Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Is that

in addition to the ordinary racing?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

No, the present law is

that a racing association which has only running races may carry on for two meetings of seven days each or one of fourteen days. Hitherto trotting races have been limited to three days per year. The effect of this amendment is to put the trotting races on the same plane as the running races.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Then

they could have two weeks of running races immediately followed by two weeks of trotting?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Well, they are different

associations. They do not have both at the same meetings. The jockey clubs run the running races and the trotting associations run theirs.

Mr. McINTOSH:

It would mean then

twenty-eight days of racing and trotting during the year?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

jNo, that does not follow. The trotting association meets I think are in midsummer,, on different tracks, under different auspices, they are different organizations. I am not very familiar with them but that is my idea.

Mr. HEAPS:

Would the minister kindly explain the legal distinction between trotting and running?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

The act I think sets that out pretty clearly. If my hon. friend will read section 235 of the criminal code he will see. This amendment provides for the race meetings at which there are trotting or pacing races exclusively. They cannot be mixed, there cannot be running and trotting. I think trotting and pacing are well-defined terms that sportsmen understand, and all people who have to do with horses. If this amendment is carried these trotting associations will be entitled to fourteen days racing per annum, just as the running races are now.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Does my hon. friend

accept this amendment?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I have no view on the subject. It is a new suggestion to me.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

You are not concerned whether it is trotting or pacing?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

No, I am not. There are some racing experts in the house but I am not one of them.

Passing that for the moment, the next amendment was suggested after the bill had passed this house, I think in the first instance by the county crown attorney in the city of Ottawa and also some other county crown attorneys in different cities of Canada. It is to check as far as possible these gambling devices found in stores and places where the public resort, in regard to which the law is a little uncertain at the present time. The Senate has put in a clause that any person who:

conducts, manages or is a party to any scheme, contrivance or operation of any kind by which any person, upon payment of any sum of money, or by obligating himself to pay any sum of money, shall become entitled under such scheme, contrivance or operation to receive from the person conducting or managing such scheme, contrivance or operation, or any other person, a larger sum of money than the amount paid or to be paid', by reason of the fact that other persons have paid or obligated themselves to pay any sum of money under such scheme, contrivance or operation;

4298 COMMONS

Criminal Code-Senate Amendments

Commits an offence. That amendment was not submitted to the house, it came before the Senate at the request of certain law officers of the provincial governments. I have no objection to it.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

That applies only to those who are making money out of the operation of these machines?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Yes, making money out of these slot machines or gambling devices.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

It does not apply to those who put their money in them?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

No, only to anyone who conducts or manages such a machine. The next amendment is to the minimum wage section which passed this house. When that section was under consideration certain objection was taken to clause (b), which provides:

Everyone is guilty of an indictable offenoe ... who, knowingly:-

(b) permits an employee to work beyond the maximum hours fixed by Ijw or any competent public authority.

I remember that my hon. friend from Wey-burn took strong exception to that clause, and the Senate have seen fit to strike it out. Then at the end of the section we had this general clause:

(h) does any other similar act contrary to law or the rules or regulations of any competent public authority.

The Senate have struck out that clause as well. Then at the request of my hon. friend from Vaneouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) a special clause was inserted in regard to the marking of sawlogs and the placing of initials upon them. The Senate have rewritten the whole clause. We merely amended the clause as it stood then, but the Senate have repealed the present clause and enacted a new clause which probably makes the matter plainer, and it has included the suggestion which passed this house in regard to the initials.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

That suggestion is contained in that amendment?