David Arthur LAFORTUNE

LAFORTUNE, David Arthur, K.C., B.C.L.

Personal Data

Jacques Cartier (Quebec)
Birth Date
October 4, 1848
Deceased Date
October 19, 1922

Parliamentary Career

September 25, 1909 - July 29, 1911
  Montcalm (Quebec)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
  Montcalm (Quebec)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
  Jacques Cartier (Quebec)
December 6, 1921 - October 19, 1922
  Jacques Cartier (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 67 of 67)

April 7, 1910

Mr. LAFORTUNE. (Translation).

Mr. Speaker, at recess, I was contending that public opinion which our learned opponents are representing as being on favour of this Bill, is rather in my humble opinion, opposed to it. Public feeling cannot lend itself to giving effect to such personal views in regard to restricting individual freedom, whose defenders those learned gentlemen profess themselves to be.

Let us not interfere with individual liberty. It is an entirely different matter when we are called upon to legislate concerning trade, for instance, or any other matter relating to society in general. Thus when the government submitted an Act in regard to Sunday observance, it was a general law, applicable to all provinces and to all classes of society. However, many persons took exception to that measure as being an encroachment on individual liberty. The majority of the House declared that law necessary; but people went so far as to try to nut a stop to amusements within the family circle and to prevent young people from indulging in moderate, honest and intelligent relaxation. However, that Act for the better observance of the Lord's Day had its good points, and I was, favourable to the principle ol the law, although I did not approve of its rigour.

But in the present case, as I listened to the learned gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Stratton) pointing out as he did to the impoverishment of families through losses sustained by many on the race-track, 1 was tenanted to turn around and ask; What about those who gamble on stocks? What about those who buy stock' which is never delivered to them? What about those business places where numbers of our y.oung men speculate on stocks, and ruin themselves and oftentimes their families? You do not propose introducing legislation with a view to restricting such transactions. And I heard the hon. gentleman stating; There is no comparison possible between gambling on stocks and gambling on the race-track. Well, I think he is right in stating that there is no comparison possible between the two, inasmuch as stock gambling is much the worse evil of the two. Those who go in for betting on the race-track are not guilty of one-hundredth part of the wrong-doing for which gamblers in stock are responsible. Nevertheless, should there be introduced to-morrow a Bill to prohibit stock gambling, that

hon. gentleman would be the first to protest and say: You are encroaching on individual freedom, you are interfering with trade and every day transactions. I might victoriously reply to that hon. gentleman that there is no comparison possible. The farming community, those who take an interest in farming and particularly those who go in for breeding, have a right to the protection of the law. It is contended that this Bill will not interfere with the breeders' business, with the farmers' opportunities. Whereupon I answer to my learned friends that they are astray in their contention that by prohibiting what is now being carried on in an honest, regular and rational way, the breeder's business, which is of interest to us, will not be interfered with.

Wherever racing is being carried on, betting should be allowed, and if betting between individuals only is allowed, and no middlemen permitted to take in the bets, what will become of the money put up in bets? I have some experience in this connection, and I say that if you do away with book-making, you render betting impossible. The money put up in betting will go into the hands of strangers, of irresponsible people, and when the meet is over, it will be found that they are flown. In order to recover the money, recourse to the law courts will be necessary, and a great deal of trouble will be in sight. Betting under such conditions would not be possible, all must agree as to that. Whoever has any experience at all in sporting matters will not say otherwise. As is well known, owners of race-tracks farm out the privilege of book-making to specialists and that is a fair and legitimate way of providing the funds to be given out in prizes.

What was it that induced thousands and thousands of people to gather for last autumn's race meet at Montreal? What was it that drew there 1,500 horses, a good number of which were from across the boundary? What was it, if not the prizes that were offered? Do you think a man in Philadelphia, or New York-there were even one in Los Angeles-would spend large sums to send horses to these race meets, if the stakes were only small sums? Even then, these race horse owners should not be looked at in the light of mere speculators; they send their horses at a loss. They do so for the benefit of the farming community, and in most cases they get only a very small proportion of their outlay. Is f.t fair that such men be subjected to the treatment meted out by this Bill? They spend large sums to promote the breeding of horses on right lines, and the farming community is benefited thereby. I trust, therefore, that the House will sound the death knell of that Bill and will turn down the proposal of these gentlemen,

whose only concern is to originate new criminal offences, and that we will hear nothing more of such theories.

Sir, no good reason can possibly be put forward in support of these contentions. Some latitude should be granted to human nature in selecting amusements, and these cannot be had free of cost. In the same way, the acquirement of learning does not go without fees. Those who attend race meets an engage in betting, acquire experience and that has to be paid for. From what these hon. gentlemen say, one might infer that all are losers at that game. Surely, there must be winners, and who are are they? Book-makers get rich, it is claimed. Of course there are winners in that class, but there are also losers. The money I lose in bets goes into the pockets of the_ fellow who bet against me, barring the amount of a commission of ten per cent generally, which goes to the middleman. That is all the profit the latter gets out of the bettors. On the other hand, the book-maker, who is a dealer in bets, a buyer and seller of bets on the horses listed to run, is himself a loser occasionally. He sells 'horses for first, second or third place, and that horse may come out last, in which case we immensely enjoy taking in his dollars, which you may rest assured, we have no thought of returning to him the day following.

I 'hear the hon. member for Prescott state that the book-maker is not often disappointed. I infer from it that the hon. gentleman has never been on a race-track. Let him come to our meet and he will find out that everything is done honestly, that there is no fraud.

Hon. gentlemen seems to think that there are no means devised towards protecting the individual and putting down abuses. But legal gentlemen who are well up in the knowledge of civil rights and iproce-dure, should not lose sight of those enactments specially designed to protect the individual, whether he be a young man or a father of family, against his own excesses in the matter of gambling or drinking. Have we not such a thing as the privation of civil rights and the family council? If it is shown to the courts that so and so is a spendthrift, a gambler at cards, a drunkard,. a too easy-going fellow, a family council may at once ibe summoned and consulted as to the desirability of interdicting the gentleman and providing him with a curator or judiciary council, whose duty it will 'be to prevent him from extravagant spending. Now it is proposed to have this parliament take the matter in hand and deprive of his civil rights the spendthrift, the gambler, the prodigal. Well, I protest against parliament assuming jurisdiction in matters of this kind. I say parliament has not the right to brand Mr. LAFORTUNE.

any one as a prodigal before his relatives have had their say in the matter. I say that such a course would be an encroachment on individual liberty. I say you have not the right to deal with Canadian citizens as if they were spendthrifts, and restrain their freedom of action without conforming to the rules of procedure enacted by the various provinces of the Dominion. Whenever we are called upon to deal w'ith a prodigal, but not of the most pronounced type, we deprive him in part only of his civil rights, by appointing a judiciary council to prevent him from living in an extravagant manner or spending too freely. Such are the means provided by law to restrain improvident and Teckless people.

Sir, the learned gent who preceded me stated-and I was sorry to hear him say so-: in this connection we prefer following the provisions of the United States law, to following those of the British law. We take after the people of the United States; as to the British enactment, as to the legislation in force in the mother country, they say, we have no use for it, Is that sound reasoning ? To my mind it is a criminal offence, a crime which should be made punishable under our laws, a crime of high treason to thus follow the lead of our neighbours, without paying any attention to what is being done in Great Britain. A Mr. Hughes has been mentioned. I am not acquainted with him, though he may be a very honest man. But I prefer following the legislation in force in the British empire. In support of a bad case, people are ant to make use of every means, good or bad. After centuries of British rule, one should know a thing or two.

I listened with pleasure and a great deal of attention to the statements made last evening by the ex-minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). I have never heard anything more precise and indicative of so great ability and experience. He gave us the whole thing in a nutshell. His arguments are uncontrovertible, and no attempt was made to answer them. The hon. gentleman who hails from those vast territories which are the hope of the Dominion, has Canadian interests at heart. It cannot be said of him that he is a race track gambler or that he has any kind of interest in racing associations. He gave us his word that he never gambled or engaged in betting, and nobody will doubt his word. His opinion should be given still greater weight, seeing that it is wholly disinterested.

Reference has been made to insurance policies, and the hon. gentleman who made such reference contended that the policyholder gets back only what he paid. Such is not always the case. The policy-holder is not always in that position, as I shall endeavour to show. Take for instance the

case of a life insurance policy. The policyholder dies after having paid his first premium and his heirs get a considerable amount of money which the company is bound to pay. Then take the case of a fire insurance policy. The owner of the building insures it for a large amount. The next day, the building is destroyed by fire, and he gets a lot of money, after paying in a small premium only. Will it be contended that in such cases the insured gets back merely what he had disbursed? However such agreements are considered legal, although they imply a contingency, although their outcome is uncertain, hazardous, in the same as with race-track betting. You bet on a horse expecting he will come out first, and very often he comes out last. You are the loser, but some one else is a winner.

My learned friends spoke of the usefulness of the thoroughbred. It is a well known fact among farmers and breeders generally, that thoroughbreds are high-priced horses. They are not plentiful, require much training, and cost a great deal to their owners. On the other "hand the latter expect to obtain a handsome price for them.

Within the last twenty years governments have spent large sums towards promoting breeding. The Minister of Agriculture, agricultural lecturers, co-operative associations, farmers' clubs, agricultural societies have all in turn advocated better breeding methods, and the improvement of live stock, especially of horses. For several years past, a large number of thoroughbreds have been imported to cross with Canadian horses. Thereby, we have succeeded in bringing about a considerable improvement in our breeds of horses. And when these hon. gentlemen contend that it is possible to continue that work of improvement independently of racing, let me answer that, in my humble opinion, that is not possible. Neither is it possible to provide for the upkeep of a race-track solely by means of entrance fees an contributions forthcoming occasionally from individuals or agricultural associations in connection with the meets. That has been attempted in every county throughout Canada. The idea is not a new one. An effort was made at large agricultural fairs to run the show by means of entrance fees alone, and to be content with a few races comprising only a small number of entries, but that always resulted in a failure. On the other hand, how have matters been improved? Success has been attained by acting in co-operation with the management of large associations. In conjunction with agricultural fairs and ploughing matches, we have arranged to have racing, and the owners of these race-tracks have contributed hundreds of dollars. How did these 208

gentlemen come to be in a position to do so? Simply through the association realizing profits, and being on that account prosperous enough to help us. Farmers benefit therebv. The passing of this Bill would inflict heavy losses on those who interest themselves in the improvement of horsebreeding. What would be gained by ruining these men? What would become of these associations who contribute towards the improvement of agricultural methods, the desirability of which is acknowledged by all? Representatives of the people who are desirous of promoting the welfare and the development of the country should not hesitate a single moment to vote against this Bill.

The question has been asked whether or not such a measure would be easy of enforcement. I am now speaking as if the Bill was to pass, although I do not think it will be voted by the House; but, admitting that it will pass, will it be an easy matter to enforce its provision? I have had some _ experience in the matter, having practised law for the last thirty years. I have always been concerned with my professional duties, and was deemed worthy of being appointed Crown prosecutor in my district. For the last four years, I have been acting in that capacity. Numbers of cases of all kinds have been brought up in the meantime, and having that experience, which should count for something, I say without hesitation that it would be absurd to pass such a law, to make betting a criminal act, to deal with bettors as if they were scoundrels and criminals, and that you will fail in getting a jury to condemn people charged with such an offence. Jurymen as a rule are respectful of authority, but they are free and independent men, and called upon as they are to decide as to the fact independently of the law, they will be averse to returning a verdict against that man, large amounts will have been expended in vain, public morals, public interests, nobody in fact being benefited thereby. I say: no, that cannot be. You will not submit that citizen to such vexatious and useless annoyance. Besides, in doing so, you would not attain your object. Your charges would be met by denials and counter charges against the accuser. The putting in our statute-books of such an enactment far from giving security to citizens, would result merely in an expenditure of public funds to the injury of the accused.

Abuses have been alleged; instances have been cited of people who have spent extravagant amounts in betting, or of others who have in consequence committed thefts. That puts me in mind of scenes often witnessed at sittings of the criminal courts; and I may be allowed to recall them to the hon. member who made U3e

Subtopic:   G531 COMMONS
Full View Permalink

April 7, 1910

Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm).

(Translation). Mr. Speaker, before dealing at length with w'hat wras said in the course of yesterday's debate as to the sub-

ject now under discussion, I may be allowed to briefly refer to some statements just made by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Stratton). The hon. gentleman expressed an opinion as to the usefulness of the thoroughbred. He acknowledged in passing that he did not know very much about the matter. That was apparent, that was evident. I take his word when he says that he has no extensive knowledge as regards the thoroughbred. Farmers, he says, are not fond of the thoroughbred. Of course they are right in preferring another type if they want a horse only to hitch to the plough or to draw heavy loads. In that case, I would agree with the hon. gentleman and admit that for such work the thoroughbred is not suitable. But, there is some other use to which the thoroughbred can be put on farms; and I speak advisedly when I say so. To back up that statement I have my own personal experience covering twenty-five years, during which I have had the pleasure, not to say the advantage-as it comes rather high-of taking an interest in farming matters, and I invite the learned members to visit my stables, wherein he will find thoroughbreds of some value.

The farmer, it is said, has a dislike for the thoroughbred, I have just stated the reason. However, in order to make myself clear. I shall further say that the thoroughbred is useful for the improvement of heavy breeds of horses, such as the Ardennais, the Hackneys, the Normans, and the Per-cherons. We even have to-day Brabansons which are too* slow, too heavy to be profitably put on the road. But the Brabansons, as well as the Percherons and the Normans, are great breeds of horses which should be improved, made lighter by crossing them with the thoroughbred.

The thoroughbreds are small, it is urged. Yes, but they are full of stamina; and when desirous of improving our heavy draught breeds, we are very careful to cross' them with thoroughbreds which are the mearis of bringing about a happy medium, that is of breeding horses which can be used on the roads or in the fields without breaking through, as do the Norman, the Percheron. or the Brabanson. Whenever such heavy horses have to be put to work in the fields before the surface is settled down, they injure the sod in meadows and pastures by sinking knee deep into the ground, and besides they are liable to break down fences and gateways, while the thoroughbred goes clean over them without causing any damage.

In the province of Quebec the ' National Breeders' Association ' offers fine stallions which have cost a good deal of money. Henceforth, we have no use for any others. On the other hand the owner of a thoroughbred mare which has been imported Mr. LAFOETUNE.

at considerable cost, will not breed that mare to a thoroughbred, but to a horse of a heavier type, so as to obtain a progeny which may be of service at all kinds of work, whether on the road or in the field. Besides, they may occasionally be sold at high prices, on account of the qualities developed in them by judicious breeding. Such is my answer to the hon. member for Peterborough who has just stated that we have no use for the thoroughbred.

Formerly we dispensed with automobiles, with electric traction, telephone and telegraph lines and even railways. That recalls to my mind an old-timer in my constituency who was averse to the building of a railway line to Montreal; of course that line was built in spite of his opposition, but he would never travel by it, because it had been built by Liberals. He persisted in using exclusively his old grey nag. Those are errors of judgment, exaggerations unworthy of attention. But when we are met by a man who proposes legislating on the lines inidicated and inserting in the Criminal Code a provision such as we find in the Bill under discussion, it is up to us to call a halt.

I have had the honour of being Crown prosecutor for some years past, in the largest judicial district of the province of Quebec. Well, since I have been acting in the above capacity, taking a hand in the administration of justice, especially in connection with criminal cases m Montreal, for a few years back not a single case, not a single complaint of the character referred to has been brought up in court. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) stated last evening in my hearing that, while attending the sittings of the police court in Montreal last autumn, he had been struck by the large number of arraignments. Well, I may say to that gentleman that at any of the sittings he might witness a similar condition of things; but these arraignments are not the outcome of the racing going on at the Jockey Club or at Delorimier park. Presently I shall give the names of the people making up the Montreal Jockey Club and the De-lormier Park Association, and the House will be surprised to find that the list comprises men of the highest standing and perfectly well posted as regards proper administrative methods and public morals.

There are crimes in quite sufficient numbers definied by the common and the statutory law and entailing various penalties; and when I hear the hon. member for Grey requesting the House to still add to ti c list of criminal offences and prohibit racetrack betting, it is time that a stop be put to such legislation.

It is quite useless for him to come to Montreal and proclaim such principles, or to call public meetings in the hope of obtain-

ing support. I understand he succeeded in getting together in Toronto four hundred young men, without any experience of life, ignorant of what is in the best interest of the country, and even that has been effected^ only by means of much publicity. I am' surprised that more people should not have responded to the call in that fine city of Toronto, Canada's queen city, as it is sometimes called, though improperly to my mind. That shows that the Bill is not a popular one, for in our province whenever a popular measure is being discussed, instead of four hundred boys, thousands of people will congregate.

The hon. member has made reference to public opinion. Well, I have lust stated what is going on in Montreal. I live in close proximity, within the county of Jacques Cartier. I regret that the member for that constituency (Mr. Monk) who has a great concern in that question, is away.

I hope he will be back before this debate is over, otherwise, when he appeals to his constituents at the next election, we shall make it a matter of serious reproach for him. He is very well posted and has had a long experience in these matters, and no doubt he would have seconded the amendment which the committee has under discussion. His absence then is the more to be regretted on that account.

Full View Permalink

April 7, 1910

Mr. LAFORTUNE. (Translation).

And there are many who should be in jail, though they are still free.

At one o'clock, committee took recess.

Committee resumed at three o'clock.

Subtopic:   G531 COMMONS
Full View Permalink