1924-03-19

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the House, as follows:
[Stage Direction]
No. l ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Archambault,
Baxter,
Black (Yukon), Brown,
Bureau,
Cannon,
Copp,
Elliott (Waterloo), Findlay,
German,
Gouin (Sir Lomer), Guthrie,
Hammell,
Jacobs,
Messieurs
Johnston (Last Mountain), Kyte,
Kelly,
Lapointe,
Logan,
Macdonald (Pictou), Macphail (Miss), McMaster,
Morrison,
Porter,
Ryckman,
Sexsmith,	f
Stewart (Hamilton), and Vien.-28

Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
No. 2 ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH
[Stage Direction]
ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messieurs
[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Anderson,	LeSueur,
Archambault,	Lewis,
Arthurs,	Lovett,
Baxter,	Lovie,
Beland,	Low,
Binette,	Lucas,
Bird,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Black (Huron),	Mackinnon,
Boivin,	MacLaren,
Bowen,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Boys,	Maclean (York),
Bristol,	McConica,
Cahill,	McCrea,
Campbell,	McDonald
Cannon,	(Timiskaming),
Carroll,	McGiverin,
Casgrain,	Mclsaac,
Charters,	McMurray,
Chevrier,	McQuarrie,
Chisholm,	McTaggart,
Church,	Manion,
Clifford,	Marcile (Bagot;,
Copp,	Marie'*,
Crerar,	Martell,
d'Anjou,	Islay bee,
Davies,	Merrier,
Dechene,	Mewburn,
Delisle,	Millar,
Denis (Joliette),	Michaud,
Denis (St. Denis),	Milne,
Desrochers,	Mitchell,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Morrison,
Drummond,	Morrissy,
Ethier,	Murdock,
Euler,	Parent,
Evans,	Pelletier,
Fafard,	Power,
Fansher,	Putnam,
Finn,	Rankin,
Forke,	Robinson, [DOT]
Fournier,	Robitaille,
Gardiner,	St. Pere,
Gendron,	Savard,
Gordon,	Seguin,
Gould,	Shaw,
Graham,	Sheard,
Guthrie,	Simpson,
Halbert,	Sinclair (Queen's, P.E.I.),
Hammell,	Speakman,
Healy,	Spence,
Hocken,	Stansell,
Hod gins,	Stevens,
Hoey,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Hughes,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Humphrey,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Jelliff,	Stewart (Leeds),
Johnston (Last Mountain),	Stork,
Kay,	Sutherland,
Kellner,	Tobin,
Kennedy (Glengarry and	Vien r
Stormont),	Wallace,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Ward,
Knox,	Walsh,
Lanctot,	White, ajid
Lapierre,	Wilson.-130.
Lavigueur,
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-five members.
Anderson,	Kellner,
Archambault,	Kennedy (Edmonton),
Baldwin,	King (Huron),
Bancroft,	Lewis,
Bird,	Lucas,
Boivin,	MacKinnon,
Bouchard,	MacLaren,
Boucher,	McGiverin,
Bourassa,	McKillop,
Bowen,	McMurray,
Boys,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Brethen,	Marcile (Bagot),
Brown,	Merrier,
Bureau,	Morin,
Chew,	Ouimet,
Clark,	Porter,
Chaplin,	Power,
Davies,	Pritchard,
Denis (St.Denis),	Putnam,
Deslauriers,	Raymond,
Drummond,	Rheaume,
Ethier,	Reed,
Findlay,	Robitaille,
Fontaine,	Seguin,
Forrester,	Senn,
Fortier,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Garland (Carleton),	Stork,
Gendron,	Thompson,
Gould,	Tobin,
Hammell,	Wilson,
Harris,	Woods, and
Jones,	Woodsworth.-65.
And that the quorum sist of ten members.	of the said committee do con-No. 4
ON STANDING ORDERS	
Messieurs	
Binette,	Hughes,
Black (Halifax),	Kelly,
Black (Huron),	Lavigueur,
Chaplin,	Leader,
Chew,	LeSueur,
Clifford,	MacLaren,
Deslauriers,	Maclean (York),
Desrochers,	McTaggart,
Doucet,	Mercier,
Duff,	Ouimet,
Duncan,	Parent,
Euler,	Roberge,
Evans,	Robichaud,
Gervais,	Ryckman,
Gould,	Steedsman, and
Harris, Hod gins,	Stewart (Leeds).-33.
And that the quorum sist of seven members.	of the said committee do con-No. 5
ON	PRINTING
(Members to act on	the part of the Commons)
Messieurs	
Baldwin,	Hocken,
Charters,	Humphrey,
Chevrier,	Jones,
Coote,	MacKelvie,
Euler,	McConica,
Fansher,	Malcolm,
Gauvreau,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
Michaud,	Rinfret,
Murdock,	Robichaud,
Preston,	St. Pere, and
Pr6vost,	Thurston.-23.
Raymond, No. 6 ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS	
Archambault,	Messieurs Logan,
Beaubien,	Lewis,
Bourassa,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Boys,	Mackinnon,
Brethen,	McCrea,
Bristol,	McGiverin,
Cannon,	Mclsaac,
Cardin,	. McMaster,
Carroll,	Manion,
Casgrain,	Martell,
Chisholm,	Meiglien,
Clark,	Mewburn,
Coote,	Michaud,
Crerar,	Mitchell,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Papineau,
Duff,	Parent,
Elliott (Dundas),	Power,
Finn,	Preston,
Forke,	Rh6aume,
Gardiner,	Ryckman,
Gauvreau,	Sheard,
German,	Steedsman,
Hanson,	Stewart (Leeds),
Hudson,	Simpson,
Humphrey,	Thurston,
Jacobs,	Tobin,
Kelly,	Tolmie,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Vien,
King (Kootenay East),	Wallace, and
Kyte,	Ward.-61.
LeSueur, And that the quorum of the said Committee	
consist of twenty-one	members.
No. 7 ON BANKING AND COMMERCE	
Baxter,	Messieurs German,
Benoit,	Good,
Bird,	Grimmer,
Black (Halifax),	Guthrie,
Black (Yukon),	Hanson,
Boivin,	_ Harris,
Bristol,	Hatfield,
Cahill,	Healy,
Caldwell,	Hodgins,
Carmichael,	Hudson,
Carruthers,	Hughes,
Casgrain,	Irvine,
Chaplin,	Jacobs,
Chevrier,	Kellner,
Clark,	King (Huron),
Clifford,	Ladner,
Coote,	Laflamme,
Crerar,	Low,
d'Anjou,	McBride,
Desaulniers,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Descoteaux,	Mackinnon,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Maclean (York),
Duncan,	Macphail (Miss),
Elliott (Dundas),	McCrea,
Elliott (Waterloo),	McKay,
Fafard,	McMaster,
Fielding,	McMurray,
Forke,	McQuarrie,
Fortier,	McTaggart,
Garland (Bow River),	Malcolm,

Marler,	Ryckman,
Maybee,	St. Pere,
Mewburn,	Sales,
Millar,	Senn,
Milne,	Shaw,
Mitchell,	Speakman,
Morin,	Spencer,
Papineau,	Stevens,
Porter,	Sinclair, D. J. (Oxford),
Power,	Sinclair (Queen's, P.E.I.),
Rankin,	Stork,
Rh6aume,	Tobin,
Robb,	Vien,
Robichaud,	Woods, and
Robitaille,	Woodsworth.-90.
And that the quorum of the said Committee da consist of twenty-one members.
[Stage Direction]
ON AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION Messieurs
Anderson,	Lapierre,
Arthurs,	Leader,
Baldwin,	Lovett,
Benoit,	Lovie,
Boivin,	Lucas,
Boucher,	MacKelvie,
Bouchard,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Bourassa,	McBride,
Bowen,	McConica,
Brethen,	McCrea,
Brown,	McKay,
Cahill,	McKillop,
Caldwell,	McMaster,
Campbell,	McMurray,
Cardin,	Malcolm,
Carruthers,	Marcile (Bagot),
Charters,	Maybee,
Chew,	Millar,
Clifford,	Milne.
Crerar,	Morin,
D6chene,	Morrison,
Delisle,	Morrissy,
Denis (Joliette),	Motherwell,
Denis (St. Denis),	Munro,
Desaulniers,	Neill,
Descoteaux,	Ouimet,
Desrochers,	Preston,
Doucet,	Pritchard,
Duncan,	Rankin,
Evans,	Raymond,
Fafard,	Reed,
Fontaine,	Robinson,
Forke,	Roberge,
Forrester,	Ross (Simcoe),
Fortier,	Sales,
Fournier,	Savard,
Garland (Carleton),	Seguin,
Gendron,	Senn,
Gervais,	Sexsmith,
Gould,	Simpson,
Halbert,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Hatfield,	Sinclair (Queen's, P.E.I.;
Hopkins,	Spence,
Hubbs,	Stansell,
Hunt,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Jelliff, [DOT] *	Stewart (Humboldt),
Jones,	Sutherland,
Kay,	Thompson,
Kennedy (Glengarry and	Tliui^ton,
Stormont),	Tobin,
Knox,	Tolmie,
Laflamme,	Warner, and
Lanctot,	White,-105.
And that the quorum	of the said Committee «
consist of twelve members.

Standing Committees


[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Messieurs
Bancroft,	Ladner,
Campbell,	MacLaren,
Cardin,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Chisholm,	Mclsaac,
Delisle,	McQuarrie,
Dickie,	Martell,
Doucet,	Morrissy,
Duff,	Munro,
Elliott (Dundas),	Neill,
Fournier,	Pelletier,
Gauvreau,	Putnam,
Grimmer,	Robichaud,
Hatfield,	Ross (Simcoe),
Hoey,	Savard,
Hubbs,	Spencer,
Hughes,	Stansell,
Kennedy (Port Arthur and Stevens,	
Kenora),	Stewart (Humboldt), and
Lapointe,	Stork.-37.
And that the	quorum of the said Committee do
consist of ten members.	
	No. 10
ON MINES AND MINERALS	
	Messieurs
Arthurs,	Knox,
Black (Yukon),	Lapierre,
Bird,	Logan,
Boucher,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Cahill,	Macphail (Miss),
Carroll,	McBride,
Carruthers,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Church,	Marler,
Davies,	Meighen,
DSchene,	Munro,
Denis (Joliette),	Pelletier,
Dickie,	Prevost,
Drummond,	. Roberge,
Forrester,	Ross (Kingston),
Garland (Bow River), Spence,	
Gendron,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Hanson,	Stork, and
Hunt,	Warner,-37.
Kennedy (Edmonton),	
And that the	quorum of the said Committee do
consist of ten members.	
	No. 11
ON FORESTS, WATERWAYS AND WATER-	
	POWERS
	Messieurs
Caldwell,	Lanctot,
Church,	Logan,
d'Anjou,	McKillop,
Desauiniers,	McTaggart,
Deslauriers,	Malcolm,
Duff,	Manion,
Finn,	Michaud,
Gervais,	Millar,
Graham,	Munro,
Grimmer,	Murphy,
Hoey,	Power,
Hunt,	Rinfret,
Kennedy (Port	Arthur and Stewart (Argenteuil),
Kenora),	Stewart (Hamilton),
Kennedy (Stormont and Tolmie,	
Glengarry),	Wallace, and
King (Kootenay	East), White,-33.
Ladner,	
And that the	quorum of the said Committee do
consist of ten members.
Boivin,
Ethier,
Fansher,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Hocken,
MacKelvie,
And that the quorum consist of five members.
McGiverin,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Prevost,
Rinfret,
Robinson, and Ross (Kingston),-13.
of the said Committee do

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Beaubien,
Boland,
Carmichael,
Deslauriers,
Euler,
Garland (Carleton), Gauvreau,
Good,
Gouin (Sir Lomer), Hopkins,
King, Mackenzie (York),
Lapointe,
Lovett,
Meighen, Pritchard, Robinson,
Ross (Kingston), Sheard,
Sinclair (Oxford), Steedsman, and Walsh,-21.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report with all convenient speed the lists of members to compose the select standing committees of this House during the present session, presented this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the select standing committees of this House shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records, with the exception of the committee on Debates and that on the Library of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to lay on the
Table of the House a copy of the correspondence which took place during the proceedings of the Imperial Conference, between members of the government of Great Britain and myself on the subject of the British preference.



CATTLE EMBARGO

William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1 wish also to lay on the Table of the House copies of the correspondence that took place during the proceedings of the Imperial Conference between the Minister of Agriculture, Sir Robert Sanders, and myself, with respect to the cattle embargo.
Questions



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION

William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the conclusion of last session the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) spoke to me about the negotiations that were proceeding between the government of Canada and the government of Japan in respect to the restriction of immigration from Japan, and asked if I would inform the House at that time whac progress had been made with these negotiations. I intimated that I was not in a position to bring down the correspondence at the time, but that I would do so as soon as the House reassembled. I desire now to lay on the Table copies of the correspondence between the governments of Japan and Canada with respect to the subject of restriction of immigration. My hon. friend will see that the Japanese government do not, under the administrative measures now adopted, contemplate that the number of Japanese emigrants going to Canada as household servants and agricultural labourers will exceed 160 annually.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Has the National Railway management, as a matter of actual practice, been diverting all unrouted shipments for Atlantic export through Canadian ports? If so, since what date?
2.	Has the National Railway management given any assurance to the government that unrouted shipments shall be transmitted only through Canadian port3?
3.	If not, does the government propose to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that unrouted freight be transmitted through Canadian ports?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	It is the practice of Canadian National railways to forward through Canadian ports any unrouted shipments for Atlantic export.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
FRENCH AND ITALIAN TREATIES Mr. ANDERSON:
1.	At what date did the treaties with France and Italy, passed by parliament last session, respectively, go into effect ?
2.	What was the value of Canada's agricultural products exported to France in 1922 and 1923 respectively?
3.	What was the value of our exports of wire nails, screws, bolts, rivets and washers to France in the same two years?
4.	What were our imports of wines from France, in gallons and dollars, during the last six months of 1922 and 1923 respectively?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	French treaty, September 5, 1923; Italian treaty, January 8, 1924.

2.	Value of Canadian agricultural products exported to France: 1922, $4,678,028; 1923, $6,215,044.
3.	Value of wire nails, screws, bolts, rivets and washers exported to France:
	1922	1923
Wire Nails			nil
Screws			nil
Bolts and nuts			nil
Rivets and washers not separately classified for statistics.
4.	Imports of wines from France entered for consumption in Canada from July 1st to December 31, 1922, Gallons, 101,444; value, $514,537. 1923-Gallons, 86,247; value, $194.382.
<.	BRONTE PIER


Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	What repairs were made to the piers at Bronte, Ontario, in 1923?
2.	Who was the contractor and what is his address?
3.	Were tenders called for?
4.	If not, how was the work done?
5.	What was the cost of said repairs?
6.	Was local labour employed?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	On the north pier three courses of face timbers were renewed on each side for a length of 330 feet, as well as on the south end of this pier. Deck stringers and one row of cross ties were also renewed over this length. At the inner end of the south pier two courses of face timbers were renewed on each side for a length of 105 feet, and one row of cross ties, together with decking and stringers, was renewed over this length.
2.	Work was performed by day labour Tenders were asked for supply of lumber and contract awarded the Beaver River Lumber & Shingle Company, New Westminister, B.C.
3.	Yes, for timber.
4.	Work done by day labour.
5.	$5,593.81,
6.	Yes, with the exception of George Bussey, foreman, attached to Toronto office and six men employed on government plant engaged on the work.
OAKVILLE EAST PIER Mr. ANDERSON:
1.	What repairs were made to the Oakville East pier in 1923?
2.	What is the name and address of contractor?
3.	What was the cost of said repairs?
4.	Were tenders asked?
5.	If so, what are the names of persons tendering and the amount of each tender?
6.	Has the work been satisfactorily completed?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Reconstruction of three courses of face timbers on both north and south sides of east

Questions
pier, for a distance of 575 feet north of the lighthouse; also the renewal of one row of cross ties, longitudinals, stringers and decking.
2.	Work was done by day labour. Tenders were called for timber and order given the Boake Manufacturing Company, Toronto.
3.	Expenditure to January 31st, 1924, $9,936.96.
4.	Tenders were asked for timber.
5.	J. B. Smith & Co., part order, delivered in car loads at $65 per M., F.B.M.; R. B. Herron & Co., car loads, $76 per M. F.B.M.; Laidlaw Lumber Co., car loads, part order, $73 per M.; Boake Manufacturing Co., delivered by truck to site of work, thereby saving cost of unloading and teaming, which would amount to $4 per M., as follows:-
56,172 F.B.M. @ 66 per M	 $3,707.35
27,000 F.B.M. @ 63 per M	 1,451.00
83,172 F.B.M.	$5,158.35
6.	Practically completed; will be fully completed March, 1924.


BRANT MILITARY HOSPITAL
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	When was the Brant Military Hospital closed?
2.	Were any persons left in charge?
3.	If so, how many persons are now in the said service ?
4.	What pay do they receive?
5.	What amount of insurance is carried on said buildings?
6.	What does the government intend doing with these buildings?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: .
1.	It was closed on September 15, 1923, and transferred to the Department of Public Works on November 8, 1923.
2.	Temporary employees for one month to December 7, 1923: J. Smith, engineer, $125 per month and cottage; G. D. Bird, fireman, $100 per month and cottage; T. Lee carpenter, $100 per month and cottage; F. J. James, watchman, $85 per month and cottage.
The services of F. J. James and T. Lee were employed from December 8 until appointment of watchmen was made by the Civil Service Commission.
3.	-4. H. Hanna, day watchman, $720 per annum from February 13, 1924: T. Henderson, night watchman, $720 per annum from February 20, 1924.
5.	None.
6.	Buildings were a war necessity and have their purpose. There is no immediate further government use for them.


CAMPBELLVILLE DRILL SHED
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	Has the Campbellville drill shed property been sold ?
2.	If so, who was the purchaser?
3.	What was the purchase price?
4.	Was it sold by tender or auction?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Messrs. Murray Crawford, Ltd., Camp-bellville, Ont.
3.	$205 for the building only.
4.	Sold by public tender. The site was reconveyed to the original donor, Mr. Felix Devlin, as required by the original deed.


MEDICAL BRANCH, D.S.C.R., PORT ARTHUR
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. MANION.
1.	Has any change been made in the medical representative of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment at Port Arthur, Ontario?
2.	If so, what is such change and why was it made?
Hon. Mr. BELAND.
1.	Yes.
2.	Dr. Crozier was replaced by Dr. Brown. Both men had war service. Dr. Crozier was overseas and Dr. Brown in Canada. The latter, who is the semor by several years, had to tender his resignation in 1918 on account of insomnia, nen ousness and generally impaired physical condition after four years of strenuous duties. He, however, recovered sufficiently to be appointed medical representative in March, 1919, and after six months was replaced by Dr. Crozier. At that date the Unit Medical Director certified that Dr. Brown's services had in every way been most satisfactory. Dr. Crozier has been titular for over four years and in view of Dr. Brown's seniority and1 poor physical condition it has been considered equitable to reinstate him for a time.

*Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	Have the governments of Canada and the United States yet appointed the engineers who are to report upon the costs of the proposed St. Lawrence-Great Lakes canal system ?
2.	Has a time limit been placed upon the investigation to be made by these engineers?
3.	If so, what is that time limit?


Right Hon.   M@: The government of the United States and Canada have not as yet appointed the engineers to report upon the cost of the proposed St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system.


IRON ORE BOUNTY
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	Has the government been notified that the Ontario government is offering to give a bounty upon irolk ore, providing the Dominion government gives an equal bounty ?

Questions

2.	If so, has the government decided upon its policy in this regard?
3.	What is that policy?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Receiving consideration.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What portion of the $350,000 appropriation for work on the Hudson Bay railway was actually spent during the season of 1923-24?
2.	WThat was the nature and extent of the work done?
3.	What wages were paid the trackmen engaged on this work and what was the weekly deduction for board ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB (for the Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	$112,963.27.
2.	Building wye at mileage 81.0, engine house at The Pas and renewing track ties.
3.	January 1st, to July 15th. Track foreman $69.60 per month and board, Labourers 25c. per hour without board.
July 16th to Decemoer 31st. Track foreman ,55c. per hour witnout board, Labourers .30c. per hour without board.
Board. January 1st to April 30th, $6.50 per week. May 1st to December 31st, $6 per week.
EMBARGO ON LIQUOR IMPORTS Mr. BLACK (Yukon):
1.	Has the government of the United States or any department thereof refused to allow the transportation across Alaska via Skagway of liquors sought to be imported in bond from Canadian ports to Yukon Territory by the government of that territory?
2.	If so, how long has said embargo on Canadian imports been in operation?
3.	What steps, if any, is the government of Canada taking to have this embargo on Canadian imports removed ?
4.	Has the government been advised as to whether said embargo will be removed? If so, when is it to be removed?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Since the summer of 1922.
3.	Negotiations are now proceeding with United States authorities upon the subject.
4.	No.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE -COAL
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What tonnage of coal was supplied to the boats of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine operating on the Pacific ocean during each of the calendar years of 1921, 1922 and 1923?
2.	Who supplied said coal, in what quantities, and at what ports were deliveries made in each of the said years?


Hon. Mr. ROBB (for the Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The following coal was supplied to steamers of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine operating on the Pacific coast during the years 1921, 1922 and 1923:
Year 1921	18,410	tonsYear 1922	
27,936	tonsYear 1923	
41,820	tons2.	Name of Supplier-Quantity-Port Deliveries Made:1921-	Western Fuel Corporation, 13,201 tons, Nanaimo; Wellington Comox Agency, 5,209 tons, Union Bay.1922-	Western Fuel Corporation, 20,083 tons, Nanaimo; Wellington Comox Agency, 7,853 tons, Union Bay.1923-	Western Fuel Corporation, 32,372 tons, Nanaimo; Wellington Comox Agency, 9,448 tons, Union Bay.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. NEILL:: Is it the intention of the government to appoint a committee this session, to inquire into, and report on, the subject of old age pensions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the intention of the government to appoint a committee at this session to inquire into the subject of old age pensions.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- PENSIONS
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce during the present session a uniform Superannuation and Retirement Bill, on behalf of the employees of the National Railways?
2.	If so, will the government introduce this measure at an early date?


Hon. Mr. ROBB (for the Minister of Railways and Canals):: The question of a general superannuation or pension plan for employees of Canadian National Railways is at present under consideration by the management, When the matter has been dealt with by the Board of Directors and the representatives of the employees the government will, take any necessary steps to provide requisite legislation.


MAIL CARRIED BY CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. WARD:: What percentage of the mail of Canada is being carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway between eastern Canada and the Pacific Coast?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: (For
the Postmaster-General): Expenditure on ac-

Questions
count of the railway mail sendee for the whole of Canada for fiscal year, 1922-23: Canadian Pacific Railways $3,683,232.80 Canadian National Railways 3,178,411.02 Other Railways	 615,839.07
Total	$7,477,482.89
The above figures represent approximately the percentage of mails carried by the different railways.
In every case the department has to be governed by the requirements of the postal service in the territory served by the railway, but wherever it is possible to do so preference is given to the National Railways in the carriage of the mails and the establishment of new services.


CIVIL SERVICE-SUPERANNUATION
Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is it the intention of the government to introduce at the present session, a Superannuation and Retirement Bill for the employees of the Civil Service of Canada ?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PORT NELSON
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What amount of railway material, equipment and rolling stock is now stored at Port Nelson?
2.	What is the approximate value of this material?
Hon. Mr. ROBB (For the Minister of
Railways and Canals:
1. and 2.
General plant	$	90,074
Machine shop	 9,848
Power house	 5,674
Saw mill and timber	planer	..	..	7,638
Floating plant	 832,324
Railway material	 32,331
Railway Equipment:
Locomotives	 22,740
Cars	 22,640
Materials and tools in warehouses, including shelf, hardware, electric equipment, camp equipment, paints, oils, glass, pipe and pipe fittings, structural steel, bar steel, bar iron, manila rope, wire rope,
etc	 103,900
Materials and tools that have been used, not previously accounted
for	 2,500
Cribs timber ..	726,000	F.B.M.	..	18,316Scow timber ..	109,000	F.B.M.	..	3,815

COLONIZATION SOCIETIES Mr. ANDERSON:
1.	What immigration or colonization societies or associations were authorized by the Governor in Council during 1923 and 1924?
2.	What moneys, if any, were paid to them?
3.	Who are the officers of the Societies?
4.	How many immigrants did they secure?
5.	How many immigrants were assisted under the agreement with the Imperial Government under the Empire Settlement Act of 1922?
6.	What amount of money, if any, was paid to this source to assist immigrants?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	None.
2., 3., and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5.	2,653.
6.	$39,657.10.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-GRAIN
Mr. MacLAREN:: What amount of Canadian grain was carried over the Canadian National Railways in the years 1922 and 1923, respectively, for export through the ports of Portland, Maine; St. John, New Brunswick, and Halifax, Nova Scotia?


James Alexander Robb: (For the Minister of Railways and Canals):
St. John, NF.:	1922, 3,538,419 bushels;
1923, 2,520,664 bushels.
Portland, Me.: 1922, 16,203,065 bushels; 1923, 19,048,819 bushels.
Halifax, N.S.: 1922-23, None.
CANADIAN AMBASSADOR AT WASHINGTON Mr. STEWART (Leeds):
1.	Has the government appointed a Canadian Ambassador at Washington.
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to make such an appointment at an early date?
3.	What is the estimated annual cost to Canada of the maintenance of such office?
4.	Wrhat compensation or indemnity will be allowed such ambassador?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	The government has under consideration the appointment of a duly accredited representative.
3.	For the present the government is proposing a provisional estimate of $60,000.
4.	The salary to be paid Canada's representative at Washington will be determined at the time the appointment is made.
PURCHASING COMMISSION Mr. STEWART (Leeds):
1.	Has the Purchasing Commission of Canada been abolished?
2.	If so, when, how and why was such action taken?
3.	Through what agencies are purchases of government supplies formerly purchased through said Commission being now procured?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 468
Questions

1.	Yes.
2.	By Order in Council P.C. 1632 of August 17, 1923. To effect economy and efficiency-in the public service.
3.	Under the supervision of a sub-committee of Council known as the Government Contracts Supervision Committee, of which Colonel Lafleche, formerly Chairman of the Purchasing Commission, is secretary.


WATER DIVERSION FROM GREAT LAKES
Mr. WHITE:: 1.	Has the government of Canada ever agreed to the diversion of any water from the Great Lakes by the Sanitary District of Chicago?
2.	If so, when and for how many second-feet?
3.	Does the government know how much water is being diverted at the present time?
4.	If so, how is the information secured?
5.	To what purpose is this water being diverted? Is it for sanitary purposes for the generation of power, or for the purpose of improving navigation conditions in American waters?
6.	If the Sanitary District of Chicago is diverting water in excess of agreement (if any has been made) what steps is the government taking to prevent that condition continuing?
7.	If no agreement has been made, what protest is being made by the government of Canada and with what results?
8.	Has the Sanitary District of Chicago or the United States government made any request that Canada agree to the diversion of certain amounts of water?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Not definitely.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Claimed to be diverted for sanitary purposes and also utilized for power.
6 and 7. Representations have been and are being made to the government of the United States against the diversion of water referred to.
8.	No.


CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT RENT, TORONTO
Mr. HOCKEN:: What is the total amount paid as rent for accommodation of the Customs department in the city of Toronto ?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Building 276 King Street, West, SI 1,000 per annum, month to month lease. Buildings 52-54-56 West Wellington Street, SI8,000 per annum, (lease expires March 1st 1925). Total annual rental S29,000.


LIGHT KEEPER, CEDARS, N.B.
Mr. JONES:: 1.	When did the position of Lightkeeper, Cedars, Parish of Kingston, King's County, New Brunswick, become vacant ?
2.	Who were the applicants for the position?
3.	Were any applications received from returned soldiers?

4.	Who was appointed and on whose recommendation?
5.	Is the department aware that Sanford Evans, a returned soldier, with 22 months' service in France and also having two brothers each having served four years in France, was an applicant for this position?
6.	Why was a returned soldier not appointed to this position ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	14th August, 1923.
2.	Frank Butler Gorham.
3.	No.
4.	Frank Butler Gorham, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to No. 3.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ST. JOHN, N.B.
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	Is the Department of Railways and Canals aware that the Canadian National Railways recently issued a map, showing the rails of that road from Halifax, Sydney and Yarmouth to Prince Rupert and Vancouver and also to Portland, Maine, and to New London, Connecticut ?
2.	Is it true that the said map also shows Edmunds-ton and Campbellton as connected with the Canadian National Railways ?
3.	Why is not St. John shown on map as connected with the rails of the Canadian National Railways?
4.	How many copies of said map have been issued, at what cost and how have they been and how are they being distributed?
5.	Why does said map not show the Canadian National Railways rails as extending from Moncton to St. John?
6.	Why is not St. John even shown on the map?
7.	To whose neglect or ignorance is this omission attributable ?


James Alexander Robb: Map referred to was
small skeleton map, approximately 3x5 inches, prepared by one of the constituent companies prior to amalgamation of Canadian National System, and used on inside cover of small publication entitled "Montreal-Canada," issued somewhat over a year ago by passenger traffic department. On this skeleton map St. John was unfortunately omitted. The oversight was unintentional but none the less regrettable. The booklet in question is now out of circulation. The management has been in correspondence with the St. John Board of Trade regarding the matter and steps will be taken to see that such oversight does not occur again.


DUTIES-HIDES AND WOOL
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What are the respective quantities, values and amount of duty collected on the importation of: Raw wool, worsted tops, noils and wool waste, for the years ending March 31, 1920. 1921, 1922 and 1923?
2.	What are the respective quantities, values and duty collected on the imports of manufactured or par-

Questions
tially manufactured products of wool for above years?
3.	What are the quantities and values of the exports of the articles mentioned in questions one and two?
4.	What is the estimated production of wool in Canada for the years mentioned in question one?
5.	What are the respective quantities, values and amount of duty collected on sheep skins, imported,


Arthur Bliss Copp: 5. Imports entered for consumption-	Exports.
-	Year	Lb.	Value	Duty	Cwt.	ValueSheep skins	1920	2,043,295 2,070,758	$ 937,398 972,490	55,915 43,397	$ 1,779,433 498,0731921	1922	2,624,682	376,985	It	22.60S	206,4871923	2,129,224	350,200	51,411	659,620
6. Imports entered for consumption-
Mutton and lamb	1920	4,842,904	803,774	120,539	61,401	1,314,5731921	7,847,701	1,272,165	201,391	64,055	1,626,7921922	3,416,332	533,005	95,910	78,970	1,342,1461923	1,460,130	261,382	42,786	36,101	847,233


PHYSICIANS, D.S.C.R., WINNIPEG
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	How many physicians are employed in Winnipeg in connection with the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?
2.	What are their names and the monthly salary or allowance paid to each of them?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Twenty-two.
2.	List of physicians employed in connection with the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in Winnipeg:
	Name	Monthly Salary
		or Allowance
Dr.	N. K. Mclvoi	.... $400.00Dr.	A. R. Taylor	.... 333.33Dr.	F. C. A. Wal.on....	.... 333.33Dr.	W. A. Groves	.... 333.33Dr.	L. T. Ainley	.... 333.33Dr.	P. G. Bell	.... 300.00Dr.	W. H. Secord	.... 300.00Dr.	J. R. W. Nicholson	.... 300.00Dr.	F. A. Young	.... 300.00Dr.	J. T. Wright	.... 275.00Dr.	J. T. Sterling	.... 250.00Dr.	R. W. Anderson....	.... 250.00Dr.	G. S. Williams	.... 250.00Dr.	C. F. Wheaton	.... 250.00Dr.	W. Creighton	.... 250 00Dr.	W. L. Mann	.-... 200.00*Dr.	J. D. Adamson	.... 200.00*Dr.	W. F. Day 	. ... 300.00*Dr.	W. A. Gardnei	.... 300.00*Dr.	D. F. MacIntyre....	.... 200.00*Dr.	J. A. Gunn	.... 200.00*Dr.	H. M. Cameion....	.... 150.00*
Part-time services.
ADULTERATION OF MILL FEEDS Mr. EVANS:
1. Is it the intention of the government to enforce the bill for the prevention of the adulteration of bran, shorts and other mill feeds?
Hon. Mr. COPP.
2. If not, why?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


INCOME TAX, 1922
Hon. Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What was the total amount of Income Tax collected for the year 1922?
2.	What was the total cost of collecting same?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Business profits war tax, $22,815,666.58; income war tax, $78,684,354.80; total $101,500,021.38.
2.	(Including bonus) $2,277,349.78.
The cost of collection covers the administration of The Business Profits War Tax Act and The Income War Tax Act, as both acts were administered by the same employees.


R.C.M.P. AND MEETINGS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Were members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police present at a labour meeting at Nanaimo, September 16th, 1923?
2.	Is it the policy of the government to use the police to report on the activities of the labour organizations?
3.	Is it the policy of the government to use public funds and public officials to report the meetings of the other political parties represented in this House?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The minister is informed that two members of the force attended a public meeting on that date.
2.	No.
3.	No.


SUBSIDIES TO SHIPYARDS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What number of shipyards are receiving subsidies from the government?
2.	What are the names of these shipyards?
3.	What amount of subsidy is paid to each?
4.	Under what conditions are these subsidies paid?

Questions


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	None.
2,	3 & 4. Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	How many boats of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are now in service?
2.	How many have been sold?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Thirty-eight.
2.	Four.


STEEL PLATE MILLS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What assistance, if any, has the government given in establishing mills in Canada for the production of steel plates for ships?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: No assistance by the present government.


CAMPBELLO-ST. ANDREWS MAIL
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	Why was the contract with James R. Brown for carrying mail between Campbello, Deer Island and St. Andrews, cancelled?
2.	By whom is the service now performed and what is the difference in cost?
3.	What tenders were received for the new contraci and at what figures?
4.	What additional contracts have been let to cover, in part or in whole, the work performed by Mr. Brown and what is the cost of same and by whom is the work being done?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) (For the Postmaster General):: 1.	Representations having been made that the mail routes in that district could be rearranged to give a more efficient service at a lower cost to the department, public tenders were invited to ascertain cost with the result that offers were received which made it possible to put an improved service into effect at a saving of S170 per annum. In accordance with the terms of his contract Mr. James R. Brown was then given three months' notice of its cancellation.
2 and 4. The establishment of the improved service necessitated the supersession of the services between (1) St. Andrews and'Wilson's Beach, performed by J. R. Brown at a cost of $4,800 per annum; (2) Fairhaven and Lam-bertville, performed by A. H. Lambert at a cost of $1,070 per annum'; total $5,870 per annum; by the following services: (a) Lord's Cove and St. Andrews, performed by Messrs. Calder and Newman at a cost of $5,300 per annum; (b) Lambertville and Lord's Cove performed by L. Lambert at a cost of $200 per annum; (c) Chocolate Cove and Cummings Cove performed by A. C. Fountain at a cost of $200 per annum; total, $5,700 per annum.
3.	(a) Lord's Cove and St. Andrews-Tenders received: Herbert Calder and Arthur W. Newman, Wilson's Beach, $5,300 per annum; Foster G. Calder and Frank W. Farris, Fair-haven, $5,700 per annum; James Haddon, Lord's Cove, $9,000 per annum; Harvey Johnston, Campobello, $9,100 per annum; (b) Lambertville and Lord's Cove, only tender received, L. Lambert, $200 per annum; (c) Chocolate Cove and Cummings Cove, only tender received, A. C. Fountain, $200 per annum.


RITCEY BROTHERS, RIVERPORT
Mr. LADNER:: How much money, if any, has been paid to the firm of Ritcey Brothers of Riverport, Lunenburg County, in the years 1922 and 1923, by the Department of Public Works and for what services?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the Fiscal Year 1922-23, $5,850.08 was paid for coal for Dredge No. 5.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS -VANCOUVER
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	Under what arrangement is the Canadian National Railway operating over the Great Northern Railway tracks between New Westminister and Vancouver ?
2.	Is it proposed that such arrangement shall be permanent or are steps being taken to provide the Canadian National with its own right of way into Vancouver?


James Alexander Robb: (For the Minister of Railways and Canals):
1.	The arrangement is by running rights over the Great Northern tracks between the north end of the bridge over the Fraser river, at New Westminster and the Canadian National property at False creek, Vancouver.
2.	No decision has been reached as to this by the management.
ACADIA CONTRACTORS, LIMITED Mr. LADNER:
How much money, if any, was paid by the government to the Acadia Contractors, Limited, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, during the years 1922 and 1923, for dredging at Lunenburg harbour, by their dredge, the New Brunswick?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: $37,480.76 was expended in the summer of 1923. No expenditure in 1922.


BELLEISLE CREEK POST OFFICE
Mr. JONES:: 1.	When and for what reason was the location of the Post Office at Belleisle Creek, King's County, changed?
2.	How far is the new Post Office distant from the old one?
3.	What difference in cost is there between the service from the Railway station to the old Post Office and to the new Post Office?
Questions

4.	What difference in cost is there between the Rural Route numbers one, two and three, serving the old Post Office and serving the new one?
5.	Was James McCreary, a returned soldier, an applicant for the position of Postmaster?
6.	Why was McCreary not appointed?
7.	Who was appointed to the new Post Office and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
8.	Were any letters or other communications received by the Department in connection with this Post Office from the Prime Minister and Dr. D. H. Mo-Allister, Liberal candidate at the last general election?
9.	If so, what are the dates of these letters and what requests were made by the respective writers?


Charles A. Stewart: (For
Postmaster General)..
1.	Vacancy in office due to death of postmaster on 1st of August, 1923.
2.	2/5 miles.
3.	Temporary arrangement at extra cost of S215 per annum. Tenders invited.
4.	Rural route No. 1, increase 22.14 per annum, rural route No. 2, increase $24.16 per annum, rural route No. 3, not affected.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) Office would not be conducted by Mr. McCreary; (b) District Superintendent's report states Mr. McCreary's location would not be favourable to postal patrons; (c) Not sufficient room in private residence for sorta-tion of mails and separations for rural routes; (d) Location offered by person appointed by Civil Service Commission more central than that offered by McCreary; (e) McCreary had no post office experience whereas the person selected had two years' post office experience.
7.	Miss Florence McAfee, appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
8.	From Prime Minister, no. From Dr. D. H. McAllister, yes.
9.	August 13, 1923, suggesting the appointment of Miss McAfee; November 14, 1923, recommending the appointment of Miss McAfee.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION EXPENDITURE Mr. BOURASSA:
What was the total expenditure of the Civil Service Commission for the years 1911, 1922 and 1923, respectively?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Fiscal year 1910-11-Civil Government salary, $17,850.00; contingencies, $13,495.32; total, $31,345.32.
Fiscal year 1921-22-Civil Government salary, $178,264.61; contingencies, $123,657.09; total, $301,921.70.
Classification arrears 1919-20, 1920-21, $5,007.54; bonus allowance, $35,553.08; total, $40,560.62.

Fiscal year 1922-23-Civil Government salary, $200,219.84; coniingencies, $67,607.07; total, $267,826.91.
Bonus allowance $16,233.52.
WELLAND CANAL CONTRACTS Mr. MILLAR:
1.	What contracts, if any, entered into by this government, or its predecessor, for the construction of the new Welland Canal or any section thereof have been cancelled, and for what reason?
2.	At what point or points, and for what sums of money has this government contracted for the erection of government elevators since last prorogation of parliament ?


Hon. Mr. COPP (for the Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	No contracts for the construction of the Welland Ship Canal were cancelled; four were abandoned under agreement of surrender in the spring of 1918 when work was closed down because of the war. Following the war the work was resumed for a time on a cost plus basis. This was followed by consolidation of certain of the sections and a return to a contract basis.
2.	On October 19th, 1923, a contract was entered into by the Department of Railways and Canals for the construction of a million bushel storage annex to the Port Colborne elevator with E. G. Cape & Co., of Montreal, the contract price being $376,000.


NORTH ARM, EXPENDITURE
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	What amounts of money have been spent by the government of Canada during each fiscal year, on the North Arm of the Fraser river from the gulf of Georgia to the city of New Westminster, from the year 1911 to date, showing separately the amounts spent in dredging and the amounts spent otherwise?
2.	On what date, or in what month and year was dredging last done on the North Arm of the Fraser river between the Fraser Avenue Bridge and the mouth of the said North Arm, and what was the cost of the same?
3.	Is dredging work now being done on the North Arm of the Fraser river, and if not, when does the Department of Public Works expect the same to start?
4.	Has the Minister of Public Works or his department received any requests, and if so, from whom, regarding the necessity of certain dredging to clear out sand bars or other obstructions on the North Arm of the Fraser river which actually interferes with exist-ting traffic?
5.	Was an appropriation for dredging on the North Arm of the Fraser river made during the last Session of the House bf Commons? If so, how much was the appropriation ?
0.	Has any portion of the appropriation been expended on the North Arm of the Fraser river?
7.	If so, how much, on what dates and what was the nature of works done?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Questions
1.-Fiscal Year	Dredging
1911-	12	$61,938.821912-	13	
18,375.661913-	14	
89,551.691914-	15	
152,254.26
312,962.44*
1915-	16	 226,540.90
139203.72*
1916-	17	
183,127.131917-	18	
87,608.781918-	19	
55,274.351919-	20	
73,431.29
4,714.00t
1920-	21	
112,106.861921-	22	
31,574.851922-	23	
23,605.261923-	24	
55,920.63
*On construction of jetty.
tOn Geodetic Survey by Interior department.
2.	Dredging done between December 25th, 1922 and June 8th, 1P23. Cost, $20,041.24.
3.	No. As soon as 'he urgent work in the main river channel is completed.
4.	Yes. From the joint committee of the reeves, members of the councils and presidents of the Boards of Trade of Point Grey, South Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond municipalities.
5.	No special appropriation, expenditure charged to general vote-Dredging-British Columbia.
6 & 7. $55,920.63 is the approximate cost of operation of departmental dredge on this *work, chargeable to the general dredging vote for British Columbia: April 9-14, 1923; April 24-July 4, 1923; redredging channel to depth of 10 feet at low water and width of 150 feet.


ANNIEVILI.E BAR DREDGING ,
Leon Johnson Ladner: Has dredging been done lately at the Annieville Bar or near Port Mann, or both, and is the same completed ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Port
Mann completed, Annieville Bar under way.


B.C. FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. McQUARRIE:: Is it the intention of the government to give effect to the recommendations contained in paragraphs 10, 14, 15, 18 and 25 of the Report of the British Columbia Fisheries Commission, 1922?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Re paragraph 10, it was found after consultation with the Department of Justice that the difficulty could be removed without legislation. This has been done.
Re paragraph 14, special life saving arrangements have been in operation throughout the winter.
Re paragraph 15, no restrictions are placed on the catching of dogfish, and their capture is encouraged; but it has not been decided to pay a bounty for their capture.
Re paragraph 18, matter has been referred to the Biological Board for consideration.
Re paragraph 25, legislation for reorganizing the Biological Board was procured last session, and the Board has been reorganized accordingly.
DARTMOUTH PIER SITE Mr. BLACK (Halifax):
1.	From whom was the site purchased for the pier at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the price paid for said site?
3.	What is the size of said site?
4.	How much money was voted at the last session
of parliament for the Dartmouth pier ?	^
5.	Who had the contract for the said pier?
6.	What is the contract price?
7.	Is there any dredging to be done in connection with said Dartmouth pier?
8.	If so, has the dredging been awarded, and to whom?
9.	What is the estimated cost of said dredging?
10.	Will the money voted last session complete the pier?
11.	Will it pay for the site, pier and dredging?
12.	Has the government any waterfront property in Dartmouth near or adjoining the site selected for the Dartmouth pier which would have been available for the purpose without buying the site selected?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Messrs. Beazley Brothers.
2.	Price agreed upon is $6,802.
3.	2,464 square feet of land and 27,850 square feet of land covered by water.
4.	$75,000.
5.	The Halifax Dredging Company, Limited, and The Standard Construction Company, Limited.
6.	It is a unit price contract estimated at approximately $135,659.64.
7.	8 and 9. No.
10.	No.	.
11.	No.
12.	No.
MOSER'S RIVER WHARF Mr. BLACK (Halifax):
1.	In what year was the Government Wharf at Moser's River, Halifax County, constructed?
2.	Are there any buildings or building owned or controlled by the government on or near such wharf T
3.	Is there a wharfinger in charge of said wharf?
4.	If so, what is his name?
5.	Does he carry on any business there?
6.	If so, what premises does he occupy?
7.	What rental does he pay?
8.	Has the occupant the exclusive right to the property?
9.	What amount is paid to the wharfinger annually for salary?
Questions

10.	What revenue has been earned by this wharf and premises during the years 1922 and 1923?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	In the fiscal years 1902-04.
2.	Yes-two sheds.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	6, 7 and 8. District Engineer Locke states that these sheds are being used without permission by Mr. David J. Turner for fishing purposes.
9.	None.
10.	None.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HALIFAX COUNTY
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Was a railway siding constructed by the Canadian National Railways with or without the approval of government, in 1921, in or near Queensland or Hubbards, in the county of Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, at what date was the work of construction commenced, and at what date was it finished?
3.	What is the length of the siding, and what was the cost of it?
4.	Is the cost of the siding a public charge in whole or in part? What proportion of cost does the public bear?


Hon. Mr. ROBB (For the Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	No.
2,	3, and 4 answered by No. 1.


REPORTED LOSSES ON EXCHANGE
Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Is it a fact that through some carelessness in the Finance Department during the war, that Canada will lose twenty-four million dollars in exchanges?


James Alexander Robb: The hon. Imember's
question is answered in the negative.
In the settlement of financial matters between the Imperial and Canadian Governments, the question arose as to the rate at which sterling advances to Canada in London would be credited against the Imperial Government s indebtedness to Canada in dollars. Canada advanced a claim based upon the current rate of exchange. The Imperial Treasury officials resisted this. They con-.ended that certain ''sot-oil's''' under which by agreement the book debts had been reduced at intervals by wiping off certain amounts of sterling advances against an equivalent amount of dollar advances, were to be regarded as finally settled at the par rate of exchange. They further pointed out that it would have been quite beyond the contemplation of the Treasury to have incurred such a heavy exchange charge, and that the alternative would be to consider the total Canadian advances as a debt to be settled by Britain in dollars when that could be done

or when exchange reached par. Negotiations having resulted in failure to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides, a friendly arbitration was arranged for by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) with Rt. Hon. Mr. Asquith as arbitrator, the result of which, namely the award to Canada of $8,199,333 by way of exchange, was announced to the House last session.
CANADA'S WAR EXPENDITURE Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):
1.	What amounts are due to Canada by Great Britain on war account and what amounts, if any, have been paid on same, and how are they classified?
2.	What amounts are due Canada by other countries on war account?
3.	What are the names of each country, the amounts due and payments made, if any?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1. $66,880,496.35 at February 28, 1924. according to the books of the Department of Finance. Credits to the account include the numerous charges and advances, during the war period and thereafter, arising from the financing by Great Britain of Canada's commitments overseas, other amounts determined to be due the Imperial Government by Canada in the adjustment of war accounts and cash payments in dollars, which since April, 1922, have amounted to $62,000,000 on account of principal.
2 and 3. Debts of Foreign Countries: Belgium, $6,709,874; France, $5,730,000; Greece, $8,174,274; Roumania, $23,969,720; Russia, $55,571.


SCRIBE HOTEL, PARIS
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: With reference to the Scribe Hotel in Paris, the Honourable the Minister of Railways advised the House on June 7, 1923, as follows:
" A syndicate has been formed to take it over. A gentleman is leaving New York, I think on the 15th of June, to conclude the details."
1.	What are the names and addresses of the men who compose this syndicate, and of the gentleman referred to as leaving New York?
2.	What was the total amount paid by, or on account of, the Canadian National Railways for the Scribe Hotel?
3.	What was the total amount paid by the syndicate for the Scribe Hotel?


James Alexander Robb: 
IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION EXPENDITURE
Mr. CHURCH:: What was the amount spent by the Department of Immigration and Colonization during the past four years:
(a)	In	promoting	immigration	from	the	British
Isles;
(b)	In	promoting	immigration	from	the	United
States of America;
(c)	In promoting immigration from the continent of Europe ?


James Alexander Robb: (a)	British Isles. 1920-21, $423,562.92; 192122, 8302,373.04; 1922-23, $332,610.09; April 1, 1923 to January 31, 1924, $362,278.01; total, $1,420,824.06.
(b)	United States, 1920-21, $456,870.41; 192122, $419,956,02; 1922-23, $525,363.90; April 1, 1923 to January 31, 1924, $428,488.99; total, $1,830,680.22.
(c)	Continent of Europe,1920-21, nil, 192122, nil, 1922-23, $51,353.54; April 1, 1923 to January 31, 1924, $78,500.21; total $129,853.75.


SOLDIERS' BONUS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to continue the present rate of pensions paid to soldiers, and will the existing bonus paid to soldiers to next September be continued?
2.	Is it intended to this year turn the said bonus into straight pension?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Legislation will be introduced in due course providing for the extension of the pension bonus.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ESTIMATES FOR 1925
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Is it true that a serious mistake was made in the preparation of the estimates for the fiscal year 1925?
2.	If so, does this mistake involve the compulsory reduction in salary for several permanent statistical clerks during the fiscal year 1925?
3.	What steps have been taken to rectify this mistake?
4.	Who was the official responsible for this mistake?
5.	Has any disciplinary action been taken with regard to this official?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is clearly an error in this question. It is worded: "Is it true that a serious mistake was made in the preparation of the estimates for the fiscal year 1925?" These estimates will be presented to parliament this afternoon.


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	Has any progress been made in the promised negotiations with representatives of Japan in regard to more effective restriction of Japanese immigration.
2.	Has any arrangement been arrived at? If so, what
are the details?	,
3.	Is it proposed to modify the existing 'Gentleman s Agreement' between Canada and Japan?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to request the Imperial Government to abrogate the Japanese Treaty in so far as Canada is concerned?
Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING.
I think this question will be found answered, in so far as it is advisable to answer it, by the correspondence I placed on the table a few minutes ago.


CRIMINALS PAROLED
Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1 Haw many criminals have been paroled or pardoned since the election of the present Solicttor General on October 24, 1923?
2.	What are their names, where were they sentenced, and when paroled or pardoned?
3.	What was length of each sentence?
4.	How much of each sentence has been served?


Hon. Mr. McMURRAY:: Some explanation is due with regard to this question. The number of criminals paroled by pardon under the present system is 663. Quite a number of these deal with the remission of fines m liquor cases. As to the other questions asked by the hon. member, I do not think they should be answered. It has been the practice of Ministers of Justice in the past not to answer questions of this kind, and if my hon. friend desires authority on that point I would refer him to Todd's Parliamentary Government, page 651.


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: I just submit at the moment that what is subject to the confidential reservation are the reports whch come from the judges, wardens and the like, and certain correspondence of that character.


Mr McMURRAY:: I may say to the right hon. gentleman that Todd's Parliamentary Government lays it down as sound practice that the question of clemency is one of the high prerogatives of the Crown resting purely with the cabinet. Of course, it is obvious why the particulars should not be given in this case. Everyone will realize that it is hardly fail to a criminal under ticket of leave that he and his relatives should be exposed again to the country by putting these particulars on Hansard.
Questions


DR. J. P. MALLOY
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Is Dr. J. P. Malloy of Morris, Manitoba, employed by the government or any department thereof?
2.	If so, in what department and at what salary or compensation?
3.	When was he appointed, and upon whose recommendation ?
4.	Was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission?
5.	If not, under what authority was he appointed?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Department of Immigration and Colonization; $200 per month plus expenses for a period not to exceed three months.
3.	December 26, 1923, upon the recommendation of the Minister.
4.	Appointed under Section 23 (4) of the Civil Service Act, 1918 as amended.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL Mr. CASGRAIN:
1. Is the government aware that the government of the United States intends turning the Chicago Sanitary Canal into a canal to connect the Great Lakes to the Mississippi?
2. Is the government aware that such a project would tend to lower the level of the St. Lawrence waterway ?
3.	Has there been any correspondence exchanged between the governments of Canada and the United States on this subject?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The Government of Canada is aware that there are several bills before Congress for appropriations to build a nine-foot waterway from the west end of the Chicago Sanitary District canal to the Mississippi river, but, until appropriations are made, work cannot be started.
2.	Yes.
3.	In connection with this waterway Canada has filed objections to any diversion of water from the Great lakes.
FEDERAL APPEAL BOARD Hon. Mr. MANION:
1.	How many final decisions have been given by a quorum of the Federal Appeal Board?
2.	Does the claimant receive a copy of the final judgment signed by the respective members of the quorum outlining its reasons for allowing or disallowing the appeal?
3.	If not, is this final judgment with reasons for the decision signed by the individual members of the quorum and placed on the man's file where it can be seen by the man or his representative?
4.	Will the Minister furnish a copy of the final judgments to date, outlining the reasons for the decision and signed by the respective members of the quorum of the Federal Appeal Board in the cases where the claim of the man was rejected and the decision of the Board of Pension Commissioners and Soldiers Civil Re-establishment upheld?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Twenty-nine.
2.	P.C. 212, February 8th, 1924 provides in clause 3 (e) that the formal judgment shall be signed by the Chairman or presiding Commissioner and the Secretary of the Board. Such judgment may or may not contain reasons for allowing or disallowing the appeal. The claimant receives a copy of the judgment.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes, if a motion is placed on the Order Paper for the production of papers and providing that the judgments do not contain personal information of a confidential nature,, which would be prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.
PENSION APPEAL CASES Mr. JONES:
1.	What is the total amount of pension paid up. to March 15, 1924, inclusive, by the Board of Pension Commissioners on all appeal cases where their decisions have been reversed by the Federal Appeal' Board ?
2.	What is the total amount of pension up to March 18th, 1924, inclusive which would have been paid by the Board of Pension Commissioners on all appeal cases, if the final decision of the Federal Appeal Board had been in favour of the claimant instead of upholding the decision of the Board of Pension Commissioners ?
3.	What are the names, salaries, and hours per day devoted to duties of the Soldiers Advisers appointed' under the amended legislation of 1923?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	$7,402.24.
2.	Information not available. The pension payable in any case is determined only after assessment of the disability by the Board of Pension Commissioners upon receipt of a decision of the Federal Appeal Board in
favour of a claimant.
3. (a) Name	Monthly Salary
Askwith, Chas., Ottawa	$150 00
Boudreau, C. H., St. John, N.B., .. 150 00
Bowler, J.	R.,	Winnipeg, Man	
300	00Conroy, J.	V.,	Toronto, Ont	
300	00Fremlin, E., London, Ont	
200 00Hamilton, H. F., Halifax, N.S	
200 00
Johnson, H. D., Charlottetown, P.E.I. 100 00
Locke, V. J., Montreal, Que	 300 00
MacKenzie, I., Vancouver, B.C	 250 00
Petley, S. G., Calgary, Alta	 200 00
Pettigrew, A., Quebec, Que	 125 00
Rowan, F.	J.,	Regina, Sask	
150	00Sedger, G.	H.,	Victoria, B.C	
200	00
(b) Soldiers' Advisers are employed on a part-time basis, their hours are not fixed but are regulated by demands made upon them by claimants.

Questions


INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENTS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: Have the Canadian Manufacturers submitted to the .government, a report showing what the different industries of the country need for their establishment, maintenance, progress and development?


James Alexander Robb: A deputation from the Canadian Manufacturers Association presented to the government on February 23, 1922, statements of its recommendations on such subjects as the French Treaty, Canadian customs appraisal of depreciated currencies, anti-dumping legislation, marking of country of origin on imported goods, taxation, preferential tariff-Australia and Canada-and other subjects relating to trade and commerce.
CANADIAN REPARATION CLAIMS Mr. KNOX:
1.	Who is in charge of the Canadian Reparation Claims for loss by submarine warfare?
2.	What salary is paid to him for work in this capacity ?
3.	What is the total cost of this work to date?
4.	How many claims have already been made?
5.	On how many of these has a decision been reached ?
6.	Have any claims been paid? If so, how many and what is the total amount?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	The Honourable William Pugsley, K.C., LL.D. was appointed by Order-in-Council (P. C. 165) dated 13th March, 1923, under the provisions of Part I of the Inquiries Act, Chapter 104 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, and Amending Act, Chapter 28, 2 George V., a Commission for the purpose of determining whether cla ms by Canadians for reparation come within the categories referred to in the First Annex to Section 1 of Part VIII of the Treaty of Versailles, and the fair amount of such claims, and to make such findings as may be of assistance to the government in determining which, if any of such claims should be paid and the extent of payment thereof.
2.	89,000 per annum.
3.	$21,813.77 (29th February, 1924).
4.	1143 claims have been filed1 to the value of $42,260,664.83.
5.	No report has been made in any one case, although 431 cliims to the value of $28,075,559.49 have been heard.
6.	No.


EMPIRE CABLE INTERESTS
Mr. NEILL:: 1. What are the respective interests in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific Cable?
2.	What representatives has Canada on the Pacific Cable Board, what are their names and how were they appointed?
3.	Is it a fact that telegraphers appointed by the Board are obtained only in either Britain or Australia?
4.	Is the government disposed to make representations to the Board, looking to a just proportion of the appointments being allotted to Canadian citizens, preferably returned men ?
5.	Will the government advise their representatives on the Board to object to Orientals being employed at the cable stations in Canada?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Great Britain five-eighteenths; Canada, five-eighteenths; Australia, six-eighteenths; and New Zealand, twr-eighteenths.
2.	Lucien T. Pacaad and Sir Campbell Stuart, K.B.E. appointed by the Governor in Council.
3.	It is understood that Canadians have been appointed to the staff and that applications from Canadians lor appointments are considered by the board
4.	The question will l e referred to the Canadian members of the board with a request that they make representations for a just proportion of the appointments being allocated to Canadians, preferably returned men.
5.	This matter will s milarly be referred to the Canadian members of the board.


NET DEBT OF CANADA
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	What was the net debt of Canada at the end of the following fiscal years: 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?
2.	What was the amount of the net debt on March 15th, 1924?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Net Debt of Canada
1919		$1,574,531,032.44
1920		 2,248,868.623.79
1921		 2,340,878,983.69
1922		 2,422,135,801.73
1923		 2,453,776,868.74
2. As shown by the books at February 29, 1924, the date of the last balance sheet, $2,410,162,174.71.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
FORT OSBORNE BARRACKS Mr. WOODSWORTH:
1.	What are the terms of the contract for cartage for the Fort Osborne Barracks, Military District No. 10, Winnipeg?
2.	What is the name and address of the contractor?
3.	For what term is the contract?
4.	What is the rate per hour for half, one, one and a half, two and three ton motor trucks, and what is the rate per hour for teams?
Questions as Returns

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What was the total number of employees on pay or allowance connected with the Department of Agriculture on January 1st of each of the years from and including the year 1914 to the year 1924?
2.	What was the amount paid out or due in pay or allowance to said employees on the dates and years as above?


SOULANGES CANAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. OUIMET:: 1.	What are the names, ranks, occupations, ages, date of appointment, addresses of the employees of the Soulanges Canal, and where are they employed?
2.	What are the names of the candidates who applied for each of the positions vacated in the above service, and who recommended those who were appointed to fill said vacancies? *
3.	In what localities were notices posted for application to said positions filled since January, 1921?
4.	WTho posted the said requests for applications?


FEDERAL APPEAL BOARD
Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the Federal Appeal Board, and the date of their appointment?
2.	Were the expenses for moving household effects of the members of the Federal Appeal Board paid by the government?
3.	If so, what were the amounts of these expenses for each respective member?
4.	What is the amount of travelling allowances per day of the members of the said Board?
5.	What are the names, salaries and duties of the personnel on the staff of the said Board?
6.	What is the total expenditure for the members of the board and their staff, from the date of appointment to March 15th, 1924, inclusive. This expenditure to include salaries of the members of the staff, office rent, office furniture, heat, light, travelling expenses, railway warrants, and personal equipment?


Mr. BOWEN:: 1.	What are (a) the dates of each and every trip of
each respective member of the Federal Appeal Board; (b) the names of the cities and towns travelled to on each trip; (c) the commissioner's and secretarial staff's travelling expenses on each trip; and (d) the names and regimental numbers of the soldiers whose appeals were heard on each trip?
2.	What are the total travelling expenses of each' respective member of the said Federal Appeal Board from the date of appointment to March 15, 1924, inclusive?
3.	What is the number of appeal cases heard by each of said commissioners ?
4.	How many cases (a) have been heard by one man
Doard; and (b) how many decisions of the Board of Pension Commissioners and Soldiers Civil Re-establishment have been reversed by a one man board?
5.	How many of the decisions of the one man boards have been re-appealed by the applicants, the Board of Pension Commissioners or the Soldiers Civil Re-establishment ?


DUTY COLLECTED ON SKINS
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1. What are the respective quantities, values and amount of duty collected, on the importations* of calf and cattle skins, also the quantity and value of calf

and cattle skins exported from Canada during the years ending March 31, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?
2.	What are the respective quantities, values and duty collected on eggs imported, also the quantity and value of eggs exported from Canada, during the-years ending March 31, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?
3.	What are the respective quantities, values and duty collected on butter imported during the years above mentioned, also the quantity and value of butter exported ?
4.	What are the respective quantities, values and duty collected on the imports of pork and pork products such as fresh, salted and cured bacon and hams, lard, etc., also the exports of same for the years 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?
5.	What are the respective quantities, value and duty collected on imports of oleomargarine for the years 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?
6.	What are the respective quantities, values and duty collected on imports of material used in the manufacture of oleomargarine for 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?
7.	What are the quantities and values of the exports of oleomargarine for the years 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?
^ Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING: Stand as an order for return.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: It ought to be easy to secure the answer to this question in the course of an hour or two in the department affected.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Of course, there is a rule
of the House which gives the government the privilege of answering a question by bringing down the information in the form of a return. This applies in the case of questions involving long answers.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. STEEDSMAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, agreements and other documents, exchanged between any person or persons, or corporations, or banks, and the Department of Finance or any other department of the government, relating to the responsibility and liability of the banks in holding or keeping Victory Bonds issued in favor of private individuals or coporations.


GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Mr. HANSON:: For a return showing in detail,-(a) A list of all the parties sent out by the Geological Survey in the year 1923; (b) The names of the Chief of each party;
(c) The District to which each party was assigned;
(d) The names and home addresses of all temporary field assistants; (e) The names of the Universities from which such assistants came; (f) The undergraduate year of each of such assistants; (g) The name and year of graduation and name of each university of each graduate in each party; (h) The special qualifications of each of such assistants; (i) The remuneration and travelling expenses of each.


CEDARS LIGHT
Mr. JONES:: For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, relating to the appointment of Light Keeper for the Cedars Light, St. John River, Parish of Kingston, King's County, New Brunswick.

Unopposed Motions


BELLEISLE CREEK POST OFFICE
George Burpee Jones: For a return giving a copy of all correspondence, memoranda and other documents relating to the closing of the post office at Belleisle Creek, King's County, and the opening of a new post office in its stead; and including all information in the possession of the department as to the cost occasioned thereby; also for copy of all correspondence, tenders and other documents in connection with Rural Routes numbers one, two and three, in relation to the closing of the old post office and the opening of the new; and of all correspondence and other records in connection with the appointment of a postmaster at Belleisle Creek.


R. DENORAN, YORKTON
Mr. CAMPBELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and other documents in the possession of the government in connection with a claim held by the government against R. Denoran, of Yorkton, Sask., which claim covers a number of fines collected by him in his capacity as a Justice of the Peace in the province of Saskatchewan.


COAL LEASE 2241
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents referring to coal lease 2241, and all correspondence between J. H. Thornton and the Department of Interior in reference thereto.


KENTVILLE HALIFAX SERVICE
Mr. MARTELL:: For a copy of all minutes of evidence, documentary evidence, applications, letters, judgments, orders for judgments, arguments of Counsel, and other documents relating or in anywise appertaining to the application to the Railway Commission of Canada by the Dominion Atlantic Railway for leave to reduce railway train services between Kentville and Halifax in the Province of Nova Scotia, and in connection with the hearing of said application in February, 194, by said Board of Railway Commissioners.


YUKON COUNCIL
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a copy of all correspondence between any officials of the Department of Interior, and all other correspondence in possession of the government, concerning the sessional indemnity of members of the Yukon Council, such correspondence being dated since January 1st, 1922.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER POWER
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, applications, agreements, letters and other documents exchanged between the government of Ontario and the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario and the government of Canada, relating to the construction of a power dam on the St. Lawrence River near the town of Morrisburg for the generation of electric power for the use of the people of the eastern part of the Province of Ontario.


EMBARGO ON PULPWOOD
Richard Burpee Hanson: For a copy of all Orders in Council passed since the last session of Parliament relating to the question of an embargo on pulp wood, and of all correspondence,
telegrams or other documents relating thereto, exchanged between the government of Canada or any member thereof and any person, firm, company or corporation, including the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association or the American Pulp and Paper Association.


J. B. LEVESQUE
Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and J. Bte. Levesque of Trois Pistoles, Quebec, during the year 1923, and also correspondence between the government and any department of the government of Quebec with respect to the said Levesque.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY ACT-REGULATIONS
Murray MacLaren: For a copy of all regulations and conditions passed by the Governor in Council under Section 11, Chapter 13 of the Statutes of 1919, being The Canadian National Railway Act, since the 21st of February, 1923.


DIVERSION OF WATER FROM GREAT LAKES
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, protests, letters, resolutions and other documents exchanged between the government and any person or persons or organizations, or Provincial governments or other public bodies in Canada, protesting against the illegal diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes by the Chicago Drainage Commission and of any and all correspondence with the government of the United States, the International Joint Commission or others on the subject.


CANADIAN NORTHERN BRANCH LINES, ONTARIO
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all papers, letters, contracts, estimates and agreements, telegrams, and all other documents (including the cost of construction) and relating to the abandonment of the C.N.R. line between Orono and Cherrywood and the electrification of the line between Bowmanville and Pickering and for the construction of a. national railway between Bowmanville and Oshawa and also between Pickering and Cherrywood joining the C.N.R. at that point, including all reports of the engineers, officials, and other experts of the Canadian National Railways recommending such a duplication of railways and the abandonment of the original C.N.R. line throug Durham and Ontario counties, and of all petitions and other correspondence opposing this duplication and paralleling of existing line.


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: There is no objection to bringing down correspondence and petitions, and so forth, concerning this situation, but it is deemed to be inadvisable and not. in the public interest at the present time, owing to certain negotiations that are in progress, to bring down estimates, agreements, contracts, and so forth.. I would therefore ask my hon. friend not to press his motion except as amended.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend would
consult with me I can point out to him that
St. Lawrence Waterway

portion of the motion that should be stricken out in the public interest. To the balance of the motion we would have no objection. We will let the matter rest until to-morrow on that understanding.
Motion stands.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and that of the United States regarding the carrying out of the joint international report relating to the St. Lawrence Waterway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think all this correspondence has already been brought down. The first of it was tabled last session, and two or three days ago, I laid on the Table the correspondence that has since taken place. I think my hon. friend will find that the correspondence is all down.


Thomas Langton Church: I think the House is entitled to the correspondence which has taken place between the two governments. The last time a motion for the production of papers on this question was before the House, the Prime Minister brought down two or three letters only referring to the most economic problem before the country. In the dying days of last session the government were asked for the correspondence showing what had been done up to that time, and the reply was made that the time was not opportune to produce it. During the parliamentary recess there must have been considerable correspondence between the two governments on this very important question, and I think the House is entitled to have the information as far as it is possible to obtain it.


Hewitt Bostock: No debate, of course,
can take place on this motion. I understand from the answer given by the Prime Minister that the papers asked for have already been laid on the Table.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that the motion be allowed to pass. Even if it involves repetition no harm will result.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
the. slightest objection to the passing of the motion. I simply wish to make it clear that the request has already been met.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
MAIN ESTIMATES FOR 1924-25 A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the year ending March 31, 1925, was presented by Hon. J. A. Robb, (Acting Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned a day or two ago that when the estimates were brought down hon. members would be able to see the intention of the government with respect to the bonus to be given to civil servants. The relevant item will be found on page 61, of the estimates just tabled, under "Miscellaneous", it is item 363, and reads-
Provisional bonus allowance for the inside and outside services of the Civil Service, to be paid to such persons and classes of persons, in such amounts and at such times as the Governor in Council may determine : $3,800,000.
That is $1,700,000 less than the amount which this House voted at the last session for bonus to be paid civil servants in addition to their salaries. The government did not feel, in view of the retrenchment which they are finding it necessary to make and seeking to make, that they would be justified in longer continuing the bonus to members of the Civil Service who are unmarried, and who have no one dependent on them. On the other hand, with respect to members of the service who are married, or unmarried members of the service who have one or more persons dependent on them, it was represented to the government very strongly from many quarters, that to withdraw the bonus in their case pending a revision of civil service salaries might work a considerable hardship. This aspect of the matter was brought to the attention of the government more particularly by the hon. members for Ottawa who, perhaps, more than any other members of the House, are familiar with the circumstances of many members of the Civil Service, and the government have taken carefully into consideration such representations as they and others have made.
With respect to members of the Civil Service other than those who are unmarried and have no one dependent on them, the government proposes, as respects all such as are receiving a salary of $1,200 and tfnder, to continue the bonus at the rate at which it was continued last year. With respect to members in the service receiving a salary of over $1,200 and up to $1,560 inclusive, the government proposes to continue the bonus at the rate of two-thirds of the amount which is being paid at the present time. To those receiving over $1,560 and up to $1,800 inclusive, one-third of the present bonus will be continued. In other cases the bonus will be discontinued.
I should mention as related to this matter of the bonus that the government intends to have an immediate revision made of the sal-

Civil Service Bonus
aries of the Civil Service. It is our intention to ask the Civil Service Commission to undertake this work in conjunction with the deputy heads of the government departments and the Audit Board which has been appointed under legislation enacted last session, they will be asked to report to the government what, in their opinion, should be done by way of revision of the salaries of the civil servants. When the report is received, the government will take such action on its recommendations as in the circumstances appear to be warranted and justifiable. I should say also, in connection with this revision of salaries, that the government will seek to have provision made whereby the members of the Civil Service themselves, through their representatives, may appear before the commission and be taken into conference in the matter.
There is a feature that perhaps it is well to mention namely that at the time the bonus was added to the salaries of the Civil Service, there was a great deal of unemployment throughout the country. It was very difficult for persons to obtain ready admission into other employment, should they leave the service. Conditions in that particular have considerably improved. There is the further fact that from the time the bonus was first given, there have been in the case of most of those who are permanent in the service, statutory increases, year by year, which have increased considerably the amounts they were receiving at the time the bonus was first granted. The government realises that this is a very difficult question to deal with, and in announcing what I am at the moment, I am putting before the House what after very careful consideration of the interests of the civil servants and the public interest has seemed to the government the wise course to adopt.
I should mention also that the government intends at the present session to introduce a Superannuation Act. It has been felt that to complete the work of reorganisation of the Civil Service, as this reorganisation has already been undertaken and is being carried on in part by the Audit Board, it was desirable, in order that justice may be done those who are in the service at present and whose services may be dispensed with or who may subsequently enter the service, that a Superannuation Act should be immediately put through. The bill will be introduced in this House at the present session.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister say whether this Audit Board is given all its powers under the authority of the act of last session, or has the government vested it with 31
powers under some other act as well as under the act of last session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The act of last session, as I recall it, gives the government power by order in council to extend the powers of the Audit Board in certain directions, or rather to authorize the Audit Board to undertake certain additional duties. Such duties as the Audit Board has had imposed upon it are those given by order in council or under the act as it stands, not by other legislation.


Arthur Meighen: Would the Prime Minister bring down the order in council or orders in council empowering the Audit Board, because if what he says is correct to-day, the announcements in the press are entirely wrong.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will take
great pleasure in placing on the Table the order in council to which my right hon. friend refers. As to the press reports, I do not know the particular press reports to which he alludes. If he is referring to his own press, I quite admit that some of the reports are wholly incorrect, but I think the country is now generally in possession of the facts.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Hewitt Bostock: By tradition of the House, it is customary to permit the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to ask a question or two, but a statement made by the leader of the House (Mr. Mackenzie King) under these circumstances is not debatable.


LIFE INSURANCE LAPSED POLICIES
Thomas Langton Church: That, in the opinion of this House, subject to certain reasonable charges including a certain sum for overhead expenses, lapsed policies of life insurance of companies with federal charters should be returned to the insured, and that in the interests of the insured such confiscatory powers of these companies should be further revised.
He said: The purpose of this resolution is to guarantee to the public the full benefit under all insurance policy contracts. This matter has been referred to by the Department of Insurance of the government in their reports for some years past. My motion would provide that, in the case of lapsed policies there should be a certain return to the insured. It means, not that the whole sum should be returned, but that the sum, subject to reasonable charges, as the resolution says, should be returned to these unfortunates. This motion is to press the government to have parliament look into the recommendations of their own insurance



Life Insurance-Lapsed Policies
advisers and to see if they cannot amenl the statute accordingly. Last session was devoted very largely to the Bank Act for the protection of depositors, and as regards life insurance, it is not altogether fair to the poorer class that their policies should lapse. These insurance companies take in millions of dollars in lapsed policies, and we seek protection against such confiscatory powers as life insurance companies have at present. The present law is not altogether fair to the man of small means; he is fighting a large corporation. The war has made a great difference in this respect. If you look over the report of the Department of Insurance, you will find that in a table on page 7 the amount is going up from year to year-especially during and since the war-of lapsed policies of people who are not able to pay their insurance premiums and whose policies are taken away from them by law. The amount runs into millions of dollars. Many of these people in days like these are out of work through no fault of their own; many of them are returned men who have been driven to the wall by hard times and the high cost of living, and the first thing to go has been the insurance policy, because the premiums cannot be kept up. As regards the high cost of living to-day, the table speaks for itself; it shows that in comparison with other countries, Canada is at the top of the list. The money held by these companies really consists of funds that rightfully belong to the estates of these unfortunate people, who permitted their policies to lapse after making a sufficient number of annual premium payments to give their policies some insurance value. I would suggest that the law be amended so as to provide that, after a sufficient deduction is made for overhead expenses, the policy holders should have a substantial part of their premiums paid them. The money confiscated by these companies consists of funds which rightly belong to the estates of unfortunate persons who in hard times were driven to allow their policies to lapse, after having made a sufficient number of annual premium payments to give those policies a paid-up or substantial insurance value. Some of the companies are lax in not acquainting the poorer policy holders with the law in regard to lapsed policies. The law provides that after a period of three years a policy holder shall have a claim upon the company in the event of a policy lapsing; but some of the companies are not informing the policy holders of this fact. The Insurance Act, like the Bank Act, needs revision. In the United States the statistics show that in the past twenty-five 
years policies have lapsed to the extent of $10,000,000,000, and a survey of conditions in Canada should, I think, be made to discover the losses to the working classes in this country from this source. If such a survey were made I believe that a similar state of things would be revealed. The failure of companies fully to advise their policy holders of the value of their policies is responsible in part for this condition. Many persons-who have permitted their policies to lapse do not know that such policies have a value if they have been in force for more than three years, and it has been pointed out that the insurance companies, taking advantage of this ignorance on the part of the public, have failed to notify the holders of lapsed policies of such value. I do not say that the companies all do this deliberately; but undoubtedly, through negligence at any rate, the policy holders are made to suffer in this way.
It is only fair, however, as pointed out by the Superintendent of Insurance, to say on behalf of the companies that, as in everything else, there are two sides to this argument. Section 180 of the Insurance Act of 1917 provides for a surrender value on policies of which three or more annual premiums have been paid. Sub-section 4 of this section provides for extended insurance until the cash surrender value is accepted or until the surrender value has been used up. And in the case of a policy lapsing when in force only a short time, both the insured and the company suffer. The policy holder loses the status he has achieved from beginning his insurance policy and acquiring the protection, and the company loses the business before it becomes profitable, as the cost to the company of acquiring new business is often in excess of the first premium. These are the views of the Superintendent of Insurance as expressed in a letter written to myself. He concludes:
As to the amount of the cash surrender value, it should always be borne in mind that while the policy is being in force the company is liable for the face of the policy which liability is worth something to the insured and the cost of which must be deducted in arriving at the cash surrender value.
In Ontario there has been a great deal of complaint in this direction in regard to provincial companies. Many friendly societies have not been able to make ends meet and have by legislation cut down the amount of the policy and raised their rates, and I would suggest that when an investigation is made into this matter it should
4 p.m. embrace the whole subject of insurance in Canada covering both pro-

Life Insurance-Lapsed Policies
vincial companies and those doing business under a federal and provincial charter. In the larger cities the condition is serious, and from the district which I represent I have received many letters from insured persons complaining of the remissness of the companies along the lines I have indicated. The loss ratios by provinces for the year 1923 as compared with the year 1922 show on the whole an increase. In this connection I might read the following statement from the Inspector of Insurance made on the first day of October, 1923:
The total amount of business lapsed and surrendered in 1922 in Canada amounted to $288,838,320. Five years ago, in 1917, the total new business effected in Canada was $282,120,430. The business lapsed and surrendered in 1922 amounted to 50 per cent of the gross business issued. So long as this high rate of premature discontinuance prevails life insurance will fail to convey the benefits which by its very nature it is designed to convey to the insuring public, and it is to be hoped that investigation will lead to the discovery of the cause of this form of waste and to its ultimate removal.
Many of the companies are being criticized in Canada, and the other day one company was ordered by the department to deposit $50,000 more and additional security for the protection of its policyholders in order to hold up the financial end of the concern. I think there should be a survey made of all the companies before they fail. Who would have suspected before last June that the Home Bank would collapse? According to some of the pamphlets that were put out by the Bankers' Association, people thought it was almost impossible for shareholders or depositors to lose their money. It all goes to show that the whole insurance situation needs a revision in the interests of the insured. The same catastrophe that overtook the Home Bank might to-morrow occur in connection with the insurance companies. There is necessity of a thorough survey of all insurance companies, from the financial and other standpoints for the protection of policy holders. There can be no doubt of its necessity. In the last annual report of the Canada Life, one of the best companies we have in Canada, the following statement appears:
It is unfortunately unavoidable that some policy holders should through various circumstances find it impossible to continue their insurance, and during the past two or three years these terminations the world over have been aggravated by prevailing conditions. We have not escaped our share of this misfortune but, despite it, we have made the very substantial gain of 451,454,000 in our total assurances, bringing them up to $412,435,000. We have again been favoured with unusually low death losses, reflecting not only a generally good public health but a careful valuation by our selection committee of the lives offered us.
31*
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me express the hope that the government will see to it that the recommendations of the Superintendent of Insurance be carried out and that in the recess of parliament some independent inquiry and survey be made of the whole insurance situation with regard to the solvency of the companies and from the point of view of their compliance with the law and their whole affairs. If the minister can give me some assurance that this will be done I shall be glad to withdraw the resolution. T suggest, however, that he should endeavour to carry out the very able and very sensible recommendations which have emanated from his own department. The department is a very good one and the report to which I have referred is a very fine report. I hope that the minister will encourage the officials to extend this inquiry and to see to it that the law is enforced and that the smaller policy holders and those whose policies have lapsed get additional protection.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Speaker, the mover of this resolution (Mr. Church) has touched upon a very important feature of our business and of our national life. His remarks, I may say, went much further than the resolution goes, and I am inclined to agree with his remarks rather than with the resolution itself.
It is very important that the insurance business should be thoroughly investigated by a committee of this House, just as the banking business should be investigated. The resolution refers to on: aspect of the matter, but there are also other features which should be considered. The amount of life insurance done in this country is tremendous and the number of policies in force is very large. I believe that the insurance companies have had a comparatively easy time in getting money for which in many cases they do not give a proper return. One question has been brought to my attention which should, it seems to me receive consideration, and that is in regard to participating policies, as they call them. I am told that in the United States no insurance company is allowed to write both participating and non-participating policies; that is, a company must choose which form of policy it will issue or which form of business it will do. In Canada, however, our insurance companies may write either participating or non-participating policies, and I am told that in the case of non-participating policies the policy holders are in many instances paying money for which they get no return of any consequence; that is to
Divorce

say, they pay an exrra premium for the privilege of participating in the profits of the company but they have no chance in the world of even getting back the amount that they are paying by way of extra premium. If that is so, these insurance companies are taking the people's money for nothing. That of course does not apply to all insurance companies. I think this is a matter which should be thoroughly investigated. I am strongly of the opinion that the subject of insurance is one which should receive the attention of the House, and I suggest that the proper way of doing it would be to refer the whole question of life insurance business in Canada to a proper committee of the House.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) has introduced a very large and a very wide question, that of providing for old age and providing for dependents. It is the duty of the Department of Insurance to protect the insured rather than the companies; to see that ample justice is done to the insured and that his investments are properly protected. There appears to have been some misunderstanding between the whips with regard to the resolutions coming before the House this afternoon. I imagine that a number of hon. gentlemen desire to speak on this question, because everyone is interested in insurance. I have here a memorandum from the Superintendent of Insurance which indicates that he has been trying for some days to reach the hon. member for North Toronto, to find out what information he really desired in connection with the resolution. It would seem-and I gather that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mc-Quarrie) has the same impression-that the remarks of the hon. member for North Toronto open up a much wider field than that included within the resolution itself. If it is agreeable to him I would move the adjournment of the debate so that we may take the matter up some other day when we may hear from all members of the House who are interested.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


DIVORCE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, legislation should be introduced in order to place the wife on an equality with the husband as regards the grounds upon which divorce may be obtained.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which I present to the Houso js very narrow in its compass and will not, I think, be the subject of much debate. At the outset I would like to make it abundantly clear that the resolution does not propose in any way to widen the grounds for divorce. I quite realize that many members of the House, and certainly a large number of persons outside the Iloust, have conscientious objections to the granting of divorces, but this resolution aims only to place the husband and the wife upon exactly the same plane so far as the grounds for divorce are concerned.
The law of divorce in Canada has been described as a patchwork law, and I think it has probably been correctly described. I want just for a moment to indicate the situation as I understand it to-day. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction in matters of marriage and divorce, but it was provided in the British North America Act, by which this exclusive jurisdiction was vested in the federal government, that the laws in force in the various confederating provinces and the courts in existence therein were to be continued until repealed nr altered by some competent authority. Then by another section of the British North America Act it was provided that a similar provision should apply to provinces that might subsequently join the 'confederation. Now under those circumstances it is necessary for one to ascertain the conditions in the various provinces. ' Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island before confederation each had a divorce court operating in those provinces, and those courts are in existence to-day. In Nova Scotia either party to a marriage contract may secure a divorce on the grounds of adultery, impotence, cruelty or consanguinity. In New Brunswick divorce may be secured on the grounds of adultery, impotence or consanguinity; in Prince Edward Island the grounds are impotence, adultery or consanguinity. These courts, as I say, are constituted and organized and are effective today so far as granting divorces is concerned. In those Maritime provinces there is no question whatever but that the wife and the husband stand on exactly the same ground so far as the causes for divorce are concerned. Now, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, -and with respect to the latter province I speak subject to correction by my legal friends from Quebec,-there are no divorce courts, that is, no courts which have jurisdiction in granting divorces or dissolutions of the marriage tie.

Divorce
Turning our eyes westward for a few moments I would like to direct the attention of the House to the situation in the four western provinces. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta each have divorce courts. These courts in divorce matters are governed by the English law as it stood on the 15th of July, 1870. The courts of the province of British Columbia having jurisdiction in divorce matters are governed by the English law as it stood on the 19th of November, 1858. The result of this is that in the four western provinces the Matrimonial Causes Act passed by the Imperial parliament in 1857 is in full operation and effect.
George Perry Graham: That has been amended recently, has it not?


Mr. SHAW:: The law of England has been amended, and I shall come to that in a moment. The section of that act to which I wish to draw the attention of the House reads as follows:
It shall be lawful for any 'husband to present a petition to the said court, praying that his marriage may be dissolved, on the ground that his wife has 6ince the celebration thereof been guilty of adultery; and it shall be lawful for any wife to present a petition to the said court praying that her marriage may be dissolved, on the ground that since the celebration thereof her husband has been guilty of incestuous adultery, or bigamy with adultery, or of rape, or of sodomy, such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et thoro, or of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards; and every such petition shall state as distinctly as the nature of the case permits the facts on which the claim to have such marriage dissolved is founded: Provided that for the purpose of this act incestuous adultery shall be taken to mean adultery committed by a husband with a woman with whom if his wife were dead he could not lawfully contract marriage by reason of her being within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity; and bigamy shall be taken to mean marriage of any person, being married to any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place within the Dominion of Her Majesty or elsewhere.
Translated into ordinary simple English this section means that while a husband may secure a divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery, the wife must, in order to succeed, be able to substantiate one of the following charges:	1. Incestuous adultery; 2. Bigamy
with adultery; 3. Rape; 4. Sodomy or bestiality. And next we come to the two grounds to which I wish to particularly direct the attention of the House; they are adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would justify judicial separation, and adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upward.
That is the English law as it stood in 1870, and those are the grounds only on which a married woman could secure a divorce from her husband. Why was equality denied in England, you may very well ask, at this particular time? Well, the debates of that day indicate that one of the main reasons was that men made the law, and the second reason given was that adultery was considered a more grievous offence against the wife than against the husband because of the possibility of the introduction of illegitimate children into the family. In other words, by this particular legislation the law created a monopoly so far as redress was concerned in the interests of the husband. It is rather interesting, however, to note that even in that day there were staunch advocates of equality between the husband and the wife. Lord Lyndhurst, in a very able address in the British House of Lords, presented the view for equality, and may I be permitted just for a few moments to read to the House the statements of Mr. Gladstone in that debate. Mr. Gladstone himself was conscientiously opposed to the granting of divorces, but he urged equality as between the sexes in these words:
For my own part I shall always assert the principle of equal rights. It is impossible to do a greater mischief than to begin now, in the middle of the 19th century, to undo, with regard to womankind, that which has already been done in their behalf, by slow degrees, in the preceding 18 centuries, and to say that the husband shall be authorized to dismiss his wife on grounds for which the wife shall not dismiss the husband. If there is one broad and palpable result of Christianity, which we ought to regard as precious, it is that it has placed the seal of God Almighty upon the equality of man and woman with respect to everything that relates to these rights: and I will offer the utmost resistance to any attempt to induce this House to adopt a measure which, I believe, would lead to the degradation of woman.
Now how does the legislation work out in actual practice in the four western provinces? As I have already pointed out in order to secure a divorce the woman is called upon to prove something more than the man is called upon to prove. She must in addition to adultery prove legal cruelty or she must prove desertion. Now one naturally questions the meaning of cruelty. If one were to examine the dictionary one would ascertain that it means inhuman treatment, or a disposition to inflict unnecessary pain or suffering on others, but in its legal sense the word has an altogether different meaning. I want to read from a judgment of the Appellate Court of Ontario which gives in a very few words the exact legal definition of cruelty.
To establish cruelty one must show treatment likely to produce or which produces physical illness or mental distress of a nature calculated permanently to affect her bodily health or endanger her reason, and that there
Divorce

is reasonable apprehension that the same state of things will continue.
These words are taken from a decision of the Appellate Court, in 1920. It is rather interesting to note, however, that Chief Justice Meredith, while he reluctantly agreed with the decision added these significant words:
The law is not in accord with modern views as to the relations between husband and wife. That it is such is to be deplored. Her life may be made a veritable hell upon earth and she is without remedy if robust enough to suffer it all without impairment of her physical health or her mentality.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not a fact that in several of the provinces where there are divorce courts the majority of judges, although cruelty is given as a ground for divorce as well as adultery, interpret cruelty to mean adultery?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No, cruelty is never interpreted to mean adultery. I presume my hon. friend means that perhaps the courts, upon finding adultery presume cruelty. I take it that, perhaps, is what he means by his question. If my hon. friend will listen to these few instances I propose to quote he will see that his view is not the interpretation which the law bears in the various cases I wish to mention. In an Alberta case cited as B. vs. B. and found at page 894 of Volume 3 of the Weekly Western Reports for the year 1919, Mr. Justice Scott, now Chief Justice Scott, held that-"the fact that on one occasion a husband came home drunk and called his wife vile names before other people did not constitute legal cruelty sufficient together with acts of adultery to entitle her to divorce, the admitted adultery alone not entitling her to divorce."
In the 1921 case of Torsell vs. Torsell, reported at page 200 in 16 A.L.R. Chief Justice Harvey in giving the judgment of the appellate court used this language:
It has been accepted in England that legal cruelty to support a wife's claim must be such as to cause danger to life, limb or health present or future. There may be much room for dissatisfaction, but that is a matter which can be easily and effectively cured by the legislature if it desires.
In that case untrue charges of infidelity were made publicly by a husband. In Saskatchewan I find the case of Moon vs. Moon in the year 1913, reported in 6 S.L.R. at page 41. In that case the husband accused his wife, in the presence of a thirteen-year-old daughter, of adultery and under circumstances greatly aggravating the offence. The judge held these facts did not constitute legal cruelty, but he significantly added that he was pleased to have the English authority 
of Russel vs. Russell with which to justify his ruling. All these cases, I may say, are based upon a judgment in the year 1790 in the Matrimonial and Ecclesiastical court in England, and the latest accepted exposition of the law is the case of Russell vs. Russell, decided in England in 1895 by a 5 to 4 decision of the House of Lords. British Columbia courts afford some instances of similar rulings. In Walsh vs. Walsh, reported at page 482 in 20 B.C.R. in the year 1914, it appears that the wife stated that she became nervous because her husband kept a razor and sharp knife under his pillow in the bed where both slept. The husband stated that he wished to protect himself. The wife asked -I am quoting from the record-" Why do you want to protect yourself? " To which the husband answered, " I thought you might do me some harm while I was sleeping." The court held that legal cruelty was not established, that mere nervousness was not sufficient, and that the wife had not stated that she feared acts of violence, or that the weapons were kept by him for that purpose.
Let me also quote the Manitoba case of Dorset v. Dorset, decided in 1921 and reported in 57 D.L.R. at page 636. In that case the husband's adultery in his own residence was clearly proven. The court held that the husband's adultery in his own residence, where his wife stayed during a period of convalescence, did not constitute legal cruelty entitling her to divorce because the evidence did not show that her health was thereby impaired. In that case Chief Justice Mathers used this language:
Respondent's conduct in brazenly committing adultery with a paramour without any attempted concealment and in utter disregard of all decency no doubt constituted cruelty in the popular sense but not in a legal sense.
I am not stating these cases for the purpose of criticizing the courts, because I think the courts have followed precedents and have given, in my humble judgment, correct interpretations of the law. I do so, for the purpose of showing the difficulties that a wife labours under in the four western provinces when she seeks to establish her right to divorce, even where adultery on the part of her husband is admitted. Nor is that all. The courts require that the cruelty should be corroborated, and if anyone questions that I would refer them to the English ease of Judd vs. Judd, which was decided in the year 1907 by the probate division in England. Now, it is seldom that the husband commits either adultery or cruelty in public, and if when adultery is committed the wife must have cor-

Divorce
roborative evidence to prove the cruelty then you can understand the difficulty and the tremendous handicap under which she, in my judgment, wrongly labours. On the other hand suppose the wife, in addition to proving the adultery, does not rely upon legal cruelty but is forced to rely on the ground of desertion for two years and upwards. Hon members will note that the statute reads:
Desertion for upwards of two years without reasonable excuse.
Now, the words "without reasonable excuse" afford a very wide latitude for a husband to escape from the consequences of his conduct. The situation then, Mr. Speaker, is clearly this-that a husband may indulge in every variety of infamy connected with adultery, he may use every refinement of cruelty short of legal cruelty, and he may violate every human law, and yet escape the proper and legitimate consequences of his act. That is the situation, in short, in the four western provinces. Of course it may be urged that parliament grants divorces. That is quite true. The parliament of Canada does grant divorce, and applicants before this parliament stand on an even footing. But I need only point out, that if one examines the list of applications for divorce from the western provinces you will find comparatively* few. The initial expense-the fees totalling something like $210-is of itself a considerable deterrent. To that must be added the expense of attendance in the city of Ottawa; the expense of the attendance of witnesses in this city perhaps for longer or shorter periods; and the result is that so far as the parliament of Canada is concerned it is practically inaccessible to women who contemplate applications for divorce.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I do not want to be interrupting my hon. friend, but I am interested in this matter, too. We have our divorce court in Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick has its divorce court, and I think what my hon. friend is advocating already obtains in both these provinces, and possibly in British Columbia. I think of late it has been decided that the new provinces in the West have the right to grant divorces without the applicants coming to parliament, and under the rules in force here I understand that women are on an equality with men. Now, what my hon. friend is advocating is that these rights be conferred on the courts of the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, divorce being a matter of federal domain in those provinces.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Quite right.


Lewis Herbert Martell: In the final analysis, if
these rights are transferred to the provinces the whole thing becomes a matter of procedure in the provincial courts.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No, it is not a matter of procedure in the courts, because the exclusive jurisdiction in these matters rests with the parliament of Canada.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I understand that.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: And unless the parliament of Canada legislates, the applicants for divorce must labour under the difficulties found in the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, at least so far as the four western provinces are con-concerned.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The parliament of Canada has no right to take away from us the right we had before confederation.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Quite right. I mentioned that in opening. The British North America Act protects the rights of the Maritime provinces and other provinces in that regard. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, by which our four western provinces are governed now, is not now the law of England. In the year 1912 a very representative commission was appointed in England for the purpose of going into this whole subject of divorce, and it made a report to parliament. It is a very comprehensive report. The individuals who composed that commission are security enough to show that the whole matter was thoroughly and amply ventilated. They called witnesses from every part of England, and from practically every walk in life, and representatives of every religious denomination. As a result of their report, while they disagreed upon some things, they at least were unanimous on this matter of placing the sexes upon an equality, so far as grounds for divorce are concerned. I wish to take the privilege of reading to the House one or two very short extracts. In the report of this commission I find this statement-
Apart from abstract justice the strongest reason for placing sexes on an equality is that, where two standards exist, there is a tendency to accept the lower for both parties. The social and economic position of women has greatly changed in the last hundred, and even in the last fifty years. The Married Women's Property Act, 1882, has given them a new status in regard to property; they engage freely in business and in the professions, and in municipal, educational and Poor Law administrations, and claim equality of treatment with men. In our opinion it is impossible to maintain a different standard of morality in the marriage relations, without creating the impression that justice is denied to women, an impression that must tend to lower the respect in which the marriage law is held by women.
488	COMMONS
Divorce
I suggest that the reasons given there apply with equal force to the conditions in Canada. I will read, in conclusion, the recommendation of that commission. It reads-
Our conclusion is that 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 to 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 rights 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.
Now, actuated by the report of this commission, the English parliament in the year 1923 passed a law amending the Matrimonial Causes Act, and this clause was substituted for the provisions which I have previously referred to:
2. It shall be lawful for any wife to present a petition to the Court praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that her husband has, since the celebration thereof and since the passing of this Act been guilty of adultery: Provided that nothing contained herein shall affect or take away any right of any wife, existing immediately before the passing of the Act.
That is all the legislation that this parliament needs to pass on the matter-simply that and nothing more. It will simply place the married woman in the four western provinces on a parity with the female applicants for divorce in the Maritime provinces and before this parliament of Canada. This is the only form in which redress can be given for that injustice. In my judgment justice calls imperatively that this parliament should take some action along the line indicated.


Edward James McMurray: I find myself in considerable agreement with the sentiments expressed by the speaker who introduced this resolution. He has reviewed the law as it exists in the various provinces of Canada, I think, fairly and reasonably. There exists in the Maritime provinces, as he has said, legislation inherited from the Old Land, that supplies that which he demands on behalf of woman in his resolution. The same exists to-day in the province of British Columbia. In section 5, chapter 67, there is a provision that a woman is entitled to judicial separation for an act of adultery on the part of her husband.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend is differentiating between judicial separation and absolute divorce. It is a different thing.


Edward James McMurray: No, I did not attempt
to do that. I say she has the right to judicial separation in British Columbia. A large portion of my hon. friend's argument was devoted to the fact that woman found herself in a position where she was obliged to suffer humiliation, degradation and cruelty, that her life in fact was one of constant humiliation and misery; but there does exist, I think, in all the provinces of Canada-at least in the western provinces-a Married Woman's Protection Act, which provides that no woman is required to live with her husband when he is guilty of adultery. She can demand a separation from him and he must support and take care of her and her children; so that the only disadvantage a woman would be under in this case-and undoubtedly she is entitled to have that removed-would be the fact that she could not be married again. But, so far as that is concerned, she is not held down to a judicial separation. The Senate of Canada has always granted bills of divorce on a broader basis than that which was adopted in England. Adultery alone on the part of the husband has been always sufficient for the Senate committee of this parliament to grant a divorce.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Might I ask a question?


Edward James McMurray: Yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Can the hon. gentleman give the figures indicating the number of divorces granted by the parliament of Canada to applicants from the four western provinces of Canada, say in the period of the last three or four years or ten years?


Edward James McMurray: I have had a very
brief opportunity of looking up this matter; in fact it only came to my attention this morning, but I think my hon. friend will find himself in the same position that I occupy in being unable to give those figures. How many cases are there where the wife has been refused a divorce on the ground of adultery alone? In nearly all these cases where a woman makes application for divorce, there is, coupled with adultery, cruelty and desertion. Sinclair, in his book on Parliamentary Divorce in Canada at page 2, states:
Under the British North America Act, Canada obtained a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, and within the limits of the subjects assigned to it the parliament of Canada is supreme, and its power is as plenary and ample as that of the parliament of the United Kingdom. While

Divorce
in the exercise of such power the Canadian parliament has authority to grant divorces for any reason that may seem to it sufficient, still in exercising such authority, parliament is guided by and practically conforms to the principles upon which divorces are granted by the courts of England. This statement is, however, subject to this exception, that in Canada divorces are granted on the application of the wife on the sole ground of adultery, while in England, it is necessary that the adultery should be accompanied by cruelty or desertion, or the husband must have been guilty of incestuous adultery ...
And so on.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Does my hon. friend suggest
that that is the law in England now?
Mr, McMURRAY:	I do not, but at the
time this work was written, in 1915, that was the law in England. My hon. friend has correctly stated that within very recent years,
I think last year, the act was amended so that divorce is treated in England on the same grounds as it is in our Maritime pro-, vinces and as it is by the Dominion of Canada.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does my hon. friend take the author of that work as an authority when he says that the constitution of Canada is similar to the constitution of the United Kingdom? Does he not know that Mr. Dicey, one of the greatest authorities on Canadian constitutional matters, says that when one says the Canadian constitution is similar to that of Great Britain, it is the greatest piece of official mendacity that obtains?


Edward James McMurray: I do not propose to
discuss extraneous subjects with my hon. friend.


Lewis Herbert Martell: It is not an extraneous
subject.


Edward James McMurray: I am dealing with the
question of divorce and not with that of the constitution of Great Britain.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member is dealing with an authority.


Edward James McMurray: The resolution that
my hon. friend has placed before the House is a very important one. It brings into this parliament for the first time in its history, so I understand, a bill dealing with divorce. I may be wrong; I believe there was a bill ? few years ago which passed its second reading and died, but before that I know of no such measure ever being introduced into this House. Undoubtedly, the question is so important that I think my hon. friend should have introduced it in parliament in the form not of a resolution, but of a bill with all the
details carefully worked out. I do not know what the attitude of the different governments of the western Canadian provinces or the Maritime provinces will be on this. They are exercising the law that they have there, and we have no evidence as to what their attitude may be.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Presuming that I should introduce a public bill designed for the specific purpose outlined in the resolution, will my hon. friend undertake to see that the public bill is disposed of at this session?-in which event I am quite prepared to withdraw the resolution and to have the bill discussed in parliament.


Edward James McMurray: I should like to see
my hon. friend's bill before I would pledge myself to support it. There are difficulties in the road of a bill of that nature, and seeing that the divorce law has been so long in its present form such changes as my hon. friend suggests should receive very careful consideration. He must recognize in this also that it makes the securing of divorce easier. I believe, however, that as regards practical suffering of women under this act confined to such a small area in Canada and under the relief granted under our Senate divorce rules, there is actually very little suffering. As a general proposition laid down, I find myself pretty well in accord with the remarks of the hon. member who has moved the resolution, and my remarks on this occasion are simply to put the matter in such a way as to show what privileges a woman has at the present time in Canada by reason of the courts that exist., the laws existing in them and by reason of the Senate.


Mr. ROBERT  FORICE@Brandon: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of saying anything in support of this resolution; but after listening to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. McMurray) I felt compelled to say a few words. I listened very carefully to his remarks, and until he finished his last sentence I had no idea where he was going to land. He is in favour of the resolution, and I do not see why he cannot support it at the present time. It is a very simple resolution; it means simply to put a man and a woman on exactly the same footing. If I know anything about the laws of Canada, as regards the criminal laws, civil laws, or any other laws outside of the matter of divorce, I think a man and a woman are very much on the same footing. If a woman commits a crime, she is tried under the same laws and she suffers the same punishment. I cannot understand why in moral

Divorce
matters there should be any distinction between a man and a woman. I do not want to pose as a Puritan; but I think, simply as a matter of justice, this change should be no longer delayed. An hon. gentleman who spoke a little while ago said that this matter has been a long time in abeyance, so why bring it up at the present time? If it has been a long time in abeyance, the quicker it is brought up the better, and the quicker the matter is solved the better for everyone concerned. Often while reading some of these cases in the newspapers, I have felt myself burning with indignation at the injustice women were suffering in this respect, and I hope this matter can be successfully settled in the not far distant future as regards the four western provinces.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, because in Nova Scotia we have a divorce court which we had and enjoyed prior to the advent of confederation. I do not believe any measure should be pursued which makes divorce easy. I need not refer to the scriptural admonition that says:
Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, and shall marry another, com-mitteth adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.
It is very hard for a member to sit in the House of Commons and to find that his religious and also conscientious views regarding divorce are abused, because many of us are entirely opposed to the principle of divorce. I, therefore, believe that divorce should not be .made easy; but as regards the resolution of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), I think it is absolutely fair. If we are going to have divorce in this country, if we must have it thrust upon us, there is no reason whatsoever why there should be a distinction between a man and a woman as regards the grounds for divorce. As I understand the argument of the hon. member for West Calgary, he says that the divorce courts in the West, came into existence a few years ago, and they find that to-day the women in the three western provinces are not on an equality with men as regards reasons for divorce. His object is that this parliament, which alone has control over marriage and divorce, shall bestow upon the courts of those provinces the right to give woman equality with man in regard to the reasons for securing divorce.
As I have already said, we in Nova Scotia have always had an equality in relation to men and women on this particular question.
I believe there are three grounds in the
fiVfr. Forke.]

province on which divorce may be secured. The law in Nova Scotia is based on the old English law and I believe that our people would resent any extension of it by providing further grounds for divorce. The three grounds I have mentioned are adultery, cruelty and impotence, or inability to consummate the marriage vow. Fortunately for us, the judge in divorce has always interpreted cruelty to mean adultery:	In other words, the
desire is to restrict as far as possible the grounds for granting divorce in that province. To me it is a matter of great delight to find that the court so inteiprets this particular law. What I think my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr Scaw) is asking for is that the people of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Aiberta shall have the right to grant divorce to women on exactly the same grounds as divorce is granted to men. I have not followed the laws in those provinces and therefore I am unable to say what the law in this particular is in that section of the country. However, I am prepared to take my hon. friend's statement in this regard. Even if the hon. member is wrong in his interpretation of the law I feel that nothing is to be lest, by the parliament of Canada extending that power to those provinces. If we are go'ng to have divorces, then in the name of everything that is good, in the name of everything that is equitable, in the name of everything that is fair, let us confer upon the courts of the land the power to act in this matter so that those who want divorce may be able to go to those courts, where evidence can be properly adduced and these matters be decided upon, instead of having the parties come to Ottawa and the cases discussed in parliament. If we are to have divorces. I say, let the courts decide these questions Let us legislate on all other matters, but let us try as far as we can to keep the marrage vow inviolate.
Mr. S. W. JACOBS iGeorge Etienne Cartier) :	Coming as I Jo from the province
of Quebec, where divorce and rumours of divorce are very rarely heard, I could well afford to allow this resolution to pass without any remarks on my part. But inasmuch as this is a matter tnat concerns the parliament of Canada, a federal matter, I feel it is only right for me to rise in my place and declare that I am fully in agreement with the statements of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) on the resolution he 5 p.m. has introduced to day. I could not help thinking, while the discussion

Divorce
was proceeding on this question, that if the parliament of Canada were only to adopt the old Levitical law there would be no question at all about the r'ghts of wife and husband. But I am afraid this will not be done, at least in my day and generation.
I have always beer in favour of perfect equality between the sexes both in regard to law and in all the relations of life. Now, why is it that we have a law declaring in favour of the man and against the woman, not only in this particular case but in many other respects? I will tell you: It is because the laws have been made by men. And I have no doubt that if women had made those laws they would have had a section similar to this declaring in favour of the woman against the man. Now that women have the right to sit in this House, I think we ought to recognize the advisability of making these changes as quickly as possible, before the ladies take the bit in their teeth, so to speak, when they get into the majority in this House, and make it very hard indeed for us. The law which my hon. frimd from West Calgary referred to, strange as it may seem, had its origin under the old Roman system. Under that system there was one law for men and another for women; there was one law for the Roman citizen and another for the stranger. This practice found its way into the civil law and the canon law m all European countries, and that explains why it was the law in England for hundreds of years. After the French Revolution the Code Napoleon changed the system; it is declared in the Code Napoleon, which is now the civil code of France, that women and men stand on an equal footing in the matter of divorce. Let me read to you the law of the province of Quebec. You will understand that there was never any revolution in the province of Quebec; that is to say, when the revolution in France took place Quebec had already become part and parcel cf the British Empire. Here is the law of the province of Quebec:
A husband may demand a separation on the ground of his wife's adulter!', and the wife may demand a separation on the ground of her husband's adultery, if he keeps his concubine in common habitation.
That is the law in Quebec to-day. In order that the wife should obtain a divorce from her husband she would have to show that the lady who lived under his protection was living in a domicile or home to which she the wife, had the right to repair if necessary. It is not necessary that he should bring the woman into the house where the wife lives; if it is shown that he has provided a habitation reserved especially for the lady upon
whom he confers his favours, then and only then has the wife the right to obtain a divorce. That would seem to be the law in the western provinces. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argen-teuil) protests that it is not.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I think my hon. friend used the wrong word in referring to the law in Quebec. There is no divorce in the province of Quebec.


Mr. JACOBS:: That is right; we have no divorce in Quebec. But in order to obtain separation from bed and board the conditions are as I have cited them. I am one of those who believe with Hamlet:
Why, let the stricken deer go weep,
The heart ungalled play;
For some must watch, while some must sleep:
So runs the world away.
I believe that both "must watch" and both "must sleep", but I am not in favour of one watching and the other sleeping; and for that reason I support the resolution, which I trust my hon. friend from West Calgary will introduce in the form of a bill. If he so introduces it I shall have much pleasure in voting for it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am inclined to agree with the
Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray) in one particular; I think it is asking a great deal to ask the House to pass a resolution of this kind which must be in more or less indefinite form, as indeed the present resolution is. It would be much better if the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) would introduce a bill setting forth the changes which he desires to have made in the law. It seems to me that the Solicitor General and the hon. member for West Calgary almost got together on this question, but that there was a misunderstanding. I take it from what the mover of the resolution said that he desired an assurance from the Solicitor General that the bill which he would draft and which he was prepared to submit to the House would not be sidetracked, as so many bills have been, during previous sessions. He did not ask that the Solicitor General support the bill; he simply wanted the Solicitor General's assurance that the bill would be dealt with during the session, and I think that the Solicitor General might very well give that assurance.
Another statement was made by the hon. Solicitor General with which I am certainly not in accord. He said that the women of the western provinces have really no complaint because they could come to the Senate
Divorce

and get a divorce just as the men could and on the same grounds, without the necessity of proving desertion or cruelty. It is quite true-


Edward James McMurray: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I think he has misunderstood me. What I endeavoured to convey, whether I did it well or not, was that their situation was considerably modified by reason of the Married Women's Protection Act, and by reason of the fact that they could come to the Senate and secure a divorce. I did not say it was complete alleviation, but that it was a modification.


William Garland McQuarrie: The Married Women's Protection Act has nothing to do with this matter. With regard to the married women of the western provinces having the right to come to Ottawa to secure a divorce, I may say that there have been a few cases where men and women have come from the West for that purpose. Last session a petition was presented by a woman who nominally resided at Vancouver, but who now I think, is temporarily in the Old Country. But these cases are very rare indeed, and the reason is obvious: the expense involved is prohibitive. People residing in British Columbia, for instance, can only in a few cases take advantage of the Senate procedure- that is, in cases where the petitioner has ample means. For my part I do not think that divorces should be granted by the Senate at all; it is not the proper way of handling the matter. All applications for divorces should be made to the courts, and there should be uniformity in regard to the granting of divorces. That suggestion has been discussed during previous sessions and there always seemed to be violent objection to it.
I presume that that objection was considered as well founded in the quarters from whence it came, but my point is that all matters of divorce should come before the courts; the petitioner should not be forced to come to Ottawa.
In regard to the arguments adduced by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), they are unanswerable so far as they suggest that there should be the strictest equality as between man and woman and that the grounds of divorce should be the same in both instances.
ber for West Calgary should introduce this matter into the House in the form of a bill, and the member for West Calgary approved of the suggestion, provided that the Solicitor General would give an undertaking, not that the bill should pass, but that ample opportunity should be given for its consideration. To that the Solicitor General said that he would like to see the bill first. Well, whether the bill is a bad bill, a poor bill, or an ill-drafted bill, certainly it would be a bill touching an important matter which should merit the attention of the House, and I think the Solicitor General might well undertake that if the matter be brought before the House again in. the form of a bill, that bill will receive consideration this session. That would close the matter for the time being and allow us to proceed with other business.
In support of this suggestion let me just make these observations. I can well understand that there are men in this House who, through religious training or conscientious objection, believe that divorce should under no circumstances be granted. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is not my own position, but that makes no difference; it is a position which may be assumed by reasonable persons who believe that it is better that some unhappily married people should "dree their weird'' rather than that divorce should be introduced. But, after all, we have divorce in this country; and that being the case it seems to me that we should have divorce on the most even basis of equality between husband and wife; that a man should be liable to be sued for divorce for precisely the same reasons as apply in the case of a woman.


Mr. LAFLAMME:: Does the hon. member believe in the principle of increasing the number of cases in which divorce may be granted or does he believe rather in their restriction?


Mr. McMASTER:: No, I would keep the
bounds of divorce within a very narrow ambit indeed, but within that narrow ambit I would make no difference between the sexes. I would take the view that within that ambit men and women should stand, as I believe they stand before the Supreme Judge, on exactly the same basis.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr- LAFLAMME: Taking the situation as
Mr. Speaker, there appears to be little ^ *s to-day, again I would ask the question: difference of opinion as to the law between Does the hon- member for Brome favour an in-the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) crease m the number of cases in which divorce and the Solicitor General (Mr, McMurrayl. granted, or does he favour a restriction The Solicitor General suggested that the mem- of the number?

Divorce


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not wish to see divorces increase, but if through an application of even-handed justice divorces should increase, I believe that the necessity for evenhanded justice is a greater necessity even than the artificial restriction of divorce.
The parliament of Canada grants divorces by special private acts. We grant them to men and women without distinction, men and women being subjected to precisely the same law. I understand that in Nova Scotia, where divorces are granted under provincial enactment, the law is equal between the sexes. In certain of the western provinces the law is not equal between the sexes, and that is the inequality and the injustice which the legislation shadowed forth in this resolution would cure. Can there be any opportunity for difference of opinion between fair-minded people in this House, whether they agree with divorce or not? Cannot the Solicitor General give the undertaking? Cannot the member for West Calgary introduce his bill? If that is done and the bill comes before the House for consideration the matter could be more adequately dealt with.


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings):: I cannot say that I disagree in any particular with the subject of the resolution before the House, nor can I say that I would be in favour of such a bill as the hon. member may see fit to introduce until I have had an opportunity of examining it. But it does seem to me strange' and rather an unusual condition of affairs when we examine the jurisdiction of the different provinces in this matter and the law that prevails to-day, and it seems to me that some remedy should be afforded, and that at once. We have in one province a certain law, interpreted in a certain way; in another province we have another law, interpreted in a different way; and in the province of Ontario we have no divorce law at all. Now, that seems to be an anomaly. We are all one people, living under the same general jurisdiction, and a man and a woman when they enter into the marriage contract undertake similar obligations, and I do not see why there should be any discrimination between the rights granted to a husband and those granted to a wife. It is an anomalous condition where we have one law in one province administered in a certain way, and another law in another province administered in a different way, and another province with no divorce law at all. That whole situation might very well be cleared up and one general law passed, saving, of course, those people in our Dominion who are entirely opposed to the granting of
divorces under any circumstances-one general law which would meet the whole situation, and under which the courts of the different provinces would have the same jurisdiction and the grounds upon which divorce could be granted should be clearly defined by Act of Parliament. Then, it seems to me, the rights of the two parties, the man and the woman, would be properly protected.


Charles Marcil: One of the greatest difficulties which the Fathers of Confederation had to contend with when the British North America Act was drafted was to overcome this question of divorce. Confederation was a union of provinces, and there was a strong opinion against divorce in both the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as there is to-day, not only among Roman Catholics but among Protestants as well. The spectacle we have witnessed here in the last few years, together with what is going on in the United States, should open the eyes of some of our thinking people. The Fathers of Confederation accepted divorce because it existed in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and a special clause was put into the act by which in certain cases the Dominion parliament could come to the relief of certain people without by that mere fact instituting divorce as a permanent institution in this land. Parliament took upon itself to come to the relief, and every divorce bill passed by this House has those words in its title-" An Act for the relief '' of such-and-such a party. In the years when I first attended parliament in this House it was customary when these bills were called- and they were far less numerous than they are to-day-for those who were opposed to divorce to enter their protest and call for a division at every step both in committee and in the whole House.
I know we are not discussing the merits of divorce, because a divorce law exists in certain of the provinces; but divorce was considered at that time a question of civil rights, and I question very much whether a law passed by this parliament would be operative in the province of Quebec, or whether divorce courts could be established in that province, because there would have to be a breach of the understanding of Confederation. However, what we are discussing now is merely a question of putting the woman on an equality with the man. Of course, I am opposed to divorce, always have been, and I am more opposed now than I ever was. In view of what is taking place in the United States and what seems to be
Divorce

taking place in Canada, but especially in the United States where one out of every ten or twelve marriages is dissolved-


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the hon. member be opposed to the granting of divorce in any case?


Charles Marcil: Certainly, and I have good authority for that.


William Garland McQuarrie: What reasons has the hon. member?


Charles Marcil: You will find them in the Scriptures, in the teaching of our Saviour. The hon. member for West Calgary has asked the Solicitor General to bind himself at the present time to consider a bill which is not yet before the House. I can undertsand that such a request might be made if we were now at that stage of the session where the government, having all the days taken up with its own business, no public bill could be called without its consent. But the hon. member has the privilege now, as every other hon. member has, of introducing his public bill without consulting the Solicitor General, and his bill will be called in the regular way once or twice a week until such time as the government takes the whole time of the House for itself. Being opposed to divorce as I am, and being bound to vote against any measure that will increase the opportunities of divorce-and such a measure certainly would-if any change is to be made in the law in the West I would sooner see the change made the other way, so that instead of increasing the number of opportunities for divorce they would be decreased-


Mr. IRVINE:: Would the hon. gentleman be willing to place men on exactly the same basis as women now are with regard to divorce? That would give equality and restriction at the same time.


Charles Marcil: I am not in favour of
divorce for a man or a woman. I am in favour of a system we have in the province of Quebec, which was described by the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) where if a man and woman cannot live together and they have certain valid reasons which are recognized by the courts, they can go before the courts and get a separation from bed and board. No divorce bill ever passes through this parliament without a second clause. Now what does that second clause say? It gives the right to marry again. That is the whole object. For these reasons I do not think it would be fair to ask this House to accept this resolution, and especially

to ask the Solicitor General to bind himself to support any bill that is not before the House.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: I did not intend to speak on this
question because I feel it is an injustice against woman brought about by man, and I want the men unassisted by what I say to remove that injustice as I am sure they will do. The member for George Etienne Cartier told the exact truth when he said that the cause of this was that the law had beeD made by men- When you read the laws, nol only this but a great many others, and read history, you will find they are everywhere the handiwork of men, describing their own actions and forgetting that after all they are only half of the great human family.


Mr. LOGAN:: The worst half.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would not say that. The hon. member who sits across the way (Mr. Marcil) is anxious that divorces should be made fewer instead of more. I had written on a piece of paper here just the question that the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) asked my hon. friend when he was speaking, that is, would he be willing to put men on the same basis in the four western provinces as women are in regard to divorce? If he is willing to do that it will remove restrictions and result in bringing about equality between the sexes. The very fact that men would take this step to place women on an equal footing with themselves will in itself have the effect of bringing about a feeling of good will. I think men hardly realize how deep in the heart of women is buried the resentment which they all feel against what they know to be an injustice, not only in this particular matter but in other things. That is one of the causes for the great woman's movement throughout the world. Women have felt that only by organizing and influencing public sentiment in this way could they obtain justice for themselves.
I therefore ask hon. members to adopt this resolution out of a sense of justice for women and a proper regard for the spirit of fair play.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I am entirely opposed
to the resolution of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). I think it is liable to have a pernicious influence because its object is to give freer access to divorce.
It is quite evident that by this resolution, we are subject to increase the number of divorces in certain provinces of the Dominion. Con-

Divorce
sequently, by creating opportunities for divorce cases to be submitted to the courts, we countenance, after all, the theory of divorce. This is why I am opposed to this resolution.
Divorce is certainly contrary to the divine laws and the laws of man. It has proved a great calamity to those countries that have adopted such a means. It is unfortunately the scourge of modern times. It assails at its very root home life which is the foundation of society itself. It is quite easy to perceive to what a disastrous end would lead such legislation opening a wider door to divorce. Canada is a Christian country and the countenancing of divorce would tend to the destruction of the conjugal ties which is a fundamental part of Christianity.
So far as the province of Quebec is concerned, our laws are entirely opposed to divorce. It is true, as it was mentioned by one of the hon. members who spoke before me, that the Civil Code of Quebec recognizes separation on well defined grounds; but the tendency of courts is to restrict as much as possible this recourse and section 185 of the Civil Code lays down the following rule.
Marriage can only be dissolved by the natural death of one of the parties; while both live, it is indissoluble.
A previous speaker recalled rightly, the principles which guided the Fathers of Confederation in matters of divorce. In a conciliatory mood, the British North America Act included a measure to allow divorce in certain cases, but the Fathers of Confederation had not in mind the introduction of this measure so as to favour and pave the way for divorce, neither was this measure introduced with the aim of spreading the demand for divorce. The adoption of this resolution, under the plea of placing the two sexes on the same footing, would tend to generalize the pernicious principle of divorce in our country.
There is no need of recalling the history of the different measures which have been moved in this House since confederation aiming at enlarging on the Act authorizing divorce, under the British North America Act. On all occasions, when this House was requested, for instance, to establish a special divorce court in certain provinces all our statesmen opposed it. Sir John A. Macdonald, himself, in 1875 and later on, rose in this House to declare that there should be no legislation of a nature to facilitate divorce and make it a more common practice in any shape or form. I think we are faithful to those guiding principleswhich have always been proclaimed by all statesmen throughout the country-in opposing the resolution of the hon. member for West Calgary.
Whatever movement is undertaken in this country to encourage divorce, it becomes an outrage to the conscience of 2,500,000 Catholics. This minority is required to live in the midst of the majority and it has a right to the respect of its religious convictions. I therefore, strongly oppose this resolution and I still hope that the hon. member for West Calgary will be persuaded to withdraw this resolution; I am convinced that if we are called upon to vote this resolution will certainly be defeated.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix and Montmorency) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker before this resolution carries, I think it is the duty of the representatives of Quebec to express the views of that province on this question. We have already heard from the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Fortier). They have respectively expressed their opinion on the subject. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) rightly stated that this question is of paramount importance, and dates back to confederation.
He pointed out that, when it was a question of the union of the Canadian provinces, this problem was fully debated and was closely studied by the most eminent men, Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Etienne Cartier and all the Fathers of Confederation. If this question was so important on such a memorable occasion as to when it was a matter of the union of all the provinces, to have been a cause of discussion, and even of dissension-which finally disappeared following protracted conferences and a long delay-I think we should not be too hasty in adopting, to-day, the resolution which is before the House. Those who suggested to the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) the introduction of a bill with reference to this question, so that a discussion might take place in a proper way on such an important matter, are quite right.
In the province of Quebec the separation may be granted for certain specific and defined reasons. We have no divorce court. Some years ago, when we were in the opposition, I remember that the ex-member for Kingston, to-day the Attorney General for the province of Ontario, introduced a bill aiming at the establishment of divorce courts
Divorce

in mis country. I recall that all the hon. members of the province of Quebec, even those who do not share our religious convictions, voted against this bill; not that this measure was against their religious beliefs, but because it carried with it a tendency to increase divorce cases, in such a way as to undermine the fundamental basis of society.
The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) has pointed out the specific reasons which enable a person to obtain a separation in the province of Quebec. That province has always kept up the French laws and the Code Napoleon, and I am not aware that we have ever found fault against the law as it exists. The hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Fortier), who has just preceded me in this debate, referred to the section of the Civil Code which declares that marriage may only be dissolved by death. We have often heard it said, on many an occasion: When a person marries, it is "For better or for worse."


Mr. MERCIER (Translation):: Will the
hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why,
certainly.


Paul Mercier: Will tell
us that it is "For better of for worse;" is it not for life?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is for life; it is exactly what I say. Indeed, one of the sections of our Civil Code specifies that marriage can only be dissolved by death. The axiom that I have just quoted and to which my hon. friend drew my attention, is a way of expressing oneself. When marriage has been consecrated, if the union is happy or unhappy, the contracting parties must accept the accomplished fact. In a number of cases, notwithstanding that there might have been reasons for which persons might have asked for divorce, they have been well advised to have recourse to separation. As the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) expressed it this afternoon: often parsons who seek divorce have in mind and desire to remarry.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) spoke just now on this subject to vindicate the rights of women and claim justice, equal rights for all. I sincerely congratulate her on the way she unfolded her arguments in the name of all those whom she has the honour to represent, and whose interpreter she is for the whole Dominion, being the only representative of her sex in the Canadian parliament. I congratulate her,

I say, for the way she gave the reasons which militate in favour of womanhood, in the western provinces, so that they may be placed on the same footing as man. I congratulate her, but I cannot entirely side with her, because notwithstanding all legislation or law which might be adopted, aiming to grant women the same rights as men, there will always remain a difference, something which will not be identical. This difference exists since the creation of man. There has always existed and there will always exist in woman, an inborn weakness, a marked inferiority. I am not saying this with the idea of depreciating woman, because we have all had mothers. And we know that if woman, notwithstanding her nature and weakness, may render services to her country, we are also aware that she is unable to accomplish as much as men. On the other hand, woman, is looked upon-and with reason-as the angel of the home, as a gentler being than man.


Paul Mercier: Am I to
understand from the hon. member's remark that woman is the anget of the home regardless of the religion to which she belongs?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is exactly what I have just said: that woman is the angel of the home. However, if woman is the angel of the home and may, in certain circumstances, become the mainstay of a family or organization, it is not less true that according to the laws of nature, woman is differently constituted from man, that is physically.


Mr. VIEN (Translation):: Physiologically
speaking.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes,
physiologically, to use the right expression of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien). In spite of our granting the franchise to woman, in spite of our placing her on the same footing as man, in all spheres of action, notwithstanding that we grant her the same rights and the same privileges, it is not less certain that you will never be able to pass a law making woman equal to man. The latter will always have that superiority which characterizes him and places him at the head of society. And even in the home, although woman is the queen, although she is the one who brings up the children, although she is the one who, very often, through her advice, prevents her husband from blundering, is it not, finally, man that is the master?
The hon. member, Sir, for Drummond and Arthabaska (Mr. Laflamme) has, at the out-

Divorce
set of this debate, twice, put a question, to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and he insisted on the fact that if the resolution of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) was adopted, and, if a bill based on this resolution was introduced, what would happen in the western provinces, would be that divorce could be obtained still more easily. The hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska (Mr. Laflamme), with whom I am well acquainted, a man who has a wide knowledge of men, women and the world, one of the greatest criminal lawyers in this country, who understands the human heart and human nature, fears that if we open any wider the door to allow certain persons to dissolve the ties of marriage, it might, perhaps, be to their detriment and to that of society. I am of the same opinion as the hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, the principle of the present resolution is the same as the one which was at stake in 1919 or 1920, at the time of the debate introduced by Mr. Nickle, then member for Kingston.
If I am not mistaken the hon. member for West Calgary, in introducing this resolution, wishes to obtain relief for certain wrongs which exist in the western provinces. I do not think that he will succeed, not that the religion of the majority of those who sit on your right, Sir, are opposed to divorce; but because I notice that many of the members belonging to a different religion than ours, share in a way our views on this question. I, therefore, ask the House to postpone the continuation of this debate to a future date, so that we may consider the subject in all its phases and from all angles. We cannot and must not, on such an important question, express an opinion lightly, as we are asked to do, for the excellent reason that it might, perhaps, sanction a principle and acknowledge a fact which, next year, might serve as a precedent to ask this House the adoption of another bill or another resolution to still widen the door and give more facility to all who, for very vague reasons wish to obtain a divorce. It gives me much pleasure to proclaim in this House and throughout the country that I firmly believe in the teachings of the religion to which I have the honour to belong, and as for myself as well as for the majority of the members who sit on your right, Sir, I believe that if we were ever asked to vote on a similar measure as the one now before us, we could not act otherwise than the way we did 32
in the past, when a similar measure was introduced in the House, that is to vote against any measure which might appear to be a sanction of the principle of divorce. Again do I state our beliefs would not allow us to do otherwise. It is impossible for us to force our conscience to accept a measure which, looking at it from all angles, would injure the principles of our religion, principles that we have sworn to safeguard when we were baptised and confirmed.
It was stated in the course of this debate, that it would be preferable to have a uniform legislation and create special divorce courts throughout the country, as they exist all over, where the people of the various provinces might register their complaints. It is a repetition of the same thing. These bills or resolutions only aim at opening the door to divorce, making it easier and less costly to obtain. There is a desire to increase the causes of disunion and quarrels which exist in our country instead of decreasing them. I think they exist enough, to-day, without trying to increase them by adopting such a resolution without making a deeper study of the question. I have, perhaps, been repeating the arguments already brought out by speakers who have preceded me in this debate, however, I think, Sir, that we should not adopt the resolution of the hon. member for West Calgary, under the present circumstances, when it is introduced at the beginning of the session, and a great number of members have hardly had time to digest the debate on the Address, and have not had time to carefully consider this question as it should be. I have, perhaps, expressed on this subject views which may seem contrary to those of the hon. members who sit on your left, Sir, but it is permissible to differ in opinion from our colleagues. By virtue of the British principles which govern us, and which have united the Dominion, everybody is free to think and to freely express his thoughts. That is what we wish to do. There lies the reason that I was not backward, a moment ago in stating that any measure or resolution the object of which is to weaken the ties of marriage and to do away with the impediments to divorce, would be legislation of a pernicious character. It is preferable that a few should suffer, rather than spread a plague existing in a number of countries and which threatens to attack us, if we do not strive to restrain and check it. What is happening in the great American republic? The ease with which divorce is granted in the case of many persons having married thoughtlessly.

Divorce

A great number of soldiers were married in this way in Europe, during the war; immediately after their return to this country, they perceived their error and took the means of obtaining a divorce. And we now witness a great number of broken homes, families separated and persons who will lead a miserable existence for the remainder of their lives, who will make their wives and progeny unhappy and be a desgrace and dishonour to their families.
I would have liked, Sir, to be better prepared to carry on this discussion and I must beg your indulgence and that of the members of this House, and if I have not given to this question the preparation which so important a subject deserves, it is that I did not think that this resolution would be brought up to-day and that we would be called upon to express our views immediately on such a serious subject. This is the reason, Sir, that I have not before me the statistics that I wished to quote and that I have neither, perhaps, brought out the most convincing reasons, the best and strongest arguments for the solving of a problem having such import.
We heard, as I mentioned, a moment ago, a number' of the oldest members of this House-among others the hon. member for Bonaventure-who gave their reasons, in the name of their fellow citizens and constituencies which they represent, why they oppose such a measure. For the same reasons, in the name of my fellow citizens of the province of Quebec and the electors of the county which I represent, I, myself, must disapprove of this resolution. Its principle seems to me wrong. I do not think a vote will be taken on it, to-day, and, therefore, when the debate will again come up, I shall be better prepared and shall give stronger reasons to have it rejected. I even question, if the hon. member for West Calgary, wishing to do justice to the citizens of the provinces which he mentioned in his speech, is not rather doing them irreparable injury in the near future? I am fully convinced, Sir, that the resolution of the hon. member will not in any possible way better the situation which he has described.
As it is six o'clock, Sir, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate ajoumed.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 20, 1924