1923-02-28

INQUIRY INTO AGRICULTURE

Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved:: That the following special committee be appointed to inquire into agricultural conditions throughout Canada: Messieurs Bouchard, Caldwell, Clifford, Elliott (Waterloo South), Gardiner, Grimmer, Ham-mell, Lanctot, McKay, McMaster, McMurray, Milne, Munro, Robinson, Sales, Sinclair (Queen's, P.E.I.), Stansell, Sutherland, Tolmie.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As no notice has been
given, the motion may be adopted only by leave of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 34, respecting The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 35, respecting The Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. McGiverin.
Bill No. 36, respecting The Quebec Central Railway Company.-Mr. Tobin.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	How many immigrants have been refused admission to Canada?
2.	From what countries did these people come?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Statement showing rejections of immigrants, by nationalities, at ocean ports, and along the International Boundary, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1922:

International Ocean
African, South	Boundary 5	Ports 1	Totals 6Albanian	13	13Arabian	9	1	10Argentinian	2	1	2Armenian	83	84Australian	13	1	14Austrian	731	2	733Belgian	61	7	68Bermudian	1	1Brazilian	15	15Bulgarian	67	67Chinese	16	227	243Cuban	11	11Czecho-Slovak	46	4	50Dutch	64	1	65Egvptian	2	2Finnish	230	7	237French	103	9	112German	189	3	192Great Britain and Ireland English	827	133	960Irish	113	4	117Scotch 	114	15	129Welsh	7	1	8Greek	470	19	489Hawaiian	1	1Hebrew- Hebrew, N.E.S	2	8	[DOT] 10" Austrian.. ..	4	4" German.. ..	1	1" Hungarian ..	1	1" Lithuanian .	9	9" Polish .. ..	15	98	113" Roumanian..	38	38" Russian. ..	9	102	111" Ukrainian ..	50	50Hindu	9	1	10Hungarian	189	1	190Italian	1,419	198	1,617Jamaican	10	10Japanese	13	3	16Jugo-Slav	102	22	124Luxemburg	1	1Maltese	108	108Mexican	26	26Negro	7	7Newfoundland	11	5	16New Zealand	4	4Persian	3	3	6Polish	731	14	745Portuguese	12	12Philippino	2	2Roumanian	242	31	273Russian	1.433	18	1,451Scandinavian,- Danish	sc	2	58Norwegian	. 75	2	77Swedish	156	8	164Spanish	142	4	146Swiss	37	1	38Syrian	186	7	193Turkish	71	5	76Ukrainian	19	19U.S.A. Citizens	10,264	4	10,268West Indian	3	10	13Totals	18,553	1.083	19,636


MOOSE MOUNTAIN RESERVE
Mr. GOULD:: 1. What revenue was received by the Dominion Government from the sale of-
(a)	Fishing permits.
(b)	Grazing leases.
(c)	Wood permits.

Questions
for the years 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922, respectively, in the forest reserve of Moose Mountain?
2. What revenue was received by the Dominion government from the sale of-
(a)	Coal royalties.
(b)	Leases on coal lands.
in the lignite coal area in Southern Saskatchewan for the years 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922, respectively?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.
1918-19	1919-20	1920-	*21 1921-22(a) Fish	permits..	.. nil	nil	$863 00 $ 564 00	(b) Grazing permits.	. .$590 65 $1,025 25	901 20 1,001 45	(c) Wood	permits ..	.. 254 60	566 05	415 35 398 20	2. (a)	1919.. .,	3,193 051920.. ..	2,573 321921.. ..	2,703 411922.. ..	3,309 86(b)	1919.. ..	..$	3,701 551920.. ..	2,795 951921.. ..	6,117 731922.. ..	3,191 56


GREAT NORTH WESTERN TELEGRAPH COMPANY
Mr. ROSS (Simcoe):: 1.	Is the Great North Western Telegraph Company virtually owned or controlled by the federal government of Canada ?
2.	If so, are all officials of the federal government instructed to send and receive, if possible, all messages by this company?
3.	If such instructions have not been issued to said officials, what is the reason for their not being so instructed ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Although up to the present no general instructions have been issued, officials of the federal government are expected, wherever practicable, to make use of the Canadian National Telegraphs for public business.


CANADIAN NATIONAL EXPRESS
Mr. ROSS (Simcoe):: 1.	Are all officials of the federal government of Canada instructed to send and receive, where possible, all parcels by Canadian National Express, thus swelling the government's receipts?
2.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Although up to the present no general instructions have been issued, federal officials are expected, when making shipments by express, to make use of the Canadian National Express where it is practicable to do so.
Mr. ONESIPHORE TALBOT


Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	Is the recently appointed Director to the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Onesiphore Talbot, an employee of the government of the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, when was he first engaged by said government, for what department, and at what salary?
3.	At the time the said Onesiphore Talbot was appointed Director to the Canadian National Railways, what position did he fill in the service of the Quebec government, and what salary was he paid?
4.	Does the government insist that the said Onesiphore Talbot resign from his employment in the service of the Quebec government, or is he continuing in such service?
5.	What remuneration and privileges does the said Onesiphore Talbot enjoy as Director of the National Railways ?
6.	Was the said Onesiphore Talbot a defeated Liberal candidate in the General Elections of 1911? If so, for what constituency did he run?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1. Mr. Talbot is reported to be an employee of the province of Quebec.
2 and 3. No information.
4.	The government does not require of Canadian National directors that they give up their regular employment.
5.	Director's fee, $2,000 per annum, necessary transportation, and living expenses when attending meetings of the board.
6.	Mr. Talbot, like many other very worthy gentlemen, failed of re-election in 1911 when he stood for the county of Bellechasse, which constituency had honoured him in 1896, 1900, 1904 and 1908.


SPORTING MOUNTAIN MAIL SERVICE
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has the contract of Mr. Peter Thibeau, of Thi- . beauville, Nova Scotia, for carrying mail to Sporting Mountain Station, Nova Scotia, been cancelled, or has he received notification that such contract will cease?
2.	Since what date has Mr. Thibeau been carrying such mail ?
3.	What was the rate per year?
4.	If the privilege of carrying such mail is to be denied Mr. Thibeau, on what ground is the work being taken from him?
5.	Did Mr. Thibeau not have two sons who served through the Great War?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	The contract at present held by Mr. Peter Thibeau will expire on 31st March, 1923.
2.	Since August, 1907.
3.	$100.
4.	A new contract from 1st April, 1923, has been authorized with Mr. Edward Thibeau at the existing rate of payment under the terms of Section 108 of the Post Office Act which empowers the Postmaster General to enter into such an agreement when he considers it to be in the public interest.
5.	Mr. Peter Thibeau has so advised the department.
70S
Questions



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	What part or parts of Dundas street between Toronto and London have been completed by the Provincial Department of Highways?
2.	How many miles have been completed?
3.	What is the actual cost per mile?
4.	How many miles have been approved by the Dominion Department of Highways?
5.	What amount has been paid to the province of Ontario on account of the approved part of this road?
6.	What was the estimated cost per mile?
7.	How many miles of this road have been completed within the county of Halton and how many miles have been approved in the said county?
8.	Has the actual cost exceeded the estimated cost or a reasonable cost for this section of the road?
9.	If so, how much?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FIXED CHARGES
Mr. EULER:: 1.	What total sum is now charged against the railways now comprised in the National Railways by way of cost of construction, cost of equipment, and deficits ?
2.	What portion of said sum is chargeable to capital expenditure and deficits respectively?
3.	What amounts regarding No. 2 are respectively chargeable to the railways formerly known as the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the National Transcontinental, the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk?
4.	What are the respective fixed charges against the former Canadian Northern Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the National Transcontinental ajid the Grand Trunk Railway?
5.	Are there any annual fixed charges against the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway?
6.	If so, what are the amounts?
7.	What are the total annual fixed charges on account of securities held against the National Railways by private investors and excluding all securities and advances made by the government of Canada?
8.	What is the amount of the annual fixed charges of the various railways in the National system on account of securities and loans made by the government of Canada?



SALES TAX-EXEMPTIONS, ETC.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What, if any, rulings, orders or regulations have been made or adopted which exempt or declare to be exempt from the operations of the sales tax, purchases when made by certain individuals, organizations or companies, or what, if any, rebates or remissions have been made or authorized to be made in respect of taxes payable under the sales tax?



UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS. BRITISH COLUMBIA CLAIMS

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a return of all correspondence passing between the Prime Minister and the Honourable John Oliver, Premier of British Columbia, since January the 1st, 1923, having reference to claims of British Columbia on the federal government and other problems outstanding between the two governments.
[Mr. Graham. 1
PRIVILEGE-Hon. MR. BELAND
On the order, "Notices of Motions":


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: Mr. Speaker, as it
is likely that the Orders of the Day will not be reached to-day, may I be permitted at this stage to make a personal explanation?


Hewitt Bostock: With the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: It is pretty hard to give consent until we know what it is about. If it is a matter of privilege, of course no one would object.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would rise, then, to a question of privilege. I made a certain state-[DOT]ment in the House yesterday in connection with a statement reported in the newspapers [DOT] as having been made at a public meeting in North Essex by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). The statement is in Hansard. I read in this morning's Citizen the following:
Dr. Beland replied that such a statement was entirely inaccurate, and he was willing to believe that the leader of the opposition had made it.
The only explanation I have to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it is exactly the contrary of what I said, which was that I believed the right hon. leader of the Opposition had not made it.


Arthur Meighen: Had the hon. gentleman
given me notice that he would bring the matter up, I would have had exact quotations here. I did not read the report, but I read in Hansard what had been said by the hon. member ,for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). No such words were stated by me. What I said was that there was a diminution of some $3,000,000 in the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment department, and that nothwith-standing that, there was a large increase of debt. I did not state that that affected widows and orphans, for anyone who knows anything about our accounts knows that widows and orphans are not affected by the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment department or benefited thereby. I find that according to returns which I have in my office, what I stated was within the mark by several hundred thousand dollars. I may add that I found sofne consternation in the district owing to a reported utterance of the hon. minister to the effect that, of the $700,000,000 increase in debt since the war, he was only able to account for some $300,000,000. I am not able myself-I am thoroughly unwilling-to believe that the Minister made such a statement as that.

Race-track Betting


Hewitt Bostock: Of course, all this is out of order, but as there seems to be perfect agreement between the hon. minister and the right hon. leader of the Opposition we will regard the incident as closed.



RACE-TRACK BETTING MOTION BY MR. GOOD TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved:: That, in the opinion of the House, it is expedient that subsection two of section two hundred and thirty-five of the Criminal Code be repealed, and that it be enacted that the provisions of subsection one of said section, and of sections two hundred and twenty-seven and two hundred and twenty-eight of the said code shall not extend to any person by reason of his becoming custodian or depository of any money, property, or valuable thing staked for the purpose or become the property of the winner of any lawful race, sport, game or exercise or to a private bet between not more than ten individuals who are not engaged in any way in a business of betting.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps unfortunate that the resolution should have been worded as it is, but I am not responsible for that. It was put in the hands of the Parliamentary Counsel last year and I did not like to question the propriety of his wording. The only change which has been made in the resolution this year is that which has been necessitated by the amendment made to the criminal code dealing with this matter at the last session. However, in spite of the fact that the wording is rather technical and perhaps unintelligible to the lay reader, the meaning and effect of the proposed amendment is very simple. It is not to make horseracing illegal, as is sometimes said; it is not to make illegal the betting on horse-racing, as may be alleged; but it is to make illegal the business of betting on race-tracks-commercialized betting. It is to remove the exemption which now exists in favour of racing associations, as against all others who are forbidden under the criminal code to keep betting houses. Perhaps I may make the purport of the resolution a little plainer by quoting from an order in council that was passed on the 7th of June, 1917, and published in the Canada Gazette of July 7 of that year.
Whereas it is deemed advisable, in view of the conditions created by the present war and the desirability of encouraging in every way possible thrift and economy among the people of Canada and of taking steps to prevent as far as possible extravagant and unnecessary expenditure, that the exception in favour of horseracing-
May I remark that although the language is a little bit vague and indecisive, the meaning is plain.
-that the exception in favour of horse racing in section two hundred and thirty-five of the criminal code
respecting betting, pool selling and book-making should be rescinded during the continuance of the present war and immediately thereafter;
And whereas it has been made to appear tty very strong representations that this opinion is shared in by a great body of the population of Canada;
Now, therefore, His Excellency the Governor General by and with the advice of the King's Privy Council for Canada, and under and by virtue of the provisions of the War Measures Act, 1914, is pleased to make the following regulations and the same are hereby made and enacted accordingly:-
1. Subsection 2 of section 235 of the criminal code, chapter 146 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, as enacted by chapter 19 of the statutes of 1912, is amended by striking out all the words after the words "business of betting" in the eighth line thereof.
The effect of striking out those words was to remove the exemption, to strike out the saving clause which operates in favour of a certain type of keeper of betting houses. It goes on:
2.	This regulation shall come into force on the first day of August, 1917, and the amendment herebj' made continue in force only during the present war in Europe, and for six months after the conclusion of the said war.
I may have occasion later on to show something of the operation of this order in council.
I do not propose to deal with the ethics of gambling. The seconder of the resolution, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) will, I understand, deal with that part of the subject so far as it has relation to this resolution. But I may be permitted to remark that the evils of gambling are only partly amenable to legislative control; it is not practicable to legislate against gambling of all kinds. But I think it is practicable and desirable to legislate against the commercialized business of gambling, against those who make it a business to prey upon the weaknesses and the vices of their fellow-men. This, I think, is generally admitted, and the admission has been given expression to in our criminal code in a great body of legislation. I had proposed to submit to the House in some detail the various acts or sections of acts dealing with this matter, and to trace the changes which have taken place between 1892 and the present time in relation to the law against gambling, but I think perhaps the House would prefer that I should give just a brief summary of these changes. I have all the legislation here, and if necessary may refer to it later. But perhaps it may be sufficient just for the moment to give a summary of the legislation dealing with this question from the year 1906, when the last Revised Statutes of Canada were issued, up to the present. The following, therefore, is a condensed summary of the changes in the Canadian law respecting race-track gambling between 1906 and the present time.
Race-track Betthiq

Commencing then with the Revised Statutes of 1906, chapter 146, section 235, subsection 1, made it an indictable offence punishable by one year's imprisonment and a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars:
(a)	To use or knowingly allow premises to be used for betting.
(b)	To keep, exhibit, employ or knowingly allow to be employed thereon any betting device.
(c)	To become a stake holder, or
(d)	To record or register a bet on an election, race or contest.
But by subsection 2 these provisions were not to apply to bets between individuals or to those made on a race course of any incorporated racing association during a race meet.
There was an amendment in 1910 which reenacted subsection 1 of the foregoing section, and added to the list of offences therein contained by making it an offence:
(a)	To engage in pool-selling, or book-making or the business of betting, or to make an agreement for the purchase or sale of betting privileges or of information intended to assist in betting.
(b)	To advertise, print, publish, exhibit, post up, sell or supply, etc., or offer to sell or supply such information.
(c)	To advertise, print, publish, exhibit, or post up any offer, invitation, or inducement to bet.
(d)	To sell, transmit, deliver, or receive any message relating to book-making, pool'*selling or betting.
(e)	To aid or assist in the foregoing.
But the application of subsection 1 was further limited by adding to subsection 2 the provision that subsection 1 should not apply to book-making, pool-selling, betting or wagering upon such race course provided that such race meetings are not continued for longer than seven days or occur oftener than twice a year on such race course.
There was a further amendment in the year 1912 which re-enacted the foregoing subsection 2, as amended, but limited the racing associations to those incorporated before March 20, 1912, and to any incorporated after that date by act of parliament or the legislature of any province, and also for the first time permitted racing associations to sell information or privileges to assist in or enable the conducting of book-making, pool-selling, or betting, etc., during the actual progress of a race meeting.
After the Rutherford Commission, which was appointed in 1919, reported, there was another amendment to this section in 1920, re-enacting the foregoing subsection, as amended, but limiting the non-applicability of subsection 1 to bets made on a race course through the agency of the pari-mutuel system, limiting the percentage which could be retained by a racing association out of the amount of any money paid or stake deposited with such association and of which it became the depository under the pari-mutuel system,

and providing that the type of pari-mutuel machine should be approved by the Minister of Agriculture, and that he must be satisfied that a proper proportion of the gate receipts and of the percentage retained as above was given in purses for the horses racing.
There was a further slight amendment last year. A very minor change was effected by the insertion of these words:
Bets between not more than ten individuals.
This enlarged the number of individuals who might be considered to bet, as it were, privately. There was also a more specific exemption of all race-track gambling from the operation of the law.
Now, having given this summary I desire to call special attention to one or two incidents, which throw light upon the changes which I have referred to. The law as it was stated in the 1906 statutes seemed to be unsatisfactory,
I think largely on account of the fact that it was rather vague as it applied to race-track gambling. May I quote the last two or three lines of subsection 2 of section 235:
Or to bets between individuals or made on the course of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a race meeting.
Now, I understand that that was not specific enough to give instructions to anybody, and that a good deal of dissatisfaction arose in connection with the law. At all events in 1910 a measure called the Miller Bill was introduced into this House, which occasioned a tremendous amount of discussion during that session. The bill was referred to a select committee which reported in its favour. That report was considered in Committee of the Whole House and was debated for two days. There seemed to be no prospect of coming to any conclusion, or of the debate terminating, and finally Sir Wilfred Laurier, who was leader of the government at that time, sug gested that the two parties who were con testing, or the two sides or factions if you like, might get together and see if they could agree on some kind of a compromise. That was done. During the following week, after this two days' debate the two sides got together and reached a compromise which was embodied in the legislation of 1910. Perhaps I may be permitted again to sum up the effect of that amendment in 1910. It was a genera! stiffening of the law against the business of betting, but a giving of greater latitude to the betting on race tracks, and that showed the position of the two sides to the controversy. There was evidently a desire' to stiffen the general law; but those who were opposed to making it apply drastically to race-track gambling had their way. Accord-

Race hack Bettin'/
ingly the exemptions in favour of that were made more specific and perhaps a little wider than they had been under the previous act.
May I refer again, just in passing, to the amendment of 1912 which further relaxed the restrictions on race-track gambling by allowing racing associations to sell information and privileges to engage in book-making, pool-selling, etc., on race-tracks. Now, conditions as they are defined by the amendment of 1912 continued until the summer of 1917 when, as I have already mentioned, the government by order in council under the War Measures Act, put a stop to these exemptions in connection with race-track gambling for the duration of the war. On the 1st January, 1920, this order in council was annulled, but prior to that annulment the so-called Rutherford Commission was appointed. I have here a certified copy of the report of the committee of the Privy Council dated 23rd August, 1919, appointing Mr. J. G. Rutherford a commissioner, under the Inquiries Act, to make certain inquiries. May I quote the scope of the inquiry as defined in this order in council. Mr. Rutherford was asked to inquire into and concerning :
(1)	Thu number, character and methods of operation of race-tracks in each district or locality;
(2)	The amounts of capital invested in the several jockey clubs and race tracks in each district;
(3)	The respective periods of time and the seasons, during which race meets have been or are customarily held in each year in each locality;
(4)	The general effects of such race meets and betting upon the community or any particular class or classes of the community;
(5)	The methods, devices and operations in connection with betting at the race meets and at other places; and the extent to which and the methods by which betting is cairied on legally, or illegally, in each locality;
(0) The effects of racing upon the production of improved breeds of horses and thoroughbred stock;
Then comes the omnibus clause, No. 7, which reads:
(7) Generally all matters, directly or indirectly, connected with, or relating to conditions surrounding race meets and betting in connection therewith:
I have seen the evidence and reports of this commission downstairs in this building. It is a very massive body of evidence.


Mr. CANNON:: Has the hon. member read it?


William Charles Good: I certainly have not read all of it. It would take more time than I have at my disposal to read all of that report. Following upon the report of the Rutherford Commission we have the amendment of 1920, to which I have referred. That amendment, as has already been stated, made certain restrictions upon the methods of gambling on race-courses, but did not make it illegal to
keep a betting house, as defined under the law in connection with the race meets. I desire to call attention to one section of the amendment of 1920 which I think is significant. Sub-paragraph 3 of subsection 2 reads: Nor shall the provisions of said sections apply to race meetings at which there are trotting or pacing races exclusively, where pool betting or wagering is permitted by an association incorporated as provided by subsection 2 of this section on such race-course during the actual progress of the race meeting conducted by this association.
Now this, it will be evident, legalizes bookmaking in its worst form on the small country pacing and trotting tracks. In the amendment enacted last year a clause was added to clear up, I presume, any ambiguity about the applicability of the law, and reads:
Nothing in this act shall apply to such operations on any race-course as are authorized by section 6 of chapter 43-
That is the 1920 amendment to which I refer-
-of the statutes of 1020.
That, I presume, is to make very clear that all these operations on race-tracks were to be completely exempt from the general law against the keeping of betting houses.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose to submit to the House next some little statement of what has happened to the racing associations and to the public in connection with this business, as these various amendments and changes have been made in the law May I quote, in the first place, the number of prosecutions for keeping illegal betting houses in Toronto form 1916 to 1920. In 1916 there were 26 convictions and in 1917 there were fifteen convictions. Let hon. members recall that it was on the 1st August, 1917, that the order in council came into operation. In 1918 there were fourteen convictions and in 1919 there were five convictions. At the end of 1919 the order in council was annulled and complete liberty was given again to the keeping of betting houses on race-tracks, and hon. members will note that immediately the restraint was taken off the effect upon the convictions for keeping illegal betting houses was that in
1920	the convictions numbered 26 and in
1921	they numbered 55. So that there was an immediate and very large increase in the number of convictions for keeping illegal betting houses in Toronto after the restriction was removed.
I wish to submit next some data concerning the profits made by racing associations out of this business, because I think that here is perhaps the key to or the crux of the whole question. If we properly appreciate the extraordinarily good opportunities for making
Race-track betting

money that, have existed in connection with this business, I think we shall see what forces have operated to retain these special privileges in favour of racing associations. I am quoting now an address given by the Hon. W. E. Raney, Attorney General for Ontario, in June, 1921. He said:	.
At the Hamilton Jockey Club the investment was $4,000.
I may say that all this information was elicited during the Rutherford investigation. He continues:
On this original investment the club paid $378,3UU in cash dividends between 1910 and 1917, and its capital investment in 1917, according to the figures prepared by the club itself for the Commissioner of Taxation, and reported to Dr. Rutherford, was $688,229. In other words, the $4,000, under the fertilizing influence of the amendment to the betting house secuuu of the criminal code of 1910, grew to a total sum, principal and interest, of $1,066,529-an average profit of more than 3,000 per cent per annum tor the members of parliament and their relatives and the professional sporting housemen who held shares '[DOT]i this club. The returns to the treasury of Ontario for 1920 show that the rake-off of this club last yeai was $447,927, which was more than twice the rake-off for any previous year, and more than seven times the rake-off in 1910.
I might add that in one meeting held in 1917 the balance of receipts over disbursements was $125,383.40, and that profits of $48,500 were distributed from that one meet.
Now, coming to the Woodbine track at Toronto I have also obtained from the same document the following data:	'
Dr. Rutherford's report which deals with the situation between the enactment of the amendment of 1910 and the passing of the order in council in 1917, shows that on an investment of $10,000 the members of the Ontario Jockey Club drew cash and stock dividends from their betting house business of $710,000, and the stock dividends were and are worth more than cash. This was an average of more than $100,000 profit a year or more than 1,000 per cent per annum on their investment. And of this vast sum nothing went to the thoroughbred. It all went into the pockets of the gentlemen shareholders. It is interesting to note the progression of rake-off at this track as disclosed by the evidence before Dr. Rutherford. Here are the figures:
1910,	Book-making	
$ 58,9321911,	Pari-mutuel	
101,1891912,	"	
85,0321913,	"	
105,6151914,	"	
112,8341915,	"	
123,2511916,	"	
177,0871917,	(for the half season before the orderin council came to effect)	
105,764
Then Mr. Raney goes on to comment on this as follows:
But if the betting house profits of the Ontario Jockey Club down to 1917 were amazing, what shall be said of those of 1920 as disclosed by reports filed with the Treasurer of Ontario? The rake-off for that year was $561,506 as compared with the previous high-water mark of $177,087 in 1916, and as compared with $58,932 in 1910-in other words, an increase in rake-off of al-IMr. Good.]
most tenfold in ten years. In addition there were gate receipts last year of $212,555, making a total revenue from these two sources of $774,061 out of which purses were paid amounting to $202,282.


Mv. JACOBS:: Has the hon. gentleman before him the figures of the profits made on certain lands which this company sold at an advance?


William Charles Good: I have no record of that at all.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that not mentioned in the Rutherford report?


William Charles Good: I am not aware that it is. It may be. I wish to submit next very briefly some figures also obtained from the same report, concerning the earnings of the Windsor Jockey Club. This was no doubt established to provide opportunity for the gambling that is prohibited in Michigan. The original capitalization of this concern was $29,500. This was increased in 1912 to $200,000, and in 1916, to $500,000. For one meet in 1917, the balance of receipts over expenditures was $97.742.68. In 1916, for two meets, the rake-otf from pari-mutuel machines was $300,337.35. In 1917, for one meet, the rake-off was $188,714.75. In 1917, a dividend was paid of $100,000. In 1920, there was a rake-off of $848,054, and gate receipts of $255,881.
Let us consider the Fort Erie track. I may remark here that this type of gambling is prohibited in New York state, so that Americans who are addicted to it find a refuge and a rendezvous in Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: What about the pool rooms in every city in the United States?


William Charles Good: Never mind about the pool rooms. We are, I hope, dealing with one thing at a time. The capital of this associa- [DOT] tion was $100,000. The balance of receipts over disbursements in 1917 at one meet was $126,081.12. The rake-off from the parimutuel machines was $162,947.20, and the dividend paid in 1917 was $100,000, equal to the whole capitalization.


Mr POWER:: I was not present at the beginning of my hon. friend's remarks, and purely for information, I should be glad if he can explain what he means by the word "rake-off."	He mentions "rake-offs" and
"dividends," and I would like to know really what the distinction is.


William Charles Good: I presume the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) knows this pretty well, much better than I do.


Mr. POWER:: I do not know about rake-offs.

Race-track Betting


William Charles Good: I may enlighten my hon. friend by saying that a rake-off is that part which is due to the racing association, the part which they get from the amount wagered, either in the book-making or, as later, in the pari-mutuel machines.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is the 4>art you take off with a rake?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. oh.


William Charles Good: This may seem a matter for joking, but there are many to whom this is a very serious question. Personally, I have never wagered any money on anything of that sort, and I do not expect to; but as I hope to submit a little later to the House, others have suffered very severely in this respect.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What name would the hon. member give to the amount of money which the Ontario government gets from this form of betting?


William Charles Good: I am quite prepared to have the hon. gentleman call it by what name he likes, "rake-off" if he pleases.
I wish to submit next some data regarding the effect on thoroughbred horses. Between 1910 and 1920 the increase in the number of race-tracks in Ontario and Quebec was from seven to seventeen, and during the same period, the number of 'days of racing, or the maximum racing period, increased from 96 to 238. If the claims of those who advocate a continuance of race-track gambling as being necessary to encourage the breeding of thoroughbreds were well founded, one might expect that while this increase in the racing was going on, you would find a corresponding increase in the breeding of thoroughbreds. I have on this point some data which I would like to submit to the House. In 1906, there was a government investigation intp horsebreeding in Ontario, and according to the report there were in the province 78 thoroughbred stallions. From 1913 to 1919, the enrolment of thoroughbred stallions in Ontario was as follows:
Year	Number
1913		31
1914		43
1915		46
1916		36
1917		31
1918		25
1919		19
Therefore, one may infer this, I think, that the allegation made on behalf of racetrack gambling as an encouragement to the breeding of thoroughbred horses is baseless. I wish to submit also in this connection some opinions from people who are, I think, qualified to express opinions on the significance or importance of the thoroughbred horse in Canadian agriculture. Let me quote from the Hon. Mr. Drury in a statement made by him prior to his accession to power as premier of Ontario. He was asked as a farmer what his opinion was on this matter, and he replied:
As to my views on the matter I am fully persuaded, from the standpoint of the farming community, that race-track betting is of no help whatever to the horse-breeding industry in this country. The most profitable class of horse to breed, from the farmers' standpoint, is not the thoroughbred, the hunter, or even the army remount, but just the heavy-draught type, and second, the roadster. In the first of these classes, and the most profitable to the farmer, thoroughbred blood has no place whatever, and there is no racing and no betting. In the second, while racing has its place, betting is not necessary to the	encouragement	of breeders. The roadster, unlikethe	thoroughbred,	fills a useful	place, and is	bredfor	its use. The	winning of a race has its	own
reward in the increased value of the animal, and betting is not necessary to its encouragement.
Race-track betting has for its centre the thoroughbred, a type of beast which, as regards its usefulness, under the conditions in this country, has about as	much use as	the gamecock	among fowls.	The
horse-breeding industry of this country would be no worse off if the running horse were entirely eliminated.
I have also a letter from Mr. R. E. Gunn. I shall not read it, but it is practically to the same effect.


Mr. VIEN:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question? Is there much betting on the race-tracks on the part of the farmers?


William Charles Good: I really do not know; I should judge not. I do not know how many farmers are given to the practice, and I do not think it would be possible for one to give any accurate information on that point.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a further question? Have the complaints against the betting practice come from the farming element of the country?


William Charles Good: I do not know that they come from the farming element. I cannot give definite information on that point, and I do not think it makes any difference where the complaint originates. We are considering the merits of the question.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend say what interests prompted him to raise this question if the farming interests are not at stake? Has any other interest prompted him to introduce this subject?


William Charles Good: I am presenting this matter to the House as one of general importance to the country. I do not come here primarily as a representative of the farming industry; I come here to discuss and decide, so far as
714.
Race-track Betting

I can, public questions from the standpoint of the national welfare. Now, Sir, I do not wish to weary the House, but I should like to quote from Mr. Raney, to whom I have already referred, in his summary of the situation as he saw it and as set out in the address I have already mentioned. Let me read:
The criminal code, as it stands to-day, recognizes four kinds of disorderly " houses." Sectiou 228 reads as follows:
" Everyone 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, common betting house or opium joint."
Section 229 makes it a crime to be found in any disorderly house.
It will be observed that the penalty for keeping a common betting house is precisely the same as the penalty for keeping the other kinds of " disorderly house " specified in the section.
In 1910 the so-called jockey clubs of Canada procured from the parliament of Canada the amendment to the criminal code that has since been the law of Canada, exempting the common betting houses conducted by them from the penalties against that kind i)f disorderly house. They procured this extraordinary exception to the criminal law in the face of an adverse report by a strong committee of the House of Commons, and in the face of the strongest evidence of the demoralizing effect of such places. They procured it in the face of the fact that nearly all the states of the American Union-including the great states of New York and Michigan-were then enforcing stringent laws against the race-track betting houses. They procured it in the face of the opposition of the churches and the farmer and the labour organizations of Canada. They procured it on the representation that they were sportsmen and horsemen and that such an amendment of the law was necessary in the interests of the thoroughbred horse. That those representations were false pretences has been abundantly established by the report of the government auditors on the operations of the jockey clubs and by the evidence taken beforp Commissioner Rutherford and by his report made to parliament last year. It is now clear that of the millions of .dollars of profits from their betting house rake-off, made by the jockey club betting houses of Ontario alone between 1910 and 1917. nothing at all has been diverted to the thoroughbred, but that the whole amount has gone into the pockets of the shareholders of the jockey clubs, for the most part, either professional betting house men or men of high social position, manv of them occunying seats, or otherwise exercising political influence in the parliament of Canada or in the legislature of Ontario.
I have only one more point to deal with and that is the eambling forces in -politics. I have here a little pamphlet which was sent me last year, in anticipation, I presume, of the debate which was expected to take place on this question at that time. It was sent by the Ontario Jockey Club of Toronto, and I take it that every other hon. member received a copy last year. It is very significant and I shall make some comments upon it. It bears the title "The Social Service Coun-
4 p.m. cil of Canada versus The Thoroughbred Horse." Mark the significance of the title,-"versus The Thoroughbred Horse."


Samuel William Jacobs: Neck-and-neck, so to speak.


William Charles Good: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I
think this pamphlet a disgraceful exhibition of crookedness, duplicity and misrepresentation in argument.
Mr. RINFRET. Where does it come from? [DOT]


William Charles Good: It is signed by Colonel Hendrie, Albert E. Dyment and half a dozen others. All hon. members, I presume, have copies of it.


Thomas Vien: Where was it issued?


William Charles Good: It was issued in Toronto in
1922.


Mr. RINFRET:: That explains it.


William Charles Good: I hope, Mr. Speaker, we can
proceed with this discussion in an orderly way. Two pages of the pamphlet contain a list of the officers, the executive committee etc., of the Social Service Council of Canada; And the text makes the following comment:
We venture to think that few, if any, of the above persons had anything to do with the racing publications issued wider the name of the Council, or had any knowledge of the contents of these publications, and the activities of the Council are left in the hands of the Rev. J. G. Shearer, a paid official, and paid for from funds contributed by the public at large under solicitation for objects which are quite foreign to the subject referred to in these pamphlets.
Now, what do hon. members think of that insinuation-indeed, it is more than an insinuation-that the pronouncements of the Social Service Cofmcil of Canada have not been supervised or considered in any way by the officers, the executive or the rank and file of the council? I take it that there are a good many hon. members here perhaps all who know something of the comprehensive and representative character of the Social Service Council of Canada. For the information of those who do not understand the mode of operation of the Council, I may say that every year the report of each subcommittee is passed upon by the full Council in annual convention. The statement which is made here is not only false, but utterly foolish. It goes on to say:
Mr. Shearer has been supported by his former solicitor-
Mark you, by "his" former solicitor.
-Hon. \V. E. Raney, Attorney General for Ontario, in the press, from the platform and in pamphlets.
Well, we all admit that Hon. Mr. Raney has supported the measure of reform that I am now advocating; but that he should be represented as Mr. Shearer's solicitor is another statement which is foolish and false. Then the pamphlet continues:

Race-track Betting
The object of these two gentlemen is to destroy racing in Canada, and in their efforts to do so, facts are misrepresented and information concealed which give to the public an entirely erroneous impression of the situation.
Mr. Raney has distinctly stated his position with respect to racing; I shall quote from the address delivered by him to which I have already referred:
It will be idle to say that I am attacking spoil or the thoroughbred horse or horse racing or even betting such ns goes on on baseball or cricket fields.
I am not attacking any of these things. As to horse racing, the evidence is clear that it was a great national sport both in England and on this continent before book making or the pari-mutuel was invented and that it is a success now without these concomitants where the race-track men are real horsemen and sportsmen.
That is an explicit denial of the charge which has been repeatedly and falsely made that Mr. Raney, in his agitation against racetrack gambling, is in any way opposed to horse racing.
Now, mark this again-I quote from the pamphlet:
The money which is contributed by friends of the Social Service Council of Canada to promote worthy work is used by the paid officials to carry on this unprincipled propaganda.
Note that, Mr. Speaker, "unprincipled propaganda."
The breeding and racing of horses, properly conducted, cannot fill the place it should occupy in our province and survive, if conditions are imposed in the way of taxation, and the elimination of wagering as suggested by the above-named gentlemen-
Note this:
-in the name of the Social Service Council of Canada, and, if Messrs. Shearer and Raney ultimately succeed, the people of this province will have reason to regret the prohibition of the most popular recreation, and the cessation of the breeding of thoroughbred horses in Canada. The Ontario Jockey Club has no hesitation in advising the race horse loving public that a legitimate race meeting with adequate purses to encourage breeders and owners, cannot be conducted without provision being made for those who desire to exercise their right of supporting their choice in a financial way.
And then this threat comes in red type:
Should the Social Service Council meet with success in their efforts to have legislation enacted to amend the law passed by the Dominion government in 1910,- much as they would regret the step, the Ontario Jockey Club would be compelled to discontinue their annual race meetings.
That would be an awful calamity!
May I quote a few words from the concluding sentences of this extraordinary document:
It is a matter for consideration by those who are interested in the breeding of thoroughbred horses and by those who take pleasure in the sport of racing, whether the tactics employed by a few men in the name of the Social Service Council of Canada are fair-in continually seeking, by fair means or foul
means, to deprive a large number of our people of an industry and a recreation fostered and patronized in all other countries of the world.
As a comment on that last statement, I may mention that there are only three out of the forty-eight states of the United States where this gambling is permitted. It is not permitted in Great Britain, or if so, only in an irregular way. This pamphlet was sent out by the Ontario Jockey Club last year, I assume to all members of the House; it came to me through the mails. I here say publicly that I regard it as a most discreditable document, a document that the club ought to be ashamed to put out to the public.
Now, here is something more, something even more significant than the document to which I have just referred. As hon. members will recall, Mr. Raney was chosen Attorney General of Ontario at a time when he was not an elected member, and he had to be a candidate in a by-election. Here is a letter which was sent out by the Citizens' Liberty League, with headquarters at Toronto, on January 28, 1920, a short time before Mr. Raney faced the electors of East Wellington, the constituency in which he ran. I want hon. members to note this letter:
Dear Sir:
In view of the coming election in which Mr. Raney, Attorney General, will seek to obtain a seat somewhere in Ontario, this league has taken into account his continuous and uncompromising attitude towards race tracks and his stand on prohibition and we have decided to oppose him at the polls.
Mark that; "we have decided."
This will entail an expenditure of about $20,000-
What for?
-and we are asking our friends to help us financially. We will appreciate it if you can see your way to contribute.
Thanking you in advance,
Yours very truly,
T. L. Carruthers, General Secretary.
That was sent out to a number of persons just before the by-election in East Wellington in 1920. There is an example of the gambling forces and the liquor forces in polities.


Samuel William Jacobs: Of what organization is Mr. Carruthers the secretary?


William Charles Good: "Citizens' Liberty League,
Central Branch," is on the letterhead. If there is any one consideration that has led the United States to take the action they have taken in recent years on a certain very large question, it is the fact that certain large interests went into politics for their own selfish advantage. I think we have evidence-indeed, we have it in the two documents I have just
Race-track Betting

submitted to the House-that the race track gambling interests are also in politics and not I submit for the good of the country, but for the good of their own pockets. I have already quoted evidence from Dr. Rutherford's report as to the extraordinary profits which these gentlemen have obtained. It has been said that a lot of these men are estimable gentlemen and that consequently we should not criticise any of their activities. Well, when that is considered a valid argument, I think we had better, to use a slang expression, shut up shop here.
I wish to submit in conclusion a brief statement which I quote from the argument of Mr. John M. Godfrey as presented to the Rutherford Commission in 1919. This is the summing up of the case which he presented on behalf of the Social Service Council against the continuance of this special privilege.
1.	The business of gambling, on account of the evils flowing therefrom is a public nuisance and a menace to society.
2.	The laws of England and Canada make illegal common betting houses.
3.	A common betting house is defined as a place where gambling is carried on and a rake-off paid to the keeper.
4.	If it were not for the exception introduced into the criminal code in 1910 the owners of race-tracks who take a rake-off from pari-mutuel machines would be keepers of common betting houses.
5.	That there can be no justification for a law which allows any group of men, no matter what their social, business or professional standing may be, to do that thing, which, if done by any other person, is a crime.
6.	That race-track gambling, instead of helping the breeding of the thoroughbred, is detrimental.
7.	That racing can be carried on and the thoroughbred better helped by direct means rather than the indirect method of race-track gambling, with all its attendant evils.
Let me conclude by stating again, as I stated at the outset, that the purpose and effect of this resolution is not to stop racing, not to stop what might be called private betting on race-tracks. We may have our own opinion as to the ethics of it, but it is impracticable to legislate against that. The object is not that, but it. is to take away the special privilege which is now given to racing associations to keep on the race tracks what are defined under the criminal code as betting houses. That is all that I care to say at the moment. There are some other things which I may say in reply later on.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second this resolution with hearty good will. I deem it a privilege as well as a duby to lift up my voice in the parliament of Canada against an evil which, if not abolished, will sap the very foundations of our national life. It is not my intention to go 
into the case at any great length. I would be glad to think that the merits of the case are so very obvious that any lengthy discussion of the case would be unnecessary, and also if there be any division of opinion in the House, that it will not be along an}' sectional or party lines, but that many members on the government side of the House, and those who sit behind the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, as well as many Progressives will be glad to associate themselves with this resolution, and will welcome the opportunity of putting themselves on record in its support.
I am pleased that the honour of moving and seconding this resolution has fallen to the Progressive party; pleased, because it gives us the opportunity of demonstrating what really should not need to be demonstrated, that the farmers' organizations out of which this party has sprung, are not wholly concerned, as has sometimes been thought, with merely seeking an increased reward for our own toil, but we have ever had in mind everything that makes for the destruction of those evils which tend to undermine our national life, and everything that makes for upbuilding in this Canada of ours the highest type of citizenship. The question asked by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) when he was presenting his resolution, if it meant anything, was an insinuation that we in this part of the House, representing as we do the farmers, are concerned and only concerned with this question from the farmer's point of view.


Thomas Vien: May I correct my hon. friend? There was no insinuation at all in my remarks. I simply wanted to inquire from the hon. member who moved the motion whether the farmer's interests were particularly at stake in this connection, because I represent myself a totally rural constituency, and I wanted to know from the farmer's point of view whether they had a direct interest in the question. There wras no insinuation at all.


John Livingstone Brown: I am only too happy to offer the hon. gentleman an apology if in any way I misinterpreted the purport of his remarks. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have endeavoured to approach all these questions from the standpoint of what makes for better citizenship. I do not want to approach this matter from the attitude of one who would seem to be opposed to any sort of manly sport. Indeed, I may frankly confess that I am a lover of sport, and if this session of the House does not end before the umpire calls "play ball' I may be tempted to neglect my duties in the House.

Race-track Betting


An hon. MEMBER:: Atta boy!


John Livingstone Brown: I think all of us who love that sport were grieved when a few years ago it was proven that the gambling element had entered into it and had brought disgrace upon it in the playing of the World's Series, and I think we all sympathized with Judge Landis when he said that he wanted to make the sport clean for the boys.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to deny the right of those who undertake to support the practices of gambling on the race track to assume that they and they only are the true representatives of sport, and that they are the ones who are the admirers of good horses. As a matter of fact, many of those who are led into gambling through information that is furnished by the race-tracks know absolutely nothing about horses, and it is absurd for them to pretend to be lovers of sport or lovers of horses.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Brant, this resolution is directed against that amendment to the criminal code of Canada procured by the jockey clubs of Canada from the parliament of Canada in 1910, and which has since been the law of Canada, exempting commercialized gambling on the race-tracks from the penalties that would otherwise be incurred. Let there be no misunderstanding of the purpose of this resolution. It is directed not against gambling as such, but against the business of promoting gambling as it has been carried on in the past by book-makers and now by parimutuel machines. It is very essential that we should make that distinction very clear, and that the distinction should be clear in the minds of hon. members. I know there is some confusion in the minds of people throughout the country upon this point, but I think it is very essential that hon. members who are called upon to deal with this question should make the distinction very clear between private betting and commercialized gambling.
Perhaps I might make the distinction a little clearer by using another analogy in regard to another vice. There is an immense difference between private prostitution and the commercialized white slave traffic, and we should bear this distinction in mind when we are dealing with this question. There is in this resolution no suggestion that a private bet on a horse race or on anything else should be interfered with. If such a bet is an evil, as we may very well hold it to be, it would be a matter to be dealt with by the preachers and the moral teachers of the country, and any attempt to restrain such a practice by law might very well be considered ultra vires of
this parliament. It might very well be held that parliament would be unwise to seek to exercise any jurisdiction in such a matter, but the business of promoting gambling is something essentially different, something of which this House may very well take cognizance.
Now, it must be understood also that we are not introducing or asking for the introduction, of any new principle into our statutes. Let that be clear. I know there is a disposition to shy at new things and to be very chary about accepting new principles, but we are not asking for the introduction of any new principle.
As has already been pointed out, the criminal code as it stands to-day recognizes that the business of promoting gambling is a proper subject to be dealt with by law. The code recognizes, and the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) has already read the provisions in that regard, four kinds of disorderly houses. Then, section 228, and as he has already read it I will not repeat it, indicates these different kinds. Now why is the exception made in favour of permitting betting on the race-track, when the business of promoting betting elsewhere than on the race-track is by law held to be a crime? It certainly is hard to understand the reasons that moved our legislators in 1910 to make the exception noted. It does seem as though they had allowed themselves to be carried away by the sophistry of those who were themselves interested in exploiting the weaknesses and vices of their fellows. The reason given, and evidently accepted, was race-track gambling was essential to the continuance of horse breeding. The course of the argument runs thus: The horse breeding industry must be saved. The thoroughbred is essential to horse breeding in general; racing is essential to the thoroughbred; gambling is essential to racing. In this method of reasoning one is reminded of the argument that the crop of clover seed is in direct proportion to the number of old maids in the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: I may say that this is a favourite illustration that one of our professors in logic used to use as an example of false reasoning. Perhaps hon. members may not understand the connection between old maids and the clover crop, so I will give it to them: Old maids keep cats. Cats kill mice. Mice destroy the bumble bees. The bumble bees assist in fertilizing the clover. Therefore old maids are necessary for a good clover crop.
71S
Race-track Betting

Quod erat demonstrandum. That argument, Mr. Speaker, is not much more absurd than the contention that the business of betting is essential to the continuance of horse breeding. Sir Robert Borden is quoted as saying, after he had heard an able lawyer put up his argument on behalf of the race-track gamblers :
I congratulate you on your skill and ability but it will take more argument and more evidence than 1 have yet heard to convince me that horse breeding depends on gambling.
I cannot imagine the Minister of Agriculture, or any other practical agriculturist, today risking his reputation in support of any such proposition. The hon. member for Brant indicated the opinion held by many that the thoroughbred was not a very useful animal anyway-that it had about the same relation to horse breeding in general, or useful horse breeding, as a game cock has to useful breeds of poultry. I shall not discuss that phase of the question at all, but granting that it is a useful animal we can promote this development by much more efficient, means than by maintaining a racetrack; and if we have to choose between the development of horses and the development of good men and women, I, for my part, have no hesitation in saying that we should seek to raise up good men and women in this country.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman introduce legislation to that effect?


John Livingstone Brown: No, I do not propose to introduce legislation to that effect, but there are some things that we can prevent by legislation. An hon. member used an expression in this House a few days ago, in some other connection, that made an impression upon my mind, and it was this: Laws that fail to prevent such a thing are evil, laws that encourage it are vicious. Now, we are maintaining an institution sanctioned by law the effects of which, in my judgment, are none other than vicious, and while we will not undertake directly to make men moral by act of parliament we should withdraw from evil institutions the sanction which they have had from our parliaments.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the hon. gentleman aware that His Majesty King George V is one of the greatest patrons of the turf with everything that that implies?


John Livingstone Brown: That is altogether aside from the argument. I do not know that it has any bearing upon the subject one way or the other, and up to the present I have not found

it necessary to make the opinions, whatever they may be, of George V, the standard by which I shape my own.
I said that this resolution was not directed against private betting, but in order to make my point that the business of promoting betting should be suppressed by law I must, very briefly, deal with the ethics of gambling, and I shall deal with them only by way of a few quotations from practical men of affairs. I know there is a disposition in some quarters to sneer at what are called puritanical notions. In quoting expressions of opinion on the subject of gambling in general I shall confine my quotations to those who are eminent in walks of life other than as social or moral reformers. I might make the list a very lengthy one, but I shall confine myself to only a few. Horace Greely said:
The darkest hour in any man's life is when he first thinks he can get a dollar by any other means than squarely earning it.
Judge Catron, formerly of the Supreme Court of the United States, said:
Gaming is a general evil which leads to vicious inclinations, destruction of morals, abandonment of industry and honest employment, a loss of self control and self respect.
Listen to what an eminent English judge says about it, I refer to Mr. Justice Hawkins:
I know of nothing more likely to ruin a young and inexperienced man than the system of betting that goes on around us.
There is another whom I would like to quote, a member of this House, with whom I have at times to differ on matters of opinion but with whom on this particular matter I find myself in right hearty agreement. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) says, as reported in Hansard during the debate in 1910:
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 principle 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 injury to one's fellows instead of doing them 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 not be suppressed, but because it is beyond the power of parliament and beyond the power of the law to suppress it, and because the 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 clearlv 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.	*

Race-hack Betting
Mr. V1EN: Would not the same apply to all speculative operations on the stock exchange?


John Livingstone Brown: 
John Livingstone Brown: Then, continuing the quotation:
I believe that if a vote were taken in Manitoba just as he (Hon. Mr. Stratton) said if it were taken in Ontario, eighty per cent of the voters would vote in favor 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 the opinion that the public sentiment of this country demands this legislation, and 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.
I am in hearty agreement with the right hon. gentleman, this is not a case where only the private morals of individuals are affected. The effect is felt upon our whole national life. It has been asserted again and again, and with truth, that as a nation we can only recover our financial stability by getting down to hard work. But hard work is the last thing that many people want to engage in. The desire for easy money, perhaps as much as anything else, lies at the root of our economic difficulties.
The desire for easy money finds its expression in a number of different ways. The bank robber and the burglar follow their nefarious practices because they do not want to work at all. Or it may be that the desire is expressed by always looking for a soft job, with a maximum of pay for a minimum of work. And then there is another class that seeks to escape work by living upon the weaknesses and vices of their fellows. I am by no means convinced that the last of these is any less a menace to our well-being than the first. Indeed I shall go further and say I am convinced that the man who lives by exploiting human weaknesses is a greater menace to society than the bank robber oi the burglar.
Now we might take a few more quotations or illustrations from what has been said by hard practical men of affairs. I am informed -and I believe my information is correct

that the Quebec Board of Trade passed on its own initiative a resolution asking for the suppression of this curse; that the wholesale manufacturers of British Columbia passed a similar resolution; that the retail merchants of British Columbia have also passed similar resolutions; and I have here some newspaper
clippings which I wish to read. The Toronto Globe during the past summer carried on an active campaign against these people, and these clippings are taken from the Toronto Globe. A reporter called upon a man in Windsor, and, his account of the interview reads:
"Stepping into a grocery store on the way from the track, yesterday, the writer asked the proprietor how racing affected his business.
" 'I'll tell you how it affects me,' he said. 'Very, very rotten. Let me show you how. Last Saturday night one of my customers came in and calling me aside he told me he could not pay his bill this week because he had been to the races in the afternoon and had lost his week's wages. Well, that was all right. It was only $15, but enough unpaid $15 accounts would soon put me out of business. About half an hour later another of my customers came in and told piactically the same story. He owed me $20 and his wife had given him the money to come Rnd pay me. Instead he had gone to the races, and when the last race had been run he had been cleaned out of every cent. Later a third customer came in and told me the same story. He, too, had lost his week's wages at races and couldn't pay.
" 'No. I'm not in favour of race-tracks and I guess you can see why, and I'm not the only one. I'll venture to say that if a canvass of the city business men were made, 85 per cent of them would vote against race-tracks in Windsor.' "


Lucien Cannon: Did that grocer not have a couple of winners among his clients?


John Livingstone Brown: I have another extract from the Toronto Globe, headed "Labour Chiefs Oppose Race-Track Gambling." It reads:
The executive committee of the Labor Temple Company is unanimous in its opposition to gambling on race-hprses, and it is determined to stamp it out within the labour movement if it possibly can. It is the effect of the evil which concerns the committee. "The executive is unanimous in its determination to stamp out gambling in the labour movement. Men who are given to the habit are no good to the movement," said James Simpson, secretary of the company, yesterday.
I have still another newspaper clipping which I shall not read, which indicates that the women of the county of Essex-women who bear evidently French names-are taking the lead in an agitation directed against this institution as it is legalized to-day. However, I will give a few figures, omitting some that have already been given by my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good), in regard to prosecutions :
And on the tracks the wagering rose from $12,500,000 in the first half of 1917 to $42,164,000 in 1920. That year Dr. J. G. Rutherford's commission after thorough investigation recommended further restrictions upon, but not suppression of the betting houses. Hereafter no book-making or pool-selling was allowed. Pari-mutuels, only were permitted; they were alleged to be respectable and honest; a lower and fixed percentage of rake-offs was allowed the jockey clubs.
Here is a statement that is taken from the Detroit News. It is an estimate made un-

Race-track Betting
doubtedly by some representative of that paper and it gives certain figures as showing the loss sustained by those who patronize the race tracks. There were seven different races run and the estimate made out of this one day's betting was that of $77,000 that was bet by the public they received back only $49,828. The total estimate made by this paper was that, taking into account not only the wages, but the amount received for tickets and in many other ways in which money was spent in this connection, the loss to Detroit gamblers in two days' racing was $92,151.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a phase of the question that we cannot very well afford to overlook. I tried to deal with this matter frcm the standopint of pure business and economics, but we cannot allow ourselves to be altogether blinded to certain other considerations, and I beg the indulgence of the House while I present this matter for a few moments. This touches more the question in its human aspect and reads as follows:
First Few Bets Are Won; Then House and Home Lost.
The social case against race-track betting is the case of the man who is tempted to bet that which he cannot afford to lose. The Globe was reliably informed the other day that betting on horses has added one more domestic tragedy to its already long list.
A man in the west end of the city, just north of Bloor street, owned a comfortable eight-roomed house last winter. His children were examples of cleanliness and thorough home training. They were among the best-dressed scholars at school. Then the father was seized with a betting passion.
Last spring he placed his first bet. He visited racecourses, and his wife accompanied him. They won a little money at the start. This gave them confidence that they could finally beat the unbeatable system. Not long afterward they began to lose, and continued to lose. Finally they staked their last possession-their home, the home of their children.
A few weeks ago the man had to vacate his comfortable residence. The furniture was moved away in one single small truckload. He is living in a frame shack on the outskirts of the city at the present time.
This is another clipping from the Globe, dated Windsor, August 3:
The only things found in the pockets of a man who leaped into the Detroit river from Belle Isle bridge at midnight last night were a notebook, 30 cents in money, and stubs of three Windsor racing tickets, which represented $2 betp on horses that had been beaten. The body was recovered to-day.
According to memoranda in his notebook the man is-
I will not give his name. It is bad enough to have it recorded in the press of the country, without having it permanently inscribed in the records of this House. It says:
-an employee of the Canadian Pacific who lived in Winnipeg.
I have a letter which I would like to read. I know, however, the prejudice and, perhaps, it is more than prejudice-possibly I should not use that term-the feeling and the very proper

one that exists in this House against anonymous letters. This letter is anonymous, and yet I am thoroughly convinced of its bona fides. If there is the slightest objection to my reading it, why, I shall not do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


John Livingstone Brown: Let me ask the House to forget all about the composition and the grammar of this letter and think of it only as it expresses the sufferings of a broken-hearted woman.


Samuel William Jacobs: I hope it does not reflect upon any member of the House.


John Livingstone Brown: No.


Thomas Vien: How does the hon. gentleman know?


John Livingstone Brown: If there is any objection to my reading the letter, I shall not do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


John Livingstone Brown: The lettenreads:
Dear Sir,
Seeing enclosed which I cut out from Herald paper, thought I would like to write you referring to same, asking you to do your utmost in fighting same. It is a curse just as the drink and dope is. I have one of the loveliest of husbands, but for this dirty gambling we would not have a word. It seems to me that these men that take the bets must follow them up and send them papers to urge them to gamble for I am sure my husband would be glad to be free of it, but if these snakes in the grass are allowed to traffic as they do we shall have to lose all respect for our husbands where we might have been Oh ! so happy. I know mothers that are heart broken on account of their young boys gambling. Do you know there are candy stores, paper stores and I heard the other day of an old second hand furniture plying the trade, and then there are prominent men in cigar stores, and they tell me the detectives know and the storekeepers are warned when to expect them. Talk about race courses, we do not need them and these pool rooms why do we want them? It is only an easy living for these people who are running them. You, sir, can understand no one likes publicity of this kind, but you can honestly know that this comes from a good woman one that would be so proud to own her own little home instead of always paying gambling debts.
Why do they not make a law to stop this drink gambling and dope, if they gave them corporal punishment the lash it would do more good. Trusting this will do some good. I am yours truly.
I trust that the House of Commons of Canada is not indifferent to these considerations, and I hope the House will adopt this resolution, if not unanimously, at least by such a majority as will make it clear to the world that we hold to the sound economic theory that work brought to bear upon the natural resources of our country, is the only sure foundation for our national prosperity


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I first desire to congratulate the

Race-track Betting
mover of this resolution (Mr. Good) for bringing this question to the attention of the House. He is a man of study, and he has already initiated in this House a number of useful debates. I confess that I do not always share his views; but I wish I were able to argue the other side of the case as well as he does his own. But, the question of race betting is not, in my opinion, one that any hon. member need refrain from discussing through mere diffidence. My hon.. friend has done a great deal of work in preparing and presenting his case. In fact, the very wording of his amendment shows considerable labour, although he is inclined to leave the responsibility for that to the law officers of the House of Commons. I will admit that 1 have been for many days at a loss to interpret it myself, and I came pretty nearly betting with a friend as to what it really meant. That meaning, the speech of my hon. friend, has at least made clear. And if I say that he has not succeeded in convincing me, that is no reflection, either against his treatment of the case, or against my sincerity in refusing to yield thereto.
If you free the observations of my hon. friend from the heap of information and the quotations with which he closed his arguments, notwithstanding his efforts and those of the seconder to specialize their motives in this case, what, in brief, they propose to do in practice, if not in their own intention, is, in my opinion, merely to introduce into this country a new offence, that of race betting. My hon. friend may say that his resolution deals merely with commercialized race betting; but he does not himself deny that race betting is closely connected with the holding of races in this country. But he says that that is an indifferent matter to him, and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) goes further and says that he is much more concerned in the raising of men and women. Whether we have race-tracks or whether we do not have them, the raising of men and women will not be interfered with in this country. Therefore, although his resolution does not explicitly say so, I say that he is really aiming at betting. The speech of the seconder of the resolution made that even clearer, for although he indulged in the same reserve as the proposer, the main substance of his speech was made up of quotations directed, not at commercialized betting, but at gambling as gambling, whether it be held in pool rooms or at race-tracks or anywhere else.
The first question, therefore, that we may put to ourselves is this: Is race betting in itself really a crime? I think that every hon
member will admit that it is always a mistake for new legislation to create a new class of sinners.


William Charles Good: May I rise to correct the
hon. member? I distinctly stated that I did not propose to make it a crime. The hon. member is clearly misrepresenting my position.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps both of us have been baffled by the resolution as prepared by the law officers. But what I am trying to establish is this, that whether or not my hon. friend proposes it, the tendency of his resolution will be actually to create a new offence, namely, that of race betting. The fact in itself of staking money on the eventual result,, of a race contains no element of evil; and I think it is going very far to say, as does the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), that it will sap the very foundations of national life. What may be regarded as bad-and possibly we may agree on this point-is the danger of an individual or an organization abusing the. privilege to deceive or rob a portion of the public. What therefore, the law should seek lo prevent is, not the act itself but merely its abuse. In other words, betting is not an offence; the abuse of betting and the dishonest methods surrounding it are alone to be fought against. It is on that principle that in many countries and in different provinces of our own Dominion, instead of prohibiting race betting altogether, legislators have thought better to regulate it and place it under proper conditions in order to prbtect the public. For me, it is merely a question of control. The pari-mutuel system, well-known to all, and to which my hon. friend himself has alluded, is an instance of such an application.
In my opinion this system of restricted betting is, to the proposal of my hon. friend, what the law of temperance in the matter of alcohol is to the law of absolute prohibition. Instead of curtailing individual liberty because of possible abuses, it stops the abuses by regulating individual liberty. And to my mind that is the proper way to proceed. We must not expect too much from human nature When a man obeys the Ten Commandments and escapes the seven capital sins he is on a fair way to sanctity. I do not believe in creating new sins; I find it hard enough to dodge the old ones. And unless I am shown that race betting in itself, even at the racetracks, is an evil, I will persist in my opinion that those who care to should be allowed to do it. The law will serve its full purpose if it sees to it that such a practice is devoid of fraud and corruption. I grant you that even with the pari-mutuel or any such system

Race-track Betting

some people will suffer from the races by indulging in too much betting. I do heartily sympathize with the cases that have been brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Lisgar. But what is the fact? I say that such people will not be stopped by any regulation. If they are debarred from betting on the races they will bet on anything,-on the number of white horses they will pass on the streets or on the odd figures on the licenses of passing automobiles. That is a well known fact. I believe that most of the men that have been alluded to, if they had not lost money at races, would have put their money on something else. I do not see at all, therefore, how this proposed resolution could do away with such an abuse. I would sooner see these men bet at the race-track under the control of a well-established system than see them go to the poolrooms. As a matter of fact, one of the .young men referred to was, I understand, an habitue of poolrooms, places where men are not prevented from betting.
If you have proper regulation at the racetracks you will provide, for the great majority of those who attend, clean sport and desirable enjoyment. My hon. friend himself has noted an increased attendance at the race-tracks. Of course, he argues that this shows that the evil is growing. But I might argue, on the other hand, that it shows a great increase in the public demand for race-tracks. Race betting and horse-racing have been so closely associated that it is readily conceded on every hand that you cannot have the one if you discard the other. Horse-racing has always been a great sport; it has been called a kingly one, and it is now enjoyed by great numbers of people in many civilized countries. Many arguments can be advanced in favour of it; but my hon. friend does not like the argument in regard to horse-breeding. Well, I am not an expert so far as that is concerned and I will indulge in no argument on that point. I would say this, however. My hon. friend says that he does not believe that race-tracks favour the raising of thoroughbreds; and further, he argues that these animals are not essential to the welfare of the agricultural class. A thoroughbred, I will admit, is an ob-jet de luxe. But if we were to eliminate all such objects for such a reason as my hon. friend advances, does he not realize that the very progress of humanity would be
5 p.m. attacked in every direction? The fact that the raising of thoroughbreds is not essential to fanning is certainly no argument against race betting.
But it might be well for the House to be reminded that race-track betting is a revenue

producer for the public treasury. I could easily submit figures in support of this statement. Everyone knows that where race-tracks are permitted the state or the province, a; the case may be, reaps an important revenue from the proceeds of the enterprise. In the province of Quebec the tax on receipts at the gates and the betting at the race-tracks totals, I understand, close to $700,000 annually; and the province of Ontario derives a still larger benefit from this source. If betting is controlled so as to prevent fraud, and if the public treasury obtains a commensurate proportion of its benefits, I do not see why there should be a demand for its prohibition. Besides, considering the human aspect of the case, as my hon. friend for Lisgar would say, I do not believe in a general way in the spirit of prohibition. In most cases it is not even practicable. We have in this country already too much prohibition and not enough enforcement. And my hon. friend in the end will find it much easier to prevent horse-racing than to prevent betting. If the people do not bet at the race-tracks, under a system of control, they will bet in the poolrooms, and the result therefrom will be much worse. Now, Sir, if we keep jamming the statutes with every shape of proposed reform we shall be so busy enacting that we shall have no time and no energy left to see that these enactments are enforced. It is not the racing but the betting that my hon. friend wishes to stop; and that I say he cannot do.
And after all, why prohibit so much? Life, Mr. Speaker, is not such a wonderful adventure that we should strive in every way and torture and wring and wrest our brains, to add to its difficulties. If we begin prohibiting there will be no end to the practice. A demand for prohibition may be advanced against anything that is not essential to common life. An economist has proclaimed that there are only three such things essential to life,-bread, water, and a blanket; and I believe that man must have lived in a cold country. The first element of luxury and excess appears when you put butter on your bread, when you flavour water, or when you cut a blanket in the shape of clothes. In primitive ages, Mr. Speaker, I fancy some censors must have objected to the flavouring of water or the cutting of blankets for the making of clothes, but the Liberals of the granitic period saved the day. If we were to apply that preventive spirit to every form of social activity which seems frivolous or superfluous, then we would gradually revert to the original state of primeval humanity. Some would prohibit the smoking of cigarettes; some

Race-track Betting
would stop theatres or motion pictures; some would do aw'ay with dancing or legislate against extravagant modes of dressing. Some vegetarians and Utopians would condemn the eating of flesh and meat and would impose upon others the diet of their own delicate stomachs. But why try to deprive humanity of all that makes life bearable? What right have we to do it? We are endowed, I will admit, with legislative power, but that does not convey the right to play and juggle with every privilege of the common people.
I do not believe in such radical legislation.
I believe in moderate laws that respect individual liberty, that are designed to add to the general comfort and satisfaction, not to impair it; that do not tend to drown one's existence in the dark depths of monotony and tediousness. And I will say in conclusion Mr. Speaker, that if there is one thing that I would like to see prohibited, it is prohibition itself.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to make a few remarks on the resolution before the House I would like to have it clearly understood that I have not a dollar invested in either race-tracks or race horses. I have, however, been closely identified with agriculture and stock breeding during all my life.
This resolution, as explained by its mover (Mr. Good) has for its objtect the prevention of betting as it is carried on on the race-tracks to-day. The mover and the seconder (Mr. Brown) state that it is not their intention to interefere at all with horse racing. It is a well-known fact that it is impossible at the present time to carry on horse racing without betting, and that it is very much better to carry on that racing under a well organized system than to have it carried on illegally, as is the case in some of the states to the south of us.
The provisions of the criminal code bearing upon horse racing have been amended several times during the last few years, but perhaps the most important move made in that connection was the appointment of the Rutherford Commission in 1919. At that time those opposed to racing, particularly with those with headquarters in Toronto, objected very strongly to the appointment of Dr. Rutherford, for the reason that he was a veterinary surgeon and knew something about horses. All of you who have followed the career of Dr. Rutherford, first as a private citizen, then as a representative of Manitoba in the provincial house, then as federal member from that, province in this House, then as Veterinary Director General, when he organized the present Health of Animals branch and placed it on a sound basis; then as Railway Commisioner, will all agree that a better and more fair minded man could not have been found for the purpose in the whole Dominion of Canada. It affords me a great deal of pleasure to bring this to the attention of the House on this occasion.
The findings of that commission were to the effect that bookmaking should be eliminated; that the pari-mutuel system of betting should be adopted as the fairest that was known; that the races should be limited to seven per day; that percentages should be established on the basis of which those conducting the races could not collect from the public more than a certain amount of commission in proportion to the amount taken in in the betting during the day. This gave the public the assurance that they would receive all that was coming to them. It was rather hard on some of the small tracks, whose overhead expenses were practically as great as those of the larger tracks where the intake was very much greater. One of the sufferers in this connection was the Connaught Park Club situated across the river.
Another important point touched on in the report was that the Minister of Agriculture should have the power to accept or reject the type of machine used for the purpose. This was a most important provision. The clubs also were required to cover all the expenses of administration. Then it came to the point where it was necessary to select proper inspectors to see that the law was carried out, and after looking into the matter very carefully we assigned this duty to the Mounted Police. It was felt that that organization was quite capable of carrying on the work and that they could render first-class service. The commission also found that racing as it is carried on to-day could not be continued on a proper basis without betting.


Mr. McMASTER:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would he be good enough to develop that theme and state why it is impossible to carry on racing without bet. ting?
Mr. TOLMIE I am glad to inform the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that that is my next note. In the first place, we have very strong competition on the American side, where according to the law they do not have any betting, but where, as a matter of fact betting is carried on freely-to a very much greater extent than it is carried on here. We find that you cannot get the proper number

Race-track Betting
of horses for the purposes of a really good meeting on this side of the line in the face of that competition unless you are able to attract them by large purses. Now, because I say we are getting some of these horses from the other side of the line, hon. members must not run away with the idea that they are necessarily American horses; some of the very best strains of racing horses on the American side and as far down as Tia Juana, Mexico, are Canadian horses, owned by Canadians. So that it is necessary for us to put up big purses in order to secure horses to take part in races on this side of the line, and the heavy expense involved in conducting races in Canada where the population is not very dense makes it necessary that we should have some other source of revenue than that which is afforded by the gate receipts.
Let us look for a moment at how racing is carried on in other countries. In New York state they are not supposed to bet on the races. There are five or six big tracks not very far from New York city where racing is carried on during a great part of the summer season and at those tracks they carry on what is known as the oral system of betting, which is illegal. Thousands of dollars change hands every day. The state does not exercise any control and where that kind of betting is carried on we find that quite frequently those attending the races are fleeced out of their money by book-makers of no standing. Down in New Orleans they also carry on an oral system of betting at the present time. In Nevada and some other states book-making is permitted. But in Kentucky and Maryland, which are two of the most important horse-breeding centres in the United States, they have tried both book-making and the pari-mutuel system, and they have now adopted the latter in both these states, finding it is the fairest way to conduct races. And they are securing a revenue from the racing amounting to several million dollars a year. In New Zealand and Australia racing is conducted under government control, and the pari-mutuel system is adopted. In France, racing has been under control for a number of years. They also operate under the parimutuel system, and the profits which are secured by the government are used for the improvement of live stock, for charities-for introducing water systems into,small villages that have not enough money to provide their own water supply, for the restoration of farms in the devastated war area, for the building up of new model farms, and for the equipment of their agricultural colleges.
rMr. Tolmie.]
In this country, if legal betting was stopped to-morrow we would have a great deal of betting going on illegally. In fact it is not difficult to step down town this afternoon- it would now be a quarter past two at Tia Juana-and if you know the ropes you can bet on a horse running a few miles out of San Diego, California, or on a horse running in New Orleans, or on horses racing in other states. So that making betting illegal does not control betting by any means, and I am quite safe in saying that there is no city of any size in the United States or Canada today where any interest is taken in horse racing where you could not obtain a bet of that kind. If you only want to find the place, it is as easy to find as a bootlegger in a prohibition area. Last year, as has been pointed out, Ontario received a revenue of some $4,000,000 as a result of taxes on racing. In Quebec, I believe, the amount derived by the government from racing was $850,000, the whole of which was devoted to charity.
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the conditions prevailing in Canada, where betting is under control and where racing is under control, are infinitely better than the systems I have just described existing in these states in the south where betting is not permitted. Far better to apply a law and have people betting out in the open than to restrict betting and have it carried on illegally behind a curtain. Speculation, I think I am safe in saying, is inherent in the British race, as it is in nearly all others. There is a tendency to spend your money with a view to increasing the amount, either by a bet on a horse race or by betting on stocks or on grain, or investing in real estate, and in many other ways; and I feel that if we stopped betting we would only be encouraging the system of so-called bootleg betting that is so prevalent at the present time. I claim that it is far better to apply remedies that would improve the conditions. I do not claim that the business is without abuse at the present time, but almost every business can be abused, almost any entertainment can be abused. I think we can attain a far better and a safer end by applying proper remedies to improve the conditions than by the application of a law which we cannot possibly carry into effect. Personally, I have never been able to see much difference between the man who wins a bet on a stock speculation and the one who wins a bet "on a race track, except that in the one case he is credited as a successful business man and in the other some of our friends call him a gambler.
In Great Britain, racing has been carried on for centuries, and during that period they have created what is known as the thorough

Race-track Belting
bred horse, a horse that is used for, racing in all parts of the world to-day, a horse that has played a most important part in building up many other breeds and bringing them to their present state of perfection, a horse that has realiy been the foundation of our very best cavalry horses, and a horse that is very much in demand at a good price throughout the country. In addition, the thoroughbred today plays a most important part in the production of what is known as the saddle horse, and the hunter, for which there is a very brisk market in many parts of this continent. It was only a few weeks ago, when I was judging at the big winter fair in Toronto, that I saw in some of these hunter classes as many as forty, fifty and sixty head of horses in each competition. It was one of the finest shows I have ever seen. I might say that one of the best stables of hunter horses in the world is owned a few miles out of Toronto. They went down to Madison Square Garden, New York, a year or two ago, and were successful in winning a great majority of the prizes. You cannot obtain perfection in this particular class of horse without the thoroughbred horse being used in its improvement.
Another point. If you stop the thoroughbred from racing you will never get the same perfection as you have to-day. The race track is the only place we have to form a real opinion as to a horse's courage, stamina and speed.
Racing is more popular than ever in Great Britain. The races there are conducted in a clean-cut, sportsmanlike way, and if anyone is caught doing anything crooked, he goes to gaol if they can prove the case against him. Racing is patronized there by everybody from the costermonger to the King, and any one would be very cold-blooded indeed who could attend either the Derby or the race for the Ascot gold cup without being very much moved. I had the pleasure of attending in 1921, the Ascot races. People do not go there by the thousands, but by the tens of thousands. I saw acres of cockneys, more cockneys than I ever expect to see in my life again, on that race track. To give you an idea of the crowd, Mr. Speaker, and of the popularity of this sport, it required from ten-thirty in the morning till twenty minutes to three in the afternoon to travel in a first-class automobile thirty miles over the best roads I have ever seen. It was simply one continuous procession. The people take a very keen interest in the sport, and everybody appears to have a little bit on the big race or on some race during the day. I saw some of the finest looking people I ever saw in my life on that occasion.


Mr. DUFF:: Ladies or gentlemen?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: And they all appeared to be enjoying the sport to the full. Let me quote what the London Times has to say about the Derby:
Our people thrill to the Derby as to no other event in the sporting year. The great ones of the land are overshadowed by it into a just insignificance. A cabinet minister with double pneumonia would arouse far less concern than a Derby favourite with a cough. We are all apt in our own little worlds to think ourselves people of consequence. And so we may be. But we get our importance into better perspective when something happens that is really national-not the affair of any class or clique, but the feverish interest of everybody. Then we shrink to quite a wholesome size, and only become inflated again as Derby Day recedes. Next Wednesday, let us hope, will be a day of good sport. In any case, it will be a day when the noblest of animals will teach his masters their proper place.
That is an editorial published by, perhaps, the most prominent paper in the whole British Empire. Royalty not only attends races in Great Britain but also owns stables; and I may say here that I consider that where Royalty in the Old Country has taken an interest in live stock breeding-not only in horses but in other lines-it has been one of the greatest inducements to other people with money to invest along similar lines. Such encouragement as this has placed Britain today in the proud position where she has created, and maintains in a high state of perfection, more breeds of horses, cattle, sheep and swine, than the whole world combined.
In the Canadian West His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales owns a ranch where he breeds thoroughbred horses. Last fall he raced those horses and won some races, too. Great Britain has always been a great: country for the encouragement of outdoor sports, perhaps the greatest country in the world in that particular line. . And horse racing has been one of the greatest sports enjoyed by the people over there. This continuous devotion to sport and outdoor exercises has built up one of the greatest and best empires on the face of the globe. The people of Great Britain have made a record in business second to none. Their record in the late war is well known to you all. Their record after the war. in meeting their liabilities, is perhaps one of their greatest achievements. Think of it for a moment. It is a country where racing has been carried on for hundreds of years and where-if we were to take the remarks of the mover and . seconder of this resolution seriously

we might reasonably expect to find decay taking place as a result of the indulgence in that sport among all classes for hundreds of years. But what do we find? We find in Great Britain one of the best and strongest races physically in the world. It is
Race-track Betting

a country that has done more for the extension of-


John Livingstone Brown: Has commercialized gambling been associated with horse racing for so many hundreds of years?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: All I know about it is
that they go out there and bet, and I saw a string of book-makers at Ascot half a mile long. I did not ask them what they were doing, but they appeared to be trying to sell something. I am sure that this great country with all her achievements, and all her sins iu the matter of horse racing, has done more to extend civilization, and Christianity, has done more to spread the word of the Bible than any other country,-and she has raced through it all.
Considering that we are descended from a stock like that in the Mother Land it is only natural that racing should be popular in Canada. The sport has been carried on here for many years. We have in the Ontario Jockey Club one of the oldest organizations in the Dominion, and one that races every year at the Woodbine track, where they put up a nice, clean show-as nice a show as anyone might expect to see anywhere on this continent. They have a race there called the King's Plate, the oldest stake race run on this Continent and one that was first brought into prominence by the late Queen Victoria having contributed the plate which is raced for at the present time. They have also done another valuable work in the distribution of stallions throughout the country-in fact one of the features of the big winter show recently held in Toronto was the nightly parade of the stallions owned by the Ontario Jockey Club, and distributed about the country for the improvement of live stock, many of which were brought from Great Britain at very heavy cost. As I pointed out before, these animals are doing a very great service in the country, and we are able by the use of such improved blood to produce hunter horses of high quality. These horses sell at from $500 to $5,000 apiece, according to their quality and their ability to perform.
Then we have, close to Ottawa, the Connaught Jockey Club. I have attended several of the meetings of this club across the river, and I want to say that while it is a small meeting it is one that will compare very favourably with any race meeting I have attended elsewhere. It is run and operated by business men of this city simply for the sport there is in the game, and I am quite sure that if their books were examined to-morrow it would be seen that under the present percentage allowed they are not making any very
fMr. Tolmie.l
great profit. In this connection I might quote what the Ottawa Evening Journal has to say with regard to the meetings carried on at Connaught Park. In its issue of September 26, 1921, the Journal said editorially: THE CONNAUGHT PARK MEETING
The Connaught Park Jockey Club is to be congratulated on the character of the autumn meeting. A week of splendid racing was provided and enjoyed by many thousands of people, men and women of all ages. There was no suggestion throughout the meeting or after it of dishonest racing. The patrons of the club appeared to get a fair gamble in their betting in the mutuel machines. Forty thousand dollars was given by the club in stakes and purses, these being of a size to attract some fine horses from a number of the leading racing stables of the continent. Canadian bred horses were prominent among the winners. It is understood that the Jockey Club kept in view local conditions in managing the meeting and that of a wage bill of $20,000 for the week a good part went to returned soldiers and practically all to local men.
Senator Belcourt, president of the club. Mr. Stewart McClenaghan, chairman of the management committee, Mr. T. P. Gorman, secretary, and others who were responsible for the conduct of the meeting, merit the appreciation of thousands of race-goers of the Capital. Good clean racing on well ordered tracks such as the Connaught Park Jockey Club presented, is the best opposition to the attempts of reformers to abolish the sport.
Now, I may say that racing is of the greatest assistance to some of our exhibitions held in the far West. In the first place racing has a distinct advantage over any other form of attraction at an agricultural exhibition, for the reason that if you hire certain attractions to perform during the week every daily performance is the same; but in the case of racing, no matter how often it is carried on, no two races are exactly alike, neither is one day's racing like that of the day previous. You therefore have an entire change of programme each day during the whole week. Racing seems to be the most popular sport that can take place in connection with agricultural exhibitions out in our - country. We have had racing at the Victoria exhibition for a number of years. Last year, unfortunately, we elected a gentleman to high office in the city of Victoria who objected to racing. In the adjoining municipality of Oak Bay, another man was elected who also objected to racing. I suppose the two gentlemen put their heads together and decided that they would not have any races last summer in Victoria. The result was that a referendum on the subject was submited to the people of the city, and also of the adjoining municipality, as to whether we would have racing with pari-mutuel machines or not, and in both cases, when the votes were counted, the decision was decidedly in the affirmative. In the city of Victoria the vote in favour of horse racing with pari-mutuel machines was

Race-track Betting
something over two to one and the mayor of the city, who objected so strongly to racing last year, now stays at home, a majority of 3,600 having been cast against him in the municipal elections.
Racing is enjoyed by thousands of people in this country. Thousands of dollars have been invested in racing plants, and in breeding establishments and stables. I know of one plant in Canada the proprietor of which told me only last summer out at the Connaught Club races, that he had half a million dollars invested in his breeding establishment and racing stables. I claim that the right of these people should be protected. They have a right to ask that from the government of this country. I am quite sure that, after the futile efforts of the people to the south of the line, by certain legislation, to make the people in that country good, we should profit by the lesson, and should realize that you cannot legislate people to be good in this country any more than you can in any other. If the people are inclined to speculate they will do it, and if they cannot do it legally, they will do it illegally. It is far better, in my opinion, to have people betting out in the open, where everybody can see them, rather than to drive them to the pool rooms, to illegal betting and card playing. . Let me quote an extract from a correspondent in the Citizen, speaking of betting. It reads:
-It is intensely human and natural-if all the joys and amiable weaknesses were cut out, life would be scarcely worth the living, and anyway a sinless Eden would make Heaven a perfectly superfluous abode.
If that paragraph represents the sentiments of a portion of the people of this country, then apparently there are some friends of the racing game. Under these conditions, why not look the matter squarely in the face, and try to apply reasonable remedies, rather than to attempt the impossible. If the mover and seconder of this resolution will bring down any scheme which will improve the conditions I will be very glad to give them my hearty support, because I believe in straight racing, and have absolutely no use for crooked racing. What we need to-day is rather proper regulation. We should aim at something we can achieve rather than try to accomplish the impossible.


William Charles Good: Did the hon. member approve or disapprove of the order in council passed in the summer of 1917?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I never came into politics till 1918. There are laws that I have pointed out prohibiting the betting on races any-, where except on race tracks, and I would ask the mover of this resolution, are those rules
being observed? It is quite possible to get a bet on any race being run in the United States to-day by simply going down town and finding out where bets will be taken. If we cannot enforce the present law against illegal betting in pool rooms, how does the mover and seconder ever hope to accomplish any more, if the present legislation which they propose is adopted? Why not try and remedy this first evil as we go along, and when we accomplish that try and do something better, if something reasonable is suggested? Personally, I would very strongly favour federal control of racing from one end of this country tp the other. It would guarantee a certain amount of uniformity. We can remove the abuses as they occur in the racing game, and lift racing to a higher plane even than it occupies to-day. Then, by the application of reasonable taxation, a good revenue could be secured, which could be devoted to charity and the development of research in connection with our contagious diseases. And in that connection I would suggest that tuberculosis, both in the human family and in animals, should be taken up very much along the line which France has adopted successfully for some time past. I would like to point out to the mover of the resolution, that he supports the government in Toronto, which government is using its best efforts to squeeze the last dollar out of the racing game. In fact, it has reached the point where it is little less than extortion at the present time. If they are really in earnest in their desire to eradicate horse racing, why do they not tax it out of business? They have the law right in their hands, and can do it if they wish. That would be far better and more manly than to try to throw the responsibility on the federal government. Judging from their actions, one can only conclude that the revenue from racing has a great many more attractions for them than the eradication of the sport.
With regard to paternal legislation which is going to tell us when to go to bed and when to get up, I may say that there is very strong resentment among the people throughout the country. There is no use attempting to force upon the people any form of legislation which we cannot carry out, and if we are going to ask British immigrants to come and settle in Canada, for goodness sake let us leave them a few things that they can do that they were accustomed to do in the Old Country before they came over here. I believe, Mr. Speaker, as I have said once before, that we can accomplish a good deal by taking hold of this matter and investigating it thoroughly, applying those remedies that will cure the condition, rather than by the application of irn-
Race-track Betting

possible legislation. Therefore, I must oppose the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Brant.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I desire, in rising to support the motion proposed by the hon. member for Brant, to deal with some of the-I was going to say the arguments, but I think I will qualify that remark by saying-the assertions made by those who are opposed to it. Let me first deal with the royalist argument introduced by way of interjection by my good friend the learned and hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Does the hon. member for Brant not know, says the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier, that the King of England is an owner of race-horses, a supporter-of race meets and all that that means? If the hon. member desires to infer that the King of England is fond of seeing horses race, I do not doubt that that is true, but my recollection of all the public utterances of King George have been to the effect that he is a strong opponent of gambling, and I know his father was before him.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that an assertion or an argument?


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is an argument and an assertion, but the royalist argument used by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier-


Hewitt Bostock: I would advise members on both sides not to use the name of His Majesty in the present discussion. First of all, rule 19 states that no member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty. Of course this afternoon no member has used disrespectfully the name of His Majesty, but this rule must be interpreted, and I find in the authors that the name of His Majesty should never be brought into a debate in a way to influence the opinions of a deliberative body. I refer to rule 19. You will find in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules, under rule 19:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada that a member, while speaking, must not:
And I refer to paragraph (f) which reads:
(f) Use the King's name for the purpose of influencing debate.
And whilst I have not in my hand Bourinot or May, I know there are any number of precedents where the Speaker has, during a debate, stopped members addressing the House when the name of His Majesty or His Excellency has been mentioned. Let me quote the following from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twelfth edition, at page 292:
[Mr. McMaster.'l
The irregular use of the King's name to influence a decision of the House is unconstitutional in principle, and inconsistent with the independence of parliament. Where the Crown lias a distinct interest in a measure, there is an authorized mode of communicating His Majesty's recommendation or consent, through one of his ministers; but His Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of his responsible advisers; and any attempt to use his name in debate to influence the judgment of parliament, would be immediately checked and censured.
I would also refer to Bourinot, page 338, where it is stated that:
The use of the name of the sovereign or his representative in: debate, so as to interfere with the freedom of discussion, or for the purpose of influencing the determination of the House or the votes of members, with respect to any matter pending in parliament is out of order, being unconstitutional and an interference with the independence of parliament.
I must say that there was but a very mild use this afternoon, and there was nothing disrespectful. I am, however, just stating the principle which is accepted in England and in Canada, that is to avoid entirely mixing up the name of His Majesty in any debate. We must not. forget that this assembly, like the House of Commons in England, is considered the first club of gentlemen in the land,


Andrew Ross McMaster: The argument used by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) was amplified and extended by the genial member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie). In support of gambling at race-tracks, he called upon British and imperial sentiment. The British Empire apparently, according to the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) -and perhaps the portfolio which he held before is some excuse for the position he as-sumes-rests not upon the commerce of Great Britain, not upon the fact that John Bull is, perhaps, the greatest trader in the world, not upon the manufacturers or the shippers of Great Britain, but upon the racing of Great Britain, and it is because the British people are so given to racing, that they have been able to have their far-flung Empire upon which the sun never sets.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Does the hon. member mean to say that I deliberately said that the progress of Great Britain and its commerce depended upon horse racing?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not say that the hon. member said that deliberately; but I say that that was the inference from his remarks, and that is a fair paraphrase of what he said.
I can understand that prompt settling of liabilities may be encouraged by attendance at a race-course, and so far as that goes, per-

Race-track Betting
haps, my. hon. friend is right. But that the spread of Christianity and of the Bible was in some way connected with the institution of betting at race-courses is quite beyond me.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is the hon. gentleman stating that I said I believed the extension of Christianity and of the Bible was due to horse-racing?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I will say almost exactly what the hon. member said. "The British people are a great people." We will all agree with that. "They have spread the Bible throughout the world, and they have been racing all the time." Was it inferred by my hon. friend that racing was deterrent to the spread of Christianity and the Bible, or was it in spite of racing that they were spreading the Bible, or was it because racing creates manly people and manly people were spreading the Bible?


Samuel William Jacobs: I interject that they were racing to spread the Bible.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am glad my hon.
friend is interested in this subject. I tell him, he is interested in the Old Testament but not in the New. It would seem to me that what my hon. friend (Mr. Tolmie) has stated, has nothing to do with the greatness of Great Britain. I have a great admiration for the British people; but I have no admiration for the addiction to gambling and betting which is one of the failings of that great people.
Then we heard from the hon. gentleman who brought forward the imperialistic argument, the argument of vested interests. There are, he said, hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in racing plants, and as racing can be maintained only through betting, we must maintain betting in order to maintain racing, in order to secure the permanence of the invested capital in that business-for I take it that that argument is an admission that racing is not only a sport but a business. .
Then my hon. friend spoke about "paternal legislation" which he denounced in unmeasured terms. If he will turn to the criminal code and look at the law on betting, 2 George V, chapter 19, he will see paternal legislation carried to the utmost degree. We are told how many days a week horses can run, and how many miles from cities race tracks may be established. If ever fatherly care was shown in connection with legislation it certainly is shown in the case of this statute.
Why am I in support of this resolution? Because I am a Liberal, not a Liberal of the age referred to by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), but a modern Liberal.
When I see in our statutes. th$t gambling, -that is to say, gambling from which someone makes a profit, is prohibited everywhere except on a	race-tig<jk-
I take objection. It is not attempted, to touch, and this resolution does not touch, gambling between two friends who wish to put a bet upon a horse or upon the odd or even number of an automobile, or to adopt any other foolish way of wasting one's time or money. What is objected to is the exception made in favour of race-tracks by the law of the land in regard to common gaming houses. That is the point. Is it fair that two or three men, who wish to. gamble, and who meet together and appoint one to keep the- what is the name?-"kitty" it would be in some games-to keep the table and to have a rake-off for keeping the table, should come under the condemnation of the criminal law, while other men are permitted by the law to go three miles outside of some city, maintain a race-course and run races so many times a week, and authorize someone to make money out of their gambling? I believe in equal rights for all and special privileges for none, and that is the main objection I have to the law as it is at present.
My hon. friends who have opposed this motion have spoken as though the motion were an impairment of individual liberty. Of course it is. But article 235, dealing with betting and pool-selling elsewhere than on race-tracks; article 228, defining what is the keeping of a disorderly house; article 227 of the criminal code, in which a common betting house is defined;-these are [DOT] all infringements of natural liberty. The eloquent speech, which everyone enjoyed listening to, pronounced by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), was not directed against this resolution, it was directed against the criminal code of this country which forbids betting as a commercialized proposition. His whole speech was in favour of open betting; and if he were consistent with himself he *would be as strongly opposed to the present law as to the resolution introduced in this House by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good).
Now, let me take up for a moment the proposition that horse-racing could not exist without gambling. I know very little about horse-racing. I have been fond Of sport all my life, but what I enjoyed was playing at something myself and not seeing animals or Other people playing. If horse-racing has attractions that draw the crowd merely for the love of seeing the horses run, it would Seem to me that the gate receipts should be
Questions

great enough to enable prizes to be given sufficiently high to encourage competition in horse-racing. And if the existence of horseracing is necessary to the development of a high class of blood animal, though I am all for economy and hate governmental expense, I would prefer to see the government offer a few good prizes for the best race-horses and do away with this roundabout method of obtaining money for the purpose of giving prizes. I would infinitely prefer to see the government give a few great national prizes for the best three or four or five classes than to have us depend on a weakness in human character and in human conduct, to call it no worse than that. I am one who believes that you cannot legislate men into righteousness. But you can, by legislation, remove a great many of the snares that beset the rising generation.
On motion of Mr. Carmichael 'he debate was adjourned.



MEMORIAL TO THE LATE COLONEL

[Stage Direction]
G.	H. BAKER, M.P.
Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate acquainting this House that the Honourable Messieurs Bradbury, Casgrain, Foster (Alma), Griesbach and Pope have been appointed to confer and act with a like committee of I ho House of Commons in further considering and determining the form of the memorial to be erected in the parliament buildings to the late Lieut-Colonel Baker, M.P., for Brome, who lost his life on the field of battle.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without *question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 1, 1923