1919-06-20

CHARTERED TRUST AND EXECUTOR COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Nesbitt, Bill No. 141, (from the Senate), respecting the Chartered Trust and Executor Company was placed on the Order Paper amongst Private Bills for second reading this day.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Herbert John Rawrence.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 447, for the relief of Annie Miville.-Mr. Mowat.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. McKENZIE:: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen), I desire to bring to the notice of the right hon. the Prime Minister the reports that have appeared in the press.this morning about the strikes at Winnipeg. It is said that certain men who have been arrested are to be tried before a lay commission composed largely of officials of the Department of Immigration. I submit to the Prime Minister that such should not be the case, that these are grave charges, and that they should be tried before the best trained jurists of the land, or judges. I wish to know from the Prime Minister what method of trial is proposed.


Right Hon.   S@: I think the hon. gentleman (*Mr. McKenzie) is labouring under a misapprehension in regard to the matter. The Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) has telegrams this morning from Winnipeg, Which I have not seen. 1 therefore speak under reserve and subject to any mformation - which may be contained in these telegrams. There are two entirely distinct proceedings so far as my information goes. The men were arrested under the criminal law of the country, upon the charge that they had engaged in a seditious conspiracy, and they were placed under detention upon that charge. In addition to that, there was a proceeding taken under the Immigration Act for the deportation of some or all of them-I am not quite sure which. That is entirely distinct from the criminal proceeding. They, of course, could not be tried under the Immigration Act on a crirni-

nal charge; they would be tried upon such a charge under the ordinary criminal law of the country, according to the proper criminal procedure established by law. The procedure under the Immigration Act is one which was established many years ago, which has been acted upon many times in this country during the past fifteen or twenty years, and which can be carried on, as I understand-I still speak under reserve-concurrently with the proceeding under the criminal law. That is all the information I can give to my hon. friend at the moment. The Acting Minister of Justice may be able to give further information.
REPATRIATION OF CANADIAN ~ SOLDIERS.



STRIKE OF SHIP LABOUR IN LIVERPOOL CAUSES DELAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I de- . sire to ask the Overseas Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) if the strikes in England have interfered, or are likely to interfere, with the repatriation of our Canadian soldiers, and if so, to what extent?


Sir EDWARD KEMP (Minister of the Overseas Military Forces):: There have been strikes at the docks in Liverpool for the last ten days or more, and these have very seriously interfered with the embarkation of Canadian troops. No Canadian troops have been embarked from Liverpool since about the 14th inst. Our programme for the month of June contemplated the repatriation of some 55,000 Canadian troops. We brought back in the month of May about 55,000, and we had hoped that by the end of July, or even a little before that, we could get nearly all the Canadian troops back to Canada. I am inclined to the view, however, that the strikes will seriously interfere with that programme. It is feared, and it is possible, that the strike may extend to Southampton, where the very large ships sail from. However, I have information this morning which gives reason to hope that the strike may be settled to-day.



CANADIAN TROOPS FROM NORTHERN RUSSIA.

Albert Edward Kemp: There are a certain number of Canadian officers and men who have been in the vicinity of Archangel in Northern Russia. Twenty-two officers and 455 other ranks were due to arrive in England yesterday. There will be a few still to be repatriated, but we hope to bring them back at a very early date.



RIOTING BY NEGROES IN ENGLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers):: I notice from despatches which appeared in the press that negroes rioting in England cannot be deported on account of their British citizenship, but will be invited to leave that country by the offer of their passage money. I would like to know from the Government if any steps have been taken to ascertain whether any of these men are Canadians whom it is intended to return to Canada and if so, what action the Government intend to take as to their reception in this country when they arrive?


Albert Edward Kemp: Do I understand my hon. friend to inquire whether or not these negroes are Canadian citizens?


Jacques Bureau: I am asking if any steps have been taken by the Government to ascertain whether any of them are Canadian citizens, and if so what action the Government intended to take with respect to their return to their own country, and what disposition would be made of them as being undesirables?


Albert Edward Kemp: I did not gather
from the information which I read in the press that the negroes at Liverpool to whom my hon. friend refers were Canadian citizens. If there are any negroes in the Canadian army that are Canadian citizens they would be scattered throughout the forces- one or two here, and two or three elsewhere -and they would be treated exactly the same as other Canadian citizens.


Jacques Bureau: My question is, have any steps been taken to ascertain if there are any Canadians among them? If so, how many are there and how is the Government going to dispose of them in view of their being undesirable?


Albert Edward Kemp: No such steps
have been taken with respect to the negroes referred to, because it was not supposed there were any Canadians amongst them.



BUSINESS COMBINES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (Peterborough West):: I hold in my hand an excerpt from a local paper containing a despatch from London, which states as follows-
Business rings, combines and trusts, perfected during the war, are controlling Great Britain's industries, according to the findings

of a Government Committee appointed by Sir Auckland Geddes, Minister of Reconstruction.
If this report is true will the condition referred to have any effect upon the trade relations of Canada?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The attention of the Government has not been directed thus far to the communication in the press to which the hon. gentleman refers.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne {Minister of Marine) for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolutions:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide,-
1.	That the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay the Corporation of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, hereinafter called the "Corporation," such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of five million dollars, as may be required to enable the Corporation to carry on the construction of works to provide such terminal facilities as are deemed necessary for the proper development and equipment of the harbour of V ancou ver.
2.	That during the period of construction of the works referred to in these resolutions, the interest payable on the debentures deposited with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General under the provisions of the Act to be based upon these resolutions, in respect of the construction of such works, shall be deemed to be money required to enable the Corporation to construct the said works, and to be a part of the cost of the construction thereof, and the said interest may be paid out of the said sum of five million dollars. The period of construction herein referred to shall begin on the day when the first advance is made on account of the said construction, and shall terminate on such date as the Governor in Oouncii shall fix and determine.
3.	That no construction of any works shall be begun, and no advances shall be made under the proposed legislation, until the necessary plans, specifications, and estimates in detail to govern the construction of such works have been submitted to and approved toy the Governor in 'Council.
4.	That applications for the said advances shall toe made monthly by the Corporation during the period of construction of said works, with statements detailing the total expenditure on any work in the month which the requested advance is to cover, and such other statements and information as the minister may require, and no payment shall be made on any application until the application has been approved by the Governor in Council.
5.	That the Corporation shall, upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, debentures of the Corporation equal in par value to the advance so made (which debentures the Corporation is authorized to issue by the proposed legislation), and each such debenture shall be for such amount as the Minister of Finance and

Receiver General shall prescribe. The debentures shall bear date of the day such advance is made, and shall be repayable within twenty-five years from the date of their issue. They shall bear interest at the rate of five per centum per annum, and such interest shall be made payable half yearly on the first day of July and the first day of January in each year.
6.	That the principal and interest of the sums advanced to the Corporation under the authority of the Act to be based on these resolutions, shall toe payable by the Corporation out of all its property and assets, and out of all its tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income, and shall rank as a charge thereon next after, and have precedence in regard to payment next after, the principal and interest of all debentures or bonds heretofore issued by the Corporation to the public and amounting to the sum of three hundred thousand dollars, said debentures or bonds having been issued under the provisions of chapter 54 of the Statutes of 1913.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister please explain the resolutions.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: This legislation is to empower the Government to loan to the Harbour Commissioners! for the port of Vancouver a sum of $5,000,000. I wish to explain that while there is a Board of Harbour Commissioners at Vancouver, no moneys have as yet been voted to them by Parliament. The terminal facilities at that port are very inadequate for shipping, more particularly in view of the fact that the Dominion Government now owns and operates what will soon be a very large mercantile marine. It will be necessary to build one or two deep-water berths there to accommodate not only the Government vessels but also the ships of other companies that ply to the port of Vancouver. It must not be understood that the $5,000,000 is to be expended immediately at this port. The Bill to be passed will merely be an enabling Act so that the money may be voted to the Harbour Commissioners and expended from time to time subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. Fees will be collected by the Harbour Commissioners of Vancouver, from wharfage dues and other sources, similarly as fees are now collected at the ports of Montreal and Quebec. The revenues so obtained will, it is considered, be sufficient to enable the Harbour Commissioners of Vancouver to pay five per cent on this loan.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like the minister to give the House a statement, if he is in a position to do so, as to how we stand with respect to these different loans. , My experience is that they merely amount to giving money away; we never get that money back and we never get the interest.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL:: The port of Montreal pays its interest.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The result is that these ports get more rapidly into debt. They come back for a further loan and the old debt and the new borrowings are incorporated in a new Act, and further sums advanced by the Government. Would the minister be kind enough to tell us how we stand with respect to these various loans made from time to time to ports such as Vancouver?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will be very glad, indeed, to give the hon. gentleman the information. As I have already stated, no advance whatever has been made to the port of Vancouver out of money voted by Parliament. A few years ago the Harbour Commissioners floated a loan of $300,000, but no extensive work has been undertaken there. I think we will all agree that the port of Vancouver is a very important one and that it is going to become more important, but we cannot accommodate the Government steamers, or the other vessels entering the port, unless piers are built. With regard to the port of Montreal, the Dominion Government has from time to time advanced sums totalling $26,485,000, the rate of interest on some of which loans has been three per cent and on others three and a half per cent. That port has always paid interest on these loans-


Charles Marcil: Hear, hear.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: -and will continue to do so. There is a Bill now on the Order Paper standing for second reading, under the provisions of which the rate of interest on loans to all harbours that are now under the direct control of the Minister of Marine will be advanced to five per cent, so that the port of Montreal in the case of any future loans will pay five per cent instead of three and three and a half per cent as in the past. I am quite satisfied, from an intimate knowledge of the affairs of the port of Montreal, that it will have no difficulty in meeting its interest even at the advanced rate. The port of Quebec, which is also administered by Harbour Commissioners, has been advanced the sum of $11,732,548, and the outstanding debentures amount to $1,150,000. I regret to say that the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec have never received sufficient revenue to enable them to pay any portion of the interest on the moneys that have been voted to them in the past. However, as Quebec is one of Canada's national ports, and its
maintenance is necessary in the interests of the whole country, the successive governments have deemed it advisable to incur the expenditure I have just mentioned. The only three ports that are under commission and to which loans have been, or will be, made, are Vancouver, Quebec, and Montreal.
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us-


Mr. SPEAKER:: This proceeding is most inegular. At the instance of the leader of the Opposition, it was understood that an explanation should be offered by the minister at this stage, but that any further questions should be put in committee. The motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider this resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Boivin in the chair.
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: This method of advancing money to the great ports of the country is much better than the method adopted in Halifax, where the Government themselves built the docks, and consequently all the incidental expenditure is a burden on the whole country. My idea is that the ports ought to pay the interest on these loans; the whole country should not be taxed for it. Of course, advances should be made with care, and I would like to be assured by the minister that the revenue of Vancouver Harbour is sufficient to warrant our embarking on this expenditure.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I went over this matter very carefully with the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners when they were here a few weeks ago. The revenue in the past has been very small, and would not meet the interest on the loan I am now proposing unless the dues were collected at that port as they are collected at Montreal and Quebec. I have instructed the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners to follow the same procedure as is followed at Montreal, and from the figures which they presented to me, they will have no difficulty in paying the 5 per cent interest on this loan.
It is my view that the various Harbour Commissioners ought to provide a sinking fund so that when these debentures fall due the Harbour Commissioners may themselves be able to take them up out of revenues collected. At present these debentures have to be taken up by the Federal Government when they fall due. T hope to make these advances real loans to the various Harbour Boards, so that they

shall not only pay the interest on them, but also meet the debentures when they fall due; and to that end I am taking steps to provide for a sinking fund at the various ports.


John Howard Sinclair: What was the
revenue of Vancouver harbour last year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I had thought that this morning we would simply give notice that the resolution be considered in Committee of the Whole to-morrow; and therefore I have not before me, the statement which I have had prepared showing the present revenue and the estimated revenue for the ensuing year. I shall be glad to get the information for my hon. friend, but I point out that the revenue has been extremely small, because they had no interest to meet except the interest on the loan of $300,000.


John Howard Sinclair: When the Bill
based upon this- resolution is brought down, I would ask the minister to have the details' of the revenue of the port and of the tonnage which entered the harbour during last year.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I suggest that
the minister give us, at the same time, information respecting the arrivals and departures of ships from the port during that period.


Mr. OOPP:: How much is it proposed
to advance to the Harbour Commissioners during the present year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The programme has not really been decided upon. Representations have been made to me that these deep water piers should be erected at False Creek, on the Kitsilano Indian Reserve. Representations have also been made that that is not the most suitable place; that the piers ought to be built in Burrard Inlet-that is, in the harbour proper. I intend to go to Vancouver about the end of August to look over the ground, and after obtaining local and technical advice on the subject I shall recommend to the Government as to where these piers should be built. In any event, the expenditure during the next two years should not be more than $2,000,000. From what I learned from the Harbour Commissioners, I am under the impression that if they had two deepwater piers each of which would accommodate four ocean ships, that ought to be snough to carry them along for some years.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will the loan of $300,000
already outstanding be paid off out ot this advance?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have not before me the date of maturity of the loan of $300,000, but I understand that the bonds will not mature for some years, and I hope that by that time the Harbour Commissioners will be able to redeem them out of revenue. But if the revenues should Hot be sufficient to take these bonds up, they would have to be redeemed out of this loan.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not opposed to the development of the harbour of Vancouver, or of any other national harbour, but I differ from my honourable friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair); I believe that the harbours of all national ports, and all expenditure in connection with them, should be under the control of the Federal Government. I submit also that one or more engineers who are specialists, should be appointed to look after the necessary engineering in connection with the building of these docks. We cannot expect local commissioners to have the knowledge that is necessary to the proper carrying out of this work, because the harbour dues are not sufficient to enable them to engage such expert engineering services as are necessary , to the proper construction of these docks. In a sense, docks are world-wide property; they do not belong to us. in a way, any more than to any other part of the world, because ships from all parts of the world must use them. We must, therefore, have men in charge of the construction of these docks who have wide knowledge of matters of this kind, and it is impossible to expect that from a harbour commission.


John Howard Sinclair: While I do not
want to enter into any controversy with the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), I still maintain my position that these great national ports can better be handled under local control than they can from Ottawa, and I think that is sound. We have the experience of the port of Montreal to fall back upon. It is the one bright spot in the management of the ports of Canada, and it has been managed in that way, that is, the Dominion Government have guaranteed the bonds where it is necessary to make large expenditures, and the port of Montreal has undertaken the full responsibility 'of paying the interest. It has continued to pay the interest for many years, and the whole arrangement has been very satisfactory. Who should know better how the port of Montreal should be run than the city and the people and merchants of Montreal? If you want to undertake to run the port of Montreal from the city- of Ottawa,

you will have the same kind of trouble we are experiencing in other directions. What is true of the port of Montreal is true of the ports of Quebec, St. John, and Halifax. If you are going to adopt a system of this kind, you will be following the example set in the port of Montreal. The same is true in all parts of the world. The great works on the Clyde are managed by the city of Glasgow. The Clyde has been dredged; great docks have been built; it is one of the cheapest and best ports of the world, and the whole matter is under local control. The city of Glasgow is proud of the work on the Clyde, and the whole matter is well managed. It could not be managed in the same way from London. The same thing is true of the ports of Liverpool, London, Hamburg and all the other great European ports, which are all under local control. I have no doubt, with our vast distances in Canada and the difficulty of managing the port of Vancouver from Ottawa, it would be a great mistake to introduce such a system as is suggested by iny' hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie).


Michael Clark: I have no desire to delay this matter at this time, but I should be untrue to what I know to be economic truth if I did not, in a single sentence, dissociate myself from the somewhat antediluvian views of the leader of the Opposition and associate myself most heartily with the up-to-date and progressive views of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair), founded as they are upon a long experience of shipping and some knowledge of what goes on at the ports of the world in this matter. The views of the leader of the Opposition on a matter like this are the growth of protectionist sentiment. The whole question of how far we are to have shipping depends upon the extent to which we believe in a protectionist tariff, and I can quite understand that it will 'be necessary for the national government to spend and keep on spending money upon our ports if we keep up our tariff, because after you have spent as much as you like, unless you have a fiscal policy to expand the commerce of the country, your expenditure on the ports will be largely in vain. I do not want to elaborate this much at this time; but there can be no doubt in the world, on the part of any one who knows anything about or Who has studied shipping and international trade that, on this matter, the views of my hon. friend from Guysborough are more progressive and more in accordance with the
trade facts of the world than those of the leader of the Opposition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) has made a most effective reply to the leader of the Opposition, so that really I have not much to say. The hon. member for Guysborough has shown that he has a very thorough knowledge, not only of the ports of Canada, but of the ports of the world. I wish, however, to say in reply to the leader of the Opposition, that whether our ports are nationalized and operated by a local harbour commission, appointed by the Governor in Council, or whether the improvements in the various ports are carried out by the Department of Public Works, the Government in both cases is the owner. Everything within the boundaries of the *ports of Montreal, Quebec, and Vancouver which are under commissions at the present time, belongs to the Government, and the lands are Crown lands. I agree with the leader of the Opposition in so far as he goes in that direction, but where I would differ from him, in all friendliness, would be when he thinks that the improvements in those ports can be better carried out by the Department of Public Works than by a local commission appointed by the Governor in Council.
The personnel of these boards has been of a very high order. Our commissioners at the ports of Montreal and Quebec are among the leading citizens and most successful business men of those cities. It is also necessary at our big seaports for our commissioners to have a staff of the most highly skilled technical and engineering experts that can be obtained. With all due respect to the engineers of the Public Works Department, I say that there is not an engineer in that department to-day who

has as full a knowledge as is necessary of the development of ports to see that the improvements are of the character that the port demands, and that the work is properly carried out. When I had the honour of being one of the Montreal Harbour Commisioners during the big development years of that port we had to send to England and bring out an engineer from the port of Bristol to supervise the carrying out of the large plans. I am thoroughly convinced that when the harbour commissioners are appointed, if we get the proper men, and we have so far, the public interest will be better safeguarded and the work will be carried out more in keeping with the demands of the ports than if the work were done by the Department of Public Works. Some of the ports of Canada could tell a sorry story about the facilities that have been decided upon rather hurriedly without proper thought, but I will not go into that. I have, however, a very intimate knowledge of the mistakes that were made at the port of Montreal and other ports by the Department of Public Works, and to avoid such mistakes being made in the future I am a thorough believer in the Government appointing harbour commissioners to look after our ports. I am therefore in thorough accord with my hon. friend from Antigon-ish (Mr. Sinclair).


John Hampden Burnham: I should like to correct the impression which will probably go out to the country, coming as it does from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), that the expenditure of money on our harbours is necessitated by the policy of protection. When a nation or the public assume a burden for the benefit of a private interest, that is protection. In England all the taxes in connection with the development of the ports of London, of Liverpool and of the Manchester ship canal, for instance, have been assumed by the public for the benefit of the shipping industry. It is a bonus or subsidy to encourage the shipping companies. Steamship companies are subsidized. Now that is pure unadulterated protection.


Michael Clark: I am delighted to find that my hon. friend from Peterborough is in perfect harmony on this shipping question with the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, but I have the gravest possible doubts whether the two gentlemen combined will be able to commend their views to this House and the country after a careful study of the methods by which

ports are managed and shipping is developed in Britain, and of the methods which I understand both of these hon. gentlemen to recommend.
The position is a very simple one. The leader of the Opposition knows, of course, that, to put it mildly, there is considerable shipping done in the port of Liverpool. 1 suppose it is, perhaps, the biggest shipping port in the world. Now, when one goes out of that beautiful harbour of Bedford Basin, as I have done more than once, on the beauties of which the leader of the Opposition is prepared to expatiate at any given moment, one cannot but be struck by the dearth of ships in Bedford Basin as compared with the plentifulness of ships in the port of Liverpool. The contrast is most striking to an observant traveller. The port of Liverpool has grown up as a free port, as I understand free ports. It has grown up under a system of free importation and free exportation-under a system of free trade. The want of trade in Bedford Basin, I think, can be traced to an opposite fiscal policy.
I understand that the leader of the Opposition's idea of a free port is a port to which all the nations of the world would be allowed to send their ships, provided they could get their goods over the tariff wall that is now preventing the admission of the goods. I want to tell my hon. friend that he may spend as much money from Ottawa as he likes to make Bedford Basin ten times more beautiful and effective as a harbour than it is to-day, but if he keeps his tariff wall high enough the shipping will not come, because commerce will not be profitable.
My idea of a free port is not a port in which ships do not pay dues. The ships that come to Liverpool harbour, of course, pay their dues to the Harbour and Dock Commissioners, and the Harbour and Dock Commissioners of Liverpool conduct the port where the greatest shipping in the world is done. My idea of a free port is a port where goods come in and go out freely, and on that free method of business will grow up a trade under which tne ships will oe only too glad, because of the profits they make by their ships, to pay any dues that come against tWin, and the central government will, of course, avoid responsibility for expenditure which is very much calculated to be altogether unproductive.
I am not opposed to spending money on the harbour at Vancouver. It is an equally beautiful port, and has every possibility of doing a world business. I, of all men, should be the last to be suspected of being opposed to the expenditure of money on
the port of Vancouver, but what I want is a fiscal policy which will make Vancouver another Liverpool, and I do not think that the hon. member for Vancouver will be opposed to that ambition for his citv, whether or not he quite agrees with me as to the method of doing it.
I want to reason with my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. I address him in the language of Scripture, if he will allow me to do so, " Come let us reason together " upon this question. Why the other Friday evening, before my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) had resigned the portfolio of Agriculture, and was getting through his estimates, there was some talk about cold storage facilities, and the leader of the Opposition made a speech to which I listened with interest and some degree of wonder, in which he showed that a million dollars could be most profitably spent by this Government in establishing a cold storage plant at the port of Halifax. Does my hon. friend think that there are no cold storage facilities at the port oi Liverpool ? Liverpool has abundant cold storage facilities, provided by the harbour and dock commissioners of Liverpool, and paid out of the shipping of the port. That is my idea of a free port. I put this to my hon. friend, who has a good head for business: If this Government is going to spend a million dollars upon a cold storage plant, is going to spend $5,000,000 upon harbour improvements elsewhere, and is going to go on handing out millions, how is he going to carry out the policy ol economy for which he voted the night before last, and where are we going to land if we launch into all these expenditures without making our fiscal arrangements so that we can do business to meet the expenditure in the only way it can be met. If my hon. friend was at all annoyed by the expression " antediluvian views," I withdraw it.
I applied it to his views, and I still hold that if those views are not quite antediluvian they are pretty ancient at this time of day, and when my hon. friend studies the question he will find that he lacks the current knowledge of men who have moved around the world and studied shipping. I tell him that in all friendliness because I want to get him on my side and he has been coming along splendidly. He says: I find this free trade protection question in everything I approach. Surely my hon. friend does not think that the fiscal policy of a country has not anything to do with its shipping. He would not take that position. What is the good of his bringing in a

reference to horse dealing? I think I could demonstrate to him that international horse dealing has had a very intimate connection with shipping up to now. No number of horses worth mentioning have yet been sent across the seas in aeroplanes, they have all gone in ships. Just another word to my hon. friend. He mentioned expenditures in recent years in this connection, to which I made no objection. I made very little objection to this Government's policy in time of war, and my hon. friend knows the reason. We did not send a man to France who was not vitally needed, and this Government did not make an effort during the war that was not called for to do Canada's full part in the struggle, and we are only in the position we are in internationally to-day, and the world is only freed from the menace that threatened it for several years, because this Government combined with all the Governments of the Allies to exert the last ounce of our ability in every possible direction.
That is why we are in the magnificent position to-day of being able to dictate terms to Germany. But I said the other day that one of the first duties of the Government now was to get away as far as possible from certain methods that were indispensable in war time, and that is my answer to my hon. friend who chides me for not having taken upon myself duties that w'ould have devolved upon him as leader of the Opposition if there was any real objection to he made to the expenditures in the last few years. I am not objecting to this expenditure now. I am only trying to throw out a few ideas by which we may be guided to see that we get profitable results from the expenditure.


John Hampden Burnham: It is well for us to
learn even from our enemies; the hon. member will agree with that. How did it come about that the year previous to the declaration of war the ports of Hamburg and Rotterdam exceeded the ports of London and Liverpool by 1,000,000 tons in shipping?


Michael Clark: I have not alluded to that question and I would like to have documentary evidence of the truth of my hon. friend's statement,
iMr. BURNHAM: I can assure the hon. gentleman that it is true, and I should like him to consider the question.


Michael Clark: The hon. member may rest assured that I shall study the question.


Mr. ROBB:: At this stage in the proceedings, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that you should bring the Com-
12 noon, mittee back to the subject under consideration. If we are going to have a debate on theories of free trade and protection and incidentally introduce a discussion of the war we shall spend all summer here, and I think we had better get back to a consideration of the subject and pass the resolution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would point out to the hon. member for Red Deer a little incident that happened in this House during this session. I remember well that on the 25th of March a resolution was introduced into this House which, in my opinion after a long experience in this Parliament, was the most advanced resolution in the direction of free trade that was ever moved in the Parliament of Canada. I voted for the resolution and the hon. member voted against it. He will have to explain to his people, in the light of his advanced views, why when the question comes squarely before the House he refuses to support it. As regards the expenditure in Halifax, all I can say is, that this money which was expended there was voted long before the war which had nothing to do with it. The hon. member speaks of Bedford Basin. Bedford Basin is not really the harbour of Halifax. It is a magnificent inside basin, and while it is a part of the harbour it is not usually used commercially. If the hon. member had seen Bedford Basin during the last three years of the war I am sure he would have been very proud of it, not as a commercial harbour but by reason of the fact that no part of the Empire has served such an excellent purpose in connection with the war during its last three years. Bedford Basin has been simply crowded with vessels from all parts of the world coming there to receive proper orders on their voyages to various ports. I venture to say that no country in the world could by artificial means or by local expenditure produce such a magnificent body of water as Bedford Basin, and my hon. friend, with all the glories of the harbours of the Old Land, never saw anything in England, Scotland or Ireland in the shape of a harbour that could in any way compare with Bedford Basin. The harbour of Glasgow, of which we have heard so much, was made out of a field. Not so many years ago it was just a field and, all credit to the people of Glasgow, it was converted into a harbour. They had no harbour at all, but there was a large field

in the vicinity and they scooped it out and made a harbour of it, much to their glory. But we are not talking about that sort of thing but of the importance of improving the natural harbours we have, and it is no use my hon. friend comparing conditions in Liverpool and London, in a very small country where there are about 50,000,000 people and the oldest commercial establishments in the world, with a country of the vast area and distances of Canada with only eight millions of people. Great Britain is an old country- and Canada is new. Their resources and trade are developed; ours are not. We have to deal with primitive conditions and I think we are doing splendidly along international lines, and in that respect I intend to encourage the people of this country.
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK; May I reply to one specific point raised by the hon. member? I regret to occupy so much time of the Committee. In so far as the geography and the various characteristics of Nova Scotia are concerned, I confess my lack of knowledge and am prepared to sit at the feet of the hon. gentleman and be instructed by him. With regard to what is known as the McMaster resolution introduced at this session, the hon. member says I need to explain to my people squarely why I voted in .a certain way. Well, I will explain to him squarely now why I did. I explained at the time I voted against the McMaster resolution that I did so for exactly the same reason that my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and I both voted against similar resolutions under the guidance of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's when our party was in power and when such resolutions were raised on going into Supply instead of on the Budget at the proper time. I did that under the Liberal Government with my hon. friend,.and it will be he who will have to explain how what I did under the Liberal Government was quite right but what I did under the Unionist Government was utterly wrong.


Mr. MAHARG:: I should like some information as the internal management of our own harbours. Is it the intention that the grain elevators-at the port of Vancouver will be under the management of the harbour commissioners there?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is.


John Archibald Maharg: We have been told of the success of the Montreal harbour from the standpoint of management, and we have
also been told about its finances, and while we have not been told that it has not been a success in the matter of facilities, I know there is considerable difficulty in that respect. If I am correctly informed, the net receipts from the grain terminal elevator in the harbour of Montreal takes care of almost' the entire cost of management of that harbour. If they are charging the same rates as obtain in the other terminal elevators, they are receiving in the neighbourhood of from $350,000,000 to $500,000,000 of revenue from that harbour, depending on the amount of business done there. We are given to understand that the receipts from the handling of the western grain take charge of the entire, expense almost of Montreal harbour.
The minister shakes his head. Evidently he thinks that is not so, but I think that a close analysis of the work of the harbour under men in a position to know where the overhead expenditure is placed in the management of the harbour will go to show that what I say is approximately correct Now, this harbour of Montreal is in a different position. We were given to understand when the National Transcontinental railway was built that the harbour of Montreal and the harbour of Quebec were going to be put in a position of handling the immense quantities of grain from the West. We were given to understand, and I think properly so, that the rates for carrying grain from the head of the lakes to Quebec would be considerably reduced, even all-rail rates, on account of the shortness of the distance. There seems to have been absolutely nothing done in connection with the improvement of the facilities at Quebec to take care of that grain. Evidently the grain does not go that way and there may be the explanation that it cannot be handled as cheaply by that route. But if it can be I think it should be, and that the National Transcontinental Railway should be given every advantage that can be given to it to carry grain over that route if it can be done at the same rate as by the lake and rail route. I would like an explanation as to why there has been no more business handled through the port of Quebec, and why it should not get a share of the revenue received at Montreal from the handling of western grain.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In answer to my hon. friend from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) I wish to inform him that he has not obtained accurate information as to the sources of revenue collected at the ports of Montreal or Quebec. I will speak first of


John Archibald Maharg: I think the minister must have misunderstood me. I did not intend to convey the impression that the receipts from the handling of grain were almost the entire receipts. What I did intend conveying was that the receipts from the handling of grain took care of the entire cost of the operation of the harbour.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 'I am sure my hon. friend does not mean the entire expense of operating the facilities at the port of Montreal or what one might properly call the harbour. I have no doubt that what my hon. friend means is that the revenue received from the elevators at the port of Montreal is used for the operating expenses of the elevators, but not for the entire expenses of operating the port of Montreal.


John Archibald Maharg: That is exactly what I maintain: the net receipts are not applied to capital purposes but to the actual operating expenses of the port, under the jurisdiction of the Harbour Commission. I have not had the pleasure of visiting the elevators at Quebec, but I have inspected the entire equipment at Montreal from start to finish, including the harbour facilities. The minister will remember' that we had the opportunity of donating two thousand sacks of flour to the British Government and the Commissioners at Montreal were good enough at that time to permit us not only to fully survey the harbour and its equipment, but also fcp take a camera along which was something entirely contrary to the rules in force at that time, and to take photographs of the facilities for the handling of flour.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maharg) is possibly right to a certain extent in his statement that the grain passing through the elevators at Montreal does contribute considerable revenue to that port. I fancy, however, my hon. friend will be surprised when the minister brings down his statement to find that in some years a greater quantity of United States grain has gone through those elevators. Furthermore, a large quantity of United States corn comes over the 'Canadian route because of the advantage of being able to re-ship and re-elevate it along the line in order to keep it cool. The butter and cheese from the whole of Canada that goes through, and also the incoming goods, likewise contribute largely to the harbour receipts. My hon. friend is also right in his contention that it was represented that the Grand Trunk Pacific railway would be used
to give cheaper freight rates from the Prairie Provinces to the ocean ports. That was the intention, but unfortunately a change of government took place and the new administration proceeded to destroy the usefulness of that railway. Therefore, my hon. friends opposite-who are to-day supporting the present Government, heirs to those who destroyed the usefulness of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway-are supporting an administration that has considerably advanced the freight rates in this country. Our friends from the Prairie Provinces are always holding out to us the advantages of the United States market. Do they realize that this Government-perhaps not the Government, but the Conservative Government, of which they are the heirs-


Jacques Bureau: They are practically the same.


James Alexander Robb: the Government which
my hon. friends support brought about an increase of rates almost equal to the duty on wheat going into the United States? When the Liberal Government went out ol office in 1911, wheat could be carried from Brandon all rail to Montreal for thirty-three cents a hundred, and from Moosejaw to Montreal for thirty-eight cents a hundred. To-day there is an advance of eight and three-quarters cents a bushel. Just think of it, an increase of eight and three-quarters cents a bushel on all wheat grown in the North-west shipped from the Prairie Provinces to Eastern Canada, and that has taken place under the Government which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maharg) is supporting! My hon. friends had better reflect upon these conditions, and remember that the next time they go before their people they will have to give some explanation as to why they are supporting a government that is responsible for conditions resulting in an increase of 8.70 cents per bushel on wheat going from the Prairie Provinces to the ocean.


John Archibald Maharg: I would ask my hon. friend if he will reflect upon the fact that the estimated cost of building the Transcontinental railway, which at the time we were given to understand would reduce the rates, has been nearly trebled, which will make considerable difference, I presume, in the cost of operation.


James Alexander Robb: If the cost has been trebled it is because when this Government came in


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Alexander Robb: wait a minute. It is because the Government destroyed all the grades along that line


Jacques Bureau: Especially in Quebec.


James Alexander Robb: destroyed the bridges,
tore up the rails, and practically ruined the road.


Michael Clark: Has not everything else gone up? Have we not heard of the high cost of living? Did the hon. gentleman expect that freight rates would remain stationary during war time, in recent -years, when other things1 have gone up? Is not that part of the general results of the war? Surely the hon. gentleman does not blame this Government for bringing on the war?


Jacques Bureau: The rates ought to be lower on patriotic grounds, following your argument.
(Mr. MAIHARG: We are wandering away from the point and the question will no doubt come up again on the second reading of the Bill, to be founded on this resolution. _If the Government spoiled the grades of the railway, it only proves what I say that the cost of the line would have been greater if it had been built according to the plans and specifications, and the Liberal Government would have been just that much further out in their (estimates of the outlay.


James Alexander Robb: It is amusing to see how
my hon. friends are prepared to advance one excuse after another to defend their betrayal of principles which they for so many years advocated in this House.


The CHAIRMAN:: I must follow the good advice tendered by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) a few minutes ago and ask the committee to return to the consideration of the resolution with respect to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: I am glad the House has been afforded the. opportunity of discussing the facilities provided at the ports of our country. I am not opposed to expenditure for this purpose at Vancouver, or elsewhere, but I would draw attention to the fact that the port of Quebec, as stated by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) is able to take care of the grain traffic of the West. Therefore? that port should also get its share of the money voted for improving these ports and be developed in such a manner as not only to handle the grain trade but to make a proper use of the Transcontinental Railway

and carry out the purpose for which it was built, thereby enabling traffic to avail itself of the shorter route and consequently permit of a reduction in freight rates, WTe had the pleasure of a visit to Quebec last fall from the Minister of Public Works who came to inspect the port and the works for the improvement of the Transcontinental terminal. The minister expressed the opinion that those works were a tragedy. The minister was perfectly correct in using that term bearing in mind the manner in which the works have been handled at Quebec of late years. The country has made large outlays in Quebec to develop the port, but after the present Government came into office everything was changed, despite the formal promise of the Prime Minister in 1913 that the works at Quebec for the proper equipment of the port and the Transcontinental terminal should be carried on not only in the interest of the port and province of Quebec but in the interest of the entire Dominion. In his opinion at that time Quebec occupied a unique position and should receive a share of the favours of the Federal Government.
The Prime Minister was accompanied by several of his ministers-Hon. L. P. Pelletier, Hon. Mr. Hazen, Hon. Mr. Cochrane, and others, all of whom endorsed the policy of the Prime Minister with regard to the development of the port and harbour of Quebec. The Prime Minister at that time laid the corner stone of the St. Malo workshops and inaugurated the works on the St. Charles river, upon which the Government has expended, as was stated by the Minister of Public Works a few days ago, $1,600,000. If my information is correct, the Government have acquired the plant and equipment from the contractors, Quinlan and Robertson, for the amount of $300,000, and although they are spending $15,000 to $20,000 a year to keep it in order, it is lying there doing nothing. At a cost of over $2,000,000, the Government have acquired a property which has a frontage of over three miles along the St. Lawrence river and that property is lying there idle. To a stranger coming down the river to Quebec this property gives every evidence of being in the last stage,of decay. The Prime Minister said that the port should be developed; that grain elevators should be constructed to take care of the grain from the West, and that proper terminals should be built. It was the intention of the Government to spend millions of dollars in the development of the port; the works inaugurated in 1913 were only the beginning of an extensive

programme of development. But not a single cent is being voted in the Estimates this year for any improvement at Quebec, although the St. Malo workshops are idle and freight cars and rolling stock which are in need of repair are taken from the Eastern division to Winnipeg or Transcona, a distance of 1,350 miles. That is the way Quebec has been treated by this Government. I take this opportunity of airing some of the grievances of the citizens of Quebec in this regard; I am not opposed to any expenditure which the minister proposes for the development of any of our ports.
The 'CHAIRMAN: Before the minister replies to the statement of the member for Quebec county (Mr. Lavigueur) I must direct the attention of the Committee very seriously to the fact that the recent discussion has been entirely out of order. To be strictly within the rule, the discussion should have related only to the port of Vancouver; but it has wandered far afield, and while I think it is only just and right that the minister should be granted the privilege, by unanimous consent, of replying to the charges which the hon. member has made, I would ask hon. members thereafter to keep more strictly to the rule. The clerk assistant has drawn my attention to that fact that if only one resolution is passed at each sitting of the House, it will be a long time before the end desired by the member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) and other hon. members will be attained.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The public works on the Saint Charles river and the railway shops at St. Malo have been brought into the discussion. I shall not make any reference to public works, because they come under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Carvel!) ; and the St. Malo workshops come under the Minister of Railways (Hon. J. D. Reid). But as to the port of Quebec, during the last few years, millions of dollars have been spent at that port. The hon. member knows that a modern two-million 'bushel elevator has been erected there within the last three years; that modern steel freight sheds have been built; that . grain conveyers have been constructed; that railway tracks have been laid down. AVhile I do not feel called upon to defend the late Government, it is only fair to point out- that they spent millions of dollars at the port of Quebec, chiefly in connection with the items I have mentioned.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I admit that a two-million bushel elevator was built ait Quebec, and it is a very good one; but it is not capable of taking care of one-fifth of the grain traffic of the West. If we had the equipment that was promised to us in 1910, we would be able to take care of some of the grain that is now diverted to the United States, and the grain growers of the West would be able to take advantage of the haul which is shorter by 214 miles than the haul to United States ports, as well as of a considerable reduction in freight rates. Mr. Chairman, we have the finest port in the world-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I gave a ruling a moment ago concerning this discussion;


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I bow to your decision.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. gentleman bows to my ruling, he should take his seat.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want to take exception to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to point out that in discussing the port of Vancouver it may become necessary to discuss it in relation to the whole system of harbours and ports in Canada. I submit that if we are to be barred from making a comparison of this port with the larger ports and of suggesting that the best interests of the country would be served by applying some of this proposed expenditure to other ports, then we might as well not have any discussion in this committee. A good way of reasoning is by comparison, and if we cannot compare the ports of Montreal or Quebec with the port of Vancouver in connection with this proposed expenditure, we might just as well stop discussing the matter.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. Rule 13 says very clearly that all speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. The Chairman did not take objection to the institution of any comparison between the port of Vancouver and any other port in Canada, but the Chairman did take serious objection to a debate upon free trade and protection and also to a discussion of the way in which the city of Quebec had been treated in connection with the Transcontinental railway and everything else in connection with that city. He again declares that discussion to be out of order.


Jacques Bureau: That being understood, we will confine the discussion to the harbours. I am in favour of this item, and I do not think there is in this House a man



that is more in favour of developing harbours and harbour navigation and foreign^, shipping than I am; but there is one harbour on the St. Lawrence which I think is the best in Canada with the exception of Vancouver which I do not know anything about, and the harbour I refer to seems to have been forgotten. I would ask the minister if this policy, which is to be extended to Vancouver, is to cover one of the best harbours in Canada, at least the best of all on the St. Lawrence, and if improvements are to be made to the harbour of Three Rivers. I will not discuss the merits of the harbour of Three Rivers, because I know the Minister of Marine has developed the harbour of Montreal and has made it one of the best harbours, if not the best harbour in the world, but at the harbour at Montreal there are difficulties which are not to be found at the harbour of Three Rivers, and the same difficulties are to be found at Quebec. There are no tides at Three Rivers, and it is not necessary to keep men at the hawsers when the tide flows out or in to lengthen or shorten them, and there is no necessity for tugs. As this is practically laying down a policy on the part of the Government, if the harbour commissioners are to be on the same footing as at Montreal, and if the Government is going to render assistance by lending money for improvements on various harbours, I submit the best harbour on the St. Lawrence is Three Rivers, and I desire to ask the minister if this policy, which seems to be that of the Government, is to be extended to that particular harbour, and, if so, within what time we may expect to see the result of this new policy.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the resolution carry?


Jacques Bureau: May I get an answer from the minister before it carries?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I could not, of course, attempt to describe the natural advantages of the port of Three Rivers as well as my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau), and I agree with him as regards many things he says in favour of that port. They have a magnificent quay there now by the name of Bureau. I do not know if we can do anything more. The port is under a commission also, and if ocean tonnage increases so far as the port of Three Rivers is concerned, and the facilities are found to be inadequate, I am sure the hon. member, with his usual forceful ability, will bring it to the attention not only of [IMr. Bureau.]
the Minister of Marine, whoever he may be at that time, but of Parliament.
Resolution read the second time and concurred in.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I move for leave to introduce a Bill based on this resolution.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Has the horn member a copy of the Bill?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I regret I have not the printed Bill before me. It is on the way over from the Printing Bureau now, but it will be identical with the resolution, and I would beg leave to introduce the Bill at this time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This procedure would, as I understand it, be quite without precedent and entirely irregular. I do not see how we can introduce the Bill without having a copy of it.


Jacques Bureau: We are in a time of irregularity and we can all consent.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I was not in my place in this House when it adjourned last night, and I was not aware that the Prime Minister had moved that this resolution be considered in Committee of the Whole to-day. Not having noticed that, I thought, when I came into the House this morning that all I was called upon to do was to make that motion; but the Prime Minister having very kindly performed that duty for me last night, and the resolution going into Committee of the Whole to-day, the matter has proceeded a little more rapidly than I looked for. While I have not the Bill, I can assure the House that the Bill will be here almost any minute.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We can revert to the Bill when it is in the hands of the minister later on in the day.
Motion stands.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution-Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend, the Canada Shipping- Act, and to provide:-
1.	That a transfer or a mortgage or a transfer of a mortgage of a British ship registered in Canada to a person not Qualified to own a British ship, or to a foreign controlled company, shall not have any effect unless the same is approved by lie Minister of Marine and Fisheries on behalf of His Majesty.
2.	That any person who makes or purports to make such a transfer, mortgage or transfer of mortgage without this approval shall, in

respect of each offence, incur a penalty of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment for any term not exceeding five years, or both fine and imprisonment, and such penalty may be imposed either upon summary conviction or upon indictment.
3.	That the expression "foreign controlled company" shall mean any corporation,-
(a)	where the majority of the directors, or persons occupying the position of directors by whatever name called, are not British subjects; or
(b)	where the majority of the voting power is in the hands of persons who are not British subjects, or who exercise their voting powers directly or indirectly on behalf of persons who are not British subjects; or
(c)	where the control is by any other means whatever in the hands of persons who are not British subjects; or
(d)	where the executive is a foreign controlled company, or where the majority of the executive are appointed by a foreign controlled company.
A corporation shall not be deemed to be a British subject for the purposes of this resolution unless it is established in and subject to the laws of some part of His Majesty's dominions or of some British Protectorate, and has its principal place of business therein.
4.	That the minister may require any person who is the owner or mortgagee of a British ship registered in Canada, or who applies to be registered as the owner or mortgagee of a British ship registered in Canada, to furnish to him such particulars as appear necessary to him for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not that person is, or is a trustee for, or otherwise represents, a foreign controlled company, andi, in the case of a corporation, may -also require the secretary, or any other officer of the corporation performing the duties of secretary, to furnish those particulars.
5.	That if any person fails to supply such particulars as it is in his power to give when required, or furnishes particulars which are false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall incur a penalty of a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or imprisonment for any term not exceeding five years, or both fine and imprisonment, and such penalty may be imposed either upon summary conviction or upon indictment.
6.	That where, after the passing of the Act based upon these resolutions, any person who is the owner or mortgagee of a British ship registered in Canada ceases to be a British subject or becomes a foreign controlled company, that ship, or, in the case of a mortgagee of a ship, the interest of the mortgagee shall be subject to forfeiture under Part I of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
7.	That in these resolutions, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to a ship shall include a reference to a share in a ship.
S. That the Act embracing this proposed legislation shall continue in operation during the present war and for three years after the conclusion of peace.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have read this resolution somewhat carefully, and it suggests to me that there may be special cases with which the minister intends to deal. I should like the minister to explain to the committee if there are any cases in which ships have found their way into the hands 238J
of wrong parties. It is, of course, the common law of this country that foreigners can own almost every kind of property except a ship. [DOT] If it is found that ships have got into the hands of foreigners, as this would appear to indicate, it might be well to explain. It would be better, perhaps, in cases of that kind to deal specifically with any one specific case that may have gone wrong than to create a general policy. I do not think the old common law should in any way be departed from. It should be made abundantly clear that foreigners are not qualified to own any interest in a British ship.
Mr. BAIiLANTYNE.: The object of this resolution is to enable the Government to control, for a period of three years after the declaration of peace, the transfer of a British ship registered in 'Canada to a person not qualified to own a British ship or to a foreign controlled company. Such restriction naturally involves the mortgaging of a ship and the transfer of such mortgage. I might also explain that the Imperial Government passed the necessary legislation for this purpose in 1915, the Act being entitled " The British Ships (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1915." The Act is valid for three years after the declaration of peace, but it does not apply to ships registered in Canada. Shortly after war broke out, by order in Council, it was made necessary for those who wanted to have transfer of registry or transfer of mortgage to apply to the Minister of Marine to get such authority. Orders in Council were passed, one	on the 9th	March, 1915, and
another on the 9th October, 1917.
After the signing of peace I have very good authority for doubting whether these Orders in Council will remain valid, and this Bill has been introduced with the ob-jecf of ensuring the authority we had under the Orders in Council to control the transfer of registry and of mortgage. We have a good deal of ship construction going on at the present time, and I think hon. members will agree that it is in the best interests of the country that we should keep a watchful eye on this tonnage, not only now, but during the reconstruction period of three years, let us say. Great Britain is doing that, and I think we should also. In answer to the question of the leader of the Opposition as to how many transfers or registry or mortgage have taken place, in the year 1917 the number of vessels transferred to foreigners or neutrals allowed to be owned to foreign-controlled companies was 73, and the mortgages allowed to

such interests during the same period amounted to 12; in 1618, 138 vessels and 9 mortgages. The British -Act which I have just referred to, and which is known as the Transfer Restriction Act of 1915, will also remain in force for three years after the declaration of peace. There is no intention to embarrass or interfere in any way with shipping, but we think it wise to exercise this control for three years after the war. We must look after our Canadian tonnage, and this is one of the safest ways of doing it.


John Howard Sinclair: I assume that the minister intends to introduce a Bill founded on this resolution.
Mr. BALLAiNTYNE: I have it here.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister is
proposing to change the law on a very important question. Prior to the war a British subject owning a ship in Canada was at liberty to sell it without asking anybody's leave. If he could sell it to advantage to a foreigner he did so, and there is no good reason in time of peace why that should not be the case, but when the war broke out we needed all our tonnage for our own use, and a change was very properly made. I question the wisdom of making the present provisions permanent. I do not know what the minister's idea is, but I would think we ought to go back to peace conditions, when it was open for a man to buy or sell a ship without the minister's approval. Is there any good reason why we should embody these provisions in a statute? If this is intended only as a temporary measure, it is all right. Are we to be in the position permanently that the sale of a ship is to be made only with the consent of the authorities at Ottawa?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not think it wise that foreigners should control any of our shipping, either at this time or for three years after the war. This Bill, if passed, will remain in effect only for that period. Prior to the war it was unnecessary either in Great Britain or here for any one to have the Government's approval for the transfer of registry or mortgage. They merely went to the registrar of the port and got the transfer made, afid they can get the transfer now without any undue delay from the Minister of Marine, if he thinks it is in the national interest. We have not in mind the British subject so much as the foreigner. It would certainly be unwise to let any of our shipping pass into foreign hands during the reconstruction period.

That is why the provisions are made applicable for three years after the war. When that time is up I presume England will go back to the position she was in before the war, and Canada will do the same. We are simply guarding against foreigners getting possession of Canadian tonnage.


John Howard Sinclair: "Foreigners" is rather a broad term. The United States is our nearest neighbour, and a good many of the ships that are being built in the Maritime Provinces to-day are being built for sale to the United States. That is a profitable business to our people. I presume the minister does not intend to interfere with the building of ships in Canada, even if they are not to be placed on Canadian registry. The minister tells us that the leave of the department is freely given; if so, that is satisfactory, but I would be opposed to restricting the sale of a ship unless it is absolutely necessary. If a Canadian citizen owning a ship can sell it to a foreigner and replace it by a better one, why should he not be allowed to do so?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood my hon. friend from Antigonish to say that a man could build and sell a ship in Canada before it is put on the Canadian register. That is not my understanding.
Mr. BALLAiNTYNE: No. Before the war, if a man wanted a Canadian ship put on the United States register, he would apply to the registrar of one of our principal ports and the transfer would be made without any difficulty. Now the approval of the Minister of Marine has to be obtained. We are only too glad to consent to the transfer. I have approved of at least a dozen transfers to the United States and other countries. We want to encourage the development of shipping in every way, but we must see tha* during the reconstruction period none of our shipping passes out of our hands against the national interest.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for Antigonish did not get my point. I understood him to say that Americans are giving orders for the building of ships in Nova Scotia, for instance, and when those ships are finished they take them off to the United States as they might take anything else that was built. I understand the law to be that when you build a ship in Canada she must be measured and registered and classed in this country. She has to comply with the law before she can be taken to any other country and sold.


John Howard Sinclair: That is also my understanding. The law is strictly enforced that a ship must be registered before she is sent to the United States, but it is only a formal matter to get the registry transferred from one country to another in peace times. My point was that there should be no interference by the department that would have the effect of discouraging the construction of ships. As the minister says, we want to encourage shipbuilding. It is only a matter of detail placing a ship on Canadian registry and then transferring her to American registry the next day.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Quite right.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
Mr. Ballantyne thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 148, to amend the Canada Shipping Act founded on the resolution.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.

[Stage Direction]
ADVANCE OF $5,000,00:0 FOR TERMINAL FACILITIES.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. Alinister of Alarine (Hon. C. C. Ballantyne) has handed me a printed copy of Bill No. 149, to provide for a loan not exceeding $5,000,000 to the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, founded on the previous resolution, and moves that it be now introduced. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.
ArONTREAL AND QUEBEC HARBOURS-RATE OF INTEREST ON LOANS.
On the motion of Hon. Mt. Ballantyne, Bill No. 135, respecting the rate of interest to be paid on loans.by His Majesty to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal and Quebec, read the second time and the House went into Committee on the Bill.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-five per cent interest to be paid on advances made after 1st April, 1919:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice that the two
harbours referred to are those of Montreal and Quebec; is that sufficient for any other place?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The only harbours that have had any moneys voted to them have been those of Montreal and Quebec and the advances were made to these harbours at the low rate of 3 and 31 per cent. But now that money is higher it was thought better to raise the rate of interest to 5 per cent. The resolution that passed the committee this morning relating to the Vancouver harbour provides that the rate of interest shall be 5 per cent. These are the only three ports which are under commission at the present time. If any other port comes under a commission the rate of interest to be charged will be 5 per cent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does this Bill give the minister authority to lend money to other ports are 5 per cent without coming back to Parliament?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All I have to say about the rate of interest is that the Government should not be losing money on it. If the money can be obtained at 5 per cent it is fairly good business to lend it at that rate. We are not looking to make any money but I rather suspect that it costs the Government more than 5 per cent to get money to lend. If it costs us more than 5 per cent to get the money it is poor business to be lending it at less than it costs us.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I think a fair average would be 5 per cent. The Government have paid as high as 51 per cent for a certain amount but it seems to me that if we charge the harbour commissioners 5 per cent it should be a fair and reasonable average.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



FISHERIES ACT, 1914 AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne the House went into Committee on Bill No. 39, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1914, as amended by the special committee. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-license fee for British Columbia increased from $50:
Georges Henri Boivin: The first amendment is, that in line 1 of paragraph 2, the word "such'' shall be replaced by the words "a salmon cannery." Then a sub-clause has been added as follows:
The annual1 price for a salmon curing license shall be $50.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I might explain that when this Bill was introduced it was referred to the Special Committee on Marine and Fisheries and they have considered it and referred it back with the amendment which has just been read. The object of the Bill is to raise the annual canning license fee in British Columbia from $50 to $500 and also the additional charge according to their fish catch. This Bill as it is now meets with the approval of all the British Columbia members. I discussed it myself with those interested in the cannery business some months ago. My reason for recommending it is twofold; first of all, I consider that the fee of $50 per year is altogether too low in view of the volume of the business that each one of the canneries does. The Royal Commission which was appointed in 1017, and which was composed of Mr. Sanford Evans, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Black, recommended in their report that the cannery fee be raised to $1,000 per year. My departnfent thought it advisable to make the fee $500 and impose the additional fee according to the catch *which, we think, will make nearly $1,000 tfor the 92 canneries in British Columbia. It will also enable my department to increase its revenue which is very sorely needed. In the administration of the service on the Pacific coast, there is a deficit of $135,000 and it is believed that the changes which we are making with regard to the revenue will wipe that deficit out. On the merits of the case I think we are justified in raising the fee.


John Howard Sinclair: The facts before the committee disclosed that the salmon fishery of British Columbia is a monopoly, that the department has restricted the issue of licenses to something like 94 or 95 and that when a license is granted to anybody it is bought up by the monopoly. It is worth a good deal of money. That is not a healthy condition of affairs. I may say to the minister that the same attempt was made in the Maritime Provinces in regard to the canning of lobsters. The packers were endeavouring to control the number of licenses knowing that if they could control the number of licenses they could build up a monopoly. But the Department of Marine and Fisheries at that time refused the request of the packers and threw the business of canning open to any man who could qualify. The buildings and plants are inspected and care is taken to see that the goods are well packed.
Every man who can put up the money to build a cannery and carry on packing
[The Chairman.]
is allowed to do so. If this were the procedure in the province of British Columbia we would not have the condition which exists there to-day where a business which should engage the activities of a great many manufacturers is in the hands of a few people who keep up the prices of canned salmon and control the fishermen. The fishermen oift there are said to be, to all intents and purposes, the bond slaves of the packers; they do not own their own boats, or anything else, they simply do what the packers tell them to do, they have no initiative of their own and no ambition -at least that is true in the case of most of them-to make any progress. IHas the minister considered the question from this aspect, because he must have all the facts before him. It is not a new question, it has been before the House for a great many years, but despite that fact nothing has been done. I would suppose that at the present time when the price of food is so important it would be a wise policy to throw the whole industry open and allow any one who can qualify for packing salmon to do so.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: When I came into office what is known as attached and unattached licenses were issued and each one of the canneries was allowed so many. It was represented to me that this was not a fair and equitable plan and that fishing licenses should be open. Accordingly I gave notice to the canneries that commencing with the first of January, 1919, the licenses would he open to everybody. Therefore it is not true that the canners control the fishermen to the same extent as when they were able to hold a certain number of licenses. When attached licenses were issued, the canners made their arrangements with the fishermen and supplied them with boats and equipment, but with open licenses the conditions are different. I should explain, however, that the object of restricting the number of canneries is not to create a monopoly, but to conserve the salmon. If a monopoly exists now it certainly existed in past years, and to allow the license 'fee to remain at $50, if the canneries do enjoy a monopoly- which I am not prepared to admit is the case, but for argument's sake we will admit it-is to allow them a further advantage. But the reason for restricting the number of canneries was in the interest of the conservation of the salmon.


John Howard Sinclair: Would not the
preservation of the salmon be better con-

trolled by shortening the fishing season, than by refusing to grant licenses to pack?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It costs a great deal of money to erect one of these canneries and I think we must pay due regard to the expenditure incurred by the people engaged in the industry. I do not for a moment say that the present policy will be continued permanently, but after going into the matter very carefully with the fishery officials on the coast, as well as the officials here, I do not see that any monopoly exists. I think we have enough canneries for the time being, but nevertheless we are granting other licenses from time to time, and during the last few days I have agreed to two additional. I wish to assure the members of the committee that no monopoly will be allowed to exist on the Pacific coast while I am minister, and I certainly do not consider that such a thing exists at the present time. My object is to make these canneries pay a reasonable license for the privileges that they enjoy. We ought not to grant a license for the paltry sum of $50, which is practically giving it away, when we should receive something like $500 or $1,000 a year.


Mr. CAHILL:: I notice there is a charge of four cents for each case of forty-eight one-pound cans of salmon. Is the minister, or his inspectors, convinced that these cans contain one pound of meat?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That question has been very much debated in the House, not so much with respect to salmon as to lobsters. It is rather a technical point. Where the can contains liquid or pickle as-well as meat I would say yes. Where the contents consists of dry meat only, I would answer in the negative.


Frank S. Cahill: Are there inspectors to examine the pack and ascertain what the amount of meat in each can is?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There are inspectors and the matter is governed by regulation as well. The contents of the can are supposed to weigh sixteen ounces to the pound, but that includes liquid as well as dry meat.


Frank S. Cahill: Is there any regulation governing the dry meat content of the can?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is, but I do not have it under my hand at the moment. If necessary I will obtain a copy for the hon. gentleman.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister doubts the existence of a monopoly on the Pacific coast, I must refer him to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. McIntosh) who made a speech to the Fisheries Committee and produced evidence which satisfied myself and everybody present on that occasion that there is one.
Mr. iMcKENZIE: I deem it my duty to bring to the notice of the minister some protests which I have received from four or five of the large packers in British Columbia against an increase in the license fee. The minister did not say so, but it might be inferred that the canners were behind the increase and that it was done for the purpose of creating a monopoly. Whether or not there is a monopoly, I cannot say, but at any rate I have received these protests against the increase in the fee so that the parties concerned in them are evidently not favourable to the advance. I am not quite clear that it was ever the intention of Parliament to tax any industry for its own promotion. I think that is protection and I must gain the good will of my friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) by opposing it. I want the fisheries-as well as anything else in regard to which we can take action-made free, and I do not think it is good policy to tax any industry for its own individual support, although I would favour the appointment of any necessary official for the proper supervision of the packing done in these factories and tax the industry for the purpose of meeting the expense. Of course, we are now imposing taxation for war purposes in many directions and we have to do a great many things contrary to our ordinary policy by reason of it, but the taxation in this case is not attributable to the war; it appears to be a policy for the purpose of getting revenue, and I do not think there is any justification for such a proposition. As regards the lobster canneries in the Maritime Provinces, the object in imposing the license fee is not to secure revenue. The purpose was to give the Government some control over those establishments, in order to see that they were properly equipped and maintained and that it would not be open to any one to start packing lobsters in a haphazard way that might result in giving a bad name to the industry.
The idea was not to raise revenue, but to exercise proper control over the industry. I do not think there should be one rule in connection with lobster packing and another in connection with salmon packing; there should be no exactions except such

as I have mentioned. It is a mistake for the minister to try and get a revenue in this way.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This request certainly did not come from the canners. When I read the recommendation of the Royal Commission that the fee be increased to $1,000 a year, and when I looked into the matter myself-saw their balance sheets and found out what was the volume of the business and what the profits were-I thought at once that the fee was far too low. When the canners were here some months ago I told them that I proposed to increase the license fee, and that I did not want to do it without first consulting them. They were not particularly pleased, but they unanimously agreed to it. I understand that since then some of these canners have wired their objections to the leader of the Opposition. I do not blame them as business men for trying to get a license at the lowest possible rate; but it is my responsibility as minister to see that, having regard to the volume of their business and the privileges which they enjoy under their licenses, they pay a reasonable fee, From my knowledge of business charges, I do not consider that $500 a year, with the additional tax on the fish catch, is at all out of the way. Our fisheries inspectors in British Columbia inspect the canneries and the processes of packing, and see a proper weight is put into the cans; the inspection is of a most thorough and efficient nature. I should be derelict in my duty if I allowed the gentlemen who own canneries to have licenses at $50 a year, and I strongly recommend the approval of the fee of $500.


Mr. DUFF:: What license fees do the canners of lobsters pay?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: A Bill respecting the lobster industry will be before the House for second reading in a few days, when it is reported from the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries, and I shall be glad to discuss that matter then. If we are to get through with the business which we have to do and prorogue in the near future, I think we had better stick to what is now before the Committee.


William Duff: I think that the question is perfectly in order. I want to make a comparison between the fees paid by lobster packers and those which are paid by the salmon packers. It is not fair that the minister should answer me in that manner.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is perfectly in order. The hon. member wants to know how the fees 
which we are fixing in respect of the salmon fishing industry compare with those applicable to another industry very closely allied to salmon packing.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not desire to withhold any information from the hon. member; I simply wished to save time, and if the Chairman rules that the question is in order, I shall cheerfully give the hon. member the information that he wants. For lobster packing the charge for license is $5 for the first hundred cases and $2 for each hundred cases thereafter. The provision reads:
The annual fee for any such license shall he at the rate of $5 for the first 4,800 pounds of canned or cured lobsters or fraction thereof canned or cured under such license and $2 for each additional 4,800 pounds or fraction thereof canned or cured under such license.
Of course, lobster packing is quite different from salmon packing; the volume of business is much greater in one case than it is in The other.


William Duff: Subsection 2 of this clause provides that in addition to the $500 license fee, the packers shall be required to pay a fee of three cents for each case of 48 cans; consequently the license fee in the case of salmon packing would appear to be very much greater than that which is paid by the canners of lobsters. It seems to me that this license fee of $500 will prevent the man of small means from going into the canning business; it certainly is putting the business of canning salmon in British Columbia into the hands of the big interests. In the interests of common people the license fee should be much smaller so that any one may can salmon who is able to raise enough money to start a factory.


John Howard Sinclair: We were told
in the committee that about ninety four licenses had been issued to canners in British Columbia, and that no new ones were being granted. By what authority is the department refusing to grant additional licenses to persons who wish to can salmon in British Columbia?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The department is
not refusing to grant licenses; as I said a moment ago, I granted two additional cannery licenses within the last few days. Discretionary powers are vested in the' minister as to the number of canneries there shall be in British Columbia; but no minister would act without consulting his officers in that province and taking into consideration the situation as a whole.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister says that after looking over the business of these companies, examining their balance sheets and observing the profits that they make, hejias come to the conclusion that he should get more money from them for the general purposes of the country. The price of salmon is soaring, as is the price of practically all other foods, and here was an opportunity for the department to say:	You are charging extraordinary
prices; you have practically a monopoly of .this business; you are not charged high license fees, and you should not sell this excellent food product at such a high price. If, therefore, he had asked the can-ners to reduce their prices, that course would have been more acceptable to the people than the taking of surplus profits by way of fees.
-Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:	Is there any
restriction against the importation of canned salmon into Canada?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not know of
any, outside the customs tariff.


John Howard Sinclair: I have seen the
statement in the press that the canners have large quantities of canned salmon in stock and that they have requested that steps be taken to prevent tbe importation into Canada of salmon until they have disposed of the stock which they have on hand. I am anxious to know if any steps have been taken in that direction.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No steps have been taken in that direction, nor will any be taken. It is well known that the canners have a large stock, but certainly neither the Government nor the Department of Marine are going to take any such steps as those suggested by the hon. member. As regards the price, inasmuch as the United States produce 82 per cent of the canned salmon and Canada a very small fraction as compared with our neighbour to the south, the canners have to arrange their prices in competition with the United States. Salmon, of course, advanced in price during the war as there was a big demand and a large amount was shipped overseas for our soldiers, but now the war is over, the canners find themselves with very large stocks, and as a natural consequence the price will have to drop.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this amendment I
find added to the Bill a new section? It reads:
The annual fee for a salmon curing license shall be $50.
1 do not quite understand the difference between the two kinds of licenses. One is for $500 and the other for $50.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The $500 license is for a salmon cannery, and the $50 is for what is called a salmon curing establishment of which there are only two in British Columbia. They catch the spring salmon and cure them; they do not can salmon. One is curing; the other is canning.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, the House proceeded to Public Bills and Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILLIAM FOLGER NICKLE (Kingston), moved the second reading of Bill No. 77, respecting divorce.
He said: On the 20th February, of this year, I gave notice of the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the procedure under which divorces are granted by Parliament and the consequent unreasonable expense thereof are so unsatisfactory besides being prohibitive to the great majority of the people of Canada that a committee of members should be appointed to enquire into the existing procedure and to report, as promptly as possible, what more satisfactory procedure should be provided.
At the time I gave notice of that motion, it was my intention to introduce the subject to the House in an academic way and not by way of a Bill. As, however, time progressed and the notice of motion was not called, I received from various parts of the country such assurances that public opinion was ripe for the discussion and probable passing in this House of a Bill respecting divorce, that I decided to proceed by way of a Bill rather than by way of a motion. I might say that among the recommendations to which my attention was directed, was this recommendation from the Women's Advisory Committee of the Committee on Repatriation:
That the present system of granting divorce in Canada ibe abolished and that a National Mobile Divorce Court be established, which, at the request of, and by arrangement with the individual provinces, would sit in the provinces and adjudicate Claims for divorce. Thn Women's Advisory Committee consider that legislation on Divorce should be national in scope and character, but that the privilege and right of availing themselves of such legislation and such a national court should be reserved to the discretion of the individual provinces and should not be imposed on any of them.
[Stage Direction]
The Women's Advisory Committee fear that social conditions resulting from the war may give rise to many claims for divorce and to presentation of insufficient grounds for same, and they apprehend that if the question of divorce be left for settlement to the provinces, it may lead-not only to varied legislation but also to lack of a uniform standard in the application and interpretation of the divorce laws. If this were the case, the present high standards of family life in Canada would be jeopardized.
A Mobile Court, national in character, interpreting a National Divorce Act and administering the laws connected therewith, would be not only a national safeguard of the bulwark of the nation-its homes-'but, by reason of its mobile character, would also save expense to individuals and to the provinces, being accessible to applicants on request of the province at periods of the year to be fixed by mutual arrangement by the National and Provincial Governments.
The Women's Advisory Committee again emphasize the need of making arrangements in legitimate cases of dftmrce whereby the man or woman of average means be not prohibited from obtaining same because of the excessive cost of legal and court fees.
I also received numerous resolutions passed by representative Army and Navy Great War Veterans and Grand Army of Canada organizations* with reference to the domestic condition in which many of their members found themselves-, requesting that some steps be taken to establish a national divorce court or a national divorce law. It would unduly take up the time of the House if I were to read many of the letters I received in regard to individual cases, but there is one -so pathetic in form and so generic in spirit I received from a returned soldier, that I think I would not be unduly taking up the time if I read it to the House. The letter is addressed to myself, and reads as follows:
Dear Sir,-In reading several papers I see where you are trying to revise our present divorce laws. I am one of the unfortunate chaps who would benefit by your good work.
I am a returned soldier and was three years away from Canada and spent considerable time in the trenches. I am writing this letter to ask you to do all in your power for to help the returned lads. A large majority of them have been unfairly treated by unfaithful wives while overseas. In fact there is a score of cases here alone, and other cities are just as bad1.
Just imagine the feelings of a chap who, on coming back to Canada, finding his home gone, everything he ever possessed gone. I was comfortable when I went overseas. It was humble, but was home to me. I came home in December last and everything was gone, my child deserted. I had no place in the large country and the money I made over to my wife was keeping a worthless drunk instead of clothing my child.
Now my allowances were $13 a month (thirteen dollars a month) while in the army and I had to buy a little to eat while overseas as the army food was far from enough to ease our hunger. 'So where can I, out of that sum, pay $1,500 to be separated from one who has

wronged me. We fought for liberty and justice and I fail to see where we unfortunate chaps are getting it.
I tried to get my wife to come and help me to get a home together again, and as soon as I got her settled and gave her some money she tried to kidnap the child which the authorities took from her owing to her immorality and went to live with this chap again and I believe, married him. She has no reasons for doing this as she told the judge I was a good man to her and had nothing against me. So you can plainly see it was done wilfully. I have a little girl six years old that was neglected shamefully in my absence.
Sir, I appeal to you to help us. I think it is right in the sight of God for you to take this step as his punishment for adultery is death.
Hoping this letter will help you in your good cause and hope you have success.
This is typical of many communications that I received, and moved somewhat by the communications and resolutions that reached me I decided I would attempt to secure the passage by this House of a divorce law.
I quite appreciate that in some of the provinces of the Dominion divorce has not at the present time any legal status, and to that particular aspect of the case I propose in a few moments to direct the attention of the House. To understand the position of divorce in Canada it is necessary that one should trace, possibly briefly, divorce practice and legislation insofar as it pertains to iGreat Britain and to Canada. The argument must necessarily be legal, and at certain times what I have to say and may say may touch men in their religious and conscientious beliefs, but I shall try as far as in me lies to avoid saying anything that would be insulting to the conscience or belief of any man who may differ from me on this essential question, and I would urge on those who have conscientious beliefs in reference to divorce, who believe that marriage is a sacrament and that it should not be dissolved, that they endeavour to see conditions as they are in Canada to-day, and to treat us who differ from them with the same consideration that I shall endeavour to show them this afternoon.
As I said, divorce may be divided into two classes. First, there is a partial divorce, which is technically known to lawyers as a divorce a mensa et thoro, that is, a divorce from bed and board, a separation, but not a dissolution of the marriage. Such a divorce when obtained does not give either of the parties the right to marry again, nor does it bastardize the children subsequently born. It may be granted at the suit of either husband or wife on misconduct being shown by either, provided

either is of the opinion that the misconduct of the other has made it impossible for them to live together as man and wife.
Then there is the complete divorce technically known to us lawyers as a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, that is, a severance of the marriage tie. This divorce differs from the divorce a mensa et thoro, or the judicial separation, in that the parties to such a divorce, if obtained, have the right to re-marry, and any children born to the woman thereafter will he illegitimate children provided she has not married again. Divorce a vinculo matrimonii, or complete divorce, divides itself in the law into two classes:	First, there is annulment, which
strictly speaking is probably not a divorce at all, because it is a judicial declaration by the court that there never has been a legal marriage and if there never has been a legal marriage there could not be a severance of the marriage tie. Leaving aside for a moment that technical distinction, the court does regard annulment of the marriage, and it has been regarded, as a divorce, and the effect of such a decree is that children born of that marriage are regarded after the judicial decree has been obtained as having been illegitimately born. Divorce, as we ordinarily understand the term, is really a rescission of the marriage contract. It is a dissolving of the tie that binds the man to the woman or the woman to the man, and is granted in consequence of some supervenient conjugal transgression which, having risen subsequent to the marriage, makes it impossible for either party to live with the other. It is here that I find it necessary to touch for a moment on the religious aspect of the case. Prior to the Reformation the causes for the annulment of marriage, as recognized by the Roman Catholic church, were greater in number by far than were recognized by the law of England since the time of Henry VIII. Mr. W. B. Northrup, once a member of this House, and now the Clerk of the House, in 1914 gave a very exhaustive and all-embracing address in this House in reference to the legal status of divorce in the British dominions, and I quote from his speech when I direct the attention of the House to the evidence of Monsignor Moyes given before a commission of 1852 of the English House appointed to look into this question. In his evidence he said:
The impedients which are held by the Catholic Church to be diriment or nullifying are the following:
1.	Error, as to person.
2.	Condition (if A marries B, a slave, believing B to be free).
3.	Solemn vow of chastity on entering religious order, made before consummation of marriage.
4.	Consanguinity to third degree.
'5. Crime (if A during a former marriage with B has committed adultery with C, with promise of marriage after death of B, and if A or C has attempted the life of B, the marriage of A and C is null).
6.	Disparity of worship, viz., marriage of a Christian with a non-Christian.
7.	Duress or violence affecting liberty of consort.
8.	Holy order to which is attached obligation of chastity.
9.	The bond of preceding marriage (if either party have a husband or wife still alive).
10.	Public decorum (if one of the parties is solemnly or publicity bethrothed to another person) .
11.	Madmess or amentia (viz., imbecility precluding reasonable consent).
12.	Affinity.
13.	Clandestinlty.
14.	Impotency.
15.	Rape.
For any one of those causes the Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical courts prior to the Reformation would have granted an annulment of marriage. They would have preserved their position, as a church, that marriage was indissoluble, but they would have said that such causes as those to which I have directed the attention of the House would have been a reason, not for the dissolution of the marriage, but for the declaration that the marriage never had existed. They would have declared an annulment and the parties would have been free to marry again. However, the Reformation came in England, and Henry the VIII by 38 Henry VIII, Chap. 38, restricted the grounds on which marriage might be dissolved by annulment, and since the passing of that statute the only reasons that will permit, according to English law, a marriage to be annulled are: relationship within the forbidden degrees, a previous marriage, corporal imbecility, or mental incapacity.
Now what was the effect of that? It was this: Prior to the Reformation those who desired a divorce !could obtain it, often easily, by annulment, or much more easily than they could after the passing of the statute to which I have just referred, and the Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical courts would recognize it. But after the Reformation, when the grounds of annulment had been tremendously curtailed, those who found themselves joined together in an unfortunate matrimonial alliance, found themselves unable to free themselves, so to. speak, from the entanglement, and men did as they
[Stage Direction]
have always done when oppressed by a harsh law, they endeavoured to find some way by which they could get around the law, and I want to trace very briefly for the information of the House just what took place in England.
As I said in my opening remarks, by the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church marriage is a sacrament, and as such is indissoluble. As I have pointed out, the Reformation brought a change in the pritish point of view, and after the Reformation marriage was no longer regarded by the English Church as a sacrament, a divine institution alone, but as a civil contract, and there was therefore rio reason why the contract, provided there had been a breach of the terms in reference to which the parties had entered into it, should not be terminated or dissolved. How was this to be done? The first great outstanding case is the one commonly known as the Parr case, the case of the Marquis of Northampton, in 1548. That case is referred to at some length in Macqueen's Practice, of the House of Lords, pp. 468 and 469, where Bishop Burnet is quoted as follows:
*'11 January, 1548	(1 Edward VI.) The
Marquis of Northampton, brother to the Queen Dowager, had married Anne Bouchier, daughter to the Earl of Essex, the last of that name; but she being convicted of adultery, he was divorced from her; which, according to the law of the Ecclesiastical Courts, was only a separation from bed and board.
That was divorce a mensa et thoro to which I directed the attention of the House on rising to my feet.
Upon which divorce it was proposed, in King Henry's time, to consider what might be done in favour of the innocent person when the other was convicted of adultery. So, in the beginning of King Edward's reign on the 7th of May, a commission was granted to the Archbishop of Canterbury,the Bishops of Duresme and Rochester, Dr. Ridley and six more, ten in all, to try whether the Lady Anne was not by the word of Good so lawfully divorced that she was no more his wife, and whether thereupon he might not marry another wife. This being a new oase of great importance, Cranmer resolved to examine it with his ordinary diligence; and searched into the opinions of the Fathers and Doctors so copiously that his collection about it grew into a large book (the original whereof I have perused), the greatest part of it being either written or marked and interlined with his own hand. This required a longer time than the Marquis of Northampton would stay; and, therefore, presuming on his great power, without waiting for judgment he solemnly married Elizabeth, daughter to Brooke, Lord Cob-ham. On the 28th January information was brought to the Council of this. So, he being put to answer for himself said he thought that by the word of God he was discharged of his tie to his former wife; and the making marriage indissoluble was but a part of the Popish
[Mr. Niokle.J
law, by which it was reckoned a sacrament; and yet the Popes, knowing that the world would not easily come under such a yoke had, by the help of the Canonists, invented such distinctions that it was no uneasy thing to make a marriage void among them ; and that the condition of this (the Reformed) church was very hard if, upon adulteries, the innocent must either live with the guilty or be exposed to temptations to the like sins, if a separation only was allowed, but the bond of the marriage continued undissolved. But since he had proceeded so far before the delegates had given sentence, it was ordered that he and his new wife should be parted; and that she should be put into his sister the Queen Dowager's keeping till the matter was tried, whether it were according to the will of God or not, and that then further orders should be given in it. Upon this the delegates made haste; and the whole question was, divided into eight queries, which were put to some learned men (who these were does not appear), and they returned their answer in favour of the second marriage, and, by consequence, confirming the Marquis of Northampton's marriage to his second wife; who, upon that, was suffered to cohabit with him."
That is the first recognition in an important case of the position of the Reformed Church. Four years later (6 Edward VI) the Marquis secured an Act confirming his second marriage. This was not a divorce bill. It only declared that the adultery of his wife, followed by the ecclesiastical sentence, entitled the Marquis to take a second wife. And let me direct the attention of the House to that point. It was necessary that the ecclesiastical sentence in divorce a mensa et thoro should be obtained before Parliament took action. The ecclesiastical sentence having been obtained, it was held that the Marquis was entitled to take a second wife and the Act was so passed. The principle on which the Act passed assumed the jurisdiction ol the Church Courts to dissolve the marriage. The Act did not divorce the parties, but merely declared them to be already, by the ecclesiastical sentence, sufficiently divorced to admit of the Marquis marrying again.
In the following year Mary, as the House knows, a Roman Catholic sovereign, came to the Throne and the Act confirming the marriage of Parr was repealed.
Cranmer's commission, appointed pursuant to statutes of Henry VIII, to order and compile such laws ecclesiastical as should be thought convenient, proceeded with its inquiry. It was composed of 16 ecclesiastics, and advised that in cases of adultery (sec. 1); malicious desertion (sec. 8); long absence (sec. 9); deadly hostility (see. 10); prolonged ill-treatment (sec. 11); the marriage should be dissolved, with liberty to the injured party to marry again. If both parties were guilty of adultery, no divorce (sec. 17). Husband not entitled to

divorce if he incited his wife to adultery (sec. 16).
It was also recommended that the remedy of divorce a mensa et thoro should be entirely abrogated and done away with. This report was completed in the reign of Edward VI. Owing to his premature death the whole scheme fell to the ground, and was never crytallized into legislation. The result was that in England under the Reformed Church from 1550 to 1601 marriage was held to be capable of being dissolved.
In 1597, the ecclesiastical authorities (105th Canon) pronounced the following doctrine:
Forasmuch as matrimonial causes have been always reputed among the weightiest, and therefore require the greatest caution when they come to be handled and debated! in judgment, especially in oases wherein matrimony is required to be dissolved or annulled; we strictly charge and enjoin that in all proceedings in divorce and nullities of marriage, good circumspection and advice be used, and that truth may as far as possible be sifted out by the depositions of witnesses and other lawful proof, and that credit be not given to the sole confessions of the parties themselves, howsoever taken upon oath, either within or without the court.
In all sentences pronounced only for divorce and separation a thoro et mensa, there shall be a caution and restraint necessary in the said sentence that the parties so separated shall live chastely, and neither shall they, during each other's life, contract matrimony with any other person.
The reason I direct attention to that canon is this: That canon apparently laid down the doctrine, as I have read it, that the Church would require that a divorce having been obtained from an ecclesiastical court, during the life of each neither party should marry. That cannon proceeded:
And for the better observance of this last clause the said sentence of divorce shall not be pronounced until the party or parties requiring the same shall have given good and sufficient caution and security unto the court that they will not in any way break or transgress the said restraint or prohibition.
Clearly, therefore, by implication, the bond being required that no remarriage would take place, it necessarily follows that the ecclesiastical courts regarded the ecclesiastical divorce as of such a character that the parties could legally remarry, but the pecuniary penalty was imposed to prevent [DOT]marriage in so far as the penalty would prevent it. If any gentleman in the House cares to follow this matter more fully than I have time this afternoon to deal with it, I would suggest that he read Bishop Cozer's argument, which is reported in State Trials, page 1331.
Up to this time-summarizing my remarks -the ecclesiastical courts of the Reformed Church recognized the marriage tie as being capable of dissolution. The Roman Catholic Church regarded marriage as a sacrament and therefore refused to recognize divorce. From 1500 to 1601 the Reformed Church held that marriage could be dissolved, but in that year a new doctrine was introduced into the church courts. Foljambe's case, 44 Elizabeth, 1601, came for decision before John Whit-gift, Archbishop of Canterbury who, on the advice of the most eminent divines and civilians of the period declared that a second marriage, the first wife living and divorced for adultery, was invalid, and re-asserted the doctrine of matrimonial indissolubility. And the law in England until 1857 (and in Canada excepting in those provinces in which there are divorce courts) was, therefore, that marriage was indissoluble.
In 1604, the Statute of Bigamy was passed by Parliament, making that offence a felony. In this way, jurisdiction lor the offence was taken from the ecclesiastical to the civil courts. There was an express provision in the Act that it should not extend to any person divorced by a sentence of the ecclesiastical court.
[Now the very fact that that exception was incorporated into the statute affecting bigamy makes .it reasonably clear that the civil law of England regarded parties divorced by ecclesiastical courts as having had the matrimonial tie dissolved and that they were in a position to marry again.
If that had not been so the exception in the statute of bigamy would not have been passed.]
The historical review makes it clear' that husbands were trying to find a tribunal that would, in consequence of adultery, free them and permit a second marriage, the first wife living. One of the chief grounds of the desire for a remedy was to prevent the fathering of illegitimate children on the husband as followed from a divorce a mensa et thoro. The next effort to get relief from the ecclesiastical courts was the Lukenor case. In this case an Act was obtained to bastardize the issue born while the wife, against whom sentence of divorce had been obtained, continued to live in open adultery, but it did not dissolve the marriage bond or allow the innocent party to marry again. The Act simply laid down the principle that the ecclesiastical courts having pronounced a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro, and the wife continuing to live in adultery, and there being a possibilty of subsequent issue, Parliament was of the
[Stage Direction]
opinion that the husband should have removed from him the responsibility of having to father the children born under such circumstances.
The next case is the Lord Roos case in 1666, in the reign of Charles the Second. It established the principle that Parliament recognized that the marriage tie could be dissolved. Lord Roos had obtained an ecclesiastical divorce for adultery. The previous Act of 1666 which he had obtained had declared any subsequent children to be illegitimate. He stated that there was no possibility of posterity on his part to support the family in the male line unless he was entitled to be put in such a position that he could again be married and that the children of the subsequent marriage would be legitimate.
In 1669 there was a declaration by the English Parliament to the effect that Lord Roos might marry during the lifetime of his former ecclesiastically divorced wife and that subsequently born children would be legitimate. This was practically a statement that according to the parliamentary belief of that day the marriage tie could be dissolved. Th6 argument of that time and the position taken by Parliament is very amply stated in MaoQueen's Parliamentary Practice, and it bears so cogently on conditions of to-day that I think I would not be unduly taking up the time of the House if I should read what is there said, because I realize that the question that is before us this afternoon for consideration is one that vitally touches the social life of the people, and is one upon which many people feel very strongly, not only for social, but also for conscientious reasons. I am endeavouring to show the House that the procedure in England exactly parallels what has been the procedure in Canada, and, by the analogy of what took place in England, that the establishment of national divorce courts is the solution for the difficulties as we find them in Canada to-day.
In MacQueen's Practice, pp. 472 and 473, it is stated:
"The successful argument of Bishop Cozens in that important case (Lord Roos' Case) gives us a very clear conception of the principles on which the Legislature originally interposed to grant relief in this form. The Bill was vehemently opposed by the Roman Catholic members of both Houses. It was also opposed by persons who, though professing the reformed religion, were yet of opinion, that the allowance of divorce a vinculo-
That is a Bill of absolute divorce.
-would be productive of injurious consequences to the public morals. The advocates of the

measure, on the other hand, while they abjured an unlimited freedom of divorce, at the caprice or volition of the parties, contended that divorce a vinculo might safely be conceded for the Scriptural causes of adultery and malicious desertion; which, according to God's ordinances, dissolved the marriage contract. By the Mosaical institutions, the terms of divorce were "Be thou expelled from me, and free for anybody else." Under the dispensation of the New Testament, a husband whose wife was dismissed for fornication might take another wife. The words of our Saviour on this head, as recorded in the fifth and nineteenth chapters of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, had rendered it a matter of necessary and irresistible implication, that a second marriage, under such circumstances, was valid and unobjectionable. As to the supposed inconveniences that might arise from awarding divorce, the supporters of the Bill maintained, that greater inconveniences would arise from refusing it. They urged, that to declare marriage positively indissoluble, under all circumstances, and in spite of all descriptions and degrees of conjugal transgression, would be not only unscriptural, but highly impolitic; that marriage, a holy estate, intended for the comfort and enjoyment of both the sexes, ought not to be converted into an instrument of punishment; that to withhold divorce from an injured husband was but to tempt him to commit sin, and to give his wife an opportunity of palming a spurious offspring upon her husband. And, finally, they maintained, that if a second marriage were not allowed in cases of adultery, the consequences would be dangerous to society; for the spouses condemned to a hateful and inextricable union, would be apt to resort to practices against each other, worse in their consequences and example to society than any evils that could possibly arise from a moderate and Christian exercise of the remedy, of divorce. These arguments prevailed	"
The first example of the actual dissolution of the nuptial tie by Parliament was in the case of the Countess of Macclesfield, 1687-8. Skilful opposition had prevented an ecclesiastical divorce a mensa et thoro being obtained. The circumstances of the domestic life were scandalous and most flagrant as any one may prove who cares, to read the case. A judgment had not been obtained for damages against the respondent who had seduced the wife. The facts in reference to the whole case may be obtained by looking at the report of the Matrimonial Commission of 1852, page 261. The proceedings in the House of Lords were so new, and the issue was so unusual that a protest was made by the Duchess, in which she said:
" My Lords, I had rather stand charged for High Treason before your Lordships than with this Ignominious crime. In the charge for High Treason, the manner of trial and the ways of proceeding are known, and so is the punishment. But your Lordships are now creating new ways of proceedings, and a new law to punish me, and this for a crime supposed and alleged to be committed seven years past, in another reign, and after public indemnities in many sessions of Parliament."

That was the first case in which Parliament declared a dissolution of the matrimonial tie. The next case was the Duke of Norfolk's case 1699-1700. The ecclesiastical courts had again refused a divorce, but damages had been recovered against the adulterer. I again read from the report of the British Commissioners, page 260, what Bishop Burnet said:
"The matter was one of great importance, and it occasioned great and long debates in this and the former session of Parliament. It related to the Duke of Norfolk, who had found his wife guilty of adultery, and did move for an Act of Parliament dissolving his marriage, and allowing him to marry again. In the latter ages of Popery, when marriage was reckoned among the sacraments, an opinion grew to be received that adultery did not break the bond, and that it could only entitle to a separation, but not such a dissolution of the marriage as gave the party that was injured the right to marry again. This became the rule of the Spiritual Courts, though there was no definition made about it before the Council of Trent (1565). At the time of the Reformation, a suit of this nature was prosecuted by the (Marquis of Northampton. The marriage was dissolved and he married a second time; but he found it necessary to move for an Act to confirm the subsequent marriage. In the reformation of the ecclesiastical laws that was proposed by Cran-mer and others in King Edward's time, a rule was laid down allowing of a second marriage upon divorce for adultery. This matter had lain asleep above a hundred years, till the present Duke of Rutland , then Lord Roos, moved for the like liberty. At that time a sceptical and libertine spirit prevailed; so that some began to treat marriage as a civil contract, on which the Parliament was at full liberty to make what laws they pleased; and most of King Charles's courtiers approved of this, hoping, by this doctrine, that the King might toe divorced from the Queen. The greater part of the bishops apprehending the consequences that Lord Roos's Act might have, opposed every step that was made in it; though many of them were persuaded that, in the case of adultery, when it was fully proved, a second marriage might toe allowed. In the Duke of Norfolk's case, the Bishops were desired to give their opinions with their reasons; all those who had been made during the present reign were of opinion that a second marriage in that case was lawful, and conformable both to the words of the Gospel and the doctrine of the primitive church, and that the contrary opinion was started in the late and dark ages. But all the bishops that had been made by the two former kings were of another opinion, though some of them could not well tell the reason why they were so."
Now what is the summary. In Luke-nor's case, a parliamentary declaration of illegitimacy was desired and obtained.
In Lord Roos's case the object was to continue the succession and probably the peerage in the male line.
In the Macclesfield and Norfolk cases redress was asked which the ecclesiastical courts had refused.
In 1701 though, a change took place and it is as a result of that application to Parliament that our parliamentary practice has the existence that it has to-day. In 1701 a man by the name of Ralph Box made application for a divorce from his wife Elizabeth Eyre and to enable him to marry again. No appeal had been made to the ecclesiastical courts. The Bill was passed, adultery of course being proved, and the precedent was established, and from that time on until 1857 the British Parliament constituted itself a court for granting divorce a vinculo matrimonii, that is a complete divorce. The right of Parliament to grant the divorce was recognized, but in the rudest and most inconvenient manner as the procedure was a judicial one by legislative process, which is the procedure we have in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and in those cases that are brought to us from the other provinces, in the Parliament of Canada to-day.
From 1700 to 1775 only five divorces were granted by the English Parliament. From 1715 to 1775, sixty divorces were granted, from 1775 to 1800, 74 were granted, and from 1800 to 1852, 110 were granted. The better the right came to be recognized, the greater the number of applications that were. made and granted. The British Parliament laid down the principle that-" they would grant a divorce to a man when he established adultery on the part of his wife, but they took a somewhat different position in reference to an application made by a woman. The first application that was made by a woman to the British Parliament for divorce was made in 1801. To 1857-and the reason I use that date is because it was the date at which divorce courts were established in England -as a result of the report of a commission which was appointed, to which I shall shortly direct attention-only four wives obtained divorce a vinculo. These were only granted where there was aggravation. The wife had to show adultery and also other aggravating circumstances. The unfaithfulness of the husband and the wife are alike criminal from a religious point of view, although there is a great difference socially, as members of the House will readily see, in reference to the amount of injury that might be sustained, when the wife commits adultery as compared with a case in which the man commits adultery. When a woman commits adultery there is the possibility of spurious issue being created, and there is certainly a confusion of progeny, and of the parentage of the children likely to result. When
[Stage Direction]
a man commits adultery that is not so likely. The result was that the British Parliament laid down the doctrine that in reference to an application for divorce on the part of a woman the divorce would only be granted when there were aggravating circumstances. When divorce was asked by the man the divorce would be granted providing the woman had committed adultery. In 1909 a British commission looked into this matter and the result of its consideration is to be found in the Bill which I have introduced into this House in which I put the man and the woman on a parity in reference to the right to obtain divorce. I give them the same right in the courts as this Parliament and the country recognizes -that if adultery is proved and the court is satisfied upon the point, the divorce is to be granted to the woman just as readily ae to the man. The British Commission found and said:
" No satisfactory solution of the problem, which is raised as to the personal relations between husband and wife, can be found, except by placing them on an equal footing, and by declaring that, whatever grounds are permitted to a husband for obtaining a divorce from his wife, the same grounds shall be available for a wife in a suit against her husband. It may be safely left to a woman to consider whether she will exercise her rights, and it may reasonably be expected that, as has been proved by actual experience in Scotland, physical, social, pecuniary, and other considerations will have their natural effect, and lead to such nights not being exercised, at any rate in the great majority of cases, without such good and sufficient reason as will meet with the approval of relations and friends of the wife."
If any member of the House cares to follow this matter further, I would direct him to the proceedings of the Divorce Cbmmis-sion of 1912, at page 24, and if they wish to read further in relation to the matter, they might refer to Lord Lyndhurst's appeal to the House of Lords in 1857.
Lord Brougham also, and I shall not take up the time of the House in reading his remarks, dealt with the matter very fully. His observations may be found on pages 446 to 448 of his speeches.
This testimony was given before the commission appointed by the British Government in reference to the law of Scotland by Lord Salveseb (senior judge in the Outer House of the Court of Session, Scotland), in giving his evidence:	[DOT]
" That he regarded the Scottish law, by which, since the Reformation, no difference has . existed between the sexes, as better than the English, that there is no demand for a change and that he was expressing the views of the Scottish Bench on the subject. He considered that the Scottish law very much

conduced to the morality of husbands and the peace of families."
So far, I have endeavoured to show the House how the parliamentary procedure had grown in England, and I have only to impress upon the members present that the argument seems to lead irresistibly to the conclusion that husband and wife should be treated in the same way in relation to a divorce being granted, providing adultery is proven. I have also endeavoured to show to the House by what manner divorce applications reached the House of Lords in the British Parliament.
Until 1798 there was no well-defined procedure .in the British Parliament, but in that year Lord Loughborough established a definite method of procedure. The British Parliament determined that before a divorce would be granted an application first had to be made for divorce a mensa et thoro and all proceedings brought into the House of Lords on oath. They also said that a judgment must be obtained for damages against the adulterer, or evidence must be brought to show that proceedings had actually been prosecuted, or that there was some good reason to the contrary where these proceedings had not been taken. What was the result of this? The result was that tremendous expense was incurred, and it was found that the parliamentary divorce courts were practically closed to those who had not very substantial means. An English divorce at that time would cost about £1,000, and if it was a contested case and many witnesses the expense ran to three or four times that amount. A climax in British national life was reached in 1845. A prosecution was laid by the Crown against a man by the name of Hall, who was charged with bigamy. I referred a few moments ago to the address that the present Clerk of the House delivered in 1914, and I am taking advantage of his work when I quote from sometning he said as reported at page 822 of the Hansard of that year.
Speaking of the case of Regina vs. Hall, Mr. Northrup read the following sentence pronounced by Mr. Justice Maule:
Prisoner: You have been convicted upon clear evidence; you have intermarried with another woman, your lawful wife being still alive. You have committed the crime of bigamy. You tell me, and indeed the evidence has shown that your first wife left her home and her young children to live in adultery with another man. You say this prosecution is an instrument ot extortion on the part of the adulterer. Be it so. I am bound to tell you that these are circumstances which the law does not in your case take notice of. You had no right to take the law into your own hands. Every Englishman is bound to know that when a wrong is done,

the law, or perhaps I should rather say the constitution affords a remedy. Now, listen to me, and I will tell you what you ought to have done. Immediately you heard of your wife's adultery you should have gone to an attorney and directed him to bring an action against the seducer of your wife. You should have prepared your evidence, instructed counsel, and proved th^ case in court; and recollect that it was imperative that you should recover, I do not mean actually obtain, substantial damages. Having proceeded thus far, you should have employed a proctor and instituted a suit in the ecclesiastical courts for a divorce a mensa et thoro. Your case is a very clear one, and I doubt not you would have obtained your divorce. After this step your course was quite plain ; you had only to obtain a private Act of Parliament to dissolve your marriage. This you would get as a matter of course upon payment of the proper fees and proof of the facts; you might then have lawfully married again. I perceive, prisoner, that you appear scarcely to understand what I am saying to you, but let me assure you these steps are constantly taken by persons who are desirous to dissolve an unhappy marriage ; it is true, for the wise man has said it, that "A hated woman, when she is married, is a thing that the earth cannot bear," and that ''A bad wife is to her husband as rottenness to his bones." You, however, must bear this great evil, or must adopt the remedy prescribed by the constitution of your country. I see that you would tell me that these proceedings would cost you £1,000, and that all your small stock in trade is not worth £100. Perhaps it may be so. The law has nothing to say to that; if you had taken these proceedings you would have been free from your present wife, and the woman whom you have secondly married would have been a respectable matron. As you have not done so, you stand there a convicted culprit, and it is my duty to pass sentence upon you. You will be imprisoned for one day.
The report in the London Times gives this additional sentence:
And as you have now been in jail since the commencement of the assizes, your term is more than expired; you are free.
That case so shocked the common sense of the British people that they began to look about to see if something could not rectify the condition, with the result 'that in 1850 a Royal 'Commission was appointed " to inquire into the present state of the law of divorce and more particularly into the mode of obtaining a divorce a vinculo matrimonii That commission reported in 1853, the inquiry having been mainly directed to the substitution of a proper legal tribunal for the procedure by private Act. The result was the Act of 1857, under which, by section 27, divorce is permitted on the following grounds:
A. On the petition of the husband, adultery.
B. On the petition of the wife-
1.	Incestuous adultery;
2.	Bigamy with adultery ;
3.	Rape;
4.	Sodomy;
5.	Bestiality;
6.	Adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et thoro (the equivalent in the Ecclesiastical Courts of judicial separation) ;
7.	Adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards.
By section 30, the absolute defences are:
1.	Denial of facts alleged in the petition.
2.	Connivance (such conduct by one party to the marriage as to show that he or she corruptly intended that the other party to the marriage should commit adultery).
3.	Condonation (forgiveness of a conjugal offence with full knowledge of all circumstances followed by cohabitation).
4.	Collusion (presenting or prosecuting the petition by agreement between the parties to the marriage or their agents).
By section 31 the discretionary defences are:
1.	Adultery of the petitioner.
2.	Unreasonable delay in presenting or prosecuting the petition.
3.	Cruelty to the other party to the marriage.
4.	Wilful desertion or separation without reasonable excuse from the other party before the adultery complained of.
5.	Wilful neglect or misconduct such as to have conduced to the adultery complained of.
Various subsequent amendments have been made from time to time, but it is not necessary that I should direct the attention of the House to them, because the Divorce Act of 1857 is the Act which is in effect in certain provinces to which I shall shortly refer, having been introduced by the introduction into these provinces of the British law as it stood in 1870.
What was the result of all this? The result of this enactment was that the moral right-not the legal right-to legislative favour as recognized by the granting of the parliamentary divorce was crystallized into a legal right enforceable at law; and that is what I am arguing for in introducing the Bill which this afternoon I ask the House to approve.
It is well known to every member of this House that any person who has the means and cares to present a petition to Parliament, if he is in a position to demonstrate that adultery has been committed, has a moral right to divorce, but in Ontario and Quebec, because we have no divorce courts, there is no legal right to a divorce. In various other provinces, as I shall shortly show, there are divorce courts with varying jurisdiction and a varying practice. I believe that the time has come when in this Canada of ours we should, in connection with this all-important social question, have one Canada-wide, all-embracing law, so that the same practice, and the same right shall be enjoyed by all domiciled Canadians, no matter in what province they happen to live.
[Stage Direction]


Let us see what the Canadian law is- because if members of this House realize the patch-work condition of the Canadian law they will realize that I am not trying to obtain, by the enactment of this divorce law, the adoption of any new principle, so to speak, but that I am trying to turn what I may call patch-work legislation and patch-work rights into some co-ordinate scheme of equality of right for the people.
By section 91, subsection 26 of the British North America Act the jurisdiction in reference to legislation touching marriage and divorce is retained for the Dominion Parliament. The British North America Act, by section 129, also determined that existing laws should remain in force in the province in respect of those subjects that fell under Dominion jurisdiction until they were changed by some legislative authority which - was competent to do so.
Now, what is the position in regard to divorce in the various provinces? Prince Edward Island, by a statute of 1836, 5 William IV, chapter 10, has a divorce jurisdiction; the Lieutenant Governor and five members of the Executive Council may grant a divorce. There has been no change since Confederation. Only one divorce, in 1835, was granted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, other divorces in respect of that province having been obtained from the Dominion Parliament. No case has arisen under the Act since the Island entered the Federal Union. It is apprehended that if a case does arise there may be some difficulty in deciding whether the powers given by the Act are exerciseable by the Governor General and Council under section 12 of the British North America Act, 1867, or by the Lieutenant Governor and Council under section 129 of the same Act. Hon. gentlemen who wish to follow this subject further may do so by reading Gemmill on Divorce, page 37. The grounds for divorce in Prince Edward Island are adultery, im-potency, consanguinity.
In Nova Scotia a divorce court exists, under 29 Victoria, 1866, chapter 13. The grounds are adultery, impotence, cruelty, consanguinity.
In Quebec, a divorce court does not exist; Parliamentary procedure is necessary. The same is to be said of Ontario.
Now I come to Manitoba, and it is very interesting to watch the development here, because the Dominion Parliament, probably without knowing it, created divorce courts in Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan and the North West Territories; and if lion, gentlemen are interested and care to follow
[Mr. Niolde.l	^
me, I shall endeavour to show how that was done.
In Manitoba it has been decided by the case of Walker versus Walker, 1917, 28 Supreme Court Reports, that the Manitoba courts have jurisdiction in divorce, because the Dominion Statute of 1888, chapter £3, section 1, introduced the English law as of the 15th of July, 1870. As the House will remember, a few moments ago I showed that in 1857 a divorce court was established in England, and the iSupreme Court of Manitoba held that the divorce law of England, as it existed in 1870 by virtue of the Act of 1857 in Great Britain, introduced into Manitoba the law of England in reference to divorce without introducing the procedure, and the Manitoba court adopted the English law with its restrictions in reference to the rights of women, although the English procedure was not introduced, and the Manitoba courts have developed a procedure, so I understand, of their own.
In Alberta and Saskatchewan the Dominion Statute of 1887 introduced the law of England as it stood on the 15th July, 1870, just the same as the law was introduced into Manitoba, and exactly the same argument applies. There has been a case before the courts recently, the case of Board versus Board, which is reported in the Supreme Court cases of Alberta and is now in appeal before the Privy Council, to determine whether or not the introduction of the law in England as it stood in 1870, that is the Matrimonial Act of 1857 of Great Britain, is the law of Alberta, and it seems to me it is inevitable that the conclusion must be reached that that law was introduced. The Supreme Court of Alberta has held that the law is effective and that Alberta has a jurisdiction of its own. The Manitoba courts held the same thing, and, therefore, in the light of a British Columbia case to which I shall shortly direct the attention of the House, it would appear to a lawyer to be impossible that the same principle shall not be held applicable to Alberta as the Privy Council held to be applicable to British Columbia. What will be the effect? British Columbia will have divorce jurisdiction; Manitoba will have jurisdiction; Saskatchewan will have jurisdiction; Alberta will have jurisdiction; Nova Scotia will have jurisdiction; New Brunswick will have jurisdiction, and Prince Edward Island will have jurisdiction. Ontario and Quebec, the two greatest provinces, will be the only provinces that will not have a judicial jurisdiction and will be the only pro-

vinces from which the residents must come to the parliamentary forum in case a divorce is desired. The British Columbia case is that of Watts versus Watts, which is reported in the English law reports, 1908, Appeal Cases at page 573, in which the House of Lords, the court of final jurisdiction, held that the English law, that is the law of 1857 with the amendments as they stood at the introduction of the law into British Columbia, was introduced into British Columbia, and, therefore, the British Columbia courts have jurisdiction in regard to divorce. New Brunswick has a court for divorce and matrimonial causes similar to that in England. The grounds are, adultery, impotence, consanguinity. It is specially provided, however, that no decree on the ground of adultery shall affect legitimacy of any child subsequently born, that is prior to the divorce court.
What is the history of the Canadian parliamentary divorces? The first case was in 1839. This was an application by J. Stewart to the Parliament of Old Canada, and it is interesting to note that the Governors General of Canada from 1867 to 1878 were expressly instructed by the British Government that they were not to consent in Her Majesty's name to any parliamentary divorces. Confirmation of that statement may be haid in Bourinot's prefatory note to Gemmill on divorce.
Let me summarize to the House just for a moment or two what the divorce law and the divorce practice is in this country. In the first place in those provinces in which a divorce court existed prior to Confederation, that is in the Maritime Provinces, jurisdiction is vested in the provincial courts and apparently, generally speaking, husband and wife are on a parity. In Ontario and Quebec there is a moral right to a divorce providing adultery is shown on application to the Parliament of Canada, but there is no legal tribunal to which an applicant domiciled in those provinces can apply. But when you go to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, you have the British law by which husband and wife are not on a parity. The husband can obtain a divorce from his wife by simply proving adultery, but if the wife wants a divorce in the legal tribunals in those four provinces, she has to prove not only adultery but aggravating circumstances. If she cannot prove that, she is still entitled to a divorce provided that she has the means, not to seek divorce in the local court, but to come to the Parliament of Canada, because Parliament 2301
has been consistent in recognizing for-many years the right of husband and wife as being equal where adultery is shown.. f do not think this is right when we know of venereal disease and other matters to which it is not necessary for me to direct the attention of the House, the matter having been put clearly by the President of the Council (Mr. Howell) when he introduced his Bill regarding public health.
I should like to place before the House a record of the number of Canadian divorces and, with the permission of the House, I will put on Hansard the entire record, although I will read for the sake of saving time, only the record from 1914.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say to the hon. member that it will be absolutely impossible for it to be placed on Hansard unless he reads it.


Mr. NIOKLE:: Then the House will have to go to sleep, as it is a rather long record, and I will endeavour to wake them up when I am through.


Robert Laird Borden: It could be done by unanimous consent of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Anything may be done by unanimous consent of the House, if the hon. member will ask for it. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to have a certain statement printed in Hansard, it not having been read?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Folger Nickle: This is the record:
Number of Canadian Divorces.
Granted by the Dominion
Parliament.	Granted by the Courts.
Year.	Out. Que Alb.	Sask. Man	. N-S. N.B.	B.C.1906.	, . 10	3	l	-	-	5	l	171907.	. 3	1	-	-	l	8	3	91908.	, . 8	-	-	-	-	5	5	1.21909.	. . 8	4	l	1	2	8	5	221910.	. i>4	2	-	1	3	13	6	121911.	, . 13	4	2	-	3	10	6	191912.	, . 9	3	2	1	1	4	4	111913.	, . 2*0	4	4	1	6	-	4	201914,	. . 18	7	4	2	2	10	12	151915,	. . 10	3	3	1	1	13	6	161916,	. . 18	1	1	2	2	14	11	181917,	. . 10	4	2	1	0	8	6	241918	. . 10	2	2'	1	0	-	-	-In	1919,	due	to	the	fact	that	the	men
were returning from overseas, 87 applications were made to the Parliament of Canada for divorces, and so far, that is to the 17th day of June, 48 divorces have been recommended to this House, and the western cases, so I am told by an official of the Senate, have not been pressed owing to the fact that the applicants are hoping

that this divorce court for which I am urging may be established.
Judicial divorce exists in practically 'every country in the world, with the exception of Italy, Spain and Ireland, and the season divorce courts do not exist there is easily understood. These are, substantially speaking, Roman Catholic countries, and Roman Catholics, as I said at the inception of my remarks, recognize marriage as a sacrament and hold that it cannot be dissolved! It would, therefore, be inconsistent on the part of the people of those countries, staunch as they are to their Church, to establish a divorce court when they are not prepared to recognize that marriage may be dissolved. I may say in passing that Newfoundland has not a divorce court. 'In some countries, there is equality as between the sexes; in others divorce is [DOT] granted to the wife only when she can prove adultery combined with aggravation. In practically every country in the world, when there is a divorce procedure of any sort, adultery is recognized as the ground on which divorce may be obtained.
I have endeavoured to place before this House the history of divorce not only in Great Britain but in Canada as well. I have endeavoured to show how subsequent to the Reformation the Protestant population, cribbed, cabined and confined by the ecclesiastical courts, sought relief from unhappy marriages by an appeal to Parliament, and how that appeal was successful, and subsequently became engrafted on our parliamentary system. I have endeavoured to show how the legislative forum was found to be iso thoroughly unsatisfactory that scandals resulted and the British Isles found iit necessary to constitute a divorce court. It is not difficult for him who runs to read that exactly the same thing that took place in Great Britain has taken, and is taking place in Canada. Parliamentary procedure became necessary in Canada when there was no legal forum to which an appeal could be made, and it is becoming absolutely obvious to him who cares to give the matter consideration that the number of divorce applications that are being made to this Parliament is becoming so great that it is impossible for any member to carry out his parliamentary duties and sit on these cases and give them consideration in a judicial and fair-minded manner. Interested as I was in this subject I endeavoured this year to keep apace with the printed memoranda that came to me from time to time from ithe Senate, but it was

no time at all until I found myself absolutely swamped. It is quite true that I could read in a cursory way what came to me, but I could not value the evidence and weigh the facts as a man should when he sits as a judge on a case, and I submit that every member of this House who gives a vote or silently refrains from voting while a marriage is dissolved in this House takes a responsibility either by his silence or by his vote. So far as I personally am concerned I frankly admit that if parliamentary divorce proceedings are to continue in this House it is going to be quite impossible for me to discharge my duties as I believe they should be discharged. No member can weigh the proceedings of eighty divorce cases, weigh the facts, balance the degrees of probability, and give a decision as a judge, and at the same time attend to his other parliamentary duties.
The interests of the country to-day demand that something be done to facilitate divorce. We must view facts as they are. The conditions in Canada to-day are not a theory; they are facts, they are something every man knows unless, ostrich-like, he hides his head in the sand and is blind to what is taking place. I know, not one, but a dozen, yes fifty cases, and I am satisfied if I made inquiries I could find hundreds of cases, in which men are coming back to Canada and finding, unfortunately, that their wives have not conducted themselves as they should have when the men were away. The Patriotic Fund knows what has been going on in Canada, be it said to our shame, by many oP the women since our men went overseas. Only yesterday in this House a representative of one of the western branches of the Great War Veterans' Association handed me a list of members of his association who had returned to Canada to find an illegitimate child in the house from which they had gone, and in one case it was an illegitimate child of a Chinese laundryman in the district in which the woman lived.
What are these men to do? What is society to do? Are we to force these women to live improperly with the men with whom they have taken up and bring into Canada a brood of illegitimate children? Or are you going to try to force the true husbands to go back to the wives who conducted themselves improperly? If you do not force the men to go badk to the wives that conducted themselves improperly, and I am satisfied that in a great majority of cases they will not go back, you are going to have more common law marriages in this

country than you have any idea of, be-cause-^we may as well look the facts straight in the face-the men who are now returning . to Canada are demanding that they be given a forum in which they may be able to secure separation from the women, who have not conducted themselves as they should have when the men were overseas. If this demand is not met they will live improperly in many cases with the woman of their choice.
I do not want to put all the blame on the women. There are dozens and dozens of men who went overseas and left Canada married men who are coming back to-day with women with whom they went through a form of marriage in England, and these women coming back with them find that there is a wife in Canada and that they have to live with a man who is not their husband, because they have no other place to go. Conditions in Canada to-day, in my judgment, are so serious that Parliament must do something to relieve the situation. There is no use in shutting our eyes to the facts, because it is facts, and not theories, that we have to face in this country.
There is another class of women. There is the true, loyal, straight woman who stayed here in Canada and never departed a fraction from the true and beaten path, but whose husband is not coming back. He has deserted her and taken up with another woman in England Or France and is staying there, and here this woman is in Canada not knowing which way to turn; she does not know what has become of him. Have the deserted wives no rights? It is not as if we had not recognized divorce in this country. It is not as if it were something that had not found its way into our national life and Parliamentary procedure. We have it as a moral right. We have it in various provinces by judicial right. Is any one prepared to say to the residents of the province of Ontario, which [DOT]sent such a magnificent number of men to the front, that the soldier men and the wives of the soldier men in Ontario shall not be entitled to a divorce simply because they have not got $600 or $700, as the case may be, to come down here and secure a parliamentary divorce. I have read not one, but I think half a dozen-and I do not know how many more there are-of the proceedings of the Senate Committee on Divorce this year, in which the fees were rebated because the soldier or the woman said: " Every dollar that I have got I have had to put into this thing, and if you insist before my case is heard that I must deposit
the $210 that is necessary I cannot go on," and the Senate, moved by a sense of compassion and of righteousness, has rebated the fees, or a very substantial part of them, in a number of cases. But the rebate does not cover the entire situation. It has been clearly shown in the proceedings before the Senate this year-and if any gentleman cares to follow this point up he can do so by looking through the divorce cases that have been sent to him-that the parliamentary agent gets $75 for his services, witr nesses have to be brought tens, and in some cases hundreds, if not thousands of miles, with all the incidental expenses, and the application for the proceeding has to be advertised in the Canada Gazette and in two or three papers, as the case may be, in the locality. All this mounts up, and the evidence goes to show that the expense of securing a Senate divorce is in the neighbourhood of from $350 to $750, and sometimes more, depending upon the number of witnesses required and the intensity with which the case is fought.
The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Griesbach) directs my attention to the fact that this varies very much according to distances, and the further people have to come the greater the expense. This means that there is a territorial disadvantage to those who live far from Ottawa. It means a tremendous territorial disadvantage to every woman in the western provinces who cannot get her divorce in western courts unless she can show adultery with aggravation. She must come to Ottawa. If she has been an adulteress and her husband cares to prosecute a divorce against her he can get a divorce in the western court, she on her part cannot get it, because the English law does not recognize adultery without aggravation as being a ground for divorce. It is an anomaly that we cannot allow to continue in this country. Women's societies from the Atlantic to the Pacific are alive to the fact, and they are petitioning for redress; and I do not think that there is a man in the House with any spirit of chivalry who will not recognize the correctness of their position.
The member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) asks me the question:	Can provincial laws be amended by the provincial legislatures? No. Marriage and divorce, by the British North America Act, is restricted to the Dominion Parliament. The only parliament that can amend these provincial laws is the Dominion Parliament, and when an effort has been made in times past to amend them it has not been sue-

cessful in this House. If my memory serves me correctly, Sir John Macdonald at one time tried to secure the appointment of a judge to carry on certain divorce work in the province of New Brunswick and the House would not vote for it because certain members, for conscientious reasons, felt they would be indirectly facilitating divorce if they created machinery by which divorces might be obtained. The net result of it was this: Old, inapplicable, inelastic laws must continue to exist unless this Parliament takes action in the matter. Either it will create a nation-wide divorce tribunal with plenary jurisdiction and equality of law, or it will permit to continue to exist the patch work judicial and parliamentary practice that prevails at the present time.
Now, Sir, I am not going to say for a moment that the Senate have not honestly endeavoured to grapple with the situation. Their rules are very clear. They state that provided certain requirements are met the Committee of- the Senate 'are, with all reasonable despatch to hear and inquire into matters set forth in the petition, and shall take evidence upon oath touching the right of the petitioner to the relief prayed for. I admit that the technical procedure in the Senate is good; and while I do not wish to be considered unduly critical, it seems to me, without criticising that august body, that they have been unduly driven with the applications that come before them. I, a member of Parliament, have been driven this year in endeavouring to keep pace with the printed proceedings as they have come before me, and as every hon. gentleman will understand, it takes longer for the Senate to hear evidence than for u member to read it. And they have been so driven that divorces are being granted on -evidence on which I would not convict a man, if it were equally strong in relation to the facts, in a case of drunkenness. If my wife wanted to get a divorce from me and I were willing to assist her in obtaining it, I do not know of any country in the world, nor do I know of any procedure, in ydiich it can be more easily obtained than in this Parliament. You ask why? The reason is this. The applicant comes to the Senate and puts before the Senate Committee and generally without any sharp or conclusive cross-examination, the alleged facts as set out. As a rule one question is asked the applicant: Has there been any collusion, connivance, or condonation? I have explained what these terms mean. The applicant says, no. Now let me explain why it is easy for a wife to get a 
divorce from her husband. If a man wanted to facilitate his wife obtaining a divorce from him he would tell her: You have to tell one lie to the Clerk of the Senate. He will ask you: Has there been any collusion, connivance or condonation, and you will say, no. If you are prepared to tell that one lie I shall proceed to manufacture the evidence of adultery although I shall never commit it. I shall proceed to obtain some young woman, through a detective agency or otherwise, who will be prepared to lend herself, for a consideration, to the fraud. I shall say to the detective agent: At a certain time tonight I am going to be in a certain hotel. I am first going to a theatre, and then I shall take the young lady to some well known and fashionable restaurant and I want you to be there and see me with her and identify me and the lady. I shall then take her to some place of which I shall inform him, where I shall obtain a room. I shall say to him: We shall register at that hotel as Mr. and Mrs. Doe and you will call me up on the telephone and I shall answer. You will ask for Mrs. Doe and I shall have the young lady go to the telephone, and you will swear there was a lady in the room with me when you go before the Senate /Committee, and to make the adventure absolutely certain the next morning you will come to the room and rap at the -door and I shall arrange that you will see both of us clothed in such costume that the natural inference will be that we had been conducting ourselves not as persons should. You will go before the Senate Committee and swear to that and if necessary I will get confirming evidence by others who are prepared to support me in the fraud. The evidence would be taken with all due dignity and recorded in the proceedings, and our natural conduct would be presumed from the circumstances. In due time there would come into the House a recommendation that the marriage of John Doe and his wife should be dissolved, and that the said John Doe and his wife should be free to marry again. Now, Sir, do we want that kind of thing to go on, or do we want a judicial proceeding established by which there will be a thorough inquiry and examination of all the evidence submitted in divorce cases.
I have told you that I at least am doing my -duty as I see it, in coming to Parliament and saying that I for one cannot discharge my duty and sit as a judge on these cases and I am asking this House to place the proceedings before the courts, and that simply means the creation of a court for the pro-

vince of Ontario and a court for Quebec and unifying the procedure throughout the provinces. By the British North America Act if you pass the Bill to which I am asking this House to give support the divorce courts in the various provinces will be abolished and the new court will be established.
I wish to direct the attention of the House to another aspect of this subject, and that is the political and petticoat influence that is often brought to bear in the endeavour either to secure or to prevent the obtaining of divorces. You get a strenuously contested case before Parliament and there is not one of us who has not seen an attractive applicant or an attractive respondent, if she desired not to have the marriage ties dissolved, not by herself alone but sometimes by equally attractive friends endeavouring to make personal influence a factor in the determination of the case. There have been times when I have known the subtle breezes of political influence to blow in and have seen its effect. There should be nothing of that sort in relation to divorce which should be a judicial proceeding. The facts should be weighed and the rights of parties respected and nothing should be done that would not bear the closest scrutiny and entitle a man to say that the decision was given on the merits of the case regardless of extraneous circumstances.
I do not know whether or not what I have said will impress members, their experience probably will, but I would like to read to them as a sustaining statement something that Lord Brougham said in one of his speeches in reference to the position of divorce in England. He said:
It is certain that no inquiry can be more proper for a, court of law or less adapted to a chamber of Parliament than that of the facts which should entitle parties to divorce.
That puts the matter succinctly, puts it fairly before this Parliament, and I appeal to gentlemen on the other side of the House, and on this side as well, whose religious tenets and whose conscientious beliefs will at least not permit them to vote for the establishment of a divorce court, who resent the establishment within Ontario and Quebec of a divorce court, or who, if they do not resent it, do not desire it-to stand aside at least and let us, whose religious beliefs are not on all fours, with theirs, do something to clarify a domestic and social conuition that is bound to bring distress and sorrow to many homes in Canada.
The desire is not to make divorce easy in the sense that the Bill is creating new
causes or new reasons for which divorce may be had. It is not the time now to go fully into the details of the measure; yet the fundamental principle that governs the Bill is the recognition of the supreme courts in each of the provinces and the establishment of a general court for the Dominion by the vesting of power in the Exchequer Court. Let each court lay down its own procedure, let each court have its rules of practice, but tie it down so that it can only grant a divorce of the marriage tie for adultery or bigamy. The only reason for adding 'bigamy to adultery is that adultery is very often difficult to prove. You have got to hire detectives, prove identification and a thousand and one things. You may grant a divorce for bigamy because any one would naturally accept the proposition that if a man had married a wife the tendency would be towards the consummation of the marriage and by implication it would be said that where a man had gone through, or contracted, a bigamous marriage, the implication of	an	adulterous	relationshipexisted. In this way divorce may be secured, but the causes will not be increased or the procedure widened. I doubt if there are many members of this House who realize the change that has taken place in the practice of	this House,	or,	ratherI might say the enlargement of the Parliamentary practice. Until this year it was a rare thing for a marriage to be annulled on account of impotency. But two cases have gone through, I understand, this year. I	do	not set this	out	in anycritical spirit	but	I speak; of it	as a	lawyer.
I would like every lawyer in this House to read the evidence in those cases. I do not believe any lawyer sitting on either side of this House would have granted a divorce in the Sherk case on the ground of impotency as it was proven. There is another case-Hawkins-where the evidence is no better. That is a case this year I do not know whether or not it has passed this House-but I think it has-where a divorce was granted, the respondent not being present, evidence of the adultery being given by the housekeeper of a house of ill-fame who swore that some six or seven years ago she saw a man whom she alleged was the original of a photograph that was produced to her in a position from which it might reasonably be presumed that he had committed, or was about to commit, adultery. Is there a lawyer in this House who would commit a man on the charge of theft on the ground that some body said that he identified the man because he had seen

him six or seven years ago and there was produced for identification a photograph? That is what it is coming to-indeed, that is what it has come to-'because this House is not the tribunal which should act. If conditions are bad to-day they are going to be worse to-morrow. Are we going to stand by and allow conditions to grow worse until there is a national scandal simply because we have not the courage to handle the situation?
The conditions to-day are not fair. Parliament has recognized the moral right to a divorce being granted. When a man who has the money can come to this House, prove adultery and get his divorce, is ft. fair that those who went overseas should be deprived of this right because they do [DOT] not happen to have the $300 or $400, as the case may be, which may be necessary to get through a Bill? Is divorce to be the rich man's luxury? I am not going to say for one moment that if we had no divorce in Canada some members could not with reason say we are going to keep this thing out of our national life; but are the men who have conscientious objections against this thing, are the men whose religious convictions will not permit them to vote for this Bill, going to vote against it and allow a worse condition to exist than would be the case if this Bill were allowed to pass?
I cannot believe it possible. Members may object on the ground of conscientious scruples, object on the ground of religious convictions, but they should maintain the morals of the Canadian people and maintain a high plane in the national life. I believe this will best be done by the Bill which is now before the House securing the consent of a majority of the members of the House and I am satisfied that if the matter is given fair and due consideration., freed from extraneous or irrelevant objections, the consent I am asking for will be obtained.


Mr. W. A. GRIESBACH (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to thank the hon. membef for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) for the splendid presentation of the case he has given and to place myself on record as supporting the Bill.


Mr. A. E. FRIPP (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker,
I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speech made by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) but I must say he has not convinced me that it would be a wise thing for the House to pass this legislation. On the contrary, I am convinced that it would be very dangerous
[Mr. Nickle.[
to pass a Bill that would place the marriage contract and all that it involves upon the same footing as any ordinary contract or dispute to be disposed of by our courts of justice. I have had a great deal of experience in our courts and I regret to say that the respect that was formerly held for the administration of justice is not increasing nor is the oath which is taken by litigants considered with the same solemnity as. it was some years ago. If you open the door to granting divorce I venture to say you will increase the crime of perjury to a great extent.
The argument, as I understood the hon. member, really resolves itself into this: He quotes practically the case of the returned soldiers as a reason why we should depart from the practice that- at present prevails. What is the remedy for that? There is a remedy under the present procedure for people of small means. It is not the case that divorce, under the present system, can only be secured by a person who has a long purse. I have seen cases this session in which the Senate have remitted the fees so as to put divorce within the reach of any person who can .go to any court.
This Bill provides, as I understand it, for an appeal to the Court of Appeal of this province from the decision of a judge sitting nisi prius.. Why an appeal of that kind to the Court of Appeal in the province of Ontario, and probably a further appeal to the Supreme Court, would exceed a thousand dollars. So that the ground of expense does not seem to me to be sufficient ground for opening a door. Make divorces easy to obtain and you will multiply them, I venture to say, in the next five years, by a thousand. Do we want to have in the Dominion of Canada the same condition of affairs that exists in the United States? If there is one thing that Canada and Canadians ought to be proud of, I think it is the respect for the marriage tie which is displayed in this country, and the difficulty there is in getting that tie dissolved. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, would hesitate to depart from the practice that now prevails. Every hon. gentleman in this House who practices law must have hundreds of people coming to him each year, wives or husbands, with difficult matrimonial matters and asking "Cannot we get a divorce?" I say to such people: "No, you can only get a divorce by going to the high court of Parliament. It is a very expensive proceeding, you will have to make out a very strong case," and the result is that these people go home and

make the best of their married life as they promised when they entered into the matrimonial state-for better and for worse. If you make it easy to get a divorce, if you say to any person who consults you: "Yes, we will bring an action to dissolve this marriage, or we will bring an action for divorce," I venture to say that nine-tenths of the litigation before our courts within the next few years will be composed of divorce cases. Hundreds of people consult me about their troubles at home. When you explain to them the present difficulty of getting a divorce, they are perfectly satisfied, and I never hear any more of them. I fancy they return home and by the exercise of a little forbearance are able to live together as man and wife should. If you make it easy for them-and we have unscrupulous practitioners in the legal profession as well as in other businesses-if you put it in the power of solicitors to inaugurate these actions, then, Sir, we will find that the state, of this country would be practically the state of the United States so far as the dissolution of the marriage tie is concerned. Holding these views, I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., (Mr. Melsaac):
That this Bill be now not read but that it be read a second time this day six months.


Robert Laird Borden: I come from a province in which a divorce court has existed ever since 'Confederation, and I think the view which the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) has expressed would 'be very much modified had he ever lived in a province and under a jurisprudence in which divorces were granted by the courts and not by Parliament. The hon. member for Ottawa put his finger upon the real point in issue when he said that it is a question of practice, that is to say, of procedure. This is precisely the question which the House must consider this afternoon.' We are granting divorces in Canada in respect of every province within it at the1 present time. No one has any doubt of that, no one can for a moment question that fact.
It is not a question of establishing any new principle. It is purely a question as to the procedure by which and of the conditions and safeguards under which divorces shall be granted. Can any one believe that so important a matter intimately affecting the social life of our people should be decided under loose procedure by a Parliamentary Committee of the Senate and afterwards by a Committee of the House of Commons rather than in a Court of Justice under all the safeguards which are provided under the practice of courts which deal with such matters?
What is the practice in divorce courts whether in this country or in Great Britain?
It is the practice to provide every possible safeguard and to take every possible precaution that no divorce shall be granted without absolutely satisfactory evidence. It is the practice to provide every possible safeguard against collusion. How is that carried out? By the appointment of a King's Proctor, as he is termed, an able lawyer selected by the court, who is charged with the duty of representing the court and the public interest, who has the right to cross-examine every witness and to address the court and who has the right also to call witnesses in case he suspects the bona fides of the application, the character of the evidence or the probability of collusion.
Compare such practice and such safeguards with the course which prevails in this Parliament, of which I have known something for more than twenty-three years. My hon. friend (Mr. Fripp) truly declares that the question involved in this Bill is one of procedure and of practice; but if he will compare the practice of the courts, the safeguards there provided, with the practice which prevails in the Committees of the Senate and of this House, he will invite at once the defeat of his motion.
I am not desirous of making divorce easy, and I venture to say that the experience of every province in Canada which has a divorce court indicates that the safeguards which are thrown about these applications do not lend themselves to easy divorce. I would challenge any statement to the contrary, because I know-at least I knew very well up to 15 or 20 years ago when I was engaged in the active practice of my profession-the record of the province of Nova Scotia, and the number of divorces up to that period was not large. Contrasted with the record of this Parliament it would, I think, compare very favourably.
Then, so far as is concerned the question of cost; I have been told of witnesses being brought from as far as Edmonton during this very session for the purpose of giving their testimony before the Divorce Committee of the Senate. If we are to grant divorces in Canada, does any good reason exist why that evidence should not be given in the city of Edmonton, or in the city of Calgary, or before some court there under the safeguards that I have mentioned, instead of having these witnesses brought eighteen hundred or two thousand miles to the city of Ottawa that they may give their evi-

dence here. If it is a question of practice, as my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) has said, then,- as far as I am concerned, the practice of placing this question under the safeguards of a court and committing applications for divorce to tribunals which are convenient to the people who may unfortunately be obliged to resort to them, is [DOT]an infinitely better practice than that which we now have in Canada. Therefore, for the reasons which have been very cogently and clearly stated by the hon. member for Kingston, I am in favour of the Bill, the [DOT]second reading of which he now asks the House to approve.
I do not commit myself to every detdil of the Bill because I have not studied it; 1 am dealing only with the general question whether divorces in Canada ought to be granted under proper safeguards by the duly constituted courts of the country or whether they ought to be dealt with by a committee of the Senate and, in a perfunctory way, by a committee of the House of Commons, and without the safeguards which are always available for the trial of *causes in the courts of this country.


Sir HERBERT AMES (St. Antoine):: Mr. Speaker, with a view to obtaining certain information that was necessary for the Canadian Patriotic Fund in determining whether there was a field of usefulness for it after the war, I circularized all the principal branches throughout Canada to .find out whether, if the fund should .suddenly terminate, there would be any considerable number of residual cases, that is, eases of women and children who would be left without any means of support and who would not be provided for by the military pension, or other allowances. I asked our branches to state in all cases what were the reasons why certain families now on the fund would be without means [DOT]of support if the fund should terminate.
I was surprised to find in looking over the returns we got them from every part of Canada, long lists of cases of women and children in distress-that a very considerable number of them were deserted wives of men who had gone overseas; the wives of men who had been married overseas or of men who, having gone overseas, had discovered wives that they had previously had over there and remained with them. There was no means by which these families could be helped except through the Patriotic Fund, and I realized what the people of this country do not realize: That when a woman permitted her hus-
band to enlist and go overseas, she ran not two risks, but three. She ran, first, the risk that he would be killed and she would be a widow; in which case she would undoubtedly be adequately provided for by way of pension by a grateful country. She ran the second risk that her husband would be seriously maimed or injured and that she would have to live with a cripple for the remainder of her life. The Government recognizes that contingency under the pension law and will undoubtedly meet it in the future. But no one has realized the third contingency: That when a woman lets her husband go overseas and be absent a number of years, conditions might arise, aside from casualty, under which he might not come back; and there are a great many women in Canada to whom that third condition has come.
I want to put in a plea for these women, many of whom are without children, some of whom have one, two, or three young children. I want to put in a plea that it be made possible for them to begin life again under new and better circumstances. These women, for the most part, are poor; they cannot earn any considerable sums of money. The obtaining of the three or four hundred dollars necessary to enable them to come to Ottawa and get a divorce is as impossible to them as the raising of enough money to build a Parliament building. It is impossible for them to secure any form of relief. Are you going to ask these women to live the remainder of their lives neither married or unmarried? They have to look after themselves, and if you do nothing for them in this connection you put them in a position where they are likely to fall and to increase that portion of the population which we consider undesirable. If you establish divorce courts in the various provinces, in cases of this kind distressed wives may, without great expense, appear before them and prove desertion without difficulty by producing letters from their husbands showing that they are living with other women; and in this way you will make it possible for them to secure relief. You will make it possible for a woman so situated to begin life again, to re-marry under happier circumstances, to open 'another home, perhaps, in some western portion of Canada where she and her children may live an honourable and a-happy life. In view of the special war conditions that have arisen and of this special consideration which was not with us before, we must face facts as they are; and I submit this argument to the House as one of the reasons why legislation

of the character suggested should be passed, and passed now.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queens) Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) in strongly opposing this measure, said that if it should pass, the cases of divorce would be multiplied by thousands. If his statement is well founded -and I know it is his deliberate judgment -then that which he regards as a reason for the rejection of this Bill is the strongest possible argument in its favour. If thousands of honest men and women in this country are entitled to divorce, not on new grounds-as the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has shown, we are not introducing new grounds-not on trifling grounds such as, we are told, divorces are granted in some other countries, but upon the well-established grounds recognized by our courts and by this Parliament, the fact that these men and women are entitled to divorce and are unable to get it because of the present machinery is the strongest argument why that machinery should be discarded and some better machinery set up.
There are strong religious objections to divorce. The most numerous religious body iti this country is known to have strong objections to divorce, and another very considerable religious body has, to some degree, similar objections. These objections, which are based upon religious grounds, are entitled to our most profound respect, and if they succeeded in preventing divorce then we might by all means commend them. But they do not do anything of the sort. We are not considering to-day the question whether or not divorce shall be granted. Divorce is granted in some of the provinces, as has been shown, by judicial machinery, and at Ottawa by machinery which cannot be called judicial and to which you can hardly properly apply any term of respect. Divorce, therefore, is being granted and is going to be granted; the only question is whether it shall be granted by decent machinery, or by that which is a burlesque of justice. That is the whole question. If any hon. member thinks that he can prevent the granting of divorce by opposing this Bill I understand his position and respect him for it. But since divorce is going to be granted anyhow, and since the only question is whether it is to be granted in the decent way described by the Prime Minister when he referred to the method pursued in the province from which we both come surely there should be no hesitation. I very cordially support the member for Kingston.


Mr. JAMES McISAAC (King's, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of the amendment submitted by the member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), I wish to say, without going into the matter at any length, that I am opposed to divorce on moral grounds, and I will not give my vote to facilitate it. I am convinced that divorce accelerates and increases immorality, and I for one shall not vote for anything which, in my humble judgment, will have any such effect. T am proud to say that T come from a province where there is not on record, so far as I know, any account of a divorce having been granted.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there not a divorce court there?


James McIsaac: I presume the Supreme Court can grant a divorce, hut I do not know. There is no divorce court there.


William Folger Nickle: There is a procedure there. The Lieutenant-Governor, assisted by a number of members of the Executive Council, has the right to grant divorces, but, of course, a few applicants come to Ottawa.


James McIsaac: I have not known' nor have I heard of any divorce taking place in Prince Edward Island so long as I have lived there, and that is all my life. For these reasons, briefly, without going any further into the question for the moment, I second the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp).


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: It does not appear to me that this Bill is one which this House should pass. It may be quite true it is the better method of conducting divorce proceedings, but one of the first things that struck me when I went overseas a few years ago was the ease with which divorces were granted in the old country. It did not seem to my mind to lend any dignity to either the judicial proceedings or to the nation. It looked very much as though it were a case if a man wanted to get a divorce from his wife, that practically all he had to do was to spend a night with a certain party, notify his wife of the fact and tell her to get a divorce, which probably she proceeded to do. It acted, of course, in the reverse way as well. I think when we compare conditions in this country, bad and all as they may be, with conditions in the United States or Great Britain where divorces are undoubtedly made easier, all credit will stand in favour of Canada. The marriage tie is a

question which should not be made a football. People should not enter into a contract of that kind without serious consideration, without estimating all the consequences, and this Parliament should hesitate before placing this country in a similar position to that which may exist in such places as the American Republic and even in Great Britain. Such a course does not add to the dignity of the nation, nor to the dignity of Parliament.


Mr. T. M. M. TWEEDIE (Calgary West):: I wish to say just a few words in support of this Bill. I have been somewhat surprised at the line of argument in the speeches of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) and one or two others. They would lead us to believe that divorce .when procured before the Senate is, in all cases, founded upon fraud and corruption, and that if applicants go to the courts and the jurisdiction is transferred, we are still going to have fraud and corruption there. There is no distinction whatever between divorce evidence and any other evidence, and it is only fair to assume that the people who are applying for divorce, no matter what the forum may be, are entitled to be credited with being as honest as any other citizens. It is true there may be some fraud or some corruption, but the question is: Should divorce be granted in the Pominion of Canada at all? I am absolutely of the opinion that it should be. I cannot conceive of any law which should compel a man to be tied to a woman, or a woman to be' tied to a man for the rest of their natural days, when either one of the parties is living openly in adultery or has committed bigamy. That is all this Bill provides for; it confines the grounds upon which divorce may be granted to those simple grounds, and as the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) fears that divorces may become common in this country and may be easy, if he will read the report of the commission to the Imperial Government, which commission reported prior to the war, he will find there what will be practically a revelation to him as to what, in their opinion, may be considered as grounds for divorce. We do not wish to extend the jurisdiction; we wish simply to transfer the place where the case may be heard, and it is absolutely unfair, as it has been in the past, that any person should be compelled to come from Alberta and bring his witnesses with him and, in some cases, his counsel and incur expendi-

ture of anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 before securing a divorce. If a divorce is good for the man who has the means, it is absolutely as good for the man who has not, and money, that is, the ability to supply the necessary funds to defray the costs, should not be the test; the test should be the two principles that are set down in this Bill, that either party is chargeable with adultery or bigamy. The jurisdiction of Alberta has not yet been determined, but it will be determined by the Privy Council. I do not think, however, we need wait for that. If any doubt exists at the present time, in my opinion, it is the duty of this Parliament, as regards that province and indeed all other provinces, to remove that doubt. There should be uniformity. Why should the divorce court in Nova Scotia or the Supreme Court in British Columbia have jurisdiction over marriages and be able to grant divorces, while the interior provinces are denied that privilege? If, as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) points out, those courts can administer that branch of the law satisfactorily, that privilege can safely be extended to the other provinces to which it has been denied in the past. This is one of the best pieces of legislation which has been introduced into this House at this session, and I trust the majority of the members will see their way clear to give their support to the hon. member for Kingston.


Mr. DANIEL LEE REDMAN (Calgary East):: I am very glad that the hon. member for Kingston has brought in this Bill. I have nothing further to add to the excellent reasons he has given in favour of it than perhaps to mention two conditions which pertain to soldiers particularly and also to the West. For the last year or so, I do not think a week has passed but I have had soldiers in my office at Calvary who have furnished me with sufficient evidence to make it perfectly clear that they are entitled to a divorce, but I have had to tell them that it will cost them .possibly about $2,000 to get that divorce, when they consider the number of witnesses they have to bring from that point, their hotel expenses here and possibly the necessity of making another trip to Ottawa, because sometimes divorces have been only partly heard when Parliament has prorogued and the witnesses have had to return to their homes and to come back the next year. When I told them that, it became perfectly apparent that those men could not get a divorce. Divorce should not be a luxury

only for the rich; it should be open to the poor, and on that broad ground I wish to give the Bill my support. I have had soldiers say to me such things as this: We have gone overseas to fight for our country; we have come back; we cannot get our rights here, and we will go to the United States, where we can get our rights. I have known of several cases where soldiers have gone to the United States to get their rights.
As regards the question of uniformity, even if the Privy Council decides that Alberta has power under the old English jurisdiction to grant divorces, that divorce will still have that fault mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), namely, the fact that the wife, in order to get a divorce, must show additional aggravation, and I do not think we desire that to have any part in our divorce law in Alberta. For these reasons I shall support the Bill.


Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):: A few years ago I would have been inclined to oppose this Bill, but during the last four years I have had the honour of being chairman of the Private Bills Committee, before which the divorce Bills come, and with other hon. gentlemen I have had the privilege of attending, by arrangement, the Senate Committee on Divorce. I must confess that my attendance there has entirely changed my views on the existing procedure for granting divorce in Canada. In the light of that expei'ience I am prepared to support the Bill introduced by the hon.. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I think the House is unanimous in desiring to prevent any pulling down of the bars in the granting of divorce. I quite appreciate all the arguments that have been put forward as to the necessity for keeping the expense of securing a divorce down to such a figure that the poor applicant will be able to secure one as well as the rich.
I shall support the Bill, not only because it may reduce the expense of securing a divorce, but because I believe that we should make it as difficult as possible, when the case is actually being tried, for the applicant to secure the divorce, and no divorce should be granted unless evidence is produced that absolutely proves the charges.
Under our present system the greatest evil is not the cost because after all the only essential cost so far as the Committee of Parliament is concerned is a matter of $210, all the other costs being incurred through the employment of counsel and travelling expenses; the great evil is that under the present system divorces can be obtained, and are being obtained, on evidence which, as the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has said, would not be accepted by the judge of any court in the land. I have seen several divorces granted during the present year which no judge or lawyer entrusted with the examination of witnesses would have been disposed to grant for one moment. I therefore think that the change in the procedure that is proposed will reduce, rather than increase, the number of divorces, and that is the reason I am supporting the Bill.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 64, respecting the High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Tweedie.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 126, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. J.' E. ARMSTRONG: When this Bill was befor.e the Railway Committee the words "or without" in the eleventh line were struck out in a somewhat hurried manner. I am satisfied that these words should be included in the Bill. Without these powers the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will not be able to operate their air service between any city in Canada and New York. We have granted the right to other aircraft companies to operate between Canada and the United States and other countries, and it is only a reasonable request to make that these words should be included in the Bill. I would therefore move that the words "or without," which were struck out by the Committee, be re-inserted. The members of the Government have been canvassed in regard to the matter and I understand they are in favour of these words being included in the Bill. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company claim that it is impossible for them to operate in the United States without these words being included in the Bill. They say they will be compelled to come under any restrictions that may be imposed upon them in operating in that country.
Amendment agreed to.
William Folger Nickle: What is the amendment that was made in the Railway Committee?


Georges Henri Boivin: There is a proviso added as follows:
Provided that the exercise of the powers hereby conferred shall be subject to all such legislation and regulations by competent authority, whether general or special, as may have been heretofore or may hereafter be en-

acted or sanctioned for regulating or prescribing the conditions of aerial navigation or carriage and the obligations incident thereto.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: If that provision had been in the Railway Act of 1902 we would not have had any conflict in regard to the Toronto-Niagara Company.
Section as amended agreed to, Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 139, for the relief of James Frederick Neild- Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Mabel Anna Ferguson-Mr. J. M. Douglas.
Bill No. 141, respecting the Chartered Trust and Executor Company-Mr. Nesbitt.


[Stage Direction]
iCONSOtLIDATION IBIDD CONFERENCE.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been "received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have appointed the Hon. Messieurs Fowler, Ross (Middleton), Bostock and Casgrain, a committee, to act with a like committee from the House of Commons for the purpose of assisting the Joint Parliamentary Committee for Parliament Buildings in the allocation of the space in the new Parliament Buildings between the two houses and also allocating certain space to various members and officials of the respective Houses.
Also, a message informing this House that they have passed Bill No. 107, and to confirm the Order in Council of the 24th day of February, 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of the 12th day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof, with an amendment.
And also, a message informing this House that the managers of the free conference on the part of the Senate will meet in the Senate Committee Room No. 70, on Tuesday the 24th June, at 3.30 o'clock in the afternoon.



MILITIA PENSION ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 118 to amend the Militia Pension AcG-Major-General Mewburn.
Major-General MEWBURN: It was agreed that the amendments as passed by the Senate should he re-drafted by the law clerk. I would therefore move that the amendments of the Senate be concurred in.	'
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 77, respecting divorce^Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Definition	of "Superior
Court," "Court."
Mr. MOWAT:: The draughtsman of paragraph (b) has not remembered that the proper designation of "Court" in the case of the province of Ontario should be "The Supreme Court of Ontario." There is a high court division but only for the subdivision or distribution of business. The title as given in the paragraph is therefore not a proper one. The words "High Court Division of" should be deleted.


Georges Henri Boivin: It has been moved by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) to strike out the words "High Court division of" from the eighth line, in paragraph 2


William Folger Nickle: That is acceptable.


Mr. FIELDING:: What is the object oi having the Exchequer Court, as well as the provincial courts, charged with this function?


William Folger Nickle: It was thought that while a court should be constituted for each province it might also be well to have one Dominion court with co-ordinate jurisdiction in reference to divorce.


William Stevens Fielding: Then you will have two courts. An applicant for divorce may choose whether he shall go to the provincial court or to the Exchequer Court.


William Folger Nickle: With this difference, that any person domiciled in Canada would have the right to go to the Exchequer Court, but any person domiciled in one of the provinces must confine his application w the court of that province.


William Stevens Fielding: To be domiciled in
Canada one must be domiciled in one of the provinces of Canada or in the Yukon territory. What is the difference? It looks to me like creating two courts for the same purpose.


William Folger Nickle: The person would have the right of electing either to go to the court of the province in which he is domiciled, or to the Exchequer Court with Dominion-wide jurisdiction.


William Stevens Fielding: Why should there be two courts, why should there be any choice in the matter?


William Folger Nickle: It was thought that certain conditions might arise that might make it advantageous to have a Dominion court.
37So
For instance, in the event of a divorce being sought, possibly in the province of Quebec/ and the judiciary being at any time of the Roman Catholic faith and having conscientious objections to granting divorce, they might find themselves in a most embarrassing and difficult position providing they bad to consider an application for divorce and give a decision, and I thought it unfair to put them in such a position.


Jacques Bureau: There is no danger so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, because the judiciary there are not wholly Catholic, they are divided in the matter of religion; there are Protestant judges as well as Catholic judges. In such a case as the hon. gentleman speaks of, it would only be a question of changing the venue.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I had intended raising the same objection that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) has made. I do not quite appreciate the necessity of vesting jurisdiction in the Exchequer Court of Canada, for the very reason that the hon. gentleman has advanced. The practice in the courts of the different provinces is quite different from the practice in the Exchequer Court, and usually in the latter case is much more expensive, although I do not know whether that would hold good with respect to divorce cases. Unless there is some good reason for it, I certainly would urge upon the hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill to reconsider the question.


William Folger Nickle: I would imagine that il the Exchequer Court were a more expensive court, the probabilities were that litigants would not seek redress there. I felt very much impressed by the necessity of avoiding anything that might bring embarrassment to any judge. I have a high regard for people's conscientious objections and religious beliefs, and to avoid the possibility of causing offence I thought there could be no objection to giving the Exchequer Court jurisdiction in these cases. I trust the leader of the Opposition will concur in that idea,' although he may be of the opinion that Exchequer Court jurisdiction is unnecessary at the present time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My objection is based on the reason advanced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding), that we are duplicating the courts. It is true that at present, as regards the provinces, some cases can go to the County Courts and also to the Supreme Court. There is concurrent jurisdiction, but those cases are all in the one province. As I understand the Exchequer Court procedure, the Attorney

General, representing the Crown, can start an action without a fiat, and anybody else desirous of instituting proceedings has to get a fiat from the Government, and there is a lot of preliminary difficulty in regard to it that is foreign to the issue of a writ in the ordinary courts. If the necessity does not exist, I think it is rather undesirable to be multiplying difficulties.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The explanation made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nickle) brings to my mind another set of cases that might arise under the proposal to give jurisdiction to the Exchequer Court. The very fact that it is more difficult to enter an action in that court, and perhaps more expensive, may lead to cases where the applicant for divorce will purposely choose the Exchequer Court in order to involve the respondent in financial or other difficulties. For instance, an action might be brought in the Exchequer Court where the respondent lived in British Columbia and the applicant in Quebec. This would put the respondent to a great deal of expense and trouble, and not only that, but it would, perhaps, lead to a divorce going through which might not be granted in the provincial courts.


William Folger Nickle: I would hardly imagine such a situation as that would arise, for the reason that the Exchequer Court moves from place to place; it has no fixed location from which its decisions are given; and in the determination of the place at which the trial should - be held consideration would have to be given to the request and the position of the applicant, and others, and no doubt the question would be settled on motion.
Mr. BUREAU. There are only two judges of the Exchequer Court. Suppose the senior judge should die; the assistant judge is a Roman Catholic, and until a successor was appointed the condition would not be as it is in Quebec, where a great many of the judges are not Roman Catholics.


William Folger Nickle: I should imagine that
in that case the vacancy would soon he filled.


Arthur Bliss Copp: With regard to subsection
(e), I would point out that in New Brunswick the Divorce Court is presided over by a judge of the King's (Bench Division; he is not specially a judge of the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. Why delay the application of this Act until this

incumbent's time expires? Why not make the change now?


William Folger Nickle: The intention was, as far as possible, to respect the courts as now constituted while the incumbents were alive, and that so soon as they passed away there should be a reconstitution of the judiciary, to be determined by the Bench of each province.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It dosen't make a particle
of difference in the case of New Brunswick, because a judge of the King's Bench Division presides over the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.


William Folger Nickle: That would be a matter
for the judges of New Brunswick to determine among themselves. In that case the section- would practically come into effect forthwith.


William Stevens Fielding: The same argument
would apply to Nova Scotia, although in that province the judge is designated as the Judge of the Divorce Court. In New Brunswick, according to my hon. friend (Mr. Copp) the Judge of the King's Bench Division is not specially designated as Judge of the Court of Divorce.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He is so designated, but he
is Judge of the King's Bench Division, and sits in other courts besides the Courts of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-jurisdiction:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I direct the attention
of the member for Kingston to paragraph (c), which reads in part:
For kindred within the degrees prohibited in an Act made in the thirty-second year of King-Henry VIII entitled "An Act concerning precontracts and touching degrees of consanguinity.
Whatever these prohibitions are, they should be in the Act. Only a few lawyers in Canada can conveniently go back to that old statute and hunt up this reference. My hon. friend may find it congenial to look into these things and to go back to the time of King Benry VIII, but I am always opposed to a conditional law of this kind; the portion of the other statute referred to should be in the Act.


William Folger Nickle: I shall be very glad to incorporate it as schedule A to the Act. To that end, I move that paragraph (c) be amended by adding after the word "consanguinity" the words "as set out in schedule A of this Act." I will read the proposed schedule A:

A man may not marry his-
1.	Grandmother.
2.	Grandfather's wife.
3.	Wife's grandmother.
4.	Father's sister (i.e. aunt by blood). .
5.	Mother's sister (i.e. aunt by blood.
6.	Father's brother's wife (uncle's wife, i.e.,
*aunt by affinity).
7.	Mother's brother's wife (uncle's wife, i.e.,
aunt by affinity).
8.	Wife's father's sister (wife's aunt).
9.	Wife's mother's sister (wife's aunt).
10.	Mother.	.
11.	Step-mother.
12.	Wife's mother (mother-in-law).
13.	Daughter.
14.	Wife's daughter (Step-daughter).
15.	Son's wife (daughter-in-law).
16.	Sister.
(b) 17. Wife's sister (sister-in-law).
18.	Brother's wife (sister-in-law).
19.	Son's daughter (granddaughter).
20.	Daughter's daughter (granddaughter).
21.	Son's son's wife (son's daughter-in-law).
22.	Daughter's son's wife (daughter's daughter-in-law).
23.	Wife's son's daughter (stepson's daughter).
24.	Wife's daughter's daughter (step-daughter's daughter).
25.	Brother's daughter (niece).
26.	Sister's daughter (niece).
27.. Brother's son's wife (nephew's wife).
2i8. Sister's son's wife (nephew's wife).
29. Wife's brother's daughter (niece by affinity).
(b) 30. Wife's sister's daughter (niece by affinity).
A woman may not marry her-
1.	Grandfather.
2.	Grandmother's husband.
3.	Husband's grandfather.
4.	Father's brother (uncle by blood).
5.	Mother's brother (uncle by blood).
6.	Father's sister's husband (aunt's husband,
i.e., uncle by affinity).
7.	Mother's sister's husband (aunt's husband,
i.e., uncle by affinity).
8.	Husband's father's brother (husband's
uncle).
9.	Husband's mather's brother (husband's
uncle).
10.	Father.
11.	Step-father.
12.	Husband's father <father-in-law).
13.	Son.
14.	Husband's son (step-son).
15.	Daughster's husband (son-in-law).
16.	Brother.
17.	Husband's brother (brother-in-law).
(b) 18. Sister's husband (brother-in-law).
19. Son's son (grandson).
29. Daughter's son (grandson).
21.	Son's daughter's husband (son's son-inlaw) .
22.	Daughter's daughter's husband (daughter's
son-in-law).
23.	Husband's son's son (step-son's son).
2,4. Husband's daughter's son (step-daughter's son).
25. Brother's son (nephew).	.
2i6. Sister's son (nephew).
27.	Brother's daughter's husband (niece's
husband).
28.	Sister's daughter's husband (niece's husband) .
29.	Husband's brother's son (nephew by
affinity).
30.	Husband's sister's son (nephew by affinity).
(b) This has been altered by the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, 1907 (7 Edward 7, c. 47), which legalized marriage with a deceased wife's sister-including a sister of the half-blood.


Mr. SHEARD:: I suggest that we go through these relationships seriatim; as the hon. gentleman has read them, they are nothing but a Babel of confusion.


William Folger Nickle: Of course, it is most confusing. Really this provision was the adoption in the time of Henry VJII of the canonical law in reference to consanguinity and affinity. It has been the law of the British Empire and of Canada for years, with this exception: Some years ago there was an agitation for the legalization of marriage to a deceased wife's sister, and by the Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Act of 1907 an amendment to that effect was incorporated into the law.


Charles Sheard: Did I hear the words "sister-in-law" read in the schedule? If I mistake not, I have seen something like this in the English Church prayer book. If that is in the schedule, would not a deceased wife's sister be a sister-in-law?


William Folger Nickle: Yes, but a brother's
wife would also be a sister-in-law. While it is legal to marry a deceased wife's sister, it is not legal to marry a deceased brother's wife.


Charles Sheard: Is the word "sister-in-law" in that schedule?


William Folger Nickle: Yes, it is in to this extent, that a brother's wife is a sister-in-law.


Charles Sheard: Is it so defined?


William Folger Nickle: Yes, and I so read it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know of a case where a man married his brother's widow. I certainly did not approve of it; I thought it was not a proper thing to do from a moral standpoint, but I did not know it was against the law because we have no Statute on that point in any province so far as I know.


Jacques Bureau: We have in Quebec.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In Nova Scotia, we have no Statute on that point. We would regard it as being common law with us according to the law of Henry VIII.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Is there not something in this that might be an encroachment upon the rights of the provinces? According to the British North America Act, matters concerning marriage and



divorce come under the Federal authorities, but on the other hand, in the following clause, it is stated that all things pertaining to the solemnization of marriage come under provincial jurisdiction. In some provinces, at least in the province from which I come, there is a law concerning the degrees of relationship that are prohibited. Supposing those provisions should not be the same, shall it be said that a man who is married according to the laws of his province could see his marriage annulled by a law of this Parliament as the one which will be passed now? There might be a conflict. I think the question ought to be studied before we pass this legislation.


William Folger Nickle: I would be inclined to think that "marriage and divorce" as defined in the British North America Act would give the Dominion the right of determining the status of the parties and their right to enter into the state of matrimony. I would hardly like to go the length of saying-and I do not think my hon. friend will so argue-that the relationship of the parties had anything to do with the ceremony incidental to the marriage. If I may use the expression, I would think the status of the parties went to the very heart of the question, whereas the ceremony was more a surface arrangement, to carry my figure through.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I do not pTofess to be an authority on ecclesiastical law, but my recollection is that when the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill was passed in Canada in 1883 -my hon. friend refers to 1907 which was the year the British Act was passed, but we were quite ahead of Great Britain in that respect-the leaving out of the deceased husband's brother was a mere omission. Logically there is no reason why we should not do now what should have been done in 1883, and say that if a man can marry his deceased wife's sister, a woman can marry her deceased husband's brother. They are in the same degree of consanguinity, and we should not perpetuate the error of 1883.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the difference between a marriage which will be dissolved and a marriage which will be declared null and void ?


William Folger Nickle: The distinction lies in this: A marriage is dissolved when a marriage has actually taken place, and a marriage is annulled when it is declared by the court never to have existed. As I endeavoured to explain this afternoon, the word " divorce "
[Mr ,E. Lapointe.]
as commonly used in English jurisprudence is used as applicable not only to a recision but to an annulment. The difference would be this, to give an example: If A and B were married and had children, and if as the result of the misconduct of either, the marriage was dissolved, the children would still be legitimate. If, on the other hand, a man and a woman, although within the kindred degrees prohibited by the Act to which I have just directed attention, had gone through a form of marriage, that marriage would be void ab initio, and the children would not and could not be legitimate. One determines the dissolution of the marriage, determines the separation as from the date of the declaration. The annulment is a declaration of the fact that the marriage never existed and never should have existed in the eyes of the law.


Jacques Bureau: If the issue is illegitimate, that is not right.


William Folger Nickle: It was to get over that point that the proviso was put in:
Provided, however, that no marriage shall be declared null and void after the death of one of the .parties thereto unless such marriage was void ab initio.
But there is no question whatever that the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is correct in this, that an annulment which dates back to the date of the marriage makes any children subsequently-born illegitimate and illegally bom.


Jacques Bureau: That is the unfairness of the thing. People might have been married in good faith, ignorant of any of the causes which would render the marriage void, and yet the issue would be illegitimate. A provision ought to be inserted which would make children born from that marriage legitimate. Of course, technically -and legally, there never was a marriage, but for all purposes of society, if people have been living together in good faith and find out later on that, on account of a legal technicality, they were not married, the issue should not suffer from that.


William Folger Nickle: My idea in drafting this legislation was'to disturb as little as possible the general law of the land as it has been recognized for generations.


Jacques Bureau: We could improve on that.


James Arthurs: This Bill goes further than the hon. gentleman contemplates. As I understand it, it will dissolve a marriage solemnized in the United States or any other country where the parties in question are domiciled in Canada. In the United

States, they have not this law according to Henry VIII, and marriages are celebrated there within much closer degrees of consanguinity than we have in Ontario or any other province. As a matter of fact, the marriage law of Ontario does not go as far as the schedule enumerated by the hon. member (Mr. Nickle). I know it is placed on the back of the application for a marriage license, and I am sure there are not nearly so many degrees of consanguinity mentioned. In certain states in the American Union a man may legally marry his deceased brother's wife. I have in mind at present two cases in which such a marriage has been solemnized and the parties are residents of this country. By this Bill, if it goes through, the children by such a marriage will be illegitimate to all intents and purposes and can be so declared by anybody. We should go. slow in this [DOT]matter, because it certainly involves the rights of innocent parties.


Jacques Bureau: Could not a proviso be inserted to protect the issue in a case like that? My hon. friend says this has always been the law, but even so, that is no reason why, if that law is not just, we should not improve it, if we are going to legislate on the subject.
Mr. NI'CKLE: In reply to the ,hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), this legislation was, of course, drafted for Canada.
Mr. ARTHUR,S: Does it not dissolve a marriage which has been celebrated in the United States if the parties are domiciled in Canada?


William Folger Nickle: No.


James Arthurs: It declares it to be illegal.


William Folger Nickle: No, it says that the Exchequer Court of Canada shall have jurisdiction and may declare the marriage null and void in certain specified cases. I have very grave doubts if a court would declare null and void a marriage that had been solemnized in the United 'States, provided that the parties came to Canada and had a matrimonial domicile in this jurisdiction. I would incline to the view that the court would say: " Having entered into the contract of marriage under regulations in another country that entitle you to marrriage, this court refuses to exercise its discretionary power and relieve you from the contract which you entered into in good faith."


James Arthurs: Why not remove all
doubt by placing that in the Bill?


Jacques Bureau: I would ask my hon. friend to reconsider that point; the clause might stand in the meantime.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I voted for the second reading of this Bill in good faith, believing that the only question involved was a better method of enforcing the law as it now stands respecting divorce. I think that what this House desires is that we should provide a better means of enforcing the law as it now stands, but not that we should not in any way disturb the present status of the marriage laws or widen the grounds on which divorce may be granted. The clause we are now dealing with has a very wide scope, and is capable of constructions that might cause a great deal of trouble. I do not profess to understand the full effect of this clause. If I had had time to read the Bill before the second reading I would have strongly urged the hon. member to send the Bill to a special committee, and if there is any way now of having that done, I would suggest that it be done. Very nice and highly technical questions are involved affecting the most sacred relations of the people, and I am afraid that the Committee of the Whole is not the best place in which to deal with this Bill.


William Folger Nickle: I quite appreciate the difficulty of the situation and the nicety of the questions involved, but I doubt very much if I have in any way widened the scope of the law, or extended it in such a way as to make it any broader than the parliamentary practice that now prevails or the practices prevailing in the various courts. Let us analyse for a moment the different grounds on which marriage may be declared null and void. If a marriage is a contract it necessarily carries with it the idea that each of the parties to the contract must give consent,-you cannot have a contract without the parties to that contract being; at some time at one. Let us take the sections as they appear. Paragraph (a) says that any marriage may be declared null and void:
-at the suit of the injured party, or the incurable physical impotence of a .party to a marriage which existed at the time of the marriage.
In my remarks to this House this afternoon I directed attention to the fact that during the present session two marriages have been declared void by Parliament, or are in the process of being so declared, on account of physical impotency. That has been the lav/ in this Parliament and is the law in the various provinces.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I take no exception
to that. That has*always been understood to be the law.
Mr. NI'CKLE:	We come now to paragraph (b) which says that the marriage may be declared null and void.
__for duress, coercion or want of consent at
the suit of the injured party, unless such party has toy his consent confirmed the marriage.
As those in the House who are lawyers know, duress means obtaining consent, I suppose, by force. It simply means that a marriage may be declared null and void where there has been no re-consent, provided that the injured party, that is the party who has had the marriage forced on him or her, is desirous of having the marriage dissolved. It would be radically unfair that a marriage should be declared null and void where there was duress, provided the party forced into the marriage was not desirous of having it dissolved. For instance, in the case of a woman forced into marriage by friends or otherwise, in the event of her having become pregnant it would be radically unjust that the marriage at the suit of the husband should be declared void. She being injured, and having been forced to consent, it might be that she might not be willing to have the marriage terminated, and her father might demand that it be not terminated.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The word " duress,"
so far as I know, does not appear in our Nova Scotia statutes. If a person was forced into marriage it might come under the head of cruelty. Cruelty is a ground for divorce in Nova Scotia, but I think the word " duress " is new.


Mr. MOW  AT@: I think that the idea here was to deal with the cases of very young persons. There is a statute iu Ontario, passed five or six years ago, which provided that the courts should dissolve the marriage of two young persons who are under the age of eighteen, I think it is, provided the marriage has not been consummated, and several applications have been made under that Act. The point raised by my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) has been discussed in the courts, and one learned judge, Chief Justice Richard Meredith, has very definitely stated that he does not think the statute comes within the powers of the legislature. I think that this Bill would undoubtedly come within the power of this -*parliament. These want of consent cases would be those of persons so young that they are not supposed to have arrived at

the age where they can give consent, and the legislation before us would implement the existing legislation providing that a marriage should be dissolved which had been entered into foolishly and without consideration between two young persons.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that the object of this Bill is simply to give jurisdiction to the various provinces to try divorce cases, instead of those cases coming before the Senate. I think the object of my hon. friend from Kingston, from his point of view, is laudable. It is to avoid the publicity and cut down the expense. Why not enact that divorce cases shall be tried before the courts enumerated in the Bill without changing the grounds for divorce in any respect whatever? I do not know just what the grounds are; I have never closely studied divorce law because, as my hon. friend will understand) we do not touch these cases. But I would suggest that the grounds for divorce which exist to-day should still subsist, and we need simply transfer the jurisdiction from Parliament to the , courts of the different provinces as enumerated in the first section. The whole thing could be done in one clause.


William Folger Nickle: The impracticability of that suggestion will be seen when I draw attention to the fact that in the various provinces divorce may be obtained for different reasons. In Nova Scotia, for instance, I think cruelty is a ground for divorce being granted; in some other province it is desertion, sometimes for a longer and sometimes for a shorter period. But when you apply that principle to Ontario and Quebec it will not work because we have never had in either Ontario or Quebec any law in regard to divorces. It has always been a parliamentary discretion. Parliament is not limited in any way as to reasons for which a divorce may be granted. If Parliament were capricious and decided that two persons might be divorced in the event of both having red hair, if that Bill could be forced through Parliament, the divorce would be illegal, because parliamentary divorces are by way of private bills and they dissolve marriage simply in the case to which reference is made. I therefore had to incorporate in this Bill the general principles of the law as they are and have been recognized up to the present by parliamentary practice and procedure. There is, however, one exception to which I would like to direct the attention of the committee,

and that is section (c) which states that marriage may be declared null and void:
__(e) at the suit of the husband, when the
wife is pregnant at the time of the marriage by a man other than the husband, if the husband was ignorant of the pregnancy at the time of such marriage and has not, after the discovery by him of such pregnancy, by his conduct confirmed such marriage;
That struck me as being an eminently fair reason for which declaration of nullity might be obtained. In the event of a woman having been indiscreet and having reached a condition that demanded marriage to protect her name, if she inveigles some man into unknowingly marrying her and he subsequently discovers that she is pregnant to another man, he is entitled, if he so desires, to have the marriage declared null and void. Directing my attention for a moment again to the remarks of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) and referring to subsection (d) in which power is given to declare the marriage null and void for insanity at the time of the marriage of either of the parties, it still carries out the same principle to which I at first directed attention, that if there was no consent there could be no marriage, because marriage is a contract and if a person is insane he or she is unable to give valid consent. And taking subsection (f) which gives power to the courts to declare marriage null and void at the suit of the injured party, when the other party wilfully refuses to consummate the marriage, these are all a confirmation of principles repeatedly recognized in this Parliament.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to say now, in the presence of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) that I voted for the second reading of the Bill with the understanding that I was affording more complete machinery for enforcing the law as it now stands. If the hon. member for Kingston were able to present to the Committee the various grounds upon which the Senate of Canada had been granting divorces for the last fifty years or so I would feel no difficulty. I am quite willing that we should furnish machinery for the granting of divorces for any cause for which the Senate would grant them. But I am not familiar with any cases of the class last mentioned by the hon. member as having been before the Senate, and I do not think that they grant divorces in cases of that kind. If they do, I would be satisfied, but I am not in favour of widening the scope of grounds for divorce.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not been present during all the discussion. I am
impressed with the view put forward by the hon. member for Kingston, that if we are to establish courts in those provinces which have none at the present time, and to provide a law in those provinces because no divorce law exists there, it would be an. unfortunate course if we should so frame our law that one ground for divorce would be sufficient in one province and not in another. The principles in that respect would not be uniform. It is necessary not. only to establish courts in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec but also to establish; principles; and if you establish principles there, then you must have regard for the principles which have already been established in the provinces where jurisdiction in divorce exists. The course that has been taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Nickle) is, as I understand, to examine the grounds which prevail in iGreat Britain and in the various provinces, and the jurisdiction that has been exercised, and out of that to bring certain principles here, which certainly do not extend the grounds upon which divorce may be granted in some of those places. The section in that respect is rather restrictive than enabling, and I think that every one of the grounds here, except the one which the hon. member for Kingston has just now alluded to, is regarded as a proper ground either for pronouncing a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, or declaring a marriage null and void ab initio


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Prime Minister
will consider the case of insanity. This is a very insidious disease and exists sometimes for a long time before it can really be pronounced as actual insanity. I do not want to give any excuse to any man to get clear of the responsibilities of the marriage contract. If a .man's wife happens to get out of her mind-oritmaybethe other way about-he will say:	Although I did
not discover it at the time, she was insane when I married her and the contract ought to be set aside. That, I think, would be giving rise to a very grave difficulty and something that is not known in our courts. I have never heard of any attempt being made to set aside marriage because some person has happened to develop insanity, and this principle is capable of creating a great deal of trouble.


Mr. GANNON:: I hold in my hand the
Civil Code of Quebec and would direct the attention of the hon. member for Kingston to titles of it, section 115 and the following sections. The hon. member for Kingston has read a schedule he has attached to his Bill, and I think that this schedule

would be in contradiction of section 126 *of the Civil Code of Quebec. If I understand the matter rightly the situation would be this:	A man could apply to a court
in accordance with our federal divorce law and obtain an annulment of his marriage, while, under our Civil law, his marriage would be valid. The consequence would be that although he was divorced from his wife nevertheless, according to our Civil law, she would still have the rights of a wife.


William Folger Nickle: As I said before the hon. member (Mr. Cannon) came into the House, in my opinion marriage and divorce is set out in the British North America Act and jurisdiction is in this Parliament enabling the Dominion House to determine the status of parties and the relationship of each to the other permitting them to marry. If this Act passed, I think the kindred degrees regarded as entitling persons to legally enter matrimony would he those I read to the House as expressed in subsection (c) which I promised to make a schedule.
Mr. MoGIBBON (Muskoka):	Subsection
(d) is absolutely useless unless this Parliament is going to enforce a medical examination of both parties at the time of marriage. No man will take six months, twelve months or two years after the marriage has taken place to know if the party was sane or insane at the time of marriage.


William Folger Nickle: I think the hon. member overlooks the position that the court would take. The Act says that the court may declare the marriage null and void for insanity at the time of the marriage of either of the parties thereto. It will be incumbent upon the person desiring a declaration of nullity to prove to the court that the other party was insane and the principle upon which the decision is generally given is that the onus of proof is on the party making complaint. If the condition is that six months after the marriage it would be impossible to say whether or not the person was insane at the time of marriage, the proof would fail and the marriage would be declared legal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The difficulty is that once a husband and wife enter the court for the purpose of dissolving their marriage it is an end to all happiness. The * court may refuse a divorce but that does not re-establish happy relations in that family. If a man is encouraged to go into court thinking that he has an insane wife, that is the end of it. He may not succeed in proving that she is insane but it breaks
IMr. Cannon.]
up the family and destroys the confidence that should exist between a man and his wife. My view is that we should confine the reason for divorce to the grounds of immorality. I am not fond of making new contractual relations and that sort of thing. The reason why a marriage would be set aside on the ground of insanity would be the same as the setting aside of a deed or conveyance given by an insane person-because the party signing it was insane when he signed it. This question of insanity is entirely new to me. I cannot bring myself to agree to this provision.


Michael Steele: 
William Folger Nickle: The reason bigamy was put in as well as adultery is this: As I explained in the House this afternoon, it is often most difficult to prove that adultery has taken place. The fact that there is a bigamous marriage is more easily proven. If a man who is already married goes through a form of marriage with a second woman and commits bigamy, it is not unreasonable, but rather natural, to suppose that as a result of that bigamous marriage an adulterous relationship with the second wife will take place.
iMr. E. LAPOINTE: This Bill is more important than some hon. members may realize. It has been introduced by a private member of the House when there is no time for the consideration of private members' business. No one expected that the Bill would be proceeded with this session, and that is a good reason why we have not studied it as it should have been studied before being discussed by the House. I respectfully suggest that the Committee should rise and report progress and that members should have an opportunity of studying the Bill before discussion be proceeded with. The question of provincial rights arises, which is most important. There have been many discussions in this House about the rights of the Dominion and the provinces concerning marriage matters. There is the question of eivil rights which has been raised by my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). It is only fair that I should ask the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sii Robert Borden) to give us an opportunity of studying the Bill. It is a most important piece of legislation, and I ask that its consideration should be postponed.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as posh ponement for a reasonable time is concerned, I think the hon. member (Mr. E. Lapointe) is quite within his rights in asking it. I do not like to undertake any engagement further than that. If that is the desire, I shall move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) Bill No. 131 for the promotion of Technical Education in Canada was read a second time, and the House went into Committee thereon-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-definition:
Jacques Bureau: Would the minister give an explanation of the words in paragraph (c): under which the various forms of technical education are to be-
-approved by agreement between the minister and the Government of any province as being necessary or desirable to aid in promoting industry and the mechanical trades.
Why is it necessary to have the approval of the minister and the Provincial Government interested? I think it would be better to define in this section what me mean by technical education. I understand the intention of the Bill is to promote technical education and I do not think that the definition as to what it is should be left to any agreement but should be made by law.


Mr. CALDER:: "Technical education'' as used to-day is a somewhat loose term. Sometimes it is used almost synonomously with "vocational education," and we also have the term "industrial education." The purpose of defining the term in this way is, as the paragraph states, to leave the character of the education to be carried on 'to an agreement between the provincial and the federal authorities. Personally, I am inclined to the view that the real purpose of the Bill will be served best by leaving that; as a matter of agreement between the two Governments. Technical education as strictly applied usually refers to the class of work that is carried on in a technical institution, but it seems to me that we must give it a broader meaning. I know the Minister of Labour has in mind the advisability of arranging for a class of education that will be carried on outside of these technical institutions that are provided for in some of the provinces. Probably the term "industrial education" would be more applicable than "technical education." Allow me to give an example. In one of our cities certain industries are established in which there are a large number of employees. It may be advisable to provide means whereby certain classes of instruction can be carried on in those industrial establishments. The idea is to have the widest possible meaning in order that in the provinces concerned the Minister

of Labour may reach an agreement as to the application of the term "technical education" as it is desired to be used in many particular instances.


Jacques Bureau: The definition given in the paragraph seems to be wide enough. It seems to cover everything from teaching a man how to saw wood with a handsaw to imparting instruction in industrial chemistry. Why should the system of instruction proposed under this Bill be determined by special agreement? In 'our province we have a technical school at Three Rivers and one at Shawinigan Falls. At the latter place there are various industries. For instance, the Canadian Chemical Company manufactures chemicals, and they have a branch in which industrial chemistry is taught. Paper is also manufactured there, and instruction in paper-making is given. The manufacture of calcium carbide is also carried on. Each town or centre ought to be able to provide the means to help develop its particular industries. Now, suppose the minister makes an agreement with a province, and in the meantime a new industry should be established as to which some special institution for giving instruction might be needed; in that case, apparently, it would derive no advantage from the money which is to be voted under this Bill.


James Alexander Calder: The idea back of this legislation may be shortly put as follows: The Minister of Education of a province- or whatever provincial minister has the administration of the Act-will, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, determine the manner in which these moneys are to be supplied for the purpose of technical education within the province. Now it seems to me that if you get down to a restriction of this definition it will only tend to defeat the object of the Bill. My own idea is that the more elastic the provision the safer it will be. The Agricultural Aid Act, as I understand it-I have nothing to do with the administration of the law-has worked out very well indeed. As the hon. gentleman can quite well understand, where we are providing advances for agricultural education and agricultural extension work, there is a great variety of undertakings to which that might be ap-. plied. But the provinces and tne Federal Government have had practically no difficulty in coming to an agreement as to the manner in which those moneys should be expended, and I think there will be very little difficulty in this case, if the law is left as it is.
[Mr. Oalder.l
I think it will be distinctly advantageous to leave the law in such form that the provinces and the Dominion may come to an agreement as to the manner in which the moneys are to be expended. I have not the slightest doubt that the wishes of the province with regard to the application of these moneys will be very largely respected by the federal authorities.


Jacques Bureau: I agree that we should not impose undue restrictions as to the application of the moneys, on the contrary, we should provide that all cases where expenditure of this kind may be desirable shall be covered, and it is just for that reason that I think these things should not be defined or determined in an agreement entered into between the Federal Government and the provincial authorities. Let us set out in the Act the full interpretation and signification of the words " technical education."


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman's contention would be sound if an unlimited amount of money was to be applied to this purpose. But the amount is limited, and there must be some selection of the many forms of activity available for this purpose.


Jacques Bureau: I want to leave it to the province to make the selection.


James Alexander Calder: The selection may, I think, very well be left to an agreement between the provincial and the federal authorities. That phase of the question was very fully discussed at the interprovincial conference.
I was present during all the conferences, and not the slightest objection was-made by the premiers of the provinces to this method of procedure. They referred to the manner in which the administration of the Act respecting aid to agriculture had worked out, and intimated that they saw no reason why the same procedure should not hold good in the case of grants in aid of technical education. I do not, therefore, anticipate any difficulty in that regard.


Mr. TRAHAN:: I would suggest that agricultural education be included in this definition. The Government intends to encourage technical education, to develop our industries, and to promote the welfare of returned soldiers. I understand also that the Government have made arrangements with the various provinces under which returned soldiers will be induced to settle on the land. Agriculture is our basic industry. Broadly speaking, the two chief classes of the community are the workingmen and the farmers; why should the Gov-

eminent aid one class in the matter of education and not the other? Agriculture is a science, and in order that it may be carried on successfully it must be studied. In all countries large sums of money are spent for the development of agriculture and for agricultural education. I suggest that the minister add after the word " vocational " in the second line of paragraph (c) the word " agriculture ",


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman has overlooked the fact that in 1913 an Act was passed in this House providing for grants for the very purpose which he mentions. Section 3 of that Act provided that for the purpose of aiding and advancing the farming industry by instruction in agriculture, and for the purposes authorized by the Act, a sum aggregating $10,000,000 should be distributed among the provinces in much the same way as is provided by this Bill.


Jacques Bureau: The matter of technical education is one which comes within the purview of the various provinces. In vie* of the industrial development which has taken place, the provinces have been making efforts to promote special lines of education. Why should the Government not hand these sums to the provinces and let the provinces, without any string or agree. ments, continue the systems which they have developed? We must proceed on the assumption that the Provincial Governments are going to do their utmost, as they have done in the past, to promote technical education, and that they will use this money to the best advantage. There is a clause here which provides that in case of any disagreement the Minister of Labour shall be the sole and final judge. But there is a way of avoiding any disagreement. We are confident that the provinces will use this money for the purposes indicated in the Act; let us make the advances .to them and let them use the money for these purposes according to their particular requirements.
If we are doing this to assist the provinces in promoting technical education, to go on and develop further what they have already commenced to do, let us make conditions that they shall use the money for this specific purpose, hand over the money and let them distribute it as they please. A certain control must be exercised, but it ought not to go further than to say: We give you this money for technical educational purposes, and we trust you are going to carry out the purposes for which we give it to you. We ought to trust the provinces enough to permit them to administer the money without any specific agreement, without any surmise that they will not use it according to the intention, or even suspecting that a disagreement may arise requiring a court to decide it. I do not anticipate any disagreement, because I know there is enough laudable rivalry between the provinces as regards education that we may trust them to use the money to the best possible advantage.


James Alexander Calder: I can only repeat what I have already said, namely, that that phase of the question was very fully discussed at the conference. I was present at the conference, took part in the discussion, heard everything that was said, and I am quite within the mark when I state that at the conference not the slightest objection was raised along the line mentioned by the hon. member. The conference agreed that if grants of this kind were given, the Federal Government should retain the right to enter into agreements for the expenditure of that money just as they had done under the Agricultural Aid Act, and it was further stated freely by the provincial representatives that in the working out of that law 'no difficulty had been met at all, that everything was running along harmoniously, and that they expected the same would occur in the administration of this legislation. As a matter of fact, the question of arranging for some sort of inspection to see that this money was expended for the purposes mentioned in this Bill, was discussed, and the provinces agreed if the Federal Government thought that necessary, to allow federal inspectors to go into their institutions in order to see that the money was expended properly. I thoroughly agree in one sense with the viewpoint of the hon. member (Mr. Bureau), but we shall not reach that stage until we make direct subsidies to the provinces to a greater extent than they are now receiving in order that they may carry on their affairs as they see fit. Just so long as we must make special provision by federal acts, by special grants to the provinces, the expenditures of those moneys must be a matter of arrangement. Personally I would be only too glad if the time had arrived when an arrangement * could be entered into whereby the provinces would receive a larger sum in order that they might carry on their domestic affairs as they see fit; but we have not reached that stage yet, and it may be some time before it is reached.


John Howard Sinclair: I quite agree
with the minister that the best system would

be for the Dominion to advance the money to the provinces and to allow the provinces to use it in their best judgment for technical education or any other matter in the provinces. I pressed that view on the minister at the time when he introduced the resolution, advocating that he amend his Bill so as to adopt that principle. There are many cases in which the Federal Government is trying to tie up the Provincial Governments in regard to provincial expenditures. This is not the only one; I know other similar efforts are being made to control the policy of the provinces as regards questions of this kind. That is not a good policy. My hon. friend says that the time has not yet arrived. The time seems never to arrive with my hon. friend; it is always to-morrow that things are to be done. There cannot be a better time than the present to do this, because we are now embarking upon the course of assisting technical education. It will not be denied by my hon. friend that in every province a great deal of interest is being taken in this question, and splendid work is being done in certain provinces now in the prosecution of technical education. Surely, if this be the case, we can very well trust the provinces in the expenditure of the money. In the United States there is a similar system by which, I understand, money derived from public lands of the western States is used for purposes of technical education in various States. The State has to comply with certain regulations, to furnish certain equipment, before it can partake of the grant; but a condition of that kind would be -reasonable for my hon. friend to impose. The Act in the United States is called the Morell Act. This system has been in existence in the United States for a good many years, and I understand the Federal Government there does not exercise the, same control as my hon. friend purposes exercising over the provinces I see no good rea-_ son why this should be done, and I think the point is well taken, and I should like if my hon. friend would give it his consideration now and this money be given to the provinces without any string to it, without the Federal Government's exercising any control over the manner in which it is to be expended, except that it shall be expended for technical education and that the province shall do its share in providing certain funds. That would be a reasonable proposition; but when my hon. friend undertakes to lay down the kind of technical education a province shall teach, he is going a little too faT. The hon. mem-
ber for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has pointed out that the interests of the several provinces differ very much, and it is by the province itself that that question can best be decided and not by the Federal Government.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad this point has been raised as I intended to raise it myself. I view wilth a certain degree of apprehension these pieces of legislation which relate to matters coming under provincial jurisdiction.


James Alexander Calder: I think the hon. member will consider that this question is not entirely within provincial jurisdiction. If he followed the discussion which took place in this House two or three years ago on the motion of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), he will know that the general consensus of opinion was that the Federal Government had concurrent jurisdiction in this particular field of technical education, and I should like him to bear that in mind in his remarks.


Ernest Lapointe: The kind of education to be given and the manner of giving it are purely provincial matters. The Government could certainly help the various provinces by way of subsidies, but as the hon. members for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) and Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) have stated, no string should be attached to the grant given by the Federal Government. Formerly in this country many big battles were waged on this principle. The Government have tried to get around the difficulty in this way:
Instead of .taking away the rights of the provinces outright, they seem in some way to buy those rights by giving money to the provinces under certain conditions, which conditions, after all, involve the surrendering by the provinces of some of their rights and privileges. At the time of Confederation the provinces relinquished some of their rights to the Federal Parliament, and retained other rights. Now it is not fair for this Parliament to interfere in matters reserved exclusively for provincial jurisdiction, even by way of giving subsidy under certain conditions. My hon. friend says, and the Bill states, that there should be agreements between the minister and the different provinces before the grant is made. Now, if one of the provinces fails to reach an agreement with the minister, that province will not get anything, but the citizens of that province will be taxed to pay for education in another province which should be paid for altogether by the citizens of that second province. That is

not fair. If it can be done with regard to technical education it may be done with regard to anything else.
Take the question of national schools which was raised here the other day. I did not happen to be present when the matter was under discussion, but I think most hon. members will agree that that is a matter which does not come within the jurisdiction of this Parliament. The question of education is a very delicate question in this country. Suppose this Government does in the matter of national schools what it proposes to do in the matter of technical schools, and grants subsidies to the provinces provided those moneys, shall be spent on the establishment of national schools, would that be fair? Some of the provinces would refuse to accept the money. Would it be fair for this Parliament to ask the citizens of those provinces to pay for education in other provinces, when education is a matter of exclusive provincial concern?
I think the Government, should consider very seriously before taking away to such an extent the rights of the provinces, especially at a time when we are not blessed with so much money that we do not know where to spend it. At the present time there is a gap to be filled between our expenditure and our revenue, and we do not know where to get the money, and I submit that now is not the time to give away millions and millions of dollars either for highways or technical education or anything else which is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. If the country was in a state of great prosperity we could afford to be generous, but. in view of the financial condition I think we should wait a little before giving away this money especially in connection with a matter which is not under federal jurisdiction.


Mr. TURGEON:: When the Minister of Immigration brought down the resolution upon which this Bill is based, he will remember, I called his attention to the fact that it might interfere with provincial autonomy. I suggested at the time that instead of the Federal Government launching upon a programme of housing, highways, and technical education, it would be wiser and more advantageous to the country at large simply to grant a subsidy and leave these matters to be worked out by the provinces. The provinces would be only too glad to encourage technical education. They have not been able to do much in the matter up to the present moment, especially the smaller provinces, because of lack of funds.
In New Brunswick, for instance, it is entirely due to lack of funds that in the matter of education we have not progressed like the provinces of Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario, which have much larger revenues. At the same time, during the last ten years, the expenditure of the province of New Brunswick on education is double and treble the amount we spent in former years. Ever since the admirable report of Dr. Robertson on technical education, six or seven years ago, we have been awaiting with anxiety the decision of the Government, to apportion that amount of $10,000,000 according to the very letter of his recommendations. That report did not say that there should be an agreement between the Federal Government and the provinces regarding the manner in which the money was to be spent. I was under the impression, from the minister's reply when the resolution was under discussion, that there would be no such provision as we find provided for an agreement between the Federal and Provincial Governments, but that the money would be given to the provinces to be spent as in their judgment seemed best to meet * the local needs. I trust the minister will consider the objections made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who have preceded me, and that every safeguard will be provided against any interference on the part of the Federal Government. The minister might say that provincial autonomy is well safeguarded in this Bill, but I trust that after he has heard our arguments he will accept the proposed amendment of my hon. friend from Kamouraska.


Lucien Cannon: The province of Quebec would never have entered into Confederation unless guarantees had been given that education would be absolutely and exclusively within the competency of the Provincial Government. This is a Bill purporting to encourage technical education. Now, education, as the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) has said, is a matter of the greatest importance. The greatest and the most unfortunate conflicts we have had in Canada have arisen out of educational matters. It is needless for me to remind the House of the unfortunate conflicts which arose, for instance, in the province of New Brunswick at the beginning of the Confederation era, or of what happened in Manitoba, and in more recent years, in the province of Ontario. These conflicts on educational matters have retarded the union of the different races in Canada, and the less we have of them the better for all concerned.

This Bill, although it does not appear to be so, is in reality a very serious encroachment on provincial rights. The Bill provides that should there be any conflict between the Federal Government and the Pio-vincial Government the matter would be decided by the minister. The minister would therefore have the right to impose his views on a province in connection with an altogether provincial matter. Further, the Federal Government will have the right to appoint all officials in connection with the operation of this law, with the result that the minister may appoint a man to go into Ontario, Manitoba or British Columbia and in connection with their technical schools impose his decisions on the Provincial Government. That principle is a very unsound one and violates in a flagrant manner the agreement entered into by all the provinces in 1867, when it was agreed among the provinces that formed at that time the Canadian federation, that matters educational would be left altogether within the purview of the provinces without any interference from the Federal Government. If the Federal Government wishes, and has the means, to be generous, let it enable the provincial authorities to promote technical education. But as hon. members have already said, let these grants of money be without any string whatever. We do not wish to have educational conflicts in Canada, and if this Bill is passed as it is now, we shall have a direct intervention of the Federal Government in educational matters, which are a most delicate point in this country as the Committee knows. I do not think that a Bill such as this would promote the welfare of our country, but to the contrary. If the Federal Government wishes to make grants to the provinces, let it give the money to the Provincial Governments and leave it to them to decide what to do with it. If these loans or grants are to be merely a pretext for the Federal Government to take hold of educational matters in the provinces, so far as I am concerned I would rather not have a cent, and retain the liberty and freedom that we enjoy in our province in regard to education.


William Stevens Fielding: From my viewpoint as well as from that of the hon. member, it would be more satisfactory if the provinces were placed in possession of sufficient funds, through increased subsidies, to handle these enterprises themselves, because in a large degree they are provincial. Still, however, as a choice between letting technical education go by the board and receiving aid for such purposes under this Bill, I prefer to have

the grants. I am not prepared to take so strong a view as to say that we should not have them at all. If we could define technical education in such clear and distinct terms as would be beyond the possibility of debate, perhaps that would be a help. But in the absence of such a definition, which,
I fancy, would be difficult, I see some reasons in favour of the agreement which, I think, ought to commend themselves to my hon. friend from Three Rivers and those who agree with him. If there is to be no clear, distinct and indisputable definition of what constitutes technical education, then it is most desirable that there should be an agreement with each province to guard against any dispute. The machinery is to be largely provincial, and more than that, the province can only avail itself of a grant on the condition that it shall put up a large amount of money. It is therefore of vital importance that the province and the Dominion shall come to an understanding at the beginning. If there is no general definition of technical education, and I admit the difficulty, there are advantages in having an agreement with each province at the beginning, because you could then adapt your agreement'-although uniformity is desirable if possible-to the different forms of technical education which the provinces already have. Without such an agreement you may find yourself getting into trouble with the Provincial Governments. It seems to me that from that viewpoint there is much to be said in favour of having such an agreement. The hon. minister will recall that in the resolution stage of this matter, anticipating the possibility of some difference between the Dominion and the province, I suggested that perhaps by the time the Bill came before the House he might have some draft of what he proposed to ask the province to sign. I do not anticipate for a moment that any effort will be made to crowd out any particular province. Least of all do I fear, as my hon. friends from Quebec do, that any interference will be made with the recognized principle that the local governments control education. As regards technical education, it is worth remembering that this grant, although it is late in coming, is the outcome of a policy which the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier took up some years ago, when we appointed a technical education commission which made a tour of the world and gathered information, upon which they made a most valuable report. It is sometimes made a matter of complaint against the governments of a later day that

they pigeon-holed that report and did nothing. Well, the Government is doing something now, and I would rather have them do it in this way than do nothing at all. When the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed that commission, headed by Professor Robertson and including a number of able men, we certainly created the impression that in some degree the matter was a Dominion one, and I look upon this movement as a belated endeavour on the part of the Government to carry out the intentions which tihe Liberal Government had in mind when they appointed that commission. There is, however, force in the criticism that the minister has too much individual power in this matter, and provision should be made that any report he makes under this Act should, at all events, be subject to approval by the Governor in Council.


Jacques Bureau: I do not wish to be understood as objecting to a federal grant to the provinces for technical education. My objection is to the procedure and the mode in which the grant is to be made. It was never intended by the previous Administration that the grants to be made for technical education should be subject to certain terms or conditions or any specific agreement, or should be determined by special considerations to be laid down by the Federal Government.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think they got as far as that.


Jacques Bureau: No, but there was talk of it, and I for one certainly would not entertain for a moment the suggestion that any agreement should be made necessary that would in any way restrict the policies which have been established by the various provinces. There is a good deal in what the member for Kamouraska says. It is possible that some provinces may not take advantage of the scheme, owing perhaps to some condition imposed, and if no agreement could be reached between a province and the Federal Government it would be most unfair that that particular province should be called upon to pay any part of the subsidy that might be paid to other provinces. If the Federal authorities are in earnest about this matter and are really anxious to develop technical education, they should trust the provinces and rely upon their seeing that the money advanced shall be used to the best possible advantage. Why give rise to any suspicion as certain legislation has heretofore done? As my hon. friend from Kamouraska says, this
matter may be regarded as a bait for the provinces to enter into agreements to receive money for technical education purposes. He pointed out that if this principle extended to some other system of education and some province should refuse to enter into any agreement with the Federal Government, it would be unfair to tax that province. I do not believe that the minister need have any fear about the misuse of the money which may be granted to the provinces for technical education purposes.
The minister can put it in another way; he can say that no amount greater than the amount expended by the province shall be granted. Let the province be allowed to expend the money. If the minister is entirely satisfied that the money has been expended for the purpose for which it was intended, let the grant be paid. There can be no misunderstanding or dispute. Technical education may be different in different provinces, and it may cover various branches of industry and manufacture. Let the Federal Government determine that the amount to be granted shall be granted upon the basis of the population and the expenditure made by the province, and let the money be paid over without requiring them to enter into any agreement defining what form of technical education shall take in a certain province, and without having to pass a law with so many clauses as this. As far as the other danger which was pointed out by my hon. friend from Dorchester and my hon. friend from Kamouraska is concerned, I think, to use the expression that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House used in 1911, it is the entering of the thin edge of the wedge, and it is an encrochment by the federal authorities on provincial rights in so far as education is concerned. I have enough confidence in any province to say: Here is the money for technical education; take it and use it for that purpose. If it is not used for that purpose the fact will be easily ascertained, and under those circumstances cut off the grant next year and let the province be deprived of the money that they would have otherwise have got for that special purpose. I do not see that any good reason has been given by the minister for this restriction and agreement. He says that at the conference of the premiers the matter was discussed and that they were all agreed. They could not do otherwise. We have a French saying, "A cheval donne on ne regarde pas a la bride." I do not know how it could be translated, but the meaning is that when some one makes you a present

of a horse you do not examine the harness in detail.


William Stevens Fielding: You do not look a gift horse in the mouth.


Jacques Bureau: You do not look a gift horse in the mouth, my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) says, but in this ease you do not have to, because it would cost you too much. We do not have to adopt the conclusion that members may draw, but we have to take into consideration the impression that this measure will create upon the minds of the outside public and the fears that may be created. We do not know what will happen. Things change so fast these days that we must be prepared for almost anything happening, and we must try to prevent anything happening that may give rise to the idea that something is being done which will curtail the rights of the provinces. It would be very easy for the minister to say: This Government will give so much money; this money shall be proportioned according to the population; it shall be payable in so many years, and the province which desires to have the benefit of the money shall spend so much for technical education purposes. I think that would cover the ground and it would do away with any idea that this is the beginning of an encroachment upon provincial rights. Of course, it was hard for the provincial ministers to discuss the question of provincial rights at the time of the conference. They did not know what the provisions of the Bill were to be. The details were not enumerated. These men were prepared to say that they would use the money for the purposes of technical education, but they wanted the Government to take their word for it. The Federal Government says that it has the jurisdiction and that it ought to be the final judge as to the proper use to be made of this money, but it ought to have enough confidence in the other people to take it for granted that the money will be used for the purpose for which it is appropriated and for that purpose alone. Rivalry in education is noble and laudable. There has been sufficient industrial development, and there have been enough sacrifices made by the provinces to establish industrial schools and provide technical education, that the Government should not be afraid, or feel the least suspicion, that this money will be diverted from the purpose. for which it is granted. This grant ought to be made nobly and grandly and you should say to the provinces: " Here is the money; use it to pro-
LMr. Bureau.]
mote technical education." I think that should be sufficient.
Mr. MANION. I thoroughly agree with the granting of aid by this Parliament for educational purposes, particularly technical education, but at the same time I feel that there is a good deal to be said for the arguments of the last speakers, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). With many of the points made by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) I entirely agree, but I do not agree with one argument he put up and that was that at this time when money is so much needed in this country we should perhaps consider not making this grant for educational purposes. Education is perhaps the most important question to be considered next to that of the health of our people, and I do not think that because of this war we should permit ourselves to be stampeded into withholding money that is so much needed for technical education. The point I would like to make regarding the importance of education is that if you look over the commercial history of the world for the fifteen or, twenty years previous to the war you will find that the United States and Germany were rapidly gaining upon England commercially and the reason was that Germany and the United States stood very high with regard to their systems and types of technical education. The United States spent vast amounts of money on their educational system, including technical education, and I took the opportunity the other day of putting down some figures from a pamphlet that I read that I thought would be interesting to this House in regard to the amount of money spent by the United States on education, including technical education. The sums are stupendous as will be shown by the following statement:
U.iS. total expenditure on education-[DOT]
1871-$69,000,000;	1915-$605,000,0100.
U.S. gifts to education by rich men-
1874-$6,000,000	1914-$31,000,000.
Rockefeller gave up to 1913-$118,000,000.
Carnegie gave up to 1913-$15'0,000,0,00.
Properties of universities, colleges and technological schools, in 1914-$$02,000,000.
I mention the contributions of Messrs. Rockefeller and Carnegie because they might possibly give a certain amount of inspiration to some of the gentlemen in our country who have made vast amounts of money out of the war. With regard to the points mentioned by the hon. member for Three Rivers, the hon. member for Kamour-

aska and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's I believe many of them are well taken. There is no question which has been thought of so jealously by the provinces as that of education. I do not believe there is any real basis for the fear in some of the provinces that this may be the entering of the thin end of the wedge of interference with the present system of education in those provinces, but I think we have enough causes for misunderstanding in this country-and I believe they are misunderstandings and ont intentional injuries to any province-to make us careful and avoid the possibility of giving cause for any fresh misunderstanding at the present time. For example, I notice that one paragraph in the Bill says:
The minister shall toe the sole judge of all questions and differences that may arise under this Act or under any agreement made in pursuance of this Act.
In another paragraph it is provided that if the minister is not satisfied that the money was to be used to his satisfaction by a certain province he may refuse to grant it. My own personal opinion is that that is too much power to put in the hands of any minister. I do not for one moment believe that any of the present Federal ministers would think of using that power wrongly; but in my opinion, too great a power should not be placed in the hands of any one minister. I think if the Government decides upon such a paragraph as that remaining in the Bill the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) that the power be vested in the Governor in .Council rather than in a single member of the Cabinet would be a far better provision. At the same time I believe that the point made by another hon. gentleman is a good one, to this effect-that the money should be given to the province with the distinct understanding that it be spent on technical education. If it is not so spent the grant should be withheld the following year. I believe the Government would be well advised in any question of this kind to avoid in the case of any particular section of *Canada any cause for misunderstanding. I wish to say positively that I believe that if any unpleasantness arose it would be due only to a misunderstanding, because I do not mean to insinuate for a moment that any member of the Government would wrongly use the power granted under this legislation. I repeat, however, that we should not give too much power to any minister and the substitution of Governor in Council in the questionable clause might he better.


James McIsaac: If I apprehend the matter correctly the same principle is involved in this legislation as was embodied in the law by which special grants are made by the Dominion Government for the purpose of promoting agriculture in the several provinces, and also in the Bill still before the House providing for Dominion assistance towards the construction of highways. Under the present Bill the provinces will contribute money equally with the Dominion, and that before any agreement can be entered into between the Federal and provincial authorities. It may be said, why not give this money as additional subsidy to the provinces and not have any limitations such as are here provided. As I understand the proposition it is experimental in this way: The grant is limited to a period of ten years in the first place, doubtless with the idea of seeing how the matter will work out. At the end of that time it may be possible to provide new conditions and new arrangements, but in the meantime it does seem reasonable that while the federal and provincial authorities are equally to make grants there should be an agreement entered into as to what the nature of technical education should be. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bureau) does not seem to entertain any distrust of the Provincial Governments; he is fully convinced they will carry out their part of the agreement, he is willing to trust them through thick and thin. Why should he not have equal confidence in the Federal Government or in the federal minister who may be empowered to enter into this arrangement? His confidence seems to be a little one-sided. The spirit of generosity and confidence which he expresses ought to be extended to the Dominion Government as well.- Of course, if a Provincial Government is unwilling to enter into an agreement with the Federal Government, I suppose there is no obligation on their part to accept the money; they can appropriate money from their own revenues for the purpose if they choose. In any case the arrangement is only tentative, as I understand, and would apply only to a period of ten years in order that it shall be seen how the arrangement will work out. That is the way the situation presents itself to me. To my mind, the proposed legislation does not offer any insuperable difficulty. As to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) that the Governor in Council might be a court of appeal, so to speak, in case any dispute should arise between the federal authorities and a Provincial Government, that might be well, but

the proposition in its present form does not seem to me to afford any reason for objecting to an agreement with any Provincial Government, or any one really desirous that the experiment of introducing and advancing technical education in his province should be tried.


Mr. WHIDDEN:: I am sure we * are all
very glad that the Federal Government is making some provision for aiding technical education in the provinces, although I suppose there will be differences of opinion as to ways and means. I think that if we study the Bill on its face and do not attempt to read into it what is not to be found there, there is practically very little to cause any alarm. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) has pointed out, this is really the second step on the part of this House to carry out in part the recommendations of the Robertson Commission. I am not familiar with the Act which has made possible certain work along the lines of agriculture, but so far as I can learn the money granted to the provinces desirous' of using it, on the advice of the Commissioner of Agriculture, has so far been wisely expended and received and used by the provinces in such a way as to commend their action to 'the Department of Agriculture here. My impression is that the Minister of Agriculture from year to year has had a good deal to say, in consultation with his Commissioner, in connection with the expenditure of that money, amounting to nearly a million dollars a year. I do not see why there should be any objection to conditions being insisted upon such as are provided in this legislation-in fact, this Parliament should not vote large sums of money to the provinces for this, or any similar purpose, without the imposition of some conditions, and especially where the provincial governments have a great deal to say in making the necessary agreements and adjustments so far as details are concerned. I think we know that the representatives mainly called upon to act in the several provinces will be the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier. These two men in most of the provinces would have the most to say. I think one of the things we must bear in mind in making a grant for technical education to a province is whether the money shall be spent on capital account, for example, or in connection with current expenditure. As one who comes from a western province where our equipment and our buildings as well are still in the pioneer stage, I do noit think for one moment that we in this House could vote
.
for a blanket grant to the province of Manitoba for technical education with the understanding that the Provincial Minister of Education could decide perhaps, that, during the first year all of that money was to be spent for buildings and equipment in the city of Brandon.
I think it would be a misuse of funds, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, I favour the laying down of fair and Reasonable conditions under which these moneys shall be advanced. If any wise multi-millionaire should at any time-I hope it may be in the near future-establish an educational fund and make possible the expenditure of a million dollars a year on some particular kind of technical education, that fund could best be administered by a group of trustees, and any province or municipality accepting moneys out of that fund would undoubtedly have to agree to certain conditions; otherwise the trustees could not provide for the distribution oi the moneys. I realize that the analogy is not perfect; that, as the member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) has said, one of the provinces may be unwilling to accept the conditions, and, having in a sense contributed a part of the $10,000,000 to the Dominion Treasury, would no't get back its share of it for the purposes of technical education. But I believe there would be very little danger of that; I do not think we need be afraid of the result of laying down reasonable conditions. We ought to trust each other a little; the federal authorities should repose some confidence in provincial departments, and vice versa.
One word with regard to a remark made by my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) in connection with the experience of the United States government in this matter. Leading -authorities in technical education in the United States have felt for some years that the Federal Government made grave mistakes shortly after the conclusion of the civil war, during the early part of their reconstruction period, by making blanket grants for agriculture. They had no way of conserving the investments that they made -and it is felt by those who have studied these investments that they w7ere very largely wasted. With regard ito the more recent grants in 'aid of technical education imade by the United States government there is a feeling that there must be a measure of fair control; there must be a few simple conditions if the investments made are to be conserved in the interest of the nation -as a whole. I support the Bill as it stands.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he would not trust the Government of Manitoba with the expenditure of money for buildings in Brandon unless control was exercised over the expenditure by the federal authorities?


Howard Primrose Whidden: No, I do not say that. I said that I would not want to see money granted to Manitoba spent in any one year on buildings and equipment in the city of Brandon.	.
Mr, BUREAU: Probably they would not do it.


Howard Primrose Whidden: But they might, if you granted it without laying down any conditions.


Jacques Bureau: If we are to proceed on supposition and hypotheses, then I say that the Federal Government might do worse.


Mr. BURRELL:: I had the privilege of introducing into this House the Agricultural Instruction Act, and had something to do with its subsequent operation. Although it is not precisely the same as this-


Jacques Bureau: There is all the difference in the world. You have a Department of Agriculture here, and there is concurrent jurisdiction.


Martin Burrell: I would not say that there is all the difference in the world, though I admit that the two Acts are not exactly on the same footing. But there is a sufficient analogy to enable a good many of the same arguments to apply to both cases. It is one of the first principles that when Parliament votes, money it must exercise a certain amount of control in connection with the expenditure of that money. In fact, it was strongly urged, not only from our side of the House but also by hon. gentlemen opposite when the Agricultural Instruction Act was introduced, that there was not sufficient federal control over the expenditure of the money which was being advanced. I did not take that view, because it seemed to me that the scheme as it worked out in the Act would develop on lines that would be thoroughly satisfactory to the federal and to the provincial authorities. Under that Act a certain sum was granted, which this year amounts to $1,100,000, for distribution among the various provinces. The conditions under which the expenditures were to be made were laid down broadly in the Bill itself, and agreements were entered into between myself as Minister of Agriculture and the Min241
isters of Agriculture of the different provinces in which, after a general discussion of the whole subject had been had, the class of work which would rightly come under the provisions of the Act was laid down. Occasionally there would be disputes on the question whether such-and-such a line of activity did come within the scope of the Bill, but these differences were finally adjusted amicably, and I am quite sure that the fact that the discussions were held served a good purpose and led to unity of action. It was much better to do this than simply to hand over a sum of money to the provinces which they might expend as they saw fit, and then find out afterwards whether or not the money was properly spent. The member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) suggested that this money be handed over to the provinces to be spent by them on technical education as they might themselves determine, and if there were any disputes afterwards we might withhold the money at another time. His contention was that we should trust the provinces. But I am absolutely sure that in any agreement that is made the air will be cleared and satisfactory arrangements will be come to. As a matter of fact, in connection with the Agricultural Instruction Act, once we got the thing working on lines that were mutually agreeable, the programme for this educational work was really laid down by the provinces themselves; the federal minister simply made suggestions as to whether the expenditure of moneys on a particular line of activity was in accordance with the terms of the Act or not, and so on. That procedure led to greater continuity, and there was no difficulty at all. Nor do I apprehend any difficulty in connection with this Act. The minister representing the province concerned will, I have no doubt, outline the conditions in that province, state what work they are doing and what schemes they are carrying out, and I am sure that any agreement arrived at will meet the views of both Governments and still preserve a rightful measure of control or supervision by this Parliament over the expenditure. I would expect such a procedure to simplify the situation rather than complicate it, as my hon. friend suggests. As to. handing the money over to the provinces with the idea that they, might spend it as they wish, we must remember that provincial governments change from time to time and that ministers change; you may have great discretion in one case and great indiscretion in another. I think it will

lead to far less confusion, to greater unity of purpose, and to continuity of effort if the provinces and the Federal Government agree from year to year upon what form the expenditure shall take. I feel sure that there will he no trouble at all in that connection.
Mr. OAiLDEE:	The point at issue is
quite clear, that is, whether or not the Federal Government should retain any measure of supervision over these expenditures, or whether some money should be given directly to the provinces to be expended by them as they see fit for purposes of technical education. I do not see that I can add anything to the argument, as the whole case has been placed before the committee. The Government, after considering the whole proposition have come to the conclusion that the wisest thing to do, under all the circumstances, is to carry out the idea as embodied in the Bill, and very largely for the reasons explained by the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) and for those given by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Whidden). In the United States the federal system is very much as it is here. Education is a State right. The Federal Government does not interfere with education in the various States. Nevertheless, during the past ten or fifteen years it has made many provisions of a similar character for aiding in agricultural, vocational and technical education, and in every one of those instances under the various laws, the United Stales Federal Government has retained a measure of control and supervision. Under their last law, passed in 1817 called, I think, the Smith-Hughes law, provision is made for very liberal machinery for the purpose of co-operating with the States, and, I think, for a very definite, specific and useful purpose, the purpose mentioned by the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell). That is, if we can succeed in getting all the provinces in Canada to endeavour to work as far as possible along well-defined modern lines to secure the one result for the whole of Canada, instead of each province working as a separate unit, in the end we shall secure better results. As a result of the many conferences that were held between the representative of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. James, who is looked upon as one of the best agriculturists in Canada, and the heads and chief officials of the Provincial Departments of Agriculture for the purpose of considering what was best to be done in the interest of agricultural education in each province, I have no hesitation in saying that the $1,100,000 that has
I Mr. Burrell.]
been expended up to date is being far more wisely expended than if the matter had been left entirely to the discretion of the Provincial Governments. Last fall we had the	largest interpfovincial	conferenceever	held in	Canada, comprising	allthe	premiers	and from	three	tofive	ministers	from some	of	the
provinces, and we had a very interesting and important conference. This matter was very fully discussed, and I do not think the representatives who were present hesitated to speak their minds. They spoke their minds on other subjects very freely, and during the whole discussion, if I remember aright-and .1 think I do-not the slightest objection was raised by any representative at that conference to the conditions underlying the aid given under the Agricultural Aid Act.
(Mr. BUREAU: That is different.


James Alexander Calder: That is quite true, but
when we were discussing the question of providing a system of grants for technical education, time and again reference was made to the manner in which the matter had been worked out as regards the Agricultural Aid Act, and there was not the slightest indication upon the part of any representative at that gathering that any difficulty at all was anticipated. The Secretary of State has put his finger on a principle we cannot overlook. Where the Federal Government is making a grant for a specific purpose, we have a right to retain a measure of control in order to see that that money is expended for that purpose. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's referred to this agreement being made by the Minister of Labour. He will find, however, that under clause 6 every such agreement must be submitted to Council and approved by the Governor in Council.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a later clause which says that in the event of a dispute the minister shall be the sole judge. It was to that clause I referred.


James Alexander Calder: Yes. Individual agreements with the provinces must all be approved by the Governor in Council. As regards the Minister of Labour being the sole'judge in case any dispute arises under an agreement, I am quite prepared to meet the wishes of the Committee. I can see where there may be an objection to that provision, and we are quite willing to frame the clause so as to meet the objection which has been brought to our attention.


Jacques Bureau: The minister seems to want to get out of this by referring to agriculture, and the Secretary of State seems to put the two classes on a similar basis. There is all the difference in the world between the two classes. In the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa, the work is, I understand, mainly along experimental lines, and it has all the equipment necessary to assist the provinces and to work in cooperation with them. But in this case the Government, in making a grant, wants to have a string on the end of its generosity so that the grant may be pulled back at pleasure, and this in a matter in which the Federal Government has no jurisdiction and which is entirely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces; and I may say that this is liable to cause suspicion to the outside world. The two cases are not on a par at all. If the Government wants to make a grant-this is not experimental work, we want to educate our children in certain trades and sciences-it is very easy for the minister to say: These are the conditions we are to impose upon those who want to benefit by the grant; you shall use the money for building technical schools or for salaries for technical instructors; those who want to benefit will come.and take it; everybody is on the same footing; Parliament will support that, and Parliament will discuss and determine the conditions under which it is willing to vote the money and to give it to the provinces for such special purposes.
The Secretary of State says that Provincial Governments may change, and that a different Minister of Education in a province may not be up to the standard of his predecessor, or he may be unwilling. That argument works both ways. This Government may change, and if you are going to distrust the provinces there is no reason why you should not distrust this Government. If you are going to make a grant, do not ask the provinces to come on their knees and sign all sorts of agreement. Let Parliament that votes the money determine on what conditions the money shall be given to the provinces. Let the whole world know what the conditions are. Let the statutes define what shall constitute technical education, and let Parliament declare under what conditions the grant shall be given, and under what conditions it shall be refused. There is no danger, however, of any province refusing the money; at least, I hope not. Now I do not want my words to be distorted; I do not want to be understood as being opposed
2412:
to this grant. It is not the grant we are considering, but simply a question of ways and means. I say that if we are to vote the money we should determine the conditions under which it shall be given, and': let everybody know the conditions. There is another clause in this Bill-I may not-be in order in referring to it now, but we have to take the Bill as a whole-which' says that the grant shall not be used for extinguishing any indebtedness or liability incurred before the 1st of July of this year.
I think that is hardly fair. A province, for instance, which has taken the lead in educational matters may have bought sites and put up buildings. Is that province to be penalized because it has gone ahead of the others?


Mr. COWAN:: Let it keep ahead.


Jacques Bureau: Why should it not be allowed to use the grant for extinguishing the indebtedness incurred in buying the site and erecting the building? Why should it be penalized for what it has done? A province that makes a contract for the erection of a building or the purchase of a site 011 2nd July can use the grant for extinguishing that indebtedness, whereas the province that made its contract on 29th June cannot do so; yet each province may have expended the same amount of money.
I think that provision should not be in the Bill. That is why I say, let us determine here in this Parliament the conditions under which the provinces shall be entitled to receive the money, and then let the Government decide before making the grant whether the provinces come within the four corners of the law. If they do, let them get the grant and dispose of it for technical educational purposes as in their judgment seems best.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The Secretary of State, an ex-Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Burrell) has told us of what took place in the matter of agricultural education as between the Federal Government and the provinces. iNow we cannot compare agricultural education with other educational work. There is a special clause in the British North America Act providing for cooperation between the1 Department of Agriculture in the Federal Government and the provinces in matters of agriculture, but another clause makes it imperative that edur cation shall be left solely to the provinces, and without that clause Confederation would not have been accomplished. It is one of the most vital clauses in the British North America Act, and the one perhaps most conducive to the happiness of the

people. My hon. friend when Minister of Agriculture was perfectly within his rights -in trying to bring about co-operation between the provinces and the Federal Government in matters pertaining to the development of agriculture, but I claim that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization is not in the name position, and therefore we must safeguard provincial rights 1 which are here endangered. I want the money to be given to the provinces fer technical education. We all know that *every province is anxious to have technical education, and I believe they are all willing and anxious to co-operate in every possible way for its development. The minister need have no fear that the money will not be spent for that purpose. I say that the provinces should be allowed to decide in what way the money shall be spent. It m^y be that in some provinces where technical education is not so far advanced as in others, in New Brunswick, for instance, for the first year or so perhaps the teachers of the primary schools may be entrusted with the duty of imparting technical education. At all events, all that the Federal Government is interested in is that the money is spent for the purposes of technical education. If the grant was made to the provinces and they were left to decide how it should be spent, without any conditions being imposed by this Government, there would be no encroachment upon provincial rights, which are always regarded jealously by the provinces. I trust, therefore, that the minister will be satisfied with a provision that will enable the provinces that receive the grant to spend it for the purposes of technical education according to their best judgment.


Ernest Lapointe: I realize that to ' oppose the granting of any money to the provinces is not a very popular thing, but as far as I am concerned, I would oppose the granting of this money if by accepting it the provinces have to relinquish any of their provincial rights. I think the mere fact that the ministers are citing the grant for aid to agriculture as a precedent, shows how dangerous this legislation is. The two things cannot be compared, because agriculture comes under federal jurisdiction as well as under provincial jurisdiction; but that is not the case with regard to education. The British North America Act explicitly provides that education comes exclusively-the word " exclusively " is used in the Act-under provincial jurisdiction.


Martin Burrell: If you want to laboui that point you can apply precisely the same
CMr. Turgeon.]
argument in the case of the Agricultural Instruction Act-not the Act for aid to agriculture; that was the first Bill, passed in 1912-because the work we were carrying on under that Act was educational work. This Government was not establishing, and never has established, agricultural colleges or carried on educational work, but the money was voted specifically for educational purposes.


Jacques Bureau: Experimental farms are educational work.	[DOT]


Martin Burrell: If you are going to argue that, then every form of governmental activity is, in some sense, educational. The specific educational work, as far as it applied to agriculture, was done under this Agricultural Instruction Act and was done by the provinces. I am sure there is no invasion of provincial jurisdiction because practically they would mutually agree. My hon. friend is rather anticipating a bogey that does not really exist.


Ernest Lapointe: This shows more clearly the danger of establishing such precedents. This Government started by giving agricultural aid to the provinces. Next came educational help with regard to agriculture.


Martin Burrell: For which they were very glad.


Ernest Lapointe: Now it is used as a precedent to give help to technical education, this Government keeping control of the manner in which the education shall be carried on. Other matters will arise, and the legislation of to-night will be used as a precedent for new legislation. The first precedent is agricultural education, and the second is technical education. As I said at an early stage of the proceedings, nothing will prevent a government, with such precedents, to give subsidies to provinces which will be willing to establish national schools within their borders. This is a dangerous procedure. This Government is gradually encroaching on the provincial area and it has done so in many matters. Take the question of the Department of Health which has been created this year. I have read in Hansard of many years ago a debate when a resolution to create such a department was proposed in the House of Commons at a time when Sir John A. Macdonald was Prime Minister. Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper and other leading statesmen of that time stated emphatically that under the British North America Act this

Government conld not establish a Department of Health. This year, of course, with all the precedents which the minister has adduced, a Department of Health has been created. The Government have given subsidies to the provinces for agricultural education, keeping control on that education. They want to give subsidies for technical education with a string attached, keeping control on a purely provincial matter; and they will do it in other cases on the strength of the precedent which we aTe creating to-night. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) says there has been an inter-provincial conference at which no one objected. I would submit that the proceedings of provincial conferences should be made public. The atmosphere of the 20th century is not conducive to secret proceedings. If the great diplomats of the world have to make their proceedings public, our own diplomats in Canada, the ministers of the Federal Government and of the various provinces, ought to make their proceedings absolutely public too. But even if the minister agreed to that, I submit, the Bill was not prepared at that time, and I would not be surprised to learn that all the conditions which I read in the various sections of the Bill were not submitted to the provincial ministers at that time. However, even if they were submitted and the provincial ministers agreed to the legislation, that would not relieve me of my responsibility, as a member of the Canadian House of Commons, of the duty to uphold the constitution of Canada so far as provincial jurisdiction is concerned. I am in earnest in the objections I have raised against this particular Bill. I want to tell my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) that I have not said I am opposed to technical education. I only said that this particular year is not a propitious year to give the money of this country to the provinces for works which are of a provincial character. The provinces are in a better position financially than this Government at the present time. I know some provinces which are in a pretty safe condition financially and are able to undertake works which come under their jurisdiction. Here, at this time, we do not know where to get money. I think expenditures which are of a purely provincial character should be borne by the provinces this year. When the country is more prosperous it will be time to consider the giving of help to the provinces by this Government. But, even then, I think this grant should be given freely to the provinces without any string attached to it. The provinces should be
free to expend the money for the purposes stipulated, and there should be no control by the Federal Government of questions that are purely provincial.


Peter McGibbon: The essential fact that has been overlooked, that Parliament, which is responsible for collecting the money, must of necessity be responsible for the expending of it, and that when this Government votes a grant to any province for any purpose it must necessarily see that the money is spent for the purpose intended.
I cannot see how this could be done if the grant were not accompanied by some regulation. I agree with the statement of the member for Shelburne and Queen's on a former occasion that most of these objections generally disappear when accompanied by a large grant of money. I think the objections which have been raised to-night will not materialize to any great extent, and if they did I could not see the force of them. The difficulty ought to be overcome. It would be most unfortunate if a Bill of this kind, which holds out such great possibilities for Canada-and no doubt this matter is long overdue, for Canada has been living on the brains of the world to a great extent in industrial lines for a great many years- could not be taken advantage of by every province. As the hon. member for Three Rivers said, the provisions could be fought out and incorporated in the Bill. I am quite convinced that the Government must control the money and see that it is used for the purpose for which it is given. And it is necessary to see that the idea conveyed in the definition of technical education as given here is carried out by the provinces. As I said on a former occasion, it should also be seen to that the money is distributed to different parts of a province because education should be universal. The tendency in the past in all provinces has been to centre technical education in the cities and large towns, and even small cities have not benefited. That is one thing which should be guarded against in this Bill. Altogether, I think, the minister must of necessity accompany the grant with certain regulations.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member says
that expenditure of the money given by the Federal Government should be controlled by the Government. The argument at first appears to be a strong one, but in the relations between the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments large sums of money have been given by this Government, which has absolutely no right to supervise their expenditure. For

instance, the provincial subsidies given by the Federal Government every year amount to large sums. That money is given and it has never entered the mind of any minister of the Federal Cabinet to claim the right to ask an accounting of these moneys from the Provincial Governments.


Martin Burrell: That is given under the terms of Confederation which is a very different situation.


Lucien Cannon: But the reason for granting this in no way changes the system under which moneys have been given by the Federal Government to the Provincial Governments without the Federal Government retaining control or supervision thereof. If that can happen in connection with the payment of a subsidy I do not see why the same thing should not happen in connection with this Bill. The Secretary of State has made a comparison between his own Bill passed a few years ago and the Bill that is now being examined by the committee. I have under my hand the statutes of 1913 containing that Act. Without laying any stress on the argument put forward by my hon. friend from Kamou-raska that there is a wide difference between agriculture and technical education, I must say that there is a wide difference between the two Bills themselves. Section 2, paragraph (c) gives a definition of technical education so general and elastic that all kinds of things may be included in the interpretation of the words "technical education." The Bill regarding agriculture contains no such provision. Why should we, in this new Bill, provide that the Federal Government shall exact an agreement from the Provincial Governments and shall define education, technical or vocational, when no such requirement was made in regard to the grant for agricultural education? We find, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Kamouraska, that the Bill passed in 1913 is being used as a precedent by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization. He says that after having passed a Bill as regards agriculture we are passing a similar Bill as regards technical education. But that Bill did not contain the definition that this Bill contains, and that is where the danger lies. We do not want in our province any federal interference with educational matters. We have had enough trouble in the past, we do not want to have any more trouble now. Our province, as regards technical education, has done wonders. The minister knows what Quebec has done. We have technical schools in Montreal, Quebec, Shawinigan,

Three Rivers and Sherbrooke. There is one being built in the city of Hull. I repeat, the province of Quebec has done wonders as regards technical education. We have never needed help from the Federal Government. Naturally, as business men our Government will certainly not refuse any help if it is being offered, but the Provincial Government and members from our province will not be willing to give away our privileges as regards education for any amount of money. If the Government wish to help us, we will not refuse the offer oi $100,000, or $200,000 or perhaps $500,000, but let not the Minister of Immigration or any other minister attempt to interfere with educational matters in our province. We do not admit the principle because it is a principle altogether opposed to the British North America Act and also to our privileges and interests.
Let the Bill concerning technical education be the same as the Bill concerning agricultural education. We will not take any, or as strong, objection as we have to the present Bill. But there is also a new clause and every one of these fiew clauses is an encroachment upon our present privileges. The Bill shows the tendency of the Federal Government to interfere with and encroach upon provincial rights. What is the reason? The reason is very obvious. Confederation was accepted at the time only as a compromise between certain portions of this country. We know that. Lots of people in this country, instead of having a confederation as we have it now, would have preferred a legislative union. That has been the aim of a great many people. The aspiration of those people has not died with them. They have their successors in politics; they have had their heirs. Of course, it is impossible to-day for any man, or any Provincial Government to come out and say directly: We want to abolish the present system; we want to have only one government, a central government sitting in Ottawa and governing this country. Any man who would propose such a system would have practically no hearing in any of the provinces. But the Government is clever. The Government is taking an indirect route to attain that object. It is giving money to the provinces in different forms and interfering with provincial matters in different ways. What will be the result? Very soon the Provincial Governments will have such liabilities towards the Federal Government that they will become the mere tools and instruments of the Federal Government, they will disappear and instead of having in Canada the beautiful

political machine invented by Sir John Macdonald, Sir George Etienne Cartier and many others, that system will be destroyed and we will have a central government. We are not in favour of a central government. We are in favour of the present state of affairs and in order to safeguard our privileges we insist that there shall be no encroachment. Compare the Bill referred to by the Secretary of State, which is chapter 6, 3 and 4 George V with this Bill. There are no clauses in that Act such as we find in the Bill. There is no provision that the minister shall be the sole judge in case of disagreement. Yet the minister comes with this Bill and says that his only aim and object is to help technical education in the provinces. Although he is giving money to the provinces, if he wishes to restrict their privileges we wrill not accept the Bill. We think the Bill may be interpreted in such a way as to enable the minister to interfere with our privileges. Therefore, we are against the Bill and no matter if we do lose the money, we would rather do so than give up any of our existing privileges.


James Alexander Calder: During the course of his remarks the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat made the statement that if this Bill providing for grants to technical education were practically on all fours with the Bill providing for agricultural education he would have no objection to it.


Lucien Cannon: Not so many objections, I said.


James Alexander Calder: If I remember the hon.
gentleman's remarks correctly, he said he would have no objection.


Lucien Cannon: No.


James Alexander Calder: A portion of his song was that this Bill was materially different from the other Bills.


Frank S. Cahill: What does the minister
mean by " song " in this House?


James Alexander Calder: It has an ordinary meaning that I think everybody understands. I must ask the Committee at this stage to allow me a few minutes and I think after I close we may as well report progress and rise. But before the House adjourns tonight, I would like to make the members ' of the Committee acquainted with what the real provisions of the Agricultural Aid Act are. This Act, which was passed in 1913, was originally called the Agricultural Instruction Act, and its preamble reads as follows:
Whereas it is desirable that encouragement be given to agriculture in all the provinces of
Canada, and whereas great and permanent benefit will result to education, instruction and demonstration carried on along lines well devised and of a continuous nature



and so on. The third section of the
Bill reads as follows:
For the purpose of aiding and advancing the farming industry-
By what?
-by instruction in agriculture.


Lucien Cannon: Would the minister be fair? I based my comparison mostly on section 1. Also, I would not like the minister to skip section 2 of the Agricultural Bill.


James Alexander Calder: If the hon. gentleman will wait, I am coming to his main contention. His contention is that there is no definit'on in this Act of agricultural instruction.


Lucien Cannon: The same as in this Bill.


James Alexander Calder: Exactly, the same as in this Bill, and the hon. gentleman takes exception because in section 2 of the Bill that is now being discussed there is provision for an agreement between the provinces and the Federal Government as to the manner in which these moneys shall be expended. Well, I do not understand the hon. gentleman at all. Just another moment, and I- am through. If the Committee will refer to section 5 of the Agricultural Instruction Act it will be found to contain this provision:
The payments hereinbefore authorized shall, as to each province, be conditional upon agreement between the minister and the Government of the province as to the terms, conditions, and purposes, within the meaning of this Act, upon and for which the payments are to he made and applied, and such agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.


Lucien Cannon: That does not define " instruction,"


James Alexander Calder: The two Bills are practically on all fours.


Lucien Cannon: It does not define " instruction."


James Alexander Calder: Neither is " technical instruction " defined


Lucien Cannon: Certainly, it is.


James Alexander Calder: One of the objections made to the Bill by an hon. gentleman opposite is that as such instruction is not defined the Bill would be the better for it. Well, " agricultural instruction " as used in the other Act is not defined either.


Lucien Cannon: Not defined at all.


James Alexander Calder: Now, section 7 of the Agricultural Instruction Act reads as follows:

The Governor In Council may make such regulations as are deemed advisable for giving effect to the objects and purposes of this Act, and, notwithstanding anything in this Act, the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council and with the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed by the Governor in Council, may expend in any such province in any year the whole or any part*, of the grant provided for such province under this Act for the purposes set forth in the preamble of this Act.
In other words, in the Agricultural Instruction Act there is the fullest provision made for the entering into of an agreement between the provinces and the Federal Government for the purpose of expending the grants provided for in any form of agricultural instruction that may be agreed upon between the provinces and the federal authorities, and that is exactly the provision in the present Bill. I can quite understand the argument that is advanced, that technical education is not exactly on the same basis as agricultural education, but that there is a wide difference between the provisions of the Agricultural Instruction Act and the provisions of this Bill, I cannot see at all.


Jacques Bureau: Between the subject matters as stated.


James Alexander Calder: That is an entirely different thing. The view I have stated is the one that is taken by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat.


Lucien Cannon: What about section 6?


James Alexander Calder: That has reference to the minister having the power which I have already stated. That might be a provision inserted into any agreement between the provinces and the Federal Government. There is nothing in the provision at all to preclude an agreement of that nature. I quite see the objection that has been taken to that, but as I have already intimated to the committee I cannot see any reason why we cannot agree upon a clause that will meet with its unanimous approval. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Calder the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Saturday, June 21, 1919,