Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved:: That the fifth report of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. McCREA:: 1.	What is the total gross earnings of the Canadian National Railways, in all its connections and branches, giving the said earnings in each province separately?
2. What is the total gross operating expenditure in each one of the provinces, showing each province separately ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1 and 2. It is not possible to give the operating results of Canadian National Railways by provinces. The nearest approach is the results by regions, as follows:
Gross Revenues
Operating	Net revenue from
expenses	railway operation

$ 3,545,005 24 (Def.) 15,950,871 91
872,283 96 (Def.) 5,710,667 77 17,244,251 48


NORTHWEST REBELLION-MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Did the government specially recompense those of the permanent forces of Canada who served in the Northwest rebellion, namely A and B batteries of Kingston Artillery and C School of Infantry,
Toronto,, and also men sworn in as special constables of the Northwest Mounted Police?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to recompense the Northwest Mounted Police veterans who served in the Northwest rebellion on the same basis as others who so served?
Questions


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: 1.	The issue of scrip for services in the Northwest rebellion of 1885 was authorized [DOT]by chapter 73 of the statutes of Canada, 1885, which restricted such issue to "members of the enrolled militia force actively engaged and bearing arms in the suppression of the Indian and Halfbreed outbreak and serving west of Port Arthur since the 25th day of March."
Chapter 29 of the statutes of Canada, 1886, defined the expression "members of the enrolled militia force actively engaged," etc. Members of A and B batteries of Kingston Artillery and C School of Infantry Toronto were included within the scope of the above expression and received scrip. The personnel of the Northwest Mounted Police was not included within the scope of the above expression and no scrip was issued to them. Certain "members of the enrolled militia force actively engaged and bearing arms in the suppression of the Indian and Halfbreed outbreak, and serving west of Port Arthur, since the 25th day of March" who were sworn 'n as special constables of the Northwest Mounted Police during the rebellion received scrip as members of the militia but not as special constables of the Northwest Mounted Police.
2.	When the subject of rewards for services during the rebellion of 1885 was under consideration of the government of the day, a distinction was made between the Mounted Police, whose ordinary duties of maintaining law and order were within the limits of the disturbed districts, and the militia who were called upon to leave their homes and occupations, at great personal inconvenience, resulting in many cases in serious embarrassment to themselves and families. This distinction was marked by excluding the police from participation in the issue of scrip.
In 1893 the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories passed a resolution praying that the Dominion Government would grant scrip to the Mounted Police, and on several occasions members have asked questions in the House. The reply has always been adverse to reconsideration.


GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What is the capacity of the Moose Jaw government elevator and what was the cost of the said elevator?	-
2.	What is the capacity of the Port Arthur government elevator and what was the cost of the said elevator?
3.	What is the capacity of the Saskatoon government elevator and what was the cost of the said elevator?

4.	What is the capacity of the Edmonton government elevator and what was the cost of the said elevator ?
5.	What is the capacity of the Vancouver government elevator, No. 1, as originally constructed and what was the cost of the said elevator?
6.	What will be the capacity of the Prince Rupert elevator, and what will be the cost of the said elevator?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	Moose Jaw Government Elevator, Constructed, 1913-14.
Capacities
Storage capacity, 3,500,000 bushels.
Cleaning capacity:-
Wheat, 300,000 bushels per day.
Flax, 40,000 bushels per day.
Mixed Grain, 10,000 bushels per day. Screenings, 15,000 bushels per day.
Drying capacity, 6 per cent moisture, 20,000 bushels per day.
Unloading from cars, 150 cars per day. Loading to cars, 200 cars per day.
Power generating plant:	Diesel engines and
Dynamos, 875 horse-power rated.
Costs
Site-(right-of-way)	
S 7,674	00Excavation	
24,000	00Pile foundation	
78,000	00Elevator superstructure	
943,112	16Power plant	
120,000	00Drier and boiler house	
34,000	00Trackage	
82,099	00
Capital charges to May 31,
1925, subsequent to construction	 40,597	99
Total	 $1,329,483 15
2.	Port Arthur Government Elevator, constructed, 1912-13.
Capacities
Storage capacity, 3,250,000 bushels.
Cleaning capacity:-
Wheat, 360,000 bushels per day.
Flax, 60.000 bushels per day.
Mixed Grain, 30,000 bushels per day. Screenings, 15,000 bushels per day.
Drying capacity, 6 per cent moisture, 40,000 bushels per day.
Unloading from cars, 250 cars per day. Loading to lake boats, 1,000,000 bushels per day.
Substation, 1,600 horse-power rated.
Costs
Site	 $ 90,000 00
Pile foundation	
59,000	00Dredging and grading	
37,049	93Elevator superstructure	
1,054,978	74
Questions
Substation and office	
52,000	00Drier and boiler house	
48,000	00Trackage and trestles	
62,000	00
Capital charges to May 31,
1925, subsequent to construction	 37,436	42
Total	 $1,440,465 09
3.	Saskatoon Government Elevator, constructed, 1913-14.
Capacities
Storage capacity, 3,500,000 bushels.
Cleaning capacity:-
Wheat, 300,000 bushels per day.
Flax, 40,000 bushels per day.
Mixed grain, 10,000 bushels per day. Screenings, 15,000 bushels per day.
Drying capacity, 6 per cent moisture, 20,000 bushels per day.
Unloading from cars, 150 cars per day. Loading to cars, 200 cars per day.
Substation, 1,200 horse-power rated.
Costs
Site-(right-of-way)	
$	5,500 00Excavation	
28,000	00Pile foundation	
72,000	00Elevator superstructure	
925,904	80Substation	
36,000	00Drier and boiler	house	
33,000	00Trackage	
40,779	34
Capital charges to May 31,
1925, subsequent to construction	 4,734	45
Total	 $1,145,918 59
4.	Edmonton Government Elevator:
Constructed 1923-24 Capacities
Storage capacity, 2,500,000 bushels.
Cleaning capacity:-
Wheat, 360,000 bushels per day.
Flax, 40,000 bushels per day.
Mixed Grain, 20,000 bushels per day. Screenings, 30,000 bushels per day.
Drying capacity, 6 per cent moisture, 48,000 bushels per day.
Unloading from cars, 240 cars per day. Loading to cars, 250 cars per day. Substation, 1,200 horse-power rated.
Costs
Site	$	12,450 00Excavation	
20,364	12Pile foundation	
47,735	32Elevator superstructure	
1,246,240	01Substation and offices	
52,400	00Drier and Boiler house	
66.800	00Trackage	
68,810	63Total	$1,514,800	OS5.	Vancouver Government Elevator: Constructed 1915-16
Capital Cbst to October 21, 1923, date of transfer to Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
Capacities
Storage capacity, 1,250,000 bushels-Cleaning capacity:-
Wheat, 210,000 busihels per day.
Flax, nil.
Mixed Grain, nil.
Screenings, nil.
Drying capacity, 6 per cent moisture, 10,000 bushels per day.
Unloading from cars, 150 cars per day. Loading to boats, 400,000 bushels per day. Substation, 1,200 horse-power rated.
Bagging plant, 60,000 bushels per day.
Costs
Clearing site	$ 5,000 00
Excavation and foundation	
31,000	00Elevator superstructure	
508,394	03Substation and office	
32.000	00Bagging plant	
16,000	00Drier and boiler house	
36,000	00
Dock galleries to four loading berths
and warehouse	
208,000	00Trackage	
18,136	40Total	$854,530 436.	Prince Rupert Government Elevator: constructed, 1925
From contracts awarded and engineer's estimate of balance required. Capacities
Storage capacity, 1,350,000 bushels.
Cleaning capacity:-
Wheat, 360,000 bushels per day.
Flax, nil.
Mixed Grain, 20,000 bushels per day. Screenings, 30,000 bushels per day.
Drying capacity, 6 per cent moisture, 10,000 bushels per day.
Unloading from cars, 150 cars per day. Loading to boats, 400,000 bushels per day. Substation, 1,200 horse-power.
Bagging plant, 60,000 bushels per day.
Grain jetty 1,000 ft. length for two- loading berths.
Bagged grain warehouse 200,000 bushels capacity.
Questions

Cost (Estimated)
Site	 Nil
Excavation and foundation	S 84,000
Elevator superstructure	 730,216
Grain jetty 1,000 feet length..	..	168,000
Bagged grain warehouse	 44,000
Conveyer galleries to jetty..	..	..	82,000Drier and boiler house	* [DOT]	36,000Substation and! office	
42,000Trackage, trestle and fill	
63,000Total	$1,249,216
Note: Engineer's preliminary estimate of $1,329,000 has been reduced in view of price obtained for superstructure contract.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railways comply *with the Workmen's Compensation Acts of each of the provinces of Canada, or, is there a federal statute providing that the compensation boards of each province shall administer a fund provided by the federal authorities for cases of injuries received by the Canadian National Railways employees or government employees? If so, what is the title of such statute?
2.	Is such act interpreted differently in different provinces?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The Canadian National Railway Company and allied companies comply with the Workmen's Compensation Acts of the various provinces in Canada. There is no federal statute providing that the compensation board of each province shall administer any of the funds provided by federal authority, the reason being that the courts have decided that the Workmen's Compensation Acts, dealing as they do with civil rights, are within the jurisdiction of the various provinces. By a statute of the parliament of Canada (Chap. 15, 1918) employees in the service of His Majesty who are injured, are entitled to the same compensation as ordinary employees under the laws of the province in Which the accident occurred. Subsection 4 of section 1 of that act deals with employees on the Canadian government railway.
2.	All the provinces have different Workmen's Compensation laws. The Dominion statute last mentioned merely makes applicable to government employees residing in the province the provisions of the provincial act affected.
QUEBEC HARBOUR-ST. COLOMB de SILLERY LOTS


Mr. DOUCET:: 1. What are the names of the proprietors of lots *lumbers 229 to 266, subdivisions of the official plans and registers of the parish of St. Colomb de Sillery?

2.	Is the government aware that said lots or subdivisions are under option or promise of sale?
3.	If so, what are the names of the holders of said options or promise of sale?
4.	Are the above-mentioned lots or subdivisions in the neighbourhood of the projected works by the Quebec Harbour Commission and for which a bill comprising an expenditure of 15,000,000 has been brought down in the House?
5.	Are these said lots or parts thereof to be purchased or expropriated by the Quebec Harbour Commission in order to carry out the projected works?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No information.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	The parish of St. Colomb de Sillery is in the neighbourhood of the projected works.
5.	No.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What amount was spent by the Department ^ of Militia and Defence in connection with cadet training in the various provinces, province by province, in the years 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924?
2.	How many cadet corps were there in each province in each of these years respectively, and how many in March, 1925?
3.	How many school teachers or principals, respectively, were engaged as instructors in each province in each of the years named, to March, 1925, inclusive?
4.	What grants were paid to these instructors, and
what amount does each instructor receive for each cadet enrolled each year?
5.	Does the department set apart an officer or officers in each province to further the work of cadet training? If not, what method does the department take to further this movement in the provinces?
6.	What officers are now giving their time in each province to this work, either in part or wholly severally in each province?
7.	Was the consent of the Department of Education in each province secured before this cadet system was introduced into the schools of the province? If not, what provinces have given their consent, and when?
8.	How many schools ore there in each province where cadet training was in vogue in the years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 and March, 1925?
9.	What was the number of cadets in school corps in each province in each of these years?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister-of Railways and Canals) (for Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King) moved:
That on Wednesday, the 10th of June, instant, and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as provided for other days.
Motion agreed to.

Ontario Power Shortage
ONTARIO POWER SHORTAGE On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I
would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if the attention of the government has been called to the statement, published to-day, of Sir Adam Beck with regard to the acute shortage of power Ontario is facing, and whether the government will grant the application filed by the government of Ontario and the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission a long time ago for leave to develop power at the Morrisburg dam to take care of Ontario's power needs. Has such application been refused, and if so, what answer has the government made in respect to it?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	The Ontario government, I believe, have submitted to the Department of Public Works, under the statute, plans for the construction of a dam at Morrisburg. These plans have not up to the present been approved.
REVISION OF RULES OF THE HOUSE On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (VancouverCentre):: I would like to ask the government when it is the intention to provide for the discussion of the amendment of the rules of the House as reported by the special committee which has been considering the matter. As this will not come up in the ordinary course of business of the House, perhaps some special provision will have to be made and some special time set for the discussion. May I ask the government when that time will be fixed?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :	I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, but would not an appropriate time for the discussion be on the motion for the adoption of the committee's report?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I understood the committee had reported. Certainly the proper time is on Motions, whenever the government is prepared to move the adoption of the report.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I might make myself
clear. My point was that the business that comes under Motions is usually of a routine nature and many members probably take very little interest in it. But this is a very, very important report, and some intimation should be given that to-morrow or on a certain day the report would come u,p for discussion.


George Perry Graham: I think that is very
reasonable, and I will call the attention of the Prime Minister to it. I think I can safely say on behalf of the government that intimation will be given to the House that on a certain day this report will be discussed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That notice will be given.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: In
that connection: I hope the government will make arrangement for the discussion of this report in committee, because there are a large number of changes to propose, and it will be impossible to discuss these amendments adequately on the motion for concurrence in the report.



RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways when we may expect the proposals with respect to a revision of railway freight rates to be presented to the House?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I would not promise
a revision of freight rates in the bill. I presume my hon. friend refers to a proposed amendment to the Railway Act, which is commonly known in discussion as the Crows-nest pass agreement.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It surely
covers more than that.


George Perry Graham: One can never tell till
he sees the bill.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: When will
it be presented to the House?


George Perry Graham: I had hoped to give
notice of it to-day or to-morrow.



EXPORT OF POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I would like to ask the government whether the order in council has yet been passed remitting in the cases of municipalities the tax on power exported under the term contract for 60,090 horse-power?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): That order in council has not yet been passed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope it is
drawn.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the .second reading of Bill No. 169, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railways line from the end of the China Clay branch to St. Remi d'Amherst, in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Commencement of construction subject to certain conditions.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Does this matter stand just as we left it the other day?


George Perry Graham: Just as we left it in
committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
BiH reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I think perhaps it
would be wise at this juncture to carry out the arrangement made some weeks ago with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr, Shaw) to allow him to move the third reading of his bill on divorce.
If the House will agree, I would move that we now take up order No. 44, under Public Bills and Orders.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary) moved the third reading of Bill No. 4, respecting divorce.
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on the 23rd day of March I gave notice that on the motion for .the third reading of this bill I would move-which I do now-the following amendment:
That the said order be discharged and the bill be
referred back to the committee of the Whole House with instructions that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto the following section:
"In no case where a divorce is granted by any act of parliament or by the decision of any court in Canada or elsewhere, shall either of the divorced parties domiciled in Canada have the right to marry again."
[Sir Henry Drayton.)
Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I have now proposed is unpalatable to many hon. members of this House for whose opinion I have the greatest respect. It is also distasteful to more than a few people outside of this chamber. I have been, and shall be, accused of bigotry and narrow mindedness. It has been and will be alleged that I am trying to impose upon others, religious beliefs that they do not share with me. I do not wish to be disagreeable or to appear intransigent, and yet on this occasion I hope that if I cannot dispel these false impressions in the course of my remarks, I shall at least establish my sincerity of purpose in trying, as I do, faithfully to discharge my duty as a member of this House and as a citizen of this country.
There is at present no divorce law on our statute books. This bill, if enacted, would be the first one; and I believe that it is my duty to resist the enactment by this parliament of a general law of divorce at the present time. Each bill of divorce that was presented to us has been a law of exception dealing with special cases. The purport of this bill is to facilitate divorce by increasing the number of cases in which divorce can be granted, and that is the reason why I feel in duty bound to resist it.
My amendment is not as sweeping as I would have liked to make it.	Had I
my own way I would stamp out divorce altogether from this country. But, the House having already expressed its opinion on the second reading of this bill, it would be futile at this moment to move the six months' hoist. My amendment, however. in changing divorce into a mere separation, will eliminate one of the great incentives that cause many people to ask for a divorce, and so will have the effect of greatly reducing the number of cases in which divorce is sought.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, divorce is unchristian in that it is opposed to the teachings of the New Testament. Divorce is also immoral because it is opposed to natural law. In considering for a moment the Scriptural arguments I shall quote only from the revised version, or the King James version, so as to avoid the reproach of trying to impose upon others my own religious beliefs. It was Blaekstone, I think, who said that Christianity is part and parcel of the common law of England. If I succeed in proving that divorce is unchristian, let us remove it from our statute books, or else cease to contend that we are a Christian parliament. If Christ legislated on this subject, those who profess to be his disciples-whether they be voters or legis-

Divorce
lators-must be governed by his laws, and cannot do otherwise but accept his teaching. Let us turn to St. Mark's gospel, the first to be written. St. Mark's gospel, chapter 10, verses 2 to 12, gives the following:
And there came upon Him Pharisees and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife"? tempting Him.
And He answered and said unto them; "What did Moses command you?" and they said; "Moses suffered us to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."
But Jesus said unto them; "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commapdment. But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the twain shall become one flesh; so that they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." And in the house the disciples asked him again on this matter. And he said unto them; "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her, and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery."
By these words Christ legislated on this question. He tells us that re-marriage subsequent to divorce is adultery. Divorce-[DOT] permitted to the Jews a thousand years before, owing to their imperfect civilization and the hardness of their hearts-is now abolished as unworthy of a Christian people. The unity and indissolubility of marriage is reaffirmed, reinstated, and restored for all mankind. A principle is laid down which annuls in advance any legislation concerning divorce:
What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.
No exception is made; the paragraph is clear and conclusive. Now let me quote from St. Luke's gospel chapter 16:
Everyone that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another committeth adultery; and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery.
Are these words ambiguous? St. Matthew treats this question twice. In chapter 5 he gives new details showing conclusively that divorce is not part of Christianity. The first reference to divorce is in the Sermon on the Mount. In that masterly outline of a moral code Christ shows us how his doctrine differed from that of the Old Testament on divorce. He declared:
"It was said also: whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement; but I say to you that everyone that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adultress; and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery."
Divorce was permitted by Moses; it is not permitted by Christ. Unfaithfulness on the part of his wife justifies a man in claiming separation, but even after dismissal the marriage bond remains, and he who marries her
that is put away commits adultery. If the marriage bond remains for the guilty party it must remain also for the party who is innocent.


Mr. MARTELL:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend will hold his soul in patience I will answer, I think, in the course of my remarks anything that occurs to his mind.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But-


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend wait a
minute please? I do not want to be uncourteous to my hon. friend, but I think the course of this debate will be shortened if he will allow me to continue. I shall be quite ready to answer any question that he may put to me at the conclusion of my speech.
If the marriage bond remains for the guilty party, it must remain also for the innocent party; it is the same marriage bond that binds them together. St. Matthew's second reference to divorce is at chapter 19 verses 3 to 12:
And there came unto Him Pharisees tempting Him and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" and He answered and said: "Have you not read that He which made them from the beginning made them male and female and said: 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the twain shall become one flesh,' so that they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder."


Mr. EVANS:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The amendment is not relevant to the bill.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I should like to hear from some other hon. members on this point of order, or perhaps the hon. member himself will state his reasons for raising the point. The bill is intituled "An Act respecting Divorce," and the amendment thereto, which also deals with the same subject, is in my opinion relevant.


John Evans: I submit, sir, that the purpose of the bill is to put women on the same plane as men regarding divorce. It is rather a question of women's rights than of whether either of the parties divorced should marry again. I cannot see that the amendment is relevant to the bill at all.


Thomas Vien: Read the title of the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Do any other hon. members desire to speak on the point of order? In my humble judgment the amendment is germane.
Divorce


Thomas Vien: It was then that Our Lord
added a sentence which the defenders of divorce claim is a deliberate weakening of the moral standard which he had enunciated:
And I say to you: whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her when she is put away, committeth adultery.
The meaning here, as in the Sermon on the Mount, where the same phrase is used, is that the dismissed woman, unless she be already an adulteress, is exposed to the occasion of this sin. Hence, she should not be sent away unless guilty of adultery, in which case separation of bed and board is allowed. The marriage bond, however, even in that case, remains, "For he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery." And then:
The disciples say unto Him, "If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." And He answered, "All men cannot receive this saying."
Others have commented on these texts, Mr. Speaker. St. Paul, in the seventh chapter to the Romans, takes for granted the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, except by death, when he says:
The woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband dies she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then, if while the husband lived she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if the husband die she is free from the law so that she is not an adulteress though she be joined to another man.
And again in his epistle to the Corinthians:
But unto the married I give charge, yea, not I but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband, and if she depart let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband; and that the husband leave not his wife. A wife is bound for so long a time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead she is free to be married to whom she will.
Can any commentary strengthen, or any sophistry weaken, the force of these words, "That the wife depart not from her husband, ind that the husband leave not his wife?"
This Christian doctrine has also been commented upon by all the Christian churches in Canada. May I be permitted to quote what the General Synod of the Church of England said on this subject in October, 1921?-
On the Christian standard of marriage: Following in the footsteps of the Lambeth conference, the General Synod affirms as Our Lord's principle and standard of marriage a lifelong and indissoluble union, "for better, for worse," of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, and calls on all Christian people to maintain and bear witness to this standard.	.
On divorce and the remarriage of those divorced, the synod pronounced as follows:
] Mr. Vien.]
The General Synod of the Church of England in Canada, being convinced that the maintenance of the sacred nature of the marriage tie and the preservation of family life, are essential to the welfare of our country and its citizens, desires to call the attention of members of the Church of England to canon V of this synod:
"No clergyman within the jurisdiction of the Church of England in Canada shall solemnize a marriage between persons either of whom shall have been divorced from one who is living a*t the time," and heartily endorses the emphatic protest by the Council for Social Service at its annual meeting in October, 1920, against any extension of the present grounds for divorce in any contemplated legislation on this subject.
And then adding on the ideals of marriage and family life: an endorsement of the following memorial from the Diocese of Ottawa:
That in view of the increase of divorce in Canada and the levity with which the marriage tie is regarded by many, it is desirable that the church should again draw attention in the most solemn and emphatic manner:
"To the fact that marriage was instituted by God Almighty that man should have assistance and companionship, and that marriage is not to be undertaken hastily or carelessly, for caprice or for any improper motive, but only after prayer, each party believing and having reasonable cause to believe that they will be able and willing as loving and lifelong companions, to assist one another in the journey to the Heavenly kingdom;"


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. gentleman is reading his speech.


Thomas Vien: the child's existence, and, therefore equally with the mother, he is charged by nature with the child's welfare Since it was as one joint principle that they gave the child existence, as one joint principle they are bound to care for the child. Therefore their duty of caring for the child's welfare, is to be fulfilled, not in lives apart and independent, but in a single joint family life lasting as long as the right of the child to call to them for aid and guidance endures. Moreover, without the support of the father, both mother and child will, under ordinary conditions, find it difficult to surive. No accident of fortune or of condition can rid a man of his responsibility to his child and its mother.
Now, the second object of marriage is the happiness and the good of the parents; and to that also' divorce is opposed. A 4 p.m. wife has a right in commutative justice to the support and fidelity of her husband to the end. To him she has given her youth, her beauty, her fertility, her whole life, and in return she must have love and protection in her later years. The Rev. John O'Gorman has said:
Divorce is unjust, unnatural, anti-national, and immoral. It is unjust. When parliament or court dissolves a contract, the rights even of third parties are usually sedulously guarded. But when the marriage contract is dissolved, the right of the first party for whom marriage and sex exist-the child-is utterly ignored. He is deprived of his parents. A premium is set on the passions of the parents (when as a reward of their adultery they may seek new mates) and a child is set out on the journey of life, fatherless or motherless. The effect of this stain on his education, character and career is incalculable. There may exist abnormal circumstances in individual cases where the child may seem to lose nothing by losing his parents; but nature frames her rules of life, and her canons of good and evil, on the usual and normal needs of humanity. It has been well said: "In comparison with the tragedy of the betrayal of the child at divorce, every other tragedy of the home shrinks into insignificance." Divorce is unjust.
It is unnatural. What human law can break the natural bond between father and child, or between mother and child? A man-made law may take the child away, if the parent be a criminal, but it cannot take the parenthood away or destroy the filiation. The relationship remains whether the law recognizes it or not. It is the same for the natural relationship by which husband and wife become one flesh. Unfaithfulness is a heinous sin against that natural union, but it cannot dissolve it. A criminal act cannot change what nature's laws proclaim to be a permanent relationship, resulting from the very nature of sex and from the object and end of the intercourse of the sexes in marriage. The crime may be punished but the relationship remains. Divorce is therefore unnatural.
It is anti-national. Not merely the child, but the race itself suffers from the dissolution of marriage at divorce, and it is primarily for the race, through the child, that marriage exists. The possibility of divorce leads to legalized race suicide. Those married couples who take into their consideration the possibility of their future divorce are less likely to fetter their liberty by the burden of children. Divorce is therefore anti-national.
It is immoral. The possibility of divorce not merely leads at times to the unnatural offences connected with race suicide, which is unfortunately as common as tuberculosis; it also encourages the commission of those other crimes on account of which divorce is given.
]Mr. Vien.]
Divorce laws, despite the clauses against connivance and collusion, are to some people an incentive to desertion or adultery; and in all cases, the remarriage which divorce permits is merely legalized lust. Divorce is therefore immoral.
These are not my opinions; I have quoted them abundantly in order to avoid the reproach that was cast upon me at the second reading of the bill, that I was trying to impose upon hon. members my own religious convictions. Now let us turn to a very remarkable organization in this country, the Social Service Council of Canada, which has done noteworthy work since its inception. Among the conclusions arrived at by that body in the year 1922, the following appears in its report:
After the most careful consideration of the facts of this study we would recommend to the committee for adoption the following recommendations:
Whereas (1) History and experience have shown that relaxation of marriage or divorce regulations, however sincerely initiated, have been unfailingly accompanied by social disorganization, laxity and a lower social standard towards married life and the institution of the family, and that no country adopting divorce law reform has been able to show a higher standard of social or family life as a result; and that
(2) any extension of the grounds of divorce has ultimately been utilized to the obtaining of divorce by collusion, thus endangering the family institution and implicitly tending towards a tacit acceptance of free love, and after careful study we believe that the vast majority of divorces are sought to make possible subsequent remarriage; and
Whereas, Whenever divorce is made cheaper it immediately offers itself as a ready solution to matrimonial difficulties where otherwise successful reconciliation would frequently obtain, and
Whereas, the recognition of divorce raises the question of recognizing the shattering of a state and contract created by two beings with the sanction and witness of the church and the state, and the recognition of divorce calls for a choice between the acceptance of two principles, the one, the principle of dissolving such a contract in the interests of human weaknesses and expediency as a remedy to the results of an unfortunate decision and contract, and empowering the parties to such broken contract to reenter a like but different contract, and the other, the principle of one life-long union of one man with one woman, for better or for worse, recognized by divine and human law as binding to and terminable by death, permissive of separation, but never of dissolution and remarriage.
Be it resolved-
1.	That this Social Service Council of Canada expresses as its belief the acceptance of the divine ideal of the life-long and indissoluble union of one man with one woman, for better or for worse, terminable by death alone, as binding marriage in Canada to-day,
2.	That in preservation of this ideal unqualified opposition alone can be shown towards any suggestion or action that would tend to substitute for general Assumption of this ideal, in the law or custom of Canada or any province thereof, the opposed general assumption that divorce was recognized and possible of attainment by mere request for the application of the law, and
3.	That while recognizing the existence of cases of hardship and cruelty from unfortunate marriage, this Council declares that in keeping with this ideal relief

Divorce
should be sought in judicial separation or a divorce that does not carry the right of remarriage, and further declares as its belief that not only is this solution in keeping with this ideal, but that it will better serve the interests of society and the preservation of the family as an institution.
4.	Wherefore this Council will oppose any movement to extend the grounds of divorce in Canada; and any movement to increase the facilities of divorce where the general law does not assume divorce, and will endeavor by educational effort to seek the furtherance of the Christian ideal of marriage throughout Canada.
Let us not, Mr. Speaker, be carried away by sympathy for those unfortunate couples unhappily married, who cannot number more than a few as compared with the mass of the people. Let those beware who consider taking one of the most serious steps that can be taken in life. From the days of the Roman and Greek civilizations easy divorce has in every case brought about a looseness in the marriage bond, a laxity in observance of the principles which it is supposed to stand for.
The British commission which was appointed to inquire into this subject in 1912, resisting the great forces of human passion and pressing with all their might to maintain the barriers set up to prevent the spread of divorce, made the following pronouncement:
Is England to leave a position of comparative strictness, to which citizens of other countries, appalled by the results of relaxation, are vainly endeavouring to return, creating thereby a cheapening effect on marriage, if the parties calculated that in contracting the union there would be some way out of it?
The ultimate question, therefore, is whether at a time when tendencies disintegrating family life are strong, when in America, to name only one country where divorce has been made easier and wider, there is a strong reaction in favour of greater strictness, England should relax its marriage laws, whether it ought not grimly to maintain them at least at their present standard.
Speaking of the tragedy and suffering of the unhappy marriage, the report says:
The fallacy we desire to deprecate is the tacit assumption that these ills are in any measure due to the laek of opportunity for divorce. The causes of marriage failure are, speaking generally, the lack of the sense of responsibility in entering the marriage state, the lack of self-control, self-sacrifice, and the sense of duty. The only remedy will be found in such influences as can be exerted to rouse the conscience and stimulate the moral sense of the nation. The alternative is between the narrow expediency of trying to make the lot of certain parties concerned easier and happier, and the wider expediency of strengthening the family life against influences which are threatening its strength and stability. The effort to promote the narrow expediency tends to defeat the effort to promote the wider one.
With these principles, Mr. Speaker, I fully agree, and if I have not convinced my opponents I hope at least that I have dissipated the idea tha' was expressed in the House on the second reading of this bill, that I was lrying to impose upon others my own relig-246
ious belief. Let us not open wider the doors through which can enter the divorce scourge and the score of social evils that it drags in its trail. Let us instead, by our legislation, give a hand to that wonderful institution which proclaims to all unfortunate beings the glad tidings of ihe kingdom of God; which preaches resignation; which inspires patience, gentleness, humility, self-abnegation and charity, and by means of which alone a man can breathe and see daylight-I mean, the Christian religion. Alone it can offer the food for the scul which is not less essential than the food for the body. Alone it can furnish the inducements to live an orderly life and the resignation which makes life endurable. Alone it can bring to the saddened heart, athirst for tenderness and serenity, a divine and gentle word, "setting up," as Taine puts it, "the kingdom of heaven as a magnificent golden pavilion at the end of a miry morass."
By increasing the number of cases in which divorce can be granted, this bill will facilitate divorce generally. My amendment proposes to reduce divorce to a mere separation, and iherefore, Mr. Speaker, will greatly reduce the number of cases in which divorce is sought in Canada. In proposing the amendment, sir, to this House of Commons I feel that I am doing my duty as a member and as a citizen of this country.


William Irvine: Before the hon. gentleman takes his seat, I understand that he opposes this bill on Christian grounds. Wculd he be willing to apply the principle that he has expounded to all other bills-for instance, to the $5,000,000 vote for Quebec harbour, to the Petersen contract, and a number of other things?


Thomas Vien: I think the question is preposterous. I do not think this House of Commons should enact any piece of legislation that is contrary to the Christian principles I have spoken of.


William Irvine: That is my point.


Thomas Vien: And I do not believe that the vote in respect of the harbour of Quebec in any way conflicts with the Christian principle that I have advocated. My hon. friend might perhaps follow those Christian principles in extending to others the treatment that he would like to have meted out to himself.


Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: I presume that the vote for the harbour of Quebec is absolutely in conformity with Christian principles, as the apostle Paul

Divorce

teaches us that if any provide not for his own, he is worse than an infidel.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to direct the attention of the House this afternoon for a very brief space of time both to the bill which is under discussion and to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) in his most eloquent and learned speech. Now what is the bill that is before us? It is a bill to apply to the province of Alberta. That province since its inception as a province has recognized, whether rightly or wrongly, the principle of divorce. It has set up a court, or given jurisdiction to its courts to consider and adjudicate upon questions of divorce. But the law in the province of Alberta is to this effect, that although a man may obtain a dissolution of his marriage on the ground of his. wife's infidelity, the wife m order to get a dissolution of her marriage has not only to prove infidelity on the part of her husband, but has also to prove cruelty. Now I take my stand for the purpose of this argument precisely on the same basis as that taken by the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien). I say it is opposed to the principles and to the teaching of the founder of our religion that equality should not prevail between the sexes in this regard. I say that it shocks the sense of Christian justice to say to a man: " If your wife has been guilty of an offence against your honour and your home, you may divorce her," and to say to the wife " If your husband has been untrue to you, has committed an offence against your dignity and against your family life, he may go free unless in addition he has ' treated you rough ', unless he has also banged you about." I say that is not Christian morality, as I understand it.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Then you are wrong.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Minister of Justice says I am wrong. I appeal from the Minister of Justice joking to the Minister of Justice serious. If the Minister of Justice was sitting as a judge in a court he would be disposed to treat the woman and the man precisely on the same basis. I know him too well to think he would treat them on any other basis.


Ernest Lapointe: Nobody has a right to do what is wrong-women as well as men.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Absolutely, but that
raises the whole question of the righteousness of divorce, and that, I take it, is a question which was settled so far as Canada is concerned fifty-eight years ago at the time of confederation; for the different provinces
IMr. McMaster.]
came together then and they gave to the central power jurisdiction not only in marriage but in divorce. If divorce was an immoral thing, then the founders of confederation were immoral men, because they took to themselves the right to pass legislation on the question of marriage and divorce.


Mr. WOODS:: Might I ask whether the province of Alberta has the power to rectify that injustice the hon. member has mentioned, or has it to be done through Dominion legislation?


Andrew Ross McMaster: It has to be done through us, because the legislation as regards marriage and divorce is situate in this parliament. It is the responsibility of this parliament, and the responsibility of no other.
I have briefly stated what is the object of this bill; I now desire to speak for a moment as regards the object of the amendment. The amendment is to throw back the bill into committee of the Whole in order that these words may be added to it:
In no case where a divorce is granted by any act of parliament or by the decision of any court in Canada or elsewhere, shall either of the divorced parties domiciled in Canada have the right to marry again.
Now I can easily understand the man who says: Divorce is such a crime, it is so shocking to Christian ethics, that I will have none of it. I would rather see the marriage tie persist in regard to the unfortunates who should be divorced; no matter how hard it may be for them, it is in the public interest that divorce should not be recognized. That is quite a reasonable attitude of mind to take. It is a view taken by one of the great ohurches of this country, a church which numbers among its members many of my friends for whom I have as high a regard as for any in this world. I utter what I am saying to-day not because I have any prejudice against the Roman Catholic faith or against the adherents of that faith. I believe among them are found as many who do justice and love mercy and walk humbly as are found among the adherents of any other church. I do not believe that the Divine Father has chosen his elect from among any one denomination, or any two or any three denominations. But I say this to you, Mr. Speaker: If divorce is a bad thing-it has been recognized, people are divorced and living separate-it is a worse thing to say that neither of them shall marry again. My learned and hon. friend who has proposed this resolution to the House draws no distinction between the guilty party and the innocent party. Suppose the father of a family has a beloved daughter, and early

Divorce
in life she contracts an unfortunate marriage with a scallawag, who is unfaithful to her, gives himself to drink and drugs, and becomes a degenerate. There is only one thing for it; they get a divorce. Now the hon. member for Lotbiniere would say: In the public interest that daughter must be condemned to a life of celibacy for the rest of her life. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Is that in the public interest? Some people will say, Yes. There are others, and I frankly state I am among them, who will say: No, that is not in the public interest. Whatever religious, moral, ethical or judicial arguments there may be in preventing the re-marriage of the guilty person in a divorce, surely there is no argument that will prevent the innocent victim of another's sin from leading a complete and normal life thereafter.


Mr. POWER:: Would the hon. member
hold out to the innocent person as a reward for virtue the public permission to marry again?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not believe that
such an offer would have to be made to anyone, but I would say this: In my humble opinion it is only just and right that at least the innocent party to any divorce should be allowed to marry again.


Charles Gavan Power: As a reward.


Andrew Ross McMaster: As a reward for behaving themselves? No more than the reward which attends virtue in this House and in all other places.
Now what have been the arguments used by my learned and hon. friend in this House this afternoon? His was an address not against the bill as introduced by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. iShaw), but an attack against the law of divorce, an attack against the idea of divorce. He says in effect this: If you marry at all, that marriage can never be annulled for any purpose whatsoever. Now that is an argument, as I understand it, taught by the churdh to which he belongs. But my learned friend was truly catholic in all he said, and he quoted the Presbyterian Church. Well, it is not yet the 10th of June, so the Presbyterian Church can yet be heard from. The Presbyterian church does not preach that divorce is not allowable in any event. It says that for the cause of infidelity divorcb is permissible, and that is all I am asking for, and all that the hon. member for West Calgary is asking for in his bill. He does not ask that the grounds be extended. He sets himself, as far as this bill is concerned, on the teaching of the 246i
Founder of our religion, which my learned friend says is part of the law of England. Well, if it is, I am afraid that sometimes the law has not been altogether observed. But we ask nothing more than that. We ask nothing more than the interpretation given to the words of Christ by the Presbyterian church. I think it is a reasonable interpretation. There is nothing more dangerous in the world than trying to discuss theological questions on isolated texts of Scripture, because you can often match one text with a text in an entirely different sense. But in the Sermon on the Mount, referred to by the hon. member who preceded me, the words of Christ, as I recollect them, are:
He that putteth away his wife, save for the cause of adultery, committeth sin.
And the plain inference is that divorce is permitted when the other party has been unfaithful. Therefore I do not think it is right to base the opposition to divorce, as divorce, on the words of Christ because I think the proper interpretation-


Mr. BIRD:: Will the hon. member give
Christ's definition of adultery?


Mr McMASTER:: Yes, it is a definition
which would cause us to spend the greatest part of our time passing divorce legislation- that is if taken literally. My hon. friend knows what it is, and it is not necessary for me to refer to it. Now there is the situation. I have no complaint with members of churches other than my own that take a different view of this question from what I do; but is it not too late in the day to say that we shall not recognize divorce when this House-on division it is true-passes scores of divorces bills every year?


Lewis Herbert Martell: If the country to-day,
tacitly at least, acknowledges the right to divorce, does not my hon. friend think that the proper thing for parliament to do would be to confer the right to grant divorces upon the courts of the land and not exercise that right itself?


Andrew Ross McMaster: My hon. friend asks
whether I do not think-having adopted the principle of divorce by our early legislation- it would not be more fitting if we conferred on the courts of the land the right to grant divorces. I certainly think so. I think it is really a public disgrace that year after year we are asked to pass private bills which no one has got time to look at.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: These
divorce bills give the innocent party the right to marry again. What right has the other party got?
Divorce


Andrew Ross McMaster: Without having considered the question deeply I should say the marriage is set aside altogether and both parties are free to marry again. I am not prepared to say that that is not the best thing, but I do not need that in view of the argument made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere who objects to the remarriage of either party.


Charles Marcil: You put
them on the same footing?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would say it would
be better in the public interest that people should be allowed to marry again rather than that they should not. That is merely my personal view, but it is not necessary to the purpose of this argument. I would say this, however-we cannot and should not be out of line with every other civilized nation in the world. Every civilized nation in the world has found it necessary-it may be because of the hardness of men's hearts-to admit, with regret, the necessity of divorce, and in most countries divorce courts exist. Divorce courts also exist in some of our provinces, and this bill is merely to give to one of those provincial courts the .right to deal out evenhanded justice in the matter of divorce as between man and woman. This is consistent with the law as it is in Great Britain, and it seems to me it is consistent with the highest moral ethics and with all Christian principles. I trust that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotiniere will be defeated, and that the bill as drafted will be passed.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I have protested on previous occasions against the granting of divorce and I protest once again. The hon. member for Lotbiniere gave several very good reasons why we should not extend the opportunities for divorce as we are asked to do in the present case. Divorce is a curse to every country. It is a curse to the United States at the present time; it is even becoming a curse to Canada. Let me quote some statistics which bear out the contention:
Divorces granted in Canada
Year	Number
1916			67
1917		 54
1918		 114
1919		178
1920		 429
1921		 548
1922		 544
1923		 505


Mr. SHAW:: Does my hon. friend know
that according to the statistical bureau no fewer than 1,368 divorces were granted in the

year 1922 in the United States to couples from Canada?


Charles Marcil: Every
authority in the United States is denouncing the evil of divorce at the present time, not only clergymen but men holding the highest public positions. I want to read a few lines from an article by a gentleman who is very well known in Canada, who has occupied the highest position in the United States, and is at present occupying the distinguished office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of that country; I refer to Chief Justice Taft. His opinion, as set forth in Hearst's magazine of June, 1912, is:
The increase of divorce in this country is a reflection upon the laws of our country. We ought not to permit the marriage tie to be dissolved at will. We ought to have a general uniform law on the subject that stiffens up and makes sacred the marriage tie.	[DOT]
In this country we do not agree on this matter of divorce. Neither did the Fathers of Confederation agree on it. However, they were compelled to accept the principle of divorce at the time of confederation because divorce courts existed then in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They were never created in Quebec, nor were they instituted in Ontario. A recent decision by the judicial committee of the Privy Council allows a man and woman to be placed on an equal footing in the prairie provinces, as they are at the present time in England, the result of certain legislation there some years ago. Let me quote a reason for the increase in the number of divorces in Canada:
In explanation of the surprising increase from the 67 divorces granted in 1916 to 548 in 1921, emphasis may be laid on two main causes-(1) the unsettling psychological effects of the war period, combined with the long separations, and (2) the provision of new facilities for divorce resulting from a decision of the Imperial Privy Council in 1918, which enabled the courts of the prairie provinces to grant divorces where previously an act of parliament had been necessary. The slight decrease in divorces granted in 1922 from the previous year, followed by the more marked decline during 1923, may indicate that the wave of divorce due to the war has passed its crest.
I quoted some time ago the statement of an English newspaper that I do not happen to have at the moment. It was to the effect that when the law was amended in England putting the woman on the same footing with the man, 800 divorce cases occurred in the very first month after the law went into effect. Therefore we cannot blind ourselves to this fact: When we place woman on the same footing as man we are opening the door, indeed, we are throwing it open wider than it was

Divorce
before, to new opportunities for divorce. The hon. member (Mr. Shaw) knows well that if this law were passed, within a very short time afterwards divorces would be granted in the west that were never granted before. For our part we hold that marriages are sacred. My own opinion, after an experience of twenty-five years in parliament, is that very few applications for divorce would be made if the right of remarriage was not granted. In these bills until a year or two ago we always added a second clause by which the right to remarry was given to the innocent party; we never mentioned the other party. But the other party was equally free according to the interpretation of the law, and therefore we placed the innocent and the guilty together. The latest statistics in the United States show that one marriage out of seven was dissolved last year. That is a warning for this Christian country, that if we cannot all agree on the tenets of religion, we at least should agree on this one principle-that the marriage tie is perpetual and the family is the foundation of the state. If we rupture the family, then God only knows what will become of this country.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
emphasize the fact that the amendment would alter entirely the character of divorce. The mover of the amendment (Mr. Vien) very clearly recognized this when he said that his motion would reduce divorce to mere separation. If this could be entertained at all by the House, it would really mean the sweeping away of divorce as it has been understood in this country for many years, and is understood the world over, and we would simply have legal separation-a far-reaching change that, it seems to me, ought not to be attempted simply by way of an amendment to a comparatively small change of the code.
I was astounded to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere basing a great part of his argument on Christian teaching, referring particularly to the Sermon on the Mount. It is not my intention to indulge in a theological discussion, but I would remind him that a large number of gentlemen in this House interpret the whole of the New Testament after a very different fashion, that he is proceeding on merely one particular method of interpretation, and one that does not appeal to very many outside those of one particular communion. It would seem to me rather unfortunate to precipitate a religious debate on the floor of the House, and personally I have no desire to be a party to anything of that
kind. But it struck me, as the hon. member was quoting at length from the Sermon on the Mount that it might be interesting to hear one or two other quotations from that remarkable document. After considerable trouble I managed to secure a copy from the library. I note one or two passages, among them the following:
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.
In all seriousness I should like to ask whether the hon. member intends us to believe that that is to be carried out in the same literal sense in which he would have us carry out the other passage?


Thomas Vien: Surely.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I would ask him how, as a legal gentleman, he manages to reconcile his profession with such a doctrine as that?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Quite easily.


Thomas Vien: I am afraid it is most unfair
for the hon. gentleman to put to me such a question, for its discussion, compared with theological discussions, would dwarf the latter into insignificance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would remind the hon. gentleman that he introduced it, and he has placed some of the rest of us in a very awkward position, and if we answered his first argument it would involve us in a very lengthy discussion. I notice also this:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
I wonder whether that is quite consistent with the maintenance of our whole court system as we have it at the present time. Then I notice also the following:
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
I wonder whether that is quite consistent with the maintenance of particular ranks and orders that we find to such an extent even in this democratic country.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We got rid of knighthoods.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I may also quote
the following from the Sermon on the Mount:
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
I wonder if that is quite consistent with the many decisions that are rendered by the Department of Justice when we make appeals for mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
I wonder, too if that is always carried out, whether our system of militarism and police
Divorce

is absolutely in accord with the teaching of the One who gave us the Sermon on the Mount.


Mr. DUFF:: Is my hon. friend in the
category of the peacemakers?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not suggesting who is in that category.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Those who fought
church union-they are the peacemakers.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then may I call
the attention of the House to this:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. Thou shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment;
I wonder whether that is exactly in conformity with the faith of those who defeated the motion that was introduced for the abolition of capital punishment.
I say unto you, Swear not at all.
Is that to be interpreted literally, as our friends the Quakers do when they refuse to take even legal oaths?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I rise to a point or order, Mr. Speaker, and call your attention to the rule of the House that theological discussions cannot be engaged in. My hon. friend is preaching a sermon and with the Bible in his hand is endeavouring to show us all our sins and iniquities.


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member for Hants to quote the rule that he is invoking.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to quote two or three more1 phrases from this document which has been used by the hon. member for Lotbiniere as the basis on which we should decide the question before the House:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an 2ye, and a tooth for a tooth; But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
I ask again, whether our whole system of national defence, our whole system of courts, our whole system of commercialism, are at all in accord with the teaching of this Sermon on the Mount. If they are not-well, I do not want to be the one to do all the judging in this case, but I would suggest that it is hardly fair to ask this House to base its discussion on the authority of a document whose teachings are not generally followed.
The hon. gentleman has suggested further that divorce is essentially immoral in charac-

ter. May I remind him?-that the real meaning of the word " immoral " is " that which is against established custom ", and that morality has varied from land to land and from age to age. We are here deciding what will be the established custom for this country, and I have no hesitation in saying that possibly in the working out of the problem we may establish a higher morality than that which has prevailed in the past. After all, what is marriage? Surely, the fundamental basis of it is simply the union of a man and a woman. We have the union of male and female in the lower animals about us. In the case of human beings certain sanctions have been thrown around this union.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Very properly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite properly, as
the hon. member for Brome suggests, because to-day no individual man nor individual woman can entirely disregard the rights of the community and the welfare of the nations as a whole. For a long time these sanctions were closely connected with the authority of the church. I take it that according to the laws of England we are very largely free from the dominance of one particular church, and that we have passed beyond the stage when one particular religious ecclesiastical body can determine what others outside of that communion shall do. In this country it is the state that has decided conditions under which marriage may be undertaken. To no small extent the very institution of marriage rests on certain property rights and adjustments. There is not very much doubt about that, and it is, perhaps, necessary, if we are to have property at all, that certain property rights should be safeguarded in this way. That, I think, can be done even under a system of divorce. It seems to me, personally, that the welfare of the man and woman concerned is of infinitely greater importance than any property considerations that may be involved.
I should like to ask: If divorce is refused, what alternative do we have? Most of us know sufficient about the actual conditions of the world to recognize that very often the alternative is irregular connections of all kinds, and it is an open question, whether from the standpoint of morality it is not better to have things open and aboveboard than to have all sorts of clandestine or illicit arrangements. I quite recognize that an ideal element enters into marriage. Some of my hon. friends who have spoken are inclined to regard marriage as a sacrament. I almost like the word, not in the ecclesiastical sense at

Divorce
all, but rather that there is something of a spiritual union in the ideal relationship which ought to exist between husband and w-ife. But let me speak of the other side, that where there is no love in such a union, the position of a woman under the marriage law may be very little 'better than that of a legalized prostitute, and it is against that situation that I would protest. I am speaking particularly of the woman because marriage is much more vital to her than it is to the man. The position of a woman when she has lost any love for her husband, nay, even lost respect for him, is intolerable under present conditions, and there should be some way in which real relief should be granted.
Reference has been made to the effect of divorces upon children, and to me that is one of the strongest reasons for limiting divorce; but I cannot be blind to the fact that the position of children in a home where there is no real union between husband and wife is by no means an ideal one. In many respects under those circumstances the home might be broken up and the children have a happier life anid better prospects for the future if taken out of a home of that character. Therefore, even considering the welfare of the children, I cannot agree that we should retain the marriage bond as inviolable under every condition imaginable.
May I suggest that this demand which is coming for a larger measure of freedom in dissolving the marriage contract is coming, at least in part, because of the higher position that is being attained by women? For many generations, for many centuries, woman has been regarded as distinctly inferior. Her legal status has been inferior; her educational opportunities have been inferior; her economic position has been inferior. In some instances she was little more than a chattel. In many cases she had few property rights, and so she was more or less under the control and dominance of her husband, come what might I am glad to think that owing to various historical developments, women are gradually obtaining a position of equality with men. If they do so, that will have to be recognized in our various public institutions.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is being recognized.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. This is simply another indication of the demand for such a recognition. In closing, for I do not want more than to indicate these positions, let me suggest that all the bill is asking for is this, that women in the west should be placed in the same position as women in eastern Canada. Surely they ought not to be denied that right. How can anyone in eastern Canada deny westerners that right? Further, the bill asks simply that women in the west ^hall have the same rights as men in the west now have, and I say: How can any man who respects women and the new position of women in the world, deny women that right?


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. member not
admit that my amendment has no bearing on the effect of the bill in respect of equalization of the rights of women and men?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would ask whether the hon. member would vote in favour of the bill in that case?


Thomas Vien: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought so, and
it seems to me that this is simply one way of evading what would be the effect of the bill.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will allow me
a correction. It is not an evasion of the bill. As I said in my opening remarks, I resisted the bill. The House ipassed judgment on the principle of the bill. This amendment has nothing to do with the principle of the bill in so far as it tends to equalize the rights of women as compared with the rights of the men. It simply adds to the bill a clause which is quite different and implementary of the bill itself.	'


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have already said that it seems to me the amendment proposed absolutely alters the character of divorce itself.


Thomas Vien: Yes-not of the bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not of the bill,
but that does not prevent me from saying that it would seem as if this were a means of defeating the end which the bill has in view.


Thomas Vien: It cannot be so.
Mr. WOO-DSAATORTH:	Certainly it would
result in the defeat of the end which the bill has in view, and if, after mature consideration, we are to decide that divorce is absolutely' unchristian, immoral and should be against the laws of the land, let us decide that question on its merits. But when we have presented to us a definite bill asking simply that the women of western Canada shall be given the same rights as the women of eastern Canada; that the women of western Canada shall be given the same rights as the men of western Canada; then I do not see, if we
Divorce

have any idea of justice, how we can refuse to endorse the principle contained in the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to approach this question altogether along the lines .indicated in some of the speeches. I suppose it is open to us all still to have our own convictions. I am going to hold to mine. And I suppose it is also proper to say that we should not unfairly endeavour to enforce our religious convictions upon anybody else. Personally, I still believe marriage is a sacrament, and I have heard nothing here to-day which changes that belief. On the other hand, I recognize that while that is a moral law obligatory on me, it well may be a moral law which I have no right to force upon somebody else whose sincere religious convictions are different from my own. My feeling on this matter is that our chief concern ought to be as to what is the right thing to do in the interests of the country as a whole and for the good of the Canadian people. I am not now going into the question of divorce on principle one way or the other. I tell you frankly that I am going to vote against the amendment. In the .present situation, having regard to society; having regard to civilization such as, unfortunately, it is in some aspects; having regard to custom, which has such far-reaching influences, the custom that has grown up in our midst-having regard to all these things, I do not think it would be right for me to vote for the amendment. At the same time, however, I want to say that in voting against it I am going to take the opportunity of moving another resolution at a later stage. And I shall tell the House now briefly what my views are on the resolution which I shall propose.
First of all, apart from any consideration, moral or other, there should be no discrimination as between one sex and another or one part of, the country and some other. The people in the east and the people in the west should be treated' alike; everything should be on an equal basis; there should be no favours shown as between man and woman or as between district and district. The thing is so plain as not to need stating. I do not want to quarrel with the act, but I do think that we should not allow any condition to prevail which enables a man to go out and do a wrong merely for the purpose of breaking what he regards as a shackle. And such an opportunity is at present afforded. One eminent judge in England, speaking on this very question some time ago, said that there were innumerable divorces being sought in England at the 
present time the evidence in connection with which was merely a matter of arrangement between the parties, who go out deliberately and commit sin for the purpose of putting themselves in a position to obtain a divorce. De we want that sort of thing? I am not now speaking from the point of view of any religious tenet or from any religious feeling. I ask, however, is it a good thing for the Canadian home or for civilization at large that what I am still old-fashioned enough to believe is the corner-stone of a nation, the home, should at any time be broken up at anybody's whim without the slightest penalty ensuing? Do we want such a condition to exist in this country? I want to see the innocent protected and the guilty placed where at least it would not .pay them to go out and make evidence for the purpose perhaps of ruining some other woman a little later on. That is what I should like to see done, and it is what I think we ought to bring about. And the motion I intend to move later on, after the present amendment is voted upon, is one to the effect that in cases of divorce the innocent may remarry but the guilty shall not be allowed to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire first of all to refer to a
ne-wspaper criticism I read, that my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) had been granted the privilege of moving the third reading of the bill to-day 'because of the fact that he had agreed to postpone the consideration of it on two occasions when he had the right to do so, and this at the request of the government. It is said that he had been .promised that he should be given the opportunity of moving the bill at all its stages, and that is the reason the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) enabled him to bring the matter on to-day. I merely refer to this in passing.
I am going to vote for the amendment. I * am opposed to divorce on principle and I am 1 net ashamed to say so; and no
5 p.m. compromise on this question can be acceptable to me. I am therefore opposed to- (he bill for the reason that it would facilitate divorce, while I am in favour of the amendment because I am certain that it would restrict the evil. The argument that women should have equal rights with men is, I admit, a popular argument especially in these times, but I do not admit the soundness of it in this instance. If divorce is a wrong, then no one has a right to commit that wrong; and the argument that men have the privilege today of doing a wrong is not a sound reason

Divorce
why women should be given the same privilege.


Mr. GOOD:: Does the minister think it
right for one section of the Canadian people- and. I take it a minor section-to impose its ideas forcibly upon the majority of Canadians on a question of this kind?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know what my hon. friend argues or insinuates; I do not want to force my views on anybody. I think however that I have as much right as my hon. friend to express my opinions, and I am merely availing myself of that right. My views on this subject may not please the hon. member and I do not intend to attempt to force them uipon him. But I hope that he will not try to prevent me from expressing them.


William Charles Good: I was misunderstood; perhaps I may be allowed to repeat the question. Is it right to impose upon the majority of the provinces of Canada who are now recognizing and sanctioning divorce, a restriction which is accepted and believed in by a minority of the Canadian people?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not agree with the
hon. member as to where the majority or the mincrity lies in this case. My hon. friend has already offered resolutions in this House for which he claimed the support of the majority of the Canadian people; and really I know he is wrong in that assumption, for the majority cf the Canadian peoiple are against some of the proposals he has advanced. He may be wrong even in this instance. So far as the argument of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) is concerned, that the women of the west should be treated as the women cf the east are treated, I do not know what he means; the women of the west have exactly the same right to come and apply to this parliament for divorce as have the women of Quebec or Ontario.


Andrew Ross McMaster: At greater expense.


Ernest Lapointe: At greater expense if
you consider the cost of bringing witnesses. But that does not at all take from the force of my argument that they are absolutely on the same legal footing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Technically they
are equal, but in practice they are not.


Lewis Herbert Martell: As a matter of law can
a person domiciled in a province which has a divorce court come to the Senate of Canada for a divorce, and would the powers of the Senate be co-equal with those of the provincial court in that respect?


Ernest Lapointe: I have no doubt that
that is the case. Now, is it not a tragedy- the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-cil) has referred to it-to witness in this House the number of divorces increasing every year, as has been the case for the last three or four years? We are spending hours every week enacting legislation on divorce, legislation which always contains the words, "right to marry again." We were proud of our record in that matter until very recently, but we seem to envy the record of our neighbours to the south, and we are going well in the direction of equalizing our record with theirs. Everybody speaks of equality and equalization; it seems we are working in that direction. I say it is a tragedy, and I absolutely agree with the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) as to the necessity of preserving the home; and that everything that breaks u,p the home is an evil in itself. W7hen we talk of this question of divorce we very often forget the children. I claim that when a man and his wife have children their position is changed; they owe themselves to their family and to their children; they are not free if they were free before. But nobody speaks about the children. Parents cannot divest themselves of that duty, and certain considerations which I have heard [DOT] expressed this afternoon must disappear when this moral and social question, so important to society, is considered.
As I have said, I believe that divorce is an evil, and that we should not increase the facilities to secure it. I am opposed to the bill for that reason. I am in favour of the amendment, because I know that if the right to marry again is taken away from applicants for divorce we shall not have to pass so many divorce bills every week during session of parliament. If the amendment carries I know that it will be a very effective remedy for the evil. I will vote for the amendment. As to the amendment the hon. member for West-York (Sir Henry Drayton) said he would move, in view of the fact that, it would partly restrict the evil I think I will support it if the amendment of the hon. member for Lot-biniere is not carried.


Mr. HOEY:: If this amendment carried,
would the province of Manitoba, which now has its divorce court, still have the right to grant divorces in that province with the right to marry again?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Robert Alexander Hoey: This amendment would apply to the whole Dominion.
Divorce


Ernest Lapointe: Everybody would be
equal, if it is equality my bon. friend seeks.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I seek information.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: I believe it is the desire, Mr. Speaker, of everyone in this House that the home should be preserved. I believe the preservation of the home as an institution in the future lies almost entirely in the hands of the men. If they are willing to give to women economic freedom within that home; if they are willing to live by the standard that they wish the women to live by, the home will be preserved. If the preservation of the home means the enslavement of women, economically or morally, then we had better break it, and for that reason I will support the bill and I will vote against the amendment. I would ask men to think of that and think of it seriously. I do believe that the economic freedom of women is one of the things that is causing increasing divorces, because women will not tolerate what they once had to tolerate. You can smile about it if you like, but I know a lot of men who talk very learnedly on a subject like this and who want women to be very pure and very chaste when they themselves are not fit to associate with a chaste and pure woman. So, when we have a single standard for men and women, both morally and economically, we shall have a home that is well worth preserving, and I think we can be quite sure it will be preserved.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: I wish to inform hon.
members on both sides that when the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) speaks, he closes the debate, and if any other hon. member wishes to express his views he should do so now.	,


Thomas William Bird: As I have
followed the debate, Mr. Speaker, I judge that the battle has been fought around the sanctity of the home. That is a point, I think, on which we are all agreed, at least verbally. But a question is arising in my mind as to the meaning we are putting into the words, "the sanctity of the home." I believe there is a fundamental difference of opinion here, and we ought to be frank and confess to it. I believe the mover of the amendment (Mr. Vien) has a somewhat different view of what constitutes the sanctity of the home from the view that I hold. However much I disagree with the mover of the amendment I greatly admire the manner in which he has approached this subject. His view of the sanctity of the home, however, is not one that I could entertain, biblical teaching, especially the teach-
ing of Jesus, was centred on the preservation of the sanctity of the home; there was no other consideration in the mind of any biblical teacher. It was not the view of Christ or of the New Testament that the sanctity of the home could be brought about by any legal or ecclesiastical enactment. The sanctity of'the home consists in the purity of the home, and the only thing that dissolves the home tie is not the divorce bill, but the act of infidelity. The only logical position for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to take, believing what he does, that the sanctity of the home must be kept inviolate, is to attach a penalty to the act of infidelity. If infidelity is a crime against the home and against the state, why does the Minister of Justice not make it a penal offence? That is the test that I would apply to the reasoning of, the Minister of Justice.
Now, I for one do not deprecate the introduction of theological points of view into this debate; I think it is a good sign that such allusions can be made in this House. But this debate has established once again that you can prove almost anything by Scripture. If I were a polygamist I could substantiate my position quite easily from Scripture, and if I believed in celibacy I could do exactly the same thing. There is no point in referring to Scripture as the hon. member did in moving the amendment. The one thing that he did prove, but which he did not mean to prove, was that the teachers of Scripture were very human and that they recognized the relativity of all human laws and enactments. I think the reference in the New Testament to the Mosaic legislation is very significant. Moses would not have been a wise legislator if he had legis'ated in any other way than he did. He took into consideration, when he made his laws, the weaknesses of human nature. When we come to the New Testament, the same law of relativity must be confessed. The position of equality as between man and vroman is taught in the New Testament, and I judge that that is the point in dispute at the present time. The Apostle Paul was quoted-another case of a biblical teacher whose teaching must be taken very relatively. I think the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) proved that the Sermon on the Mount must be taken relatively if it is to be taken at all. But the teaching of Paul was quoted by the hon. member who moved the amendment, the teaching of Paul with, not its Hebrew background', but its pagan background, because he was dealing solely with pagan customs in regard to marriage and

Divorce
divorce, and with the pagan view of the relative positions of man and woman; and are we in this House, in the twentieth century, going to stand behind pagan conceptions of the relative positions of man and woman in the social order? Paul distinctly in his teaching to the Corinthians recognizes the situation -which existed at that time, in which it was an unlawful thing for a woman to cut her hair. I wonder where we should be at the present time if the Pauline teaching was carried out literally. It is a glory for man to crop his hair, but it was a scandal for a woman to do the same thing. In many other things Paul's teaching is marred in that *way, by conforming itself to the pagan surroundings in which he was called upon to preach the gospel in which there is no difference as between man and woman. Yes, and Paul was a celibate, and not only a celibate, but he was opposed to marriage on any ground. Talk about race suicide-Paul was a race suicidist with a vengeance I He believed that marriage was undesirable in that age, and if there is one way of committing race suicide, that is the way.


Thomas Vien: I think the hon. member is a bit mistaken. Paul said that those who married did well, but that those who did not marry did better. I do not believe my hon. friend is correct in saying that Paul was opposed to marriage as an institution.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Better to marry than
to bum, he said.


Thomas William Bird: He was speaking relatively.
He knew that anything he said would not prevent people from getting married, but he gave it as his judgment, the end of the world being imminent, that it was better for them to remain as they were because to marry would only bring them unnecessary trouble.
As I said, here is a fundamental difference of opinion. You cannot legislate the home into sanctity. You cannot impose sanctity upon family relationships. I believe that here is a point of view which my hon. friend would do well to consider-if we can make this a little clearing house for ideas: I think there is a good deal in what he contends, that we ought to surround the home with certain artificial restrictions, with as many restrictions as it can bear, being the human institution it is. But on the other hand, having regard to what constitutes the real sanctity of the home, we must by all means in our power, whether social or economic, make it possible for that sanctity to be a real thing.
That is the point of view which I am afraid my hon. friend does not grasp. We are living in an age when our women are going out day by day into our offices and factories to make their living. We are not living in the first century A.D., we are living in the twentieth century, when the position of women in society has been entirely transformed; and when you bring man and woman together to form a home, you must make it possible for them to keep that home intact. Why, when you read the divorce cases that come before this House, I will guarantee that drink is at the bottom of ninety per cent of them.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Can we legislate the
home into sobriety?


Thomas William Bird: If my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is interested in the sanctity of the home, let him make it impossible for drink to enter our homes. And also, on the economic side:	I want to point out to the Minister of
Justice that economically considered it is almost impossible for the home nowadays to maintain its sanctity. It takes a lot to make a home. A home is not merely a spiritual thing, it is not a rarefied thing; it takes a house, it takes furniture, it takes a weekly wage; it takes many things to make a home in which both the man and the woman and the children may be contented and happy; and I would throw out the suggestion to my hon. friends that if they are interested in the sanctity of the home, which I believe they are, they should not be so much interested in imposing upon it artificial restrictions, either ecclesiastical or civil, but they should see to it that the very foundations -which make a home possible are secure, make it possible for man and woman to live together and rear their children in decency and refinement. If sanctity was encouraged in that direction, the time would come when we could do without restrictions of any kind, because it is in the very nature of human beings to live together; it is in their very soul to do it, and it is only our conditions which drive them into the follies in which they ultimately land in many cases.
That is my point of view. I do not put it forth as against that of my hon. friend, but rather as in complement to it. I think that a discussion of this kind is capable of achieving very much in thus giving us an opportunity of frankly exposing what our attitude is. I am sorry that we should sometimes seem to come at these questions from diametrically opposite angles; but our training, our environment, has decided that for ois, we are not to blame for that. But we are to blame if
3S66
Divorce

somehow or other we cannot be reasonable with each other, and cannot out of these difficult situations arrive at something that will be for the good of our country which we all have at heart.


Hewitt Bostock: A moment ago I said
that the speech of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) would close-the debate; I should have said the hon. member for Lot-biniere. So the hon. member for West Calgary may speak now if he desires.


William Charles Good: I rise just for
a moment to try to make myself plain to the Minister of Justice. He, I think, rather seriously misunderstood my question. I had in mind the situation which faces us now in all of the provinces, except Ontario and Quebec, where divorce courts are in operation. I presume that the people in those provinces have accepted the practice of divorce, and it occurred to me that it was a pretty serious thing to undertake such a revolutionary change, suddenly, and in the form of an amendment to a bill which deals with another matter; to upset the established practice of generations in all of our provinces, except one, or at the most two. I did not suggest that the Minister of Justice was wrong in speaking and expressing his views. He has as -much right to express his views as anybody in this House, and we are always very glad to hear him. I credit him with entire sincerity. But I do call in question the propriety of attempting such a revolutionary change in t'he whole question of divorce by way of an amendment to a bill which really deals with another matter.
I have only this to say in conclusion:	In
this debate we are, I submit, confusing and co-mingling two distinct questions. There is the question dealt with by the hon. member for Lotbiniere as to the propriety of granting divorces in the commonly accepted sense of that term. That is a big question and a very important one, and I am free to agree with a great deal of what he says. I think divorce is a tremendous evil, and it is a question we ought to face, but we ought not to face it in the form of an amendment to a bill which deals with the equalization of the grounds of divorce as between men and women, which attempts to remedy a specific unfair discrimination, and1 I do submit that we ought, at the present time, to confine our attention to the one specific question dealt with by the bill, and leave for another time the general question, which is entirely separate, as to what ought to be the attitude of 
the Canadian people on the granting of divorce in general.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will admit
that the amendment as proposed does not affect the purpose of the bill in so far as it means equalization of the rights of women and men. It simply adds something to it in introducing that principle of which the hon. member has just spoken.


William Charles Good: Well, the addition practically,
nullifies the whole practice of divorce throughout Canada. I do not think that it is strictly in order as an amendment to the bill.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary):	In
presenting this bill for the consideration of parliament I did not for a single moment anticipate that it would have aroused such a discussion and such a wide difference of opinion. I want to make it abundantly clear at the outset that the purpose of the bill is to secure equality as between men and women in western Canada so far as the grounds for divorce are concerned. It was introduced for no other purpose whatsoever.
It has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and on the previous occasion when this matter was discussed, that in the courts of the four western provinces men and women stand in a different position. To establish a case for divorce the man must only prove adultery on the part of his wife; the wife must not only establish adultery on the part of her husband but in addition to that prove legal cruelty, or desertion for a period of at least two years. The bill was carefully designed and drawn for that specific purpose, to place men and women on a parity in that respect. By reference to the bill itself hon. gentlemen will see this explanatory note:
The sole object of this bill is to give the wife the right to divorce her husband on the same ground (namely, adultery) that the husband can now divorce his wife.
Legislation to the same effect was passed by the Imperial parliament in "An Act to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857" chapter 19, 1923 (Imperial statutes).
That law was passed by the same Imperial parliament to which the hon. member for Lotbiniere referred in such glowing terms a short time ago.
Now the Minister of Justice tells us that there is no necessity for this legislation; that men and women are on a parity now; that women in western Canada can come before this parliament, and on a basis of equality secure the adjustment of their rights in this particular kind of action. That is perfectly

Divorce
true, but the Minister of Justice completely overlooks the practical difficulties in the way. He fails to realize that a woman is frequently almost entirely without funds for this purpose. She has to come a long distance, she has to incur great travelling expenses, she has to pay the Senate, $210, I think, as a preliminary payment, and she must be represented by a lawyer before the Senate committee. Yet the Minister of Justice is content to call that "equality," where a woman, from financial consideration alone, is utterly unable to meet the requirements which he praises so highly.


Andrew Ross McMaster: But which he does not
like.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Quite so. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose for which this bill was presented for the consideration of parliament. I want now to consider the purpose which my hon. friend (Mr. Vien) has in mind in presenting his amendment this afternoon. First of all he introduced an entirely new proposition, a proposition not related to the question of equality at all. However, I am not suggesting that his amendment is out of order. The hon. member opposed the bill on its second reading when the principle was established by this House. Now in order to accomplish his purpose apd to put the bill out on the street, he is introducing another controversial subject which is not directly related' to the issue raised by the bill, and seeks in that way to accomplish by an indirect method what he was not able to accomplish directly. It is strange that the hon. member, in this year of grace 1925, finds his bosom surging with the necessity of abolishing divorce completely. He has been a member of this House for at least eight years. Hundreds of divorce bills have passed the House in that time. I have looked through the record of the hon. member, and never on a single occasion has he presented an amendment here to accomplish this purpose in any particular instance whatsoever. It is strange that he should now^-


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend is not fair in
his statement, although I am sure that he wishes to be. He will recall that in the De Martigny case I not only opposed the divorce in the House but I fought it in committee. On that occasion I was severely criticized. I was called a bigot and a narrow-minded man because of my opposition to that divorce. Furthermore my hon. friend knows well that it is the practice for all Roman Catholics in this House to abstain from voting on these bills. They do so because they know that these bills will be
adopted by the vast majority of members. While on my feet I wish to remind my hon. friend that the purpose of my amendment this afternoon is absolutely consistent with my attitude in the past. The amendment has been submitted on the present occasion because my hon. friend's bill is the first general law dealing with divorce that has ever been introduced into this parliament. Other legislation in the past had to do with special cases.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I give the hon. gentleman
the credit for having opposed one divorce decree out of the many that have been passed since he became a member of this House.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend is not right
even there.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I have my hon. friend's own
statement as authority.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will allow me to correct him there. He knows well that the hon. members of the same religious faith as myself constantly oppose the granting of divorces, and we abstain from voting for bills of divorce when they come before the House.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I was not speaking about the opposition of the hon. gentleman to any particular bill whether shown openly or in the method which he suggests. What I did say was that for the first time in his parliamentary career he has presented an amendment to this House-


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will allow me
to correct him again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: The correction I wish to make is to state that this is the first time any law of general application on the subject of divorce has been presented to parliament to my knowledge by any hon. member.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I want to correct my hon.
friend right there. In 1919 a general divorce bill was presented to this House.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: And we voted against
it.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My suggestion is that on that
occasion the hon. gentleman did not seize the opportunity afforded him to present the amendment which he now proposes to this bill designed to put women on a parity with men so far as divorce is concerned.


Ernest Lapointe: I was a member of this parliament at- the time. I opposed the bill and it did not reach second reading.
Divorce


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My recollection differs from
that of the hon. Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite certain of
what I state.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My recollection of the matter
still differs from that of the hon. Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: We cannot both be
right. I know the hon. member is wrong.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Hansard will show. Now, Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment is simply to eliminate divorce as ordinarily understood in this country and to establish in the rest of Canada the law of separation as it now obtains in the province of Quebec. That, I think, is substantially the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lot-biniere. It is an amazing amendment. First of all, it makes no distinction as between the innocent and the guilty, it puts them on exactly the same plane.


Andrew Ross McMaster: He stands for equality.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: And yet the hon. member
would convince us that he stands for equality. May I ask him this question:	Suppose, for
example, that a couple with children secured a divorce, and subsequently they realized that they had made a mistake and would, if the law permitted, remarry and reclaim their children, what would be the attitude of my hon. friend? Would he deny that couple the right to remarry? That is the effect of his extreme and amazing amendment.


Thomas Vien: I am ready to enlarge my
amendment to cover that case.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: My hon friend should have considered this and many other things at the time he drafted his amendment. But that is not all. The amendment is wholly frail and ineffective, because the situation will be that people denied equality of rights in this country will promptly go to the United States, and there my hon. friend has no jurisdiction and can secure none by reason of his amendment. Let me tell my hon. friend a situation which is arising in this country. I have in my hand a statement from the General Statistics branch regarding divorces in Canada, published by the authority of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I read therein the following:
A fact which throwns considerable new light on the divorce situation in Canada is found in the Marriage and Divorce Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census. The statistics of this publication indicate the surprisingly large extent to which divorces are granted in that country to persons married in Canada. Thus, in 1922, no fewer than 1,368 divorce decrees were granted to couples married in Canada, a number more than two and a half times as large as the total number

granted in Canada in the same year. This number also formed 36.2 per cent of the number of divorces granted in the United States during the year to couples married in foreign countries, while, at the same time, the percentage of the Canadian-born population to the total foreign born amounted to only 8.1 per cent.
The bulletin continues:
It is possible that many Canadians acquire residence in the United States for the sole purpose of obtaining divorce because, in general, divorce laws are more liberal in the United States than in Canada.
That situation would develop still further, and people denied justice in this country would simply go elsewhere to secure it.
Now, I have no objection to anyone holding conscientious views on any question, and1 I am prepared to concede to him imy resipeot, as indeed I demand the same for my own views, but I do say that when we come before parliament with a simple proposition designed to establish equality between the sexes in relation to divorce, I do not think that it is either desirable or proper that an amendment, controversial in its character, should be introduced for the sole purpose of killing the bill and thus leaving the women of western Canada in the position of inequality not only with respect to their sisters in eastern Canada but also with respect to their menfolk in western Canada.
The hon. ex-Mdni^ter of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has suggested that if this amendment fails he is prepared to move another one, which will deny the right to the guilty party to remarry, but will not impose 'the same restriction upon the innocent party. I have no serious objection to an amendment of that character. If the courts were given discretion in any particular case to order that the guilty party should not remarry, then it seems to me that that would be doing only a measure of justice.
Mr. MioMASTER: But would not that be likely to encourage far more illicit connections by the guilty party in after life?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Undoubtedly there is a great deal of truth in what the hon. member for Brome says. The Royal Commission on Divorce in England in 1912 reached a similar conclusion. After examining the matter from all angles, they found that to deny even to the guilty the right to remarry would simply have the effect of increasing the number of illicit relationships, and consequently doing more harm than good. But, even in view of that finding, personally, I have no dbjection to some restriction being imposed on the guilty party. I do say, however, to the ex-Minister of Finance that if he moves his suggested amendment,, and it meets with the

Divorce
favour of the House, perhaps no more effective way can be taken of killing this bill, because then it will have to be put down again for third reading, and I cannot ask the government-for they are under no obligation in the matter-to fix another day for the third reading; with the result that the bill will be in exactly 'the same position as it was at the end of last session.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I am not of the same religious persuasion as the mover of the amendment (Mr. Vien), so that possibly I cannot be charged with having my views influenced in the same way as his may be; nevertheless I find that I do hold views similar to his. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that divorce is wrong in principle and in practice. I cannot find anything in my nature that is favourable towards divorce and remarriage. I can go so far as to favour divorce if remarriage is prohibited. A number of quotations have been made this afternoon from the Great Book and the words of the Great Teacher. It caused me to let my mind run away back prior to the writing of this Great Book and the teachings of the Great Teacher. I am led to the conclusion that the original divine intention was for one man and one woman to continue as one flesh so long as either one should live. If it had been otherwise, I am quite convinced that, instead of one woman being created in the Garden of Eden, there would have been an alternative woman created so that if Adam were not satisfied with Mother Eve, he would have somebody else that he could take as his companion. That kind of condition existed on down until the time of Moses, which was, I believe, some twenty-five hundred years later in the world's history. We could mention a number of cases that are exceptions to the rule, but exceptions always prove the general rule. When the Great Teacher was here upon earth, he was asked as regards the law instituted by Moses some twenty-five hundred years after creation, whether he would sanction divorce or not, and he said:
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.
I prefer to take the original intention of the Creator that from the beginning it was not intended that man should put away his wife. Feeling as I do, I propose to support the amendment. In supporting the amendment, I feel it will not do away with the principle as embodied in the bill. The principle of the bill is to bring into effect equality as between man and woman in western Canada, and I am heartily in accord with that principle.
The amendment does not affect that principle. The same equality stands. If the amendment is voted down and another amendment is proposed, as has been intimated by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), it is next best to this amendment, and I shall certainly support the proposed second amendment.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first occasion on which issues have been confused by the bringing in of an amendment, and before we vote upon the amendment in its particular form or consider any subsequent amendment, it is necessary that we should clearly and definitely understand what we are voting on and what effect our votes will have. It. is not my purpose to enter at any length into the theological discussion that has taken place. I am not prepared to admit that any of the statements that have been made by brethren surrounding me wou'd altogether meet with my approval, and I would not like to say that their statement of New Testament teaching absolutely agrees with mine.
I should like to pay tribute to the spirit of the mover of the amendment (Mr. Vien) and the emphasis which he has laid upon the teaching of Jesus Christ. It might be well for us to remember that Christ was speaking to those who accepted him as Lord and Master. He was undertaking to lay down for those who accepted his teaching, what should be the law, and it will always be a difficult proposition for those placed in a position such as we are in as legislators to decide just how far we should impose upon others those laws which we accept for our personal guidance. The question of divorce is not the only question which we have to consider when we come to determine how far we can make the teachings of Jesus Christ applicable to the people of our land. So, for my part, I propose to put that question aside and to say that the teachings of Jesus Christ, so far as I am concerned, are for my personal guidance and not for me to seek to impose them upon others.
Let us consider what will be the effect of this amendment. I know the mover of the amendment has repudiated the idea that he wishes to defeat the bill. He says that this bill has already passed its second reading by a majority of the House and that his amendment will simply add a clause to the bill. That will not be the effect. The effect of the amendment, taking it in the words in which it is given is that this bill be discharged from the order paper and that it

Divorce
again be referred to the committee with instructions to add the amendment. Undoubtedly, the effect of carrying this amendment at this late stage of the session will simply be to bury the bill in committee. If the hon. gentleman had been perfectly sincere in his declaration that that would be the only effect of his amendment, he might very well have moved his amendment as an amendment to this bill, without moving that it be discharged from the order paper. I am not thoroughly well informed in regard to the procedure in the House, and if I have not correctly stated the matter, I should like to get a ruling from the Speaker. But I think the hon. member could very well have achieved his purpose in that way, if that was the only purpose he had. Am I wrong in that?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I speak subject to correction, but I think a bill has to be ordered back into committee before it can be amended.


Thomas Vien: On the third reading.


John Livingstone Brown: In that case I submit to the correction. Let me ask this question: Is there any difference, in that regard, between public bills and private bills?	.


Thomas Vien: No, they are the same.


John Livingstone Brown: Because when the Church
Union bill was before the House for its third reading last year, amendments were certainly moved, and my understanding of the matter was that an amendment could similarly be moved on the third reading of a bill such as this unless there is a difference between a public bill and a private bill.


Robert Forke: This is a public bill.


John Livingstone Brown: This is a public bill introduced by a private member. It is not a private bill. If I understand the matter correctly, unless there is such a difference in procedure, there is no reason why the course which I have suggested cannot be followed, and the hon. member would then have an opportunity of demonstrating his good faith.


Mr. EULER:: If there is such a rule, it could easily be suspended by consent of the House.


Thomas Vien: I was advised by parliamentary counsel that this was the only course under the rules of the House.


John Livingstone Brown: This is a point on which we might very well get a ruling from the Speaker. I would suggest, if the course which I have indicated is in, harmony with the

proper procedure of the House, we might very well follow it. I think the proper procedure at this time would be to vote down the amendment and carry the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I beg to move
the amendment which is now in your hands. Mr. Speaker. We have already discussed the subject fully and as every hon. member nas made up his mind upon it we might as well dispose of my amendment now. I do not want to move the amendment out of committee; I should like the House to consider this as an amendment moved in the House on the third reading, so that the bill will not be in any way impaired. The amendment is as follows:
In any case where a divorce is granted by an act of parliament or by the decision of any court in Canada or elsewhere, no person so divorced and found guilty of adultery shall have the right to marry again during the life of the other spouse, any other person, and any divorced person so found guilty of adultery upon so marrying again may be proceeded against and adjudged guilty of bigamy and subject to the penalties for such crime made and provided as fully and completely as if such divorce had not been granted.
Every order or judgment and every act of parliament granting a divorce on the ground of adultery shall contain an express declaration that the guilty party shall not be permitted to marry again except as above provided.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment.


Thomas Vien: May I suggest to the hon. member that he should add to the amendment the words, "domiciled in Canada," because we cannot legislate for any except those who are domiciled in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is understood.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the House is likely to be guilty of a piece of legislation that has been ill considered. I have no sympathy with divorce and no desire to assist any guilty party, but there is another side to this question that the House ought to consider carefully before they vote upon it. The proposal of the-amendment is that the guilty party shall not be allowed to marry again, and to a certain degree I sympathize with that idea. But if we put that upon our statute books the result will be an increase of illegitimate children in this country that will be more deplorable than the remarriage of divorced per-247
sons. If a man has been found guilty of cause sufficient for divorce you cannot stop him from living with some other woman if he wants to, and if there are illegitimate children, those children will know of it as they grow up and it will 'be a very great detriment to their character and to their whole outlook in life.


Hewitt Bostock: I understood from the remarks of the mover of the amendment that the vote might be taken at once, and I put it by leave of the House, but as I understand further discussion will take place I will therefore call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, just before
the House rose I had risen to delay action on what I consider to be a very important piece of legislation. I had no intention of getting into the discussion, and when the amendment was defeated I think it should have been left there, because jntrodujeing anything further at this time simply confuses the issue without giving parliament sufficient opportunity to consider what we are really doing. I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, to find the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), by inference at least, approving of divorce. Perhaps if he were here he would say that he did not approve of diivoroe, but I submit that when any man undertakes to discuss a bill on divorce and places limits here and there, assists materially in preparing a bill on divorce, he is inferentially approving of divorce.


Mr.   YEEN@: No.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would think it would be much more consistent for any member of this House who does not believe in divorce to refrain from taking any part in framing a divorce bill.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend allow me an explanation on that? The second reading having been voted on, and the sentiment of the House having been manifest in respect of the principle of the bill, we accepted the inevitable, and we tried to apply such a corrective as would render it acceptable, by changing divorce into a mere separation.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The hon. gentleman's explanation may satisfy him, but it will hardly satisfy any logical mind, because if I did not believe in divorce under any circumstances, I certainly would not share in the respon-

Divorce

sibility of preparing a bill on divorce. So to that extent I think he is quite inconsistent.
He quoted for us the statements of Jesus Christ on divorce. He quoted I think from all the gospels, from three of them at least, but the very quotations he gave us destroyed his argument. According to what he read to the House, Christ on three different occasions said that a man should not divorce his wife, but he made an exception, as the hon. member read, Christ said, "Except for fornication or adultery." Now I submit to this body of lawmakers that if you make a law of any kind and say this or that shall not be done, except under certain circumstances, that exception rules the whole statute, and the exception that Christ made in his statement regarding divorce I think must logically be taken as his formal, deliberate deliverance on that point. So I think the hon. member has destroyed his argument so far as it rests on scriptural ground. I think he would have been more consistent if he had presented an amendment prohibiting divorce.


Thomas Vien: Would the hon. member vote for such an amendment?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, I would not, but that would be in accord with the views of my hon. friend, as I understand them.


Thomas Vien: When you cannot have a
whole loaf, you take half a loaf.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not think that is altogether the view of those from whom my hon. friend takes guidance on this question.


Thomas Vien: They are quite satisfied.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Oh, I do not think so. I think the proper course for the hon. member would have been to move to amend the bill by prohibiting divorce entirely but of course he would not do that. When he abandons that position, and takes the responsibility of placing limits upon the conduct of divorced persons, he can hardly be said to be opposed to the principle.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that marriage is primarily a civil- contract. It is so in this country; and it must be. It is the civil consequences of marriage with which this parliament or any other, must deal. The question of the moral basis of marriage is for the man or his wife, and perhaps for his religious leaders, to discuss, but this parliament cannot go beyond the civil consequences of divorce. If we are going to preserve our social organization, marriage must toe a civil contract primarily, above and beyond all other considerations. Those who unite in wedlock
[Mr. HoekenJ
and bring children into this world must be made responsible for their maintenance, their care, their education and training, and fortunately there is left in the human race a sufficient sense of that responsibility to induce most people, indeed the whole people with some very, very few exceptions, to observe those responsibilities. If it were not so, civilization could not hang together; certainly no such social organization as we have could last any length of time.
We have made clergymen the agents of the state in this country. Unlike some other nations, in Canada marriage is not altogether a civil- contract. It is that, in the first instance; it is that primarily, for no clergyman can unite in marriage two persons unless a license has been issued by the responsible civil authority. If that course is not followed, then in certain churches the banns are called, !hree times I think, which is taken to fill the place of the license that the state requires. To that extent in Canada we recognize the place that the church holds in marriage. I am not going to dispute the wisdom of the church having its place in performing the marriage ceremony and exercising that much control. But if we go to some other countries we will find that the situation is different. If my hon. friends went to Italy, and desired to be married, there, they would have to go before the -mayor or his deputy to be married. They might, if they chose-but that would be a matter of individual choice-have some kind of a religious blessing follow the civil marriage. If I am not mistaken, the same law is in existence in France, Mexico, and a number of other countries. But I want to point out here that even in Italy, which is perhaps the centre of the greatest single religious organization in the world, marriage is a civil contract, and if it were not for that, and that civil consequences could be imposed upon those who enter into such arrangements, Italy could not hold together any more than any other state. So that all this parliament is or can be concerned with is the oivil consequences of the marriage.
I objected to and voted against the amendment of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I also am opposed to the one moved by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), although the latter is only half as bad as the former because it imposes disabilities upon one instead of upon two. In the case of the amendment that was voted down before dinner, my hon. friend would punish the innocent and virtuous party equally with the guilty party. A more preposterous

Divorce
proposition has never been submitted to parliament. If a man or a woman has lived honestly and virtuously, and fulfilled all the marriage vows, and has suffered from the infideli.y of his or her partner, why should the punishment upon him or her be just as great as upon the guilty party? I cannot see how any person can defend that, although apparently there are some members on both sides of the House who are able to do it. But even a life partially ruined by the infidelity of the partner, under the amendment of my hon. friend opposite, would be wholly ruined by the law. There would be no chance of securing any degree of happiness under any other relation. I do not think that justice is to be found in the course where the innocent are made to suffer.
I am one who deplores the prevalence of divorce. I think it is one of the most destructive things in the social life of this continent, and of the other continent as well. But I do not think the remedy is to be found in preventing the legal separation and subsequent marriage of those who find it impossible to live happily together. Take a case such as many we have had in the reports from the Senate. I have looked over a -number of them, and I think that in at least a dozen instances the evidence goes to prove that a woman has left her husband and taken up with another man. She is living with him and they have several children. When the innocent party secures a divorce that couple can marry. They can in that way legitimize their children, and any further issue from that union would be legitimate. But leave them where they are, and what is the ease? Why, the children are illegitimate, and they carry that stigma to the grave. They not only carry it themselves but they pass it on to those who happen to be their children. Now reverse the case. A man leaves his wife and goes with another woman, and they live together. Is it better to have those two people living in that illicit way than to offer them some means by which they can live honestly together, and the issue of their union as they grow up to be men and women who can hold up their heads, and nobody point the finger of shame at them. You may say this thing is all undesirable. Of course it is, but you cannot stop that condition; you cannot stop it as long as the primal passions of mankind exist, and if that dies out the divorce courts will not be necessary. But let me ask my hon. friends, is it better for a woman to live in concubinage with a man than to make it possible for them to marry? Now consider the effect of 247i
marriage upon them? Here are a man and a woman living under circumstances of which they are ashamed whether they will acknowledge it or not. They are carrying with them all the time a sense of shame and of dissatisfaction with their lives. They cannot be useful citizens to the degree that nature has possibly endowed them. Well, back in their minds their exists the thought that they are living in this way. But if they were legally separated from their former partners and they could be legally married, there would be a change in their mental outlook that I venture to say would make them very different people socially, and as citizens of the country.
But to my mind, Sir, that is not the worst aspect of it. Consider the position of their children, the innocent issue of an illicit union. You make that illicit union permanent, and give no hope to those little ones born out of it to take their places as the legitimate offspring of a married couple, and they will carry that stigma to the grave. They will be pointed out at school; they will be pointed to as they grow up; they will carry a burden on their minds that is more destructive to their mental and spiritual development than anything else that can happen to them. I think it would be a mistake for this parliament to put even a hundred or a thousand people in such a position as that. If you could stop all vice, if you could stop all impropriety it would be different. But you cannot, and that fact might as well be recognized. That being so, let us make the best of the situation as we find it to-day, and apply such remedies as would be useful in the interests of society as a whole. I can imagine, Mr. Speaker, a boy or a girl bom of such a union growing up to a marriageable age and, perhaps, marrying some person who is not aware of the bar sinister, but who afterwards discovers it. There would' creep into that home, and between that couple something that could never be eradicated; there would be a loss of confidence and a loss of that happiness that might otherwise have been secured if the bar had not been there. Happiness to a couple under such circumstances is impossible. And you know, Mr. Speaker, and every man in this House knows, that that kind of thing is carried on from generation to generation. There are men in important places in the public life of the world who are still pointed to as having ancestors whose lineage was not regular.
I submit, Sir, that to take any action that would increase illegitimacy in the country is about the last thing that this parliament ought to do. There is an old saying "that marriages
Divorce

are made in heaven." Well, some of them may be, but others do not look like it; and even a marriage that may be made in heaven requires a great deal of patience, good will, and adjustment between man and woman before that state of happiness can be acquired which is so desirable and which so many people enjoy. A man who looks upon his marriage simply as a civil contract is lacking in some of the elements of good citizenship, some of the elements of a good husband and a good parent. Unless a man and woman can discover the spiritual quality of the union, unless they are willing to accept all the obligations and make the enormous sacrifices that are sometimes required, then they fail in discovering the real purpose of marriage. But you cannot get that into legislation. All you can do is to try, if possible, to remove the greater of the evils that exists, or may exist, the condition where men and women cannot live together -where a woman cannot be expected to live with a man, or a man be expected to live with a woman.
Of course, these amendments have carried the question far beyond the bill of my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). All he wants to do is to put a woman upon the same favourable level as a man. Well, is there any argument as to the justice of that proposal? I cannot imagine any man in his sober senses, certainly not any man having a wife and family, who would argue that his wife should be under greater disabilities than himself in a matter of this kind. If a man sins, should he escape easier than his wife? Should it be made more difficult for a woman ;o escape from the infidelity of her husband than for a husband to escape from the infidelity of his wife? For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine any logical argument in favour of such a contention, and how it comes about that such a law could be on the statute book is a mystery to me. Here are two parties. I assume that they are equal under all circumstances and in all relations; as a matter of fact, sir, if they are not equal the advantage ought to be with the woman. She is said to be, though she is not always, the weaker vessel. But if we are going to take care of any persons in this country by legislation, it is the women and the children that we should take care of, and in considering a question of this kind they should get all the protection that this parliament can give them.
I do not think it is necessary for me to labour the question any further. I was opposed to the first amendment on principle. I am opposed to the second amendment on

principle. I support the third reading of the bill introduced by the hon. member for West Calgary as being one in the interests of justice, square dealing and fair play between men and women who have entered into marital relations.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the amendment is out of order. I have only had the advantage of hearing the amendment read, I have not been able to study it, but if my memory serves me right its purpose is to make a man guilty of bigamy and punish him therefor if he is the guilty party in a divorce suit and marries again. That is the effect of the amendment, but of course I am not able to repeat its terms literally. Suppose a man is divorced in Britain, and he is the guilty party, and afterwards he marries the corespondent. I leave out of consideration the argument of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) as to the moral benefits of his action. But that man marries again in England in compliance with the law of the land. Then he comes to Canada, but Canada says, "We will put you in jail for bigamy." I am aware that in theory parliament can create a crime within its jurisdiction; but it cannot create a crime in England. Very properly we might say to a divorced man coming from the Old Country that he shall not marry in Canada, and we might stretch a point-although I think it would be grossly unfair-and say that he shall not live in marital relations with a woman in Canada. But it is surely against public policy at any rate, to say that he shall be punished when he arrives in Canada for an act that is perfectly legal in England, New Zealand, Australia or any other part of the British Empire. I submit, therefore, sir, that we are beyond our powers in attempting to legislate in this regard.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think it is necessary to argue the merits of the contention as to whether such legislation would be ultra vires of this parliament. But because any legislation is ultra vires does not mean that it is out of order for consideration by us. In a word, I do not think it is a point of order; it is a point of law.


Hewitt Bostock: Do any other members wish to speak on the point of order?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment reads as follows:

Divorce
That this bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred to the Committee of the Whole with instruction that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto the following two sections:
(1)	In any case where a divorce is granted by an Act of parliament or by the decision of any court in Canada or elsewhere, no person found guilty of adultery and divorced shall have during the life of the other spouse, the right to marry again any other person, and any divorced person so found guilty of adultery upon marrying again may be proceeded against and adjudged guilty of bigamy and be subject to the penalties for such crime made and provided as fully and completely as if such divorce had not been granted.
(2)	Every Older or judgment and every act of parliament granting a divorce on the ground of adultery shall contain an express declaration that the guilty party shall not be permitted to marry again except as above provided.
The parliament of Canada is supreme, and if it should pass any act which is ultra vires, the courts would decide the validity of such act. It is not for the Speaker to declare- although he presides over the highest court in the land-as to whether any proposed legislation is ultra vires, and therefore I do not see that the point is well taken in the present instance. Every day we take upon ourselves to declare as illegal in Canada what may be perfectly legal in other countries. For example, by the Immigration Act, parliament may declare that no bolshevik will be permitted to enter the Dominion, and that if he does cross the boundary he shall be arrested and deported, although such a person would not be considered a criminal in Russia, for instance. That is our privilege and our right, and I do not think that such legislation would be considered ultra vires. At all events, as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) said a moment ago, this is a question of law, and I do not see that there is any point of order in the objection raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Such is my ruling.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to debate the merits of the bill or of the amendment, but when the resolution preceding the bill was before the House some weeks ago and my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier) was speaking on it, the question was raised by some hon. member opposite that he should oppose all divorces in this House, and that friends of his of the same belief should do likewise. I merely rise, Mr. Speaker, to give notice that if this parliament should extend to another session, or if I should be again returned to this House after the next election, I intend to oppose any further divorces in this House as strenuously as possible; which would mean, Mr. Speaker, that you and the committee on Rules would be busy from time to time devising rules that
would permit of divorce bills passing this House. As it is now, these bills must be passed between eight and nine o'clock, and it is quite easy for two or three members of the House to oppose their passage during that hour. If the present rule relating to private bills continues, of course no divorce bill could pass this House when opposed by three or four members of either side. I think the time has come when divorces ought to be dealt with by the courts, if they 'are to be dealt with at all, not by this House. That is the reason I am giving notice now, Mr. Speaker, of my intention next session.


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind hon.
gentlemen that it is not quite proper to promise, especially in advance, that there will be any obstruction.


Mr. CAHILL:: I am only saying, Sir, that
it will exhaust your ingenuity to find means of stopping four or five determined men on either side of this House from obstructing any legislation of that kind1 that may be proposed.


Mr. BOYS:: Would the hon. member support in this House a bill creating divorce courts in Ontario and Princoe Edward Island, the only provinces, outside of Quebec, in which we have no divorce courts at the present time?	[DOT]


Frank S. Cahill: I would not aid in the
establishment of a divorce court in any province. I would not aid in the establishment of a divorce court of any kind anywhere.


William Alves Boys: I though my hon. friend said
that he felt divorce was a matter which should be dealt with by the courts?


George Perry Graham: If it was dealt with at
all.


William Alves Boys: How can Ontario deal with
divorces if there is no divorce court in that province ?


Frank S. Cahill: So much the better for
Ontario if there is no divorce law in that province and divorce is not permitted in this House. Personally, I do not support divorce in any fashion in any province in this Dominion. As I said before, I am rising only to make the declaration that if I am in this House at the next session of parliament I intend to oppose divorce. I propose to oppose it from now onwards just as the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier) and other hon. members.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon.
member assist in securing an amendment to
Divorce

the British North America Act to allow us to adjust our own affairs? If not, I take it that that is equivalent to a notice that an attempt is being made to break up confederation.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I was going to ask whether the committee on Rules would take cognizance of what my hon. friend; has said and prepare rules to make it impossible to oarry on such a policy as he suggests.


Frank S. Cahill: I hope so.


William Daum Euler: There is provision in the
rules now for obviating any such course of action as is proposed by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), as he will find out if he tries it.


Mr. MURRAY  MacLARBN@: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared and ready to vote on the bill that has been brought forward by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). That is a clear-cut issue. The attention of the House has been drawn to it during the past few weeks or months, and we are prepared to vote in an understanding way. The amendment that we have before us has, I think, been brought forward rather hastily. [ do not think we are giving the consideration due to the importance of that amendment in the manner in which we have been considering it during the time we have had this afternoon and evening, and under the circumstances I am going to vote against the amendment. As regards an amendment of this character involving the charge and punishment of bigamy, an amendment which must have been drawn hurriedly, but which is of considerable length, we should have an opportunity of reading and studying it before it i3 passed. It is far too important a matter to deal' with hastily, and I do not believe the House will act advisedly in passing such an amendment during this session. The House should be in possession of the amendment in printed form, as a matter, not of order, but of judgment and of being careful.
Further, the amendment has no direct connection with the bill. It is open to the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) or any other hon. member to bring forward at any time an amendment of that character, quite independently of the bill which we have before us. Therefore, I do not think there is any need of tacking this on to a clear-cut question which every hon. member can vote "aye" or "no" to according to his best judgment. As regards the merit of the amendment, whether this restriction should be imposed or not, personally I have not made up my mind. I have reserved my opinion within

myself. I have not come to a decision and I am not prepared to come to a decision in such a hurried manner as this. This is a wide subject. There are many aspects to it. I have not formed an opinion myself and I decline to form one at so short notice. Consequently, I propose to oppose the amendment. For these reasons, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Robert Forke: I said nearly all that I can say on this question when the hill was before the House for its second reading, and I rise now largely for the purpose of expressing my views regarding certain sentiments that were voiced by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). There are four provinces in western Canada which will have their eye on this debate, and I take this opportunity to place myself on record on the subject. I want to give credit to every member in this House for sincerity in his belief, and I am ready to think that everyone is acting conscientiously according to what he conceives to be right. I have not been altogether impressed by those who have gone to scripture to prove their case; I do not know that this will get you anywhere. I believe that the Scriptures are the proper place to go to in order to get an idea regarding the general conduct of life; but if you undertake to adjudge from scripture any individual action in everyday life, then I am afraid you will be involved in great difficulties. I do not think that anyone has proved anything from these quotations for the simple reason that we find hon. members speaking on both sides and quoting scripture to prove their case, putting their own interpretations upon it. If members are conscientious in their opinions, it seems to me a strange thing that any hon. gentleman should propose to introduce some system that would prevent others from endeavouring to have such opinions carried into effect. I think other methods can be found than blocking the business of the House when members
try legitimately to express their ideas of what they consider proper in any given case.
On this particular question, I have no hesitation in saying that T deplore the fact that divorce is increasing in Canada. Some want to tighten the law, considering it too lax. The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) this afternoon expressed the view that the evil might be remedied if women were put on the same economic basis as men. I do not see the force of this contention, inasmuch as women to-day are occupying a status more on an equality with men than they have ever enjoyed before. And yet, this fact notwithstanding, divorce is rapidly increasing. Perhaps it is a tendency of the times. I noticed the other day that a judge in Winnipeg made the statement that crime was on the increase. Now, I want to speak guardedly because it is so easy for one to be misunderstood. But that judge expressed it as his opinion that the reason for this increase in crime
9 p.m. was the fact that mothers spent so much time reforming society in public meetings and other places instead of instructing th :ir children at home, as they used to do in lays gone by. I am only repeating the opinion of this judge, and there may be some truth in that respect. I had an opportunity of speaking yesterday afternoon ait a meeting and I will repeat a few sentences I used then. I 'have recently read a book by Harvey Robertson on "Mind in the Making", in which he points out the tremendous effect which the first few years of a child's training have on after life; and it is possible that a remedy can be found for some of the ills that are affecting the body politic at the present time if a little more care and attention were devoted to the education of our young people in the formative period of life, with a little less legislation. As I have said before, I think we are rather over-fond of legislation; and we become impatient of its restraint as soon as we have enacted it. If more attention were paid to the education of the young people I think greater good would result that we are likely to secure from too stringent legislation. The tendency of the time is towards greater liberty. I do not know exactly where we are going, and as I have said before, I deplore the fact that divorce is increasing. But as has been pointed out in this House, the evil that causes any divorce has existed long before the divorce is an accomplished fact; there must have been wrong living and wrongdoing that made it necessary.
I repeat that I would ask those who oppose divorce to believe that many of us who sup-
Divorce

port this bill are just as bitter against divorce as they are, but we do not think you can cure an evil by hiding it or keeping it out of sight. I think it is possible by proper teaching, through the education of our young people to follow the cardinal virtues of human life, honour, justice, truth and righteousness, to bring about a greater reduction in the number of divorces than we are ever likely to do by obliterating our divorce laws from the statute books. I say again that I would like those members who wish to see divorce abolished to believe that we are just as sincere, just as honest in our idea of what is right and just and true as they are, but we do not believe the cause of humanity will be served by wiping the divorce laws off the statute books of this country.


Ernest Lapointe: I feel it my duty to say why I am going to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). I do so not because I think divorce and remarriage can be accepted or recognized under any circumstances, but because I believe the amendment tends to a decrease of the present evil. In the first place, it will prevent collusion as it exists to-day in so many instances, and on the other hand it makes sure that at least one of the parties will never remarry while the other party to the original marriage contract is still living. I will vote for the amendment merely because it will, I hope, decrease the evil of divorce, and in order to alleviate the misgivings of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) as to my conscientious feeling in the matter, I assure him I will vote against the third reading of the bill even with the amendment attached to it, because I am opposed to the whole institution of divorce.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, while I did not hear the discussion this afternoon, I shall not detain the House more than a moment. I intend to vote against the amendment, and I shall briefly state my reasons for so doing. In the first place I think the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has followed a very unusual course in introducing this amendment on the third reading of the bill. The purpose of the bill was very clearly stated in the measure itself and I do suggest to the hon. member for West York and to all others in this House who may be inclined to support his amendment that the proper time to have introduced this amendment was on the second reading, at any rate in the committee of the whole House, when there could have been a fuller and freer and more intelligent discussion than is possible fMr. Forke.]
at this stage. If my hon. friend wishes to see his suggestion enacted into legislation-and I am free to confess, Sir, that there is some merit in it; I am inclined somewhat to agree with the sentiments uttered by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in that respect-it will be quite within his right to introduce such legislation at another session of parliament. I agree entirely with the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Mac-Laren) that this amendment as introduced at this stage of the bill cannot' receive the earnest and serious consideration that it should receive.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
not understand that if the amendment carries the House must again go into committee and all the consideration that ever could have been given can then be given?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not so understand it.


Thomas Vien: Yes, that is it.


Arthur Meighen: It has to be recommitted.	.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I thought we had
unanimous consent.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have endeavoured very
briefly to state the reasons why I shall vote against the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON:: May I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if the amendment as presented will prevent a person securing a divorce in Canada from remarrying in the United States?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: My understanding is that this amendment deals with a question broader than :he original question dealt with in the bill proposed by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), which bill was intended to remove from western women the disabilities under which they are now suffering and to place them on the same plane in the matter of securing divorce as their eas! em sisters. The amendment of the hon. member for West York ignores entirely the question whether this inconsistency as between conditions respecting divorce in the west and in the east should any longer prevail, and proposes that the guilty one in case of divorce in any part of Canada shall not be permitted to remarry in Canada. It seems to me that if the amendment carries it would simply be conniving at illegitimacy or sending to the United States the guilty ones in divorce cases. It was staled to-day that some 1,300 Canadian mar-

Divorce
riages were dissolved in the United States in one year. The amendment if adopted might thus raise the total of Canadian marriages annulled. Without in any way expressing my judgment upon the question involved in the amendment of the hon. member for West York, I shall certainly vote against that amendment in order to allow the House to pass unon (he question that is before us in this bill, namely, whether western women should any longer suffer under this disability.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker. I wish very briefly to refer to some of the arguments advanced in support of the resolution moved-


Mr. BRETHEN:: I rise to a point of order. Some few weeks ago I raised a question in the Priva'e Bills committee that I believe is involved in this amendment. The matter was referred to the law clerk for a ruling. We have that ruling and we expect to-morrow to have it given to the Private Bills com-mi tee.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member may
not refer to what takes place in a committee until the report of that committee is tabled. On the third reading of a bill, any such amendment as the present one is in order. With respect to the remarks made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) as to the amendment-[DOT]


George Arthur Brethen: Mr. Speaker- '


Hewitt Bostock: I have given my ruling
in respect to the point raised by the hon. member (Mr. Brethen). I am now speaking of another matter. May says:
That on the third reading of a bill, such amendments as have been already described in reference to a second reading may be proposed to the question for now reading the bill the third time.
At page 390 I read the following:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill.	.
So the amendment was quite in order.


George Arthur Brethen: My point of order is
whether this can be considered here when we are considering it in the Private Bills committee.


Hewitt Bostock: I have given my ruling.
No hon. member can refer to a matter that has arisen in a committee until the report of that committee is tabled. There is nothing before the House from that committee on
the question. My ruling is that there is no point of order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I
am sorry to delay hon. members, but, after all, this is a matter of great importance which merits careful consideration. I would ask members to consider not the avowed object of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), but its probable effect. On the face of it, it appears quite right and fitting that the guilty party should not have the right to remarry. It looks like that at first blush, but when we come to examine the matter, it seems to me that we are driven to an entirely different conclusion.
I am going to ask members of the House to consider first the case of the man who has failed in his marital duties and who hat been divorced on the ground of adultery. He is by this amendment condemned to live separate and apart from womankind for the rest of his life. Will he do so? As a rule men are somewhat older than the spouses they marry, and therefore he is likely to remain in the condition which I have indicated all his life. Now is that a wise provision? Will it prevent the man or will it encourage him to make illicit liaisons? Is not that what is likely to happen?
Then let me take this illustration. If we pass this legislation as proposed by the hon. member for West York, we immediately depart from what is the accepted practice and, I understand, the law in the British Isles and in different parts of the associated British commonwealths on this question. Are matters of this sort not likely to arise? A man some years ago, let us say, had been divorced, and properly divorced, from his wife on the ground of his infidelity. He comes to Canada. In Canada he remarries believing, incorrectly, that he had the right to do what he would have had the right to do if he had remained in England. He marries some innocent woman. Now under this legislation proposed by the hon. member for West York, that man by that infraction of our law will not only be punished as a criminal himself, but he will bring the worst disaster that can befall the innocent woman that he marries and any offspring which they may have in that second marriage. Is not that a thing likely to occur? We want to protect the home, oh yes, but are we going to protect the home by this legislation?


William Alves Boys: Would not the questions put
to him when seeking a license get over the difficulty raised by the hon. member?
Divorce


Andrew Ross McMaster: They might. I know
some parts of Canada where licenses are granted to any respectable person who comes in, practically as a matter of course, with little or no inquiry as to their right to marry. I would say this:	If the man believed
honestly that he had the right to be married, he would probably so state. I think there is real danger in that regard.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the hon. member not
consider the other and worse case of the divorced man who is remarried in England and then comes here and is prosecuted for bigamy?


Henry Lumley Drayton: He could not
be.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, under the amendment
as originally introduced, which contained the words, ''in Canada or elsewhere."


William Duff: I think we had better have
this discussion in camera.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then there is the case of the woman who has been unfaithful. Perhaps she has been married to someone she did not love, and perhaps she has met someone that she did love. I am not excusing her, but such things have happened. Are you going to condemn her to a life of celibacy, or are you going to force her, if she has no economic equipment for this world, into perhaps the only way in which she couldl earn her livelihood? I am afraid that instead of being a proposition to defend the purity of the home and the family, the amendment of the hon. member for West York is more likely to encourage concubinage and immorality. The Minister of Justice has said this will prevent collusion. Why will it prevent collusion? It will only prevent collusion if people ask for a divorce because they had a desire to marry again. It is quite possible that they might wish to marry again. It may be possible that they are so sick of living together and that one has misbehaved jo much that it is only right there should be a divorce, and I cannot see that collusion will be obviated by this resolution of the hon. member for West York.
The Minister of Justice says that he wishes to prevent the remarriage of the guilty party because, though that is only half a remedy, half a remedy is better than no remedy at all. I do not think it will conduce to morality or purity or to the sanctity of the home and the establishment of the family to have this resolution pass.
Then what confusion we will create in Canada between those who have been divorced

up to this date and who have remarried, and those who are divorced after this time. There again there will be room for all sorts of confusion. I think on the whole that however much we may admire the reasons which led the hon. member for West York to introduce this legislation, taking humanity as it is, it would be wiser for us, and I say this with all respect to the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), to think of that phrase of the founder of religion who said in regard to a sinful woman, " He that is without sin among you let him cast the first stone."


Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona):: It
seems to me that every member of the House is already convinced regarding this matter. It is unfortunate that we had any amendments at all, in my opinion. All we want to do by the bill that we have before us is to give justice to those who are not now getting justice. I do not think we need have any amendments or further discussion. I think we could vote yes or no on this question now and settle the matter. We do not need' to complicate it with any amendments. Justice is all we want and I would like to see the vote taken.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to take part in the discussion, but to obtain from your Honour a ruling on the procedure that is to be followed. I understood when the House rose at six o'clock-that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) had obtained the unanimous consent of the House to have this amendment attached to the bill without referring the bill back to the committee, but I notice that the preamble of the amendment, which I hold in my hand, would suggest that the bill, if the amendment is carried, will go back to the committee, and that is the point I would like your Honour to clear up.


Hewitt Bostock: Before six o'clock I read the draft of the amendment which had been handed to me, but it lacked at the beginning the phraseology which is used generally with such amendments. If hon. gentlemen will re-meniber I took the phraseology from the amendment just defeated and then read the draft handed me by the clerk. I now hold the amendment with the phraseology that I bor-rowred from the other amendment. It is attached to the draft embodying the principle of the amendment moved by the hon. member for West York. The amendment the hon. gentleman has in his hands now is the real amendment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My recollection is entirely the same as yours, Sir, but my re-

Divorce
collection also is that I objected to the preamble. I admitted it was perfectly in accordance with the rules, but I submitted that if we got the unanimous consent of the House this amendment could be considered as added to the bill without going back to committee. I understood we had the unanimous consent of the House to that course, and it was under those circumstances I submitted the amendment.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: If the amendment were adopted the bill would have to be recommitted. That is the rule.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Do you rule, Sir, the bill will have to go back into committee? Because, I may say that my recollection is precisely the same as that of the hon. member for West York. It was on that understanding that unanimous consent was given to the introduction of the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: Just before six o'clock the hon. gentleman rose to move his amendment and asked the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with the expectation that a vote would be taken without any further debate. Am I right in that statement?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: I think I am right. I must rule in my own favour.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I rise only for a moment to point out that I propose to vote against this amendment. I propose to vote against it for two specific reasons. First of all, if the amendment is carried the whole matter is referred back to committee of the Whole with the result that this bill will not

amended or unamended-receive the consideration of this House this session. That I think is abundantly clear. Secondly, I object to the amendment because it proposes that in the event of one party being found guilty of adultery, then automatically by operation of law that guilty party is prevented from re-marrying. Now, my suggestion this afternoon was that I would be prepared to leave to the sound discretion of a court, or leave to parliament, the question as to whether or not a person found guilty should be prevented from re-marrying. For these two reasons, Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote against the amendment.


Charles Marcil: I do not wish to give a silent vote on this matter. I am sorry that the hon member
for Brome (Mr. McMaster), who is always very interesting but who conjured up all kinds of difficulties as to this proposed legislation, did not give an insight into the system which exists in the province of Quebec where he was brought up and lived and whose conditions he knows full well. Quebec to its credit has the lowest record of divorces of all the provinces of Canada, with the exception probably of Prince Edward Island. In that province we have a system of judicial separation, which is recognized under the British law and which exists, I think, in Ontario as well. The parties appeal to the court for one reason or another. They are separated and judicial alimony is provided for the wife and children. Then after the lapse of a few months better feeling prevails. They get back together, and they go on as they had originally started.


William Alves Boys: Does my hon. friend understand that there is any system of judicial separation in Ontario?


Charles Marcil: I understand so.


William Alves Boys: I must dissent from that view^ there is no such law in Ontario. Of course the parties themselves may enter into an agreement for a separation; but there is no practice in Ontario whereby a judicial separation is granted.


Charles Marcil: I stand corrected. However, a system exists in the province of Quebec. In some years we have very few cases of the kind. When the parties do come before the court there is a ruling that the woman is entitled to so much alimon] for herself and the children. At the end of a few months, perhaps even at the end of a few weeks, the parties get back together again and thereafter live in perfect harmoney. I am going to support the amendment because it tends to reduce the number of divorces, but I will vote against the third reading of the bill because it opens the door to granting divorces in greater number. I have been a consistent opponent of divorce from the very first day I entered this House. May I say en passant that some objection was taken that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) did not register a protest every time a divorce bill was passed. When I first entered the House twenty-five years ago divorce bills were always carried on division, and entries to that effect was made in the official minutes. We have never assented by our silence to the passing of divorce bills and I do not intend to do so to-night. As I say, I
388.?
Divorce

will vote for the amendment because it tends to reduce the number of divorces, but I shall certainly vote against the third reading of the bill if I am given an opportunity.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Car-leton):: I had no intention of taking part
in this debate until we found ourselves in the position in which we are in at the present time. For instance, when the House rose shortly after six o'clock I understood unanimous consent had been given that the hon. member for West York should move his amendment to the bill in the House itself, and that it should not be referred back to committee. With that understanding I meant to support the amendment. If, however, the effect of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill must be referred back to committee I must vote against the amendment although I should like to vote for it. If by voting for the amendment the bill is to be referred back to committee it means that it will not receive the consideration of this House, and this unequal situation as between a man and a woman, in the western provinces especially will still continue. For that reason I do not [DOT]feel like giving a silent vote on this question. I would support the amendment if the bill is to be considered by the House itself; but if the effect of the amendment is to kill the bill I shall vote against it.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I have already on many occasions expressed my views, in the House, on matters of divorce. I am opposed to divorce because, among many reasons, it is but the toleration of evil which we must avoid as much as possbile. I have always protested, to the best of my ability, against all legislation bearing on divorce. When the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) moved, this afternoon, the third reading of his 'bill in connection with divorce, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) moved an amendment which was acclaimed by all members of this House who adhere to the Roman Catholic faith. This amendment laid down the principle that the matrimonial bond is never dissolved. Its purport was to make this bill conform with the law as it exists in the province of Quebec, by virtue of which the consorts, in a case of adultery, may separate without ever destroying the matrimonial tie or it ever being possible to destroy it. This amendment, I state, I gladly supported, and I am sorry that it was not adopted by the House.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) has
fMr. Marcil.l
not the same bearing as the one moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. In fact, it is proposed, by this amendment, after divorce being granted, that one of the parties-the party having committed adultery-will not be allowed to remarry; however, it is not stated that the other party will not have the right of remarrying. Could we then consider that the matrimonial bond is dissolved? It will be considered that it has not been dissolved for one of the parties: the one having committed adultery; however, in regard to the other, the amendment does not state that the party will not be allowed to remarry. In fact, as the latter is not forbidden to remarry, I gather that the same conditions will prevail as in the past, and it will therefore have this privilege. To this I cannot acquiesce and I, therefore, rise to protest against the principle that parliament might look upon favourably on legislation by virtue of which the matrimonial bond would be dissolved by divorce. The reasons given by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-cil) harmonize with my views. By placing myself on record as being opposed to all legislation based on the principle of the severance of the matrimonial bond, I think I can support the amendment, because it proposes to refer this legislation to a committee for further consideration, and thereby, I hope that it will not be possible to adopt such legislation in the course of the present session, and further, because by this amendment the number of divorces will be considerably restricted. For all the above reasons I shall vote in favour of the amendment, however reserving myself the right of voting against the principle of the bill, on the third reading.
In the course of this debate uncalled for remarks have been made against us. We, members of the Roman Catholic faith, are reproached for not protesting both by word and action when a bill of divorce is brought down in the House. The opposition of the Roman Catholic members of this House has generally always been understood, ever since I have the honour of occupying a seat here, and it is not to my knowledge that a Roman Catholic member has ever acquiesced in the principle of divorce. We have always been opposed, and such bills are passed with the restriction " on division ".


Mr. J. L. STANSELL (East Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, there is a good deal in this amendment that enlists my sympathy, but I think it involves too many issues to be decided in a hasty manner. There is no question that divorces are altogether too numerous in this

Divorce
country; indeed, we are sometimes forced to the conclusion that many of them are secured through collusion between the principals; but until such time as we have an opportunity to consider all the aspects of divorce I feel I must oppose the amendment. We are dealing with human happiness, with human lives, and it is a question that should have our fullest consideration. The only question involved in the original motion is equality of the sexes.
I cannot bring myself to believe that there should be one law for men and another for women in their marital relations, and therefore I shall support the bill.
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):	Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the merits of the amendment offered by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) are such that it deserves a place of its own on the order paper; certainly it deserves a longer time for discussion than is possible at this particular stage. The bill proposed by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) is for the purpose of placing the women of western Canada on an equal basis with their sisters in eastern Canada. The House has discussed the question from time to time and given it considerable study, and the majority of hon. members are, I believe, anxious to declare that the purpose of this bill should be given effect to. I do not wish to disparage the merits of the amendment, but until our sisters in western Canada are placed on a footing of equality with their sisters of eastern Canada we of the west are going to protest. Whatever penalties should be imposed in the way specified by the amendment, and whatever the arguments for or against divorce, may well be debated later on, but for the present I think the House should confine itself to dealing with the merits of the main motion.


Hewitt Bostock: It has been moved by
Mr. Shaw, seconded by Mr. Woodsworth, that the bill do now pass and1 that the title be as on the order paper.
Motion agreed to on division. AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF OTTAWA
Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minis! er of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 172, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation cf the city of Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement with city of Ottawa extended for five years.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I think we should have
a brief statement from the minister regarding the agreement with the city.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The bill provides that the government of Canada may pay a subsidy to the city of Ottawa. Agreements have been made from time to time, the last one having been entered into in 1920. At that time parliament voted for the payment of $75,000 annually for five years, but in 1924-25 the agreement was not renewed; payment for one year was however extended. Recently in consultation with the municipality we have decided to increase the subsidy to $100,000 for a period of five years.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What sums does the
government pay to the city of Ottawa?


John Warwick King: That information is all in Hansard at page 3758.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: 
John Warwick King: The following information has already been put on Hansard:
Among other expenditures which have been assumed by the government from time to time, there are the following: Cartier square; that dates back to the time when the government assumed the maintenance and upkeep of Cartier square for $9,510 a year. Then there is Major Hill park, which the government took over some years ago, and have maintained at an annual cost of $19,512.14; Wellington street and Plaza, which is maintained and repaired by the government at a cost of $12,710 per year; Laurier avenue bridge, which crosses the canal, and for which the government pays $1,002 per year for maintenance, lighting and repairs; Chaudiere slide bridge, which the government maintains at an annual cost of $1,951; that is a very old item. Then there is the maintenance of Union bridge at a cost of $500; Pretoria avenue bridge maintenance, $4,278. Bronson avenue bridge $955; Bank street bridge, towards which a subsidy of $80,000 was paid on which we pay interest at 5 per cent per annum, amounting to $4,000; the Interprovincial bridge, towards which a subsidy of $212,500 was granted at 5 per cent interest, "mounting to $10,625 annually; St. Patrick street from Sussex to bridge, maintenance $4,285. Then there are certain amounts for lighting generally, in addition, making a total expenditure for all the items I have given of $70,000 odd.
In addition to the foregoing there are minor expenditures for lighting generally amounting to $1,011.40. Then there is a payment for water service at so much per gallon, $42,000. In addition the Ottawa Improvement Commission receive a grant of $150,000 per year. The total of these figures would be about $365,000 per year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does that include this
$100,000?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What services does the
city render the government for this $100,000?


John Warwick King: There is the
policing of the city, fire service, sewage service, and so on. Government property in the city of Ottawa is not assessable for taxes. We pay this subsidy more for services rendered and1 we do not admit the liability to taxation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If the government proposes to pay taxes on salvaged soldier settlement lands I would have no great abjection to the payment of this $100,000, otherwise I would protest against the increase in the grant to the city of Ottawa which is made in lieu of taxes. The government may not admit that, but that is practically the sum and substance of it. The minister has mentioned police services, but as I understand it, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are on duty in Ottawa in connection with all the government buildings; in fact, you can hardly turn around
without running up against one of them. I am not finding any fault with that, but it is their function to protect Dominion government property; they have no jurisdiction, I understand, over any other property, neither do the city police have jurisdiction over Dominion government buildings. As to the salvaged soldier settlement lands, I understand the government have never refused to pay taxes on them until the soldier settler leaves them, even though the soldier had made no payments on them; but as soon as these lands are rented to some other citizen, yielding more revenue even than when the soldier settler was on them, the government refuse to pay the taxes. I would like to know if the government propose to change their policy in regard to paying taxes on these lands that have been salvaged.


John Warwick King: This bill is to
provide for the payment of a special subsidy to the city of Ottawa, the national capital, for services rendered to the government for the people of Canada through the facilities provided by the city. As to the matter of taxation of government property outside the city, in the various municipalities, that question might be raised, but it has always been understood that a grant might be made to the capital city that would not be considered in the smaller towns or other districts. As to the government paying taxes on soldier lands, I think that is a matter that might more appropriately be discussed on another occasion.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I realize that the question of soldier settlement lands does not come under this vote, but I think we might ask for a declaration of policy on the part of the government in this regard.


The CHAIRMAN:: It does not come under this minister's department.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I know, but fortunately we have other ministers present to-night.


George Newcombe Gordon: The discussion of soldier settlement lands is not relevant to this bill. That matter- was inquired about and spoken to when the bill came up.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I did not happen to be here on that occasion.


George Newcombe Gordon: That does not necessarily mean that the whole debate has to be gone over a second time.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not wish to transgress the rules or to impose on the committee in any way, but I do think that at this time
3886	COMMONS
Agreement with City of Ottawa
we should not increase this grant to the city of Ottawa, particularly in view of the other sums that are paid in this connection, which run well over a quarter of a million dollars. I fear the tendency is to think the government is possibly a 'little easy. We find increased votes in different directions where there is no actual necessity for them. I would again urge the government to keep their hands on the purse strings a little tighter. I regret to see this increased vote to the city of Ottawa, especially in view of the other services that need money but for which a large number of us are not pressing on account of the present situation. I could mention a number of public works that are required in my riding, but the minister knows the situation very well. I am not asking that money be spent on these public works, therefore I feel in a pretty strong position to urge the minister to cut this vote down to what it was last year.


Mr. McGIVERIN:: I understood the hon.
member to say he had no objection to the extra vote of 825,000 but that he wanted to ask something about soldier lands, which are not concerned in this vote. I may say that the city of Ottawa made out a very strong case for an increase of more than $25,000 in the annual grant.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have no doubt.


Harold Buchanan McGiverin: Yes, and rightly so. Take, for instance, the growth in the last five years in connection with the fire brigade and in connection with properties in the city held by the government and on which the government does not pay taxes. This is the capital city of Canada, and when it comes to improving the city from the point of view of its being the capital that is provided for, and properly so, by the vote to the Ottawa Improvement Commission. No attempt was made to have that increased. But as to this vote the city proved that they were practically out of pocket in connection with it. I have nothing to say about the soldier lands; my colleague who is in charge of that department may speak about it. But that has nothing whatever to do with this city, and undoubtedly a case was made out for an increase of much more than $25,000.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Of course the hon. member would be remiss in his duty if he did not support this vote, andl it is just possible that if I represented Ottawa I might do the same thing, though I really do not think I would. When the minister turned down a request for certain public works in my riding I said I had no fault to find if he would follow the same principle throughout the whole of his

estimates. That was in connection with a work that was needed very badly, and several other works in that part of Canada are needed just as badly. I am not urging that they be gone on with at the present time, and it will not get me any votes to say what I am saying now, but it is not necessary that I should get votes in that way. If it is, I do not want to be here. I think there has been too much of this sort of thing, too much of members coming with delegations before this government and urging increased expenditure, when we should be cutting down our expenditure instead of increasing it. That is a point I wish to make. I am not blaming the government so much; I think members of this House are possibly more to blame than the government, and I think the people back home are more to blame than the members are. I have no hesitation in saying that. Unless we have the courage of our convictions and say what we really believe to be the facts, I believe we are remiss in our duty, and while, as I said before, this will not get me any votes back home, I do not think that it is necessary that I should get them in this way. I am in earnest in this matter. If this sort of thing is to go on, how can we expect members of this House to forego pushing claims when they find other members of the House doing the same thing, backed up by delegations. I was very pleased to see my hon. friend made a minister without portfolio in this government, because I think he is a good man and all that kind of thing, but I am afraid these things are costing us too much. If because a man is a member of a government he can come here and get an increased grant for his city, I say that is wrong in principle, and I hope the government will not grant this increase. I urge them to cut it down.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 160, to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.
Motion agreed to, on division, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
On section 2-$5,000,000 may be advanced to harbour commissioners for terminal facilities.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I presume, of course,
this bill will pass the House. In discussing the resolution a few days ago, I opposed this advance, not because I diid not think the port of Quebec should be developed, but for the purpose of getting from the government a statement of their policy with regard to sending traffic through the port of Quebec. I think before this bill finally passes, the government should give us some assurance that they mean to have the freight rates so adjusted on the Transcontinental that traffic will come to the port of Quebec, and that the facilities to be provided there will be used. I think that is one of the most vital points ahead of us in this matter. While I realize that a discussion of freight rates cannot properly come under this bill, and I do not propose to discuss them here, I would like to have some assurance from the government that they are not going to build harbour facilities at Quebec, and then allow traffic to go by that port to Montreal.


Mr. CARDIN:: My hon. friend will easily
realize that we cannot state definitely what the position and intentions of the government are with respect to this matter. As I said the other day when the resolution was before the committee, that we have decided to make a loan to the port of Quebec of such a large amount for extending the present facilities and developing new ones, is evidence that the government proposes to do everything possible to help develop traffic to the port of Quebec.


Mr. LEWIS:: I do not wish altogether to
oppose this vote, but at the same time it does seem to me rather poor policy to spend this amount of money at the present time. I do not think that the port of Quebec, according to the statistics which were given to us, is calling for any further development at present. Why, the total revenue that comes to the port of Quebec at the present time would not pay even the interest on the present indebtedness of the port to this government, and yet we are loaning them another $5,000.-
000.	It does seem to me poor business to continue to develop our ports more rapidly than the commerce and traffic of the country warrants. I can readily understand that if the railway running to Quebec is going to be utilized, the port of Quebec might need further development, but we have no assurance from the government that that is going 248



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
to be done. It would seem to me that before Quebec harbour is further developed, we should see some sign of greater traffic coming, and at least some sign that the port is going to be used. I see no need of spending a further $5,000,000 on a harbour that is not already being utilized to its fullest capacity, and one that cannot even pay the interest on its own indebtedness. To spend a further $5,000,000 there simply means that the port is going to Tun further in the hole. I for one am opposed to any further expenditure that is not going to bring in any further revenue.
George Gibson Coote: When the resolution preceding this bill was being discussed, I wished to ask the minister just what works it was proposed to build with this $5,000,000. I did not succeed in putting that question, and I would like the minister to be good enough to advise the House now of all the work that he proposes to do with this $5,000,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The first item of the proposed expenditure will be dredging, which will cost $1,500,000; the building of a new wharf, $2,800,000; reconstruction of tracks on this new Wharf, $125,000, estimated, electric light, $3,000; roadways, $65,000; riprap, $70,000; water mains for the water supply on the wharf, $150,000.


George Gibson Coote: How much of this construction is contemplated this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is very hard to say, but the execution of the whole programme will certainly take five years.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What will the whole
programme cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Five million dollars.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it estimated that this $5,000,000 will complete the whole five year programme?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then we are voting
$5,000,000 this year?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the minister just
explain why he is bringing in a bill to loan $5,000,000? '


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are asking permission
to loan the harbour commission the sum of $5,000,000 to cover a period of years, and we will advance the money as the work is proceeded with. We are not going to loan the $5,000,000 this year. Advances will be made as the work proceeds, and every advance will



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Quebec Harbour Commissioners
have to be approved by the Governor in Council.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then I understand that this money will be advanced in order to carry the work on?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Advances will be made as
the work proceeds.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understood the minister to say that the money would be loaned on the completion and approval of the work.


Mr. PARENT:: Where will the harbour
commission get the money to proceed with the work?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is what I was
wondering. I understood the minister to say that, but I do not think he meant it. I should like the minister to assure us that there will be a sufficient amount of traffic to go through the port of Quebec to warrant this expenditure. Because, as I said the other night, the fact that formerly all this traffic has been centred at Montreal meant that a large portion of it went to build up American ports instead of our own ports. If, however, this traffic is centred at Quebec, then when navigation closes on the St. Lawrence that portion of it that is heading for Quebec will find its way to our eastern seaports. But while it is centred at Montreal its natural outlet is Portland and the other American ports to the south of us. I want to see the port of Quebec developed; and the burden of my criticism the other night was that that was not being done, that Quebec has not been used in the past. Therefore the Maritime province ports have not been getting any traffic handled on the lines of the Canadian National railway. Because when freight lands at Montreal it is not logical to haul it from that city to St. John or Halifax; the logical outlet is Portland or other United States ports. On the other hand, our Maritime province ports are nearer the wheat fields of the west by the Transcontinental than Portland is via Montreal. For that reason if a proper rate is quoted on the Transcontinental this traffic could and should go through the port of Quebec. There are other reasons why the Transcontinental should be used. That railway can handle more traffic per ton mile than any other road in Canada; it has the best grades possible to haul the biggest train loads and to handle freight cheaper. I never could understand why the rate was maintained against Quebec at the very high standard at which it is at the present time; it not only starves Quebec but also the Maritime province ports. I think the delegation which 
came up this year to interview the government must have impressed upon them the fact that while the adoption of this suggestion will not solve the problems of the Maritime provinces it will help to do so. I think the government will be well advised to keep this matter in mind. I think the House will not hesitate to spend money in developing the port of Quebec if the proper policy is carried out in regard to routing traffic through Quebec and Maritime province ports.


Mr. SPENCER:: How much of this vote
of $5,000,000 will be spent on elevator construction?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot say, from the
estimates we have at the present moment, that any amount is going to be spent on elevators.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the elevator
capacity at Quebec at the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Two million bushels.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And what amount was put through?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Five million bushels last
year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But for the whole
year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Five million bushels.


Arthur John Lewis: I should like to ask the minister why, under the expenditure proposed in connection with this loan, there should be an outlay of a million and a half for dredging. Provision is already being made for dredging in Quebec harbour under another vote. Why is the harbour commission borrowing money from this government for dredging when the Public Works department is already doing dredging in the St. Lawrence and the various harbours?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The dredging which is being done in Quebec, or in the vicinity of the harbour is in the St. Lawrence channel. In this case the dredging will be done near the shore where the wharves will be constructed. There is a certain depth of water there already but that depth will not be sufficient when the wharves are constructed. In order to be able to dock the bigger vessels at these wharves it will be necessary to provide a greater depth of water.


Arthur John Lewis: I notice in several instances that where there is wharf construction the Department of Public Works is also doing dredging. Why cannot the work in this particular case be done under the same department? The government say this $5,000,000 is a loan but as far as any possible return to

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
the government is concerned it is practically a gift.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If the dredging were to be done by the Department of Public Works it would be a gift to the port of Quebec. But we are loaning this money to the harbour com mission because we expect that if proper facilities are provided we will get some return. We have been unable to bring about that desirable result up to the present time because the facilities there were not sufficient. We have been told by persons who are familiar with the local conditions that the present facilities at the port of Quebec are not' sufficient to take care of a greater development in the traffic. If we insisted upon getting a better rate in order to have a larger shipment of grain through the port of Quebec the existing facilities are not adequate to take care of a great increase in the traffic. Therefore we are making this advance to the harbour commission in order to secure additional facilities, and we sincerely hope that we will get some return from the money which will be invested there.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Could the minister tell us what amount of grain the present facilities at Quebec could handle yearly if used to their full capacity?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am told it is forty million bushels. .


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And the amount of grain handled last year was only five million bushels?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That in itself, to my mind, justifies the criticism that has been levelled at this vote-that the present facilities are not used. With such a capacity as the minister has stated only five million bushels of grain went through Quebec last year. I think if the government contemplate this development they should have inaugurated the policy of having traffic go through the port of Quebec two years ago. We have a railway capable of handling the grain, we have the grain itself, we had congestion at the other ports, we had a strike by the vessel owners on the Great Lakes. We have all kinds of difficulty in getting this grain east, and yet the government owned the Transcontinental with its excellent grades, and there is an elevator at Quebec capable of handling forty million bushels. I think the government are to blame in not having gone at this matter in the right way. To my mind they are putting the cart before the horse in the present case. If thirty million bushels had gone through these elevators last year I think there would 248i
have been very little or no criticism of this vote to-night. But I tell the government this: If we come back next year and find that only five million bushels of grain have gone through the port of Quebec I think possibly it will be pretty hard to get anything further for the development of that port for some time to come. I think it is a short-sighted policy on the government's part. Personally I want to see Quebec developed because it will give us traffic in the case of the eastern ports which we are very insistent on having.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How much money can the government still advance to the harbour commission at the port of Quebec, altogether apart from this legislation? I understand they can advance a considerable sum. While I am on my feet I must raise my voice in protest against this legislation. I remember last year this government, with the consent of the House, guaranteed certain loans to the city of Montreal for the construction of a bridge. Since that time the board of trade of the city met and protested against the expenditure as being at least premature. I am not at all persuaded but what the board of trade of the city of Quebec will meet after we pass this legislation and carry a similar resolution condemning the government for its extravagance. I should like to get figures from the minister. It seems to me that if there is still a considerable sum that the government can advance, they would be well advised to do so and hold this legislation over for at least another year.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say, to remove the fear of my hon. friend, that the board of trade of Quebec, through its president, to-day sent me a wire urging that this bill should
be passed.


Robert Alexander Hoey: They may change their mind when they see the amount, $5,000,000.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend is wrong as
to that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have received a wire congratulating me on the introduction of this bill.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have no doubt.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with the hon member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) that the freight rate is too high. I repeat to-night what I said the other day, that I will certainly do my best to obtain a better rate between Fort William or Armstrong and Quebec to meet the views of those who built the National Transcontinental railway. But my hon, friend must understand
3890	COMMONS
Quebec Harbour Commissioners
that it is not merely a question of grain transportation. As I said the other day, there are misconceptions of what is going on at the port of Quebec, and even to-night it was stated that the facilities there are not used to their capacity. I have here a plan of the harbour, prepared by the harbour commissioners, showing the piers and wharves with the names of the steamship companies which have rented berths, and there is no more vacant space for any other companies requiring accommodation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Might I ask how many applications for space have been refused on account of there not being any more space?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot say, but I can tell my friend1 that during the last week-end there have never been so many vessels in the port throughout its history. I am sorry my friend from Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) is not in his seat. The other night he not only made a statement which was absurdly wrong, but he induced even his neighbour to repeat the same thing-that the dry dock was not being used at all. My hon. friend from Saltcoats said he found an inch and a half of dust on the machinery there, and the dry dock, he was informed, had not been used at all. I do not think my friend wants to be unfair, I do not think that he or any other member has any bitterness against Quebec because it is Quebec-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: but his statement was so misleading that I took the trouble to ask the Department of Public Works for figures showing what ships had used the dry dock last year and the year before. I have those figures before me. Last year in the larger dry dock 39 vessels were repaired, and the year before 30; in the smaller dry dock 21 were repaired in 1924 and 20 in 1925.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What was the date of
the first vessel's going in? I think possibly the member for Saltcoats and the minister are both right. At the time the former was there it is quite likely that no ships had been in that spring; he was there in May.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend went there before navigation started.


Mr CALDWELL:: May not the statement of the member for Saltcoats have been correct at that time?


Mr LAPOINTE:: Will not my friend
admit that the statement was unfair, that the dry dock was not used at all and there was dust ah over the machinery?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not think the
member for Saltcoats said the dry dock had never been used, but he did say there was dust on the machinery at the time he was there. I know the minister wants to be fair to the member for Saltcoats who is not here.


Mr. SALES:: He is here.


Mr LAPOINTE:: I resented the statement at the time, I still resent it, and I know that when the hon. member for Saltcoats knows the facts he will withdraw it.


Thomas Sales: Mr. Chairman, I explained at the time that that was the information that had been given to me, and that I did not know whether it was correct or not. Navigation was then open, and there was a vessel in the private dock under repair I was told that there never had been a ship in the big dry dock, and when giving that statement to the House I said that if mv information was wrong I should not be held accountable for it.


Ernest Lapointe: There was a ship there,
but my friend did not see it.


Thomas Sales: I accept the minister's figures. I do not want to be unfair to Quebec; on the contrary I want to be fair, and I am sure the Quebec members know that. Therefore, the minister need not labour the point.


Mr LAPOINTE:: But so many misstatements were made the other night-


Thomas Sales: On misinformation.


Mr LAPOINTE:: -that I could not understand the reason, for I do not think we deserve to be so treated by our friends.


Robert Alexander Hoey: You must have poor officials
down there.


Ernest Lapointe: As I say, I have here
figures from the Department of Public Works, and you can see that big ships, such as the MeHta and the Minnedosa-


Thomas Sales: I accept your statement, sir.


Ernest Lapointe: That is all right, and I thank the hon. member for it. Now, my friends from Brandon (Mr. Forke) and from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) referred to Mr. J. G Scott. They have great faith in him, and I share their confidence. They said that Mr Scott, although he advocated a reduction in the rates, never spoke about larger facilities being needed in the iport of Quebec. Well, I knew Mr. Scott did say in his report that larger facilities were needed and were a necessary part of the scheme. He has sent me a copy of the letter he addressed to my friend

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
the leader of tlhe Progressive party (Mr. Forke) commenting upon his speech and calling his attention to the fact that it was a necessary thing to do if what he (Mr. Scott) advocates is going to be put into execution.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think we all admit that, "if it is going to be put into execution." but that 'if" is what we want to remove.


Ernest Lapointe: I will help my friend to remove it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister has not made much progress yet.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Scott in his letter to the leader of the Progressive party said:
There is storage on the Great Lakes and the prairies for about 200 million bushels; at our seaport, for less than 20 millions. Buffalo and New York have much larger export storage than we, and I am told Canadian money is being used to increase the storage at Buffalo; and United States millers have lately put up four mills at or near Buffalo to grind our wheat in transit, in bond, to be exported from New York in competition with the product of Canadian flour mills, which had gained precedence in the export markets.
It is for all these reasons that I recommended in my report (page 14) that the advice of the Quebec Board of Trade of 1913 and of the Senate in 1922 (see pages four and seven) should be followed, and that 10 million bushels storage should be put up at each of the ports of Quebec, Halifax and St. John (Montreal, Vancouver and Prince Rupert are being provided for) without further delay.
It would be useless to build elevator storage unless there are steamship docks adjacent for the vessels carrying the grain. Hence the necessity of the $5,000,000 vote for the Quebec harbour which is under discussion. And the want is urgent. Every year that you put it off, the more strongly you direct the trade to continue in the existing channels to United States seaports.
Now, th* strong argument, and my friend from Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) used it again to-night, is -that the Quebec Harbour Commission has not paid its interest. True; and we explained the reason the other day. But why shoulld we always be met with that contention: you are not paying your interest. How many ports have been built in this country which are .paying interest? I admit the port of Montreal is paying now and the port of Van-couve'r is paying on advances [DOT] which were made to it by the government during the period of construction. It is very easy to pay under such circumstances, but Vancouver is a big port which is developing and which will be one of the great ports of the world. What about Halifax? The country has spent over $17,000,000 at Halifax. Is anybody asking for interest from the port of Halifax wJhen a vote is being requested for any other public works or extensions there? No. At St. John we have spent $18,967,000. or about $20,000,000 in round figures. Is anybody asking that interest should be paid at St. John before anything further is done there?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is interest not being paid at St. John?


Ernest Lapointe: No interest is being
asked from St. John. The port was built by the government without any loan, any advances.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: St. John is not under a harbour commission-


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: -and the government own the docks and the works they have constructed.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but conditions are
the same. We are not complaining that we are not getting revenue there on the money spent.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Was the dry dock at St. John built by the Department of Public Works?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


An hon. MEMBER:: There was a subsidy
act.


Ernest Lapointe: There was a subsidy act. This does not include the dry dock. The dry dock was built by the Department of Public Works and it is not under a harbour commission at all.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister comparative figures showing the traffic through the ports of Halifax, St. John and Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: I have not the figures at hand. If there is more traffic at St. John and Halifax, as I suppose my hon. friend wants
to suggest-


George Gibson Coote: I have not the information.
It would be interesting to have it.


Ernest Lapointe: -there would be more
reason why they should make some return to the government, instead of Quebec being asked to return every cent it. has received. In Toronto we have paid $9,964,057.13, or in round figures $10,000,000, and the big city of Toronto has not been asked to pay anything to the government by way of interest or return on the investment that has been made there, if it can be dignified by the name of an investment. It is not fair to meet the request of Quebec for larger harbour facilities by the contention: You have not paid interest. It was impossible to pay interest under the circumstances; but the advances are made by way of a loan, and I have the same hope as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) that, if the port of Quebec is given
3S92

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
the opportunity it should have and if the railways will give a reasonable rate from the western prairies to the port of Quebec, some day this should 'be considered as really an investment. I know my 'hon. friends want to be fair, but the other night some statements were made that were far outside the mark and I am pleased to have been given an opportunity of correcting them.


George Gibson Coote: What are the receipts from
the dry dock at Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: The Champlain dry dock during the year ended March 31, 1925, collected in dockage dues from vessels that entered the dock 838,356. During the year ended March 31, 1924, the dockage dues collected amounted to $59,881.11. During the year ended March 31, 1925, in the other dry dock the dues amounted to $22,376, and in 1924, to $19,706.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister the cost of the drydocks at Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: No. Those were built
by the Department of Public Works.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Do I understand
the minister to say that Canadian capital is being provided to secure storage facilities at Buffalo?


Ernest Lapointe: No. I merely read a
letter addressed by Mr. J. G. Scott to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke).


Mr. LUCAS:: Are any vessels held up at
Quebec now for lack of docking facilities there?	.


Ernest Lapointe: I could not say whether there is one to-night, but I know all the facilities are in use.


Mr. GARDINER:: What are the rentals
received from the wharves at Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: I think that appears in the report of the harbcur commission. I have not the information here. It was given the other night in the debate on the resolution.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: In any remarks that I
am going to make on this bill to-night, I want it to be thoroughly understood that my sentiments are with the province of Quebec in more ways than one. I was bom in that wonderful province; I have a good many relations living in that province to-day, and my sympathies are with it. But until I am convinced that this vote is absolutely necessary and essential, I am going to vote against it, not because I am antagonistic to Quebec, be-[Mr Lapointe.]
cause, as I said before, my sympathies are with that province. I do not agree with the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) that we are ever going to ship grain to Quebec in any quantity. The hon. member said the other night that if we got a reduction in rates on the National railways, we would ship a great deal of grain to Quebec. I do not agree with him for these reasons. If we have an ordinary crop in western Canada today, it takes all that our railways can do to transport our products to Fort William and Port Arthur. If we are going to shin grain to Quebec-and I would like to see that just as much as any other hon. member and to see our Canadian ports being used-we are going to add between one thousand and eleven hundred miles of railway haul for our grain. What will that mean? It will mean an additional expenditure in providing rolling stock, and at least 80 per cent of the cars that will haul that grain to Quebec will have to go back west empty. That is happening to-day at Fort William and Port Arthur. Hundreds of cars are going back empty into western Canada that have been loaded with grain going into Port Arthur. I agree that the idea which Sir Wilfrid' Laurier had in mind when, the National Transcontinental was built was to ship grain direct to- Quebec and make use of that port to a considerable extent. But the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier have passed and we have the port of Vancouver at the present time with its possibilities. When Sir Wilfrid undertook to build the Transcontinental he did not foresee the future of the port of Vancouver nor the development of the Panama canal traffic. I say in all sincerity that you will never be able to haul grain in any large quantity to the port of Quebec or to Halifax or St. John; the grain will go where there are the cheapest facilities, and one half cent a bushel of a difference will divert the whole grain traffic to the more favourable ports.	,
I am quite sympathetic with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe); and as a matter of fact there is not an hon. member in this part of the House who does not sympathize with him in this matter. I know that those of us in this group Who have expressed views adverse to this expenditure have been charged with being antagonistic to Quebec. But I hope that neither the Minister of Justice nor the Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) will think that of me; I hope they will not entertain any such opinion of any member in this group. I must say however that expenditures at the present time, whether they

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
be in the harbour of Quebec, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, or in any other part of Canada, are not justified unless they can be shown to be absolutely necessary.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wrong.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I may be, but at any rate my motives are sincere.


Mr.   GANNON@: You have a perfect right to be wrong.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Well, we are not always right.


Mr. CANNON:: I was merely suggesting
that the hon. member has the privilege of being wrong if he wishes, just as every other hon. member has.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: And the hon. member does not fail to take advantage of the same privilege himself. However, I am sure that the Minister of Justice and his colleague, as well as the members generally representing the province of Quebec, will agree on reflection that there is nothing in what I have said to indicate any antagonism to Quebec on my part. Indeed, my sympathies from childhood have always been towards that part of the country.


Charles Gavan Power: We forgive you, for you
know not what you do.


George Gibson Coote: I think that the hon. member (Mr. Beaubien) is absolutely right in what he says regarding the probability of western grain going in any large quantity to the port of Quebec in the fall of the year. It certainly is not feasible to haul grain that distance; it means hauling it something like
1,000	miles east of Fort William. We often have to wait now a month or two to get a car to load our wheat, and if the train that carries our wheat to Fort William must make the trip all the way to the port of Quebec, I should like to know how much longer we shall have to wait for the car to get back west and take on another load of grain to transport it to the shipping point. After the port of Quebec freezes up, surely it would not be expected that we should have sufficient elevator space built there to enable the railway to haul grain and store it at Quebec all winter. Any grain hauled after that port freezes will be taken to St. John or Halifax. Let us be honest about this thing and not delude ourselves into thinking that we can build up a big grain trade through the port of Quebec. When the minister was telling us what was to be done with the $5,000,000
he did not mention grain elevators; the amount is nearly all to be spent in the building of an immense new dock and in dredging the approach to that dock. Can the minister tell us what kind of traffic is to be handled at the port of Quebec which will necessitate this immense new wharf? If the traffic will not consist of grain, what tonnage will be handled to justify this immense expenditure?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We expect that the facilities to be provided will take care of new traffic in general merchandise. We . are not contemplating the shipment of grain alone but the shipment of goods of all kinds. My hon. friend has said that he is not convinced of the necessity of this advance; and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) particularly has declared that he would vote for the measure if he were sure that it was necessary to provide these new facilities. What proof would be adequate to satisfy the soul of my hon. friend?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The proof that would satisfy me would have to be more convincing than the opinion of the shipping conference or shipping federation, who 'tell us that the rates on the Atlantic ocean are not too high. It would have to be stronger proof than that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Would my hon. friend set aside the evidence offered by those who are supposed to know something about this matter?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Has not the government itself ignored that evidence in appointing a committee to enquire into ocean rates?
(Mr. CARDIN:	The question before the
House should be decided on its own merits. Now, we have .the fact established here that the parties most interested, the shipping federation, have approved of this undertaking;
. they have declared that it is necessary and have asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to accede to the request of the harbour commission. And we have had the representations of the harbour commissioners of Quebec presented by men upon whom we can rely. These .men are supposed to know something about the development of the port of Quebec; and apart from what they have represented, we have also the approval of the authorities of the Canadian Pacific Railway as well as that of the president of the Canadian National Railways. It is therefore very well established that all parties interested in the project, all the persons who are supposed to be familiar with the facts, are favourably disposed to ilt; and if we are to seek advice on the subject, is it not reasonable to go to

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
those who ought to be in a position to inform us? Why should we brush aside their vieiws and take the opinion of those who are not eo familiar with shipping matters?


Mr. LEADER:: I understand we have
facilities for the handling of cattle at Quebec. What are they capable of handling in a year?


Charles Gavan Power: Almost as much as you will give us.


Harry Leader: I will take the answer given by the hon." member (Mr. Power).


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I am not in a position to give very definite information, but I may say that the facilities at present can take care of ten times the traffic we now have.


Harry Leader: That is the point I wish to make; we have already at the port of Quebec facilities for handling a great many more cattle without further expenditures. I have listened to this debate both to-night and the other evening, and I have been siienlt, but I intend to vote against these proposals, and not because I am antagonistic to Quebec, as I have repeatedly said from this corner of the House; I think we have all proved at least that we have a warm feeling for the port of Quebec. We feel that Montreal has hogged the puck to the detriment of the port of Quebec and also to the detriment of eastern ports of the Maritime provinces. We would like to see the port of Quebec developed, and to see more business go through it. I find that in 1924 there were transported1 through the port of Quebec exactly 1,507 head of cattle, and that at the same time 44,494 went through the port of Montreal. When the government propose to spend $5,000,000 to build facilities at the port of Quebec they should show us that .more business can be done there. We are sympathetic to the port of Quebec. We have the Transcontinental railway and we would like to patronize it; we are capable of shipping the cattle and of furnishing the wheat. We also have the elevator space. Last year five million bushels were handled at the Quebec elevator and grain men tell me that the facilities there are capable af handling three, four or five times as many bushels of grain-someone suggests forty million bushels. So why in the name of economy should we Spend $5,000,000 to extend facilities at the port of Quebec, which, I understand,-and someone will correct me if I am wrong-are not used' to their full capacity at present? I protest against this expenditure, and if it comes to a vote I will vote against it.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The minister did not answer my last question, as to how much the government can still advance to the harbour commissioners of Quebec apart from this legislation. I wonder if he would also give us some indication as to how much of this proposed loan or guaranteed1 loan the commissioners intend to spend during the coming year. If we could get this information we might have an intelligent grasp of just what is at stake.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount of money
which can be advanced to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners under existing legislation is about $100,000. As to my hon. friend's second question, the harbour commissioners will not be in a position to spend more than $1,000,000 during the first year.


John Evans: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Evans: Hon. gentleman are in too much of a hurry. Notwithstanding all that has been said, I am still unconvinced that this large grant to the port of Quebec harbour is needed. It has not been shown that the present capacity is used to its full extent. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) need not say that bitterness is shown on this side of the House as against Quebec, because since the Progressive party have come here in considerable numbers we have pleaded for the port of Quebec. I have in mind speeches made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) and also the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) on behalf of the port of Quebec, asking that it get its share. But what has been the influence that has kept Quebec from getting its full share of traffic in the years gone by? Can any gentleman on that side say that that influence has been removed and that Quebec is going to get its full share after this? Notwithstanding the fact that, according to the minister himself, over $21,000,000 have been invested1 in the port of Quebec by the Dominion, on which is owing some $8,077,000, we are asked to vote an additional $5,000,000 for a harbour that is not at present used to its full capacity. It has been said that the largest boats that go up the St. Lawrence cannot dock there, but I know for a fact that the Regina docks there without any trouble.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. gentleman
pardon me if I simply add that in 1923 the Regina was unable to take a full cargo at Montreal and had to take a full cargo at Quebec? I have a long list of vessels which in the summer of 1923 were in the same posi-

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
tion, and I am willing to read! them to my hon. friend.


John Evans: 
Robert Gardiner: What tonnage of general cargo passed through the port of Quebec last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was 594,000 tons.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give
any information as to the source of that tonnage?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was grain, coal, fuel oil
and general cargo.


Robert Gardiner: What was the tonnage
of coal and grain respectively?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Coal, 246,227 tons; grain,
157,975 tons; general cargo, 100,000 tons. This does not include lumber and timber.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister say
where this general cargo originated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid not.


Robert Gardiner: Was the general cargo
both out and in?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: I would like to say a
word by way of protest against this vote. As far as I can see there seems to be very little possibility of the port of Quebec developing unitil such time as we get a freight rate to that port that will draw traffic there. I know for a fact- that when the grain passes out of the hands of the farmers of western Canada, and that is when it reaches Fort Wfilliam, they have nothing at al' to say about its destination. This House may be well assured that those who are shipping grain to Great Britain and other European ports will ship their grain by the cheapest route. We have heard, for instance, that the Saskatchewan Elevator Company have recently built a large elevator at Buffalo. They have built it there simply because it is the probable route over which most of the grain will go, to the detriment of the Georgian bay ports. It seems to me that if this government or any other government that may come into existence in the future desires to make the Canadian ports what they should be, they will first of all have to take into consideration how best to get the traffic that should pass through our ports to those ports at the lowest possible cost. I believe the prime duty of the government at the present time is an adjustment of railway rates, for instance, to the port of Quebec, and until the government take hold of this question in such a way that they will bring results, I for one am opposed to the expending of more money on this post. When the government can show us that they are in earnest, that they will see to it that the tonnage that goes out of Canada and the tonnage that comes into Canada is going to be carried through our own ports at rates equal to what it can be carried to other ports in the United States, I shall be quite willing to support the government in any expenditure to make our Canadian ports what they should be.


Mr. GOULD:: The figures of 1,507 head of cattle were given as the number exported from the port of Quebec. It seems to me that the farmers of Quebec themselves must be very negligent in that they have failed to raise more steers for export from their own ports, if they think this expenditure is necessary.


Georges Parent: They are more engaged in dairying than in the raising of cattle.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Oliver Robert Gould: I have to admire the generosity of this government in providing further facilities for the port of Quebec for the benefit of the himterland west of the Great Lakes, whose representatives are opposed to this expenditure. If the people of Quebec really require the development of their port, surely they would have been creating more traffic for it; but judging from that standpoint, they apparently do not want this development.
It has been stated here to-night that for good business reasons western grain cannot go to the port of Quebec simply because to provide the necessary rolling stock to carry it there would plunge the road almost irretrievably into debt, irrespective of what the rates might be. I have information by letter from the west from farmers living along the international boundary that there is a considerable sentiment backwards and forwards between the farmers out there in favour of reciprocity with Canada. We in Canada have on our statute books at the present time an offer of reciprocity to the United States. I might also state that in the morning press I saw the view expressed that the day was not far distant when the United States would again approach Canada with the object 12 m. of bringing about reciprocity or an exchange of natural products. When that day comes the Fordney-McCumiber tariff of 40 cents a bushel on wheat is going to be taken off. I believe the United States government now realize the folly of that imposition on our export wheat, and also on our cattle. That in itself is going to militate against the business that might otherwise go to Quebec harbour and our far eastern ports.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. member want to persuade us to vote against reciprocity?


Oliver Robert Gould: I do not think it is possible to make a speech that would persuade the hon. member to vote against reciprocity. I have never voted against it myself. I have always supported that principle, and I would vote for it to-night or at any other time when the opportunity was presented.


Charles Gavan Power: But if my hon. friend shows us that it would be better for us not to support reciprocity, we shall find1 it extremely difficult to persuade our people at home that they should support it.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am trying to show what
would result from a freer interchange of trade between the two countries. It might benefit us all. I believe that there are scores of members on the government side of the House who are opposed from a business point of view to spending $5,000,000 in Quebec harbour.


Lucien Cannon: Look on your own side.


Oliver Robert Gould: I quite anticipate what the
vote will be, but let us be frank and admit that votes are not always given on the merits of the question.


Lucien Cannon: Oh, yes, on this side.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am going to refer for a
moment to the remarks made by the Minister of Justice. Surely he does not charge the members in this corner of the House with being antagonistic to the people of Quebec or to Quebec harbour. I would not like to have that inference drawn because I am taking the stand I do simply from a business standpoint. I do not think any evidence has been adduced up to the present time which warrants this huge expenditure. Almost one might be tempted to exclaim, "God save Canada 1" if such things are going to happen, with the government proposing to spend $5,000,000 with our economic conditions are as they are to-day, on a harbour that is not now being used to the utmost of its facilities, and with not much prospect for many years to come of the facilities already available being used to their capacity. This proposal comes from a government that professes economy, that preaches economy from the house-tops. The proposal itself is very good evidence to the contrary, if I am any judge. I shall not have to take the consequences, however; it will not be my funeral. The government must take the responsibility.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Quebec is the
cradle of Canada.


Oliver Robert Gould: If the government want to
provide these facilities at the port of Quebec, they should provide greater traffic for the port and not depend upon the western provinces to do it. We are not asking for this. We are opposed to the principle, because we do not think that we can supply the Motherland through the port of Quebec and leave any profits to ourselves. I am sure that when the members of the government will look at this question from a purely business point of view, they will realize it is an unwarranted expenditure.


Robert Alexander Hoey: A few minutes ago the minister intimated that further developments at Quebec were endorsed by the president of the Canadian National Railways. I should like to ask him when that endorsement was made, and what was the nature of it. Can he read anything to the House that will convince us that the president of the Canadian National Railways justifies this development or believes it is necessary at the present time?

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not the letter of the president of the Canadian National Railways before me. It was written last year.


Robert Alexander Hoey: What was the nature of the
document?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was in approval of the proposal that is presently submitted to the House, and which had 'been submitted to him previously by the Quebec harbour commissioners.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Did he intimate in that document that rates would be readjusted to justify us in believing that the volume of grain moving to Quebec would be greater in the future?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: He did not refer to rates
in the letter.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to make
any speech on this question, but I am going to vote for this loan. I think that with the exception of the members from Quebec themselves I know more about the Quebec harbour development than any man in this House. I was identified with it many years ago, and we provided for a great development along . these waters-that was the original plan- from Cap Rouge down to the city of Quebec. Proper: y was purchased at that time to carry out harbour development right along the front where there was deep water. That was changed, but I am not going to discuss it at the present time. I want to ask my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner) a question. He surprised me if I got the thing right. He mentioned some company or some organization that was building an elevator at Buffalo. Now, will my hon. friend repeat the name of that organization?


Robert Gardiner: The Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevator Company Lihiited.


Georges Parent: That is sending Canadian
trade through Canadian ports.


George Perry Graham: That is all I want to know.


Thomas Sales: The Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company Limited seems to be a rather interesting subject just now. I have been connected with that company. I happen to have been a director on the board for nine years, and I was on the board when the decision to build that elevator was arrived at. The Minister of Railways and Canals seems rather surprised. He would be more surprised if I said the action of this government had a very large influence in determining the building of that elevator at Buffalo. I can assure, him, that it had.


George Perry Graham: In what way?


Thomas Sales: I will explain to the Minister of Railways in what way. We discussed the question of lake freight rates at very great length in this House. It was pointed out that grain was carried by Canadian beats to Buffalo, a three day journey, at less money than it was carried to Georgian Bay ports which is a two day journey. I adked the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, not the present minister, if when there was half a cent a bushel discrimination in favour of Buffalo' he would say that the coasting laws should be automa: ically suspended!? His answer was "Why should I?" I went from here to Regina to a meeting of the Saskatche-man Co-operative Elevator board. We were rather in favour cf building at a Georgian bay port and had been considering it. The question of Buffalo came up. My1 mind was made up from the moment I got the minister's answer. Not only did we have the advantage of a lower rate to Buffalo carrying our grain farther on its way, but I want to say that Buffalo is the most advantageous point on this continent for grain to be at. It can be shipped from there to Montreal; it can be shipped to New York, to Philadelphia, to Boston, to many of these ports that are open all the year round. I tell this House that this business of carrying grain to Quebec is a myth. Not only is there a long railway haul, but the farmers are unable to collect from the railway company any of the shortages which are incurred by reason of that long haul. So what do they do? They get their wheat into a place where they can get their weight as quickly as possible; that is Fort William. As has been pointed out, the wheat has left the farmer's hands at this time and is in the hands of the exporters. When you go to talk business with these men you have to talk business. As we have been told, grain is like water; it will run down hill, and all the talk, and all the sentiment, and all the patriotism will not make it run up hill. Grain will follow the line of least resistance in spite of all preaching to the contrary. Some hon. members say "patriotism". Is my company any more unpatriotic than the lake shipping companies? Are we any more unpatriotic than a member of this government who will not put into effect the suspension of the coasting laws? Let me point out one other reason why grain will never go to Quebec which my hon. friends apparently do not know. When navigation is closing it is the practice at the head of the lakes to load every available boat for winter storage, which can be got on these boats at about half the price that it can be got for in elevators. Every available boat that can be

Quebec Harbour Commissioners
loaded is sent down to Buffalo for the last journey. There is an ice breaker in Buffalo harbour, and the boats can be moved to the transfer houses and unloaded, the grain loaded in cars, and in twenty-four hours shipped to New York.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend tell me the total amount of grain which is stored in these bottoms?


Thomas Sales: I have not the figures here but I can assure my hon. friend it is a considerable quantity.
'Mr. VIEN: Is it not a fact that it is a trifling amount as compared with the volume that is being transported?


Thomas Sales: The quantity is more than the port of Quebec handles altogether.


Georges Parent: That is why we want
facilities for handling more.


Thomas Sales: No man owning an elevator that was only filled to twice its capacity would ever dream of enlarging the capacity of that elevator. In the case of the Buffalo elevator we will consider that if it is not filled ten times in the course of the year it will be doing poor business.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend was speaking of winter storage. He cannot avail himself of the advantage more than once in the winter. Once the boats are loaded and jammed in ice they do not reload them.


Thomas Sales: That is only one advantage which is possessed at Buffalo and nowhere else. The ice is not so thick but that the ice breakers can keep the harbour open. These boats can be moved up in the winter time and unloaded and the grain delivered to ports that are open all the year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: At any time in the
winter?


Thomas Sales: At any time in the winter. There is this further advantage in favour of grain at the head of the lakes. Quebec has only one market, and that is the market overseas. At the head of the lakes grain can go by three or four different routes.
I am not going to speak at much greater length. I spoke on this question a few nights ago when I said I could not support this vote. Like the Minister of Railways I am going to vote, and I shall vote against the proposition if a vote is called. My reasons for taking that stand are these:	All these
things would be very nice if we could afford them, if we had the money. In conducting my own business if I cannot afford a thing

I have to go without it. It is time this government adopted the same method. On our political platforms we preach economy to the country. We also preach it in this House; and economy will be advocated when we go to the country on every political platform. But the question I want to know is when are we going to begin to practise economy. A few nights ago it was stated that we could not afford to reconsider the question of revaluing soldier settlement lands. We could not afford it. One hon. gentleman opposite also made the statement that we on this side were asking for everything. I want to tell 'the House that I represent one of the oldest constituencies in the west. We have been paying taxes all these years and we have not got a brick or a stick or anything in the shape of a government building, in the whole of that constituency. I should like to know what my people would say to me on my return home if I voted for this $5,000,000, when no valid reason has been given for the vote. I cannot do it. The Minister of |Judtice accused Ime of being rather unfair. I have looked at my words, and I am going to give him credit for think-, ing that he does not want to be unfair to me. I said:
We were told that there had not been a ship in that drydock. If my information was wrong, I cannot help it.
Mr. Lapointe: What time of the year was that?
Mr. Sales: I believe in June-May.
Mr. Lapointe: I think it was in May.
Mr. Sales: Perhaps it was. But that was the information we received, and we did not know any better. If it was wrong, I am glad to be corrected.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend said he saw
dust. He was not told there was dust; he saw it.


Thomas Sales: I did.


Mr. BELAND:: There is always dust in
those shops.


Thomas Sales: I did not need to put my
spectacles on to see it either. The dust was in the workshop. The private dock was being used. The government dock was empty. But I do not want to discuss that point any further. I think I have proved to my hon. friend that I did not want to be unfair, and that I did not say anything that was unfair.


Thomas Vien: Will not my hon. friend admit that a dry-dock is like a hospital?-when it is not being used it is because shipping is in a healthy condition.


Robert Alexander Hoey: That is just like saying they
do not need any dredging.

Quebec Harbour Commissioners


Thomas Sales: My hon. friend's imagination,
of course, is very fertile. I expect there is not enough business in Quebec for the shipping to get out of order; therefore the dust probably would accumulate. But we will let that matter pass.


Thomas Vien: But my hon. friend will not
contend that the St. Lawrence route should not be equipped with a dry-dock capable of receiving the largest steamers that ply in those waters?


Thomas Sales: Not at all. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, and I am through: the moment Quebec can show me that her facilities are being used to their capacity, or anywhere near their capacity, I will be the first man in this House to vote for the development of the port.


Harry Leader: Mr. Chairman, the minister took exception to the figures I submitted earlier in the debate when I stated that 1,507 head of cattle went through the port of Quebec last year. I received the figures from the Live Stock Commissioner and I have no doubt they are authentic. I sent them over to the minister, and he was kind enough to give me the figures for 1923-5,046. Now, I submit in all seriousness that the members who are agitating for this vote had better try and secure the lost tonnage that should have gone through the port last year. Remember, 5,046 cattle went through the port in 1923 and only 1,507 in 1924, and yet those members ask for an additional $5,000,000 to develop the facilities at that port.


Charles Gavan Power: May I tell my hon. friend that already 1,500 head of cattle have gone through the port this season, so we are following his advice.


Harry Leader: I am glad to hear that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will that change my hon. friend's attitude?


Harry Leader: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. One of the members for Quebec stated a few moments ago that the present facilities at Quebec are capable of handling all the cattlp we can send them.


Charles Gavan Power: For the time being.


Harry Leader: As a cattle man engaged in the business, I hope to see the day when
40,000	or 50,000 head will be rolling through the port of Quebec.
Section agreed to: Yeas,.79; Nays, 44.
Sections 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to on division.
Bill reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, June 5, 1925.