Sir WILFRID LAURLER.

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

Mr. SPEAKEK called Order 39:

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

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.

Is there any understanding as to what length of time the House will give to this Bill?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I am not

aware there is any understanding. Reasonable time must be given for the consideration of this Bill like all other Bills.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

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

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

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

Mr. MILLER.

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

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I think the usual procedure is for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I have looked for precedents in this matter and I have not been able to find any, although I am quite sure there must be some. When this Bill was read a second time instead of it being referred to a Committee of the Whole it was referred to a special committee. Had it been referred to a Committee of the Whole, and had that committee reported, the question is put by the Speaker: Shall the report

be concurred in; and then it is open to any member of the House to move either that it be concurred in or that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amending it. True, we have not a report of the Committee of the Whole, but we have a report of the special committee, and I should think that the motion cf my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) would be that this report of the committee be con-. curred in, just the same as if it were a report of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

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

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

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

Mr. LANCASTER.

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

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that Order 39 reads:

House in committee on Bill (No. 6), an Act to amend the Criminal Code (reported from Special Committee as amended).

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

That settles it,

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

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

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

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

Mr. SPEAKER.

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

Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN.

He can withdraw the Bill.

Motion withdrawn.

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

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

Mr. McCOLL.

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