[Stage Direction]
Detailed statement of retirements authorized by orders in council passed from January 1 to November 1, 1924; also summary by departments of all retirements effected under the Public Service Retirement Act.-Hon. Mr. Copp.

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

Mr. DOUCET:: What are the names and salaries of all those who though not deputy ministers hold the same rank?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Public Archives, Dr. A. G. Doughty, $8,000; Auditor General, Mr. Geo. Gonthier, $15,000; Civil Service Commission, Hon. W. J. Roche, $7,000; Col. M. G. LaRochelle, $6,000; Mr. Clarence Jameson, $6,000; Governor General's Secretary, Mr. A. F. Sladen, $6,000; Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. A. A. McLean, $6,000; Patent and Copyright Office, Mr. Geo. F. O'Halloran, $8,000; Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr. E. R. Cameron, $6,000; Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Oliver M. Biggar, $12,000; Librarians of Parliament, Mr. J. de R Tache, $6,000; Hon. Martin Burrell, $6,000; Clerk of Senate, Mr. A. E. Blount, $6,000; Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr. A. Beauchesne, $6,000.
WESTERN NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. CLARK:
1.	Has an agreement been arrived at between the Dominion government and the province of Manitoba for the transfer by the former to the latter of certain natural resources within the boundaries of Manitoba, belonging to the Dominion of Canada?
2.	Have the people of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island an interest in the natural resources referred to in paragraph one hereof, and, if so, what is the interest of each province herein?
3.	Have the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island been consulted as to the terms upon which said natural resources will be transferred?
4.	Has the approval been received from any of the last mentioned provinces to the terms upon which a transfer shall be made, and if so, by whom has such approval been given?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	So long as subsidies continue to be paid to the province of Manitoba, in lieu of the transfer to that province of its natural

resources, it is obvious that the people of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have an interest therein.
Whether such interest would continue after the transfer of the resources in lieu of subsidy payments, and the discontinuance of such subsidy payments, is a matter which has not been made the subject of judicial determination.
In the event of a transfer of the natural resources being made on the above terms, if any province should feel that it has a claim arising therefrom that claim would have to be considered on its merits and should not be an obstacle to the settlement as to control of natural resources between the Dominion government and the government of the province of Manitoba.
3.	Answered by the answers to Nos. 1 and
2.
4.	Answered by the answers to Nos. 1 and
2.


Mr. CLARK:: 1.	Has an agreement been arrived at between the Dominion government and the province of Saskatchewan for the transfer by the former to the latter of certain natural resources within the boundaries of Saskatchewan, belonging to the Dominion of Canada?
2. Have the people of British CWumbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island an interest in the natural resources referred to in paragraph one hereof, and, if so, what is the interest of each province herein ?
3.	Have the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island been consulted as to the terms upon which said natural resources will be transferred?
4.	Has approval been received from any of the last mentioned provinces to the terms upon which a transfer shall be made, and, if so, by whom has such approval been given?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	So long as subsidies continue to be paid to the province of Saskatchewan, in lieu of the transfer to that province of its natural resources, it is obvious that the people of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have an interest therein.
Whether such interest would continue after the transfer of the resources in lieu of subsidy payments, and the discontinuance of such subsidy payments, is a matter which has not been made the subject of judicial determination.
In the event of a transfer of the natural resources being made on the above terms, if any province should feel that it had a claim arising therefrom, that claim would have to be considered on its merits and should not be an obstacle to the settlement as to control of

Questions
natural resources between the Dominion government and the government of the province of Saskatchewan.
3.	Answered by the answers to Nos. 1 and
2.
4.	Answered by the answers to Nos. 1 and
2.


Mr. CLARK:: 1.	Has an agreement been arrived at between the Dominion government and the province of Alberta for the transfer by the former to the latter of certain natural resources within the boundaries of Alberta, belonging to the Dominion of Canada?
2. Have the people of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island an interest in the natural resources referred to in paragraph one hereof, and, if so, what is the interest of each province therein?
3.	Have the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island been consulted as to the terms upon which said natural resources will be transferred?
4.	Has approval been received from any of the last mentioned provinces to the terms upon which a transfer shall be made, and, if so, by whom has such approval been given?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The basis of an agreement respecting the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources has been arrived at; the terms of the agreement are being negotiated. When finally determined, the agreement will be submitted for approval to the Parliament of Canada and the legislature of the province of Alberta.
2.	So long as subsidies continue to be paid to the province of Alberta, in lieu of the transfer to that province of its natural resources, it is obvious that the people of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have an interest therein.
Whether such interest would continue after the transfer of the resources in lieu of subsidy payments, is a matter which has not been made the subject of judicial determination.
In the event of a transfer of the natural resources being made on the above terms, if any province should feel that it had a claim arising therefrom, that claim would have to be considered on its merits and should not be an obstacle to the settlement as to control of natural resources between the Dominion government and the government of the province of Alberta.
3.	Answered by the answers to Nos. 1 and
2.
4.	Answered by the answers to Nos. 1 and
2.


BOOT AND SHOE IMPORTS
Mr. PREVOST:: What was the total amount of boots and shoes imported into Canada during each of the years 1914, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: IMPORTS OF BOOTS AND SHOES INTO CANADA (Not Including Rubber Goods)
Classification	Fiscal Years Ended March 31							
1914	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924Boots and shoes, pegged or wire fastened, with unstitched soles,	8,564 15,830	8,677 17,029$ Boots and shoes, slippers and insoles of leather, n.o.p	
$ Boots, shoes and slippers with leather uppers, n.o.p., men's	120,024 4,229,563	14,430 3,164,708	15,417 2,694,106	19,969 2,711,622	24,912 2,175,209	11,214 1,327,561 t	174,837 560,864 198,299 597,295 39,344 46,745	289,100 818,400 239,527 642,474 79,596 68,273$ Boots, shoes and slippers with leather uppers, n.o.p., women's	-	$ Boots, shoes and slippers with leather uppers, n.o.p., child-	
s Boots, shoes, slippers and insoles of all kinds, except rubber and leather	 $ Boots and shoes with canvas								
	317,644	414,822	300,364	434,262	524,555	243,922		
							150,388 197,160 99,070 73,639 157,384 42,037	130,851 152,133 150,869 105,160 170,004 28,837
$ Boots shoes and slippers with								
								
S Boots, shoes and slippers of all kinds, except canvas, felt.								
								
								
* 					 - i									
41^
m
Questions

HALIFAX ELEVATOR Hon. Mr. STEVENS:
1.	Who prepared plans for the Halifax elevator, and what was the engineer's estimate of cost?
2.	Were tenders called for the erection of said elevator, and, if so, in what manner?
3.	How many firms tendered, and what are the names of such firms or individuals?
4.	What was the amount of the lowest tender?
5.	At what figure was the contract awarded, and to whom?
8. What is the total cost to date, based on engineer's approved certificates?
7.	How much has actually been paid to said contractor?
8.	Has contract been completed? If not, what still remains unfinished?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	John S. Metcalf Co., Ltd., Montreal. The
engineer's estimate of cost was $620,000.
2.	Yes, by advertisement in the public press.
3.	Six: E. G. M. Cape & Co., Montreal, Atlas Construction Co., Ltd., Montreal, Barnett McQueen Construction Co., Ltd., Fort William, Ont., The Anglin Norcross, Ltd., Montreal, Macdonald Engineering Co. of Canada, Ltd., Toronto, Keefe Construction Co,. Halifax, N.S.
4.	$599,800.
5.	E. G. M. Cape and Company, Montreal, $599,800.
6.	The only payment made to date, on account of this elevator, is $196.30, for advertising.
7.	Nothing.
8.	The contract has only recently been let, and no progress estimates have been received from the engineers yet.


&quot; CANADIAN OPPORTUNITIES ''
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	Does any department of the federal government contribute to the support of the magazine known as "Canadian Opportunities," published in Toronto?
2.	Does the Canadian National Railways make any financial contribution to this publication ?


Arthur Bliss Copp: [DOT]
1.	The Department of Immigration and Colonization has a six' months' contract for
1,000	copies per month of "Canadian Opportunities". These are distributed among the agencies of the department in the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, and the offices on the continent of Europe. The contract expires in March.
2.	The Canadian National Railways make no financial contribution to the said publication.
IMPORTS UNDER BRITISH PREFERENCE Mr. DUFF:
1.	Whafc was the value of goods imported into Canada from Great Britain under the preferential 
tariff, during the year 1923 and the year 1924, respectively, through Canadian ports?
2.	What was the value of goods imported into Canada from Great Britain under the preferential tariff, during the years 1923 and 1924, respectively, through United States ports, but destined for Canada?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	and 2. Prior to the fiscal year 1923-24, no separate statistics of the imports of goods from the United Kingdom through the United States, subject to preferential tariff, was kept. The imports under preferential tariff during 1923-24 and all imports during 1922-23 and 1923-24, were as follows:
Imports into Canada from the United Kingdom.
(Fiscal years ended March 31, 1923 and 1924)
Total imports from United	1923	1924Kingdom	$ 141,330,143 Imports from United King-	$ 153,586,690dom through United States. Imports from United Kingdom through Canadian	2,914,881	932,224ports	
Imports from United King-	138,415,262	152,654,466dom under preferential. Imports from United Kingdom under preferential	93,554,415	102,944,427tariff through United States Imports from United Kingdom under preferential tariff through Canadian	(a)	811,749ports	(a)	102,132,678(a) Not compiled prior to	1924.


GRAIN TESTING LABORATORY
Mr. GOULD:: 1.	Is the grain testing laboratory at Winnipeg still in operation?
2.	If so, who is in charge of it, and what staff is employed?
3.	If not, when was it closed?
4.	What changes have been made in the staff in the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?
5.	Has any report of the work of the laboratory been submitted by Dr. Birchard during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?
0.	If so, are the rei*orts available to members of the House?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dr. F. J. Birchard.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Changes in staff in 1922:
Herbert A. Watson re-employed as junior chemist at $160 per month from May 8, 1922, to October 1, 1922.
Andrew Cairns re-employed as junior chemist at $1,680 per annum, April 18, 1922, resigned September 30, 1922.
5.	M. Allman (R.S.) employed as a labourer at $4.50 per day from May 1922.
Geo. McDonald employed as a labourer at $4.50 per day for 20 days during June and July, 1922.

Questions
W. Symes employed as a labourer at $4.50 per day during June, July and August, 1922.
Changes in staff in 1923:
S.	M. Allman employed as junior cerealist from July 1, 1923, at $5 per day.
T.	R. Aitken (O.A.S.) employed as junior chemist at $140 per month from September 20, 1923.
Andrew Cairns re-employed as assistant chemist at $175 per month from May 21, 1923. Resigned September 13, 1923.
H.	P. Bill, junior chemist, at $1,800 per annum, resigned March 3, 1923.
Herbert A. Watson re-employed as junior chemist at $160 per month from May 1, 1923. Resigned September 30, 1923.
George Ward employed as a labourer at $4.50 per day for 17 days in September, 1923.
Changes in staff in 1924:
The services of the following were dispensed with on March 31st, 1924:
T. R. Aitken (O.A.S.), junior chemist at $140 per month.
S.	M. Allman (R.S.), junior cerealist at $5 per day.
2.
Miss A. C. Lamb, clerk stenographer at $1,140 per annum.
Mrs. Tate employed as stenographer for 30 days at $90 per month, to assist in preparation of report.
5.	One report of a special nature was received in 1924.
6.	The special report referred to has not yet been printed. It was referred to Dr. H. M. Tory, Chairman of the Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, for consideration as to the value and practicability of the work covered therein. This report is at present in the possession of the Research Council, and has not yet been returned to this department.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	How many ships are there in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?
2.	What are the name, tonnage, length, capacity and horse-power of each?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Fifty-seven.
Name of Steamer	Tonnage	Cargo Capacity Cubic Feet	Gross	Net	Dead Weight	Perpendi- culars	Grain	Bale	Horse PowerFt. In.	Canadian Constructor	7,178	4,413	10,687	430	0	525,792	469,880	4,000it	Cruiser	7,178	4,413	10,682	430	0	525,792	469,880	4,000it	Britisher	5,370	3,244	8,320	400	3	419,013	389,395	3,000ii	Challenger	4,439	3,331	8,422	399	7	433,085	390,126	3,000tt	Commander	5,493	3,347	8,439	400	0	424,242	387,142	3,000a	Conqueror	5,448	3,336	8,407	400	0	424,242	387,142	3,000tt	Explorer	5,408	3,321	8,341	399	6	422,324	385,588	3,000a	Freighter	5,466	3,357	8,347	399	4	421,042	376,129	3,000it	Highlander	5,370	3,260	8,449	399	0	426,633	403,454	3,000it	Importer	5,465	3,400	8,381	399	4	437,580	388,720	3,000tt	Inventor	5,497	3,384	8,350	399	4	438,070	389,170	3,000it	Leader	5,492	3,342	8,455	399	6	424,242	387,142	3,000ti	Mariner	5,384	3,311	8,340	400	0	422,324	385,588	3,000tt	Miller	5,439	3,336	8,390	399	7	438,347	394,953	3,000ti	Pioneer	5,758	3,548	8,408	400	0	436,495	394,158	3,000it	Planter	5,399	3,333	9,399	399	7	438,347	394,953	3,000tt	Prospector	5,492	3,380	8,367	399	4	438,070	389,170	3,000tt	Ranger	5,752	3,551	8,382	400	0	436,495	394,158	3,000it	Scottish	5,334	3,242	8,305	400	0	419,013	389,395	3,000tt	Seigneur	5,757	3,554	9,391	400	0	438,347	394,953	3,000tt	Skirmisher	5,373	3,278	8,424	399	4	413,540	371,680	3,000tt	Spinner	5,407	3,331	8,393	399	2	438,347	394,953	3,000Transporter	5,458	3,352	8,356	399	4	421,042	376,129	3,000it	Traveller	5,443	3,363	8,439	399	2	424,221	385,859	3,000a	Victor	5,454	3,340	8,433	399	7	424,242	387,142	3,000tt	Winner	5,482	3,375	8,407	400	0	436,495	394,158	3,000Aviator	3,388	2,057	5,166	330	6	259,446	241,105	2,500tt	Fisher	3,687	2,200	5,100	331	0	182,200	164,200	2,500tt	Forester	3,673	2,192	5,100	331	0	182,200	164,200	2,500"	Hunter	3,610	2,169	5,021	331	0	239,531	224,130	2,500tt	Raider	3,384	2,052	5,181	330	6	255,246	237,205	2,500tt	Rancher	3,551	2,159	4,892	331	2	234,761	220,138	2,500tt	Settler	3,548	2,155	4,918	331	0	236,936	227,212	2,500Trapper	3,600	2,183	5,054	330 10	238,961	224,038	2,500
Questions

2-Concluded.
Name of Steamer	Tonnage	Cargo Capacity Cubic Feet	Gross	Net	Dead Weight	Perpendi- culars	Grain	Bale	Horse PowerFt.	Canadian Carrier	3,101	1,908	4,620	320	0	194,463	173,102	1,900Otter	3,096	1,887	4,555	320	0	223,840	200,172	1,9008	Runner	3,091	1,812	4,573	320	0	223,840	200,172	1,900Squatter	3,091	1.900	4,554	320	0	223,840	200,172	1,900T rooper	3,180	1,953	4,540	319	6	226,877	210,782	1,700Volunteer	3,188	1,910	4,496	319	6	224,056	201,797	1,700Voyageur	3,099	1,868	4,575	319	0	226,877	210,782	1,700"	Beaver	2,410	1,415	3,973	251	0	176,680	161,250	1,300Coaster	2,422	1,464	3,939	251	0	176,967	161,842	1,300Farmer	2,410	1,451	3,964	251	0	176,680	161,250	1,300Gunner	2,415	1,455	3,978	251	0	176,680	161,250	1,300Harvester	2,394	1,428	4,000	251	0	166,969	149,223	1,300n	Observer	2,410	1,460	3,982	251	0	176,680	161,250	1,300Rover	2,422	1,464	3,920	251	0	176,967	161,842	1,300*	Signaller	2,415	1,455	3,975	251	0	177,820	164,770	1,300Warrior	2,409	1,453	3,995	251	0	177,820	164,770	1,300Adventurer	2,082	1,182	3,408	251	0	155,686	143,295	1,200Engineer	2,281	1,317	3,678	251	0	172,000	160,800	1,300Pathfinder	2,374	1,398	3,640	251	0	172,000	160,800	1,300"	Sailor	2,186	1,283	3,357	251	0	147,408	145,131	1,200*	Sower	2,082	1,182	3,406	251	0	155,686	143,295	1,2008	Trader	2,186	1,283	3,341	251	0	147,408	145,131	1,200Sapper	1,766	1,043	2,781	270	0	118,806	111,269	1,000


SHEDIAC POST OFFICE
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	Has the government recently acquired a site for a post office in the town of Shediac, Westmorland co lints'-?
2.	If so. from whom, on what date, and for what consideration ?
3.	What quantity of land was acquired, and what is the description of same?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	From Mr. A. F. LeBIanc on the 7th January, 1925, for the sum of $8,000, i.e. $7,000 cash and conveyance to Mr. LeBIanc of lot already purchased by the department in 1913.
3.	Site on corner of Main and Victoria streets, described as follows:
All that certain piece or parcel of land situate in the town of Shediac in the county of Westmorland, and bounded and described as follows:	Commencing
at the north-west corner of Victoria street where it joins Main street or the Intercolonial Railway lands, thence southerly along said street to a point fifty feet south of the main building, being one hundred and seventy-nine feet from the north side line of land of George W. Tait; thence westerly parallel with said Tait's north side line until it strikes the easterly side line of land formerly owned by Louis Comeau, thence northerly along said eastern side line to the Intercolonial Railway lands; thence easterly along said railway lands to the place of beginning.
Note: Lot about 150 feet by 150 feet, with three-storey frame building.


LORETTEVILLE POST OFFICE
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	Has the government recently acquired a site for a post office in Loretteville, Quebec?
2.	If so, from whom, at what price, what was the date of purchase, and what is the description of land ?
3.	Was a site previously purchased by a former government for a like purpose?
4.	If so, when, from whom and at what price?
5.	Does the government still own the last mentioned site ?
6.	If so, why was it not used?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) From Mr. A. Savard on the 20th October, 1923, for the sum of $4,800.
(b) It is known as lot No. 708 of the official cadastre for the parish of St. Am-broise de Lorette, and is bounded as follows: To the north by lot No. 706; to the south by the main road; to the west by lot No. 709; and to the east by lot No. 707. The following are the metes and bounds:
Starting at a point A as shown on the accompanying plan and situated on the south-west corner of the said property said point being the intersection of the division line between lots 708 and 709 with the main road and running in a north-westerly direction to a point B for a distance of one hundred and five feet (105') direction N-25 degrees 40' W. Thence from the point B to a point C in a north-easterly direction for a distance of fifty seven feet and ten inches, direction N-67 degrees 00' E. thence from point C to point D in a south-easterly direction for a distance of one

Questions
hundred and three feet in a direction S-25 degrees 00' E; thence from point D to the starting point A along the main road running in a south-westerly direction for a distance of fifty-six feet six inches in a direction S-65 degrees 00' E. The whole forming an area of five thousand nine hundred and forty feet English measure more or less. Note:	The directions
are magnetic.
3.	Yes.
4.	21st August 1913, from Mr. Joseph Renaud for 32,250.
5.	Yes.
6.	Renaud property not suitably located for post office purposes.


GASOLINE TAX
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to a proposed bill to place a tax of three cents a gallon on gasoline by the Ontario government?
2.	If so. will the government look into the legality of such a tax in view of the large grants made to the province for good roads, and as to whether the said tax is not ultra vires of the province under trade and commerce section 91 of the British North America Act, and on other grounds?
3.	What has been done to meet the Ontario government and co-ordinate federal and provincial taxation to prevent duplication and overlapping on income, amusement and other forms of taxation since last session?
4.	What grants towards good roads have been made the province of Ontario during the past fourteen years?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I
would direct attention to the fact that there are really three or four subjects dealt with in this question. The answer to the first question is no. In respect to the other three I would suggest that if the hon. member (Mr. Church) desires to have them answered he put them in the form of separate questions.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Stand for
amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, answered.


IMMIGRATION EXPENDITURE
Mr. CHURCH:: How much money was spent on immigration during the past four years.-(a) From the British Isles; (b) from the United States;	(c) from the continent of Europe?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: (a)	(b)	(c)
United Continent British Isles States of Europe
1921-	22 $ 302,373 04 $ 419,956 92 $	
1922-	23	332,610	09	525,363	90	51,353	541923-	24	523,318	03	549,355	76	87,711	15*1924-25	473,968	45	224,281	63	68,780	99
Totals $1,632,269 61 $1,718,958 21 $207,845 68 * 9 Mos. (April 1 to December 31).


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to bring in a measure this session providing for old age
pensions?
2.	Has the government received any representations from any provincial government of Canada, offering to bear a portion of the cost of old age pensions? If so, from what province?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	The matter is under consideration.
2.	No.


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Has the government communicated with the provincial governments in connection with the old age pension scheme, which was recommended to the House in a report brought down July 1, 1924?
2.	If so, what was the result of these communications ?
3.	If not, has the government decided to do anything during the present session as suggested by the report ?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	British Columbia. A resolution was adopted by the legislature approving of the principle of old age pensions and advising the enactment of legislation by the Dominion government to bring the same into effect; the government of British Columbia also expressed the opinion that the matter of old age pensions was one entirely in the sphere of the federal parliament.
Alberta. Consideration promised. Saskatchewan. The reply of the provincial government spoke of the difficulty of adopting any suitable scheme of old age pensions by provincial enactment alone, and referred to the differences in climate between the various provinces as rendering a joint scheme between the Dominion and the provinces difficult of attainment. The opinion of the provincial government was that an old age pension scheme for Canada could best be adopted by the federal authorities alone.
Manitoba. Promised consideration.
Ontario. Promised consideration.
Nova Scotia. Promised consideration. Quebec. The provincial government intimated in its reply its inability to comply with the proposals of the Old Age Pensions committee.
New Brunswick. No reply has been received as yet.
3.	The matter is under consideration.


SALES TAX REBATES
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: By a return dated February' 21, 1925, to an order of the House dated July 3. 1924. it is shown that as of date October 16, 1924, out of a total number of
Questions

4,486 claims for rebates of sales taxes, 1,907 claims had been checked and paid, leaving 2,563 claims outstanding. How many of these outstanding claims have been checked since the date given in the said return, and how much money has been paid thereon ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would take some time to answer this question. I suggest to my hon. friend that it be made an order for return.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no objection to its standing if we -can get the information. The answer should be very short, and I think it should stand as a question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, it can stand as a question, but I am informed by the department that it wild take some little time to get the information.
Question stands.


BOARD OF GRAIN APPEAL
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	Has a board of grain appeal, as provided for in Section 102 of the Canada Grain Act, been appointed?
2.	If so, what are the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the said board?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


GRAIN STANDARDS BOARD
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What are the (a) names, addresses and (b) occupations of the members of the Grain Standards Board?
2.	What are the (a) names, addresses and (b) occupations of the members of the several grain survey boards appointed under the authority of the Canada Grain Act?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1. (a) Western Division: Peter Ferguson. Tate, Sask.; R. J. Phin, Moosomin, Sask.; Jas. Riddell, Rosebank, Man.; D. W. Mc-Cuaig, Portage la Prairie, Man.; Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Regina, Sask.; K. Campbell, Brandon, Man., (Chairman); W. A. Mathe-son, Winnipeg, Man.; W. A. Black, Montreal, P.Q.; G. R. Crowe, Winnipeg, Man.; M. McLaughlin, Toronto, Ont.; W. H. Fairfield, Lethbridge, Alta; C. B. Watts, Toronto, Ont.; John McFarland, Stratheona, Alta; D. Horn, Winnipeg, Man.; T. A. Crerar, Winnipeg. Man.; D. D. Young, Winnipeg, Man.; C. Tilt, Winnipeg, Man.; Andrew Kelly, Winnipeg, Man.; Donald MacRae, Regina, Sask.; W. J. Rutherford, Saskatoon, Sask.; J. Mabarg, Moose Jaw, Sask.; A. E. Wilson, Indian Head, Sask.; T. 0. King, Raymond, Alta; C. N. Bell, Secretary, Winnipeg, Man.
Eastern Division:	John Carrick, H. H.
Goode, F. W. Hay, A. 0. Hogg, R. I. Braiden, H. L. Rice, C. B. Watts, M. Doherty, S. Hisey,

F. G. Morley (Secretary), Toronto, Ont.; H. D. Dwyer, Jos. Quintal, A. P. Stewart, Norman Wight, J. S. Cook (Secretary), Montreal, Que.
(b) No information.
2. (a) Winnipeg: G. V. Hastings, G. R. Crowe, D. D. Young, W. M. McMillan, W. A. Matheson, W. L. Parrish, W. H. McWilliams, F. N. McLaren, T. G. Thompson, J. C. Gage, W. R. Bawlf, W. Harriot, D. Horn, C. N. Belle (Secretary).
Calgary: C. W. Roemisch, Angus C. Robertson, C. M. Hall, J. Munson, W. W. Cumming. Arthur Pierson, D. L. McLean, D. O. McHugh (Secretary).
Toronto: D. Plewes, John Carrick, D. O. Ellis, A. O. Hogg, H. H. Goode, D. A. Campbell, S. Hisey, C. B. Watts, R. I. Braiden, F. G. Morley (Secretary).
Montreal: C. B. Eed&ile, A. G. Burton, H. C. Dyer, E. S. Jacques, Jos. Quintal, Thos. Reeves, J. S. Cook (Secretary).
(b) No information.


SASKATOON POST OFFICE SITE
Mr. CARROLL:: J. Ill what year was the site for a post office in Saskatoon purchased and at what price?
2. Is the site considered a convenient one for the purpose?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	(a) 1914.
(b) $122,500.
2.	When the property was purchased the city of Saskatoon was growing rapidly and had this continued, the site would have been an excellent one. The site at present is just outside what is considered as the boundary of
[DOT] the business section. It is across the street from the city hall.


PRINCE RUPERT POST OFFICE SITE
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	When was the site for a post office in Prince Rupert purchased?
2.	What was the purchase price?
3.	How much money was spent in excavating the basement ?
4.	How much money was spent in pumping water out of the basement?
5.	Is the site regarded as an advantageous one for post office purposes ?
6.	If not, why?
7.	Was an offer made in 1924 for the purchase of this property?
8.	If so, what amount was offered?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	1913.
2.	$95,000.
3.	$18,763.35.
4.	$1,197.07

Questions
5 and 6. No, as it is not a corner site and there is a cliff of rock which would prevent access at the rear of the building.
7.	Yes.
8.	$18,000.


ESQUIMALT DRY DOCK
Mr. STORK:: 1.	In what year was a site for a dry dock at Lang's Cove* Esquimalt, British Columbia, acquired?
2.	What price was paid for the site?
3.	Was the site made use of in the present construction of the Victoria dry dock?
4.	Was any other property acquired for dry dock purposes at Esquimau, British Columbia, and what price was paid?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	1914.
2.	$346,221.25.
3.	No.
4.	Yes, at Skinners' Cove. $53,136.60.
STOME & SMITHSEN CONTRACT


Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Was a contract awarded lately to Messrs. Stome & Smithsen of Winnipeg, for the hauling of parcels, etc., from the customs house in Winnipeg?
2.	If so, was this contract for a period of years, and if so. for what number of years?
3.	Were tenders called for by advertisement in the usual way?
4.	Were returned soldiers given the preference in the awarding of this contract?
5.	On whose recommendation was the contract awarded ?
6.	Is the government aware that the successful tenderers have had no previous experience in this line of work, and had no equipment and were not returned soldiers?
7.	Was the government aware that Messrs. Smithsen and Stome were Vice-President and Secretary of the North Winnipeg Liberal Association?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of Customs and Excise):: 1.	Contract was awarded to Mr. Charles Smithsen.
2,	3, 4, 6 and 7. No.
5.	The Honourable the Minister of Customs and Excise.


PENSIONS COMMITTEE
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to have a special committee on pensions this year?
2.	If not, does the government intend to reintroduce the amendments passed by this House last session of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This question was answered, I think, on the last question day. Dropped.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The first question was
answered, but not the second.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can answer
the second by saying that the matter is under consideration.


IMMIGRATION CANTEEN-QUEBEC
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	What was the cost in salaries and other expenditures for the management of the canteen and restaurant of the Department of Immigration at Quebec, during each of the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?
2.	What were the number and names of employees detailed for that service for said years, and what was the salary of each?
3.	By whom were these persons recommended?
4.	How many officials employed by the Department of Immigration at Quebec were placed temporary at the service of these two organizations?
5.	Did the said canteen and restaurant show a profit or deficit and what amount, during the year 1924?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	The canteen and restaurant in the Immigration building at Quebec were not conducted by the department in 1922 and 1923, being in the hands of a private individual who engaged his own help and purchased [his supplies. In 1924 the canteen and restaurant were under the control of the department. The salaries for the season totalled $13,713.24, while the other expenses, including the purchase of provisions, etc., amounted to $27,836.98.
2.	41 employees as follows:-P. W. Dugal, $4,000 for the season; and the following at the rate per month given: A. Dumais, $150; D. C. Addie, $125; A. Gauvin and E. Riverin, $100; C. Sampson, $85; A. Brousseau, $75;
J.	Dugal, $70; C. Legace, G. Jones, Miss P. Bourgeois and Miss R. A. Talbot, $60; Mrs. M. L. Boutet, Miss M. Goderich, E. Dostie and Miss S. Apter, $50; Mrs. A. Laplante, A. Laplante, Mrs. M. R. Boutet, Mrs. Ditney, Miss G. Ranson, Miss R. Langlais, Miss J. Dube, Miss M. Paradis, Miss M. A. Lebel, A. Coulombe, R. Clermont, A. McKinnon, Miss B. McDonald, Miss H. Mansbridge, Miss B. Robertson, Miss A. Laughlan, J. Laveau, A. Demeule, Miss E. Vincent, Mrs. Dermeny, Mrs. Nadeau, Mrs. Witing and Mrs. J. Gallachan, $40; F. Doucet and Mrs. Boucher, $35. A number of these were not employed during the entire season but were engaged for short periods only. Extra help was employed by the day when required.
3.	Not recommended by anyone. Mr. Dugal, the caterer, in charge, was selected on account of his experience and ability in the catering line and he was given full control regarding the staff and purchase of supplies.
4.	None.
5.	Deficit of $178.07.


CANADIAN WHEAT IN BOND
Mr. McTAGGART:: How many bushels of Canadian grown wheat were milled in bond in the United States during the yeara 1923 and 1924?
Questions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No information available.


REJECTED IMMIGRANTS
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	How many immigrants were denied admission into Canada during the calendar years of 1923 and
1924 respectively?
2.	How many were turned back during the same years respectively because of (a) mental deficiency;
(b)	physical disability?
3.	How many were denied admission on account of (a) venereal disease; (b) primary syphilis; (c) tertiary syphilis; (d) how many of each from continental Europe?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	1923, 11,870; 1924, 11,324. These figures include both the ocean ports and International Boundary.
2.	(a) 91; (b) 182.
3.	(a), (b), (c), None; (d) Answered by (a), (b) and (c).


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-KAMLOOPS-KELOWNA BRANCH
Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	Have the negotiations between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, with regard to Kamloops-Kelowna branch been completed ?
2.	If so. with what result?
3.	Is the construction at present proceeding between Campbell creek and Armstrong to be continued to Vernon. Lumby and Kelowna?
4.	If so, at what date will the construction of these various portions be completed?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: A formal agreement is now in course of preparation which will give the Canadian National Railways running rights over the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks between Kamloops and Campbell creek (about twelve miles), and between Armstrong and Vernon (about twelve miles), and will also give the Canadian Pacific running rights over the Canadian National rails between Vernon and Lumby, and between Vernon and Kelowna, as soon as the latter stretches are completed.
Meanwhile, until the agreement is formally executed, the Canadian National Railways have tentatively secured running rights between Kamloops and Campbell creek for their construction trains.
There are at present completed on the Kamloops-Kelowna-Lumby branches 101 miles of grade out of a total of 105 miles. This gap of four miles will be completed this year. It is also intended to lay track, and ballast this mileage, erect the necessary buildings, and generally finish the line by the end of 1925.


GOLD AND BANK NOTE CIRCULATION
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	During 1921, what was the monthly average total amount of gold held by the Department of Finance against the $226,002,627 of Dominion Notes issued?
2.	What was the total amount of gold in all forms held by the Department of Finance in each of the past five years ?
3.	What was the total amount of bank notes in circulation in January, 1925?
4.	What was the total amount of gold held by the banks for redemption of their notes during 1925?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Amount of gold held by the department against Dominion of Canada note issue:-
At January 31st	$102,858,880	45At February 28th	
102,016,282	23At March 31st	
98.809,085	54At April 30th	
96,996.664	91At May 31st	
96,986,774	97At June 30th	
98,732,954	17At July 31st	
97,052,221	03At August 31st	
97,517,480	50At September 30th	
97,870,884	64At October 31st	
123,131,010	77At November 30th	
138,462,626	10At December 31st	
138,705,075	74
2.
1920	$102,819,670	341921	
88,234,072	451922	
93,232,374	671923	
123.805.921	031924	
110,578,586	503.	Figures not yet available.4.	Figures not available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Thomas Langton Church: What were the total revenues of the government collected from Toronto during the past three years of record from, (a) customs and inland revenue;
(b)	post office (c) income and sales tax; and (e) other sources?


ONTARIO UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was any report received by the government from any mayors or municipal authorities in western Ontario to meet the government regarding the relief of unemployment, or any other application received for unemployment relief and from whom?
2.	What correspondence was held with the municipal authorities aforesaid, and what replies were sent by the government?
3.	Did the government decline to meet them?
4.	If so, why, and were they notified not to pome to Ottawa, and by whom?
5.	Will the government afford the House an opportunity at an early date of discussing the whole subject of unemployment in Canada?
6.	If so, when?

Unopposed Motions jor Papers


PUBLIC WORKS, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. NEILL:: What is the cost when completed of the following public works, including in cases where the work is not completed estimated cost to finish: (1) dry dock at Esquimalt, Victoria; (2) post office building, Victoria; (3) outer wharf. Victoria; (4) floating dry dock, Vancouver; (5) Elevators, terminal facilities, wharves, and other properties of the Vancouver Harbour board; (6) post office, Vancouver; (7) floating dry dock, Prince Rupert; (8) government wharves and buildings, Prince Rupert?


SOLDIER SETTLERS, MANITOBA
Mr. BANCROFT:: 1. How many soldier settlers in Manitoba were granted loans prior to December 31, 1924?
2.	How many of these abandoned their farms prior to December 31, 1924?
3.	How many of the farms abandoned in Manitoba were resold ?
4.	What was the average net loss on the farms in Manitoba thus resold, not including interest, taxes, costs of sales, etc.?
5.	How many soldier settlers still on their farms in Manitoba were in arrears with payments on December 31. 1924, and to what extent?
6.	On how many abandoned farms in Manitoba has no salvage sale of stock and equipment yet been held?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) moved:: For a return showing by districts or regions the number of employees in each of the following classes and the average annual compensation for each employee of such class of the Canadian National Railways: receiving under $1,000 per year; receiving $1,000 per	year	or	over	but	under	$2,000;	receiving	$2,000per	year	or	over	but	under	$3,000;	receiving	$3,000per	year	or	over	but	under	$4,000;	receiving	$4,000per	year	or	over	but under $5,000;	and so on until
all classes are complete.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): If my hon. friend wishes to discuss this question, it cannot, of course, be discussed in this form; it will have to come under the regular motions for production of papers. I might say to him that it has been referred to the Canadian National management, and they take strong exception to answering questions of this character for public use.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not like the question to be dropped without considering it a little further. Perhaps I could have a word with the minister about it.


George Perry Graham: All right.
Motion stands.
3PILLERS ELEVATOR SITE-VANCOUVER


Mr. McQUARRIE (for Mr. Black, Yukon) moved:: For copy of all letters, telegrams, documents and correspondence, between January 1. 1922, and February 25, 1924, between R. H. Gale and any minister or
official of the Dominion government; and, between. R. H. Gale and the Vancouver Harbour Commission, and between Vancouver Harbour Commissioners and any minister or official of the Dominion government; and, between any representative of the Spillere interests and the Harbour Commissioners, and, or any minister of the Crown and official of the government, regarding the negotiations for lease or sale of certain waterfront property in the Vancouver harbour, upon which is now erected what is known as the Spillers elevator, and which property lies immediately east of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners elevator No. 1. Also, copy of any letters, agreements, schedules of fees, assignments, transfers, and other documents appertaining thereto.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think there is
any objection to this motion passing, but in the absence of the minister I should be obliged if it could be permitted to Stand-
Motion stands.


BRITISH EMBARGO ON CANADIAN POTAT0E3
William Garland McQuarrie: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, statements and communications between the government of Canada or the High Commissioner of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom or any department of the government of the United Kingdom or any officer thereof, relating to the imposition of an embargo by the government of the United Kingdom against Canadian potatoes.


DUTY ON ROLLING STOCK
Henry Lumley Drayton: For a return showing the amount of duty paid by American railway companies on American rolling stock used in Canada during the past twenty-six years, by years; showing the names of such companies and the character of the rolling stock on which such duties were paid, and the amounts.


MILITARY DISTRICT NO. 10-COAL INQUIRY
Mr. ROSS (Kingston) :: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, orders in council, evidence and report or reports, and other documents in connection with the investigation lately conducted by David Campbell, K.C., of Winnipeg, into the supplies of coal and other matters affecting Military District 10, and especially copies of telegrams passing between the Solicitor General and the said commissioner or counsel for the commission and between the Defence department and the commissioner or counsel for the commission.


Mr. ARTHURS:: For a copy of all accounts sent in to the government for payment for services rendered by Commissioner David Campbell, K.C., and D. R. MacLean, government counsel, during the enquiry into coal supplied at Tuxedo barracks, Winnipeg, together with a copy of all correspondence passing between the Solicitor General, or any other official of the government or any department thereof, and Messrs. Campbell and MacLean, or any other person or persons, in connection with said accounts.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CONTRACT FOR WATER
Mr. MARCILE (Bagot):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports and other documents sent by the superin-
Race Track Betting

tendents to the General Superintendent, President and First Vice-President of the Canadian National Railways, in connection with the granting of a contract far supplying water to the Canadian National Railways, including the Acton Vale station and the Acton Vale National Aqueduct and Power Company, represented by Mr. H. Begin, of Montreal. Also a copy of contract prepared and presented to be signed in the month of June, 1924. Also copy of contract as amended, copy of tenders sent by the city council of Acton Vale, for supplying water to the Canadian National Railways, as well as to the said station. Also all correspondence exchanged between the Canadian National officials and the officials of the city of Acton Vale, Board of Trade of the county of Bagot, and others.


RACE TRACK BETTING
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the special privilege now given to Racing Associations under the Criminal Code of carrying on public gambling operations in connection with their race meetings is detrimental to the best interests of Canada and should be abolished.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the motion is
seconded by Mr. Denis, the member for Joliette. The substance of this resolution is identical with that of the resolution presented by me two years ago. The question at once arises-and it is a question which I ought perhaps to anticipate and answer now-why am I bringing up the matter again this year? Those who were here last year will remember that I had the same resolution on the order paper last year, but owing to the fact that the government took private members' day very early in the session, the resolution was not reached at all. I am bringing it up this year for several fairly distinct reasons. In the first place, I am not very easily discouraged, I hope, by such a defeat as the motion had two years ago. I believe in following the well known motto: "If at first you don't succeed try, .try again," and so long as I am able I wish to advance this cause in whatever way I can. I shall consider it not only a duty but a privilege to do so. I propose therefore to give the House an opportunity of dividing on the question again, and I sincerely hope that every hon. member of the House will feel it his duty and his privilege to express himself on this resolution.
I want also to say that I believe there was a misunderstanding two years ago in regard to a certain matter brought up in this connection by the then Minister of Justice, Sir Lomer Gouin, and I wish to deal specifically with that particular point because I hope that I can put it in such a way that there will not be any further misunderstanding. I desire therefore in that connection to draw the attention of hon. members to an extract from the fMr. Marcile.]
Hansard of March 1, 1923, page 739, where in the course of his remarks on my resolution the then Minister of Justice said of me:
He quoted the Hon. Mr. Raney as his main authority, I would say, to justify his resolution.
I might comment just here to the effect that I did not quote Mr. Raney on that occasion as my chief authority. That, however is neither here nor there. Continuing-and this I would bring to the attention of the members particularly-he said:
I am not sure that I shall surprise the hon. member for Brant, but I may tell him this, that the Hon. Mr. Ranejr has never asked for any such amendment as the amendment my hon. friend now proposes to this House.


George Perry Graham: When my hon. friend spoke of Mr. Raney was he referring to the then Attorney General of Ontario?


William Charles Good: Yes, to Hon. W. E. Raney, then Attorney General of Ontario. The hon. gentleman (Sir Lomer Gouin) went on to state that he had had correspondence with the Attorney General of Ontario in regard to a proposed amendment to the criminal code that had to do with the prohibition of the publication of racing information, and so on, and the correspondence is all here. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to point this fact out to the House very definitely, and I hope there will not be any further misunderstanding ; Mr. Raney for years asked for the amendment which I am advocating. But he did not ask for it in this particular correspondence that he had with the Minister of Justice, for the very good reason that the matter was then before the House in the resolution I then had on the order paper, and because the proposal which I made in the resolution dealt with a different matter entirely from the question which Mr. Raney was taking up with the then Minister of Justice. These two mat-ters-the question of removing the special privilege which is now extended to racing associations and which is contained in sub-section 2 of section 235, and the question of forbidding the publication of racing information in our newspapers-are two entirely different questions. They are related of course to the one evil of gambling, but they are entirely different questions and should not by any manner of means be confused, and I hope that during the course of the present debate the two questions will be kept absolutely distinct.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to repeat the argument of two years ago. The matter was very fully debated on that occasion, and

Race Track Betting
I consider that it would be quite needless to cover the ground again. I would, however, at this point desire to repeat the summary I then gave of the legislation dealing with this matter so as to refresh the memories of hon. gentlemen.
If we refer, therefore, at the outset, to the Revised Statutes of 1906 we find that subsection 1, of section 235, made it an indictable offence punishable by one year's imprisonment and a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars:
(a)	To use or knowingly allow premises to be used for betting.
(b)	To keep, exhibit, employ or knowingly allow to be employed thereon any betting device.
(c)	To become a stake holder, or
(d)	To record or register a bet on an election, race
or contest.
But by sub-section 2 these provisions were not to apply to bets between individuals or to those made on a race course of any incorporated racing association during a race meet. Now, there we have the indictment, if you like, under sub-section 1, and the exemption under sub-section 2. I referred two years ago to the very lengthy discussion which took place in 1910 in connection with the so-called Miller bill as a result of which there was an amendment, a compromise amendment, made to this section which re-enacted sub-section 1 of the foregoing section, and' added to the list of offences therein contained by making it an offence:
(a)	To engage in poolL-sel'ling, or book-making or the business of betting, or to make an agreement for the purchase or sale of betting privileges or of information intended to assist in betting.
(b)	To advertise, print, publish, exhibit, post up, sell or supply, etc., or offer to sell or supply such information.
(c)	To advertise, print, publish, exhibit, or post up any offer, invitation, or inducement to bet.
(d)	To sell, transmit, deliver, or receive any message relating to book-making, pool-selling or betting.
(e)	To aid or assist in the foregoing.
But- the application of sub-section 1 was further limited by adding to sub-section 2 the provision that sub-section 1 should not apply-and I hope hon. members will listen to this carefully-to book-making, pool-making, betting or wagering upon such race course provided that such race meetings are not continued for longer than seven days or occur oftener than twice a year on such race course.
There was a further amendment in the year 1912, two years later, which re-enacted the foregoing sub-section 2, as amended1, but. limited the racing associations therein defined to those incorporated before March 20, 1912, and to any incorporated after that date by act of parliament or of the legislature of any
province, and also for the first time permitted racing associations to sell information or privileges to assist in or enable the conduct-ting of book-making, pool-selling, or betting, and so on, during the actual progress of a race meeting.
As a result of these two amendments-one in the year 1910 and the other in the year 1912-there was a general tightening up of the law against the keeping of what were defined as betting houses, and a general loosening up of the law as it applied to racing associations. That, I think, is a fair statement of the effect of those amendments. Now, in the year 1917, I think it was, an order in council was passed, to which I referred two years ago, wiping out these two exemptions for the duration of the war and I think a year afterwards-I have forgotten the exact dates; at all events this particular special privilege was wiped out by order in council in 1917 which order in council lapsed in January, 1920. During those three years this practice was discontinued, and I outlined to the House two years ago the effect of that discontinuance during the latter years of the war and for a year or two afterwards. About that time also the so-called Rutherford commission was appointed to go into this whole matter and report. As a result of that report there was a further amendment to the statutes in 1920 which re-enacted the foregoing sub-section as amended-that is subsection 2-but limited the non-applicability of sub-section 1 to bets made on a race course through the agency of the pari-mutuel system, limiting the percentage which could be retained by a racing association out of the amount of any money paid or stake deposited with such association and of which it became the depository under the pari-mutuel system, and providing that the type of pari-mutuel machine should be approved by the Minister of Agriculture, and that he must be satisfied that a proper proportion of the gate receipts and of the percentage retained as above was given in purses for the horses racing.
The Statutes of 1922 made a few -minor changes in sections 227 and 235. Instead of the words "between individuals" parliament-inserted the words "'between not more than ten individuals." There was also a specific exemption of race track operations permitted by the 1920 amendment. Two years ago there were also some further minor amendments to the law in this respect. Chapter 41, section 6 of the statutes of 1923 made a minor amendment to subsection 2 in respect of the percentage of the total amount of the stake which could be retained.
Race Track Betting

Such is a summary of the law dealing with this matter from the year 1906 to the present time.
I should like next to mention to the House that during the last two years there has been a notable increase in the number of tracks on which this race track gambling is being carried on. There are two more tracks in British Columbia, two more in Manitoba and two more in Ontario; and I think, as hon. members will have noted from the newspapers, there has been a very distinct increase in the handbook evil which is largely based on the racing and betting that goes on at the race meets. I have received, since the matter was first presented to the House two years ago, a great many unsolicited expressions of approval and appreciation of my action taken on that occasion, and expressions also of a desire that the matter should be kept to the fore, and that the House should deal with it again. I do not think it necessary to read any of these; I have them in my hand, quite a bunch of them as you will see, which have come from various organizations and places throughout the country. I may say also, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago I went to the races at Connaught Park to get first-hand information regarding the details of the pari-mutuel system. I was very hospitably and cordially entertained by the management, and taken in behind the scenes, and everything was explained to me in great detail. I appreciated this opportunity, but I may say that what I learned has only deepened my conviction as to the tremendous menace and evils of this special privilege granted these associations and which I am now asking parliament to take away from them.
I have something further to say in this connection, but I think it would be well for me to reserve it until the conclusion of the debate. I therefore leave the matter for the present in the hands of the House.


Mr. FRED STORK (Skeena):: The resolution moved by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. 'Good) is one which I find myself unable to support, for the reason that it does not correct the evil. We remember that two years ago the hon. member for Laurier-Outre-mont (Sir Lomer Gouin), then minister of Justice, introduced, and this House passed, a bill designed to correct the evil of handbook betting. This measure, we all remember, was thrown out by the Senate. The resolution as presented by the hon. member for Brant deals entirely with betting which takes place upon the race tracks in the Dominion of Canada. It does not in any manner curtail the practice of betting on race tracks out-

side of Canada. In the Toronto Globe of last Saturday, on the front page, I find a very interesting article, which they feature in regard to the intimated legislation as outlined or forecast by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in which he has intimated that he will at this session of parliament introduce a bill curtailing the evil of handbook betting. In that connection the Toronto Globe of Saturday says:
Inspector Raises Both Hands for Anti-Handbook Measure
Staff Official of Toronto Police Department Declares 90 Per Cent of Illegal Traffic Would Disappear Immediately Proposed Amendment Became Law.
An Effective Blow at Elusive Evil
If passed by parliament, the amendment to the Criminal Code to be presented to the House during the present session by Hon. Ernest Lapointe, Minister of Justice, will practically wipe out handbooking, according to Staff Inspector David McKinney of the Morality Department of the Toronto police force. While it may not meet entirely with the spirit of the resolution passed at the Chief Constables' convention in Vancouver in 1922, the amendment will be of great assistance to the police of the Dominion in suppressing the handbook, the inspector added, in an interview yesterday.
Hits at Base of Supply
The amendment which will be presented by the Minister of Justice would make a person guilty of an indictable offence who advertises, prints, publishes, exhibits, posts up, sells or supplies, or offers to sell or supply, 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.
There are some quotations here from the city of Hamilton as follows:
Representative clergymen and police officials here agree that legislation prohibiting the publication of betting odds will go far toward eradicating the handbook evil. Some of them said to-day the traffic quickly would collapse once such a law were enforced effectively.
Chief of Police David Coulter said: "Suppress the information, and the entire handbook evil collapses. People are not going to wager money on something they can find out nothing about. I have always advocated reformers going after legislation to this effect."
Rev. Dr. J. L. Alexander, First Congregational Church: "Suppress the information, and you take the nerve out of the tooth. Everybody knows, especially those sporting writers who may be affected, that it is the publicity given their writings which keeps the public interest up. Suppression of the racing tip and odds will go far to put the bookmaker out of business."
That shows, I think, that public opinion is very largely behind the attempt to put the handbook out of business in Canada. I pick up the morning paper published in Ottawa, -and I find that, while there are to-day no

Race Track Betting
races being held in Canada, because at this season of the year, the race tracks are not operated, yet we find in all the principal daily papers of Canada there are three columns published of results of racing, and the morning paper says:
Racing on Three Tracks Miami, New Orleans, Tia Juana
Now, surely the people of Canada have very little interest in the races being held away down in Tia Juana, Mexico. We have sporting events in this country. For instance when a hockey match takes place, the reporters are in the arena and write up every detail of t!he game as it proceeds. People who follow hockey as a sport get a very fair idea as to how the game is played. When a boat race takes place, the newspapers devote a great deal of space to detailing every feature of the race, and although we sit at home, we can practically visualise the contest from start to finish. The same is true as regards every other contest and sporting event throughout the world. Therefore, in the report of a horse race, we would like to see the race detailed so that one could get some information in regard to the quality of each horse and where he is placed; but I am fairly satisfied that the publication of the news as it appears in the racetrack sheets is only for the purpose of carrying on handbook betting as it is carried on in this country. The sheet I hold in my hand is dated February 28, and in it is a list of results, which I will not detail, of the races of that date and then appear the entries for Monday. The details of the races which took place on the 28th give a complete list of the horses, the winners and also the also-rans. You would wonder why they print this in detail. People in this country are not very much interested in regard to races that take place outside of Canada, and I am satisfied that the object in view in printing this detailed information is that this is corroboration of exactly how the races went, so that those who won or lost their money have in this an authoritative report of what took place. There is a complete list for all three tracks outlining the activities that will take place there to-day, and to-morrow's paper will contain detailed information as to what horses won and what horses lost.
Before I take my seat, I hope to move an amendment which will attempt, at least, to correct this evil. The evil to-day is not that of the race-track as conducted in Canada. The crying evil that we have to-day is the practice of handbook betting. This amendment will, I hope, put out of business the resorts throughout Canada in which this trade and practice is carried on.


Mr. FORKE:: In the paper publishing the results of those races and giving information as to future races, is there any report as to what the betting is on those races?


Alfred Stork: Yes. It is not necessary
to destroy altogether a sport which many people in this country enjoy and appreciate. Horce racing is an honest and honourable sport. It has come down to us through unbroken centuries. We have to-day in England the great Derby day, and I am advised that when Derby day comes around, if the House of Commons in London is sitting the House adjourns to take in Derby day. Derby day and the other great races in England have become English institutions. Lord Rosebery, in his younger days, made three prophecies. He said that he would at some future time be Prime Minister of England; that he would marry the wealthiest woman in England ; and that he would win the English Derby. He accomplished all of those three prophecies. He won the Derby three times: in 1894 with Ladas, in 1895 with Sir Vista, and in 1905 with Cicero. The English race-track has been an organized institution for the last two hundred years, and no one will say that it is a reprehensible organization or a bad practice. It is patronized by the very highest and best people in the empire. We find that royalty itself has patronized the race-track in England. We find that while Lord Rosebery succeeded in winning the Derby on three occasions, the Prince of Wales has also accomplished that feat. In 1896, the Prince of Wales won the Derby with his horse Persimmon, and in 1900 he won the Derby again with his horse Diamond Jubilee. In 1909, his Majesty King Edward VII, that prince of sportsmen, won the Derby with his horse Minoru.


Mr. BROWN:: Perhaps, before the hon.
member finishes his remarks in regard to the situation in England, he might explain the system under which betting is carried on in England.


Alfred Stork: I am not very familiar with the exact method by which betting is carried on there, but no one will deny the fact that betting does take place on the English Derby and on every other horse race carried on in that country.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I rise to a point of order. Is it in order that any hon. member should bring in the conduct of members of the royal family in order to influence the process of this debate?


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is proceeding very closely to a line which is not permitted in debate.
Race Track Betting


Alfred Stork: I understand that even the
names of those high in authority in this country in regard to horse racing rankle in the 'breasts of some hon. members in this House. I believe there is a well defined place in the Dominion of Canada for a properly organized and operated race-track. When one views the race-tracks as we have them in this country, with the Woodbine, the Blue Bonnets and our own Connaught Park at Ottawa, I think they have a very necessary place in our public life. What more inspiring sight can one see than the beautiful lawns, flowers and spotless equipment upon these race-tracks?


William Charles Good: Does the hon. member
imagine that I am assailing horse-racing?


Alfred Stork: I am just making a defence for the perpetuation of the king of sports in Canada. I have my misgivings as to the effect of the proposed resolution, and I am simply voicing my sentiments and stating that I for one, as a citizen of this country, desire to see the race tracks of Canada, an honourable, good and clean sport, perpetuated and not endangered by any hocus-pocus resolutions that may be engineered into this debate. I see no reason why the race tracks of Canada should not continue as they are. The horse has always held a great place in this Dominion. Even in the county of Brant and the city of Brantford there is a loving memory cherished of the late Mr. Cope Stinson with his wonderful horse Geneva. Some thirty years ago Geneva was one of the best, gamest horses that ever pulled a sulky around a race track. I maintain that horses and men have their place in the public as well as in the private life of Canada, inasmuch as, long after they have gone, their memory still survives. We have in this country men like Sir Adam Beck and Sir Clifford Sifton, with their stables of jumpers; and while it is true that the horses in these instances are the personal property of these men, at the same time the general public has a very lively interest in the animals and follows very keenly their performances. When we see men of the stamp of Commander J. K. L. Ross, the Hendries, the Seagrams, and all the other men who do so much for racing in this country, and when we think of the sportsmanlike character of every one of them, whose racing stables are a credit to the country, we are bound, I think, to come to the conclusion that they fill a very necessary place in the life of the country. I believe, therefore, that I am voicing the opinion of a great many people in the Dominion when I express my appreciation of this clean sport and of the inspiration it gives to the stock breeding of [Mr Deputy Speaker.]
the country, as well as of the pleasure which is afforded the people generally. I have an amendment to submit to the House which I think will eliminate or at least correct the evils of handbook betting. I move:
That all the words after "that" in the resolution be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this House legislation should be introduced during this session to prohibit the advertising, printing, broadcasting, publication or sale of information concerning any tips, selections, odds, or any similar intelligence with respect to or applicable to horse racing, whether held within Canada or without, unless where supplied on a race track in Canada during the course of a race meeting legally held."


William Charles Good: I rise to a point of order. I question whether this amendment is relevant to the resolution which I have presented to the House. I am entirely in accord with the substance of the amendment so far as it goes, but in my opinion it deals with an entirely different matter from that dealt with by my resolution. I tried to indicate as clearly as possible in my opening remarks that I was altogether in sympathy with the proposal of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to take measures against the handbook evil. I would seriously question, however, whether the present motion can possibly be accepted as an amendment to my resolution. It deals with a different subject entirely, under a different part of the Criminal Code, and while I am in favour of it I do not think it touches the question I have raised in my resolution. If we voted on the amendment we should be discussing and deciding a question which is not relevant to the main motion, and it seems to me, therefore, out of order.


Mr. SHAW:: I desire also to raise a point of order, not on the ground suggested by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. 4. p.m. Good) but for another reason. If I understand the amendment correctly, the mover (Mr. Stork) seeks to anticipate the government's intention in regard to legislation on this matter, and consequently the amendment is out of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not think that the question whether the amendment anticipates forthcoming legislation is relevant. The amendment seeks the opinion of the House on the advisability of introducing legislation during the present session to prohibit the advertising, printing, broadcasting and publication of information, and so forth, in the matter of horse racing. The main motion has reference to:
-the special privilege now given to racing associations under the Criminal Code of carrying on public gambling operations in connection with their race meetings.

Race Track Betting
The question, it seems to me, is whether the proposed amendment relates to a different subject matter from that of the main motion which has been moved by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). I rule that the amendment is in order.


William Charles Good: May I speak to your ruling,
Mr. Speaker? I want to challenge that ruling.


George Newcombe Gordon: Do I understand that the hon. member for Brant desires to appeal from t'he ruling?


William Charles Good: Perhaps I am not as familiar with the rules as I should be. Is there any further discussion permissible on the appeal, Mr. Speaker?


George Newcombe Gordon: Not after the
ruling. I asked if any other hon. member desired to speak to the point of order and no one spoke.


William Charles Good: I do feel that, for the reasons already stated, the House should, have an opportunity of deciding whether in its opinion the proposed amendment is really an amendment to the resolution I have moved.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the hon.
member's wish to appeal from the ruling?


William Charles Good: Yes, Mr. Speaker, so far as
I am concerned; I desire to appeal to the judgment of the House.


William F. Carroll: May I point out that
the hon. gentleman has not appealed to the House?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, he has intimated his desire to appeal.


William F. Carroll: But something else has
to be done.


William Charles Good: I do not understand the hon.
member's claim; I thought I had appealed to the House from the judgment of the Chair. However, I desire to make it plain that I do so now; I move, if I am in order in doing so, that the ruling of the Chair be not sustained.
The question having been put as follows:
Mr. Good having moved that the special privilege now given to racing associations under the Criminal Code be abolished, Mr. Stork moves in amendment that in the opinion of this House legislation should be introduced to prohibit the advertising, printing, broadcasting, publication or sale of* information with respect to racing, etc. On a point of order being raised, the Speaker ruled that the amendment was relative and should be allowed. Mr. Good appeals from this ruling:
The House divided on. the question: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
++YEAS
Messrs.
Arthurs,	Kyte,
Beaubien,	Lapierre,
Binette,	Lapointe,
Black (Halifax),	Lovett,
Bouchard,	Mackinnon,
Bourrassa,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Bristol,	McConica,
Carroll,	McDonald (Temiskaming),
Carruthers,	McGiverin,
Chevrier,	Mclsaac,
Chisholm,	" McKay,
Copp,	McMurray,
Davies,	McTaggart,
Dechene,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Denis (St. Denis),	Mewburn,
Desaulniers,	Michaud,
Descoteaux,	Motherwell,
Desrochers,	Munro,
Doucet,	Murdock,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Papineau,
Fafard,	Pelletier,
Finn,	Putnam,
Fiset (Sir Eugene),	Rankin,
Forke,	Raymond,
Forrester,	Robb,
Fortier,	Robichaud,
Fournier,	St. Pere,
Gendron,	Savard,
Graham,	Sheard,
Harris,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Hatfield,	Snowball,
Healy,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Hughes,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Hunt,	Stork,
Johnston,	Tolmie,
Kelly,	Vien-73.
King (Kootenay),	
++NAYS
Messrs.
Kennedy (Port Arthur & Kenora),
King (Huron),
Knox,
Leader,
Lewis,
Lovie,
Macphail (Miss), McBride,
McQuarrie,
Martell,
Meighen,
Millar,
Milne,
Morrison,
Neill,
Ross (Kingston),
Ross (Simcoe),
Senn,
Sexsmith,
Shaw,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Stansell,
Steedsman,
Stewart (Humboldt), Stirling,
Sutherland,
Wallace,
Ward,
Warner,
Woods,
Woodsworth-60.
Bancroft,
Baxter,
Bird,
Black (Yukon),
Bowen,
Brethen,
Brown,
Campbell,
Carmichael,
Chaplin,
Charters,
Clark,
Coote,
Denis (Joliette), Drummond,
Elliott (Dundas), Evans,
Findlay,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Good,
Gould,
Grimmer,
Halbert,
Hanson,
Hocken,
Hodgins,
Hoey,
Hopkins,
Humphrey,
Irvine,
Jones,
Kennedy (Edmonton), Kennedy (Glengarry & Stormont),
Ruling sustained. REVISED EDITION
Race Track Betting


George Newcombe Gordon: The ruling of
the Chair having been sustained the debate will now continue, the question being upon the amendment.


Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: Mr. Speaker, I have no apology whatever to offer in supporting the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) has advocated the ancient and honourable sport of horse racing. As I understand the resolution, the legislation we are asking for has nothing whatever to do with horse racing, outside of the feature of gambling. We are dealing with the gambling feature, not with racing or the testing of speed of horses, and this resolution if adopted by this parliament will not interfere with horse racing as a sport; will not interfere with the raising and breeding of pure-bred horses; will not interfere with any of our local horse racing affairs; but it will interfere with the system that is now in vogue of gambling through the pari-mutuel machines at the meets that are held from time to time.
To my mind this resolution is of the utmost importance because it reaches down to the very root of our national life. We are building up a young nation in this country. We boast of our natural resources, of our great manufacturing industries, of our vast potential wealth, and rightly so; but the greatest asset this country has is its young men and young women, and if we are going to build up a strong country we must build on the foundations of morality and honesty and industry. This practice of gambling is one that will to a great extent mar the morals of our young men and our young women, and lead them off into channels that are not the best for the development of their manhood and their womanhood. We are trying to safeguard the youth of our land in asking for this legislation. We safeguard by legislation the pedestrians as they walk by the way; we safeguard the traffic on the public highway; we safeguard, to some extent, the industries of our country; we safeguard our homes by providing police protection: but particularly should we lay stress, more than we have in the past, on safeguarding the youth of our land. To those who are grown up in years, to hon. members in this parliament possibly, it might not make such a great deal of difference whether they gamble or not; but it will make a difference in the character, in the outlook, and in the honesty possibly, of many of our citizens, the young men and the young women who are growing up and helping to build up this great nation.
We have behind this movement, Mr. Speaker, I believe the united forces of the great majority of the organized churches in this country. I believe that the vast majority of all organizations for moral reform in this Dominion are behind the movement, and we should take cognizance of that fact knowing that they are the organizations that have built up this country. There is nothing that has done so much to build up this country to what it is to-day as the Christian forces that have been at work in Canada. We owe our intellectual, moral and social progress largely to the Christian churches that are founded on the word of God. It is related that on one occasion Queen Victoria was asked upon what rested the great success of the British Empire, and she pointed to the word of God. Now, believing that we have behind us the vast majority of the Christian organizations, in my opinion we should support this legislation, which will cut out this evil.
The question might be asked, what does gambling accomplish? In the first place, we might note some things that gambling does not do. I believe in healthy sports; I believe in field sports that will develop the physical energies and powers of our young men and young women; I believe in every organization that will develop the intellectual forces of our youth. But what does gambling do? Does it develop our physical forces? Does it develop our mental forces? Does it develop our moral forces? Does it develop us into more honest and better citizens? Does it help to make us more energetic and more active in connection with the affairs of our country? It does not require much cleverness to bet on horses, or to engage in other forms of gambling. As for the results which follow from gambling they do not contribute to the elevation of human beings from a physical, moral or intellectual standpoint.
And what is the effort which underlies gambling? It is the effort to get something for nothing. When we seek to obtain money through the agency of gambling we endeavour to obtain profit through some other individual's loss and our exertions are not likely to benefit the community in the same way that they would if they were directed toward some laudable purpose. An individual who used a room in a house for gambling purposes, and collected a rakd-off ostensibly to meet the cost of light or heat would be acting illegally and in the event of detection would become liable to the pains and penalties of the law. I remember a case of this kind which occurred not so very long ago. In that in-

Race Track Betting
tance the man used a certain room for gambling purposes and eight or ten men were caught there by the officer of the law. They were all brought before the court and fined. But why discriminate between one form of gambling and another? Why allow men to gamble on race courses when they are not allowed to gamble in gaming houses or in houses used for that purpose? If there is a form of gambling which is a menace to the entire community it is that which takes place on race tracks, and it would be in the national interest to make a clean sweep of all forms of gambling at once rather than to pass piecemeal legislation. I want to say that gambling creates thieves. I do not mean to say by any means that every individual who gambles is likely to develop into a thief; but there are numerous cases where men have not only spent the money which should have gone to the support of their wives and families, but also money which they stole from the tills of their employers. Let me read you some quotations along that line. Here is one from the Christian Guardian of January, 1924:
Only a few days ago in Toronto we had a case of a trusted official of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment stealing 525,000 of the funds entrusted to him and losing it in gambling on horse races. Just a few days later in the same court we had two employees of the city registry office plead guilty to the theft of about $10,000 in one case and $4,500 in the other, and the money all went on the horses.
And not very long ago we read in the public press where a bank manager in the city of Hamilton had confessed to spending his all on horse racing and then had' gone to the bank till and drawn out thousands of dollars -I believe the amount was approximately $60,000-and he said it had all gone on the horse races. It was also reported in the newspapers quite recently that Mr. Jones, a police magistrate in Toronto, referring to bookmaking had said: it was the hardest form of evil that the police of that city had to cope with. Permit me to read a further quotation illustrating the waste of money which occurred in gambling. This is the opinion of a Mr. Burgess, who is identified with an insurance company. He says:
It has been my opinion for a great many years that the most serious cause of loss to fidelity companies through the dishonesty of employees in positions of trust is the gambling instinct engendered and fostered by the handbooks," he declared. " Nothing has caused the downfall of trusted employees more than the handbook. Fidelity losses were never so serious, and the one outstanding cause is the race track and the evils it creates in the shape of the handbook.
This particular evil has to do with handbooks, but all these forms of gambling are in-421
terwoven, and all should be swept out of existence.


William F. Carroll: If this resolution is
crystallized into law and all this gambling prohibited, will it prevent my hon. friend and myself making a bet on the outcome of a horse race?


Robert John Woods: No. As I understand it, I do not consider that it interferes with our local fairs where horses are racing and one individual wishes to bet with another. It is aimed at the legalized betting of the parimutuel and the rake-off system, in my view.


William F. Carroll: Would the amendment of my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Stork) do away with private betting?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert John Woods: No, it would not do away with the pari-mutuel. It would do away with the handbook as I understand it. I am pleased to note that the Minister of Justice is introducing legislation along that line. I commend him for his action. Such legislation was passed two sessions ago and thrown out by the Senate. We are delighted to have it before us again. It is a step in the right direction, but in my judgment it does not go far enough. In order to make it effective you have to go further. If you want to kill a rattlesnake, do not kill him piecemeal, but take his head off and get rid of him entirely. This race track gambling is an economic waste, and there is no question about it. We have in our country at the present, time many unemployed. There may be among those many who have wasted their money. If you go into restaurants when races are being held across the river you get in touch with young men and women and hear them say "I was over at the races, I was betting and lost so much money". It is a common occurrence, no matter where you go in this city or any other city where horse races are being conducted, you will hear individuals stating that they have been at the races and they have lost or won money. Money going into the pari-mutuel machines is an economic waste, because there is no tangible evidence that you are getting anything for your money, and very often people get so fascinated with it that they lose their all, and lose what belongs to somebody else in a great many
cases. I have a statement from Dr. Shearer which shows the staggering amounts which are annually wagered at the Canadian racing meets. The figures are:
1921		 $80,000,000
1922		  68,000,000
1923		 60,000,000
1924		 60,000,000
Race Track Betting

In Ontario last year the sum wagered was $36,000,000. If $36,000,000 in the province of Ontario, or $80,000,000 in the Dominion of Canada goes to some place where you received no tangible or adequate return or reward in any way to benefit anybody, it is surely an alarming economic waste.
I wish to refer to another quotation that I have here, from Social Welfare, of Toronto:
Only in Mexico and Canada and three of the forty-eight American states is such criminal vice allowed by law. When it was driven out from under the Stars and Stripes it found refuge under the good old Union Jack in Windsor, Fort Erie, Vancouver and Victoria. How long shall Canada tolerate this?
In my experience in my younger days I laboured for some time in the United States. I returned to Canada, why? Not because I could make more money, because I was making a great deal more money in the United States at that particular time than I could make in this country; but I returned to Canada because of the British law which was so much better than the law of the United States. At that particular time we heard it currently stated that when the blacklegs, gamblers and thieves committed crime in Canada they went across the line in order to get more freedom in the United States. But things have changed since. Mexico, Canada and three of the states of the union are the only countries where it is permitted. We find forty-five of the states of the union are free from this gambling vice. We ought to realize that we are not advancing morally along lines of protecting our people against these vices as rapidly as our American cousins to the south of us are advancing.
In conclusion I wish to express my approval of the legislation that the Minister of Justice is bringing forward, and I hope this House will take into consideration the necessity of going further and putting all gambling into the same category. If it is illegal in one place to gamble, then make it illegal in every other place, and eradicate completely this form of gambling in this fair Dominion of ours.


Mr. W. B. SNOWBALL (Northumberland, N.B.):: I cannot help, on rising to make my
first speech in this House, but refer to the death of the late member for Northumberland, Mr. Morrissey, whose place in this parliament I was elected to fill. It was a pleasure to me to listen to the remarks made in reference to the hon. member by our respected leader on this side of the House (Mr. Mackenzie King), by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and the hon. leader of the Progressive party. Mr. Morrissey was a politician who stood high in the estimation of the people, a man who died with his name unsullied. Although he had

been for years at the head of the largest spending department of the local coalition government of which he was the only Liberal member, a government which later passed out under the blackest cloud that ever darkened the horizon of any government in New Brunswick. Mr. Morrissey's election in 1921 by the largest majority ever given a federal candidate in the county of Northumberland was a mark of personal esteem.
With these remarks dealing with the late member, I am glad that a moral issue of this nature is the one on which I make my first speech.
I would be [DOT] thoroughly in accord with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) if, in the amendment he introduced, he had left out the last few words, "unless applied on a race-track in Canada during a race meet." I feel that his amendment would be even more sweeping than the resolution moved by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), and one that would have commended itself to me, if he had left out these qualifying words.
I am not opposed to horse racing; in fact, I am very much in favour of all sports. I am interested in horse racing, in race tracks, and in the fact that horse racing Should be kept clean from all those things that make it so obnoxious to many people that they are afraid to allow their boys and gills to go and see what should be clean sport. I feel that gambling and betting are insidious evils and perhaps as hurtful to the public mind and the young people especially of our country as is the drink habit. We have prohibited gambling at country fairs and in many other ways we have tried to restrict it, but I feel that we have strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. We should go the whole length in this matter; we should try to protect the youth of this country from an evil as insidious as this great gambling evil is. We, who are further advanced in life, have seen some of the evils that have followed gambling. We have seen embezzlement; we have seen suicide, as was mentioned by one hon. member, and we have seen imprisonment and homes broken up. We, who are the legislators of this country, should legislate for the protection of our people against such a crying evil as gambling on the race tracks of this fair Dominion of ours. An hon. member who was speaking the other day in regard to another question referred to betting on an old sorrel horse. I do not wish, nor do I think any of those who have spoken against gambling, wish to restrict the right of any person attending a race track individually to bet five dollars or fifty dollars or fifty cents, as is referred to, except that I feel

Race Track Betting
that is one of the insidious things whereby young people who have started gambling in that way might be induced to gamble even worse than that. If, however, we restrict gambling to individual gambling, I do not think we shall have from it the bad effects that are produced as it exists at the present time.
The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Woods) referred to the fact that horse race betting is prohibited in the United States except in three states; yet we find that in this fair Dominion of ours, adjoining their borders, we are allowing race tracks to be operated under the pari-mutuel, handbook and other betting principles. This reminds me very much of a parent who forbids his children to carry on some evil habit, something that is wrong, while his neighbour on the other side of the fence encourages his children to carry on just the evil that is being prohibited, and to induce, if' possible, the other children to be corrupted by that method. We, as a great family living to the north of the boundary line should co-operate with our good friends to the south in doing everything we can to put out of this country forever the great gambling habit. I do not want to speak at any length on this question. I want to see gambling put off the race tracks. I want to see race tracks so clean that the best men, ministers of the gospel, every person, can go to see what I consider one of the finest sports and the greatest exhibitions we have in any country. I have visited our race tracks and I have gone across the Atlantic and have seen racing as it is carried on in the Old Country. I do not think Lord Rosebery or the king or anyone else raced their horses under the inducement that we do on many of the tracks in this country, where we know that jockeys are corrupted; that the 5 p.m. best horse does not always win;
and that under the influence of the betting, the gambling, a horse that is not entitled to the race is very often the winner. That sort of thing should be opposed vigorously by this House. We should stand in the best interest, not only of our young people, but of one of the best sports we have in this country and one that has been promoted since the time of Charles II in the Old Land, a sport that everyone could enjoy seeing. We do not want it to be surrounded by men who come in with handbooks mostly from across the border. The sum of $60,000,000 was mentioned. I should like to know where the great bulk of that $60,000,000 goes. Does it remain in Canada, or is it carried across the border by men who have been driven out of the United States by the laws they have there,
and who have come to corrupt our morals? Are they carrying back to that country money that belongs to our hard-working citizens, our clerks, artisans and other workers? Is that where we want the earnings of Canadians to go when we are struggling as we are to advance our country? Do we want to see that money, frittered away in that frivolous manner, carried across the border by men who are not entitled to the protection .that we give them in this land?
I feel very strongly in favour of supporting the amendment if the hon. member (Mr. Stork) would eliminate the last few words. I hope the day will come when the resolution as introduced to-day by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) will be carried, and when the other resolution is brought down by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), I hope to be able to support it. Then, we as Canadians can hold up our heads beside our neighbours to the south and say that we have grappled with the great evil of gambling.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I rise just to point out that some of us are in an embarrassing position by reason of the amendment. Speaking for myself alone, I would rather vote for the amendment than for the motion. I believe the handbook is a greater evil than that of betting on the race track; but if I vote for the amendment, I am precluded from voting for the motion in case the amendment carries. In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice has promised to bring in legislation identical with the spirit of the amendment, I would feel it necessary to vote against the amendment, although I am heartily in accord with its terms. It looks to me as though the amendment were a subterfuge. I am not able to find in it any evidence of sincerity on the part of the mover, and I should have been glad if it had been declared by the House to be out of order, so that we would have had an opportunity of dividing the House squarely on the issue, the elimination of the betting evil.


Mr. T. E. ROSS (North Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in at least one respect I find myself entirely in accord with one expression of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork), who moved the amendment, and that is when he says that horse racing is an ancient and honourable sport. Let us, in the first place, get clearly before our minds the subject now under discussion. It is not the desire of the mover or of any of those who are supporting his resolution to do away with the noble animal, the race horse, in this country,
Race Track Betting

neither is it the purpose or desire of any of us to prohibit horse racing in Canada. Personally, I enjoy watching a good horse race just as much as anybody else, and in my younger days I enjoyed having the privilege, which I did have many a time, of riding one of those noble animals at the races-I want to qualify that,-races where public gambling was not allowed. The question before us is simply that stated in the resolution: We are dealing with the special privilege which is now given to racing associations under the criminal code of carrying on public gambling operations in connection with their race meetings. I am informed, and I think it is correct, that Canada is the only portion of the British Empire where public gambling at race meetings is allowed by law. If I am not correct, some hon. member will correct me. Personally, I consider this to be a great blot upon our country and a definite menace to our national welfare. The question before us at the present time is a great moral issue, and for that reason it is one of great moment to the people of Canada; for the future welfare of any country must depend upon the character of its citizens. This question, therefore, is of great national importance because it has much to do with the formation of character, particularly in our rising generation.
We find the resolution solidly supported by religious organizations and religious leaders as well as by various other bodies in this country which are working towards the greater welfare of the people and in the interests of social and moral reform. Personally, I have had many letters during the past two weeks from various religious, social and moral welfare organizations in Canada requesting my hearty support of the resolution; and I am told that the same is true of the other members who represent that good old county of Simcoe from which I come. I noticed in the press on Saturday that the churches in the county of Halton have also passed a resolution and have asked the hon. member (Mr. Anderson) who has the honour to represent them in this House that both by voice and vote he support this proposal now under consideration. No doubt a similar situation is true in regard to hon. members of the House generally. Not only is the resolution supported by the various religious, moral and social welfare reform associations, but it is also a matter of very great importance to the financial, commercial and industrial interests of the country. Public gambling at horse races entails, if not the squandering, at least the loss, of vast sums of money as well as the depletion of financial
resources. From reliable sources we learn that no less a sum than $60,000,000 was spent during the year 1924 on the race tracks in this country during the racing weeks, a similar sum having been spent in 1923. Not only that, but as great a sum if not a greater was wagered through the handbook men of Canada during those years. This is a serious condition of affairs and it affects business and industrial enterprises very unfavourably.
I stated a moment ago that this public gambling had an evil influence on character building. Let us not forget that the boys of to-day are the men of to-morrow, and that the influences which are thrown around them in boyhood years are very strong factors in determining what their character will be when they develop into full manhood. Since coming to Ottawa about three years ago to attend the session of 1922, I have personally seen many boys who are employed apparently as sub-agents of those who are dealing in this gambling business. They are engaged selling racing forms and other news articles relating to horse racing, and on two or three occasions, at least on two, if I remember rightly it occurred on three occasions-I have personally been approached by boys in this very city, boys only well in their teens, with the request that I should give them two or three dollars. Now, I have always been personally interested actively in our work with the boys, and I took the trouble to stop and ask them what they wished to do with this money, and invariably the answer was that they wanted to place a bet on some horse in the hope of winning some easy money. I am firmly convinced that the influence of this legalized public betting is absolutely harmful and tends to the weakening of character. And it is a positive menace to our national life.
I have been for many years a somewhat close student of that Book of books which is sometimes spoken of as the guide book of life; and I take it that the same thing is true of other hon. members. From that book we learn that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. "By their fruits ye shall know them"; and I want for a short time to point to some of the fruits produced by this legalized public betting. For, after all that is the question we are dealing with; we are not discussing private betting that may take place between one and another, nor are we discussing :the abolition of horse racing; we are dealing with legalized public betting on race tracks. In the first place we must remember that the production of fruit is a gradual process. The seed is planted, and after a little

Race Track Betting
while we have first the blade, then the ear and then the full corn, the matured fruit. And just for the reason that the development is so gradual there is a possibility that we may often lose sight of the very close connection between cause and effect. So it is in tlie case of this national evil, this canker which is eating to the very heart of our national life. When we see the fruition of this evil in a ruined manhood and womanhood, let us not forget that it is the ripened, matured fruit of a seed that was sown long before. Let us remember that some influence, some time, somewhere, has dropped as a living seed into that life and produced the fruit which we now behold. I have said that the production of fruit is a gradual process. So it is; and I see it in this light in the question we are discussing at the moment. No young man or woman, when placing a first bet, ever expects to become a gambler, any more than the boy or girl taking the first glass of liquor ever suspects that he or she may become a drunkard. But the result follows; the temptation is there. In this case it is there under legal sanction, and being under legal sanction, these young people are thrown off their guard. The thing is not against the law, they think it is all right, and so they place their bet. Our young men, and young women as well, we know, have done it and they will continue to do it. They majr win for a time and be encouraged, with the result that they repeat the experiment; and they may even win again, and go further into the practice. But the point I make is that this very feature of it, the repetition of the evil, is a habit-forming practice which is undermining the foundation of true, strong character. And when the reverses come; when the fair weather, we might say, has changed to storm; when the winnings have changed to losses, we find that the foundation on which character should be built becomes sand instead of rock, through the process of moral disintegration that has been going on, and the building of true, noble manhood and womanhood falls to the ground.
And more than that is involved. I have referred to the time when losses come, when reverses occur and winnings cease. These losses must be made up. They entail a curtailment, perhaps an entire disappearance of the financial resources of the one who has been engaged in the gambling. And what happens? The need for money is urgent, and he succumbs to temptation. He may be a clerk, or perhaps a manager of some bank or other institution, and he takes that which is not his own; to put it in plain language, he gives way to the temptation to steal. At first it may be
only a small sum, but the principle is the same. That may be followed by larger stealing, often by forgery and embezzlement. Then comes arrest, trial, conviction, sentence, a prison term-all in the trail of gambling. What is the mature fruit of this practice of which we are speaking to-day? It is simply this: ruined character, ruined manhood, ruined womanhood, ruined homes, blighted hopes of wives, mothers and children. I leave it to the judgment of hon. members of this House whether that is good fruit or evil fruit. Judge for yourselves, but in doing so do not forget what I said a few minutes ago: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." If, therefore, we judge the fruit to be evil we cannot get away from the conclusion that the source from which it came is also evil. There is only one course open to us to-day, as I see it, and that is to take such measures as to banish from the land the evil of which we are now speaking.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the House briefly to what may be regarded as a case in point. I use it simply as an illustration. Some cases have been mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods), but he might have instanced many. These things are actually true and occur in every day life. The case to which I refer took place only within the last month in the city of Hamilton. It is the case of the arrest, trial and conviction of a man in that city-I have his name, but I do not think any good purpose would be served by my giving it. He was charged with theft, conspiracy and receiving, and by Judge Gauld he was found guilty on the major charge; the other charges were not proceeded with. He was convicted on the charge of theft of $31,780 from the Union Bank of Canada. This man was operating a handbook business on a large scale and had been doing so far many months, within two blocks, we are told of the headquarters of the police force of the city of Hamilton. The arrest, conviction and sentence were the result of an admitted embezzlement of a large sum of money from the Union Bank of Canada by a former branch manager of that bank. This branch manager stated during the trial that he had lost all this money of the bank in dealings with this man's handbook in a certain hotel in the city of Hamilton, and also that the man who was operating the handbook business knew at the time that it was the bank's money that was being wagered. Let me quote briefly some of the criticisms that were made by Judge Gauld in dealing with this case, as published in the
Race Track Betting

Toronto Globe under date of February 2 of the present year. It says:
In his judgment Judge Gauld characterized Baird as a shrewd young man, reared since his fourteenth year in an atmosphere of gambling, and one in whom the mercenary spirit was acutely developed.
Just note that one point: the judge states that this man had been reared from his fourteenth year in an atmosphere of gambling- and we have the result, a ruined life. As I said a little while ago, this question is a vital one to the people of Canada because it has much to do with character building, and character is the foundation of the success of this or any other nation. Judge Gauld says further :
It is difficult to find language adequately to comment upon the pernicious evil, in the form of gambling and handbook making, that has eaten its way to such an alarming extent into our community life. The evidence in this case frankly, even brutally, exposed the existence of an illegal practice which has become so common and so familiar that it has been accepted as almost a proper and natural thing.
It has "become so common and so familiar" *-this reminds me of a verse which I learned in my boyhood days while at school, and which runs something like this:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
We see it carried out in practical life. Further the judge says:
Within two blocks of the police headquarters in this city the accused for months has been openly defying the law with his gambling operations. The general impression in the public mind, when thinking of or discussing handbook transactions, is that only small amounts of money are involved, but this evidence disclosed the fact that large sums of money changed hands.
Remember that the sum involved in this case was $31,780. But that is not all that was involved. We have the ruin of the man who operated the handbook as well as of the bank manager who was gambling through him. I think both are at present serving a prison sentence. More than that, Judge Gauld says:
The whole circumstance laid bare not only a wilful perversion of our moral and ethical codes, but a defiance of law and justice with impunity that is incomprehensible to me, and which should require further elucidation at the hands of those responsible for its existence.
When I read, Mr. Speaker, those last few words, "of those responsible for its existence," I just wondered who they were. I know the judge was speaking at the time of the police officials in the city of Hamilton, but after all they are responsible only for carrying out the law, and I feel that we in this parliament are the ones who are responsible. That very thing was what caused me one day last week to ask the government if they in-

tended at this session to re-introduce legislation similar to that which was brought down in 1923, and which was passed by this House but defeated in the Senate, dealing with this identical evil. I was glad to receive the assurance from the hon. Minister of Justice that the government intended to reintroduce that legislation at this session. I hope that when it is re-introduced that it will meet with the unanimous support of members of this House; I hope it will; I hope also that it will be endorsed by the Senate and become law. Otherwise, if the Senate in their wisdom, or in their unwisdom, as I would view it, should see fit to again throw out the measure, they will have a great deal to answer for in the country districts, as I know from actual experience.
In conclusion, I wish to make an appeal to every member of this House for solid support of the resolution which is before us. For in supporting it what are we doing? We are protecting our boys and our girls, our . young manhood and our young womanhood, our homes, this Canada of ours which we ail dearly love, from the harmful influence of this national evil which tends towards the destruction of strong, true, Christian character, and which is also a menace to our future welfare as a nation.


Alan Webster Neill: It
was my desire to vote for the main resolution, for reasons with which it is quite unnecessary for me to burden the House, as the matter has been discussed very fully already; but I find that the amendment of my hon. friend the member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) prevents me to a 'large extent from voting for the main resolution. The amendment of the hon. member for Skeena has my hearty approval, and I would like to vote for it also; but I cannot very well vote for them both. If I voted for the amendment, which is a good thing, that precludes me from voting for the main motion, which is also a good thing. That is an undesirable position in which to put hon. members.
I also have one slight objection to the amendment of my hon. friend from Skeena, and it is this, He proposes by his amendment to prohibit the advertising, and so forth, of tips, odds, and so on, unless when supplied on race tracks. Now if it is a good thing to prohibit the publication, advertising and broadcasting of tips, odds, and so on, in any other part of Canada, why is it not also a good thing to prohibit it on the race track? I have the honour to move, Mr. Speaker, the following amendment to the amendment, seconded by the hon. member for

Race Track Betting
Selkirk (Mr. Bancroft). I move that all the words after the word "without" be struck out and the following substituted therefor: and to prohibit the use of pari-mutuels on race tracks in Canada.
If the sub-amendment carries, the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena will then read as follows, and I think it will meet the views of a great many in this House, inasmuch as it will perhaps condense into one amendment the best elements in both the motion and the amendment:
That in the opinion of this House legislation should be introduced during this session to prohibit the advertising, printing, broadcasting, publication, or sale of information concerning any tips, selections, odds or any similar intelligence with respect to or applicable to horse-racing, whether held within Canada or without, and to prohibit the use of pari-mutuels on race tracks in Canada.


George Newcombe Gordon: If there is no objection, I would like to consider the amendment to the amendment for a Short time. It is approaching six o'clock, and the debate can proceed in the meantime.


Mr. E. W. ROBINSON (Kings, N.S.):: I
would like to associate myself with the member for West "Toronto (Mr. Hocken) in deprecating the fact that there has been an amendment introduced at all. I would say the same thing concerning the amendment to the amendment. It seems to me that it is simply an attempt to prevent an expression of opinion on the original resolution. What I believe we Should do, and what I intend to do myself, is to support the resolution as introduced by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), and in order to do that, I shall have to vote against the amendment to the amendment, and then against the amendment itself. It seems to me these are just attempts to confuse the issue. The issue as stated in the resolution is plain, and if we settle on that, it will be an easy matter to decide afterwards what shall be done concerning t'he handbook evil and the publication of racing news from the United States and other countries. But we have, as I understand it, a resolution on which we can divide, and I propose to support the resolution.


Mr. E. J. SEXSMITH (Lennox and Addington) :: I have no desire to prolong this discussion, but because of the basic value of the resolution, building up as it would the moral standard of citizenship and nationalism, I wish to definitely give my stand on this question. There have been strong arguments for the resolution and also against it, and a repetition of these arguments to my mind is taking up time for nothing.
The question is, is it right that parliament should legislate a business of commercialized gambling? Gambling is not a sport: gambling is a disease. Gambling is a general evil that leads to vicious inclinations, that leads to the abandonment of honest toil, leads to loss of property, loss of self-control and of selfrespect; and laws that encourage this ought to be repealed. Horse race gambling does not differ in any respect from any other form of gambling. If that is so, why should the Parliament of Canada uphold that which is demoralizing and degenerating? Horse race gambling should be dealt with by law just the same as any other. What excuse can hon. members have for not supporting this legislation? We believe in democracy; we believe in an educated and intelligent democracy; we believe that right laws are built upon the foundation of moral pricipals; and if we do not brace up the fundamental principles of right nationalism by law, how can we expect to have a right democracy? For my part I cannot see how any member can frame an excuse for voting against the original resolution and persenallv I am determined to vote for it.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: No doubt many members find difficulty in understanding the precise situation which confronts them at the present time. To my mind the resolution would have been a fair test of the opinion of the House; but the amendment also proposes a step in the right direction and no doubt those who wish to see a betterment of the prevailing conditions as regards betting on race tracks and book-making will be ready to support it. While bearing in mind the saying that "half a loaf is better than no bread" a number of us on this side of the House are at a loss to know what to do. As by voting against the amendment we may be preventing legislation that is very far reaching in importance and personally I feel like supporting strongly the main resolution; but if the Speaker decides that the amendment to the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is in order I should think it would meet with the idea of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) as embodied in his main motion. I do not think this is an attempt to stamp out racing. We have harness racing in the province of Prince Edward Island and its success won for that province the name of "The Kentucky of Canada." Probably the best harness horses in the world have been raised in Prince Edward Island. Race meets take place there during the summer months, and the whole countryside turns out for them. The people spend a nice afternoon
Race Track Betting

and there is very little betting that we know of-certainly there is no public betting, and pari-mutuel machines are not allowed. Therefore I do not think any hon. member has it in mind to strike a blow at the sport of horse racing or the industry of horse raising. At our last fall fair, the pari-mutuel machine was introduced, for the first time in the history of the province. I do not know whether that machine should be allowed in a case where the fair association receives a grant from the federal department of agriculture; it may be that such is done in accordance with the regulations of the department. However I am heartily in sympathy with the main motion. We have yet to hear from the hon. member for Brant in regard to the amendment to the amendment, but if he accepts that proposition I think we can all do the same.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) seemed to be worrying over the fact that he was placed in an embarrassing position. I do not believe it is the first time that motions have been made in this House with the object of placing members in such a position. Whether the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) did that consciously or not there can be no doubt that is the effect of his amendment. Regardless of any embarrassment I would have no hesitation, in view of the whole situation, in voting against the amendment. While I, and a great many others, undoubtedly do agree with the sentiment expressed in the first part of the amendment-and I am glad to know that the sentiment against the handbook evil is seemingly so unanimous-yet the expression of that sentiment is vitiated, so far as the handbook evil is concerned, by the last few words of the amendment. Therefore for that reason, if for no other, I would vote against that proposition. It seems strange that when a motion, directed against a certain evil, is brought before the House, that we should have introduced an amendment directed against another evil, even if these two particular evils are in some measure related. Yet that is the situation in which we are placed to-day. So even without the few objectionable words at the end of the amendment I would vote against it, not because I do not wish the reform outlined in that amendment, but because it is not a question on which I wanted to vote at this time. My desire was to vote, and to have the House vote, on the particular evil that is mentioned in the resolution of the hon. member for Brant. And that hon. gentleman made it very clear in his opening remarks that he did not want these two issues

confused. We had already had the promise from the Minister of Justice that legislation directed against the handbook evil would be introduced here. We accepted that promise in good faith, and no. matter how this vote goes we expect the government will implement the promise into legislation. The hon. member for Brant, as I say, made it very clear that he wished us to consider these two questions entirely distinctly. I am not going to discuss at this time whether the handbook evil or the pari-mutuel is the greater evil. I know there are those who will declare against commercialized gambling as carried on through the handbook, and yet will not seem to see the evil of commercialized gambling as carried on by the pari-mutuel machine. With what little study that I have been able to give to the question by personal investigation I cannot see that the evil of commercialized gambling is done away with because it has been clothed with outward respectability. I quite admit that if one goes out to the Connaught races, as I did myself a year ago, and looks around to see what is going on to outward appearance it is respectable; but I saw things also, when I was there that forced me to the conclusion that the evil was none the less because outward respectability was evident. To put a pig into the parlour does not make it any less pig than when it was in a pig sty.
Personally I would have preferred if we could have voted on the resolution as it was submitted to the House; we would none of us then have been in the embarrassing position which the hon. member (Mr. Hocken) seemed to think he was in. However, I am not embarrassed about it, nor do I think any hon. member need be embarrassed if he wants to express himself on the original motion by voting against the amendment. If the Speaker rules that the amendment to the amendment is in order we will accomplish all we desire to accomplish in the original resolution; and in that event, while I would have preferred that we should have voted on the original proposition I intend to vote for the sub-amendment. If the amendment to the amendment is not so held I shall certainly vote against the amendment. If that should be carried we cannot, under the ruling of the Chair, express ourselves on the original proposition at this time. Should the amendment be defeated however we shall have a chance to divide the House on the merits of the question, and I shall certainly support the resolution of the hon. member for Brant.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand Mr. Speaker, that you

Race Track Betting
have not ruled whether the amendment to the amendment is in order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I have not ruled that it is out of order.


William Garland McQuarrie: You have not ruled
whether it is in ordter or out of order. As to the amendment to the amendment, there is just one point that I would suggest should be considered by the mover; and that is whether, if this amendment to the amendment is carried and the use of the pari-mutuels is prohibited, it will not be possible to adopt some other system of betting for horse racing. As I understand it, such action is being considered by the racing associations themselves in the west, and some of them are of the opinion that another system would be better and should be used. If that is so, and if some other system of betting be adopted, what will be accomplished by this amendment to the amendment? The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) stated that he found himself in a very embarrassing position with the amendment that had been moved. I believe other members on this side of the House feel themselves in an embarrassing position, notwithstanding the remarks made by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) What is to happen if the amendment is defeated? Will the Minister of Justice then carry out his promise to introduce legislation along similar lines? I think not. I think he would say, "That question has already been determined by the House, and the House has decided against such a proposal; therefore it would not do for me to bring in any such legislation". However, I do not know.


William Charles Good: How could the Minister of
Justice say that, in the face of the declaration made by hon. members here as to the reasons why they should vote against the amendment?


William Garland McQuarrie: Now if we have a
vote of the House against the amendment, what position does that place the minister in? The minister said something under his breath which I did not hear, but I take it he would be very diffident about introducing legislation on lines which had already been considered by this House and! rejected. If that is so, are we not in an awkward position? If I support the original resolution, and I am in favour of the amendment, am I not in an embarrassing position? If I vote in favour of the amendment then I certainly do not wish it to be understood that I am opposing the original motion which I favour. I wish to make that position perfectly clear.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member voted against the ruling he is all right.


William Garland McQuarrie: So far as I am concerned, I voted against the ruling of the Chair, but notwithstanding that fact when this amendment comes before the House I feel inclined, subject to what may be said later on in this debate, to vote against the amendment; provided the amendment to the amendment is declared to be out of order, and provided also that the mover of the amendment to the amendment cannot convince me that some other form of betting will not be substituted for the pari-mutuel.


William Charles Good: Does the hon. gentleman know that by the 192'0 legislation the pari-mutuel system of gambling was the only one that was left legally.


William Garland McQuarrie: That does not make
any difference. You can have some other system.


William Charles Good: Is there any other kind of
betting that is legally left.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is not the point at all. This House then will not go on record as being opposed to race track gambling as such, but will go on record in favour of being opposed to one particular form which is the pari-mutuel.


Alan Webster Neill: Which is the only legalized
form.


William Garland McQuarrie: Why does not the
mover of the amendment to the amendment, instead of mentioning the pari-mutuel, go on record as being opposed to race track gambling of any kind?


Alan Webster Neill: Because it would be out of
order.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is the point that you, Mr. Speaker, will have to consider. If it is out of order then, why is this amendment to the amendment not equally out of order, when it accomplishes exactly the same purpose? What I am afraid of, Mr. Speaker, is that you, upon thinking this matter over after six o'clock, will come to the conclusion that this amendment to the amendment is out of order. If it is not out of order, then it would not be out of order for the mover of the amendment to the amendment to insert a clause, and instead of saying pari-mutuel betting shall be prohibited, provide that any kind of race track betting shall be prohibited. That would clear the situation and put the House on record as being opposed' to race track gambling of any kind, and not as against pari-mutuel gambling alone.
66S
Race Track Betting


Mr. PUTNAM:: Why would the hon. member confine his prohibition to race track gambling? The hon. member says you cannot gamble at a race track, and he upbraids the mover of the motion for not putting it that way. Why would the hon. member, in his superlative morality, not make it a prohibition of gambling anywhere and everywhere?


William Garland McQuarrie: It was not necessary, because we are dealing with race track gambling only, and we are not -dealing with other forms of gambling in this debate. If I had an opportunity of voting on the main motion I would vote in favour of it. And I would do so for a number of reasons which I am not going to take time to elaborate t-o-night. However, I wild simply point to this fact, that in British Columbia during the last year we have haid a regular orgy of race meets and gambling. We have had too many of them. Perhaps it would be said1-and I think it might be said with a good deal of reason- that if you are going to have race tracks at all there should not be any -monopoly about it. If you are going to have race meets in this country, then throw the whole thing open, and let anyone have a race meet who desires it. Why should a few associations in this country have a monopoly of conducting race tracks, if race tracks are a good thing? Well, there is certainly something in that argument! but on the other hand, working i-t out in practice, they have found that a great many race meets in this country would be a very bad thing. It is apparently admitted by everybody that you must limit the number so that there will not- be too many race meetings. I know that is not so in other countries. In Australia or New Zealand they can have race meetings almost every day if -they so desire, and they do have them and many people attend. I know that in Melbourne, at the Melbourne Cup last year, 140,000 people paid admission to get in to see the races an-d there were 50,000 people standing outside on -an adjoining hill where they did not have to pay any admission. In Australia they go in very extensively for racing. Australia is a great country for sport, and I was told over there that one of the troubles of Australia was that there was too much sport and, in particular, that there was too much horse racing, that it was killing the country. In New Zealand also they have horse racing and they t-old me over there that the same situation prevails, that there is too much of it. There is apparently no limit to the race meeting? at all. They say: Go ahead and have race meetings if you like. If horse 
racing is a good thing, -let us throw it open to everybody. There are in this country people who would pay big round sums of money to have the privilege of operating race courses in British Columbia or, I suppose, in Ontario, or, for that matter, -in any other province. These people who are in t-he business now have the right to conduct race courses and nobody else has that privilege. I am getting away from my point for the moment.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: I rise to a point of order. I submit, that the amendment to the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neiil), is out of order. I base my point of order on the following, paragraph taken from the third edition of May, which reads:
Where the original amendment is to leave out certain words, in order to insert or add other words, no amendment can be moved to the words proposed to be substituted, until the House has resolved that the words proposed to be left out shall not stand part of the question. But as soon as the question is proposed for inserting or adding the words of the amendment, an amendment may be moved thereto.
I submit, therefore, that there is another question before the House which must be disposed of before the amendment to the amendment can be in order, and the nature of that other question is clearly defined by May at page 283. Let me read:
An amendment may be made to a question, by leaving out certain words, by leaving out certain words in order to insert or add others, and by inserting or
adding certain words.
When the proposed amendment is to leave out certain words, the Speaker says, " The original question was this," stating the question at length. " Since which, an amendment has been proposed to leave out the words," which are proposed to be omitted. He then puts the question, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question." If that question be resolved in the affirmative, it shows that the House prefers the original question to the amendment and the question, as first proposed, is put by the Speaker. If, however, the question, " That the words stand part of the question," be negatived, the question is put with the omission of those words, unless another amendment be then moved for the insertion or addition of other words.
When the proposed amendment is to leave out certain words in order to insert or add others-
Which is the case in pcint.
-the proceeding begins in the same manner as the last. If the House resolves, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," the original question is put; but if it resolves that such

Race Track Betting
words shall not stand part of the question, by negativing that proposition when put, the next question proposed is that the words proposed to be substituted be inserted or added instead thereof.
I submit that according to procedure the question before the House is, as here stated, that these words stand part of the original motion. So that the amendment to the amendment is out of order until that question is disposed of. Reflecting on the situation in which we found ourselves before the dinner hour, I came to the conclusion that something must be wrong, because evidently we had got ourselves into a position which was utterly opposed to common sense in the circumstances. It seemed to me that either the amendment must be out of order or that there must be some other provision in British procedure whereby the rights of the original mover were safeguarded. And my faith in the procedure, so far as debate under British rules is concerned, is very much confirmed by what I find in these references. I am glad to think that the ruling of the Speaker this afternoon was strictly in accordance with the proper procedure, as I was inclined to doubt that at first. Not knowing that there was some other provision to meet the situation that had developed, I thought that the ruling, even if in order, was an unjust one. I am glad, however, to find that the ruling was in keeping with the procedure, and I am more than glad to discover that our procedure provides a way out of such a difficulty. I submit that before any further progress can be made in this discussion, the question must first be disposed of, as to whether the words which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) proposes by his amendment to omit from the original motion shall stand as part of that motion, thus reserving the rights of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) and allowing the House to express its will on the resolution moved by him.


Alan Webster Neill: I
submit that the hon. member is applying one set of rules to a set of conditions to which they are not applicable. It is a well known fact that May's and Bourinot's rules apply in this House only in the absence of our own rules. I do not need to go either to May or to Bourinot for information on this subject; I can get that information in our own rules, very ably set forth by our present Clerk. The remarks of the hon. member for Nelson would be applicable to a great extent if-well, in fact, they would be applicable if they were in order, but they are not; they are not applicable to the present situation. The hon. member says that
it would preserve the rights of the mover of the original motion, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), if the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) were put in the language which he, the member for Nelson, suggests. That is true. It would preserve the original motion if the question were put, "Shall the words proposed to be struck out stand part of the question?" But that is not our custom; it is not our procedure. The Speaker says, "The question is on the amendment;" it is not, "Shall the words proposed to be struck out stand part of the question?" That is followed in some of our provincial legislatures, British Columbia, for example, and it often leads to a great deal of confusion; but it is not the custom here. The vote in this House is taken on the question, "Shall the amendment carry?" That is the question, and if it is carried in the affirmative in this instance the motion of the hon. member for Brant is forever estopped. Let me read from our own rules. Rule 36 states the restrictions governing the moving of motions:
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words.
Then again it says this-and I am quoting only those rules which are applicable to the present situation:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
I do not think anyone can gainsay that my subamendment is relevant both to the amendment and to the main motion.
Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the House the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I am in the hands of the House if I have not complied with that rule.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. member will remember that I did not object to the form of his amendment at all; I think the form of it may be in order. What I was questioning was the point in the procedure at which he introduced it.


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. member is not
questioning the form of the amendment, how does it come to be out of order? What is wrong with it? Again, the rule says:
An amendment must, not raise any question which by the rules of the House, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.
That does not apply.
An amendment cannot anticipate a notice of motion on the order paper.
Race Track Betting

Again:
An amendment that is merely an expanded negative cannot be proposed by the chair.
The Speaker may refuse to propose an amendment which is in his opinion frivolous.
These are all the rules that have any bearing on this question, and I suggest that I have not broken any one of them. Here is the situation as it presents itself to me. The hon. member for Brant has moved a substantive motion; he wants to do something. What does he want to do? He wants to do away, in his own language, with-
-the special privilege given to racing associations under the Criminal Code of carrying on public gambling operations in connection with their race meetings.
He says it is detrimental to the best interests of Canada; that is his view; that is what he wants to do. That is method number one of dealing with the situation. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) does not approve of that method, and he comes along with a suggestion which I will call method number two. He says: "I won't go along the lines of the hon. member for Brant; I will deal with another phase of it, that of what is commonly known as book-making -and he moves an amendment to that effect. Now, six or seven hon. members rise up in this House and say: "I am in a position of embarrassment; I want to vote for both the amendment-it is right-and the motion-it is right; but as the one will substitute itself for the other I cannot vote for both." So I suggest what I will call method number three. It is not a new one; it is not a separate one, but it does not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena in full; it does accept part of it. It amends it; it leaves out what some people think should be left out. Then it also takes a portion of the hon. member for Brant's motion, but in spirit only; it does not accept the language of the original motion in its entirety. I say nothing about racing associations, the Criminal Code or public gambling operations on race tracks. In addition to the portion of the member for Skeena's amendment which I include, I simply say "and excluding pari-mutuels." The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) asked why I did not insert the whole thing again. My reply was-and it was appropriate-that I did not want it to be out of order, as it would have been. That is not the objection made by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) but I think it is what the Deputy Speaker had in his mind when he expressed doubt about it at six o'clock.
[Mr. Neill.3
I repeat that my amendment is not a going back to the first motion, because it takes in only a portion of it. It is a compromise; it takes in a portion of the member for Skeena's method and a portion of the member for Brant's method, therefore it is in a true sense not an evasion but, on the contrary, a clear-cut, fresh amendment. I do not think I need further discuss the point of order taken by the hon. member for Nelson, because it is well known that we abide by our own rules and only go to those of Britain when we are at a loss. The custom here, as we well know, is not to put the motion in the words: "Shall the words proposed to be struck out stand as part of the question?" It is in the knowledge of all parliamentarians that that is not done. I submit, on the other point, that my amendment is in order, because it does not hark back to the motion in its entirety; it takes in only a portion of it.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker,
I should lake to say a few words on the point of order. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has just said, I moved a definite, substantive motion. An amendment was moved which I submit was not an amendment but a substitute, introducing an entirely new question, putting entirely out of the way the matter which I had in my mind. The effect of the acceptance of that amendment would undoubtedly be to sidetrack absolutely and forever-for this session at least-the matter I dealt with in my motion. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I or any other member of this House brought in a substantive motion, whether it would be fair or in accordance with the spirit of the rules of this House or of any British parliament for some other hon. member to get up and move that the matter be not now considered and decided upon. If that would not be fair then I submit the amendment was not fair. I challenged it at the time, but as you know, the House divided on it and sustained the ruling of the Deputy Speaker, who was then in the chair.


George Perry Graham: What about the six
months' hoist? Would that not be definitely bringing it to an end?


William Charles Good: If the six months' hoist had
been moved it would certainly have been a little more aboveboard than the amendment that actually was presented.


George Perry Graham: I mean it would have
been in order.


William Charles Good: Perhaps it would have been
in order.

Race Track Betting


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would like the hon.
gentleman to state what in his opinion is the effect of the wording of the subamendment added to the amendment?


William Charles Good: So far as I can see it would
be quite acceptable. I stated when speaking on the point of order before that I was in agreement with the amendment but that it dealt with another matter. The amendment to the amendment, as I understand it, really incorporates the substance of the two motions and it is quite acceptable to me. I would like to see it accepted and allowed to stand, and I think that is the view of the majority of hon. members. Otherwise there are many hon. members here who will be placed in an unfortunate position:	they have either to
vote against what they believe to be right or they have to allow this question, which they want to decide, to be shelved for this session.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon. member desire to speak on the point of order? If not, 1 will reserve my decision for a little while, and the debate can proceed in the meantime.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Speaker, I started out at six o'clock to say that in British Columbia we had during the last season too much horse racing. That fact is borne out by the press reports, which some hon. gentlemen have no doubt seen, particularly during the last summer and autumn. The matter was the subject of agitations on the part of various public bodies in British Columbia; the situation became so serious that representations were made to the provincial legislature and as a result the legislature passed certain regulations cutting down the number of racing days allowable in the province. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) is in the fortunate position of not having a race course in his constituency. He says he has one? Well, he is in the unfortunate position, then, of having one; it is one I personally never heard of. I have two in my constituency. There are three race tracks in the immediate vicinity of Vancouver. The result of all this horse racing in British Columbia has been that the merchants and others have protested that money was being spent in race track gambling which should have gone into the stores and into other business. The trouble with us is that there are no Canadian horses running in British Columbia so far as I know; at least I never heard of a Canadian horse winning a race in British Columbia. Now one of the arguments which has always been adduced in support of horse racing is that racing has a
tendency to improve the breed of horses. Well, it certainly does not do that in British Columbia, because they are not raising any Canadian race horses there which ever win races. The horses are brought from Tia Juana and other American race tracks. When it gets too hot for them down there they come up to British Columbia in the summer time and make the circuit of our province. With these American horses, come American race track gamblers, touts and others who frequent and make a living out of race tracks; and these horses and these men in some way or other manage to accumulate most of the money which is spent on the race tracks, and take it out of Canada. That is why the people out there are objecting to it.
I must say that there are some race tracks in this country where legitimate sport is carried on, such tracks as Connaught Park, Ottawa, the Blue Bonnets in Montreal and the Woodbine in Toronto. If all of the tracks in Canada were as well conducted as these, I do not suppose there would be all this agitation against race track gambling; but, unfortunately, that is not the case, and out in our province, as I have said, there has been a great deal of agitation against horse racing being carried on to such an extent. If the improvement of the breed of horses is left out of the question altogether, we find that the only reason left in favour of racing is sport. Well, I am in favour of sport, and always have been. I have played all kinds of games- lacrosse, football, baseball, tennis, and golf now; I am in favour of all kinds of good legitimate sport, but I suggest that sport is not really the main reason, or any reason for carrying on race tracks in this country. The real reason is the gambling feature, and I defy any hon. gentleman to stand up in this House to-day and say that if gambling was not permitted on these race tracks we would have any number of race tracks in this country. Now if you are going to allow gambling on race tracks, why do you not allow it in other lines? It is true there are among us good reputable citizens who enjoy gambling on the race tracks; there are other reputable citizens who enjoy other forms of gambling. When I went out to British Columbia first, in all the cities and towns everything was wide open. They had faro and roulette and poker and blackjack and everything else running day and night, and everybody was happy. In those days when anybody suggested that these games should be stopped, there were many who rose up against the uplifter and said; Not at all, let us go on in the same old way; we are
Race Track Betting

all right as we are. But will anyone say that we are not better off to-day with all these games stopped? And I think the same thing would apply to race track betting. I am absolutely opposed to it and always have been.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how to vote on the various questions which are before the House. If I vote for the original resolution, which I intended to do, I would have to do two other things. In the first place, I would have to vote in favour of the pari-mutuels being continued; I would also have to vote in favour of what they call handbook betting, because if I voted for either amendment and it carried, I would have no chance of voting on the original motion
What I intend to do is to consider the matter further. I am in doubt exactly what I should do. I know my idea would be, if I got the chance, to vote in favour of the main question which was brought before the House by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). I would suggest that the proper thing for the mover of the amendment and the mover of the subamendment to do would be to withdraw their amendments, and let us have a fair and square fight on the main question of whether we want race track gambling in this country or not.


Alan Webster Neill: I would be happy to withdraw my subamendment if the hon. member from Skeena would withdraw his.


Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, while these hon. gentlemen consider what they shall do, perhaps we may be allowed to go on with the debate. This question is not a new one, but the situation that we find to-night at the beginning of this sitting is somewhat confusing. As far as I am concerned, my intention is to discuss the main matter, then to try and explain to the House how I shall vote on the two amendments in order to bring about the result that I think should be brought about. As for the question of race betting itself, it is not a new one. It was decided in this House only two years ago, not by a rigid party vote, but by the much greater flexibility of an independent and personal vote. Therefore I think we have had on this matter the clear-cut opinion of the majority of the members of this House, which has not changed very much since then. I will admit that the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) is very consistent in bringing up this matter again, but I insist, Mr. Speaker, that the House will show equal consistency in rejecting it once more. It gave a majority of twenty against it two

years ago, and I do not think there has been any great change in the opinion of the members since then.


William Charles Good: Might I ask whether the hon. gentleman would be prepared to permit the House to show its opinion on this question?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will follow me, he will know; the race has just started.


Mr. FOURNIER:: Now we're off.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think the hon. member for Brant will know about my opinion when I am through. I would like to submit first, as I did two years ago when this matter was before the House, that betting is not a bad thing in itself. That is a very important point that I wish to make at the start. I believe as much even as the hon. member for Brant himself that we should prohibit anything that is bad; but it has never been my opinion and so far has never been the opinion of this parliament, that we should prohibit anything that is not bad in itself, but that only becomes bad from the abuse of it. I submit that a man may invest his property in whatever way he likes, even for his own pleasure. There is in every activity of life an element of gamble. There is a gamble in trade, there is a gamble in the stock exchange, there is a gamble in politics-quite a number of us will find that out, perhaps very soon. All of us in life are staking a certain portion of our own resources on something that may happen. That is our liberty, we are entitled to do that; and if a man has made money in trade, or in any other activity of life, he is as much entitled to stake that money on a horse as he is to buy a new suit of clothes, an expensive dinner, or any other kind of luxury that he sees fit to buy. You are not trying, as my hon. friend was submitting only a few days ago-you are not able at least-to legislate anyone into holiness; and it is a very striking thing for some of us to see with what ease of mind hon. members are allowing certain measures to pass and then are expressing their indignation with respect to other matters which to some of us seem very trifles in comparison to what these hon. gentlemen are ready to stand for. You are not trying, for instance, to stop the extravagance in his manner of living of a man who buys too much or who spends his own money to an excessive degree. You cannot do that, and even if a man is desirous of betting his money on horse races why should you try to legislate against that wish of his?

Race Track Betting


William Charles Good: We are not proposing to do so.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Let my hon. friend be patient; the horses are just going along. My hon. friend will get my full meaning when I have developed my argument a little further. The point I want to establish first is, that there is nothing bad in the fact of a man taking his own money and betting on a horse race. That is not where the evil is; the abuse that we must try to stop is at the other end of the bargain. What we want to ensure is that there shall be no fraud or no inducement, not on the part of the man who is betting, but on the part of the man or corporation trying tc induce him to bet. Therefore it stands to reason that you must not prohibit the thing, I do not think you should be allowed to do it, but you must control it so that the betting will be done under such conditions as will prevent the committing of fraud. That has been the spirit of the legislation on betting that has passed parliament ever since this agitation was first started.
I did not follow every phase of this debate, and perhaps this subject has been alluded to already. Nevertheless I may be permitted, I hope, to state in a few words the history of the legislation on this question. In 1906 there was legislation with respect to certain prohibitions about betting, but betting was permitted as long as it took place on the race course of an incorporated association. In 1910 we had the late Miller bill, which sought to impose further restrictions but did not want to do away with race betting altogether when it w'as done under certain conditions on a race track and under the control of a properly constituted association. Then there was an inquiry into the subject, followed by the famous Rutherford report which has been alluded to very often. In 1920 when this parliament dealt with the matter again it instituted what we call the pari-mutuel which is a system of betting between different bettors instead of a man betting through a bookmaker. My hon. friend (Mr. Good) insinuates that this constitutes a privilege. I say it is not a privilege at all that the race tracks have. They are simply operating under a law or regulation which permits any incorporated association to exist.


William Charles Good: Do they not get a rake off?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I would not call it a rake off; the provincial governments get a tax and the race track people get a reasonable percentage for the regulation and control which they exercise. The pari-mutuel legitimizes betting in a prescribed form at a regular meeting conducted by a chartered racing association. That 43
is not a privilege at all. It is no more a privilege than the result of any other form of control of activities in the case of a group of men who form an association and abide by the law. Certainly they are not enjoying a privilege; they are merely following the track that we ourselves have induced them to follow. They are simply abiding by the regulations that we have ourselves prescribed. That is not a privilege at all, at least I would not call it a privilege unless you say that a man who abides by the law benefits by the control exercised. Whether that law applies to race betting or any other activity of life the principle is exactly the same. As you will see, Mr. Speaker, every time this House has dealt with race betting it has always observed that principle of control. It has prescribed certain restrictions, but it has never thought for one moment of proposing the abolition of race betting as my hon. friend proposes now-at least on the race tracks; I do not think that my hon. friend is thinking for one moment of allowing betting anywhere else.
Now what would be the effect of prohibition? I think Mr. Speaker that we have already in this country too much prohibition and not enough enforcement. We all know that in other territories it is a very hard thing to enforce the prohibiting of a thing that is not bad in itself, especially, when public opinion is not behind it. And in this ease I say that if you try to prohibit race betting altogether, as would be the effect if the .main motion were to pass, you would only have prohibition in the statute itself; you would have a worse form of betting in actual practice. Because, after all, I can conceive of only two classes of bettors: The one class a good class of bettors, sportsmen who go to the races and stake a reasonable amount of money, and who in pursuance of their own private liberty, invest their money in that form of sport and pleasure. Surely we are not going to legislate against those. What we want to prevent, at least what my hon. friend wants to prevent, is the other class of bettor-the man who stakes too much of his money, the man who goes beyond the limit; and also the fraudulent bettor who is only hovering round to try and get an illicit benefit. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that far from doing away with that class of bettors we are only favouring them by taking away the actual form of the pari-mutuel which has given good results, and by letting the betting community-if I may so term them-seek other forms of investing their money, seek other ways of betting as they are already doing. We know very well that notwithstand-

Race Track Betting

ing the fact that the law allows a race track meeting and the operation of the parimutuel you have a class of men who would sooner go on to the main streets, or into pool rooms, and bet through the agency of the book-makers. You are not going to check these, you are only going to send more people the same way, if you reject the other alternative for the control of betting that we have already. The effect of the adoption of the main resolution would not be at all to do away with betting, but it would do away with the safe, well controlled and well regulated form of betting that we have already.
There is another side to this question on which I would like to lay some emphasis before I come to the amendment, and it is this. In matters of prohibition and in matters affecting the ways of living of the individual, I think in this parliament we should be very careful, and when we can leave the matter to the different provinces to decide, we should not interfere. We live in a vast country; it takes six days to travel from one ocean to another, and when a man travels across the continent he has to change the hands of his watch several times before he reaches his destination. In different parts of the country we find different hours shown on the face of the clock, and we also have different mentalities and different ways of understanding life and of living. We agreed in the pact of 1867 that certain distinct matters must come before this parliament, but there is a great number of questions that we should leave to the different groups of people of the Canadian nation to decide for themselves. Some of the provinces are distant from one another. In the Maritime provinces they may have some special ways of understanding life that will not appeal to British Columbia. In my own province, loyal as it is and desirous to live up to the constitution, we have an understanding of life which is not perhaps similar to that of my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good). Let us deal with all these problems with great care. We know that the provincial governments of Quebec and of Ontario are deriving revenue from the races, and perhaps my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) will say that that shows the grave extent of the evil. I say no. I say that it shows that in both of those provinces there is a great number of people who are anxious to go to the races and who think there is nothing wrong in doing so; and the higher revenue derived by both provinces appeals to the people although a great number of people do not approve of it. Why should this parliament pass legislation that would impose restrictions on that mass of people? Let the

anti-betting apostles work in their own respective territories. Let them go to every province where public opinion is behind them, and they will meet with immediate success. But where public opinion is against them, as we know it is in at least two of the great provinces, why should they ask this parliament to impose the unwanted legislation on an unwilling people?
That is my view. I will not vote in this House to impose on the people of Ontario and of British Columbia legislation that they do not want, which I do not consider federal in character, and which involves a question that the provinces might well decide for themselves. I say that the prohibition of race track betting is that class of legislation. It may come under the federal authorities through the criminal code, but as far as this particular matter is concerned, I say it would be better to let every province decide for itself the question whether it should be abolished or not. Referring to the two amendments, I did not hear the discussion on the first amendment, but I know its contents, and I will be very candid in giving my viewpoint. It is not proposed to sidetrack the question at all. The effect is simply that, instead of plain abolition, as the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) desires we propose a form of better control, That is the way I understand it.


William Charles Good: If the amendment carries,
would it not prevent the House voting on the question that I propose?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I cannot see it that way at all, but if my hon. friend wants to carry the main motion, there is only one thing for him to do, namely vote against the amendment. That is the way I understand it, and I am very frank about it. As far as I am concerned I am going to vote against the subamendment, as I think it has been introduced to confuse the issue and sidetrack it. I may say that that horse is out of it; it has fallen at the three-quarters.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
amendment?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am coming to that. I will vote for the amendment for two reasons, first, because I believe in the amendment and not in the main motion, and secondly, because we should be consistent. I hope parliament will be consistent and adopt the amendment.


Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):: I have
heard the argument submitted by my hon. friend from St. James (Mr. Rinfret). There

Race Track Betting
are many members on my own side of the House for whom I have great respect. One is the hon. member for St. James, and another, is my hon. friend from Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll). But when we are placing upon the statute book of this country prohibitory legislation, then I think my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) has introduced a first-class piece of legislation, and I hope as a result of his resolution a law will be placed on the statute book. It is a great thing that we on this side of the House, led by my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King), can afford to disagree among ourselves on a matter of great public interest. The hon. member for Brant is introducing into this House a very important piece of legislation, and has argued forcibly I think in support of it. The hon. member for St. James has presented a good argument from his standpoint; but we are not getting fair racing as a result of the legislation that exists to-day. It is all very well to say that if we endeavour to put restrictions upon the racing of horses we are going to prevent the breeding of good horses in Canada. That is not the case. There is not a member of this House-not even the hon. member for Brant-who is against horse racing. I do not think he would say he is against it, but what he is opposed to is the fact that there is an organized system in this country of cheating the people at races. That is all there is to it. You go to a horse race and what do you find? You look at the odds. You have twenty to one shots and you have thirty to one shots; you have a certain horse which is placed at two to one, a second horse at certain odds, a third horse at. certain odds, and I am very much convinced of the fact that there is some person who knows exactly what home is going to win. That is what I think the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) is trying to prevent. He is not trying to prohibit good old-fashioned, honest horse racing which many of us have been accustomed to seeing. In the winter-time we could go to our pond or to our river and we could see farmers bringing out their horses. We could all subscribe a certain amount of money to furnish prizes for those horses, first, second and third. The passing of the resolution of my hon. friend does not prevent that. The same thing happens	in the	summertime. You can go to a race track and you can subscribe prizes and witness a genuine horse race. That is the sort of horse race that encourages the breeding of horses in this country, but when we get back to the organized system of gambling 43i
legalized by parliament it is absolutely wrong. That is the reason I oppose it at the present time. I do not believe in prohibition in anything. I believe we were given by the Great Divine Creator a certain amount of reasonable intelligence, but this reasonable intelligence should not be permitted to be used in excess for the purpose of the aggrandizement of certain people of the country in order to make money at the expense of other people. For that reason I intend to vote for the resolution of the hon. member for Brant, much as I respect the hon. member for St. James.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. MoQuarrie) provides in his constituency two tracks for horse racing on Lulu island, and from my constituency come frequently several thousands of people to fill the grandstands. It may be said that I would be embarrassed by either the motion or one of the several amendments, but I am not. The resolution in question is a straight issue whether we are for or against horse racing as it is carried on in Canada today under the law. To support the resolution means without question the elimination of horse racing in Canada, excepting in the small meets where these prizes referred to by the last speaker (Mr. Martell) are put up. To oppose the resolution would have the appearance of supporting a special privilege for public gambling protected by the Criminal Code of Canada. That is according to the wording of the resolution and I do not favour such an idea. The amendment deals with an entirely different phase of the question. It does not go to the principle of horse racing, whether it be good, bad or indifferent, but it goes to an abuse which I believe, is accepted by all thinking citizens of this country as being an abuse to be eradicated. The amendment to the amendment really reverts again to the main motion involving the principle of horse racing in Canada.
In this particular discussion, I do not consider that I am called upon to express my personal opinion. Personally, I am not much interested in horse racing, if you judge interest from the point of view of attendance. I believe my duty here to-day is to express the will of the majority of the people in my constituency and, as far as I can, of the majority of the people in British Columbia. Members from other parts of Canada will speak for their particular sections. British Columbia has considered this matter in a legislative way. The provincial legislature made quite a careful inquiry into the question
Race Track Betting

of horse racing, its advantages, its disadvantages, its abuses, and all the merits and demerits attributable to this particular enjoyment. Representations were heard from all public bodies for and against horse racing. The owners and those interested1 in the tracks and horses appeared before a committee of the legislature and the people at large placed their views before that body. After very careful consideration of the question extending over a lengthy period of time, the provincial legislature arrived at a decision which was in the nature of a compromise. They reduced the days of horse racing in British Columbia from seventy-two to forty-four; a very large majority of the members of the provincial legislature agreed to that legislation, and it has become the law of that province as regards horse racing. The motion of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) would seek to impose upon the provincial legislature of British Columbia the super-authority of the Parliament of Canada on the self-same problem which that province has considered and decided upon. In that regard the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfrev) expresses my view. The people of one province may think one way and the people of another province may think another. It is not good policy for this parliament to seek to undermine the decision of a province legislating on the same principle indirectly through the Criminal Code instead of by direct legislation. The people of British Columbia through their representatives in the provincial legislature having decided upon this question, I believe as a matter of policy that hon. members from British Columbia should be guided by that decision rather than by their personal will and judgment.
I do not propose to say anything on the moral aspect of the question. I would, however, point out that in some speeches to-day the extremes of the gambling side and also the extremes of the raising of good race horses have been put before this House. In my judgment, in horse racing there is an element of both judgment and chance. It is not gambling in the sense that lotteries are gambling as you find them in Prance and in many other countries. Business men in almost every activity in life engage in gambling from the time they step into their office until they leave, if the element of chance is to become the determining factor plus the element of judgment. When our friends from the prairies sell their crop of wheat in the fall- and perhaps many of them are hedging or selling short or long at the present time on wheat-there is in that far more element of chance than element of judgment. The

element of judgment is more prevalent and there is greater opportunity for exercising it in horse racing than there is on a wheat market especially as it has been during the last few weeks. It is not, however, my intention to elaborate on that point. As I say, the legislature of British Columbia having decided this question after hearing all parties interested, I do not propose to aid by my vote a motion which seeks to superimpose upon British Columbia the will of the Parliament of Canada.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, we seem to have got into a tangle through the motion, the amendment and the amendment to the amendment. I may say, before I go any further, that I intend to vote for the amendment to the amendment. I will vote against the amendment, and if both are defeated, I will vote for the resolution. I listened with a good deal of in-9 p.m. terest to the speech delivered by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). He made a very clever argument, but in my opinion he started from a wrong premise. He started on the assumption that betting was right in itself, and consequently all his argument was built upon a false foundation. I agree, however, with the sentiment that, perhaps, in modern times we are too fond of legislation. I think I repeated the phrase the other day, "Anxious for legislation but impatient of law". And that I think is a weakness of modern civilization; we are too anxious, generally speaking, to tie ourselves up with laws. In this particular case however, I look upon the matter in an entirely different light. There are questions that are fundamentally moral, and of course I admit the right of everyone to judge for himself so far as that is concerned. But in the matter of betting I do believe that this practice, as I know it to be carried on, is immoral in principle, and therefore I can do nothing else conscientiously than vote against the legalizing of what I regard as a moral wrong.
It has been suggested that some in this House are against horse racing, but I do not think that this is so. After all, what is a horse race? It is simply an effort on the part of one animal to outspeed another in a set race, and so far as I have had any experience of horse racing it has always struck me as being not so much a question of speed as a matter of fairness and honesty on the part of the riders, and also of the closeness of the contest. How much difference does it make in a race unless you have a stop watch? The trouble with modern racing is that it is not conducted as a test of the speed of horses but merely as a

Race Track Betting
means of settling bets, and that is what destroys horse racing as a sport. Now, I want to say a few words about sport, for I think that sport is one of the finest things in human life. And that is a broad statement to make.
I like to see sport among young people, and there is no better phrase we have to-day than the one we use when we speak of playing the game. What does "playing the game" mean? It means playing fair; and in the school yard, in the large arena of sports generally, one of the finest things in Canada to-day is the fact that everyone wants to see sport carried on fairly. We admire those who when they win can take victory with humility and those who when they lose can look upon defeat with courage. That is the kind of thing we call sport. I wonder how many members in this House will say that racing as it is conducted to-day is in reality what we can call clean sport? Conscientiously speaking, I do not think it can be so described. Rather, judging by what I have seen of racing, I am inclined to think, as one hon. member has already said to-night, that often it is known beforehand what horse is going to win. This would not be so if it were not for betting.
As to the argument that horse racing is necessary to encourage the breeding of good horses, I would dwell on that point for a moment. I have had some little experience in my early years in the raising of race horses and I know something about thoroughbreds. Let me tell hon. gentlemen that no one can afford to breed a racehorse unless he is a very wealthy man; and I will say why.


William F. Carroll: Or unless he has a good
horse.


Robert Forke: Wait a minute and let me
explain; I know what I am talking about this time at any rate. I can speak about running horses; I am not referring now to harness horses. I know, that when you breed horses for, racing purposes you may breed about twenty colts, or even fifty, before you get one that will win a race. On the other hand, when you raise a horse for harness purposes, for working in the field, even though he may have some blemish or may be weak in some spots he can always be sold for what he is worth. When you raise a running horse, however, unless he is speedy and without blemish, he is likely of not much account for anyone. And there is the difficulty in producing racehorses. So that horse racing, if it is to be conducted as a clean sport, will always be undertaken largely by wealthy people. The other sort of racing that has been alluded to
in this House to-night, that is to say, racing at country fairs and local meets, and events of that sort, is, I think, about the cleanest and best sport we can find in the country in connection with what I would call legitimate horse racing.
Allusion has been made to-night to gambling in other respects than racing. Now, I come of a race which perhaps is just as fond of money as any other, but I for one do not want anything for nothing; I want to give value in return for any money I receive, no matter in what way I get it. And I sometimes think, when I have gone out to the races and have seen betting going on, that if the people who felt jubilant over their winnings could come face to face with some of those from whom they got their money, they would not be so happy after all. No one who has gone to the race course and watched some of the scenes that take place there, the heartburnings, the soreness and the disappointments, can feel much joy in any winnings he has made. Getting something for nothing will not tend to make anyone happy; you will find it a law of life that no happiness will come in any other way than in rendering some service, and I could never appreciate any money that I got from anyone for which I did not give value in return. I know that there is something in human nature that inclines us to take a chance, as we say. I believe the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) alluded to that fact. Well, do you not think that there is enough in human life in the way of taking chances without artificially manufacturing games of chance? It seems to me that when one takes a chance at legitimate work he endeavours to give some service to those around him. to do something for ihis family and for humanity. He may fail in his endeavours and lose in the fight, but at any rate his fight was honest, and his intention was rather to give some benefit in return for what he received. It needs courage to be a good gambler. You have heard of "poker face." I do not know anything about poker, but I do know that poker face is a mask that can hide the feelings that are behind. Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but while I do not know anything about this form of activity, I do know that the man who has gone in for that sort of thing loses his feelings to a large extent; at any rate, he feels no sorrow for other people, as he probably would in other walks of life if he happened to make some success through another's misfortune.
Race Track Betting

I cannot agree to give betting a legal status. I know very well that you cannot make people moral by legislation; I admit that. I grant, too, that perhaps it is a wrong idea that you can make laws to keep everyone walking along the straight and narrow path. But when you find the government going out of its way in the Criminal Code to provide special legislation for one particular thing in this category, I am inclined to look upon it with suspicion and to wonder what the reason is for such legislation. There is a difference between gambling and what we may call speculation. Speculation may not always be right in itself, but it is quite different from gambling. I would remark to my hon. friends to my left, in this connection, that we in the west know what speculation really means. When the western farmer goes out and sows his seed in the spring he is speculating to a certain extent upon the harvesting of a crop. At the same time, he is not robbing anyone; he is trying to raise a crop that will be of value if he is successful. So you cannot compare the taking of a chance in that way with gambling.
Allusion has been made to-night to wheat gambling in the pit, on the grain exchange. Mr. Speaker, I am just as ready to condemn wheat gambling as I am to condemn horse gambling. I believe it is utterly wrong in principle and bad in practice. If any hon. member here had in his employ a young man who was speculating in futures or gambling on the race track he would not entrust him with very large sums of money, and that in itself, I think, is proof that there is something dangerous and wrong in the habit of gambling.
I do not intend to say anything more, because I do not think I can add anything to the arguments that have been presented here to-night. I do not want to set myself up as a Puritan. I know there are certain weaknesses in human nature and that if you attempt to tie people down too tight they will find an outlet in some other direction. But I do believe this thing is wrong in principle and that it should not be recognized by the government of this country; therefore I am prepared to vote for anything that will curtail what I consider to be an evil in itself.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria City):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to the discussion which has taken place on the resolution offered by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). He proposes in that resolution entirely to eliminate horse racing as it is carried on in this country, for

this reason: that it is well known that to carry on horse racing under present conditions, to offer the large purses that are given in connection with horse racing, there must be a source of revenue other than that which is derived from the gate. In that connection an added revenue is secured from the commission paid on the pari-mutuel machines. If we did not have this, then, we could not offer the large prizes that are at present given and we would be unable to secure the best horses in competition with the United States and therefore would not be able to put up the high quality of racing that is found on many of our tracks to-day.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: What is the commission charged, or what is the rake-off, on the pari-mutuels?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That is all to be found in
the criminal code-the different percentages that are charged. Ontario charges a tax of five per cent on what is taken in through the pari-mutuel machines.
With regard to the various amendments which have been offered, the sub-amendment, I think, is a rather ingenious one because after it patches up the amendment to a certain extent it remains with practically the same effect as the original resolution; it would cut out horse racing altogether. I do not propose to support that.
So far as the handbooks are concerned, there is no one interested in legitimate racing who does not wish to have handbooks wiped out entirely. It is a fact that in the city of Ottawa to-day and in every prominent city in the whole of Canada-the same is true of the United States

you can go down town any day and bet on a race at Tia Juana, Mexico; Miami, Florida, or Lexington, Kentucky, where races are being conducted at the present time. That is the sort of thing that the person who wishes to gamble has access to every day, and it is a very injurious thing. It is quite different on the race track, where racing is continued only for a very short time, a week or ten days in the spring, perhaps, and then no more opportunities until the following fall. That, I repeat, is a quite different thing from the handbook system.
As I said a moment ago, it is utterly impossible to conduct racing on a high scale without a certain amount of betting. Betting on horse races is permitted in every part of the British Empire. The hon. member for Duf-ferin (Mr. Woods) this afternoon called attention to the fact that we should bring up our young people in this country as well as possible. I quite agree with him on that point,

Race Track Betting
as well as on many of the other points he brought out in regard to the moral phases of the question. But I would ask him this: Can we expect to bring our young people up any better than the young people of Great Britain are being brought up, where they have carried on horse racing for hundreds of years, and where, indeed, pure bred horses really originated?
As to the estimate of the amount of money bet on race tracks, you will see statistics which, it is alleged, show that $36,000,000, $50,000,000 and up was bet in one year, with the additional statement that the most of this money went to the United States. But what evidence is there that this has taken place? How can you tell how much new money has actually been bet? You can go to the race track here at Connaught Park with a two dollar bill and if you are fairly lucky you may come home with your two dollar bill after the seven races are run. Or you may make a little money, or you may lose your two dollar bill on the first race. It is a very difficult matter to estimate the amount of new money that is wagered on an occasion like that.
As to the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie), he is a brother British Columbian. He has distinguished himself in his knowledge of law; he has distinguished himself in this House in his knowledge of sockeye salmon. He proved himself some years ago to be a very great lacrosse player. But when it comes to horses he needs, to take a night course in some school. I was very much astonished to hear him say there were no Canadian horses racing at the coast meetings; that a gang of fellows, blacklegs and others, came up from California and elsewhere, swept up all the money and then went out. Do not think for a minute that British Columbians are as easy as that. I know of several strings of Canadian horses that are racing at the coast. I know of horses from the big E.P. ranch south of Calgary, owned by the Prince of Wales. Horses are bred in the interior of British Columbia, horses bred at the coast, horses that come from my own town of Victoria, are competing in these races on the mainland and on the island.
An. hon. MEMBER:	Do they win?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Win? Certainly, they get
their share. With regard to the nature of the racing carried on there, I feel that the hon. member is rather too severe in his criticism. I quite agree with the action of the British Columbia government, however, in regulating the racing rather than introducing legislation such as we are considering here
to-night, which has for its object the utter elimination of racing. We know that racing has been carried on for many years in Great Britain, in Australia and in New Zealand under careful regulations and that it is under those conditions one of the cleanest sports that, you could have anything to do with. In British Columbia they have cut down the number of days' racing from seventy-two to forty-four, on the ground that seventy-two was too much, and I agree with them.
We have heard a good deal of criticism regarding this racing business; let us look for a moment at the other side of the question, and deal with some points that have not 3'et been touched on to any great extent. In the first, place, racing is one of the most popular sports, properly conducted. Let me say that I have not one dollar invested in any race horse or any race track. I am speaking on this question as I do because I feel that the people should be allowed to judge for themselves to a certain extent; that they should not be legislated around in their daily life as we are trying to do in connection with some other matters.
This sport of racing is backed up by a very important and growing industry, that of horse breeding. It is proposed to wipe this out entirely. When we realize that during the year 1924 there were in our country no less than 2,000,000 patrons of race tracks it will readily be seen that there is some force in the suggestion of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) that this is a big country and that we should consider all the people and their wishes in matters of this kind. It is estimated that only 75 per cent of the people who go to a race track bet on the races through the machines. There are many others who do not go to the machines at all, but pass the hat around, form a pool and do a little betting, but 25 per cent, it is estimated, do not bet on the races at all, but simply go there for the pleasure of looking on. This betting on racing, taken on the whole, I feel is not done by the average visitor to the race track for the purpose of getting rich, for the purpose of making money, but rather for the purpose of an added thrill to the interest in the races. A party of four or five will go out and put in the afternoon making small bets, such as $2 on a race, have an enjoyable time, compare their winnings and losses on the way home and it adds considerable interest to the afternoon's sport.
There is one other very interesting feature in connection with race track betting, and that is that whereas when the pari-mutuel system was first introduced larger sums were bet to a very great extent; nowadays on
Race Track Betting

many of the big tracks it has been found necessary to remove many of the big betting machines, and there has been a very much greater demand for the smaller or two-dollar bets, indicating that people are not betting to make money on the races but to give an added interest to the afternoon's sport.
We have at least $6,000,000 invested in race tracks in this country. It is proposed by the resolution before us to wipe out this investment entirely, to make it perfectly worthless. Ontario derives a revenue of something like $4,000,000 a year from her race tracks. This is a very important revenue. They charge $7,500 a day on the mile tracks, and $2,500 a day on the smaller tracks. In addition, there is an amusement tax, and in addition to that five per cent of the amount of the money that goes through the machines also goes to the province.
There is another very important phase to this question, one that is sneered at sometimes by those who are perhaps not as well informed, and that is the important part that racing plays in connection with the breeding of horses, particularly the thoroughbred horse, the hunter and the saddle horse. We have horse breeding establishments in Canada extending from Quebec to the Pacific coast. Perhaps the most prominent is the EP. ranch south of Calgary, owned by the Prince of Wales, where he has established a first class stud of thoroughbred horses. These breeding establishments vary from those owning a single mare to other establishments where there is an investment of half a million dollars. My good friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressives, a few moments ago suggested that the breeding of thoroughbred horses was a very precarious thing. I will admit that. The breeding of any kind of a horse is a precarious thing, for any horse might be unsound; it might be born unsound, or suffer from a blemish later on which will greatly reduce its value, but if you are breeding and have established a stud of horses, very carefully selected, you can get rid of your stock without expending a single dollar on training at all, simply by selling them on their pedigree, on the results of what their sires and dams have done, and what the offspring oc these particular animals have been able to d>
on the 'rick. If you have good stock, j'ou will always find a ready sale for them.
I may say that over $2,000,000 in purses was divided among the race horse owners in Canada during the past year. It has been suggested by some of the speakers that nearly all of this money went to the United States.

It may perhaps be of interest to you to know that of all the stables that raced in Canada last year the two largest winners were Canadian stables, one of which won between $90,000 and $100,000. That was just simply in purses, or what was offered by the race track owner. At the Woodbine track in Toronto, $70,000 was offered in purses to Canadian breeders. Only horses bred in Canada were permitted to compete in these races. In addition to that, they have offered special prizes to the breeder of the winners of some of these big races, with the result that one man located in Ontario -who owned only one thoroughbred mare produced a winner in one of these races and was promptly handed a cheque by the Ontario Jockey Club for $500 as an encouragement to go on and breed more good horses. The Ontario Jockey Club, composed of four different associations, have rendered a very valuable service to the horse breeders in this country inasmuch as they have spent a lot of money in the importation of first-class thoroughbred stallions from the Old Country. These animals are rendering excellent service in the improvement of live stock in this country, and all this is carried on absolutely at their own expense. In adition to that, they have offered a number of prizes to horses shown at the various exhibitions. You will all understand that in producing a first-class saddle horse or high class hunter, you must have a thoroughbred cross in order to get that fineness of quality so much desired in the fine saddle horse or hunter. From the purebred you get speed and stamina, the ability to travel over rough country, take high fences and water jumps at a good speed, and at the same time be able to go the distance; and in no other way can you get it.
The United States government, recognizing the value of improving the quality of hunters and saddle horses, is spending $250,000 in assisting in that work. The breeding of the thoroughbred horse has been taken up to a considerable extent by the states in the south, particularly in Kentucky, California and some other states, but it is from Great Britain that the very best horses come. It is to Great Britain that owners from the Argentine, the United States and other parts of the world go when they wish to secure fresh blood of high class quality. They have built up a big industry in both these countries I have mentioned, and also in Australia, where they pay thousands of dollars for horses. We shall find conditions in Canada just as good when racing is as well regulated as it is in

Race Track Betting
these other countries, and we shall have an excellent market here for the raiser of purebred horses.
While, as I have pointed out, the effect of the resolution before us to-night would be to destroy absolutely horse racing in Canada for the reasons that I have already given you, it is interesting to know that my good friend from Brant has not introduced into his resolution anything to overcome gambling in the wheat pit or on the stock exchanges, or gambling over the bridge table which takes place in every city of Canada from one end to the other every night. If you are invited to a bridge game in any recognized house, and you will not play for money, that will be the last invitation you get.


George Perry Graham: Mah Jongg, too.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is nothing in the
resolution about those handbooks that are doing so much harm all over this country from one end to the other. If you are going to wipe out gambling, let us get together and be consistent and wipe it all out at once. I have here a.little clipping taken from a paper in Florida in which Clarence Darrow, a well known lawyer in the United States makes a few remarks in regard to racing.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Have you got the opinion there of Mr. Calder, of Montreal, with regard to Mr. Darrow?	.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I will just give you this first, and take a chance on Mr. Darrow later.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Calder will be with you on this.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Mr. Darrow says:
I have greatly enjoyed visiting the track. Most people come to Miami to be amused, and I know of no better source of amusement, and I am glad, for one, that the visitors here have an opportunity of seeing the races. The few people who hold out objection to racing always remind me amusingly of the story of why the Puritans abolished bear-beating-not because it was cruelty to the bear, but because it was pleasure to the onlookers. And I thought the modem American was ahead of that feeling.
It's funny, the trend of the mind. A lot of people seem to think that a bet on a horse race is a sin, and never stop to think that practically everything in life is a gamble. One is encouraged to buy real estate on the chance that the value will go up, or to take a chance on the price of grain or stocks and bonds rising, and no one thinks anything of it, and yet there is no comparison as to the amount of money lost or won.
All business involves a large element of gambling One buys something in order to sell again at a profit, with no certainty that such will be the case. Practically all one's life is a gamble. In fact, if the speculative element were removed there would be little left to live for. That is life.
I do not believe that we can remedy the situation by eliminating horse racing altogether. That would be a very sad result, particularly in a country like this where there are so many British bom people with whom this pastime is so extremely popular. I think that in order to meet the whole situation as we find it there should be, not only with respect to horse racing but as regards many of the other lines which I have mentioned, a real campaign of education in which the churches should take a very active part and that we should receive the support of the people who are in favour of carrying on that work.	.
The resolution would wipe out betting on horse racing altogether; it would wipe out the races, but it would not stop the handbook gambling that is taking place every day. I feel that it would be much better to have what betting we have carried on in this country, if the law is strictly carried out, and to have that betting out in the open as we find it on our race tracks and under proper supervision, than to have it carried on in the dark as is the case with handbook betting. Personally I am strongly in favour of the strictest regulations being applied; you will not find any friend of regular racing who desires to encourage in any way anything improper on a race track. Every one of these persons feels that if racing is to be sustained in this country it must be carried on on the square and out in the open, and I am a very strong supporter of that feeling. In Australia and Great Britain this has been accomplished for a number of years, and by the exercise of a little intelligence and a careful application of our laws we can get the same result in this country.
In Victoria city, which I have the honour to represent, we had a plebiscite on racing in 1922. The vote went in favour of racing by two to one, and a mayor who had been in office during the previous year, and who was strongly opposed to racing, was sent home at the next election with a majority of three thousand against him. I may say that in that city we cater to the tourist trade to a very great extent, and that other legitimate amusements that we can provide there provide added attractions in our city for these tourists. As for the legislation recently passed in British Columbia for the regulation of racing I am heartily in favour of it. I think it is a move in the right direction. I do not believe we cam get any good results by putting on the prohibition suggested by the resolution. We know that in the case of the prohibition of liquor, both in the
Race Track Betting

United States and in this country, it has failed to a very great extent in many places. It is by a campaign of education that we shall get good results rather than by adopting the spirit of the resolution which we are considering this evening.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): I rise in the first place for the purpose of defining, if I can, the issue, and secondly for the purpose of making my own position clear in connection with the various and embarrassing amendments now before the House. Many of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken, including the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret), seemed to be entirely off the track so far as the issue is concerned. The issue, as I understand it, is not whether or not betting shall be prohibited; the question is whether or not commercialized betting shall be prohibited. The criminal code does not prevent, nor does my hon. friend the member for Brant (Mr. Good) seek to prevent, betting between two individuals who go to the race track and have their bets. If I understand the hon. member for Brant aright, that is not his purpose at all. The law now does not prohibit individuals betting with each other, any more than the law prohibits people from playing bridge with each other as the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) has suggested. The law does not prohibit gambling, if you want to call it so, of that kind, unless it is carried on in a common gaming house-unless there is somebody making a profit out of it other than the players themselves. The same situation exists, as I understand it, in regard to betting. The law prohibits commercialized betting but it does give a special privilege to racing associations. Personally I am against privilege of every kind, whether it be that privilege to violate the law that is now reserved for the betting associations, whether it is a privilege which is given by means of a protective tariff, or whether it is a privilege given in any other direction. And so I say to hon. gentlemen who seem to think this is a matter of trying to stop betting that they are shooting entirely beside the mark, because that is not the question at all.
So far as the resolution is concerned I am heartily in accord with the hon. member for Brant; I shall vote yea on that motion. But now the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) comes along and he proposes something with which, on one phase alone, I am in hearty accord also. His amendment has two horns to it. By one he proposes to wipe out the resolution itself. To that extent I am opposed to his amendment. In the second place he 
desires to institute some measure which will eliminate the hand-book evil so-called. To that extent I am in hearty agreement with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena, and consequently I find myself confronted with this situation on the amendment-part I am in agreement with, and part I differ with. Under the circumstances I must necessarily vote against the amendment although I admit frankly there is a portion of it with which I am in sympathy. I trust that if the amendment is rejected by the House the Minister of Justice will not take that as a mandate from the House not to introduce the amendment which he proposes to the criminal code for the purpose of eliminating the hand-book evil.
Now with regard to the sub-amendment. The sub-amendment proposes to restore the situation so far as the resolution is concerned and seeks, by a rather ingenious method I think, to bring before this House the original issue which was presented to it by the hon. member for Brant. I think it is unfortunate that by this trick of fortune the House is prevented from passing its judgment on the main issue which is now before it-I think it is an unfortunate thing. I do not suppose for a single moment that the hon. member for Skeena intended that should be so, but nevertheless that is the actual situation-we are prevented and effectually prevented by the terms of the amendment-if we desire to support the amendment with which some of us at least are partly in favour-from expressing our opinions on the original resolution. Therefore as far as I am concerned I shall vote for the sub-amendment. If it carries and is tacked on to the amendment I shall have to vote for it. If the sub-amendment does not carry I shall vote against the amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I should like to remind my
hon. friend from St. James that I am on the track this time. If the amendment standing by itself does not carry and I have the opportunity of voting on the original resolution I shall vote in the affirmative.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: I would like to define my position on the subject before the House at the present time. I also feel myself in rather an embarrassing position, because there is a part of the amendment which I would like to support. Yet at the same time I also feel that I would have liked to have given my vote in favour of the original motion. I am not so charitable as the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) when he suggests that the hon. mem-

Race Track Betting
ber for Skeena (Mr. Stork) brought this motion before the House not thinking it was going to put the original motion out of the way. So far as I am concerned, it seems to me as if it was a deliberate action to prevent the motion going before this House; and for that reason I am sorry that he has confounded the issue as he has done. The hon member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) says there is an element of gambling in all things. Perhaps that is true. He says " there is gambling in politics, and perhaps in the near future some of us will realize that politics is a gamble." I quite agree with him, and his side of the House will also realize that it is a gamble. It may be a gamble for people who are entering into politics, but it is a bigger gamble for the people of Canada who place men in parliament and expect them to pass reforms for the upbuilding of the country and welfare of the people, and also expect them to carry out resolutions and pledges that they gave to the people some years ago. My hon. friend from Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) said we should not support the measure of my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) because of the great number of British people that are in this country. I think the British people can speak for themselves. I should like my hon. friend to speak as a Canadian and not throw the blame on the British subjects who have come to this country. It is only a few days since the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) deplored the fact that people who come to this country were speaking in regard to a certain constitutional issue and said if anyone was entitled to speak on that matter, it was the Canadians and not the people who have come from other countries; for that reason they both take different issues.
I want to speak for a moment or two with regard to race track gambling. The hon. member from Victoria City endeavoured to show the benefits that would accrue as a result of permitting horse racing and betting at the same time. It seems to me his argument is equivalent to this, that without betting there is not sufficient interest in horse racing to make it worth while. If that is the position, ;then the sooner horse racing is abolished the better. If you have to depend on the weakness of individuals in order to make horse racing a success, then the sooner it is eliminated from our national sport the better. So far as hockey, soccer football and other sports are concerned, which I delight in and love to witness, it is not the betting on
the games that I enjoy. If there is such a thing as intrinsic value in sport, it is the play, the manliness of the players and the skill that they put into these things that make it worth while, and I have no doubt that if the pari-mutuel machines were eliminated horse racing would still go on. There is enough of the spirit of the sportsman in our country to induce our British and Canadian people to go to the races for the real love of seeing good honest, clean horse racing.
There is another feature in regard to this betting, and I believe every member in this House knows of it: that wherever you find betting permitted, whether on horse racing or other sports, there is always a certain element that goes along with the betting coming from different parts of this and other countries, which is not always desirable in the interest of good citizenship. The authorities recognize that this element is coming along, and therefore police forces are provided, and they have to take special precautions to safeguard the public at the races. For that reason it would seem to me that if we could eliminate betting this class of undesirables would not be found at the race track.
We have been told that there is an element of gambling in all things; there is an element of gambling in buying and selling wheat. I may say that, so far as western Canada and the growers of wheat are concerned, there is an organized and systematic effort through the wheat pool to eliminate that evil, by eliminating gambling on the grain exchange. This wheat gambling is not done by the men who grow wheat to any large extent. It is done by people who are endeavouring to manipulate the market from outside. As far as the average individual is concerned, there may be a speculative feature in growing wheat, but it is for an honest purpose, to supply the needs of humanity and to furnish food. You cannot say that the element of betting and gambling at a race track is for the purpose of improving the race or of benefiting the people at large. For that reason, I think it is well for the people of Canada to realize that it is a very significant fact that the people who are in power at the present time have side-stepped the issue that has come from the churches and the great moral forces of this country for the elimination of race track gambling. It is just as well for the people to understand that there is always an element of gambling in sending men into our legislative bodies to interpret the wills of people. The people have spoken with no uncertain sound. But we find very little has
6S4
Race Track Betting

been done. I say that 170 people were elected in this country on a free trade basis, and they were expecting that as a result there would be a lowering of the tariff and that there would be economic administration, but they have gambled on a hundred to one chance and very little has been done.
The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) stated that two years ago parliament voted in no uncertain way on this matter, that there was a majority of twenty against the proposition, and that we have not changed. You do not know whether we have changed or not. We never stand still in Canada so far as this comer of the House is concerned. We are going forward and onward. It may be that the reactionaries think things are at a standstill. But in Canada the Progressive party believe in going forward, and for that reason, my hon. friends themselves will realize that they are also being weighed in the balance, and if in the balance of public opinion they are found wanting, they will realize that the Canadian people may be played with for a certain time and hoodwinked into believing in pledges. But it is only in action that we get the things that we want done, and when the people of Canada have spoken with no uncertain sound through the churches and the moral, social and reform councils, I think it is time for us as the representatives of the people, for that is what we are in the final analysis, to do as the people desire. Therefore, if I have the opportunity I will vote for the amendment to the amendment, and if the two amendments are got out of the way, I will give my vote for the original motion.


Harold Putnam: On the majority of occasions in this chamber I like to be ranked with those who give a silent vote, when that vote is not ambiguous and has the meaning simply of an ordinary vote. In such cases I for one am content to let it pass; but with this unusual and strange mixture of amendments following a motion, one is under the risk of being misunderstood by merely casting a bare and unexplained vote. I have received representations too many and too important upon this question to allow myself to be under any such misunderstanding to-night. At the outset of my remarks which, I will say for the relief of all, will be very brief, I do not see any need of throwing any shadow of bad faith upon the amendment or the amendment to the amendment any more than upon the motion itself, which I accept from the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) as entirely one of the utmost good faith. It is unfortunate

that we are in something of a complexity, almost phenomenal, as respects the order of the amendments that have been offered. There is no attempt at dissimulation in the matter, because the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork), who moved the amendment, very frankly supported the pari-mutuel at the race tracks. I cannot agree with him as to the justice or equity of allowing that state of affairs to go on. I voted a couple of sessions ago with the position of the hon. member for Brant. I do not know that there was any great wisdom in the question being repeated in the same terms; but now that it is repeated, I have only one duty and it is the same duty which my conscience told me to follow then. The hon. member for Skeena appeared to argue in favour of the parimutuels on their merits. I could not follow him in that, and he wished to summon to his aid Lord Rosebery, reasoning from the analogy of his conduct in England that he was impliedly a supporter of the pari-mutuel in Canada. The hon. member cited three great ambitions of Lord Rosebery. One was that he wished to marry the wealthiest woman in England, second, that he wished to have the fastest horse at the Derby in England, and third that he wished to be Prime Minister of England. I do not think any intelligent critic, writing a life of Lord Rosebery, could cite those three things or any one of them to his credit, but he would rather put that down as a weakness on the part of Lord Rosebery. If he had for his particular ambition to marry the richest woman in England, or to have the fastest horse, I think his third ambition to be Prime Minister of England would probably proceed from the motive of vaulting, personal ambition rather than from any really sincere desire to serve his country.
I am told that the amendment would banish far more evil than would the motion itself. That may possibly be so, and I am told that the newspapers coming over from the United States and publishing the tips, selections and information on races in various other parts of the continent for the year round, produce far more betting than the parimutuel machines for the few weeks they are conducted on Canadian soil. Even if that be true, the fact is that the government have nothing like the direct responsibility for the former that they have for the latter, for in the latter, as they take about a million dollars and give it, I believe, to the government of Ontario, I consider that the administration becomes very directly an interested partner in the institution of betting itself. I have little to add. I am going to support the amend-

Race Track Betting
ment to the amendment as being the nearest approach which lies before me to help the hon. member for Brant in repeating the ambition that he had two or three sessions ago. If that fails, I shall take the same course seriatim as has already been indicated by those who are allied with my belief in this matter.


Mr. L. J. LOVETT (Digby and Annapolis):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate; but owing to the complications that now surround the question under discussion in the form of a main motion, an amendment and an amendment to the amendment, I find myself in a very embarrassing position in regard to my vote. For instance, supposing I wish to vote for the main motion, naturally I will vote against the amendment and the amendment to the amendment. But if the amendment to the amendment or the amendment carries, I would be debarred from voting for the main motion. Therefore, the only course open to me is to place myself fairly on record as being in favour of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). If I have an opportunity I shall certainly vote for that resolution, and in doing so I feel I shall be carrying out the wishes and desires of a majority of the people whom I have the honour to represent.


Thomas William Bird: Mr. Speaker,
the nature of this subject compels me, almost against my inclination at the present time, to say a few words. I have been interested in ethical questions a great proportion of my life, and it does not disturb me
10 p.m. very considerably to see the difference of opinion that has developed in this debate. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rimfret), I think, drew attention to the difference of viewpoint there is in a country like ours on a matter of this kind. That is a very significant point to draw attention to. I believe on questions of this kind there is the need for a large degree of mutual toleration. We are in a position where we are apt to get in exceedingly wrong with each other unless we do exercise the utmost degree of toleration, because the differences in viewpoint are extremely divergent and fundamental. I listened some days ago to the arguments presented on the other side of the House against divorce. They were not arguments that appealed to my way of thinking; but nevertheless I listened to them with great respect, because apart altogether from their intrinsic merit, they impressed me with the thought that in this country, whether one way or another, the great mass of the people are intensely interested in social ethics; that is, we are all keenly interested in the moral advance of Canada. I think that fact, when we rightly apprehend it, ought to take from our minds any undue degree of disturbance at the thought that we are so much apart in our views. As long as we keep the main fact before our minds there is a hope that some day we shall approximate in our views as to what is best for our country in these respects. We can readily see how easily we get adrift and out of our depth. The hon. member for St. James, I think, said that this thing is not wrong in itself. I wonder if the hon. member could tell me of anything that is wrong in itself. I doubt it. I hope he will pardon me for saying that that is an old woman's argument. I say that with the utmost deference both to the hon. member and to the old woman.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Why not an old man's argument?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was going to rise and protest myself. I wish I had the wisdom of some women.


Thomas William Bird: I expressed my deference and I also offer my apology to the old woman.


An hon. MEMBER:: In this House?


Thomas William Bird: I am afraid I am treading unwittingly on very thin ice. However, I know a great many elderly ladies of my acquaintance who would hesitate to use that argument. When I think of that argument I am reminded of certain things that are seemingly bad and really bad in themselves. Take for instance a bad egg. A bad egg may perhaps be regarded as a very good brand of sulphuretted hydrogen; and one of our great English writers has said that the mud you scrape off your feet before you go indoors is a wonderful compound of elements that are simply marvellous in their crystalline beauty.. But I like to look at these things in a commonsense way, and I call mud dirt and a bad egg a bad egg. Similarly, I believe that gambling is a degraded form of the sporting instinct of humanity. Let us call a spade a spade. I think, myself, that the collective conscience of mankind is gradually coming to see this matter in this way. The hon. member for St. James got a bad start, and perhaps he is a little behind in the race in this respect.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Make your bet.


Thomas William Bird: I am afraid we cannot avoid discussing this question from the standpoint of our personal views of what is right and wrong, because after all that depends on what
Race Track Betting

is inherent in the member for St. James and in myself; the upbringing we have had, the culture that has been ours, determines in a large measure our habit of thinking in this regard. It is therefore not seeming in either of us to quarrel about that. But we can bring the question into another sphere where there is not, or where at least there ought not to be, so much controversy, and that is into the social sphere; and we can view it from the standpoint of the good or harm the practice of gambling does Canadian society, leaving the ethical side out of consideration. The thing may be right or wrong in itself, but is it right as regards the welfare of Canadian society, especially the rising generation? We can see the attitude that prevails here from certain remarks that have passed. One hon. gentleman says that you cannot make people holy by law. That is true. Again, however, if you look at it in a commonsense light, you cannot make a field grow a crop of wheat by putting a barbed wire fence around it; but you must have a fence if you want to grow wheat. And the same is true in the realm of social ethics; there are certain things you cannot do by law, but you must enact laws in order that they may be done. It is therefore beside the mark to say that you cannot make people good by law. I should be sorry to think that this was true, because I want to feel that a good many of our legal enactments are salutary and that their ultimate result is to give the people a chance to be as good as it is possible to be in a world of this kind. It is hard enough, God knows, for the average well educated person to achieve the highest under favourable circumstances. And while such a person may not need the shelter of legal enactments, there are a great many people in this world who are the better for it, if they can be sheltered in that way. The limb that is dislocated, as scripture says, needs a straight and smooth way in order that, after being set, it may not be disjointed again.
Leaving that aspect of the question, I would not attempt to deal with the economic side of it, as one hon. member to my right has done, in regard to the effect of gambling on the blooded horse. I should be as familiar in that sphere as he would be in the one I have just left. I mean no harm by that statement. There is no doubt that the blooded horse is an object of supreme beauty, and like all beautiful things it is one the passage of which we hate to see. But if this type of horse is to be degraded into a gambling machine the sooner its extinction comes about the better. Even President Coolidge does not think it a necessary part of his daily exercise.

And if gambling is considered necessary, at all events we do not need to degrade the horse to that level. Our sentiment no doubt can be appealed to in this regard. Hon. members talk about the distinguished patronage under which gambling has always gone on, but I do not care into what associations you bring it; you may hang on it all the tinsel and the purple you like, you cannot make it better. It may be a game of nobles, but that does not make it a noble game. I felt, therefore, that I could not sit while this matter was being discussed without stating my point of view. As I said in the first place, it is unfortunate that our fundamental points of view should apparently be so divergent, but that should not unduly disturb us, so long as we are convinced, as I think we all are, that we are very much in earnest in our desire to maintain the moral standards of the country. I was reading the other day a pronouncement of a Roman Catholic bishop of Saskatoon regarding certain customs that are menacing the moral standards of Canada at the present time. When I read that I did not allow any instincts. I might have as a Protestant to rise and beOloud my judgment in the matter; I rather allowed other feelings to prevail, and I felt a thrill of satisfaction that in this other great religious community in Canada there should be that earnestness for the maintenance of the moral standards of our beloved country.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (ParkdaJle):: I am sorry I was not here earlier in the evening to hear the first part of the debate. If this resolution carries it means the elimination of horse racing, and if the amendment to the amendment is adopted the same result will ensue. The subamendment is only different in form. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we should take a broader view of matters of this kind which affect the liberties of the citizens of this great Dominion. We are only antagonising one element after another in the population when we enact laws of this kind, and I am entirely opposed to too many prohibitory enactments. This is another drastic law which only a small proportion of the citizens would respect, and consequently we should be unable to enforce it. I have lived in Toronto thirty-seven years, and although there is a race track within half a mile of my home I do not believe that I have been at race meetings thirty-seven times in my life. I have no interest in horse racing, because I can enjoy myself in bowling on the gTeen or in curling on the ice. But I have friends who enjoy horse racing and whom I would not want to deprive of the right of

Race Track Betting
6S7
going to a race track and enjoying a good race. I say that the liberties of the people are being encroached upon too far and I object to anything of this kind. I have very little to say on this subject except to express my hearty disapproval of the handbook evil. I think that if we could eliminate the handbook business and get rid of the gambling joints, thus discouraging the practice of betting in connection with races in the United States and other places outside of the country, we should have accomplished a great deal. That is as far as this House should go. I will not support the resolution and I will not support the amendment to the amendment, but I will vote for the amendment with a great deal of pleasure.
There is one word in the amendment that I do not quite understand. It speaks of prohibiting advertising. If that means the elimination of advertising in the daily pa/pers that a race meet is to be held at Woodbine or Connaught Park or anywhere else, then I think it is going too far. Everything else, so far as I am concerned, in the amendment will suit me and I am going to give it my support.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette):	Mr. Speaker, it having been my privilege to second this motion I think I should take advantage now of the opportunity of adding a few words to the debate.
I have sought to approach this question with an unbiased mind. Two years ago we had a debate on the same subject and on that occasion I voted for the motion proposing the abolition of race track betting. This year, after mature consideration, I have not changed my mind, and1 will give the motion of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) my unstinted support.
Now, I would not try to make this House believe that race track betting is a crime or a sin of the first magnitude. On the other hand, judging the question fairly and squarely as best I can, I have come to the conclusion that race track betting brings with it a considerable amount of evil and no good. Has it ever produced wealth, for instance? Not that I know of. Has it ever fostered happiness? Not that I know of. But we do know that a great many crimes have been committed by people who got themselves entangled in race track betting. Has it increased public morality? I submit it has not. I was greatly surprised to-night to heaT my bosom friend, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) say that betting is not a bad thing in itself. That is just where we come to the parting of the ways. In my opinion betting is bad
in itself because it is an illegitimate way of acquiring property. Betting is bad in itself because it rests on the principle of the acquirement of property without labour, whereas we are taught that property can only be acquired -and this principle has prevailed from the time of creation-at the price of labour. Labour is the price, and he who acquires property without paying the price, is not, in my opinion, doing what is right. I will not make a comparison between the thief and the man who earns money through betting, but the fundamental principle is the same: the thief tries to acquire property in an illegitimate way, without labour. He will not work for it; he does not want to work for it; he wants to get it from the other fellow. The man who bets is trying to acquire property without working for it, without labour.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: What is the difference
between betting and investing money in real estate, without working at all, and making a profit on it the next year?


Jean-Joseph Denis: That is an altogether different proposition.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is the same thing.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Of course you
may cite eases such as the one mentioned by my hon. friend. It may be argued that when you acquire real estate and it increases in value you have gained something without labour; something has come to you as a gift from Providence. Quite true, but the cases are altogether different.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In what respect?


Jean-Joseph Denis: They are altogether different, because the man who acquires property does so with an end in view; he acquires something tangible and pays for it. He acquires that property for the purpose of deriving a profit and of benefiting from it. He pays for something which is worth something. On the other hand the man who bets tries to get the other fellow's money for nothing. The man who bets does not do so with the intent of losing his money; he does so with the intent of receiving something for nothing.
There is an opinion very much stronger than mine on this subject, and it is the criminal code itself. I submit that the exception made in the criminal code whereby horse betting is permitted and declared legal while all other betting is declared illegal, is at once a challenge to common sense and logic. Why should betting be declared a crime in the criminal code in all cases except when it takes place on the race track or in connection
Race Track Betting

with horse racing? This amendment was introduced into the criminal code in 1910 and 1912. I cannot see the logic of it. I cannot see w'hat difference there is between race track betting and any other kind of betting. Yet section 235 of the criminal eodte provides :
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to one year's imprisonment, and to a fine not exceeding $1,000, who-	[DOT]
And there is a full page of prohibitions which are in exactly the same category as race track betting, but the latter is made legal by law, subject to its being carried out under certain conditions. I submit I cannot see the logic of it.
Now, what is this betting? In view of the amendment made to the criminal code and of the results that obtain, I submit that this betting is nothing else than the exploitation of a credulous public under the benevolent eye of the law. People are protected by the law in the accomplishment of something which the law in a general way declares to be illegal. It is illegal for everybody else but them, and in order to make it legal for them an amendment had to be brought in to the criminal code. Again I say I cannot see the logic of it.
Now, gambling and betting are not new. The place where gambling is carried on to the greatest extent is probably at Monte Carlo. I have never had access to the books, but it is said that the revenues derived from the games at Monte Carlo amount to forty million francs a year. The most important game that is played there, is we all know, roulette. Now, what is roulette? Roulette is a game at which the owner plays against the public with an advantage of 2.7 per cent against the bettor; in other words, when you stake a dollar at roulette you are supposed to receive back a dollar less two cents and a fraction. That 2.7 is the percentage against the man who bets; nevertheless, with so small a percentage, the revenues of the Casino are 40,000,000 francs a year. It is not known that anybody ever made money playing roulette if he or she played long enough. You might win once or twice, or for a week or a month, but it is well known that no one has ever played roulette regularly season after season and come out a winner, because this small percentage makes it impossible for the player to win in the long run.
Now how about the percentage in this case. My hon. friend from Victoria City (Mr. Tol-mie) said that the percentage, according to the Criminal Code, was 5 per cent. I must admit that looking over the Criminal Code

in a hasty way, I have not been able to find the percentage, but my information is that the rakeoff is on the average 10 per cent. Now if the rakeoff is 10 per cent, or even if it is only 5 per cent, how can the public ever hope to win at a game with such a rakeoff when no one can win at roulette where the rakeoff is only 2.7 per cent?
Answering my hon. friend from St. James, I do not know what the people here in Canada think, but I know that in the principality of Monte Carlo these games are considered so obnoxious that the people of the principality are forbidden to play them. They are not permitted to go into the Casino or elsewhere where these games are played, because the authorities have come to the conclusion that it is a bad thing for the people to play at odds of 2.7 per cent. Now if that is so in a country which has made gambling one of its main sources of revenue, would it not be so in Canada, where the percentage against the player is very much higher?
I have tried to inform myself as best I could as to the amount of money that has been wagered in Canada on horse betting through the pari-mutuels for the last three or four years, and my information is that in 1921 there was wagered the sum of $80,000,000; in 1922, SOS,000,000; in 1923, $60,000,00, and in 1924, 160,000,000. Taking that last figure, if you wish, a rakeoff of 10 per cent on $60,000,000 represents $6,000,000 or if you take the first figure of $80,000,000, the rakeoff would be $8,000,000, which is taken from the pockets of the people of Canada. I have just said that it is practically impossible to win, but let us suppose that a few people do win. Has it ever profited anybody? Did you ever hear of anyone who had profited with money he won at the races? I never have. Money got easily is always spent easily; it is thrown away almost every time, and for the man who loses there is no way in which he can gain his money back.
Two years ago, rightly or wrongly it was noticed that I was one of the few members on this side of the House who had voted for a similar resolution. A few days afterwards, if I may be permitted this personal reference, I met on the train coming to Ottawa a very distinguished magistrate whose name I shall not mention now, but whose name I could give if necessary, who told me that in his career as police magistrate it had many times come to his knowledge that men, young and old, had been found guilty of embezzlement or theft just because they had spent money which was not their own at the races. These facts are well known. One has only to open

Race Track Betting
books to find hundreds and hundreds of such cases; they are written in England, where betting is so common. From the United States, from practically all of the states which have passed anti-betting laws, people come to Canada, notwithstanding the opinion expressed by my hon. friend from Victoria City, to try and reap some good Canadian money.
It must be remembered that this motion has nothing to do with private betting. That has always been permitted, and remains permitted by this resolution. Neither does the resolution affect tracks on which there are no pari-mutuel machines; in fact, it does not affect tracks at all, but betting on the tracks. I wish to say emphatically that I am not against horse racing; in fact, I have not heard anyone declare here to-day that he was against horse racing.
An argument has been made against this resolution on the ground that it is an attempt against individual liberty. Well, Mr. Speaker, individual liberty is very much of a sophism and a fallacy. Individual liberty exists only within the limits of the law, and not beyond. Whenever anything is recognized as being unlawful or immoral by the law, individual liberty cannot go beyond that. Now this form of betting has been recognized as unlawful and immoral by the law, by article 235 of the Criminal Code, which was amended about 1910 or 1912. Will anyone tell me what has happened in the intervening years to make that which was declared immoral and unlawful at that time moral and lawful to-day? The principle is the same; it has not been altered. But certain strong influences succeeded in having the law amended. I do not wish to cast any reflections upon anyone, but surely what was immoral ten or fifteen years ago must be just as immoral to-day.
I do not want to speak at a greater length except to say a word or two on the amendment. Something rather unusual happened this afternoon when the ruling of the Chair was submitted to a vote of the House. Perhaps I was wrong but at the time I was not able to understand, any better than I am able to understand now, that the amendment as drafted should come as an amendment to the motion. That is the reason why I voted to have the amendment declared out of order. But this reminds me that there is something strange in our rules of procedure. A motion is placed on the order paper. Everybody has time to examine that motion and to study it. Then all of a sudden, while this motion is under discussion, the rules of the House permit a member to present an amendment to it. Immediately the amendment is offered the 44
Chair is bound to decide whether or not it is in order. I submit that under the rules we have now that is an injustice to the Chair, because no matter how learned or how able the Speaker may be it is, in many cases, an injustice to have questions like this submitted to him for an immediate decision. It is also an injustice to members of the House, who are not all lawyers, who are not conversant with the intricacies of the law; and even if hon. members were thoroughly informed on the subject what could they do in a case like the one which occurred this afternoon? I was of the opinion that the amendment should not be allowed and, although I may be wrong, I have not changed my mind. I think the rules of procedure should be so framed that members would have an opportunity of examining and studying an amendment. There is this further fact to be considered: Hon. members do not read the amendment, it is read to them. Now I submit that under the rules of procedure of a court of justice in any city or in any country the counsel in a case should never be compelled to decide on an amendment to a document without having due opportunity to scrutinize it and study its effect and yet in this parliament we are, and I submit very illogicality, often called to decide points like this.


Ernest Lapointe: What does my hon.
friend suggest?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I have no suggestion to offer at the present time. I submit this point for the consideration of the House in order that the committee which is to be appointed to revise the rules of the House may have an opportunity of studying it. The Minister of Justice, who is an eminent lawyer, understands perfectly the point I am making. He understands perfectly well how unfair it is for the Speaker first of all. and then for hon. members themselves, to have to decide upon the spot such a point as was submitted this afternoon.


Mr. PARENT:: My hon. friend, I suppose,
is aware that the Speaker can at any time postpone his decision until he is satisfied of the soundness of his opinion.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I know that but it is not practicable for the Speaker to suspend the sitting until he has made up his mind and is in a position to render a well considered decision. But if the Speaker can do it hon. members of the House are not afforded the necessary time and so we had to make up our minds this afternoon on the spot whether the amendment was in order. I submit that if the hon. member for Skeena means to suprevised edition
Race Track Betting

port the main resolution, he should not have presented this amendment. It is true that the amendment goes in the same direction as the resolution but as far as' I can see if it is carried there can be no vote on the main motion which will then have been destroyed by the amendment. It is as though one were to ask for a loan of $100 and were only to receive one, two or five dollars. It would be an advance in the direction desired but would not be going far enough. In the same way the amendment is not what we want, it does not accomplish what the main motion aims at, and for that reason, although I admit I am in sympathy with the amendment I cannot vote for it; its effect is to destroy the main motion. My hon. friend (Mr. Neill) has very properly sought to restore the situation with a sub-amendment. Now I think if the amendment to the amendment were carried the day would be saved as far as the motion is concerned. Therefore I am in favour of voting for the amendment to the amendment, next voting against the amendment and finally for the main motion.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the resolution. As long as I am a member of this parliament I will not vote for any prohibitory legislation. We are living in an age in which prohibitory legislation is a fad. Everyone wants to discipline his neighbour but is not so anxious to discipline himself. There is such a thing as the liberty of the subject. I have only been to the races two or three times in my life. Still if a person wants to go to the Woodbine and use has money to bet on the races instead of buying a house with it it is none of my business. We have so many prohibitory laws in Canada that I am beginning to wonder whether this is a free country or not. The country is getting tired of prohibitory laws. A person's liberty is confiscated in Canada in a manner equal to the way in which they confiscate men's liberty and property in British Honduras. Not even the member for Brant can make people good by legislation. I am opposed to the motion as an interference with the liberty of the subject, although I am not a supporter of the race tracks and have seldom been there in my life.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote for the resolution because I believe it is in the right direction. When I say in the right direction I have in mind that the evil of gambling is inherent in the human race, and possibly further restrictions should be placed upon this evil. I do not vote for the resolution because the people 	,
who honoured me by electing me to this position are addicts to this evil. I am going to vote for the resolution because if I did not I would inferentially be giving the government my support in giving special privileges to certain people in this country- that is my interpretation of it. I would be giving the government a license to grant a special privilege to a certain class and deny it to others. I think that is unfair and that is the viewpoint the government should take in the matter.
Now I said gambling was inherent in the human race. Let a man walk down the streets of Ottawa, or any other city or town in the country, and as soon as the sidewalks are bare he will see little boys gambling with their marbles. That is the first stage of gambling in which they figure. Later on, perhaps, the boy, now grown into a man, will gamble on the Winnipeg grain exchange, or even our ladies will gamble at bridge; and I wonder how far we are going to proceed in the way of legislation before we shall eliminate all the evils which flow from gambling.
I spoke to the mover of the resolution some time ago and suggested to him that he broaden it out. However this is very broad at the present time. One of the reasons why I only wish to say a few words upon this is that I do not think the House should spend too much time discussing these heavenly and ethereal matters and perhaps send us home with a poor Grain Act, or a poor act relating to the Crowsnest pass rates, which might not be sufficiently debated. Rural credits and other important questions might not receive proper attention. I think we might devote our time more profitably to such subjects as these, instead of putting too much time on ethereal legislation,
I intend to cast my vote at the present time, not because of representations made to me, but because of sentiments I have expressed; and I propose to vote for the resolution.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: I propose to speak on a phase which has not been discussed to-night. I propose to vote without hesitation and without embarrassment, as other members intend to vote, for the subamendment and against the amendment and for the original resolution. I shall not indicate my reasons as they have been expressed by others who are in favour of such legislation. One reason I have for opposing the amendment is this: it is good in itself, I approve of it as far as it goes, but I object to it because it frustrates the object of the resolution. But that is not my main

Race Track Betting
reason for opposing it. My main reason is this: I believe that in supporting this amendment we are opening the way to what may be a very vicious precedent. I took exception to the ruling at the time I voted against it. If we establish a precedent in this House that at any time a member may move, by way of amendment, something that is really a substantive motion rather than an amendment, dealing with another phase of the subject to the exclusion of the original motion, how far are we going to go in that direction? I had in mind by way of illustration another question which will come before the House, and I think by putting the illustration it will show exactly what I mean. A motion will come before the House presently dealing with the early construction of the Hudson Bay railway. Now if I followed the precedent established this afternoon and moved an amendment in the same spirit, I could move that all the words after the word " that " be struck out and that the following be substituted :
That this House declare itself in favour of the early construction of the Peace river railway.
Both motion and amendment so-called dealing with some phase of the transportation question, both good in themselves perhaps, but the amendment would absolutely preclude a vote being taken on the main motion. For that reason, and because I do not wish to put myself in a position in any way of supporting such an amendment, and supporting what might be adopted as a vicious and unsound principle, I shall oppose the amendment.


William Charles Good: I understand I have an opportunity of replying before a vote is taken. I wish to say a word regarding the amendment. I am entirely in accord with the amendment, with the exception of the last clause, namely the following:
Unless where supplied on a race track in Canada during the course of a race meeting legally held.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. gentleman
speaking on the main motion or on the subamendment? We are now on the subamendment, and I heard the hon. member state that he was going to answer the arguments directed against the main motion. If the hon. member makes his reply now he will prevent other members speaking later on on the main motion. I understand the hon. member is speaking on the sub-amendment.


William Charles Good: I may have been labouring
under a misunderstanding. I think perhaps it would be better for me to reserve what I 44i
have to say until the sub-amendment is disposed of. I am substantially in favour of the sub-amendment as a consolidation of the good parts of both resolutions.


Hewitt Bostock: A point of order was
raised and I intend to give the ruling now. First of all in order to make the matter as clear as possible I shall read the main motion, the amendment and the sub-amendment. The main motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the special privilege now given to racing associations under the criminal code of carrying on public gambling operations in connection with their race meetings is detrimental to the best interests of Canada and should be abolished.
To this motion was moved an amendment by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) as follows:
That all the words after "that" in the resolution be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this House legislation should be introduced during this session to prohibit the advertising, printing, broadcasting, publication, or sale of information concerning any tips, selections, odds or any similar intelligence with respect to or applicable to horse racing, whether held within Canada or without, unless where supplied on a race track in Canada during the course of a race meeting legally held.
Some objection was taken this afternoon to this amendment and the ruling of the Chair was that it was relevant to the main motion and the majority of the House, on an appeal being taken, decided likewise. The amendment was followed by a sub-amendment by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) reading as follows:
That all the words after the word " without " in the main resolution be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:
That in the opinion of this House legislation should be introduced during this session to prohibit the advertising, printing, broadcasting, publication or sale of information concerning any tips, selections, odds or any similar intelligence with respect to or applicable to horse racing whether held within Canada or without, and to prohibit the use of pari-mutuels on race tracks in Canada.
Now the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) raises a point of order and his objection is twofold. First he cites May, pages 289 and 290, and states:
According to this authority an amendment like the one moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) cannot be carried without the Speaker putting the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.
I may just as well quote what May says on the subject as I think it represents the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Nelson. May says:
Where the original amendment is either simply to insert, add or leave out words, an amendment may at once be proposed to it, without reference to the question itself, which will be dealt with when the amend-
Race Track Betting

ment has been disposed of. The most difficult form perhaps-
And this is the point-
-is when the amendment first proposed is to leave out certain words of the original question, and an amendment is proposed to such proposed amendment, by leaving thereout some of the words proposed to be omitted, and thus in effect, restoring them to the original question, in such a case a question is first put that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the proposed amendment.
Let me remark that this is the procedure followed in the British parliament, but it is not the one followed in this parliament. Bourinot at page 318 states clearly what the procedure is when there are several amendments:
The Speaker will then submit the three motions in the order in which tlies' are made, and first take the sense of the House on the last.
In the present instance, the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill):
" Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?" If the amendment is rejected, it is regular to move another (provided, of course, it is different in purport from that already negatived) as soon as the Speaker has again proposed the question: ''Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion (or original question)?"
As I stated a moment ago, the objection taken by	the hon.	member	for	Nelson istwo-fold. He stated this evening that the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni only reiterates or repeats in a milder form-at least that is what I gathered from his	remarks and that	is	what wasclaimed this evening by some hon. gentlemen who spoke on the question-the principle involved in the main motion, and that, if it is carried, the House will evade the main	question.	As I	have alreadysaid, the	rules of	the House	of Commons will not permit the evasion or the obscuring of an issue. The rules are based on common sense and hon. members will at once see that a case such as presents itself this evening has been provided for by our chief authority on parliamentary procedure, Bourinot at page 318:
When an amendment has been proposed, it is competent for any member to move an amendment to the same. In this case the original question is laid aside practically for the time being, and the first amendment becomes, as it were, a substantive question.
What is the practical effect of this? The hon. member for Brant has moved a substantive motion, putting squarely before the House the principle involved. To this motion, an amendment which, notwithstanding the objections that were put forward, I consider, in my humble judgment, is relevant to the main motion, was moved by the hon. mem-

ber for Skeena (Mr. Stork). A subamendment reiterating, it is true, but in a different form, using different words, the principle involved in the main motion has been moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Therefore, according to Bourinot, the main question is laid aside. It is, so to speak, superseded and the question that will come at once before the House is that of the subamendment. If the members of the House say "aye" to the subamendment, then the Speaker's duty is to put the amendment as amended by the subamendment, and then again it is the duty of the Speaker, after the sense of the House has been taken, to put the main motion. If hon. members are willing to vote for the mam motion, naked, as it were, as it was moved before this House by the hon. member for Brant, it is their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with the procedure, nothing wrong with the rules. The House can dispose of the three questions before it and live up logically to the rules. I hope I have made myself clear. The House will be at full liberty to give a free and unbiased judgment on the question involved.


Arthur Meighen: I do not wish to debate
anything. I wish to say, with all respect, that I differ from the ruling that permitted of the amendment. I think the ruling has led to very great confusion and difficulty, if not impossibility, of giving effect to the wishes of the House. I, therefore, purpose to vote on each motion that appears on the merits of that motion as it reads and without any regard whatever to the effect on any previous motion.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not see that there
is difference of opinion between the right hon. gentleman and the Chair.


Arthur Meighen: I have not argued any
difference. I just wish to say that that is how I purpose voting, as my judgment moves me as respects each one as it appeals to me. Otherwise, one has to vote as to what the effect is on the motion that precedes.


Ernest Lapointe: Following the example
of the leader of the opposition, I desire to say how I am going to vote. I am in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena, but I cannot vote for it with the addition moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, so I will vote against the subamendment.


Hewitt Bostock: Before putting the question I would ask hon. members on all sides to be good enough to assist the officials by

Race Track Betting
remaining in their seats when the vote is being taken, and to vote row by row.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: I was paired with the	
hon. member for	Dorchester (Mr. Cannon).
Had I voted, I would have voted for the sub-	
amendment.


Mr. LEADER:: I was paired with the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted, I would have voted for the sub-amendment.	
The House divided on the amendment (Mr.	
Stork) which was division:	agreed to on the following
	YEAS Messrs:
Anderson,	Doucet,
Archambault,	Drayton (Sir Henry),
Arthurs,	Ethier,
Beaubien,	Fafard,
Benoit,	Finn,
Binette,	Fiset (Sir Eugene),
Bouchard,	Fontaine,
Boucher,	Forrester,
Bowen,	Fortier,
Bristol,	Fournier,
Bureau,	Garland (Carleton),
Carroll,	Gendron,
Carruthers,	Gervais,
Casgrain,	Gordon,
Chaplin,	Graham,
Charters,	Grimmer
Chevrier,	Hammell,
Chisholm,	Hanna,
Church,	Hanson,
Clark,	Harris,
Copp	Healy,
Dechene,	Hubbs,
Delisle,	Hushion,
Denis (St. Denis),	Kay,
Desaulniers,	Kellner,
Descoteaux,	King (Kooten&y),
Deslauriers,	King, Mackenzie (York),
Desrochers,	Kyte,
Dickie,	Ladner,
694	COMMONS
Race Track Betting
Lanctot,	Roberge,
Lapierre,	Robichaud,
Lapointe,	Robitaille,
Lucas,	Ross (Kingston),
McDonald (Timiskaming), Ryckman,	
McGiverin,	St. Pere,
Mclsoac,	Sales,
McKay,	Savard,
McMurray,	S6guin,
McQuarrie,	Senn,
McTaggart,	Sheard,
Marcile (Bagot),	Simpson,
Meighen,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Mercier,	Spence,
Michaud,	Stansell,
Morin,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Ouimet,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Papineau,	Stewart (Leeds),
Pelletier,	Stirling,
Pouliot,	Stork,
Preston,	Thompson,
Rankin,	Tobin,
Raymond,	Tolmie,
Rheaume,	Vien,
Rinfret, Robb,	Wilson.-109.
 NAYS Messrs:
Baldwin,	Kennedy (Port Arthur &
Bancroft,	Kenora),
Bird,	King (Huron),
Black (Huron),	Knox,
Boivin,	Lew ib.
Brethen,	Lovett,
Brown,	Lovie,
Caldwell,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Campbell,	Macphail,
Carmichael,	McBride,
Coote,	McConica,
Davies,	McMaster,
Denis (Joliette),	Mart ell,
Drummond,	Mfllai,
Elliott (Dundas),	Milne,
Evans,	Morrison,
Findlay,	Motherwell,
Forke,	Munro,
Gardiner,	Murdock,
Garland (Bow River),	Neill,
Good,	Parent,
Gould,	Putnam,
Halbert,	Reed,
Hatfield,	Robinson,
Hocken,	Ross (Simcoe),
Hodgins,	Sexsmith,
Hoey,	Shaw,
Hopkins,	Snowball,
Humphrey,	Speakman,
Hunt,	Spencer,
Irvine,	Steedsman,
Jdliff,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Johnston,	Sutherland,
Jones,	Wallace,
Kelly,	Ward,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Warner,
Kennedy (Glengarry &	Woods,
Stormont),	Woodsworth.-74. PAIRS
(The list of pairs is	supplied by the chief whips.) Messrs:
Cannon,	Pritchard,
McCrea,	Fansher,
Lavigueur,	Thurston,
Murphy, 	Leader,


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the amendment carried. The question is now on the main motion as amended.


Harry Leader: I was paired with the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


John Pritchard: I was paired with the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: Before the last motion is put, Mr. Speaker, might I ask your Honour if you would kindly read the main motion as amended?


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Good moves, seconded by Mr. Denis (Joliette):
That in the opinion of this House legislation should be introduced during this session to prohibit the advertising, printing, broadcasting, publication or sale of information concerning any tips, selections, odds or any similar intelligence wiith resipect to or applicable to horse racing whether held within Canada or without, unless where supplied on a race track in Canada during the course of a race meeting lawfully held,
The question is on the main motion as amended.


Arthur Meighen: May I point out that we are now voting on the amendment over again? I know that it is quite in order that we should, but I also point out that we are now precluded from voting on the main motion.


William Charles Good: I want to raise the question, Mr. Speaker, whether we shall have an opportunity, as I understood you to assure us, of voting on the main motion.


Mr. VIEN:: As amended.


Hewitt Bostock: The House has rejected
the subamendment. It has given a majority in favour of the amendment. The question now before the House is, shall the main motion as amended be carried? I may point out to the hon. member, however, that other amendments can be moved to that motion as amended.


John Livingstone Brown: How will the motion read
now, Mr. Speaker, as it comes before the House?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


John Livingstone Brown: Does the main motion not read-

Race Track Betting


Hewitt Bostock: I have just read the motion as amended. That is how the main motion reads now, by the verdict of the House.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I submit that the
amendment is a new substantive motion.
An. hon. MEMBER: Withdraw it.


William Charles Good: I think we ought to be very
clear on this point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: I cannot hear the hon.
member for Brant. I would ask hon. members to keep silence.


William Charles Good: Perhaps I misunderstood you, Mr. Speaker, but I thought you assured the House some time ago that we should have an opportunity of deciding the issue that I presented in the original resolution. I thought this afternoon when the amendlnent was moved that it was a device or subterfuge to prevent the House from declaring itself on the main question.


Hewitt Bostock: I might remind the hon.
gentleman that the House decided this afternoon to sustain the view taken by the Deputy Speaker, namely, that the amendment was relevant and therefore in order; and I may say that personally I endorse that ruling. The question now before the House is whether or not the House will accept the main motion as amended, but this does not prevent hon. members from moving other amendments to the main motion as amended. I must accept the verdict of the House.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, may I request that the main motion with the amendment added be reduced to writing in order that we may know exactly what we are voting on? With all due deference to hon. gentlemen, I must say that in my opinion the amendment in fact nullifies the main motion because the amendment is in itself a substantive motion. I suggest, whether the amendment deletes from or adds to the main motion, that the motion as amended be reduced to writing so that we shall have something concrete before us. I do not want to say anything in derogation of anything that has been said in the House, but it seems to me that in voting on the main motion now as amended we are voting in a fool's paradise.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker, I have an
amendment to move. First I would like to say what the main resolution now before the House is, as I see it. The action we have taken means, if I correctly interpret it, that all that is left of the original motion is the
word "That." I do not think those who voted against the sub-amendment under the impression that they were going to have an opportunity to vote on the main motion as it was presented have any real grievance. As I see the matter, if we wanted to express our will in regard to the real essence of the main motion the only way to do it under the circumstances was to vote for the sub-amendment. However, since we have failed in that, and as the main motion reads in this form-


Hewitt Bostock: May I remind the hon.
gentleman, so as to prevent any discredit from attaching to the decision of the Chair, that the main motion as amended is the only question that is before the House? But as I said a moment ago that main motion can still be amended. I quote from Bourinot, page 316:
All motions should properly commence with the word " That " In this way, if the motion meets the approbation of the House, it may at once become the resolution, vote, or order which it purports to be.
That is the principle laid down by Bourinot. Therefore there is nothing strange in the fact that only the word "that" is left in the main motion, and that the main motion as now amended begins with the word "that" taken from the original motion.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
member for Liisgar (Mr. Brown) has an amendment.


John Livingstone Brown: Understanding that the decision of the House now is to strike out all the original motion except the word "that", and that the amendment adopted reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, legislation should be introduced during this session to prohibit the advertising, printing, broadcasting, publication, or sale of information concerning any tips, selections, odds or any similar intelligence with respect to or applicable to horse racing, whether held within Canada or without, unless where supplied on a race track in Canada during the course of a race meeting legally held.
-I beg to move that the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word "without." The words struck out would be "unless where supplied on a race track in Canada during the course of a race meeting legally held." I make that motion because in my judgment it would leave what now stands as the main motion in a form that would not be objectionable at all. It would leave it in a form in which it expresses the opinion, I think, of the great majority of the members of this House. We have not been able to secure the purpose of the original motion, and if there is any way by which that can still be secured, I would be only too happy
Race Track Betting

to do it; but as I view the situation the House has pronounced against that principle, and therefore I would like to make this amendment which now stands as the main motion. It is not objectionable at aH in the way it will go before the House.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
Lisgar moves that all the words after the word " without " be struck out. That is all, is it?


Lewis Herbert Martell: May I ask then, Mr. Speaker, what we are voting on?


Hewitt Bostock: The House is called upon to vote on the following amendment to .the main motion. I will read the motion:
That in the opinion of this House legislation should be introduced during this session to prohibit the advertising, printing, broadcasting, publication or sale of information concerning any tips, selections, odds or any similar intelligence with respect to or applicable to horse racing whether held within Canada or without.
The words "unless where supplied on a race track," and so forth have been struck out.


Ernest Lapointe: Before the House votes on the amendment of my hon. friend, I must say that this question was brought to the attention of the then Minister of Justice, Sir Lomer Gouin, two years ago, by the Attorney General of Ontario, then the Hon. Mr. Raney. Mr. Raney in the suggestion that he made had exactly the same exception that my hon. friend wants to remove from the amendment of my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Stork). I have here the suggested amendment of the Attorney General of Ontario, which readis as folows:
(f) Advertises, prints, publishes, exhibits, posts up, sells or supplies, or offers to sell or suply (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,
And so forth. The amendment moved by Sir Lomer Gouin two years ago, and which was adopted by the House, followed that suggestion, and there was an exception made for the race tracks during the progress of race meetings on those tracks. I do not see why we should go further this year. I have promised on behalf of the government that I would reintroduce the amendment of two years ago, and we intend to do so; but we intend to do so in the way in which it was adopted by the House. So I am going to vote against the amendment of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown).
I Mr. Speaker.]


William Charles Good: I have no particular objection, Mr. Speaker, to this new amendment, although I will not second it. It seems to me that perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has a good deal of justice on his side in mentioning the fact that in the original amendment as passed two years ago dealing with this matter there was an exception made to the doing of certain things on the premises of a racing association. But the point I wish to direct attention to is that I am denied what I think is my right of bringing this matter to the House for its decision. There has been no opportunity to decide the matter that I presented to the House. If I am to understand the vote as a definite vote against the resolution which I presented, then I take it as such; but I have certainly understood since eight o'clock that the House would be permitted to vote on the specific question mentioned in the original resolution. Now, apparently, we are not to be permitted to do that unless I move in further amendment that all the words after "that" be struck out, and I insert my original motion. Would that be in order, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: No.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: May I suggest to my good friend from Brant that the best way out of his difficulty would be to now withdraw his resolution'amd bring it up at some other opportunity?


William Charles Good: When?


An hon. MEMBER:: Next session.


Thomas Vien: I tihink the purpose of the hon. member would be well served if he waited until .the Minister of Justice introduced his legislation. He would have the opportunity then to bring in all kinds of amendments to the proposed legislation that the minister has announced to the House. I think the House will be quite satisfied with the discussion that has taken place to-day, and the purpose of the hon. member would in that way be well served. Therefore, in the interests of the House, as well as in the interests of my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good), I think he would 'be well advised to submit to the suggestion of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) and withdraw his resolution.


Joseph Archambault: The hon. member can bring in his amendment when the Minister of Justice brings down his bill.


William Charles Good: I quite understand, Mr. Speaker, and I may avail myself of an oppor-

Race Track Betting
tunity if it occurs in the future. It does seem to me however that there is a simple matter on which the House has refused permission for a vote. I had intended to say something in reply to the various arguments that have been advanced but I think there is no desire that the matter should be debated further and I shall have to await another opportunity of presenting any views I have on the question.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The hon. gentleman seems to be labouring under a misconception. He speaks as though his motion had not been voted upon. He seems to think that some injustice has been done to him because the amendment was carried over his motion, and that the question of his motion was not directly put to the House. That ought to get out of his mind-


William Charles Good: It is hard to get it out.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: [DOT]-because there is no doubt at all that his motion was voted upon. This House dealt with his motion. It dealt with it by carrying the amendment and therefore on the whole I think he has been perfectly fairly treated.


John Livingstone Brown: Under the circumstances,
and in view of the explanation that has been made in regard to the bill that was passed here two years ago, I think, perhaps, it might not be wise for me to stress my amendment if the House will allow it to be withdrawn.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman, of
course, must get the consent of the House.


Thomas Vien: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House that the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I second the
amendment and I see no reason whatever for withdrawing it.


John Livingstone Brown: If not too late I will allow
it to stand.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House that the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. CALDWELL:: No, certainly not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I object, Mr. Speaker, I seconded the motion and I object to its being withdrawn.


Hewitt Bostock: The withdrawal must be
by unanimous consent.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I object to this debate
being rehashed on any future occasion. The question has been fully debated to-day and it is a well known practice in this House-
I made that very clear in my speech-that when an amendment is moved and voted upon those voting in favour of the amendment vote against the motion. My hon. friend's motion has been defeated by 34 votes, and if he tries to bring the question up again when the bill of the Minister of Justice is before the House I will certainly rise to a point of order. Because I consider this matter has been fully debated, and I do not think we can go back to it any more.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment. Those in favour of the amendment please say aye.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of
order. An amendment was placed before this House by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) which I seconded. When he proposed to withdraw that amendment I objected. I take it that that amendment is still before the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think it
can be withdrawn.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker is putting
the amendment now.


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment could
only have been withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the House. Objection was taken to the withdrawal and the amendment remains before the House. The question is now on the amendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I should like to say just a word with regard to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I rise to a point of
order. After the question has been put I submit that it is not debatable.


Hewitt Bostock: The question was not
put. I did not see the hon. gentleman rise in his seat and he has a right to speak to the amendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I second this motion though it is not at all satisfactory. I must join with other members who have objected decidedly to the course which this debate has taken. I have not had the opportunity in any way whatever of expressing my views upon the motion which was before us
Race Track Betting

to-day. This is a substitute motion. The original resolution has gone from before us under the ruling of the chair as supported by the House, but the present amendment does look in the direction of doing away with one little bit of special privilege. I would have supported the motion advanced by the hon. member for Brant because it struck at a certain monopoly under which one particular group of people, those engaged in horse racing, have a special privilege at the present time in Canada which is denied to other people. Two or three years ago legislation was passed making illegal any sort of betting on a baseball game, or the guessing of baseball results, and that kind of thing. Yet at present one particular group of people, a very wealthy group, have certain privileges in this country which are absolutely denied to the rest of the population. If a man is well enough off to be able to attend a horse race he can there engage in the pastime of betting; if he is not rich enough to go there it becomes a crime that he should bet. That seems to be an absurd situation. Then we have the further situation that we are going to make it illegal to have book-making anywhere else but in connection with horse racing and while horse racing is in progress another bit of special privilege. The House is denied the right to express itself on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Brant by those who are now trying to claim a special privilege for this particular sport of horse racing. If we are going to legislate in this way I think it ought to be known to the country at large. If laws are devised with respect to gambling let them apply equally. Do not let it be made a crime for one particular group to bet in one particular place and then exalt another group above the law; do not let them be accorded a special privilege and safeguarded in every particular. When this opportunity offers the least we can do is to take away this particular betting privilege and in so doing establish something like an equality in the legislation that is now before the House.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order. I would ask the exercise of the privilege which I think is provided for in rule 42, page 112, subsection 419, which says:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately.
If ever there was a resolution which contains two propositions, it is the one before U3 to-night. We have the resolution of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) who wants to do away with pari-mutuels. We have the proposition of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) who wants to do away with 'book-making off the race tracks. These are the two separate propositions. If we divide the motion and take the sense of the House on each one separately we will accomplish what we have been trying to do all afternoon.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
member raised the point of order that the amendment and the resolution deal with two separate subjects, and therefore -that the question involved by the amendment is out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I would not quite take that position. The rules do not quite prescribe the procedure here. It simply says that th-e sense of the House may be taken on each separately. I do not take -the point that the amendment is out of order. I simply ask that the motion should be divided, as it contains two propositions, so that -the sense of the House may be taken.


Ernest Lapointe: We have divided four times already.


Hewitt Bostock: The paragraph quoted by the hon. member is not a rule. It is only an authority cited under rule 42. The question which the hon. member has in mind I think is that the amendment is not relevant to the main motion. That point has been settled. It has been decided by the Speaker that the amendment was relevant to the main motion.
Being of the opinion that the amendment is relevant to the main motion, I therefore rule that the point of order is not well
taken.
Motion agreed to on division.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, March 3, 1925