. Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Brandon stated that his principal reasons-and we ought to give them all due weight, were these: First of all, that the matter had not been threshed out before the country. I might deal with that very briefly. I do not think that he -can put that argument forward very seriously. As was pointed out, there never has been an amendment to the Criminal Code that has ever been threshed out before the country. I might retort to my hon. friend the member for Brandon that a great, many matters that this government have incorporated into law have not been threshed out before the country, namely, the Autonomy Bill, the

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway (Bill, the Naval Bill. The country never had an opportunity of saying a word in Tegard to these measures. He also introduced an argument with which I had more sympathy, and that was that the passage of laws with which a preponderating part of the public were not in active sympathy only tended to increase the general contempt for law. That argument has a great deal ol weight. But the hon. member for Brandon pushed his argument to the farthest point, and he did admit that there were a great many evils-he numbered them as four, all of which meant betting and gambling in various forms, and he assented to the fact that these were evils that ought to be stamped out. But, I was rather astonished that he could not carry his argument to its logical conclusion and assent also to the necessity of stamping out the fifth, namely, that which, is a legalization of gambling on the race-track. Let me deal with another phase of the amendment with regard to the first part of the Bill and with the important principle involved in the Bill. I feel that whether we gamble on races or do not we have to deal *with these questions as citizens of a great country, and as men interested in progress along the best lines in every community, and we must admit that gambling and betting, carried on as they are in that form, are provocative of a great many evils leading directly to cheating, unfair play of various kinds, and even to worse and more nefarious practices.
I d'o not say they always lead to these evils, but I do say, and I think the House will agree, that wholesale and legalized gambling on race-tracks does not foster the best spirit of sport. That while those who love sport for sport's sake would do nothing unfair, men to whom the love of sport is entirely subordinate to the love of gain would take a more active part in connection with these races, and I say there is thus an influence at -work leading to cheating, unfair play, pulling races, etc. Indirectly it leads to graver evils, such as embezzlement, forgery, debt, etc. I believe at all events, and this is my reason for voting, that gambling and betting in any way to a certain extent, but certainly in a large and professional way, is anti-social in its influence, that is, it does not tend to a healthy constructive progress in _ a community, but rather tends to its disintegration. The hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) stated before six o'clock that he thought the government ought to accept some responsibility for a measure of this kind, and on this point he was replied to by the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the right hon. gentleman who leads the House (Sir .Wilfrid Laurier). I thoroughly agree that the government ought to assume such responsibility, and for the reason that it is not an ordinary measure, it is not an ordinary private Bill, but a Bill that involves an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada, 'for which surely the government must have some responsibility. The right hon. gentleman who leads this House very airily washed his hands, of any responsibility in regard to this measure. He has not told us, as I think he should have done, where he stood on this particular measure, how he viewed so important a thing as an amendment to the Criminal Code, which certainly directly concerns him. But what is the peculiar position in which the government stand? The right hon. gentleman and the Minister of Finance have said that this is a question of great gravity upon which the members of the government do not agree, and the Minister of Finance, therefore, said it would be more sensible to leave it to the judgment of the House. Certainly it would be more sensible as party tactics for the government to leave it to the House. I have always been told that the doctrine of cabinet solidarity is a very important one, one that should be taken seriously. They are throwing that to one side. What is the position if the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister or other ministers of the Crown choose to vote for the proposed Bill? We are in this position that there is an amendment to the Criminal Code which has been denounced in the strongest and, I was going to say, in the most violent, but certainly in very strong language by the chief minister of the Crown dealing with the law, the Minister of Justice. He has poured ridicule on the Bill brought in by the member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) "and he has added-and that is why I say it is the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill-he has added that he was going to vote for an amendment which practically kills the Bill. The Minister of Justice laid stress on the fact that the gravest injury that could be done to the body politic in this whole matter was to bring in a contempt of law in general, because we were passing statutes that could not be lived up to. Let me ask the Minister of Justice what position will the country and parliament be in if members of the government like the First Minister and other ministers vote for this Bill and allow it to be carried, and it is carried in face of the fact that the Minister of Justice has condemned it as a piece of preposterous legislation which is a farce and absolutely wrong. Is that not bringing the whole law into contempt, if the chief minister of the law and the government allow a piece of legislation to go on the statute-book which they regard as farcial. I say it is bringing the law into contempt to a greater extent than anything the government have

done, and I believe that government ought to arrange a fair compromise if they can, or at all events take some steps to shoulder the responsibility of so important a measure as this.
Committee divided on amendment of Mr. McColl.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, yeas 78, nays 77.
On section 2-common betting place defined-
John B. McColl: From the vote which has just been taken I would infer that the sense of the House is in favour of the amendment to the whole Bill, as I suggested last night. If that be the case, we might vote on the balance of the Bill, as I suggested. If not, I would have to take the same step as I did on the previous section, moving to strike it out, for the same reasons.


Henry Horton Miller: If I cannot make the provisions of the Bill any better, I do not want to make them any worse, and I object to the amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland. If that is not in order, I would like to move an amendment to section 2, by changing the definition of the word ' place ' in subsection 2, by striking out the words: 'whether it is or is not a fixed place,' and substituting the words ' whether it is used permanently or temporarily.'


William Findlay Maclean: Must we not take up first the amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I did not understand that the hon. member for West Northumberland made a motion.
Mr. MeCOLL. I made the suggestion, and would like to hear the expression of the House upon it, that we vote on the whole Bill, as I first suggested. If that is not in order, I will have to move to strike out this section.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I do not feel any more at liberty to allow the original amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland than I did on the previous section.
Mr. MeCOLL. Then I move to strike out this section for the same reasons and on the same grounds as I did section 1.


Mr. CONGDON.: I desire to state why I am opposed to this section, as I am to several sections of this Bill. The law in this country relating to common gaming houses, common betting houses, and the other matters mentioned in these sections, has stood long, is in thorough accord with the traditions of English law, and has been well settled by innumerable judicial decisions. I-doubt if there are any sections of the Criminal Code as to which there


Martin Burrell: have been more litigation and more illuminating decisions than the sections relating to gambling; and the reason for the present attempt to wipe out those sections is that they do not cover cases which they were never intended to cover. That would be giving them a fantastic meaning. It is proposed to amend sections which are generally settled, wisely settled, usefully settled, as thejr stand, in order to make them cover what they were never intended to cover. If you amend them in this way, you will throw into confusion that portion of the law which is already well settled. If an amendment were introduced dealing expressly with the race-track, and dealing with it in a reasonable way, I for one would support it; but to amend the whole law on this subject merely to cover that one case, and to Convert ' a common gaming house ' or ' a common betting house ' into ' a common betting place,' terms which are not known to the law, and which we do not understand, and to give this phrase a strained and extensive meaning, is not in my opinion called for by the" state of the law on the subject, and is not in the interest of the proper restriction of gambling. It is the universal opinion of those who have studied the subject that there is great danger in gambling, and that there is wisdom is the restriction imposed by the British law which deals with gaming houses and betting houses when they become public nuisances. The British law on this as on other subjects does not deal so much with their moral aspects as with the duties and rights of men towards their fellowmen; it does not deal with this matter as a moral question, but as a question affecting the public and individual. For the reasons I have given, I intend to vote against all these amendments which propose in an uncertain and unsafe way to amend provisions of the law which are now well established and most useful in their operation.


Mr. OWEN.: I beg to move that the rules of this committee be amended, so that instead of taking a standing vote, we call for the yeas and nays.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That motion cannot be received. The question is on Mr. McColl's amendment and Mr. Miller's amendment to the amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not understand that the amendments came in that order.
I understand that the hon. member for South Grey proposed to amend the section of his own Bill, and that the hon. member for West Northumberland moved an amendment to the amendment.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I was not certain in my own mind whether the hon. member for West Northumberland moved an amendment when he first rose. I asked

65S0
the question, and I understand that he claims that he did.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was not my understanding. He first desired to know whether the vote could be taken on the balance of the Bill. On your intimating that it could not, he moved his amendment. But before that the hon. member for South Grey had moved an amendment to his Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I want to point out to this committee what this section means.
' The word place as used in this section, and the preceding section includes any place, whether inclosed or not '. That is very fine legislation for us to pass; it means anywhere in this world. A man is going to be fined for betting anywhere. As one gentleman has said, it is fantastic legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: The words 1 permanently or temporarily 5 are in the Bill now, and the words which the hon. member for South Grey proposes to strike out are not in it at all.


Henry Horton Miller: The Bill -which the hon. leader of the opposition has before him is the reprinted Bill as suggested by the committee, but that is not the Bill before the House, and I want by my amendment to make the Bill conform to the reprinted Bill, as suggested in the report. I want to make my amendment to conform to the new reprint of the Bill, which the committee suggested in their report.


Robert Laird Borden: Are we considering the Bill as reported by the committee?


Henry Horton Miller: As it was introduced into the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: .- Not at all.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is the Bill reported as amended by the special committee. If the hon. gentleman intends his amendment to be to that Bill, it will be necessary to write it out.


Henry Horton Miller: Then if we are considering the Bill as reported


An hon. MEMBER.: Do you not .know what we are considering?


Henry Horton Miller: A3 a matter of procedure, I did not understand whether we were considering the Bill as originally before the House, or the one recommended by the committee. Then I would propose, this amendment;
To add the following subsection 3 to section 2: The provisions of this section shall not extend to the case of a het between individuals, neither of whom is engaged in any way in book-making or in betting as a business.


William Manley German: It is quite useless to put the amendment to the amendment. If the
amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) carries, that does away with the section altogether. Let us vote on the amendment as moved by that hon. gentleman. If that carries, the amendment to the amendment is of no ' avail.
Committee divided on the amendment of the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) to the amendment of the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl).
Amendment to the amendment negatived. Yeas, 74; nays, 87.
Committee divided on the amendment o'f the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl) that section 2 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. Yeas, 85; nays, 73.
On section 3,	-
3. Section 228 of the said code is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
228. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who keeps any disorderly house, or other disorderly place, that is to say, any common bawdy-house, common gaming-place, or common betting-place, 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, or other disorderly place, 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.
John B. McColl: Mr. Chairman, the amendments I find necessary to move are before you as moved last night. I think, in view of what has taken place, and of the votes that we have taken, it is. clear that the sense of the House is in favour of my amendment which, as has been explained, differs from the Bill in that it follows the English legislation drafted by Lord Davey, one of the best lawyers in England, while the Bill is what is termed American or Yankee legislation. I move that this section 3 be struck out, and the remainder of the Bill proposed by me be voted upon in one motion.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I cannot even at this stage accede to the manner in which the hon. member desires to proceed. It may be open, at a later stage for the House to take some steps to refer to a special committee


William Findlay Maclean: It is in order for the hon. member to substitute his amendment for this clause. Let him move it.
Mr. M'cCOLL. I move that section 3 of the Bill he struck out, and that section 228 of the Code be made to 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 hereintofore 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.


William Findlay Maclean: Should not the amendment 228a go also?


John B. McColl: Then, I will add also the following:
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 book-making or betting, or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager, or paying or receiving or settling bets, and shall

In the amendment as I gave notice of it these penalties ' are blank,' but I have asked leave to fill in the blanks so as to make the remainder of the amendment read:
(a)	In the case of a first offence be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $50;
(b)	In the case of a second offence be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100; and
(c)	In the case of a third or 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 $250, 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 be 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 this section, be 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.
4.	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.


John B. McColl: I may say that section 228a follows expressly Lord Davey's Act which has already been explained.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Do I understand the motion to be that section 3 of the Bill be struck out, and that 228a be added to the existing-


John B. McColl: No, hut that section 3 is struck out, and that what I have read as 228 and 228a be substituted therefor.


John Howard Sinclair: I desire to have an explanation of the meaning of the clause, 4, of 228a. It defines the words ' public place' and includes certain inclosed places, ' 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.' I would like to have the hon. member's (Mr. Mc-Coll) views as to what that last section means. It appears to me to leave it within the control of the owner of the park, by declining to put up the notice referred to, to permit betting to be legally carried on in the place.


John B. McColl: As I understand it, that is to protect a park of this kind, for instance, we have in my own town an association known as the Horse Show Association. That association has purchased a park in which to hold its annual shows. But that park may be used at times for other purposes. This is, if I may use the expression, a semi-private property which is sometimes used for public purposes. I understand that under the law, that would not be anything, but a public place in the strict sense, and we can keep it in a private character by putting up a notice that betting is not to be permitted. That would protect the owners of the park against any intrusion, and reduce betting to that extent.


Henry Horton Miller: I see that my hon. friend from West Northumberland and the hon. member for Lincoln are very anxious to pass this amendment in the interests of the racing associations and the professional gamblers.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Henry Horton Miller: That is the way it appears to me, and I do not think that is what the committee desires. I do not think that this committee having adopted the Bill that was introduced, desires to add insult to injury and to make matters much worse than they are to-day, therefore, I move that the committee rise.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think the hon. gentleman is sincere in this matter. He, brings in a Bill nominally for the benefit of the morals of the country, and because he cannot get exactly what he desires. he wants to throw the whole thing up. He objects to making a sensible law

in this country for the protection of morals, of which he claims to be the guardian. 1 am not as insincere as the hon. gentleman,
I am not here fooling with this matter. As I have said, I am prepared to assist in every way to make a good law. But because this hon. gentleman cannot have his way in every particular, because he cannot go to the extreme point, even against the opinion of the Minister of Justice, he wants the committee to rise without making any restriction of this very gambling that he pretends to wish to abolish.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I understand that the hon. member for South Grey has moved that the committee rise. I presume that his intention is to kill the Bill. Now, 1 want to tell the hon. gentleman that I am not going to help him to kill the Bill. 1 do not think at this stage that the Bill should be abandoned to its fate, and I protest against the motion.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I think the remarks made by the hon. member for Lincoln are somewhat unfair to my hon. friend for South Grey. My hon. friend from South Grey thinks honestly that the Bill as proposed to be amended, or the Bill of the hon. member for West Northumberland, is more in the interest of the book-maker and the professional gambler than the law vie have now on the statute-book. That being the case, it seems to me it is' perfectly proper for the hon. member, for South Grey, and he is not subject to unfair criticism, when he suggests that the commiitee rise, which will have the effect of doing away with the proposed legislation altogether, and leaving on the statute-book the legislation that has now been in force for some years.


Henry Horton Miller: I am not particular about the language used, I am not accusing anybody. I said that I think the amendment proposed would make things worse than they are to-day, and I will give you one more reason why I think so. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for West Northumberland expressly _ exempts betting between individuals, that is exactly the language used, betting between individuals is permitted. I submitted that language to the Minister of Justice for his opinion, and he said that the book-maker is an individual, and that if that language were used in the Bill, and if a book-maker proceeded against under the Bill were to go to a lawyer to defend him, the first thing the lawyer would rest his case upon would be to point out to the book-maker that he is an individual and, therefore, exempt under the law, using the same words that aTe used by the member for West Northum-beralnd. That, then, would appear to offer a wide open door, and to protect the bookmaker in everything he desires to do.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest to my hon. friend for South Grey that if his motion passes, it will kill the Bill for the present session; whereas if he simply moves that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, he will leave an opportunity of reaching an agreement. My suggestion is that if there be any possibility of an agreement, by leaving the matter open an agreement may be reached; whereas if we simply rise, that puts an end to the Bill. I am assuming that the hon. gentleman who may not agree with the member for South Grey are still desirous of intro-. ducing, as they suggest, some amendments.
I do not think we could hope to-night, in the confusion of the various sections and the various amendments, to reach an intelligent judgment in the way of improving the law. But if the matter be left open, hon. gentlemen will have an opportunity of framing their amendments, and there may still be a chance. Therefore, I do not intend to vote with the hon. member for South Grey that the committee rise; but if he would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, I would vote with him.


Henry Horton Miller: I will adopt the suggestion of the Finance Minister, and I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have been held so strictly to the rules of order about amendments, that I think I will have to be technical also. The hon. gentleman has not my consent to withdraw his motion, if that amounts to anything. I do not think the hon. gentleman should play that sort of game to this House.


James Robert Stratton: Then I will move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Stratton) cannot duplicate a motion that has already been moved. I am inclined to think that the hon. member for South Grey can withdraw his motion without the consent of the committee, although I would be willing to hear the opinions of experienced members on that point. The motion before the Chair is that the committee rise; the amendment to the hon. member for South Grey is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: That is the motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: If it is out of order we will put it in order. I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. We have been two days on this Bill, and it has been amended in a way that was not anticipated by my hon. friend from South

Grey, who thinks that the sense of the House is not with him. There is a good deal of excitement on both sides of the House. My hon. friend does not abandon his measure, but simply asks the committee to rise. I am quite sure that it is more in accordance with the traditions of the House that we should adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The matter can be discussed. I do not know that very much progress can be made during the present session, but let us not, upon a matter of this importance, give way to excitement. Let us proceed in a regtilar way and accept the suggestion that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: May makes it perfectly clear as to the rights of an hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion. The last edition of May, page 280, says that:
The member who has proposed a motion, can only withdraw it by leave of the House, granted without any negative voice.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: In view of what May says upon the subject the hon. member for Grey may not withdraw his motion that the committee rise.


Wilfrid Laurier: I move in amendment to add the words, 'report progress, and ask leave to sit again.'


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Under the circumstances, I am informed that that amendment cannot be moved. There may be no amendment moved to the motion that the committee rise.
Motion negatived.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think we ought to do something with this Bill. We have spent two days upon this serious question of gambling. Let me appeal to the committee as well as to the Prime Minister that we do not waste these two days, and, while the matter is fresh in our minds, put a proper Bill on the statute-books of this country. Let us pass a Bill as suggested by the Minister of Justice which seems to be in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the House. Why should we have wasted these two days when we are here in the interest of the country to suppress this gambling evil? Why does not the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) join with the majority of the House in making the best Bill he can under the circumstances? What respect can the people of this country have for us who have spent two days upon this question, now wasted, in the opinion of the Prime Min-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
ister, and have done nothing to put this Bill in proper shape? We can do it in twenty minutes or fifteen minutes if we concentrate our minds upon it. The contention is all over, the main points of the Bill have been settled. They have been settled against the hon. member from Grey, but they have been settled, in the opinion of this House, in the interest of the country. Let us put them into shape and let up pass this Act. Do not let the country say that we are a lot of children, and farcical children at that, spending two whole days and doing nothing.


William Manley German: This motion will no doubt carry, and the carrying of it will very likely result in no further action being taken on this Bill during this session. It will leave the race-tracks, the race-track owners and the race-meetings exactly in the position they have stood in hitherto. But the great question to my mind in reference to the whole proceedings is to limit the number of days on which race-meetings should be held. The amendments which have been made to the Act are really infinitesimal in their effect. The so-called Miller Bill is no more effective than the law as it stands now. What I was anxious for, and what I believe the majority of the members of this committee and this parliament are anxious for, is to have it definitely and finally settled as to how many days each year races should be held on the various race-tracks. I believe the consensus of opinion of the whole people, at any rate of Ontario, is that two meetings of twelve days each during the year are quite enough, that races should not be conducted longer than that, and I think it will be well, as this question will not come up again very likely this session, that we should tell the race-track owners and operators to take notice that unless they shorten the terms of their meetings very likely this matter will come up again next session, and be dealt with in a way that will not be to their satisfaction. I think that if section 235. as it is in the Miller Bill, had been reached it should have restricted the number of days racing and fixed definitely and finally that question for all time to come. That is the principal object of the Bill, and I think that if those people who are engaged in this legitimate sport-and it is a sport that I would like to see continued, but kept under reasonable restrictions-should take notice that long race-meetings will not be tolerated in Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: Did I .understand the Prime Minister to say that this would be the last of this Bill this session?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


William Findlay Maclean: I thought I understood him to say so. I am asking for information.


An hon. MEMBER.: It may, or it may not be.


John B. McColl: I think that in view of all that has taken place it would be best possibly to accept this motion. Of course, the motion that the committee rise would absolutely kill the Bill for the present session. The motion before the Chair might result in still giving proper legislation before the end of the session. I think that the promoters of the Bill, in view of what has taken place to-night, must be convinced that the sense of the House is not in their favour.


Mr. TALBOT.: What about the men outside?


John B. McColl: They will be willing to concede that, and after having had time to consider the amendments that I have suggested to the Bill, if all parties consented, the Bill still could come up during this session without wasting any considerable time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
Robert Laird Borden: Will any further time of the House be devoted to this Bill?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think we want to come to prorogation, and we have done very well by this Bill. If the two sides were to come to an agreement, I think every one ought to be anxious to facilitate business, but unless this is done I do not think the promoter of the Bill would ask us to devote more time to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 188) to amend the Act respecting the National Battlefields of Quebec. Mr. Aylesworth, read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-expropriation.
Robert Laird Borden: What changes are effected by this amendment?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The whole scope of the amendment is to substitute proceedings under the Expropriation Act for proceedings under the Railway Act. This is a change which the chairman of the commission, as I understand with the concurrence of his fellow members of the commission, thinks is of very considerable importance. He came to Ottawa accompanied by the solicitor for the commission to discuss this proposal, along with some other changes which, after discussion, did not seem to be of so much importance and which have therefore not been proposed. Under the existing Act if the commission are not able to agree with any owner as to the price to be paid, the proceedings by which they expropriate have to follow the detailed procedure of the Railway Act, the filing of a plan, I suppose with the Minister of Railways, and the statement of the surveyor, and all the steps which would require to be taken in the case of expropriating land if it were required for a railway. The amend-

merit, as hon. gentlemen will see, relieves the commission of these preliminary steps and requires the proceedings to fix the price for the land which has been taken against the owners will to be had in the Exchequer Court instead of before a Board of Arbitrators to be selected in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Act. The steps that are to be taken are marked out in detail in the original statute and are not interfered with. There must be first an estimate of the probable amount which the property will cost provided 'by the commission and submitted to this House. The approval of this House must first be had to the proposed transaction. Once that approval is secured, the proceedings will continue, either by agreement or by expropriation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When this Bill was being considered before, I put a question which I repeat now, because the answer I got then, if I understood it correctly, was not satisfactory; that is, in the event of the commission requiring what is known as the Ross rifle property, which is under lease, but which belongs to the Crown, would it be expropriated, or by what means would it be taken over?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I can only say that I gave to the hoh. gentleman the only answer I can possibly make to the question. The commission has no power to touch that or any other piece of property without the authority of parliament. If the commission propose to take it, and parliament assents and authorizes taking it, it could either be purchased by agreement or expropriated like any other piece of property.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it seem reasonable that you could expropriate to the benefit of the Crown, property already vested in the Crown, and only under lease?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: In such a case expropriation proceedings would not be necessary. If the commission desired not to acquire this property and obtained the authority of parliament to take it, and if it is already Crown property, nothing more would be requisite than the necessary transfer.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be necessary to expropriate the lease hold interest.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Of course, the interest of the tenant or lessee would have to be expropriated if the parties interested could not agree upon the value.


Robert Laird Borden: What property has been acquired by the commission, and what property is it proposed to acquire?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: As far as I am able to answer that question, none has yet been acquired.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 


Wilfrid Laurier: No property, so far as I know, has been acquired, but I think I am correct in saying that the intention of the commissioners is to acquire property along what is known as the Bel-videre road, which connects the Plains of Abraham with the St. Foy road, and some property along the St. Foy road.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the Minister of Justice, any property other than that described in the Act of 1908, which it is proposed to acquire, must be acquired by application to parliament, and by an amendment to the Act already passed.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What funds are available to the commisison for purposes' of expropriation?


Wilfrid Laurier: The commission have now in their hands $300,000, if 1 am correctly informed.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CLAIMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 151) to provide for the adjudication of small claims arising in respect of the operation of the government railways. [DOT] read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Arthur Meighen: While this section is under discussion, possibly the committee, and the Minister of Railways will permit me to refer to Bill (No. 55) relative to claims against railways, and which I had the honour to introduce in the House, and which was referred at the suggestion of the Minister. of Railways to the Railway Committee, and by it to a subcommittee. I had an apprehension at the time of the reference that the effect would be to put the Bill at such a place on the order paper as would render it impossible to have it considered this session, and I would like to ask the Minister of Railways whether or not he will facilitate the enactment of a law as proposed in my Bill, and as recommended by the subcommittee, by including it in his general amendment to the Railway Act.


Mr. GRAHAM.: There are several Bills in ,the same position as that of my hon. friend. When I suggested referring them to the Railway Committee, it wa3 for the sole purpose that all parties interested might be heard. I might say to my hon. friend that in a. case of that kind, unless I have some particular reason for not doing si), I certainly intend, with the consent of the House, to make it a part of my Bill. I think the Railway Committee approved of
t>601

the subcommittee's report, and I am going to ask the consent of the House that that Bill, also one of the hon. member for Lincoln, and perhaps one or two others^ be included as amendments to my Bill when it comes up.
On section 7,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not understand how a counter-claim could be very well raised by the Crown in an action of this kind which would be admissible to set off against the claim. If the Crown had a claim against any one, it would not wait until he took out suit against it and then make a counter-claim.


George Perry Graham: Sometimes there are claims against individuals which we cannot collect. But if it should happen that any one of them has a claim against the government, we can have ours set off as a counter-claim.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You transfer it to the Exchequer Court?


George Perry Graham: If our claim is larger, we cannot very well go on with the case in the smaller court.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS OF MONTREAL.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 191) to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.-Mr. Fielding.
William Stevens Fielding: When this matter was last before the committee, we went through the Bill and practically disposed of it, but the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart) requested that, before finally disposing of it, I should place on the table the scheme which the Montreal Harbour Commission were known to have in connection with their improvements. In- consequence of that request I have brought a plan which I will lay on the table. The hon. member (Mr. J. Haggart) is not present, but he will have an opportunity to consult this plan later on. I may explain that this plan has not been approved by the Governor in Council. It is more comprehensive and includes more than we propose. but it indicates the scheme the commission have in mind. Though the hon. member for South Lanark is not present,
I will lay the plan on the table. So far as I know this is the only information that is desired.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act, chapter 16 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by providing for the payment of salaries as follows:-
. post office inspectors on appointment, $2,500, with an annual increase of $100 to a maximum of $3,500.
To assistant nost office inspectors and superintendents of the railway mail service on appointment, $1,600, with an annual increase of $100 to a maximum of $2,500.
To authorize the increase to the minimum of the salary of any such officers whose salary is at present less than the minimum.
To assistant postmasters, on appointment, a salary of not less than $1,100 and not more than $2,800,-Mr. Lemieux.
Mr. LEMIEUX.: It is proposed to raise the salaries of the post office inspectors, the assistant post office inspectors, the superintendents of railway mail clerks and certain assistant postmasters. The salaries of these officers are fixed by the Civil Service Act relating to the outside service. It has been found that this class of employees are those upon whose efficiency and industry we must chiefly rely for good administration of the department. The post office inspectors are the very marrow of the whole service. Under the Post Office Act it is their duty to:
(a)	Superintend the performance of the mail service, take good cafe that, as far as the state of the roads and other circumstances permit, the stipulations of all contracts for the conveyance of the mail are strictly complied with by the contractor.
(b)	Instruct new postmasters in their duty.
_ (c) Keen the postmasters to their duty in rendering their accounts and paying over their balances.
And so on and so on. They are, as I say, the officers on whose efficiency the whole postal service and the administration of the department depends. Their salaries have not been revised, practically, since confederation. They are at the head of the service, and I think we should give them, this year, now that times are more prosperous, some little lift. Last year, with the concurrence of the House, I gave increases to the lower grades of the service, the stampers, sorters and labourers, and this year I thought the time had come w'hen the post office inspectors, who render such ^efficient service, the assistant post office' inspectors, the superintendents of the railway mail service and the assistant postmasters in the large cities, should be receive an increase. The amount involved is not very large. There are 16 inspectors, who will receive under this Bill increases amounting to $3,300. There are 18 assistant inspectors whose increases or salary will affect our revenue to the extent of $7,850. There are 8 superintendents of the railway mail service who will receive an



aggregate increase of $750. And there are 7 assistant postmasters who will receive increases amounting to $3,000. In all, the amount involved under the present resolution is $10,800. If the House desires further explanation I shall be ready to give it.
For the sake of clearness this resolution will be included with one to be moved by my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) and made part of a Bill affecting the Civil Service, which is to be presented in a day or two by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). So I would ask that this resolution pass and that it should stand over for further consideration until it be incorporated in the Bill to which I have referred.


Robert Laird Borden: The post office inspectors have not had a readjustment of their salaries for a long time?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Since 1874.


Robert Laird Borden: They have very important duties to perform, and, so far us I am concerned, I quite approve of these proposals.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.


INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, by providing for the payment to the chairman and members of a Board of Conciliation and Investigation, of an allowance at the rate of twenty dollars for each day's sitting of the board and for each day necessarily engaged in travelling from or to their places of residence to attend or after attending a meeting of the board.-Mr. King.
Mr. KING.: This resolution Is necessary in consequence of one amendment it is proposed to make to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. At the present time, the chairman of a board of .conciliation receives $20 a day and the other members of the board $15 a day. It has appeared that this rate of remuneration is hardly adequate for the services rendered, having regard to the payments made in arbitrations of much less important subjects than those under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and it is suggested to change the rates of remuneration to allow all the members of the board the same rate, viz.. $20 a day. It is true that the chairman has some special duties to perform, but it has also been shown in practice that the other members of the board representing the two parties have also special services in the way of endeavouring to effect a conciliation, which Mr. LEMIEUX.
services are performed at times other than those during which the board is sitting, and for which they receive no remuneration whatever. It is thought that by allowing all the members of the board $20 per day the services of the members in this particular will be compensated.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is th^re any difference in the qualification required from the chairman and from the other members of the board?


George Gerald King: The members of the board are chosen in the first instance by the parties themselves, each side is given an opportunity of naming a representative.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They have not to have any special qualification-


George Gerald King: It is left to the parties themselves to say who shall represent them. As a matter of fact, the representatives that have been chosen in the past have been almost vdthout exception men of exceptional ability.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What was the reason in the first place for making a difference in the stipend between the one as compared with the other two?


George Gerald King: It was thought before we had any experience under the Act that probably the duties of the chairman would be more onerous than those of the other members of the board. But it has turned out that while the chairman has some duties that are not performed by the other members, the individual members have a great deal of work after hours conferring with the parties whom they represent with a view to bringing the two sides together, and their time is taken up in a manner in which the chairman's time is not.


Mr. BLAIN.: What has been the expenditure for the enforcement of this Act during the past year?


George Gerald King: The first year $16,000 was required, the second year $20,000, and this year the expenditure will amount to $20,000, possibly a little more.


Richard Blain: Has the hon. gentleman before him the number of disputes that have been settled in each of the years mentioned?


George Gerald King: The Act has now been on the statute-book for over three years. During that time there have been applications for 82 boards. In 76 cases out of the 82
settlements have been effected and strikes or lockouts averted, and in only 6 cases have the boards failed to bring about a settlement between the narties. or their findings not been accepted by one side or the other.


Richard Blain: Is the number of applications on the increase?


George Gerald King: During the fiscal year ended March 31 of the present year, there were 30 applications for boards.


Richard Blain: How many in 1906?


George Gerald King: From March 22, 1907, to March 31, 1908, there were 35 applications; in the next year there were 20, and last year 30. There have been 5 less during the last fiscal year than during the first year of the Act, and 10 more than during the second year.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I would suggest that there should he a little difference in the compensation of the ordinary member on the board and the chairman. I think that when you take a judge off the bench to act as third man, you can hardly expect him to work for less than $25 a day.


George Gerald King: With regard to the judges, they already receive pay for their services under the regular allowance granted by parliament, and I think in their case at least there is no special reason for giving them any extra allowance. As to other persons who act in the position of chairman, I would say that the department has found no difficulty during the past in obtaining suitable persons at that remuneration.
Resolutions reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. KING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 198) to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: Some minor Bills. Then we will go into Committee of Supply on the Postmaster General's estimates, and then on the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 8, 1910.