1923-03-01

PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 37, to incorporate Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Company.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 38, respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 39. respecting The Rutland and Noyan Railway Company.-Mr. Tobin.
Bill No. 40, respecting a certain patent of Henry Mathew Wells and James Edward Bouthcombe.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
}Mr. McMaster.]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41, to amend the Railway Act, 1919.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: This is a bill to amend sections 314 and 318 of the Railway Act, 1919. Section 314, which deals with equal tolls to be charged by the railways, contains two qualifying phrases which permit of all sorts of inequalities. It is proposed to amend this section by striking out these two qualifying phrases. The first phrase, in the first and second lines, reads "under substantially similar circumstances and conditions," and the second phrase, in the fourth line, reads "passing over the same line or route." Section 318 deals with facilities to be afforded for the movement of grain from the western provinces to Lake Superior terminals and destinations east. It is proposed to amend this section so as to make it apply to destinations on the Pacific coast also.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42 to amend the Criminal Code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This is practically the
same bill as I introduced last session. I hope this time it will pass the House and become law.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the purpose?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is a bill to strike out
an amendment to the Criminal Code passed in 1921, being section 20 of chapter 25 of the Statutes of 1921.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. d'ANJOU:
1.	Did W. N. Tilley, K.C., render an itemized statement for $100,000 paid him for legal services?
2.	If so, was the statement taxed?
3.	How much per day was he paid?
4.	How many days did he act for the sum he received?

Questions
5.	What minister agreed on behalf of the late government to pay him for his services?
6.	What were the total legal expenses, what amounts were paid, and to what lawyers were payments made in connection with or arising out of the Grand Trunk arbitration or taking possession of the Grand Trunk or any or all of its lines or properties?
7.	On what dates were each of the lawyers retained in proceedings to take possession of the Grand Trunk __ and how many days did each act, and what fee per day was each paid?
8.	Were any itemized statements rendered by these lawyers showing their expenses and disbursements in [DOT]detail and what government official revised or taxed these expenses?
9.	What were the items of expenses charged for and paid to these lawyers?
Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	W. N. Tilley, K.C., rendered an itemized account for the $95,880 paid him for legal services in connection with the Grand Trunk arbitration and appeal.
2.	Yes, by Department of Justice.
3.	$400 per day while absent from Toronto.
$100 per day while in Toronto.
4.	238 days.
5.	The Minister of Justice.
6.
W. N. Tilley, K.C., Toronto ....$ 95,880 00
H A. Lovett, K.C., Montreal______	46,499	27
Hector Mclnnes, K.C., Halifax.... 23,910 00 J. C. H. Dusseault, K.C., Montreal. 9,164 05
E. F. Newcombe, Ottawa		9,640	00
Estate of Z. A. Lash, Toronto.... 5,000 00
Pierce Butler, Minneapolis	71,531	52T. Ludlow Chrystie, New York....	185	00
Lawrence Jones & Co., London,
Eng	
158	41Chas. Russell & Co., London, Eng. 2,427 49 .Sundry accounts, legal books, printing, etc	
2,850	65
Estate of Z. A. Lash, Sept., Oct., and Nov.,
1919,	bulk sum authorized by O.C., P.C. 2741. Aug. 5, 1921, $5,000.
Pierce Butler, retainer, confirmed Feb. 9,
1920,	$10,000; 140 days at $400 per day 71 days at $100 per day.
T. Ludlow Chrystie, April, 1920, bulk sum, $185; Lawrence Jones & Co., bulk sum, $158.41; Chas. Russell & Co., bulk sum, $2,427.49.
8.	Yes; charges taxed by Department of Justice.
9.
W. N. Tilley, K.C., living and travelling allowance, 194 days at $20 $3,880 00
H.	A. Lovett, K.C., living and travelling allowance, 19 days at $20	380 00
H. A. Lovett, K.C., typewrit-jmr	*237 44
H. A. Lovett, K.C., telegrams
and telephone	
H. A. Lovett, K.C., express charges	
304 27
Hector Mclnnes, K.C., living and
travelling allowance, 113 days at $20 2,260 00 J. C. H. Dusseault, K.C., cab
hire	$2 50
express charges	1 55

	4	05
E. F. Newcombe. living and travelling allowance, 130 days at $20	2,600 00
Pierce Butler, living and travelling allowance,	139	days	at	$20	2,780	00Telegrams, eta.,	(no	details)..	51	52Exchange on cheque issued in Canadian funds instead of New York funds	
1,950	00


SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
[Stage Direction]
Total legal expenses.. . . $267,246 39
/ .
W. N. Tilley, K.C., retainer, $10,000; on or about Dec. 1, 1919, 194 days at $400 per day; 44 days at $100 per day.
H. A. Lovett, K.C., retainer, $5,000; Dec. 4 1919 to May 15, 1922, 90 days at $150 per day; 273 days at $100 per day; part pf 1 day at $15.	.
Hector Mclnnes, K.C., retainer, $5,000; March 8, 1920 to June 3, 1921, 107 days at $150 per day; 6 days at $100 per day.
J. H. C. Dusseault, K.C., March 11, 1921. to Sept. 12, 1921; 39| days at $150 per day: 32 days at $100 per day; part days, 9 at $35 pei day.
E. F. Newcombe, April 5, 1920, to June 20, 1922 : 5 days at $50 per day; 213 days at $30 per day; 80 hours at $5 per hour.
Mr. IRVINE:: 1 What is the total expenditure of the Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research from its establishment up to Jancary 31, 1923?
2.	Of this total, what has been expended upon (a) salaries, (b) expenses paid in connection with meetings of the council, (c) expenses of meetings of committees, etc., (d) printing, stationery and general office expenses, (e) university professors and students grants, bursaries, etc., (f) to investigators other than those-connected with universities?
3.	What is the yearly rental value of the rooms occupied by the council and by the permanent staff?
4.	What is the number of investigators or research workers that have been assisted by the council, and, if any, what number of results can be claimed to have been of national advantage?
5.	What are such results?
6.	Are any of those engaged in original research attached to the advisory councils permanent staff at Ottawa ?
7.	is the advisory council arranging to establish a technical library in Ottawa and is the council pur-rhssing technical and scientific books and periodicals.
Questions

8.	If so, at what annual expense and are similar books and periodicals purchased by other of the government departments ?
9.	What moneys, if any, have the council paid or promised to pay for contributors to the press, and for assisting its propaganda in furtherance of their scheme which has for its objective the establishment of a National Research Institute under the direction of th,e said council, and to whom have such moneys been paid?
10.	How many directors or administrators have, from time to time, administered the work of the council, what are the names of those who have occupied the position, what salaries were paid them, what was their immediate previous occupation, and what salaries did they receive therefrom? .
11.	How many university students and others have been assisted to study in universities situated outside Canada?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 
PROVISION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Referring to the following resolution:
''That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the widespread unemployment with which the municipalities and provinces find themselves unable to cope, it. is desirable that the federal government should devise some means of dealing effectively with the situation."
-accepted by the government through the voice of the Prime Minister in parliament, and passed by the House of Commons on the 24th day of April. 1922, what has the government done in the wav of dealing effectively with the unemployment situation as called for by the said resolution?
[DOT] 2V?efemnK a Conference on Unemployment, held m Ottawa on the 5th, 6th and 7th of September, what has the government done to give practical effect to any conclusions of the conference?
3. Is the provision for unemployment now in effect by reason of orders in council of the present government on as generous a scale as was in effect when the present government came into office?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	In accordance with what was understood to be the intent of the resolution in question, the whole matter of unemployment was taken up by the government for careful con-' sideration. Since action taken by the federal government with regard to relief of unemployment had hitherto been by way of cooperation with the provincial and municipal authorities, these authorities having been deemed to be wholly responsible for dealing under normal conditions with questions of this nature, it was deemed that a conference between the federal government and the governments of the several provinces would be desirable for the purpose in view, and that steps taken to convene such a conference would be a means of dealing effectively with the unemployment situation as called for by the said resolution.
2.	A Federal-Provincial Conference was held in Ottawa on September 5, 6 and 7, 1922, persons in attendance being members and officials of the federal government and of the various provincial governments, with the exception of the province of Prince Edward Island, which reported that it had no unemployment problem. The whole problem of unemployment, in the light of the latest information available in the various parts of the Dominion as to conditions then existing

Questions
and deemed likely to prevail during the then ensuing winter, was under careful review. Earnest attention was given to the question of action which might seem to be necessary on the part of the federal or provincial authorities individually or in co-operation and certain general conclusions were reached. The government continued to keep closely in touch with the various aspects of employment conditions in different parts of the Dominion, and after due consideration P. C. 220 was on February 5, 1923, enacted.
3.	Yes, having regard to unemployment conditions as appearing during the present winter and by comparison with those of the winter of 1921-22.


GUESSING COMPETITIONS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: In view of the fact that at the last session of parliament section 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada was amended to read as follows: "Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment and to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who advertises, prints, publishes, exhibits, posts up or otherwise gives notice of any offer, invitation, or inducement to bet on, to guess or to foretell the result of any contest."
1.	Is the government aware that at Vancouver, British Columbia, and elsewhere in Canada, corporations are printing, publishing and advertising on a large scale, in various newspapers, invitations and inducements to guess or foretell results of contests, and that immense sums of money have been for months past and are now being diverted from legitimate channels to gamble on the above described devices?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to make the law more stringent in order to stop such abuses as above indicated?


Hon. Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	No.
2.	The matter is under consideration.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. BLACK (Huron):: 1.	What was the total cost of collecting the income tax during the years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922?
2.	What was the total amount of rental paid for offices used in connection with the said work during the above-mentioned year?
3.	What would the total amount of interest amount to on money invested in buildings owned by the government and used in connection with the collection of said tax during the above-stated years?
4.	What is the total amount of salaries paid in connection with the said collections during the years mentioned ?
5.	What is the total amount of all other expenses incidental to the collecting of income tax during the said vears?
6.	What is the total amount of income tax collected during the years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922?


REDISTRIBUTION-MR. W. M. IVEL
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: May I be permitted to ask the government if it is a fact that they have employed, Mr. W. M. Ivel, defeated Liberal candidate for Victoria, B.C., to map out a scheme of redistribution for British Columbia; if Mr. Ivel has already announced a plan of redistribution for British Columbia, which is rather complete in all its details setting out what the various constituencies will be; and in the event of this being true, if the whole thing is cut and dried beforehand, what is the justification for a committee of this House to inquire into redistribution?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance):: I did not understand that the matter was entirely in the control of the government. I had an impression that it was in the control of parliament, and that the House has appointed a committee for that purpose.
I do not' think anything has happened to withdraw the matter from the consideration of the committee.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I think the hon. gentleman might directly answer the question whether this man has been employed or not.


William Stevens Fielding: I could not answer it because I have no knowledge of it. I think it is highly improbable. I have no knowledge of it myself.


William Garland McQuarrie: The statement appeared in the press.


William Stevens Fielding: Sometimes statements appear in the press which are not accurate.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: May I ask if it is the intention of the government to introduce any measure this year providing for old age pensions? There was a resolution passed last year to the effect that the government ought to consider the advisability of establishing a system of old age pensions in Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: No decision favourable to the movement has been reached.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OF THE DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
["In conclusion I wish to say that the issue before us is very plain. There has been extended to a number of people and organizations a special privilege to do what is defined under our criminal code as a crime. The object of the resolution is to take away a special privilege which we consider to be injurious to the national welfare. Do not let us confuse it with horse-racing, private betting, and a whole lot of other questions which have been dragged in during the course of this debate. The question is a very simple one, and I sincerely trust that the House will vote largely and heartily in favour of the resolution.\nThe House divided on the resolution (Mr. Good) which was negatived on the following\ndivision:\tYEAS Messrs.\nBaldwin,\tLewis,\nBancroft,\tLovett,\nBird,\tLovie, [DOT]\nBlack (Huron),\tLucas,\nBowen,\tMacKelvie,\nBrethen,\tMacphail,\nBrown,\tMcBride,\nCaldwell,\tMcKillop,\nCampbell,\tMe Master,\nCarmichael,\tMcQuarrie,\nCharters,\tMartell,\nCoote,\tMay bee,\nDenis (Joliette),\tMillar,\nDrummond,\tMilne,\nElliott (Dundas),\tMorrison,\nElliott (Waterloo),\tMotherwell,\nEvans,\tMunro,\nFansher,\tMurdock,\nFindlay, .\tPutnam,\nGardiner,\tReed,\nGarland (Bow River),\tRobinson,\nGood,\tRoss (Simcoe),\nHalbert,\tSenn,\nHanson,\tSexsmith,\nHatfield,\tShaw,\nHocken,\tSpeakman,\nIToey,\tSpencer,\nHumphrey,\tStansell,\nHunt,\tSteersman,\nJelliff,\tStewart (Humboldt).\nJohnston (Last Mountain) Stewart (Leeds),\t\nKennedy (Edmonton),\tThompson,\nKennedy (Glengarry &\tThurston,\nStormont),\tWallace,\nKennedy (Port Arthur\t& Ward,\nKenora),\tWarner,\nKing (Huron),\tWhite,\nKnox,\tWoods,\nLeader,\tWoods worth-76.\n NAYS Messrs.\nAnderson,\tBenoit,\nArchambault,\tBinette,\nBaxter,\tBlack (Yukon),\nBeland,\tBoivin,\n\nYukon Act\nBouchard,\tMaclean (Halifax),\nBoucher,\tMcDonald (Timiskaming),\nBourassa,\tMcGiverin,\nCahill,\tMclsaac,\nCannon,\tMcKay,\nCardin,\tMcKenzie,\nCasgrain,\tMc-Murray,\nChaplin,\tMalcolm.\nChevrier,\tMarcil (Bonaventure),\nChew,\tMarcile (Bagot),\nChisholm,\tMercier,\nChurch,\tMichaud,\nClark,\tMitchell,\nClifford,\tMorin,\nCopp,\tOuimet,\nd 'Anjou,\tParent,\nDechene,\tPelletier,\nDelisle,\tPorter,\nDenis (St. Denis),\tPower,\nDesaulniers,\tPrevost,\nDeslauriers,\tRankin,\nDesrochers,\tRaymond,\nDickie,\tRheaume,\nDuff,\tRinfret,\nFafard,\tRoberge,\nFontaine,\tRobichaud,\nForrester,\tRobitaille,\nFortier,\tRoss (Kingston),\nFournier,\tRyckman,\nGarland (Carleton),\tSt. Pere,\nGauvreau,\tSavard,\nGendron,\tS6guin,\nGouin (Sir Lomer),\tSheard,\nHammell,\tSinclair (Queens,P.E.I.),\nHarris,\tSpence,\nJacobs,\tStewart (Argenteuil),\nKing (Kootenay),\tStewart (Hamilton),\nKyte,\tStork,\nLaflamme,\tTobin,\nLapierre,\tTolmie,\nLavigueur,\tTrahan,\nLeger,\tVien,\nMacdonald (Pictou),\tWalsh,\nMackinnon,\tWilson-96.\n\tPAIRS\n(The list of pairs is\tfurnished by the Chief Whips).\nFor'\tAgainst\n\tMessrs.\nStevens,\tKay,\nBoys,\tEthier,\nKellner,\tHughes,\nForke,\tMarler,\nCarr ut hers,\tGerman,\nSinclair (Oxford),\tLow,\nPritchard,\tRobb,\nHudson.\tEuler."]
William Garland McQuarrie: May I ask the government-
Fisheries Treaty


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman has exhausted his right to put questions on the Orders of the Day.


Arthur Meighen: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I must object to that ruling. There is no exhaustion of the right to put questions on the Orders of the Day; there is no limit of this right on the part of any single member of parliament.


Hewitt Bostock: There are .pages of precedents in Bourinot and May respecting the right of members to put questions to the government and offer personal explanations before the Orders of the Day are called. The privilege is one which must not be unduly encroached upon. Questions put to the ministry must be to the point and must be brief. One member may put a question, but if he submits a series of questions it would block the business of the House. I think I am very liberal and generous with regard to the putting of such questions, but I must not be over-generous.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to be understood as saying that there is not a strict limitation as to the character of questions -that can be put. What I wish to say is, that there is no limitation as to the number of questions that can be put by any individual member so long as they come within the circumference of interrogations of a proper character.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: In cases of great urgency it has been the practice to allow questions to be put on the Orders of the Day, but it is a salutary and customary rule to follow-in justice to the government and in order that questions shall be of a proper character and that they shall be properly answered-that interrogations go on the order paper. That has been the practice for years.


Hewitt Bostock: With regard to the practice of putting oral questions, without any notice given, let me call the attention of hon. members to paragraph 311 under rule 31 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
When the Orders of the Day are called by the Speaker and before they are read by the clerk assistant, it is the practice sanctioned by usage but not by any positive rule, for members to make personal explanations or ask questions of the government, in reference to an inaccurate report of their speeches in the official records, or in the newspapers : or in denial of certain charges made against them in the public prints; or in reference to certain remarks which had been misunderstood on a previous occasion, and which they had not before had an 
opportunity of explaining; or in respect to delay in obtaining returns or to the incompleteness of certain returns brought down under the order of the House; or relative to the state of public business, or other matters of public interest. But these remarks should be brief, as they are only tolerated, there being no question before the Chair when they are made, and no discussion should be allowed when a minister lies replied to a question, nor after a member has mad-a personal explanation. In asking a question, a member must not attack the conduct of the government. If a member wishes to make personal explanations in reference to the remarks which have fallen from another member the latter ought to be in his place.
In the present ease, there is nothing before the Chair as the Orders of the Day are called, and. therefore, if by tolerance the Chair allows a member to put some question to the government, and even to repeat the question, it should be strictly confined to public business. Besides, private members should confine themselves to one question and not multiply them; otherwise the business of the House will be blocked. I hope, however, that hon. members will not think I am lecturing them, because it is for the proper carrying out of the business of the House that, I make these remarks.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that the present case is so important that it should be pressed, but the principle is important. I venture to say it has never been ruled that any private member must limit himself to one question on the Orders of the Day. I know it is a matter of tolerance, and I am quite in conformity with the statement of the principle that there should be brevity in asking the question, that it should be of some immediate import, and that upon the reply being given discussion cannot follow. But I really must dissent, and dissent emphatically, from a ruling which says that no member can ask two questions on the Orders of the Day, provided they come within the well known rules . of parliament, as set forth in the authorities.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I would like to put a question to the government which is of importance at the moment.
Is it a fact that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has gone to Washington to sign a fishery treaty between Canada and the United States, and if so does it have any relationship to the report of the Fisheries Committee which I believe is in course of preparation but has not yet been brought down?


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. Minister of
Marine and Fisheries has gone to Washington on public business. I would prefer that my

Race-track Betting
hon. friend should put his question on the order paper so that we may give him a precise answer.


RACE-TRACK BETTING MOTION BY MR. GOOD TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 28th, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Good with respect to racetrack betting.
Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue this debate on the important resolution that we heard discussed yesterday, I wish to state at the outset my position in regard to the resolution. I am unreservedly in favour of the resolution.
I do not take that position because of' any unfortunate circumstances, as far as I am personally concerned, in the past, in connection with gambling because my experience along the lines of gambling have been very limited indeed. I can recall one occasion being in our neighbouring country to the south of the international line, in one of their prosperous cities, and coming across what was called the nickel slot machine. Being young and foolish, I wras induced to drop a nickel in the customary place, and I was very much surprised to see eleven nickels roll out. I do not know whether that was gambling or not, but my natural national instinct possessed me at that time, and I put the money in my pocket and went away. Outside of that experience, about the only other chance experience that I have undertaken ivas when, in the fall of 1921, I dared to presume to attempt to make a living in parliamentary life, and I venture to state that if certain hon. members in this corner of the House have their way I may not be even able to make a living in this line. I had hoped when this resolution was proposed that it' would be carried unanimously and would not occasion very much debate, but I recall that yesterday afternoon there were very many cries of "lost," and two hon. members of the House made lengthy arguments in opposition to the tenor of the resolution.
The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) brought out some statements in connection with this resolution. His statements did not seem very weighty, but nevertheless they "were made. One was that the tendency of the resolution was to introduce a new offence, that of race betting. He meant by that,. I presume, that if we make the business of gambling on a race-track illegal, we would encourage gambling and there would be more
of it. That is what one might call a "catch" statement. It is similar to the statement we so often hear that closing the public bars has led to more drinking than if they were left open, and it is just as erroneous and without any more foundation than that statement. The hon. member also stated that if we cannot have betting, we cannot have horse racing.
I wonder why. Is it necessary to have a large number of Americans of the loose and immoral type of both sexes come across to Canada and go from one race-track to another in order to keep up horse racing? Is this the kind of patronage that good Canadians want in order to develop the horse-breeding industry? I should think surely not. The hon. member stated that he does not believe in prohibition, and that he would like to prohibit prohibition itself. I wonder if he was sincere in that statement. What about murder? What about stealing? What about pulling a gun on a man? Some few weeks ago we had in this city a case of one man pulling a gun on another man and shooting him dead. I presume that the hon. member would hot interfere with personal liberty and prohibit a man from pulling a gun on another.
We listened yesterday to the argument, or some statements at least, of the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie). He stated that in Great Britain he saw some of the finest looking people he ever saw in his life, and they were betting. The inference we draw from that is that betting improves the looks of a person. I presume the hon. member has bet a good deal in his time, and that is why he looks so much better than the rest of us. The same hon. member stated that it was possible to get a bet on the races in California or New Orleans in certain parts of Ottawa to-day, meaning yesterday. I should like to ask-should we establish the old bar and saloon system because it is possible, through some bootlegger, to get some home-brew to-day? I think not, and I think if the people of Canada had the say, a large majority would unquestionably say, no. The same hon. member stated that British settlers should be given the privilege of a few things to which they are accustomed. I fancy a large number of our best British immigrants are coming out to Canada in order to get away from those veiy things, saloons, barrooms, betting and gambling, which are all too prevalent in their home land.
Possibly none of us here to-day can fail to understand that there are certain good things in this world, and that there is a source from which all good things come. We have our different lines of industry; we have our differ-
Race-track Betting

ent industrial concerns, such as lumbering, manufacturing, agricultural pursuits, fishing, shipbuilding and such like. We have our labouring class of people, the labour that they perform, and the blessings that accompany honest toil. We also have throughout our land our different church organizations and all that they stand for. We have our different social reform societies, and we have our elaborate school system-our public schools, high schools or collegiates, and our colleges or universities; and we need not elaborate on what they stand for and the beneficial influence that they have on our national life. These different organizations or institutions tend to develop the individual. They tend to develop his personality, to improve and develop his intellect, his judgment, his reason; and they also, together, through the influences they exert, tend to promote, we might say, those finer qualities of citizenship, kindness and charitable feelings for other people. I think we are all agreed that from the source of good, emanate those good influences that tend to upbuild our citizenship, to strengthen the individual and to produce better characters in our land. One might think of this as a good tree which cannot bring forth corrupt fruit.
On the other side of the picture, we, I think, are quite able to understand that we also have certain evil conditions in this land as well as in other countries, and that these evil conditions emanate from an evil source. It is easy for us to understand what is meant by social upheavals, by distrust amongst members of society, by lack of confidence of man in man, or one member of society in another member of society, leading to social unrest and instability, it may be of government. All these tendencies emanating from the evil source tend to pull down and to destroy personality in the-individual. They tend to lay aside reason, judgment, intelligence and willpower, and instead they develop and promote emotions and passions, so that we have following in this train, a long list of evil happenings, such as dishonest proceedings, cheating, embezzlement, forgery, debt, bankruptcy, and even suicide and murder. These all follow along the line of the evil channel, and this is equivalent to saying that an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit.
We might ask the question, where does gambling come in? Does it come in under the shade of the good tree, or under the influence of the evil tree. A short definition of gambling might be "a stake upon chance for gaining without labour." I do not know whether my opinion as regards whether gambling is an evil or not, would be accepted as being of 
very much account; but I recall that some few weeks ago we had the annual meeting of the Social Service Council of Canada in this city, and the venerable president, the Rev. Dean Tucker, made a statement which was very significant. He said that the three great evils in the world were impurity, intemperance and gambling. He classified gambling as one of the great evils in the world to-day. In addition to his statement I would produce some evidence taken from the journals of the House of Commons, 1909-10, Vol. 45, on race-track gambling, given at the time the Miller bill was under consideration. Certain questions are asked of Mr. Walter Duncan, who had been inspector of detectives for the city of Toronto for something like twenty-two years. He was asked:
Would you classify whiskey and gambling as the two chief sources of the troubles that your department has to cope with?
A. Yes.
Q. Gambling generally?
A. Gambling generally.
Q. Including horse-racing gambling, whether it is gambling off the track or on the track, and every other kind?
A. Every other kind.
I would also quote a statement that appears in the same volume by Inspector Archibald, who was chief inspector of the Toronto police force for more than forty years. In his experience something like 60,000 cases had come before him for consideration, and the question was asked him:
Coming back to your own department of work, of these 60,000 cases that came to you by way of complaint, what was the principal cause at the bottom of the trouble in the majority of the cases?
A. I have no doubt that directly or indirectly the inordinate use of liquor was the cause in the majority of cases.
Then another question was asked him:
Q. What would figure1 second, where would gambling
come in?
A. Gambling came up pretty close to the liquor business. I think perhaps it would be second in order, but not nearly to the same extent as the liquor.
Let me quote from the same source a statement reputed to have been made by Mr. A. H. Clarke, a representative of South Essex, in this House. He made this statement on 1st May, 1905, and it can be found in Hansard of that year, at page 5138:
I happen to reside in a city where we have horse races, where there is a great deal of betting, and I can say there is no greater curse to the community than this race-track. The horse races are incidental; the gambling and betting is the main issue. I know nothing that has ruined more young men in that vicinity than this very race track. It has been my experience to have jfo prosecute several young men who

Race-track Betting
were in trusted positions, but who had squandered the money of their employers, all traceable to this race track.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the evidence of these gentlemen is perhaps more convincing than any statement or argument that I might put forth here to-day. While I have no experience of gambling on race-tracks, I have some knowledge of gambling conditions as they prevail in our prairie country. It might be presumed that the people out on the prairies ai'e so busy growing wheat and trying to get a market for it that they have nothing else to think of. Well, that might be true with the majority of landowners. But we have a number of young people who come into that country, more especially in harvest and threshing time, and who earn good wages and then drift into the small towns and villages on towards the fall of the year. And, sad to say, they are relieved of their hard earnings in a very short time. It some cases it takes but one or two nights for them to lose some S200 or $300 of hard-earned money. Now, it might be wondered why this is not stopped. Well, it seems that there is a certain provision in the Criminal Code that makes it possible for this business to be carried on. In section 226A we have it stated that a common gaming-house is a house, room, or place kept by	any	person for gain.
Then further on, in "B," (1A) it says that a gaming-house is a place where the whole or any portion of the stakes or bets is either directly or indirectly paid to the person keeping such house, room or place. There is just the little snag in this section of the Criminal Code which we find it difficult to get around. And it is of my own knowledge that I speak. In the town where I live we have known gambling to go on in one of our hotels for some time, but it was impossible to get any convicting evidence because it was necessary to prove that a rake-off from the game was going to the proprietor of the house. Finally, some two years ago, one of the gamblers had a quarrel with the proprietor of the house and informed on him and he was summoned and fined. But to-day in that western town, I venture to state gambling is going on, not only in this same hotel, but in a couple of Chinese restaurants. You might wonder whether it is possible for gambling to go on in a public place of that kind, and perhaps the question occurs, what is wrong? It seems to me that gambling carried on in a hotel or in a restaurant, in a poolroom, in a park, or on a race-track should all be included under the same head and be prohibited by Dominion statute.


Mr. VIEN:: If I understand my hon. friend's argument, he says that notwithstanding the fact that a section of the Criminal Code prohibits gambling in a gambling house the practice still goes on as though there were do law against it. How is he going to enforce the provision of the Criminal Code which the mover of the proposed amendment suggests?


Archibald M. Carmichael: Race-track Betting

resolution seeks to prohibit. That is why practically every organized church in Canada to-day is in opposition to gambling. And when it came to the final scene in His life, when He was near his last, His persecutors sat over, and gambled to see who should possess His coat which was woven 4 p.m. without seam. We might well ask ourselves to-day: To which class do we belong, to the class that to-day would seek to eliminate from our national life everything that tends to evil? Or do we belong to that other class that sat down and gambled nineteen hundred years ago-the class that was at enmity with the Founder of Christianity, and which to-day is at enmity with the church organizations throughout our land? In which class are we to-day? I hope Mr. Speaker, that this resolution will be adopted without the necessity for a division. If not, for my part I wish to see the name of each and every person recorded who has the courage of his or her convictions to show where he or she may stand on this all-important question.


Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I desire to state my interpretation of the resolution offered by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) and to give my opinion of what would be its effect if adopted.
To understand the resolution we must go back to 1906 and review the law then in force governing horse-racing. Section 235 of the Criminal Code, which the hon. member now proposes to amend, as it stood in the Revised Statutes of 1906, made certain prohibitions regarding betting, book-making, poolselling, and the becoming custodian or depository of money, property, or other valuable thing staked, wagered or pledged. By subsection 2 of the same section it was provided :
The provision of this section shall not extend to any person by reason of his becoming the custodian or depository of any money, property or valuable thing staked, to be paid to the winner of any lawful race, sport, game or exercise, or to the owner of any horse engaged in any lawful race, or to bets between individuals or made on the race course of an incorporated association during the actual progress of a race meeting.
In other words, every citizen was allowed to be the custodian or depository of money or valuable property to be paid to the winner of a lawful race, sport, game or exercise, or to the owner of a horse engaged in a lawful race; and betting was allowed between individuals without any restrictions as to their number or the amount of money wagered, so long as such betting took place

on the race course of an incorporated association.
In 1910 the law was amended by the enactment of the provisions contained in what was afterwards known as the Miller Bill. Section 235 was amended in its first subsection by adding to the number of the prohibitions, and the second subsection was amended by adding to the exceptions. That is to say, all the exceptions in the law of 1906 were maintained and additional exceptions were enacted. Among those exceptions we find that betting was allowed on the race courses of incorporated associations during race meetings; that individuals were allowed to conduct book-making, etc., on such racecourses. There were also stipulations as to the number of race meetings to be held in each calendar year, the interval between such meetings, and their duration. In 1912 the same article was amended de novo, to provide that all these exceptions that I have just mentioned should be restricted to associations incorporated in any manner before the 20th day of March, 1912, and to all other associations incorporated by the federal parliament or by the legislatures after that date. In 1920, after that royal commission investigation which has been mentioned during the course of this debate had been held, another amendment was made to that same article 235. Section 2 of article 235 was amended as to running races by continuing the same exceptions that I have already mentioned, and making an exception as to betting, which was to be limited to the pari-mutuel. Provisions were made to put into force that new system and giving the Minister of Agriculture supervisory control of the administration of that act. We had last year some amendments of minor importance to article 235.
The resolution offered by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) would involve the following changes in the law: First, the abolition of all special privileges now existing with regard to race-track betting for running races, pari-mutuels included; secondly, change the present exception of a private bet between individuals not engaged in any way in the business of betting to a private bet between not more than ten individuals not engaged in the betting business; and thirdly, remove the exception in favour of a stake to be paid to the owner of any horse engaged in any lawful race.
I have given you, Mr. Speaker, the law as we have it to-day with regard to horseracing; I have given you the changes which the resolution of the hon. member would bring

Race-track Betting
about if it was adopted. Are we ready in. this country to vote for what I would call such radical changes? Is there at this present moment any agitation in Canady which would justify such a change? I have not heard of any from the Maritime provinces; I do not know of any in the province of Quebec; I have not heard of any from British Columbia or the other western provinces. We have heard some from the province of Ontario. Yesterday the hon. member for Brant gave us some of the utterances delivered by the Attorney General for Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Raney. He quoted the Hon. Mr. Raney as his main authority, I would say, to justify his resolution. I am not sure that I shall surprise the hon. member for Brant, but I may tell him this, that the Hon. Mr. Raney has never asked for any such amendment as the amendment my hon. friend now proposes to this House.
I have had the pleasure of corresponding with the Hon. Mr. Raney on this very subject for a month or so, and not later than yesterday I had the honour to receive in my office the deputy Attorney General for Ontario, who came to me with the Crown Prosecutor for Toronto, at the special request of the Attorney General of Ontario, to ask me to submit to the consideration of the hon. members of this House certain amendments to article 235. They never asked, Mr. Raney never asked, that we should repeal section 2 of article 235, as the hon. member for Brant now proposes.
I will read to the House the amendment suggested by the Attorney General for Ontario and by the Crown Prosecutor for Toronto. Suggested amendement to section 235 of the criminal
code as enacted by section 3 of (1910) 9-10 Ed. VII,

(f) Advertises, prints, publishes, exhibits, posts up, sells or supplies, or offers to sell or supply (i) other than on the premises of an association lawfully conducting race meetings in Canada, and during the actual progress of a race meeting thereon, any tips, selections, odds, winning money prices, pari-mutuel payments, or any similar intelligence with respect to or applicable to any horse race, whether such race be held within or without the Dominion of Canada, and whether at the time of advertising, printing, publishing, exhibiting, posting up or applying such news or information such race has or has not taken place; (ii) any information intended to assist in or intended for use in connection with book-making, pool-selling, betting or wagering upon any fight, game, sport or race, other than a horse race whether at the time of advertising, printing, publishing, exhibiting, posting up or supplying such news or information, such fight, game, sport or race has or has not taken place.
This is to do away with the abuse against which we are receiving complaints. There is unquestionably ground for complaint about betting and book-making on races in the United States, where races are prohibited, and where they flourish more than ever.


Mr. GOOD:: May I ask a question? The proposed amendment, as I understand it, refers only to sub-section 1 of section 235?


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: Section 1, but they were the only suggestions offered to our department by the Attorney General for Om-tario. The Hon. Mr, Raney writing with reference to these suggestions in a letter dated January 26, says:
Referring to our conversation in Ottawa with regard to a suggested amendment to the Criminal Cbde to prohibit the publishing of racing information (section 235 (f) ) I enclose two drafts marked respectively "A" and "B".
"A" is a re-draft of the present subsection, (f) of section 235 and alters the present section by specifically forbidding the advertising, printing, publication etc., of tips, selections, odds etc., upon horse races, leaving the application of clause (f) with regard to other sports in the same position as it is now. The thought has been to drop the words "horse- race" in part (ii) but otherwise to leave part (ii) in its present form. Clause (i) deals with horse races alone and specifically prohibits (with regard to horse races) publications of tips, selections, etc.
Mr. Speaker, I have followed with great interest the debate which has taken place on this resolution. I have heard some very strong arguments in support of the prohibition which is advocated, but I have not heard any arguments which were not advanced in 1906, in 1910, in 1912 and in 1920. In a word, there was nothing new in any of the speeches delivered during the present debate which I followed very attentively. I repeat, that to my mind there is actually no agitation in this country for so radical a change as the one which is proposed by the hon. member for Brant. Why should we not be satisfied with amending our criminal code in accordance with the suggestions which have come to us, the only sugestions which have come to us officially from the Ontario government? I -am prepared to recommend ter my colleagues that we should make a government measure of the substance of the amendments which I have just read to the House and with this, it seems to me, hon. gentlemen should be *satisfied, leaving to experience the legislation of 1920 which was passed after mature consideration.
If the hon. member who has submitted this resolution intends to press it to a vote, and if we are at this session, or some other session, to consider legislation which will make legal the new prohibition which is now advocated, I would suggest, for my part, that we at least make it optional for the provinces to accept that prohibition if they so desire, or to refuse it if such is their wish. We have already had experience in another field on a question which has given some very good results; and I think that for the good
Bace-track Betting

of the country, before imposing the change in whose behalf the resolution has been offered, we should leave it to the provinces to decide.
Mr. Speaker, we already have enough causes of difference in this country. Though that be the case I am not alarmed at them. I believe in the future of my country, and I know that ultimately all these differences will pass one after another. Nevertheless I deem it to be the duty of every man of good will in Canada to do nothing that will add to the number of our differences, and it is in that spirit that I would ask hon. members who believe in this new prohibition-and I respect their opinion-not to consider it important enough to impose it on the Dominion against the will of a large proportion, if not the majority, of its population.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: In rising to continue this debate let me assure the House that I do not intend to speak at any great length. I shall devote my remarks mainly to the ethical feature of the question that is now before us, but I shall allude to certain other aspects as well.
In the first place I want to make it very clear that in principle I am absolutely opposed to betting, and in the remarks which I shall offer I propose to hew to the line. I desire to be frank and explicit in my expressions of opinion; I believe in calling a spade a spade. The resolution has been very ably supported by the hon. member who introduced it, and by other members as well. Very substantial arguments and a mass of figures have been advanced in its favour. I do not wish to go over ground which has been so'sthoroughly well covered, but I would like to refer to points which have been raised by opponents of the resolution. One hon. member asked who were behind this motion, who were its promoters. In answer to that question I can produce the sworn statement of a gentleman who gave evidence before the Rutherford Commission as to who are behind the movement now and who were supporting it at that particular time. I will quote the statements of Mr. W. E. Raney, K.C., who appeared before that commission:
Mr. W. E. Raney, K.C., appeared for the Social Service Council of Canada, which he stated was a federation comprising a considerable number of units, including,-the Church of England in Canada, the Methodist Church in Canada, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Baptist Church in Canada, the Congregational Church in Canada, the Salvation Army, the Dominion Grange and Fanners' Association, The Dominion Women's. Christian Temperance Union, the National Council of the Young Men's Christian Association, the Canadian Council of Agriculture and some dozen other organizations, He stated that the Social
[Sir Lomer Gouin.I
Service Council did not oppose racing either as a sport or as a test of the metal or endurance of the thoroughbred horse, but that it took objection to the exception made by the criminal code which legalized race-track betting.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the force that is behind this movement, so far as I can -understand. If that be true, the force that is behind the resolution that has been presented to this House by the hon. member for Brant, it is no mean element of the people of the Dominion of Canada. I want to refer to a statement made, I think, by the hon. ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) in regard to the necessity of this movement for keeping up the race-courses in this country. I quote from Hansard of yesterday:
We find that you cannot get the proper number of horses for the purposes of a really good meeting on this side of the line in the face of the competition, unless you are able to attract them by large purses.
I do not know anything personally in regard to the amount of money the racing clubs give in the way of purses to encourage race-track enterprises in the Dominion, but I am going to quote again from the latter part of Dr. Rutherford's report, where he is referring to this aspect of the race-track enterprise. He says:
While, as shown elsewhere in this report, certain racing associations have been reasonably generous in the giving of special purses for Canadian-bred horses at the regular race meeting others have not distinguished themselves in that respect. It is, however, apparent that, notwithstanding the large profits which have accrued, there has been but little inclination on the part of any of them, to offer direct financial assistance to the horsebreeding industry.
It has been presented very forcibly by some hon. members in opposition to this resolution, that racing is almost absolutely necessary, if I understood them aright, for keeping up thoroughbred horses in the Dominion of Canada. And yet we find that in summing up his report Dr. Rutherford does not give the race club organizations very much credit for giving of the money that they took in to any great extent by way of purses for the sake of encouraging this enterprise.
Yesterday hon. members referred to the necessity of having betting on race-tracks properly regulated. I quote again from the remarks of the ex-Minister of Agriculture yesterday, where he says:
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.
To my mind, we are casting a reflection on the integrity, the honesty and the fidelity of the people of this great Dominion, if we intimate in any way that, if the people can-

Race-track Betting
not bet under regulated conditions, they are going to bet illegally behind closed doors. I have more faith in the people of the country than to assent to that suggestion. True, there may be, and is, illegal betting, but we know that crime goes on in spite of regulation. We have stringent regulations in regard to murder, theft and in a great many other things, anl yet these crimes go on, and the men who are guilty of those crimes are guilty of breaking the law. If betting is an evil and injurious to the best interests of the people, regardless of where it is carried on, whether in the closed room or on the race-track, the proper way to deal with it is to pass a law prohibiting it, so that it will be easy for men to do right and hard for them to do wrong. My judgment is that laws are made for the purpose of making it hard for men to do wrong, and easy for them to dip right. Take the case of the rattlesnake. How are you going to regulate that animal? I think there is just one way to regulate that very treacherous and dangerous reptile, and that is by cutting off its head. I believe that is just as true in regard to any social evil or any evil that has a tendency to divert men or women from straight paths of virtue and truthfulness, honesty and uprightness. As honest, truthful and faithful citizens of any country, if we are going to regulate those evils, the better way is to outlaw them rather than to try to legalize them as something honourable and something to be desired.


Mr. CANNON:: Does the hon. member see any difference between regulation and amputation?


Robert John Woods: In answer to the hon. member's question, I suppose there is a difference between regulation and amputation, but the way I would regulate a rattlesnake would be by amputation and the way I would regulate any evil in this country would be by amputation instead of regulation by law.' I would make it illegal.
Touching on the ethical side of this feature perhaps for a moment, what is gambling? Is it not the fact that people are trying to get something for nothing? A man goes into your stable and steals your horse. He goes there to get something for nothing, but he goes there breaking the law. A man puts his hand into your pocket and takes out your money. He is after something for nothing, he is trying to get your money without doing anything for it; but he is breaking the law. But when a man goes into the betting arena and takes part in betting, he is looking to get something from somebody else for nothing, without labouring for it. We hear a good deal sometimes about loafing on the job and not wanting to work for what we get and getting something for nothing; but to my mind, if there is in this country anything that is a means of getting something for nothing, it is the gambling method, and on that ground I am opposed to the betting system as carried on at the race-tracks.
I have under my hand some figures that I got from the report of Dr. Rutherford and from the exhibits in his office; but many of these figures were quoted yesterday by the hon. member (Mr. Good) who introduced this resolution, and therefore, I am not going to repeat them to-day. I want, however, to draw the attention of the House to the difference between the amount of money made by jockey clubs under the pari-mutuel system and what they had been making under the bookmaking system. In the Hamilton Jockey Club, in 1915, under bookmaking, they got $67,200. In 1916, under the parimutuel system, they got $182,825,50; that is for two meets. In 1917, for one meet which took place in that year, they got $173,429.05. In connection with the Windsor Jockey Club a similar jump took place. In 1914, under bookmaking, they got $81,150, under the parimutuel system, in 1915, they got $196,650.50; in 1916, $300,332,25; and in 1917, $159,779.94. Therefore, under this improved method, as I suppose it will be called, of pari-mutuel betting, the clubs receive a larger amount of money than they did under the old bookmaking system. The Niagara Racing Association at Fort Erie, in 1914, under bookmaking, got $64,344; in 1915, under the parimutuel system, they got $131,988.55. This represents an enormous sum of money, when we take into consideration the amount of money that goes out of the pockets of those who take part in the betting and goes onto the race track for the purpose of betting, for these amounts represent possibly only about 5 per cent of all the money that passes through these machines. A club is allowed to take, on a sliding scale, from seven to three per cent, so that possibly 5 per cent would be a fair estimate of the amount of money that a club receives in this way through the machine betting. I am opposed to the betting system for the reason that it is a system whereby men try to get something without working for it, or something for nothing.
I am also opposed to it, because, as we understand the matter, it is not in the best interest of the home. In connection with betting, an hon. member yesterday referred to
Rac.e-track Belting

the boys and girls. The boys and girls are the greatest asset this country has, and if we are going to safeguard them, we want to safeguard them to the very fullest extent by removing from them as far as possible every opportunity for indulging in anything that would have a tendency to draw them away. I believe gambling is a social evil. We believe in the social qualities of our human nature; we believe in social life; we believe in good healthy enjoyment, recreation and sport; we believe in all that kind of thing; but when these social enterprises go to the extent of being an evil, then it is time that we should rise up in opposition to them. My honest conviction is that betting, no matter how it is done, is a social evil, and we want to discourage it to the fullest extent in every regard, in every place and in every way, and to legislate so far as possible against that evil. There is something of the sensational in those gambling and betting affairs. There is something that appeals to the sensational feature in human nature.


Mr VIEN:: Would the hon. member stop, by legislation, everything that is sensational in this world?


Robert John Woods: No. I would not try to legislate to stop everything that is sensational; but at the same time, I would, so far as possible, stop an evil that was sensational and that appealed to what I might call the baser elements of our human nature.


Mr VIEN:: If what the hon. member considers to be a social evil is, in the minds of others, not so, why should he impose upon others his method of viewing the thing?


Robert John Woods: I think I have read in the Book that is the comer-stone of the foundation of our Christian civilization, something like this, that "in the last days perilous times shall come, for men shall be lovers of pleasure, more than lovers of God." I want to tell hon. gentleman that along that line we should guard the social side of our nature.
I was glad to hear from the minister (Sir Lomer Gouin) the idea of giving provincial autonomy in regal'd to these things. I would be quite favourable to that. I think it is right that the provinces should have provincial autonomy in regard to social matters. If that Were the case each province could deal with these matters as it saw fit. Let me say in conclusion that I am heartily in sympathy with the proposed resolution, as indeed I am with any resolution that tends to safeguard the youth of this land. I have here an extract which I might read to the House ;and which has some bearing on the subject

under consideration. It is taken from the Detroit Globe of January 9, 1923.
Harry W. Reynolds' penchant for the "ponies" resulted in a divorce for his wife, Irene, granted by Judge Marschner to-day.
"The races even marred our honeymoon," Mrs. Reynolds told the court.


Mr. RINFRET:: That is sensational.


Lucien Cannon: That man had no horse
sense.


Robert John Woods: The Reynoldses were married in September, 1920. The races were on in Toronto, the young wife said, and Reynolds suggested they take in the sport on their honeymoon. They did. But-
"Our honeymoon was short-lived. My husband lost all our money on the 'ponies' and I had to wire to a friend in Detroit for $50, enough to get back home on."
Mrs. Reynolds said her husband gave her but $20 during their married life.


Charles Marcil: I listened with much interest to the debate in connection with the Miller bill some years ago and also to the debate on the measure relating to Sunday observance, and I quite agree with the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) that the solution brought about in those cases was as equitable as this parliament could devise, of leaving the observance of the act to the control of each province. An amendment was inserted by the Senate, and the final solution was a happy disposition of a rather delicate question, as the views of the Sabbath differed in some provinces. They were different in Ontario and Quebec and in the Maritime and western provinces. We happily found a solution of the difficulty in leaving any infraction of the act to be dealt with by the attorney general of each province. The same is done to a certain extent with the horse-racing problem which was discussed so fully at the time of the Miller Bill. Any province in Canada can license horse-racing out of business at any time by merely putting the license so high as to be prohibitive. I understand that the race-track owners went to Toronto-I do not know whether it was last year or the year before-and discussed the matter with the provincial treasurer, who was desirous-even anxious-of putting the license fee as high as $10,000 a day. After some bargaining, however, he reduced it to $7,500. Now, the province of Ontario reaps some $4,000,000 out of horse-racing.


Mr. BROWN:: Would it not raise a constitutional point if the license fee were fixed so high as to be prohibitive.?


Charles Marcil: The lawyers, I think, say not. I am not a lawyer, however, so I can-

Race-track Betting
not answer that point. I have no doubt that the province of Ontario has made good use of the money it has obtained through horseracing; and I know that the province of Quebec, which gets $800,000, or $900,000, applies this money, under legislation, entirely to charitable institutions. Now, horse-racing is as old as the world; the old Greeks and Romans enjoyed it. And to-day it is a universal sport. What we should do, I think, is to regulate this sport, and the system adopted in Canada is the same as that which has worked splendidly in France and all the leading countries of Europe, except England, that is, the pari-mutuel system. The point this House has to decide is whether the present legislation we have can be in any way improved. Section 235 has been amended so often that it is questionable whether it is capable of further amendment without being wiped out altogether. The House has heard, through the Minister of Justice, from the Attorney General of Ontario. The Attorney General of Ontario does not ask that we do away with the present system; he asks for certain amendments. And I am glad to know that the Minister of Justice will press these amendments on his colleagues and bring down a government measure to do away with the obnoxious advertising features in connection with the horse-racing business. But I do not believe in trying to impose upon people such legislation as will inevitably be brought into contempt.	The	law to	be observed must	berespected;	and	unless	it is backed up	bypublic opinion it will fail of its purpose. The views on horse-racing may have been expressed truly by our hon. friends from the West. But the provincial governments of the West	have	it in	their own hands	to
license these people out of business by making the license fee so high as to render the business unprofitable. Those who read the Ciitzen this morning no doubt saw a despatch from Montreal stating that the oldest racecourse in Quebec, which has gathered together the cream of society and the leading people in our province for a generation, is going out of business because it has been a losing investment from the start. Wealthy men put their money into it for the sport of the thing and to encourage horse breeding. But it has not proved a paying business. I hear that the same state of affairs exists in connection with Connaught Park near Ottawa The leading citizens of the capital invested money in that concern too, on which they have had no returns. We learn from the French government that one of the greatest assets which France possessed at the opening
of the war was its remarkable supply of cavalry horses, which had been brought to their state of perfection through the encouragement given by the French government to horse breeding because of the revenues obtained through the operation of the pari-mutuel on the racecourses in France. I have not been convinced that any new reason has been advanced for a radical change in this matter. We are all trying to make the world better; that is our mission; and we would all wish that the world were what it was intended to be. But we must not pass legislation which will certainly fail of its purpose and of which no good can come. Having heard the explanation given by the Minister of Justice, and in view of the position of the Attorney General of Ontario, and the fact that this is a legal question, I am compelled to vote against the resolution before the House.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: When the Minister of Justice was speaking I did not quite catch all his remarks. Did I understand him to say that he was willing to do away with the pari-mutuel system, and advertising and the giving of all information in connection with race-track gambling?


Lomer Gouin: No. I said I was prepared to recommend to my colleagues that we should embody in a government measure the substance of the amendments suggested by the Attorney General of Ontario in regard to advertising.


John Livingstone Brown: Would the Minister of Justice venture an opinion as to the powers of the province to fix a prohibitive license fee?


Lomer Gouin: No, but we will
amend the code to the effect suggested by the Attorney General of Ontario.


John Livingstone Brown: My question was as to the power of the province to levy a prohibitive license fee.


Sir LOMER  GOLTIN@: I do not see any objection; there is no limit to the jurisdiction of the province.


Mr. E. J. SEXSMITH (Lennox and Addington) :: Mr. Speaker, so much has been said both for and against the principles enunciated in this resolution that scarcely anything remains to be added. Therefore, beyond expressing my own attitude in the most unequivocal language, I have very little to say. I have watched from time to time with keen interest the attitude of parliament towards questions that are vitally important to our standards of citizenship or morality, and I have observed ' two entirely opposite schools of thought. One
Race-track Betting

seems to base its argument on the value of the dollar; the other on the value of citizenship. As I have always found myself sympathetic towards the latter I am obliged to support the resolution, although to my mind it may be a bit drastic.
Very full statistics have been presented during the course of this debate showing the profits of race-track gambling to those concerned in it-to the individual, to the company, and even to the province. Facts have also been adduced showing the baneful effects of race-track gambling upon our citizenship. I need not repeat the arguments based on these facts and figures, for they are before the minds of hon. gentlemen; I would only suggest that all social customs are judged by the effects they produce. It is not very difficult, therefore to estimate their value or the reverse. And in regard to race-track gambling, it may be safely said that its so-called benefits are mixed pretty generously with injustice and degeneracy.
I would be sorry indeed to have 5 p.m. Canadians get the impression that parliament is in any way indifferent to social questions of paramount importance. Of course, great caution must be taken in enacting restrictive legislation; extremes are to be avoided; but good statesmanship always avoids extremes. On the other hand, it is dangerous to yield to the much talked of principle of individual liberty of action. Our whole criminal code in many instances is based on the very sound maxim that such individual liberty of action is not always permissible, and may conceivably be decidedly dangerous to the community.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I humbly urge parliament to in some way put greater restrictions on this particular menace which threatens our very civilization; for no nation can rise above its standard of morality.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak to this resolution, but in view of the attitude of certain hon. members towards this very important national question, I must do my duty and at least declare my stand in regard to what I consider to be of the highest moral as well as economic importance.
Our young people have held out to them the prospect of getting rich quick through gambling-of winning something for which they give no equivalent. The very idea is demoralizing and brings in its train untold evils. Young men, yes, and young women too, are induced to risk their all on something which is purely chance. Gambling, I know, [Mr SexsmithJ
is latent in humanity, and those who make their living by this vicious practice are generally adepts in reading human nature. A very small beginning is sufficient to start one on the downward road, the game of chance being extremely fascinating, and it is not long before young men and women find their earnings too small to satisfy their cravings to wager on bigger and bigger chances. Unfortunately, too often this leads to their appropriating the funds of their employers, fully intending, of course, to replace the money in the near future, but the more they wager on these so-called sure things the more they lose. Then what? They abscond and too often they commit suicide. I know whereof I speak. I have in mind two valuable lives snuffed out- suicides from gambling losses. Therefore I cannot treat this matter as lightly as some hon. members on the other side of the House appear to do.
To me it is folly to talk of controlling such an evil. It cannot be controlled in all its ramifications. I think it is a serious matter indeed that we as a nation should countenance such a national evil by giving it legal sanction. The pari-mutuel business has been made unlawful in Great Britain, and those engaged in it are looked upon as rogues and vagabonds. In nearly all the states of the Union the practice is criminal, and those engaged in it have been driven hither and thither-mostly to Canada. Is this country, then, to become a haven of refuge for such characters, in whose train vices of all kinds follow? All commercial concerns know the baneful effect of betting upon their employees. A senior official of the Civil Service in this city is responsible for the statement that the Civil Service itself is honeycombed with betting. Now, that surely brings this evil pretty close home to every hon. member who cares anything for the uplift of our national character.
It is strange that some hon. members fail to realize the evils of race track gambling, and it is stranger still that public men can be found to uphold such a practice. Even if moral reasons fail to appeal, surely economic reasons should be considered when deciding our attitude in regard to this resolution. The Quebec Board of Trade on its own initiative passed a resolution asking for the suppression of this curse.


Thomas Vien: Would the hon. member tell me the date of that resolution? We have never heard of it in Quebec. The resolution must have been passed elsewhere.


John Evans: It is a fact, nevertheless. I had it on the authority of Dr. Shearer.

Race-track Betting


Thomas Vien: I think his authority is badly founded. We never heard of it, and I doubt very much whether such a resolution was passed.


John Evans: Because the hon. gentleman has not heard of it is no proof that it does not exist.


Thomas Vien: We will try to have it repealed if it has been passed.


John Evans: I am positive it was passed, and it was passed on economic grounds, "in the interests of business integrity and prosr perity," to quote their own words. The manufacturers of British Columbia also passed a similar resolution, purely for business reasons. They had lost money. Many employees had gone wrong through this practice, and for . economic reasons alone they thought it was time to call a halt. The retail merchants too of British Columbia passed a similar resolution; so did the merchants of the city of Windsor. They did it purely for business reasons. I do not think that hon. members of this House who oppose this resolution have really any idea of the extent to which this evil is carried on. It was calculated that in 1921 no less than $75,000,000 was wasted on the twenty-odd tracks in this country along with the races at some of the exhibitions.


Lucien Cannon: How does that amount
compare with the amount bet on the stock market during the same year?


Thomas Vien: Or on the grain exchange.


John Evans: I do not see the connection at all.


Lucien Cannon: I do.


John Evans: The hon. member will have a chance to get the floor after I am through. This great sum was wasted too at a time of unemployment and trade depression, the worst known in the history of Canada. The whole trend of the practice is towards embezzlement, and a number of men of fine abilities and possibilities have had to serve long terms in penitentiaries in consequence of indulging in betting. I say that it is no wonder that manufacturers and retailers have passed resolutions against it, for legitimate business is dislocated through the involvement of such a large sum of money. Credit has to be substituted for cash. Employees are absorbed in racing to the neglect of their own work.
The mails of this country are being used to distribute baneful literature containing racing information; they are ilsed to carry sheets such as the Racing Form. I think the use of the mails for this purpose should be prohibited. The hon. member for Victoria City
(Mr. Tolmie) speaking yesterday of the Connaught Park races here, said that they were run simply for the sport of racing. I have it here on authority that while these races are on, the Civil Service in this city is practically disorganized-


Mr. POWER:: Then let us appeal to the Civil Service Commission.


John Evans: *-and it is har'd to get work done. I also think that his argument that betting is essential to the breeding of horses is most unreasonable. It is unreasonable from an economic standpoint, and unreasonable as well from a moral point of view. If there is any industry in this country that depends on the weaknesses of human nature for its success, upon the debasing of character with all the attendant evils of betting, I think the sooner such a business is abolished the better for all.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that I had stated that the breeding of horses depended on betting?


John Evans: I said racing.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: What I did say was that you could not conduct races and pay large enough purses to induce horse owners to compete unless you had the betting along with it.


John Evans: I understood the hon. member to include both, Here are his words:
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.
He says that these people should be protected. By protection in this case I suppose he means that we should establish by law a practice the very nature of which is debasing. He says these people have a right to ask this of the government, but he says not a word about the rights of those whose lives are ruined by this debasing practice, of the women and children .whose very lives are blighted through this curse.
The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) with some others sees no harm in extracting revenue from this debasing source, to be expended on public improvements. This means of obtaining revenue in my opinion, is the very lowest kind that we could adopt by legislation. I think it is a most unintelligent way of obtaining revenue. It is debasing alike to every citizen of the nation or provinces where it is practised, and
Race-track Betting

I hope to see the day when the affairs of this country will be run on the lines of equity and right, when no evil thing will be countenanced bylaw for the sake of revenue.
In answer to the hon. Minister of Justice, that this should be left to the provinces, I say that we should have a national law. He says that there are no new arguments. No, the old qnes are quite sufficient, and they will come up in all their force time after time until some kind of prohibition is adopted. I do not think that this House has a right to look to Dr. Rutherford, even, as the dictator of the moral standing of this nation. I certainly shall vote for this resolution, and I hope to see more favourable consideration of it.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to make a few remarks on this resolution before the vote is taken. I want to say at the outset that I am going to vote for the resolution. I ana going to do so_ for two particular reasons, and I hope without offence to those who think differently from me. It is largely I find, Mr. Speaker, a matter of how we have been brought up how we look upon questions such as this that we are discussing this afternoon. I have been brought up to look upon gambling, whether on the race-track or elsewhere, as fundamentally wrong, without one redeeming feature. Now then, Mr. Speaker, am I at my time of life going to make myself over again and think otherwise? I may add that my constituents-and I think I can speak for Saskatchewan as a whole-do not want to see legalized gambling on the racetracks established in that new land. It exists there to a small extent, but the time to nip these things is in the bud, not after large vested interests have been established when the plea ii? put up that the capital must receive from the state the protection that it is entitled to or supposed to be entitled to. Therefore I take the ground that now is the time to move in this matter as regards not only Saskatchewan but the entire prairie country.
The question has been raised as to whether there is any demand for this legislation or not, and attention has been drawn to the fact that there is no agitation for it in the Maritime provinces. Well, the records go to show that there are no gambling institutions of this nature in that part of Canada-no gambling associations, nor even a jockey club-therefore the people there are quite content the way the matter stands because it does not affect them. However, the records demonstrate that the practice is reasonably well established in the older provinces-in Ontario and Quebec

and also in British Columbia-but has only gained a slight footing in the new provinces on the prairie. I must say that it was a matter of considerable surprise to me, when I was first asked to assume the responsibility of administering the Department of Agriculture, to find that this to me doubtful practice of gambling was so unequally yoked with the ancient and respectable business of agriculture and that I was to administer the whole of it. Well, I have done so to the best of my ability, and if we are going to have gambling on race-tracks and its supervision is to be attached to some department, possibly the Department of Agriculture is the one to which it may more properly be allied. At the same time I feel somewhat embarrassed sometimes at having to administer this kind of business with which I am so unfamiliar.
Now what do the records show with respect to this matter? The government of Sir Robert Borden in 1917, in the midst of the war, took the ground that if Canada was to do her best in that war she could not afford to dissipate her resources to the extent she was then doing in the matter of gambling on race-tracks, and the practice was prohibited by order in council in that year. That prohibition, if my memory serves me, continued up to 1920. Why? Because the country could not afford to spend such a large amount of money in that kind of pleasure at that particular time. Well, Mr. Speaker, can we, from a purely material standpoint, afford to do it now? Is there any evidence that the situation is any better financially? Can we not employ all our money to better advantage than by dissipating it in this way

not only the money but the time and the thought of the people? And, to some extent, every man that makes easy money deters others from honest toil and honest labour and makes them dissatisfied. It does not matter how the easy money is made-whether in real estate speculation or in any other form of gambling or in any other way. It disturbs others who are engaged in earning their living by honest toil; and if for no other reason than that I would oppose this practice at this time. Because, if there is one idea more than another that we want to inculcate among our people it is the fact that there is only one way to make good in this world, only one way to make a living, and that is by honest industry faithfully and intelligently applied. Gambling weakens that idea and places its realization further away; there is no question about that. We can recall, during the time when real estate gambling was at its height, that when many men who were tilling the soil and making their living in a laborious way on the farm

Race-track Bettinfi
heard of some useless fellow who had bought some real estate and made a big chunk of easy money out of it, they were more or less disturbed ; and there is no question but that the same remark applies to gambling too. Therefore I say that now, to as great an extent as in 1917, we cannot afford to dissipate
our activities, our money, our time, and our thought in these questionable practices.
Now let me refer to the official records as I find them. Up to 1921 the amount of betting that had been placed through the pari-mutuel had been increasing year by year, but I will only give the figures for 1921 and 1922.
Racing Statistics bt Districts for the Racing Season of 1921
District	No. of associations	No. of meetings	No. of days racing	Gate receipts	Amounts wagered	Parimutuel receipts retained by racing associations	Total p.m. and gate receipts retained by racing associations	Prize money	Percentage of gate and p.m. receipts paid as prize money	Cost of supervision$ cts.	$	$ cts.	$ cts.	$	PC.	$9	18	125	349,403 15	12,402,389	851,023 28	1,200,426 43	570,850	47	7,365S	16	112	2,001,215 10	56,818,594	1,917,780 71	3,918,995 81	1,147,850	29	7,245Prairie Provinces	6	7	26	42,444 25	318,106	24,835 32	67,279 57	54,100	80	1,525British Colum-	bia	3	6	42	115,725 90	5,571,462	370,355 98	486,081 88	144,650	30	2,165Dominion...	26	47	305	2,508,788 40	75,110,551	3,163,996 29	5,672,783 69	1,917,450	33	18,300
Racing Statistics by Districts for the Racing Season of 1922
District	No. of associations	No. of meetings	No. of days racing	Gate receipts	Amounts wagered	Parimutuel receipts retained by racing associations	Total p.m. and gate receipts retained by racing associations	Prize money	Percentage of gate and p.m. receipts paid as prize money	Cost of supervision$ cts.	$	S cts.	$ cts.	$	pc.	s9	17	119	268,490 90	10,699,182	731,291 75	999,782 65	518.500	52	6,797 308	16	112	1,616,615 45	44,249,242	1,659,683 52	3,276,298 97	1,141,300	35	6,610 88Prairie Provinces	7	9	38	98,197 97	857,523	64,833 16	163,031 13	83,350	51	1,142 85British Colum-	bia	2	4	28	134,722 55	4,059,676	261,417 83	396,140 38	104,600	26	1,340 00Dominion...	26	46	297	2,118,026 87	59,865,623	2,717,226 26	4,785,253 13	1,847,750	38	15,891 03
I may say that the Department of Agriculture has a certain control over the amount of prize money that is awarded, this being taken out of the profits of the racing association. It will be noticed that a column is devoted to the amounts paid out in prize money. Another column gives the percentages of gate and pari-mutuel receipts paid as prize money. As to the cost of supervision by the department, a certain sum is levied by it on each day of racing, amounting to $60, and that covers the cost of supervision.


John Livingstone Brown: Is there anything which comes directly to the Dominion to pay the cost of that supervision?


William Richard Motherwell: No, except by a voluntary arrangement between the federal authority and the racing associations by -which they contribute $60 a day for the cost of supervision. A number of policemen are set aside for that work, they exercise close supervision and I must say that I think the business is conducted properly. As my hon. friend knows, it is not just exactly a Sunday school association meeting, competent police officials have to be there to see that the business is conducted properly, and I think, as far as humanly possible, it is conducted properly. It is well supervised.
But the point I wish to discuss is the proposition: Can we afford to dissipate this amount of money at this time? I am only taking the lowest possible viewpoint in discussing this matter. I have this year's figures, and I may say that the very pronounced levy by the provincial authorities in Ontario is discouraging the business, because the total falls from the round figure of $75,000,000 in 1921 to an aggregate amount wagered throughout all Canada of $59,869,000 in 1922, or a drop of $15,000,000. This is taken to indicate that the wagering public is discouraged, because there is less to be distributed to them, as a
Race-track Betting

result of the amount taken, first by the association, aproximately 5 per cent, and, second, the amount taken by the provincial government in Ontario, and, to a smaller extent, the amount taken by the provincial government of Quebec. In Ontario the amount taken from the two sources is about 10 per cent of the total wagering. That means that only 90 per cent-90 cents out of each dollar -is distributed to those who put their money into it. If that process is continued sufficiently long, you can see that the man who goes to the races and puts his money into the pari-mutuel, receiving 10 per cent less each time, that after ten such transactions his money will all disappear, if he loses every time. But it is a perfectly safe business from the standpoint of the association, because they get their levy first. The provincial government and the racing association get their levy by law, and that comes off the total.


Lucien Cannon: Where does the rest go?


William Richard Motherwell: To the wagerer-you and I-the bettors.	,


Lucien Cannon: How can the hon. member say the money is dissipated?


William Richard Motherwell: In this way: 10
per cent of it is dissipated and goes into a non-productivs enterprise.


Lucien Cannon: The government.


William Richard Motherwell: As far as this government is concerned, it does not, because we do not get it. We have no interest in what any other government gets. The 5 per cent goes to help keep the association going and if you bet frequently enough, your money will all go that way. That 10 per cent is taken off each time it goes through the machine. There is no question about that. We cannot spend our money in these avenues and have it at the same time to spend on productive enterprises. That is the proposition from a straight business standpoint. I take the ground, knowing something of the difficulties of financing at the present time, that we can spend our money to better advantage than in the proposition I have outlined.
I have a few notes in my hand with respect to some remarks made yesterday by hon. members that were exceedingly painful to listen to. I refer to the excuses made for continuing the practice of gambling. I have no objection to the man who takes the ground "I want to gamble," but I have an objection to the man who wants to sugar coat the pill, and wants to justify it with a lot of camouflage on the ground that we are going to de-
TMr. Motherwell.]
velop the horse-breeding industry or something of that kind. I have not a word to say to those who want to gamble. They have just as much right to take that ground as I have to take the opposite ground, but I think no good thing comes out of gambling, taking the net results. I have read speeches about gambling, but I never expected to hear what we will have to call, by courtesy, arguments such as were advanced yesterday in justification of gambling. I have read of such things, but I thought a lot of these antediluvian ideas had gone to rest, because we have not heard of them for a number of years.
I should like to say a word in commendation of the report of Dr. Rutherford. I sat on a live stock commission myself with him. I know him to be an exceedingly capable man, and I think a just man, but I ask hon. members, is a man who is admittedly predisposed in favour of race-tracks, just as I am predisposed against them, a proper man to investigate a matter of this kind, or would either of us be fit men to deal with the question? I am quite sure if I were called on a jury in connection with this matter I would be challenged because my bringing up is against racetracks, and I would not be able to give a fair presentation of all sides of the case. I feel the same way with respect to Dr. Rutherford, but in saying that I am not saying anything disparaging of him. I am putting him in the same category as myself. I can remember quite well that in the province of Saskatchewan we thought we were making an advance when we authorized and recommended parimutuel machines at the exhibitions in that province, as a vast improvement on the old bookmaking method of betting, but the world moves in respect to these matters. I can remember when it was thought to be a great forward movement when we had local option in the liquor traffic. But Canada was not satisfied with that. She moved on, and is moving on now in reference to restrictions regarding gambling. What was all right ten years ago or even two years ago, with regard to pari-mutuels is not necessarily what Canada wants to-day. She wants further restriction. What we had ten years ago was sufficient for that day, but the public conscience of the country, so far as the West is concerned, is very much against commercialized gambling on the race-track.
The argument has been advanced: What is the use of legislating against gambling when you cannot carry your legislation into effect? If that argument is carried to its logical conclusion, it will apply to anything and every-

Race-track Betting
thing. What is the use of legislating against murder? What is the use of legislating against bawdy houses, or against any form of wrong doing, because forsooth, you cannot carry it into effect? If that argument prevailed we should open up the door as wide as a barn door, and throw all restraint to the winds. That is the logic of it. It is not an argument at all against it; if it is wrong, it is wrong, and it is our duty to legislate and to see that our law enforcement officers carry out the law as far as humanly possible, but if you preach the doctrine of legislative inaction on the ground that the law cannot be carried out, you simply cut the foundation from all law enforcement throughout Canada. We also cast disrespect upon ourselves and upon the laws of this country by whispering such an admission as that.
Then the doctrine was enunciated by my good friend whom I respect so highly, the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) -and it did pain me to hear him do it-that these investments should be protected. That is to say, this business having continued so long and great strings of horses, stables and race-tracks, having been established, it is not fair to those who have invested their money that their investment should be jeopardised by the prohibition of this practice. If we look back into history, we shall find that old cry, "Our craft is in danger," right from the time of Demetrius the silversmith onward. From his day to the present "Our craft is in danger" has been the cry in an attempt to justify the continuance of a practice that we know to be doubtful, if not actually wrong. Why, Demetrius would be at the job of making idols yet, if we took the ground that we must keep a man in his job regardless of the results. No, if a thing is wrong, it is wrong and the excuse or the reason advanced that we should protect money when invested in a wrong business will not hold water. I admit that my hon. friend made an exceedingly good presentation of an equally exceedingly bad case. I am prepared to compliment him to that extent; but just because he made such a good presentation, I feel it is my duty to show where the weak points of that case lie.
As regards my hon. friend's reference to Great Britain, I think the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) dealt sufficiently with that phase of the question. His covenanting disposition could not listen longer to the economic-almost religious-heresies that had been enunciated by my good friend the member for Victoria City. To associate the development of Great Britain, its civilisation,
its Christianity and the extent of its teaching of the Bible in any way with race-track gambling-I can remember the old Scotch covenanting people of the Maritime provinces and, indeed, throughout Canada looked upon it as almost sacrilege to mention these things in the same breath. I know quite well this was not meant so; but nevertheless it grated terribly on the ears of some of us, and I want to dissociate myself from any such arguments as that enunciated by my hon. friend, I am sure, quite unintentionally.. No, Great Britain is great in spite of these weaknesses of hers. That is the proper argument.
In regard to the question of horsebreeding,
I remember Dr. Rutherford advanced that argument, and on the face of it, it seems somewhat plausible until you inquire into it., I did not understand the hon. member for Victoria City to take the ground that thoroughbred animals could be used to improve the horsebreeding business generally throughout Canada. I think I am right in, that. But, at the same time, the argument has been used, in such a suggestive sort of way, that the thoroughbred has done so much good in the past. There is no question about the part which the thoroughbred has played during the last three or four hundred years in developing the various breeds in Great Britain. If I remember rightly, the thoroughbred was traced away back to Arabian horses, and it has come down to the present day. But certain strains have been introduced into many of the breeds of Great Britain and from there through Canada, just as the blood of the old longhorn cattle and even some of the black cattle has influenced the development of the present day shorthorn. All these have played their part in bringing down to us the various breeds of to-day. We can go into the plant world if you like. We know that what was called Abundance oats has a cross of wild oats in it to give it earlier maturity. But nobody is going to advocate the sowing of wild oats because there is a strain of wild oats in the variety know as Abundance. So, while the thoroughbred horse has played a great part in the past in developing the breeds of Great Britain, its work in that respect is done, and we cannot cross it with any of the various breeds of Canada without interfering with the right to registration. It can, of course, be used for building up remount stations; but how much attention do we desire to devote to that at this time? Hon. members know what the House felt like last year when we spoke of warlike expenditure, even in regard to ordinary defence or aircraft or the navy'. We cannot spent! much
Race-track Betting

money on remount stations. There is, however, a considerable sale for these animals, and because of that some attention is being paid to them; but so far as I can make out by the approximate estimates I have, the number of purebred stallions in Canada is about 9,000. Of that there are only 300 thoroughbreds, and we know that they are not used indiscriminately throughout Canada, but just in selected places where people want to raise saddle horses or hunters or remounts. That is the extent to which the thoroughbred can be utilised to develop the horsebreeding industry, so far as I understand the matter.


Lucien Cannon: As Minister of Agriculture does my hon. friend think that the abolition of horse-racing would interfere with the holding of agricultural fairs?


William Richard Motherwell: That is a matter of education on the part of the people. I believe at the present time some agricultural fairs prohibit horse-racing entirely. Some take the ground that they must have a certain amount of recreation and pastime, we have what are called the midway and general platform sports. In the East I believe they feel that horse-racing is required in order to secure the maximum revenue. But if maximum revenue is the chief consideration, probably for a year or two the revenues would shrink by the abolition of horse-racing. You cannot have the thing both ways.
Let me continue with regard to the question of the effect upon breeding horses. I think I had almost concluded that point. I am willing to pay a tribute to the thoroughbred horse for what it has done to the various breeds in England and also in Canada, although its work in Canada has not been done directly, but has come down to us by importations in the past. But that work has been accomplished, and now it is confined only to the very restricted activities to which I have already referred.
I take the ground, when you strip this business of gambling from all the verbiage surrounding it, you have to defend it, in the last analysis, on its merits. There is no other way. I can recall the time when the fight against the liquor traffic was at its height. It used to be defended on the ground that it was associated with hotel accommodation, and people w'ould argue: "Well,' if we abolish the bar, we shall not have hotel accommodation." They had the two matters connected together and you could not get a straight [DOT] test vote as regards the abolition

of the bar. So, we have this question of race-track gambling surrounded with a halo oi glory inherited from the performances of the thoroughbred in former ages and people point to the accomplishments of the past as a justification for the continuance of racetrack gambling. In my time I have seen horse races where there was no gambling. Surely, we do not appreciate the beauty and glory of the horse, if we take the ground that there will be no racing if the gambling feature is taken away. That is tantamount to making the statement that if any other domestic animal you could think of were put on a race-track, as long as you could bet on it, the business would be just as successful as if the racing were done by horses. I take exception to that. There is no other domestic animal known that creates admiration to such an extent as the horse. We have found as a matter of fact, from experience, that horse-racing can be and has been developed to a very considerable extent without the supplemental aid of commercial betting.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Will the minister mention
some of the tracks where such unaided racing has been carried on successfully from year to year?


William Richard Motherwell: The race-tracks did not try to carry on under that condition; they simply suspended their operations. It is a pretty difficult matter to make comparisons in this connection. The race-track people, when the order in council was passed in 1917, took it as an intimation from parliament that they were required to stop the whole business, and they did stop. I think they felt that the conscience of the country was against not only the expense involved but the business itself at that particular juncture in our history.
I now come to the last note I took on the subject, and that is the suggestion of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) with which I entirely agree, namely, that if we are to have further prohibition with respect to race-track gambling as well as to every other form of gambling-and, mark ycu, we have gone out of our way to legalize gambling on race-tracks while it is prohibited in other directions-then we should adopt it on a provincial basis. I want to say frankly that while I feel strongly on the question myself I should not feel justified in taking the attitude in the West that we should impose our will, even if we could, on the old established institutions of the eastern provinces; nor should I like to see the older provinces impose their views on the newer provinces that know very little about

Race-track Betting
the business but feel that it would lead to disastrous results. Last year we adopted that principle of tolerance with respect to the abolition of export houses in the seven dry provinces of Canada, and it went through the House with almost unanimous consent. There was no vote upon it, although there was some discussion. The right to deal with the export houses was conceded to the seven dry provinces and they can exercise that right. One province has taken advantage of it and another province, Alberta, is on the point of doing so. It seems to me that there is an avenue of solution whereby we can all get our own way provincially. And this principle can be worked out more satisfactorily i'i connection with race-track gambling than it can as applied to the export houses. The baneful effects of the liquor business can be felt all over the country, through some extraordinary process, notwithstanding the law. But with regard to race-meetings it is confined largely to the particular locality. I know there is a system to which my hon. friends refer, whereby, if you look around, you can get a bet in Ottawa, say, on a racemeeting in Kentucky. If that is so, and I have no doubt it is, it can be legislated against. But the point I wish to make is that although we feel strongly on this question, I am sure my hon. friends to my right would not wish to impose their modern view's upon us with respect to race-track gambling, nor would we impose our old-fashioned views upon them. That is reciprocity, and w'e all believe in that principle. In the multitude of counsellors, we are told, there is wisdom; and there is no reason why this solution should not be invoked as successfully in this matter as it was in the other case last year. In the meantime I shall vote for the resolution.


John Pritchard: I rise to support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). The matter has been pretty well debated and I think the debate has been largely onesided. There are one or two comments which have been made to which I might reply for the benefit of those who are opposed to the resolution. Some hon. gentlemen opposite claim the moral right to do as they please in this matter, and I feel that they have a moral right to their views so long as they do not interfere with the liberties of other people. Our friends opposite sometimes accuse us of wishing to prohibit other people from doing what they want to do. On the other hand, we as farmers do not want to be injured in any way by men in the racing business. I am something like the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell); while T have not suffered much from the evil influences of gambling, I would not want to see my sons buy fine horses and embark on the betting business or any other form of gambling. I do not think there is a banker in this country who wants to see one of his clerks engaged in race-track gambling, and undoubtedly that is the position of every other employer. The same thing might be said in regard to the liquor question. I believe that there is a certain amount of sincerity on the part of those who say that they have the right to a moderate use of liquor. But I do not think that a man has any right, while under the influence of liquor, to drive into Ottawa at the rate of thirty miles an hour regardless of whom he hurts. When he does so he interferes with the rights of other people and we have a right to legislate in the interests of the community at large. I happen to have been sent to parliament by a fairly representative body of people, and I should not be true to their wishes if I did not raise my voice in support of this resolution. I do not wish to detain the House on the question now, Mr. Speaker, and although there are several arguments which I might advance in support of it, as the subject has been fairly well covered, I shall not delay the progress of the House by any consideration of them.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. G. A. BRETHEN (East Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, stripped of its legal verbiage, what does this resolution proposed by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) ask for? Not that racing be stopped-racing, free from gambling, is a good, clean, inspiring, healthful sport. Not that private betting be interfered with-it cannot be legislated out of business; moral suasion alone must be relied on to do that. But as Britishers who love justice and fair play we ask that the business of betting on race-tracks be constituted a crime, as the business of betting off race-tracks is now and ever has been both in Canada and England constituted a crime; and that the pari-mutuel be prohibited as have the book-makers and the pool-sellers.
Before 1910 race-track betting was intended and supposed to be unlawful, and book-makers and pool-sellers were prosecuted. Some doubt, however, having been cast upon the validity of the law, in 1910 Mr. H. H. Miller, then representing South Grey, introduced into this House a bill to remedy some of the evils
Race-track Betting

of race-track gambling. The bill was referred to a select committee of the House, and after taking very exhaustive evidence from those opposed to and those in favour of race-track gambling, the committee recommended to the House the acceptance of the Miller Bill. The bill was debated for over two days, and was defeated by the narrow majority of one vote, there being seventy-eight in favour and seventy-seven against. Thereupon the business of betting by book-making, pool-selling and pari-mutuel received legal sanction, but racing meets were limited to fourteen days.
What happened? Racing meets rapidly multiplied; and the law being defective in prohibiting publication of betting odds and racing tips a general carnival of racing and an orgy of betting followed. So bad had conditions become that in 1917, during a critical period of the war, the government of the day, by virtue of the War Measures Act, and in the interests of economy, national welfare and morale, passed an order in council suppressing race-track betting until the close of the war. As a result racing was suspended, and the number of prosecutions against illegal betting houses rapidly declined.
In 1920 this order in council was rescinded and the government appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Dr. J. G. Rutherford to investigate race-track gambling. After a thorough and careful investigation this commission recommended that instead of suppressing race-track gambling the following restrictions be imposed, namely; that no bookmaking nor pool-selling be allowed; that parimutuels only be permitted; that a lower percentage of rake-off be allowed to jockey clubs; and that race-tracks be under the supervision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The government of the day incorporated these recommendations into a bill which became law in October, 1920. The effectiveness of this legislation can be judged by the returns for 1921, the first year of its operation. The amounts wagered on the race-tracks of Ontario during the first half of the year 1917 up to August 1, when the order in council came into force, was $12,500,000. During the year 1921, under effective restriction, the amoimt wagered in Ontario had grown to the enormous sum of $56,778,596; in Quebec to $10,852,000, and for the rest of Canada about $10,000,000; or a total of something like $75,000,000. With this increase in legalized race-track betting, we find the prosecutions for illegal betting keeping pace. In the year 1919, under restrictions, we find that prosecutions for illegal betting had fallen to the small total of five. In the . year 1920, after this order was annulled, the number had increased to 26, and

during the year 1921, under effective restriction, the number of prosecutions for keeping of illegal betting houses had increased to the number of 55. No stronger argument is needed to refute the assertion that the legalizing of race-track gambling under government regulation would do away with illegal betting, or that the suppression of legalized racetrack gambling would drive people to the pool rooms and the betting houses to satisfy their speculative desires.
The debate, Mr. Speaker, we believe hinges very largely on the question as to whether the suppression of race-track gambling or effective restriction will best advance the national welfare. Some hon. members are very strong in their views as to the value of effective restriction and the evils of suppression or prohibition. I was somewhat amused to hear the arguments of my hon. friend from Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) in this connection. If I remember correctly, in the province from which he comes they have a very live race problem, of a somewhat different nature. Only a few days ago a debate was begun in this House in support of a bill to better regulate oriental immigration. I think hon. meiri-bers will also remember the debate last session on a similar question, when the members from British Columbia cast all party affiliations to the winds and were a unit in demanding absolute exclusion of the oriental. Advancing by way of argument the international difficulties present, a member of the govern-' ment brought in an amendment substituting the words "effective restriction" for the word "exclusion". I believe that every hon. member from British Columbia, no matter where he sits in this House, voted against that amendment. The hon. member for Victoria City on that occasion asked: why do we hold out so strongly for the word "exclusion"? Simply because, he said, restriction in the past had failed to restrict. That a year's acquaintance with the working out of the policy of effective restriction has not proved satisfactory to those people most closely in touch with the situation is evidenced by the introduction at this session of a similar resolution, or rather a bill to provide for the exclusion of orientals. The supporters of this resolution on race-track gambling take very much the same attitude as was taken by every hon. member from British Columbia on their special race 'problem, and when we find men of the physical and mental breadth of the hon. member for Victoria City advocating effective restriction in the case of orientals, in which an international question is involved, and opposing effective restriction in the matter of race-

Race-Track Bettin/j
track gambling we are led to exclaim, Oh, consistency, thou art a jewel!
I was also rather amused with the amiable address given by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). His efforts were apparently directed to the reducing of the able argument of the mover of this motion (Mr. Good) to an absurdity and to accomplish this he travelled over a wide field ranging from silk socks to the Ten Commandments. He also introduced into this discussion the question of personal liberty. Without developing this idea at any length, I would like to make a few comments upon the relation of personal liberty to the welfare of the family, of the community, and of the nation. Only last evening with a few congenial friends I wended my way to the Arena, and there enjoyed a contest in skill, endurance and sportsmanship. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, every man of the twelve on the two opposing teams had very emphatic notions as to his personal rights and personal liberties, but I noticed in addition to the twelve men on the opposing teams, there were two other men whose business it seemed to be to teach every member of those two teams the fact that his personal liberty was subservient to that of the other members on the teams and also to the rules of the game.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Would not that be an example of regulating the game and not prohibiting it?


George Arthur Brethen: I think it was a question of regulating, all right. If a man proceeded harmlessly to kick the puck with his skate he was promptly called back, or if he gave an opposing player the butt end of his stick, even in retaliation, he was promptly benched. Even that little piece of black rubber on the ice had apparently certain rights and precedence over the rights of the players. The player at all times had to give the right of precedence to Miss Puck, or be promptly called offside. My hon. friend has no doubt observed that in the operation of his automobile there are also certain restrictions upon personal liberty. There are certain conditions of traffic to which the driver of an automobile must conform; the rate of speed is limited to a certain mileage. The law says, "Thou shalt not drive on the wrong side of the street; thou shalt not pass a waiting street car." In the Ten Commandments, which I am glad to know my hon. friend makes the rule of his living, there is the prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" and there are other things which affect his personal liberty.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Is there in the Ten Commandments the prohibition "Thou shalt not bet"?


George Arthur Brethen: No, but there is this admonition "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods." To argue for personal liberty is to argue for something that sounds ideal, but when personal liberty is gained at the sacrifice of family happiness, or community or national welfare, the person presenting the argument assumes a rather cheap position and the argument itself is scarcely worthy of any serious consideration. We are told in the Holy Writ "Whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant." What is asked for in this resolution is that the law be made consistent, that the business of betting on race-tracks be made a crime as has already been done in the case of betting off racetracks ; that pari-mutuel machines be prohibited as book making and pool selling have been prohibited.
Why do we ask for this? I have heard some hon. members stress the fact that betting is permitted in England. I would like to point out that betting by pari-mutuel machines is prohibited on the tracks in Old England. In the year 1871 two men were convicted at Wolverhampton of trying to operate parimutuel machines. Those men were convicted and the law has ever since held good. Last year the question was raised there but was defeated in the House. Forty-five out of forty-eight states in the American union prohibit the use of the pari-mutuel machine and commercialized betting. I think we were told to-day that three states of the union had tried other forms of betting but had gone back to the pari-mutuel machine. I am not sure that at all times the majority is right, but when we find forty-five states following a certain course, when we find them prohibiting betting on race-tracks, and that there are only three states in this instance, I am inclined to think that the majority is right.
We ask for this resolution to become law because of the immoral influences of this business, as disclosed before the Commission of Inquiry in 1910 and the Rutherford Commission as well. On those occasions many examples were given to show that characters had been ruined, reputations shattered, homes destroyed, women's hearts broken, and little children robbed of their right to a happy childhood and a fighting chance in life. Furthermore, legalized betting on race-tracks is undesirable on economic grounds, because of the loss and confusion in business due to the failure of clerks and others in mercantile life

Race-Track Betting

to satisfactorily discharge their duties, their thoughts being far away on race-track gambling. I think it was mentioned by an hon. member here this afternoon that the Quebec Board of Trade had introduced a resolution opposing this practice. Manufacturers of British Columbia, and also the retail merchants of that province, I believe, have passed a similar resolution.
In the next place we are firmly opposed to legalized race-track gambling because it is a national scandal. Followers of the racetrack have been driven out of forty-five states of the union and now find their paradise for racing in Canada and Mexico. I remember reading years ago that negroes in the country to the south of us, in order to escape from the trials and sorrows that were their lot as slaves, were willing to risk pursuit by bloodhounds, willing to risk any peril, in order to escape from bondage. And when they made their dash for freedom to what haven did they flee. They came to Canada, the land of promise in the north, and by underground railway, by riding on ice floes as Eliza did in Uncle Tom's Cabin, and in many other ways, they sought to escape into the land of freedom and of purity, Canada. I am sorry, Sir, that when we think of some of the plague spots in Canada at the present time we cannot thrill with that same pride in our country that we ought to feel. To paraphrase Goldsmith :
111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where vice accumulates and men decay.
Comparing the conditions in regard to this practice in 1917, under suppression, and in 1921 under restriction, I can only say that in this House, where the spoken -word is preserved for ages, I realize my personal responsibility to those whom I represent, and to those around me, and will take no chance that any spoken word or recorded vote of mine shall go otherwise than in support of this resolution.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the speech just made by my hon. friend (Mr. Brethen), I was undecided as to whether I was sitting in the House of Commons or attending a revival camp meeting. We have heard speeches on this resolution which could well have been delivered from the pulpit. This question has been treated by hon. members of this House as if it were a religious matter, and not simply a legal question to be decided according to the ordinary rules which apply to questions of 
that character. Really, listening to the last speaker, one would never think it were possible for a member of the United Farmers of Ontario to have anything to do with horsebreeding or horse-racing. I would refer my hon. friend to the Canadian Sportsman and Live Stock Journal, established in 1870. If he looks at the issue of the date Monday January 29th, 1922, I am sure he will be surprised to see on the front page a picture of Canada's iron horse, Jack Canuck, owned by Mr. Morrison, the secretary of the U. F. O. This is-for us-not a matter of religion and it is not a matter of morality. It is a question of common sense, and it is from the standpoint of common sense that I wish to discuss the resolution introduced by my hon. friend for Brant (Mr. Good).
In discussing the merits of this resolution I do not wish in any way to criticize the hon. member. He holds most peculiar-most exceptional-views on certain subjects, but every man is entitled to his opinions and to his views. I respect his views and admire the courage with which he voices them in the House. I have heard, with great surprise, my good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) telling us that he was going to support the resolution on the one hand; but, on the othpr hand, being a thorough Liberal, he did not intend in any way to impose his views on eastern Canada. How the hon. minister could take that stand is beyond my comprehension. The resolution has to be debated and voted upon as it reads, and not as it may be interpreted by the mild-mannered Minister of Agriculture. This resolution does away with the existing law concerning race betting. It applies to the whole of Canada- the province of Quebec, the Maritime provinces, the province of Ontario, as well as to every one of the western provinces. Unless the resolution be amended, if it be adopted in this House, and if a bill is passed along the same lines as the resolution itself, we will have in Canada a law prohibiting race betting from the Pacific ocean to the Atlantic coast. The hon. Minister of Agriculture says that he would not interfere with the freedom of the citizens of the province of Quebec, or with the freedom of the inhabitants of the province of Ontario or of the Maritime provinces. If the minister casts his vote in favour of the resolution unamended, he will force upon these provinces legislation which these provinces do not wish to have.
The resolution on its merits could be considered I submit, Mr Speaker, from a fourfold viewpoint. First, it could be considered from the constitutional viewpoint. Secondly,


Race-Track Betting
is it in accordance with sound philosophical views? Thirdly, is it a resolution that could be supported without amendment according to the elementary rules of law? And fourthly, would it have the effect that my hon. friend for Brant wishes a law based on that resolution to have? From a constitutional viewpoint, has this House of Commons, or has the federal parliament, the power to prohibit betting in Canada? If we examine the British North America Act, section, 92, subsection 13, we will see that all laws concerning property and civil rights are to be enacted by the provinces and not by Canada. Under the provisions of that subsection, laws have been passed in the province of Quebec and are still in effect in that province. Then I would refer my hon. friend for Brant to the civil code of the province of Quebec, sections 1927 and 1928, which makes race betting absolutely legal. How can we, as members of the federal parliament, enact a law which would be outside of our competency as legislators? *


William Charles Good: Was the order in council of-1917 which was in operation for several years unconstitutional, and was it ineffective in the province of Quebec?


Lucien Cannon: 
George Arthur Brethen: Is it a fact that the little lambs gambol?


Lucien Cannon: I think the hon. member would be in a better position to answer that question than I am myself. Let us examine what law is. What is a law? Why do we pass laws? Law is nothing but regulated freedom. Law is the enforcement of social order, so that man may live according to the customs or the modes accepted by the members of the community wherein he resides. Law is noth-

Race-Track Betting
ing but that. The law, as has been pointed out by speakers who have preceded me, prohibits murder, for instance; but a distinction has to be made, a distinction which is taught to us by sane philosophy. What is evil? There are two kinds of evil. There is evil which is essentially bad or, as we say in Latin, malum per se, evil fundamentally bad, and besides malum per se, there is malum per accidens, or evil accidentally. Malum per se needs no legislation. Malum per se is recognized throughout the world by every man who lives, and it is prevented by natural laws. Malum per accidens is sometimes prohibited, not by universal or natural law, but by written or local laws. I will give an example of fundamental evil. Murder is malum per se. We do not need any law to prohibit murder; natural law prohibits it, and it is forbidden throughout the world. Let me give an example now of malum per accidens.


William Irvine: Does the survival of the fittest forbid murder?


Lucien Cannon: Certainly it does, and that explains why my hon. friend is here. I was going to give an example of malum per accidens. We have in this country laws which enact that a man has to go about the streets decently dressed. This is a local law, which does not exist in Patagonia, or in Africa. To go undressed is not malum per se; it is simply malum per accidens. What about betting? Would any member in this House say that betting is malum per se? If it is malum at all, it is malum per accidens, and who is going to give us the standard? Where are we going to find it? In my church it may be that betting is no evil at all. In the church of my respected neighbour (Mr. Mclsaac), it may be.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is the same church.


Lucien Cannon: I will never admit that the church to which a good Scotchman like my respected neighbour goes can be the same church that I go to. If then betting is not an evil essentially, the question becomes a moral one, and moral questions are not for parliament, but for churches. It may be a sin to bet, according to certain religious tenets; but laws should be enacted in order to punish crimes, and religion should prevent sins. Let the religious bodies of this country so educate their members that they will not bet, if it pleases the preachers of these bodies so to do. But, Mr. Speaker, let not parliament become a pulpit for the rest of Canada.
I say that from the constitutional standpoint this resolution should not pass; from a philosophical standpoint it is not well founded,

and, in the third place, if you examine it from the strictly legal point of view it should be cast aside. This is nothing but another piece of uplift legislation. I am not surprised that my good friends the Progressives, and especially my good friend for Brant (Mr. Good), should be eager to introduce resolutions of this kind into the House. But if my hon. friend had sat in the House when the Hon. Mr. Rowell was here he would be sick and tired of that sort of legislation. This is not the first time in the history of the world that a parliament has tried to moralize people. Let my hon. friend for Brant remember what the first settlers in New England did when they came to the American continent. They passed the blue laws. And what was the result? So long as those restrictions on private liberty were imposed on the pioneers of New England material progress was retarded; and it was only when freedom blossomed, as freedom could blossom under the American sun, that New England became the most prosperous perhaps* of all the states in the great republic to the south of us. The Progressives have most peculiar ideas. Their main platform, one would say almost the whole of their platform, is the very broad plank of freedom of trade. Now, why should those hon. gentlemen who come here preach freedom of trade when they wish to deprive the people of Canada of every other kind of freedom? I am in theory a freetrader just as much as hon. gentlemen on the other side. But if 1 support the principle of freedom in the matter of trade I support the general principle of freedom in every direction, within the law. And I say that my hon. friends on the other side cannot support freedom of trade as the best possible arrangement between nation and nation if they deny, on the other hand, every kind and, species of freedom and liberty to the citizens of Canada.
As to betting, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side have also most peculiar ideas. When it comes to gambling and betting on the wheat crop they are prepared to put up their money. They asked us last year to pass legislation and institute a wheat board so that they might be sure to win on their bets and never lose. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) said that he would support the resolution because, if he voted against it, he would be false to the education he received as a young man. I may say to the hon. gentleman, with all due respect, that the education which a man receives is not limited to the years of his youth, and that he should be always open to improvement.
Now, let us examine this resolution-and it is my last point-from the practical stand-

Race-Track Betting
point. Grant that the resolution is adopted; let us suppose that a bill is introduced and passed by parliament founded on the resolution, can that law be enforced? To ascertain whether it can be enforced or not, any hon. member who wishes to form a reasonable opinion should look around and see what has been the fate of similar laws passed in this country. Sanctimonious men have imposed on the majority of their fellowmen in the province of Ontario and elsewhere a law which is known as "Prohibition." How is it enforced? Can any man who sits in this House get up and sincerely say before this country that prohibition is enforced in Ontario? There is more liquor flowing in the province of Ontario than water in the summer time down the Montmorency falls.
Mr. GOOD; Perhaps that is not very much.


Lucien Cannon: Quite a lot; and I would invite my hon. friend to come and see for himself. These laws, when it comes to putting them into operation, as has been demonstrated, are a premium on hypocrisy. If we . pass legislation of this kind we are simply creating a generation of hypocrites. Instead of having citizens who would openly and without fear go to horse-races and put their money on the horses that they think will win, you would have to-morrow a whole lot of people who would sneak behind doors to put out their money in the dark whereas now they put it out in the open daylight. What have you to-day as a result of prohibition in Ontario? You have a whole lot of hypocrites, who, when you meet them on the streets, you think are most respectable and law-abiding people. But if they are walking in a hurry, look at your watch, and if it happens to be around lunch time you can tell that they are hurrying along to have, before lunch, a little drink which they have hidden in the cellar. Laws of that kind are not good for the people. Instead of improving conditions socially they demoralize our population. Look to the south of us. My hon. friend who preceded me in the debate (Mr. Brethen) said that out of 48 states in the American union 45 had laws against betting. Has my hon. friend ever gone to a race meeting in the United States? Let him go where race meetings are held in that country and he will see that there is more betting done there than anywhere in Canada.. But not only would a law such as the resolution proposes put a premium on hypocrisy; it would put a premium on lawlessness. Instead of having race-tracks which are properly controlled and properly watched you would have race-tracks where a whole lot
of book-makers would hide around fences taking the people's money and robbing them, just as the bootleggers are prospering in Ontario and the United States, selling rotten liquor at exorbitant prices.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) said that he was in favour of this resolution because race-track gambling was a danger to the natural resources of Canada, and he quoted figures relative to the amount of money wagered at race-tracks. But my hon. friend has a most peculiar way of adding figures-maybe because he never went to a race meeting. He gives the figures as being what he terms exorbitant, but he forgets that the total wagered does not represent the actual money disbursed; that a man, for instance, may put down the same five dollars seven times in one afternoon-each time he wins he can take his money and bet it again.


William Charles Good: How can a man put down five dollars seven times if ten per cent is taken off each time?


Lucien Cannon: I am taking the. case of
the man who wins.


William Charles Good: He will have more.


Lucien Cannon: If he has won all the afternoon he can go home with maybe two hundred dollars in his pocket besides the five dollars he started with. I do not think the natural resources of Canada will suffer an awful lot in that case. Why, if this is a system by means of which people are robbed, how can you explain, Sir, that the jockey clubs do not pay any dividends and are in the most precarious financial condition?
Then another argument has been brought forward: we have been asked to vote in favour of this resolution in order to improve the type of our citizenship. I have no doubt that this argument is urged in entire good faith, but. is it not the fact that races can have, no effect whatsoever, on the character, standard, nature or calibre of our citizenship? When we go over to Connaught Park to see the races twice a year, whom do we find there? The best citizens in Canada. These races are always honoured by the presence of the Governor General and of the most prominent citizens of Ottawa. And not only are these citizens present but also their wives. Would any hon. member claim for one moment that the standard of citizenship of these people is lowered by their attending these races? I do not think that such a claim can be very seriously put forward.
Race-Track Betting

During the course of this debate we have had quoted some very sad cases, the saddest, perhaps, being that of the unfortunate young man whose honeymoon was interrupted because he went to the races. Well, really, if this young man was married to a wife who objected to her husband seeing a horse-race, I do not think that to-day he regrets very much being separated from her. But even admitting that all these cases were not at all overstated, after all they are only excep-
9 p m	cases, and there is a prin-
' ciple of law which is universally admitted, namely, that law is made to meet general cases, not exceptional. On account of this young man whose honeymoon was so sadly interrupted, on account of this grocer whose bills were so ill paid, on account of this poor unfortunate man in Toronto who gambled away his house, are we going to deny the rest of the people of Canada the pleasure of attending the races? I do not think the proposition is reasonable.
The fact that a resolution was passed by the Board of Trade of the city of Quebec is put forward as a strong argument in favour of this motion. I do not know much about the Board of Trade in the city of Quebec, and I know less about the resolution. Most probably that resolution was proposed by a few members who had lost money at the races the day before. But if my Progressive friends are so keen in using as an argument for their view a resolution passeed by the Board of Trade of the city of Quebec, I would ask them as a favour to also take into consideration the resolutions that the same Board of Trade has passed requesting the West to send us their wheat instead of sending it to American ports.
This session, Mr. Speaker, we have heard some most mournful speeches about conditions existing out West; also respecting Ontario conditions. If we wish to improve conditions in Canada, we have to give to the people some relief, we have got to give them a little enjoyment. As Victor Hugo said: Qui n'a trouve le repos dans un chant?- Who has not found entire repose in a song? Let us sing a bit and stop shedding tears. Let the people go to the races and hear the song of the horses as they go around the race-track. As those horses rush into the home stretch they give us the idea of friendly rivalry among the nations of the earth. And in that steeplechase of the nations, in that Derby of ideals, I will bet Canada straight on the nose every time.


Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that perhaps I am imposing 
on this House by undertaking to prolong the debate. It has been very interesting in the variety of views presented. I am unable, however, to take an extreme stand either way. I have not unlimited faith in making our people good by law. If I could feel that this resolution would do all that the mover of it thinks possible, I would take a good deal more pleasure in supporting it. From conviction I shall support the resolution, but I do not do so without a great deal of doubt as to its wisdom at this time. I have been connected with an exhibition association for more than twenty years and have diligently done the best I knew how to help build up that organization to where it is at present. I believe it will be very hard on that exhibition if we pass this resolution and the government enact legislation in accordance therewith. I am not without doubt as to the result. As I have said, I am not a very great believer in making people good by law.


William Charles Good: Might I ask, just for information, whether the pari-mutuels have been operated in connection with the exhibition to which my hon. friend refers?


Daniel Webster Warner: We have had the parimutuel machines for several years; I do not know just how long. In my mind there is a doubt as to whether this betting could not be better handled through regulation of the parimutuels. I am not greatly interested in horseracing myself. I have seen the time when by moving a hundred feet or more I might have looked at some very interesting horseraces, but I was interested more in the other features of the fair, and attended to my business and let the horse-races go on. I have never bet, and I do not ever expect to bet on a horse-race, but I do know this, that in that thinly settled country people come from a long way to the fair who are very much interested in horse-racing. If we have betting without regulation, I believe that a certain amount of betting will go on, but I am a little fearful as to the effects on our fair if this resolution is passed and legislation is introduced to carry it into effect. Those fears may be overcome, I think, if all these people who are good enough to ask us to prohibit betting, which does bring a good many people to the fair, will turn in and help to make the fair a success without the horseracing. I believe that it could be done, but I find that the people who are perhaps the most religious and feel the need of this legislation most are the very ones who give us the least assistance in making the fair a success. I am not saying this to criticize them

Race-Track Betting
particularly, but as a matter of fact they are not interested in that line. I .have tried to be practical myself. Although I have not lent my assistance in any way to horse-racing -I have never been on the racing committee -I have tolerated it, knowing that we had to have the people there in order to make the fair a success, and I believe that that condition still exists in our district. I have to talk from my knowledge of the district where I live, although I believe that what I say is true of the exhibitions throughout Canada.
As I said before, I am willing to go the length of this resolution, but I want to impress on these people who are asking for our support that they are putting our exhibitions in danger. Perhaps some one will say that I am judging between the dollar and the welfare of the people, but an exhibition goes further than the money you take in. It means the welfare of the farming interest in that particular district where the fair is held. It is expected to mean that, and we try to have it mean that. So I would not like to be looked upon as putting the dollar before the welfare of the people and of the rising generation. With me it is a question of choosing between injury to the fair and benefit to the community where that fair is held. I shall have a certain amount of regret in voting for this resolution because of the fear I have of its result upon our association. I have helped to build up that association by long and diligent efforts, and if the government pass a law that would take away this support to our association, I would like to see them deal liberally with the association in the way of grants, and so forth, so that it might keep on its way doing the work for which it was intended, and a work that it can now do.
As a new force in politics this party has advocated more or less of moral reform, and as a member of that party I can go with our friends in voting for the resolution. We have asked for the abolition of gambling in our products, and we have asked that for a monetary reason. In that connection we have not talked of saving the men who speculate in our produce from hell fire and damnation; we have simply been thinking of the dollar we can save by preventing, speculating in our products. So we are not altogether free from advocating something that will bring in a dollar. When we look at human nature, we are all very much alike. We do not get very much apart, but it makes a difference who is affected. But I repeat, as this party has been working along the line of reform, I think it would perhaps be inconsistent if I were to
vote against this resolution, although I am quite convinced that it goes too far. On the other hand, there is undoubtedly a tendency among our young people to form spendthrift habits, and I am willing to help in any reasonable way to check the growth of irresponsibility and the spendthrift habits that our young people are forming.
I believe that if betting could be prevented it would have a good effect. I believe that if that were done it would steady our young people; but if horse-racing and betting are allowed to go on I think it will destroy and minimize the effect of stopping the use of the pari-mutuel machine and the practice of book-making, if the latter is actually in existence at the present time. From the experience that I have had I think that betting will continue if racing is allowed. If we could get not only the young people but the middle-aged persons interested in the live stock at exhibitions and induce them to concentrate on that feature it would have, in my opinion, a sobering effect. Unfortunately we have introduced another feature in connection with our fairs that the resolution does not deal with-a feature which I feel is more disturbing to the morals of the people than even horse-rading. I believe that today there is a greater interest taken in automobile races that are held in connection with our fairs than is manifested in the horseracing, and in my opinion that feature is going to be just as injurious in its effects. All these things tend to upset the steadiness of our people. I am a firm believer in the idea that an industrious people are going to be a happy and contented people. I do not want to make slaves of anybody, but it is a fact that too many of our young people today will not stick to a job either in the city or in the country. They are so bent on pleasure, so bent on running here and there in search of excitement, that they neglect and do not think very seriously about their business or the job they are trying to hold. I believe that if we are going in for prohibition of this kind we should prohibit all along the line. I cannot but think that automobile racing is upsetting people just as seriously as horse-racing does or has ever done. The experience at Edmonton fair last summer confirms me in that impression. On that occasion automobile races took place only during two days and yet the people thronged to witness those races in greater numbers than they did at any time during the rest of the fair. Let us be consistent. The reason I am willing to support this resolution is that I believe it is an effort to try and curb

Race-Track Betting
the irresponsibility of our young people throughout the country; to restrain them from forming habits that they cannot afford to cultivate; to check the extravagance that prevails; and to stimulate the practice of thrift-in a word to make them more useful citizens than they are at the present time.
I would be more strongly disposed to support the resolution if I had as much faith in reforming our people by legislation as most of the hon. gentlemen to my left seem to have. However, I do not agree with the sentiment which has been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite that we can permit people to go without regulation in certain matters. I believe that the best kind of government we can have is a government that will, by its legislation, grant a liberty which does not infringe upon the rights of others. In a truly democratic country laws are enacted in the interest of the majority of the people. If that be not the case then I do not think there can be very much liberty in that country. We designate some members of the community as socialists. A socialist, I apprehend, wants the government to take care of him and see that he gets a share of everything good that is going. Socialists and anarchists are sometimes classed in the same category, but the anarchist is an entirely different sort of person. The anarchist wants liberty to do as he pleases regardless of the rights of others. He does not want the government to do anything for him and in reality does not want any government, at all. We must get somewhere between these two extremes, because a certain amount of regulation is necessary. Of course I do not want to over-estimate the amount of good that will result from regulation in this matter. I think we should attain the object aimed at if we did not build so much on what our exhibitions can do throughout Canada. These exhibitions undoubtedly have done a great work; they have had the effect of creating many better farmers than would otherwise have been the case. How are you going to make up for the number of people who pay for admission to see the horse-racing at our exhibitions? I would recommend the government to be liberal to these exhibitions so that they might operate and keep their business going even if they do lose a certain amount of patronage now derived from horseracing.


William Charles Good: Is the hon. gentleman of the opinion that horse-racing at the Edmonton exhibition would be absolutely cut out by the abolition of the pari-mutuel system of betting?
fMr. Warner.]


Daniel Webster Warner: I would like to ask my hon. friend the question whether he expects betting to continue unlawfully or to abolish it altogether?


William Charles Good: I think it is scarcely fair to ask me to answer another question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The question may be put in a different form and answered if the hon. member so desires.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker, I will let the matter rest and deal with it at another time.


Daniel Webster Warner: I understand that betting in a private manner would be allowed if horseraces took place. If I am right in that assumption I fear the conditions would be worse than they would be under proper regulation. Let me say that if I did not feel that this is an effort to steady our people and get them into a frame of mind where they will realize the responsibilities of life better than they do at present I would not be so disposed to vote for the resolution. I believe that we should encourage all such efforts; we have, evidence on all sides that they are needed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that I should delay the House by speaking at greater length, but I feel that this question is a live one in view of the important part played by the exhibitions in this country. These exhibitions are worth while, they have been most beneficial to our people and I think they should be encouraged in every reasonable way.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: It is not
my intention to detain the House more than a few minutes, or just to the extent of putting myself on record on this question and perhaps incidentally saying a word in reply to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). I would have contented myself with asking a question while he was speaking, but he has a method of answering that is not very comfortable, and I chose the better part of valour. I want to say, however, that some of us on this side of the House have a very real admiration for the abilities of the hon. member for Dorchester, but we regret that some of his remarks tonight appear unnecessarily to cut into sensibilities that are supposed by common consent to be free from attacks of that kind. I may just refer to the first remark that he made, that he did not know while the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Brethen) was speaking whether he was in the House of Commons or in a revival meeting. Well, his subsequent speech did not betray any

Race-Track Betting
very marked sign that he had ever been in a revival meeting and I felt like retorting at the time the hon. member was speaking that I did not know whether I was in the House of Commons or in the House of Bedlam. Did the hon. member from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) make a remark?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I just made a remark that did not call for a reply.
. Mr. BIRD:	I notice the hon. member
for Dorchester began dissociating religion and morality from common sense and I think his speech in that regard was an example of common sense divorced from both religion and morality. I notice he began his remarks by confining himself to the sphere in which he is supposed to be very well versed, and that is the legal sphere. I presume he is a lawyer, but the procedure of his argument hardly followed the brave start he made, for I noticed that instead of giving us profound legal reasons against the resolution he speedily took refuge in that haven that is eagerly sought by bewildered lawyers on all occasions; I refer to the British North America Act. He took refuge in that act without any further explanation. I do not think that that after all was a very heroic thing to do. I noticed also that he proceeded to argue from the historical and ethical standpoints and that as he went down the list his accuracy of touch and his assuredness of demeanour seemed to- have progressively vanished, and he seemed to be getting into deeper water all the time. He came to a point where his knowledge seemed actually to reach the vanishing point. That is where he touched upon ethics. His idea of ethics seemed to be involved in a mist of-I do not know what kind of Latin you would call, it, but the kind of Latin that is often used to confuse ethical issues. The hon. member's philosophy amounted to this and only to this
___and I was very careful to see what the
mountain of his philosophical mind was bringing forth and what it amounted to,-it amounted to an old-time platitude that was in use when I was a small boy, and that is all there was to his philosophy. As to his history, I would ask where did he get it? He looked across here and asked "Have you read history?" I do not think we have, because we are only Progressives. You cannot expect us to have read history. Where did he get his history? Where does it appear he got it? From the Illustrated London News and the Sporting News, if there is a sporting news. It seemed to be a mixture of the two as far as I could see. He even dragged in King Tutankhamen, brought that
ancient relic into this argument and quoted the precedents of defunct empires.
Then in reference to his admiration for Greece I fully share his views, but Greece, unfortunately for him, made her reputation along lines very different from those he asserts. Greece made her reputation through the soundness of her ethical philosophy. If it is not out of place I would recommend the hon. member to study Greek ethics. It might bring to his mind some clearness as to ethical matters. Latin is not a proper language in which to couch ethics. Greek is the proper language for ethics. Let me also refer to the hon. member's conception of ethics. It* is all very well to quote Latin when you are in trouble, when you are likely to get deeper into trouble, and whenever the hon. member deals with ethics again, I advise him to use more Latin and use bad Latin that nobody can understand especially when dealing with people who understand ethics. His philosophy about murder and sudden death and all that is purely a creation of his own mind; there is no foundation ' for it in history, and it is about as reliable as his answer in regard to the question of natural selection asked by the hon. member sitting to my left.
I want to say that evil, whatever the hon. member says about it, is what the educated conscience of civilized man says is evil. That is what evil is, and it has no outward standard. It is relative to the state of your ethical education, and I leave it to your own judgment as to the point to which your ethical education has arrived. I am not setting up my standard as being perfect, but I do lay strong claim to my own view of what is ethical, and I have sufficient faith in my own ethical instinct to defend when necessary what I believe to be ethical, either in a personal or social sense. The hon. member is dealing with a subject that goes deeply into the convictions of many of us, and I would like to suggest that, when he deals with it again, he might, for our sakes and for the sake of everybody who takes these things seriously, adopt a more serious style of argument, knowing as he should know that he is dealing with convictions which are very much in the heart of all of us.
He said that all this must be left, not to a parliamentary, but to religious bodies; thai is their province; leave it to them; let them teach these things. I want to ask the hon. member, who are the religious people in Canada? In the first place, if this question has to be left to a religious body, I want to know what the religious body he belongs to has been doing all these years on this question. I do not know what religious body he belongs to,

Race-Track Betting
but if this question is to be left to a religious body, if it is responsible for the enlightment of the public conscience in this regard, I would like to know just where he has been receiving his education along those lines. My hon. friend says that this has to be left to the religious bodies of the land. Who are the religious people of Canada? Are not the religious people of Canada, all the people of Canada; and you can set the churches to the work-and I think the churches are not averse to the work; I do not think there is in this land an organized church that is averse to the work-of educating the people along ethical lines. We may sometimes differ and honestly differ as to what constitutes ethical advancement; but all the churches equally through all these years have been busily at work, at great sacrifice, educating the people along ethical lines.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Can the hon.
gentleman tell me to what religion he belongs?	.


Thomas William Bird: I think the hon. gentleman's question is irrelevant to the remarks I was making. I was proceeding to say that the churches have never shirked this work, and they are not trying to foist upon parliament work that they themselves refuse to do. That is a fundamental mistake that many speakers have made to-night. They think the churches of the land have worked a device to inveigle members on this side of the House to bring this resolution in to get over something that they themselves have not been working at. That is false. For a generation or more, the churches of this country have been doing their best to educate people along these lines, and education must have an issue; some day it must be crystallised into something. What is the use of education if, at some point, you cannot express it in the formula of the laws of the land, and, while we may be mistaken,-the vote to-night will prove to what extent we are mistaken-we believe that the process of education has been going on for a good number of years at such a rate that the time is amply ripe for a legislative expression of this education that has been going on.
Just in conclusion, let me refer to the hon. gentleman's effort to preach to the Progressive party. He is very much averse to "this House being used as a pulpit; but it is a long time since I have listened to anything that more nearly approaches preaching than the speech of the hon. gentleman to-night, and most of his sermon has been addressed to the Progressive party, for what reason, I do 
not know. The most astounding thing of all was that he advised us to sing.


Lucien Cannon: Do not do that.


Thomas William Bird: In that respect and others I think the Progressive party would certainly like to have had some say in the choice of its monitor, because the kind of song that the hon. gentleman himself displays is certainly not of that type that we would willingly emulate. W e do not want to be perpetually indulging in the humorous; we do not want one eternal comic song. We delight in singing in harmony, but we are not going to commit ourselves to the tone and tenor of the hon. gentleman's speech to-night. As I said at the first, I have, since coming into this House ever had a strong admiration for the immense ability of the hon. gentleman; but to-night, perhaps, I misunderstand the tone of his speech; perhaps, I am taking it roo seriously; perhaps I have felt a sting when no sting was intended. But surely the hon. gentleman is sufficiently accomplished in the art of public speech, so to modify what he says as to convey the right impression, at least at this short distance, and we hope when he ventures into this sphere again, he will so deal with the question as we would fain he would deal with it, and as we believe he is capable of dealing with it, in a rational, logical and dignified manner.


Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in this debate; but it seems to me, from arguments advanced recently, that there has been a good deal of wandering from the evil which the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), by his resolution, proposes to correct. Speaking as a member from the province of Ontario, I have not heard a great deal as to the evils of the pari-mutuel system or of the evil of betting on the race-track. What does exist as an evil in the minds, I think, of the majority of the urban population of Ontario, is the handbook evil, which is an acknowledged evil by anyone who has studied the question at all. The Attorney General of Ontario has pointed out, as was outlined to the House this evening in the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), that this evil can be corrected or the enforcement of the law against the evil of handbook betting can be improved by restrictive legislation on the publishing of odds. It seems to me that in legislating further to restrict betting, when we have, against the greatest evil of betting, a law that is now not being properly enforced, we are taking on another piece of legislation which

Race-Track Betting
is going to make the enforcement of the law still more difficult.
I think hon. members in this House who are familiar with the American tracks at Saratoga will agree that there is just as much "whisper" betting, "word-of-mouth" betting and "sign" betting going on as there was in the days of open books. The legislation in the American states that have ruled against open betting has not been very well enforced, and we have' in Canada to-day more handbook betting than there is open betting under the pari-mutuel system. I do not think any hon. gentlemen who have studied the evil of handbooks will contradict me in the statement that not ten per cent of handbook offences are corrected by conviction. It is a known fact that in practically a large percentage of barber shops and poolrooms in Ontario, handbook bets are being taken, in spite of the fact that we have a law against handbooks.
I contend that the suggestion of the Minister of Justice is very much more in accord with correcting the evil of the system than is the resolution of the hon. member for Brant, for the reason that a day spent on a racetrack, aside altogether from the betting that may take place, is considered by most good citizens to be a day's outing. It is to be admitted that on any day's outing, whether it be at a circus, or a picnic, or a race-track, a man spends' a considerable amount of money, and that the figures compiled as to the amounts bet on the pari-mutuel system, do not represent the actual money spent in any way at all, because, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, money is bet and re-bet. If the hon. member for Brant would compile the amount of money spent at the thousand and one fairs, the midways that are held at the fairs, for which money no very great return is given to the citizens who are spending it, he would find that possibly the amount of money spent in this way for entertainment was just as great as the amount of money spent on the race-track. I contend that the betting of an odd day's sport by the citizens of this country is not an evil; but I agree with the hon. member for Brant that handbook betting which becomes a constant and every day source of gamble to the wage earners of this country, is one of the worst evils with which we have to contend. Therefore, I wish to record myself as being very much in favour of the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, at the suggestion of the Attorney General of Ontario, to frame laws to enforce the regulations against handbooks to the fullest possible extent. I think that if this parliament can legislate in that regard, leaving the
pari-mutuel system in existence for a time, and enforce that portion of the law, we shall be doing a greater good to the working men and the community in general than by putting restrictions on the pari-mutuel.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) tried to show that if money were wagered ten times it would be entirely dissipated. He stated that ten per cent of the rate was taken as a rake-off from the total bet under the systetn. That rate which is taken by the Ontario government is in the form of taxation, and if by his day's sport the citizen does contribute to the funds of the Ontario government or any other government he is only paying a tax on amusement such as is paid in the form of the stamp tax in moving picture theatres.


William Charles Good: Did not the Minister of Agriculture refer to the rake-off taken by the association and not the tax of the government?


James Malcolm: The hon. member for Brant is aware that there are two rake-offs, the rake-off by the racing association and that taken by the provincial government. The minister referred to the total rake-off, because he said that if the money were bet ten times it would all be dissipated. I did not assert that the total amount of money went to the provincial government; I said that only a percentage of the rake-off went to them, and that it was in the form of taxation which the person doing the betting on the track paid to the government for his day's sport. Under the handbook system, against which I speak, there is no rake-off either to the provincial government, in the form of taxation, or to anyone else. The Minister of Agriculture went on to state that this money was all dissipated. I know there has been a great deal of criticism as to the total budget of the provincial treasurer, and if the money is dissipated after it gets into his hands I cannot say. That may or may not be true. But I did not interpret the minister as taking a slam at the provincial treasurer when he said that the money that came off the racetracks was dissipated.
' I am not, Mr. Speaker, in accord with the suggestion of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), who pointed out that if the resolution of the hon. member for Brant carried, and a law were enacted based upon it, that law should be a provincial option. I think that handbook betting is wrong. H this House decides that the pari-mutuel system is wrong, then, in the view of the people's representatives, the law is wrong. I do not think that this parliament should legislate for
Race-Track Betting

any particular province; and if we think that a law is not a wise one for one province, I do not think it should be enacted for another.
Mr. JACOBS; We have done it dozens of times.


James Malcolm: It makes no difference whether it was done in the past. Two wrongs do not make a right, and I register my support for a general resolution. If the hon. member's resolution does carry I think it should carry for the whole Dominion. But in the meantime I make this suggestion, that we try if possible to assist the Minister of Justice in the formulation of a law against the greater of two evils. I think we should leave the pari-mutuel system in existence until we have wiped out the greater of the two evils.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: I probably know as little, from personal experience, of the race-track gambling evil as any hon. member in this House. I attended one race in my life where money was being wagered, but I have had some experience of the results that accrue from racetrack gambling. In former days, in various cities on this continent, I have seen and come in personal contact with some of the results of this gambling to certain citizens of this and our neighbouring country, results that have not been discussed, as I have observed, to any great extent to-night. I speak for the women and children of race-track gamblers. Consult the records of one of the neighbouring cities in the country to the south of us for the past few years and you will find, as I have read, that a considerable number of divorces have been granted to women who complained that their husbands insisted on spending all of their money in trying to beat the race-track game. In my judgment these women and children are entitled to some consideration in a discussion of this kind. I believe that parliament is not going beyond its proper and consistent sphere of effort when it undertakes to deal with a question of such prime importance to many mothers, yes, and children throughout the length and breadth of Canada and the United States.
I have heard considerable argument to-day from hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and across the floor as to the right to let men gamble if they will. I know sufficient of human nature to be convinced that they will gamble. I am of opinion that if many of them did not get the opportunity to take a chance and bet their money on horse-races they would do so in shooting craps, playing poker, or something else. But I think I know

something, from personal contact, of the results of race-track gambling; and I know that the fever of this evil gets into the veins of men and causes untold suffering to those whom in many cases they are sworn to protect. One hon. gentleman a moment ago said that a race-track day is a day's outing for some men. That is right. I have no doubt that it is correct. The one afternoon I spent on the racetrack was for the purpose of an outing. But I wonder whether hon. gentlemen, in this House will concede that for very many thousands of mothers and children such a day is one of tragedy, when they find those who have promised to protect them squandering, just because the fever of gambling is in their veins, the money that should be supporting the wife and children in decency and comfort. I do not know enough about the general question, Mr. Speaker, to go into it at very great length. I do know, however, from personal experience that many of the results of racetrack gambling have been disastrous to women and children and many men too in the past. I shall certainly do what I can to remedy this evil by voting for this resolution.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker, may I reply?
THE ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Marcil): The hon. member for Brant has the right to reply if he so wishes.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was out for a moment. The hour is late, but I feel that it is necessary to reply to some of the arguments which have been urged against my resolution. .
I wish first to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. 10 p.m. Rinfret) who alleges that the resolution proposes the making of a new offence, namely, betting. I dissent most firmly from that statement. The resolution does nothing of the kind. It simply asks for the abolition of the special privilege now enjoyed by racing associations operating what are defined under the law as "betting houses." I submit that we should recognize the distinct significance of the resolution, which is not aimed at all kinds of betting. I would also suggest to the hon. member that he has confused very seriously sin and crime. I had intended to quote in this connection the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition (Mr. Meighen) who spoke on the Miller Bill in 1910, but owing to the lateness of the hour I shall refrain.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I may say that he is not my spiritual adviser.


William Charles Good: Mr. Raney could not have done other than he did. The matter he referred to was one not on the order paper, and it was therefore quite proper for him to draw it to the attention of the government so that they might be assisted in the administration of the law in Ontario.
The Minister of Justice also stated that there was nothing new in the case presented on this occasion, that it was just the same situation as existed in 1906 and 1910. That is partly true. This matter has been discussed in this House on several occasions. The principle involved is pretty much the same; the discussions that have taken place from time to time are pretty much the same, but since 1912 we have had a good deal of experience. We have had the experience that I quoted yesterday as to the effect which the 1912 legislation had upon racing associations and upon race-track gambling generally, and the effect that the order in council of 1917 had. In view of the additional information which we have gathered during these years and the experience we have had, we are in a better position now to know what is the proper thing to do than we were at that time.
As I said, I am Very pleased indeed to know that the government is likely to take action along the line suggested by the Hon. Mr. Raney in connection with the publication of betting odds and that sort of thing, all of which goes to encourage the hand-book evil.
Now with regard to the contention of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) that the provinces can put race-track gambling out of business by making the license fee high enough, I am inclined to doubt whether that is the case. I do not know, but I understand that the constitutionality of that procedure is in question.
So far as the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) is concerned, I found it almost impossible to take him seriously. I fancy he had a wink and a glint in his eye which betokened that he had to put up a good argument for a bad case and was making the best he could out of it. If I were to enter into a discussion of his philosophy it would take us rather far afield, but I do not think that any of us took him very seriously on this occasion. He entertained the House very pleasantly, and I am sure we are not sorry for that.
There have been put into my hands to-night a couple of clippings from United States newspapers dated February 23 and 24, in which reference is made to movements both in Italy and Spain for the suppression or control of race-track gambling in those countries. The headings are "Signor Mussolini Combats

Gambling ' and "Spain will close up Gaming Houses."


Joseph Archambault: Bull-fights.


William Charles Good: In conclusion I wish to say that the issue before us is very plain. There has been extended to a number of people and organizations a special privilege to do what is defined under our criminal code as a crime. The object of the resolution is to take away a special privilege which we consider to be injurious to the national welfare. Do not let us confuse it with horse-racing, private betting, and a whole lot of other questions which have been dragged in during the course of this debate. The question is a very simple one, and I sincerely trust that the House will vote largely and heartily in favour of the resolution.
The House divided on the resolution (Mr. Good) which was negatived on the following
division:	YEAS Messrs.
Baldwin,	Lewis,
Bancroft,	Lovett,
Bird,	Lovie, [DOT]
Black (Huron),	Lucas,
Bowen,	MacKelvie,
Brethen,	Macphail,
Brown,	McBride,
Caldwell,	McKillop,
Campbell,	Me Master,
Carmichael,	McQuarrie,
Charters,	Martell,
Coote,	May bee,
Denis (Joliette),	Millar,
Drummond,	Milne,
Elliott (Dundas),	Morrison,
Elliott (Waterloo),	Motherwell,
Evans,	Munro,
Fansher,	Murdock,
Findlay, .	Putnam,
Gardiner,	Reed,
Garland (Bow River),	Robinson,
Good,	Ross (Simcoe),
Halbert,	Senn,
Hanson,	Sexsmith,
Hatfield,	Shaw,
Hocken,	Speakman,
IToey,	Spencer,
Humphrey,	Stansell,
Hunt,	Steersman,
Jelliff,	Stewart (Humboldt).
Johnston (Last Mountain) Stewart (Leeds),	
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Thompson,
Kennedy (Glengarry &	Thurston,
Stormont),	Wallace,
Kennedy (Port Arthur	& Ward,
Kenora),	Warner,
King (Huron),	White,
Knox,	Woods,
Leader,	Woods worth-76.
 NAYS Messrs.
Anderson,	Benoit,
Archambault,	Binette,
Baxter,	Black (Yukon),
Beland,	Boivin,

Yukon Act
Bouchard,	Maclean (Halifax),
Boucher,	McDonald (Timiskaming),
Bourassa,	McGiverin,
Cahill,	Mclsaac,
Cannon,	McKay,
Cardin,	McKenzie,
Casgrain,	Mc-Murray,
Chaplin,	Malcolm.
Chevrier,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Chew,	Marcile (Bagot),
Chisholm,	Mercier,
Church,	Michaud,
Clark,	Mitchell,
Clifford,	Morin,
Copp,	Ouimet,
d 'Anjou,	Parent,
Dechene,	Pelletier,
Delisle,	Porter,
Denis (St. Denis),	Power,
Desaulniers,	Prevost,
Deslauriers,	Rankin,
Desrochers,	Raymond,
Dickie,	Rheaume,
Duff,	Rinfret,
Fafard,	Roberge,
Fontaine,	Robichaud,
Forrester,	Robitaille,
Fortier,	Ross (Kingston),
Fournier,	Ryckman,
Garland (Carleton),	St. Pere,
Gauvreau,	Savard,
Gendron,	S6guin,
Gouin (Sir Lomer),	Sheard,
Hammell,	Sinclair (Queens,P.E.I.),
Harris,	Spence,
Jacobs,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
King (Kootenay),	Stewart (Hamilton),
Kyte,	Stork,
Laflamme,	Tobin,
Lapierre,	Tolmie,
Lavigueur,	Trahan,
Leger,	Vien,
Macdonald (Pictou),	Walsh,
Mackinnon,	Wilson-96.
	PAIRS
(The list of pairs is	furnished by the Chief Whips).
For'	Against
	Messrs.
Stevens,	Kay,
Boys,	Ethier,
Kellner,	Hughes,
Forke,	Marler,
Carr ut hers,	German,
Sinclair (Oxford),	Low,
Pritchard,	Robb,
Hudson.	Euler.


CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (Solicitor General) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Temperance Act, chapter one hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, by addition thereto of Part V, and to provide for the prohibition of importing, sending, taking or transporting into any province in which the prohibitions hereunder are in force, any intoxicating liquor; to further provide penalties for the violation of this act^; and to provide for the revocations when such have been declared revoked by an order in council of the Lieutenant-Governor of a province affected.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. McKenzie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 43, to amend the Canada Temperance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Sir Lomer Gouin the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Friday, March 2, 1923