1925-02-26

PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, respecting The London Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Canada and to change its name to London Fire Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 11, to incorporate Dominion Chartered Customs House Brokers Association -Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 12, respecting The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company-Mr. German.
Bill No. 13, respecting a patent of West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 14, respecting a patent of Edgeworth Greene-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 15, respecting a patent of Blair Engineering Company of Canada, Limited- Mr. McMaster.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING <Prime Minister): I beg to lay on the table a copy of a convention and protocol between 35
His Britannic Majesty, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, and the United States, for reglating the level of the lake of the Woods, and of identical letters of reference submitting to the International Joint Commission certain questions for the regulation of the levels of Rainy lake and other upper waters; signed at Washington, the 24th day of February, 1925. Also, a copy of a convention between His Britannic Majesty, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, and the United States, for the further demarcation of the boundary between Canada and the United States; signed at Washington the 24th day of February, 1925.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved:: That 500 copies in the English language and 300 m the French language of the convention and protocol between His Britannic Majesty in respect of the Dominion of Canada and the United States for regulating the levels of the lake of the Woods, and identical letters of reference submitted to the International Joint Commission on certain questions as to regulation of the Rainy lake and other upper waters, signed at Washington on February 24, 1925, be printed forthwith, and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That 500 copies in the English language and 300 in the French language of the convention between His Britannic Majesty in respect of the Dominion of Canada and the United States for the further demarcation of the boundary betw'een Canada and the United States, signed at Washington on February 24, 1925, be printed forthwith, and that rule 74 in relation thereto be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I beg to lay on the table of the House a copy of the formal judgment and reasons for judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of the restoration of the Crowsnest pass rates, and the general order of the railway board disallowing the tariffs of the Canadian Pacific and of the Canadian National Railway Companies.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: May I suggest to the minister that it would be of great interest to the House if he would indicate briefly what the judgment is?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Probably, stating it in the words of a layman, I might not state it exactly, so I shall read a substantial part of the judgment:
Question 1. Whether, as a matter of law, the board is empowered, under the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Railway Act, or otherwise, to authorize rail-

Crowsnest Pass Agreement

way rates upon the railway of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in excess of the maximum rates referred to in the Crowsnest Pass Act, being chapter 5, 60-61 Victoria, Statutes of Canada, and in the agreement theirein referred to, upon the commodities therein mentioned.
Answer. No.
Question 2. If the court shall be of the opinion that the Crowsnest Pass Act or agreement is binding upon the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, then, according to the construction of the Crowsnest Pass Act, section 1, clause (d), and the agreement made thereunder,
(a)	I. Are the rates therein provided applicable to traffic westbound from Fort William and from all points east of Fort William now on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's railway;
Answer. No.
(a)	II. Are such rates confined to westbound traffic originating at Fort William and at such points east of Fort William as were, at the date of the passing of the Act and (or) the making of the agreement, on the company's line of railway?
Answer. Yes.
(b)	Are such rates applicable to traffic originating at points east of Fort William which were, at the date of the passing of the Act and (or) of the making of the agreement, on any line of railway owned or leased by or operated on account of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?
Answer. In order that the traffic provided for by clause (d) should fall under that clause, it must originate at Fort William or some point east thereof which at the date of the agreement was " on the company's railway."
(c)	Are the rates therein provided applicable to traffic destined to points west of Fort William which are now on the Canadian Pacific Company's railway or on any line of railway owned or leased by or operated on account of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ?
Answer. In order that the rates prescribed in clause
(d)	should apply, the destination of traffic otherwise within that clause must be a point which was at the date of the agreement " on the company's main line or on (some) line of railway throughout Canada owned or leased by or operated on account of the company."
(d)	Are such rates confined to traffic destined to points west of Fort William which were at the date of the passing of the act or the making of the agreement on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's railway or on any line of railway owned or leased by or operated on account of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. Whether as a matter of law the board is empowered under the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Railway Act or otherwise to authorize rates upon the Canadian Pacific Railway on grain and flour from all points on the main line, branches or connections of the company west of Fort William to Fort William and Port Arthur and all points east beyond the maximum rates specified in the Crowsnest Pass Act and agreement and referred to in Chapter 41, Statutes of Canada (1922)?
Answer. No.


Arthur Meighen: Is the judgment unanimous?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can answer my right hon. friend. The judgment

is prepared by the Chief Justice and is concurred in by Justices Duff, Mignault, Rinfret and Newcombe.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: When is that
decision likely to be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I do not think I can
answer my hon. friend at this date.


George Perry Graham: That 2,000 copies in the English language and 400 copies in the French language of the formal judgment and the reasons for judgment of the Supreme court in the Crowsnest pass rates matter laid on the table of the House to-day, be printed forthwith for distribution to senators and members and for bound sessional papers, and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16 to amend the Supreme Court Act.
He said: The purpose of the amendment is to change the date of opening of the October sitting from the second to the first Tuesday. This is to meet the wishes of the members of the court.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. BIRD:: 1.	How many miles of the Hudson Bay railway have
been restored to a sound operating condifon?
2.	What was the total amount expended on the repair of the Hudson Bay railway during the years 19le and 1924?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	214 miles have been repaired and put in condition for the present service.
2.	$413,222.13.


' PUGWASH BUOY SERVICE
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	Was the service of buoys at Pugwash, Nova Scotia, taken from Frank Seaman and given to Hanford Van Ember?
2.	If so, why [was this change made, and when?
3.	Were any tenders asked for such service?
4.	If so, how, and what tenders were received?
5.	On whose recommendation was the change made?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1 and 2. Mr. Frank Seaman had a contract for the maintenance of the buoy service at Pugwash, NJ3., which terminated on July 2, 1924. The amount paid under the contract

Questions
was $100 per annum. A new contract for the same amount was made for the maintenance of the same service with 'Mr. Hanford Van Ember.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	The Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


WHEAT RUST INVESTIGATION
Mr. GOULD:: 1.	How many civil servants are engaged in investigational work on wheat rust ?
2.	How many workers have been chosen since vote No. 418 was passed whose salary is chargeable to the vote?
3.	Were all appointments made through civil service examinations?
4.	Did any United States scientists or acknowledged authorities on wheat rust meet Canadian departmental heads for a conference on rust at Winnipeg during 1924?
5.	If so, how many, and upon whose invitation did they come?
6.	What amount of the said vote No. 418 was expended on account of the conference?
7.	What amount of this vote was expended in purchase of land, and the building of needful winter quarters for preservation of host plant of the rust germ through the winter season?
8.	Was total amount of vote No. 418 expended?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Four.
2.	None.
3.	Three of the present staff were appointed after competition by the Civil Service Commission, the fourth was appointed before the outside service came under the commission's jurisdiction.
4.	Yes.
5.	Four. They were invited by the Department of Agriculture and the Research Council of Canada jointly.
6.	None.
7.	None of this vote has yet been expended and none will be expended in building winter quarters for the preservation of the host plant of the rust germ during the winter season. It is anticipated, however, that some eighty per cent of this appropriation will be expended by March 31, 1925, in the erection of greenhouses and the purchase of equipment for cereal rust laboratory which it is proposed to erect on the grounds of the Manitoba Agricultural College at Winnipeg this coming summer.
8.	Answered by No. 7.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
*Mr. BOYS:: 1.	How many ships are there in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?
2.	What are the name, tonnage, length, capacity and horse-power of each?
35i


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will look at last year's report of the merchant marine he will find a list of the names of the ships, their tonnage, and so on.


Mr. BOYS:: It is very convenient to have the information in short form rather than in a bulky report.


George Perry Graham: The report is contained
in about ten pages. However, I can get the information, I think.


SUPERANNUATION ACT RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and' Car-leton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government if a return has been tabled giving the number of superannuations under the Superannuation Act of last year, the amount paid, and the amount contributed during the year by those who were superannuated. I find that section 14 of the act provides that this return shall be laid' on the Table withir fifteen days after the opening of parliament A esterday when the estimates were before tin House we wanted this information, but it wat: not available. If this return were brought down the information would be made available to hon. members.


Mr. ROBB:: If it is related to the Department of Insurance I will have the question directed to the Superintendent of Insurance and try to get an answer for my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: The routine in the matter is that the recommendation or suggestion is made by the department; then it must be approved by the Civil Service Commission; then it goes to the Treasury board and is finally approved by council. In the discussion of a day or two ago it was pointed' out that the Civil Service Commission was now preparing a list of all superannuations as well as of retirements under the Calder Act.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I read section 14 of the act? I think it will clarify the situation:
The minister shall lay before parliament within fifteen days after the commencement of each session thereof~
(a)	a statement of all superannuation and retiring and withdrawal allowances granted during the last fiscal year under the terms of this act, giving the name and rank of each person superannuated or retired, his salary, age and length of service, the allowance granted to him on retirement, the cause of his superannuation and whether the vacancy has been subsequently filled, and if so, whether by promotion or by new appointment, and the salary of the new incumbent;
(b)	a statement of all allowances granted to widows, children or other dependents of civil servants under this act during the said year, showing the name, age and sex of each person to whom any such allowance has been granted; and the name, age at death, salary
Soldiers' Pensions

and length of service of the civil servant to whose widow, children or other dependents such allowance or allowances have been granted;
(c)	a statement showing the amount received as contributions and the amount paid as allowances during the said year under this act together with such further information as may be .prescribed by the Governor in Council by regulation made under this act.
The question has already been asked two or three times during the discussion of estimates. If this return were tabled it would obviate the necessity of repeating the question when the estimates for each department come up.


George Perry Graham: What is the interpretation of the word "Minister?" Is that the Minister of Finance or the minister of each department?


Mr CALDWELL:: The act defines "Minister" as the Minister of Finance.


Mr. BELAND:: I may point out to my
hon. friend that the act came into force after the last session of parliament, and the report which is mentioned in section 14 applies to the fiscal year. The fiscal year during which the act came into force has not yet come to an end. It terminates only on the 31st day of March next.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This will not become
effective, then, until next session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A return along the line which my hon. friend has requested is now being prepared and will be brought down as soon as completed.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN CALGARY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I rise to ask the government if it has taken any action on the telegram received from Mayor Webster of Calgary, in which he stated that many of the unemployed there who were in a destitute condition were immigrants who had not been long enough in the community to come within the scope of the relief policy adopted by the city?


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: That telegram was replied to, and
reference of the matter mentioned has been made to the Immigration department. It is expected that we will have additional information for Mr. Webster shortly.


SOLDIERS' PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Findlay Maclean: I
would like to ask the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment what he has to say

with regard to the following suggestion which has been made to me in the form of a telegram:
Please strenuously oppose grant of $100,000 from veterans' canteen funds to Veterans' Alliance.
Is it the intention of the minister to dispose of the fund in that way?


George Perry Graham: Who sent the telegram?


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Davidson,
president of the Riverdale Great War Veterans' Association, of my constituency.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand the
question to be whether the government intends to introduce legislation to apportion $100,000 of the canteen fund to the Veterans' Alliance?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no such provision in the bill.


William Findlay Maclean: Then why is there this unrest over it? Has any order in council been passed in the matter?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No order in council having any relation to the canteen fund has been passed by this government. There is no provision in the legislation which is contemplated that relates to the apportionment of $100,000 to the Veterans' Alliance in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I am very anxious to be clear in the matter. As I understand the minister, he says that the government does not propose to introduce any legislation similar to what is embodied in the act of last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The government does, yes.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, the government does?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: But not along
the line of the suggestion in this telegram?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Not at all. There was no
provision in the bill of last year for the payment of $100,000 to the Dominion Veterans' Alliance.


Mr. ARTHURS:: And no order in council
has been passed along similar lines?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I
would like to ask the government if the appointment of a special committee on pensions and soldiers' civil re-establishment is contemplated for the present session?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.

Divorce


Mr. J. A. CLARK:: (Burrard): When is it contemplated that legislation in regard to pensions, soldiers' civil re-establishment and such other matters will be introduced?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The legislation to which my hon. friend refers will be introduced very shortly. Probably notice will be given next week.


BETTING INFORMATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. E. ROSS (North Simcoe):: I would like to ask the government whether they intend at this session to bring in legislation similar to that passed in this House two years ago and amended in the Senate dealing with the handbook evil.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it is the intention of the government to reintroduce this year the amendment to the Criminal Code which was adopted by the House of Commons two years ago and rejected by the Senate, dealing with the subject mentioned by my hon. friend.


DIVORCE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, respecting divorce.
He said:	I had the opportunity and the
privilege last year of presenting to the House a resolution incorporating the provisions of this bill. The resolution was not disposed of by the House. Subsequently I introduced a bill founded on the resolution; that, however, was not disposed of either, and I now take the earliest opportunity of presenting for the consideration of the House this year a bill designed to establish equality as between husband and wife so far as the grounds for divorce are concerned. In order that the situation may be properly appreciated let me sketch very briefly something of the history of divorce in Canada.
By our federation act of 1857 the subject of divorce was assigned exclusively to the federal parliament. There was another provision in the British North America Act by which the laws in force and the courts in operation in each of the confederating provinces were to continue in force and operation until such time as they were repealed or altered by competent authority. There was a further provision by which upon the expected application of further provinces to join in the union the same provision should apply, namely, that their laws and their courts should be continued until similarly repealed or altered.
Now, having these provisions in mind, I want to sketch the situation as it existed at confederation. Previous to 1867 Ontario and Quebec had no divorce courts. Consequently as to divorce these provisions that I have mentioned had no application to these two provinces. I should say also that the Dominion government has never in any case passed any general divorce law, and the result is that Ontario and Quebec in divorce matters stand exactly in the position they were in prior to confederation.
The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each had divorce courts prior to 1867. These courts granted divorce to men and women on equal grounds; that is the grounds open to the husband were likewise open to the wife; there was no distinction as between the sexes. The grounds in the province of New Brunswick were adultery, impotence and consanguinity. To these three grounds which prevailed in the province of New Brunswick there was a fourth added in Nova Scotia, namely the ground of cruelty; and so the situation is that tihe divorce laws of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which were passed prior to confederation still persist to this day, and both sexes are on a basis of absolute equality.
The first province to join confederation, was the province of Manitoba in the year 1870. Prior to its incorporation, the district of Assiniboia, of which it formed a part, had passed an ordinance that the laws of England as they existed in the year 1870 should be applicable in that area, and so the result was that when Manitoba joined confederation in 1870, the laws of England as they existed in 1870, including, of course, the law with resp.ct to divorce, applied in that province.
The province of British Columbia joined confederation in 1871. but previous to joining confederation the then colony of British Columbia had adopted the English law as it stood in 1858; so it entered the union preserving the law of England on divorce as of the year 1858.
The province of Prince Edward Island joined confederation in 1873, but previous to confederation it also had a court operating in divorce matters, and that court has been preserved, although I think but seldom used.
The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which joined confederation in 1905, had taken the law of Engjland as it stood in the year 1870. And so, shortly, the result is this: that to-day the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have no divorce courts, while Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have each divorce courts, before all of which men and women stand exactly upon equal
[Stage Direction]
uivorce
ground; that is, the husband can secure divorce on the ground of adultery alone, and similarly with the wife. The four western provinces take the law of England so far as divorce matters are concerned for all practical purposes as it existed in the year 1870, because there was no substantial alteration of the English divorce law between the year 1858 and the year 1870. So, for the purposes of my argument I say that the divorce law of England as it existed in the year 1870 applies to the four western provinces.
Now what is this English law which is applicable in the four western provinces? May I just put it shortly by stating that whereas the husband can secure a divorce on the ground of adultery alone, the wife must prove something further; she must prove not only adultery, but in addition either one of two things, cruelty, or desertion without reasonable excuse for a period of two years. That is exactly the situation that exists in the province of Alberta to-day. There are other grounds for divorce which are not necessary to this discussion, and to which I shall not refer, but which are included in the British Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857. I trust I have made that clear; that whereas the husband has a right to divorce upon proving adultery alone, the wife in the four western provinces must prove something additional, either cruelty, or desertion for a period of two years without reasonable excuse. Now that is a considerable burden to place upon the wife in any event; and when we come to the interpretation of these words, cruelty and desertion, we find that they are probably more difficult of proof than perhaps most of us appreciate. Cruelty in the ordinary sense of the term we understand, but legal cruelty is something entirely different. The definition of it has come to us from an English court decision given in the year 1790. Let me give in the words of the Ontario appeal court the 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 is reasonable apprehension that the same state of things will continue.
That is the definition of legal cruelty. That is what the wife in any of the four western provinces of Canada must prove in addition to adultery before she can secure a divorce from the courts in those jurisdictions. One of our Ontario court judges, referring to that definition of cruelty, which he adopted for the purpose of his decision, used these words:
The law is not in accord with modern views as to the relations between husband and wife. That it is
iMr. Shaw.
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.
In Alberta, the chief justice of the appellate court of that province in a decision used these words:
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.
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Must cruelty be established by the wife in any other parts of the Dominion than the four western provinces?


Mr. SHAW:: No. Then we come to the
other ground. Suppose that the wife, instead of relying upon adultery and cruelty, (is forced to rely upon a combination of adultery and desertion. We find that great difficulties are imposed upon her there, because she must prove desertion for a period of two years, and she must prove that it is without reasonable excuse.


Mr. FORKE:: Would the hon. member
state what are the grounds for divorce in Ontario and Quebec?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Ontario and Quebec have no divorce courts. The applicant for divorce in those two provinces must come to the Parliament of Canada for relief, and the Parliament of Canada is, of course, empowered to grant relief on any terms that it sees fit. It undoubtedly grants relief to the parties, either husband or wife, on terms of equality. Divorce has been granted by parliament on the ground-


Mr. BAXTER:: I rise to a point of order. I do so in the hope that it will be beneficial to some of us. We would like to hear what I have no doubt is a very instructive address, but owing to the disorder prevailing in the chamber we are unable to follow the hon. gentleman's remarks.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is, possibly, an exaggeration to use the term "disorder", but there is undoubtedly a great deal of conversation going on. I would ask hon. gentlemen on both sides to kindly listen, and to refrain from conversation. If that is done the hon. member who has the floor will be heard with ease.


Mr. PUTNAM:: I understood from the hon. gentleman that in Ontario and Quebec the tribunals have practically unlimited power to grant divorce. How far would the hon. gentleman qualify, if at all, my interpretation of the situation?

Divorce


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I have already stated that there are no divorce courts operating in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Harold Putnam: No, but there are grounds for granting divorce.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the use of there being grounds for divorce if there are no courts to give effect to the grounds. In the case of these two provinces, as I understand it, the only way an applicant for divorce can secure relief is by coming to the federal parliament and presenting his or her case. Now, as a result of the decisions of the Senate from time to time I think it is fair to state that parliament grants divorces on terms of equality as far as the sexes are concerned. The Parliament of Canada is supreme. It can grant a divorce upon any ground it sees fit, but in actual practice divorce is granted on the ground of adultery, nonconsummation, and various other grounds which are immaterial to my argument at the moment.


William Findlay Maclean: How much does it cost to get relief from the federal parliament in the way my hon. friend has indicated?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: If my hon. friend will permit me to go on I shall come to the point in a moment.


Mr. HOEY:: In the case of a petitioner for divorce living in the western provinces has he or she the right to petition the Dominion parliament?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Yes, the Parliament of Canada is available to people throughout Canada, regardless of what province they may reside in.


Harold Putnam: If my hon. friend will excuse me, and purely for information, is it true that the divorce committee of the Senate has unlimited discretion in granting a divorce in any case in which the marriage proves to be a hardship-for instance in a case where incompatibility of temperament is shown?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Well, no committee of the Senate has any jurisdiction in the matter at all. As I understand it, the Senate committee hears the evidence and recommends action to the upper house. Even action by the Senate is not adequate unless it is approved by this House.


Harold Putnam: That is technical.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The Parliament of Canada,
composed of the House of Commons and the Senate, puts through every divorce bill. It
can grant divorce on any ground, so far as I am aware, that it sees fit.
Now, when interrupted by this series of questions, I was about to deal with the subject of desertion, the other ground upon which the wife might secure divorce if it were coupled with adultery. As I pointed out, in that event the wife must prove desertion for a period of two years and without reasonable excuse. The term "without reasonable excuse" allows, as one can easily see, a very wide latitude within which an erring husband can readily escape from the consequences of his conduct.
The purpose of this bill is to remedy these inequalities. It is to put the wife in the four western provinces before the courts of those provinces on exactly the same basis as the husband. And why should it not be so? After all, is not adultery the great cardinal sin against the marriage relationship? Is it not the primary offence which impairs the stability of the home, and is it not the one great offence which interferes with domestic happiness? Therefore, if such relief is granted to the husband, why should i.t not be equally secured to the wife?


Mr. BROWN:: Have the provincial legislatures no powers in this direction themselves?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No, the subject of divorce,
as I stated at the outset, is a matter of federal jurisdiction alone. I ask this parliament, why impose this burden on women when it is not imposed equally on men? Why impose it, or allow the imposition to continue, on western women when women in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are relieved from that imposition? I say it is an injustice to the women in the four western provinces.
From the discussion of last year I take it that there may be two objections raised to this bill. There is first of all the objection raised by those who have religious convictions on the matter, and who feel that under no circumstances should divorce be granted. With those who sincerely hold that view, I of course, have no quarrel, but I do say this: We have divorce now, not only granted by the Parliament of Canada, but granted by the courts of all the provinces of the Dominion except those of Ontario and Quebec. Will you, because of any religious conviction however sincere it may be, deny equality in these courts to women? It seems to me that it is unfair and unjust to do so, and may I-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Do you not think it
would be better to put the man to the same
Divorce

inconvenience as the woman and compel him to prove cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: 
Mr. C. A. FOURNIER (BelLechasse):: Should this legislation be enacted, one cannot help but realize that the tragic extent to which we condone the loosening of the marriage tie is a lowering sign of our times, a great modern evil, a false reasoning threatening our best institutions, striking at our noblest hopes.
Although this bill does not challenge the convictions and feelings of the people whom I have the honour to represent, it involves a general principle that for my part, as a member of this House, I cannot see submitted to parliament without registering my protest. And in so doing, Sir, I ask you and hon. gentlemen to accept my remarks as a starter to establish a fulcrum for reform in voicing righteous sentiments and as a live coal from faith's altar to touch the community's conscience and energize into determined action a purpose long latent in every good heart-the heart that desires that the evil of divorce, with all the wickedness it implies and all the wretchedness it entails, should wither away like the short-lived, fraudulent affections that foster it and linger only as a memory of what was once a mockery of Christian faith, and live and love.
What trespass have we committed, of what sin are we guilty, that we have to face the accusation of divorce at this session? Think of the harm that infects the divorced home, the deceit and defection, the misery without measure, sorrows innumerable, wasted lives, perverted careers, children bereft, their sacred rights of parents' united care parceled out or denied them, husband and wife divided,
not by exalted death but by a dry decision, whether of courts or parliament. To what degree this harm is hindering the better impulse of the race, to what extent the sorrows of law widowers and law-widowed wives and forsaken children is increasing, no one knows.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman?-divorce is not a disease, divorce is a remedy for a disease.


Charles Alphonse Fournier: In the very case now before the House the remedy sought is for a few affected ones; but the law is offered to all. To what degree this harm is hindering the better impulse of the race, to what extent the sorrows of law widowers and law-widowed wives and forsaken children are increasing, no one knows. To what degrading depth lies the evil which accompanies that harm and sorrow, no one can tell. Legalized lechery, adultery by due process of law, concubinage upheld by the constitution, all aspects of present day divorce, being sanctioned, flourishing in rank growth and their foul affects rise, like the exhalations of a noisome slough, which scatters to the winds the propagating plague that poisons the nation.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask whether in the opinion of the hon. member, and under these circumstances, or under any circumstances, it is right for this parliament to pass a divorce bill?


Charles Alphonse Fournier: No.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has the hon. member ever protested the passage of any divorce bill in this House?


Charles Alphonse Fournier: That is exactly what I am now trying to do, and if my hon. friend will possess his soul in patience and listen quietly to what I have to say I shall give him some sentiments to take home with him. Sir, I have not the distinction of belonging to the legal fraternity, but I have no hesitation in declaring from my seat in this House that divorce is contrary to all authority. It is contraiy, first, to the law of nature, from which all stable laws must come. I speak not of the nature of brutes, which couple themselves by hazard, but of the nature of men, and as a man speaking to manly men. In the first line of the first page of the law of nature you will find the institution of marriage, which existed before all society. It is anterior and superior to all laws. Civil law can regulate marriage, but marriage is not a simple contract; and the first cry of natural law came from the first cradle. Even Jeremy Bentham, an apostle of divorce, has said:
Divorce

Marriage for life is the best jissortei to the wants of families and the most favourable to individuals.
Marriage is a contract of natural law, unique in its essence. Civil law can regulate it, but never dissolve it.
Divorce is contrary to morals, which all stable laws must respect, follow and sustain. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, can you put morality into marriage by injecting into it a sufficient quantity of legalized adultery? Our law is based on the divorce law in England. Divorce was first granted here for grave cause, and it was looked upon then as a tragedy. To-day it has reached the point of comedy, if not of farce. An hon. gentleman speaking a moment ago referred to England. Does he know that the Protestant Bishop of Rochester said one day to Lord Mulgrave that for ten divorces on the ground of adultery, nine were prepared by the husband with some obliging fellow who would look for Milady and prepare proofs and testimonies for submission to the court of justice? Can you dream of a more immoral law than that which transforms vice into an instrument of procedure and gives it a judicial premium?
Divorce is contrary to politics-that word 60 dishonoured is interpreted here not in the usual sense which we give to it while speaking of that eternal and confused skirmish disputed between the government and the people; but in its high and useful significance, as the science of keeping the nation in good health. Modem nations drink politics as they drink coffee; they cannot get along without it. The Chinese prefer opium.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would ask the
hon. member this question: Is not provision for divorce included in the British North America Act?


Charles Alphonse Fournier: I will answer my hon. friend in a few minutes. Governments ought to have only one mission in dealing with civilized society, namely, to establish order and promote the common welfare by a just distribution of rights and duties. A government is, by its fidelity in fulfilling its mission, the artisan of its good fortune and glory, as it is by its incapacity, its weakness and its prevarications, the source of its own ruin. The duty of a legislator is to recognize marriage as the first of human institutions. A law which in some way regulates evil and consequently admits it, a law which manipulates disorder to manufacture order, and which uses the shining folds of the nuptial dress to drape vice's shoulders, is a law of masquerade and nothing else.
Divorce is also contrary to religion, which is the principle of everything on earth.

Christianity raised man above his ignorance and corruption, purified his nature, rendered his will firmer. It taught the world that duty and love, sacrifice and liberty, are one thing under different aspects, and it gave to the individual, by him to the family and by the family to society, virtue which is force, and force which is liberty.
Divorce also wounds and breaks the hearts of many. It ruins the home; it destroys the happiness and sanctity of married life; it depreciates the dignity of womanhood, for she runs the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of man. It also wounds the innocent heart of the child and ruins its future prospects. Needless to say, the love of home is eternal; it is co-extensive with the life of the human race; it came with the first and will go out with the last. Home implies affection for others, and besides, it provides the incentive of progress. And being a source of religion, it is the origin of unselfishness; and this, incredible as it may seem, has been the germ of state and political growth.
Divorce constitutes the gravest menace to our institutions, of which home is the very foundation. Home! Who can estimate its sacredness, its tender associations, or the flood of fond memories which its very mention evokes in the mind of the storm-tossed mariner of life? Who knows? Perhaps in prison; perhaps when far away upon a sickbed, tossed with fever, or when embittered with the reverses of fate, with fortune, friends and hope all gone; perhaps when suffering ' beneath a cold world's scorn; then the thought of home steals before the mental vision of the weary wanderer and he trembles to tears as he hears again the loving accents of mother's voice and learns once more those never-to-be-forgotten lessons of goodness acquired at her knee.
Home is the verdant spot of recollection; palms and a fountain in a burning desert; a fragrant flower about which like busy bees cling tenaciously the fondest memories of affection, grief oppressed-
Deep as first love and full of all regret.
-as the great Tennyson has so truly said. Thus does home arouse the soul and strike the chord of love, of father, mother, sisters, friends. Nothing but death can quench that strain. What loving and never-dying sentiment binds us indissolubly with our home! How can we eradicate from memory the hallowed place wherein the incense of morning and evening sacrifice rose to the Almighty, the sweet savour of family worship.

Divorce
Think of the bride, twice wedded, walking the earth smilingly, knowing that still alive upon its surface are two men who have partaken with her of the sacred feast that only one should feed his soul upon. Perhaps this divorce-mill, second-time bride may attend' a party somewhere and there behold both her husbands hale and hearty, and she will look upon these once inviolate companions of her connubial hours, and perhaps she will give a hand! to each linked in the festive dance. What a spectacle in a civilized world! And we members of parliament are asked to say that that is beautiful!
What shall be said of the children of divorce? God pity them! They will be forced to grow up in the world d'eprived of the maternal love. I ask hon. gentlemen before they assent to such a bill as this to think of the scenes of childhood, to think of home, never-forgotten, to think of the shrine of the dearest days, the tenderest of recollections, the treasury of our choicest memories, the place that was illumed by mother's smile. As one great poet says, speaking of the youth in the home:
Ask
The little child what is home. You will find
That to him it is the world. He
Knows no other. Father's love, mother's smile,
Sister's embrace, brother's welcome, those
Throw about his home an heavenly
Halo, and make it to him all-attractive;
As their home is to the angels. Home!
It is the blessed spot wherein the prattling child Pours out its plaints to mama; and it is the grave Of all his sorrows. The placid place Where griefs are banished quite and sobs are soothed By the sweet lullaby of fond mother's voice.
Such is the home of happy childhood, such is the recollection of the scenes of innocent and happy childhood, and intervening years cannot shut out the deep vibration of those harmonies that tell of faith unsullied and abiding hope.
Sir, what is the remedy for divorce? My own opinion is that you do not have to go to Calgary to get it. It is not far to seek. We must return to the old faith, to the teachings under which this land has grown, favoured! beyond all other lands; we must get back to the simple beliefs and to the steadfast faith, to the recognition of the religious undercurrent of life which bears all of worth it has. If a married couple find that they have made a mistake, that couple must suffer for the good of society. It is but another instance of our sentimental morbidity, a product of an individualistic age that we listen to those who claim that an unhappily married couple must be released for remarriage, even if to help them individually the sanctity of
the common home and family must be destroyed. The lack of religious recognition in marriages of to-day is a thing of great concern, for when the inevitable trials come, when the matrimonial barque is beset by storms and tempests, one very present help in time of trouble is utterty denied the bewildered matrimonial mariners.
Marriages are made too easily. There is too much deceit and humbug in marriages today. If marriage is entered into as a civil contract, it is the lowering of the rite in the minds of all those who acquiesce in such a mechanical and materialistic procedure. If marriage be a civil contract only, it loses half its binding power. We see daily the failure and inadequacy of the civil machinery of life. Laws are imperfect-witness that we have to amend at every session; governments are often a farce and a reproach. We do not regard our obligations to our country as profoundly as we should-witness the reluctance and evasion of the income-tax payers. And if civil obligations are thus of light authority to us, what is to hinder the regarding of marriage, if it is merely a civil act, as being as unjust an imposition as our money payments to the state? Let but the first real disagreement come after the radiance of the honeymoon has sobered down to the garish light of day, and husband and wife are apt to ask the question: " Why should I be bound? What is the marital faithfulness but a load, imposed like taxpaying and jury duty, which every man gets out of if he can, and no one really censures him? The minister who united us did the act dryly and mechanically, and pocketed the fee. What incentive did he give us for not emulating his attitude? The state gave us a license to be man and wife, but what soul has the state?"
Sir, the law, whatever else happens, should stand for the home, teaching its sanctity, insisting on its preservation. Laws cannot do much towards the remedying of the divorce evil; its only reformation must come through home influence, schools, churches and individual conscience. Reform cannot be implanted into the human breast by legislative enactment, but only by an overpowering sentiment and conviction. The home is the first of human institutions. Firm and reliable principles are the result of the home-the Christian home-not only so, but greatness in any form is there enhanced. The excellent in every calling, statesmen, ministers, poets, warriors, ascribe their success to the impulse that was given them in the home. Moral excellence is invariably associated in the superior
Divorce

mind with home and ability to cherish home -the mark that divides the people into superior and inferior. Wandering tribes have no fixed habitation, and hence they cannot cultivate the solid virtues, such as citizenship, patient and continuous labour, and the setting up of steadfast institutions.
Again. We had a war, and in the fiery crucible of that tremendous struggle much that was vain, much that was unworthy was shrivelled up. It is not necessary to delineate the heroism or the horrors of the war, nor to point out right or wrong; but at a time when fathers and sons were offering their lives, and mothers and daughters were enduring the sorrows that were infinitely harder to bear, the Canadian home was at its highest and noblest. It was a sanctuary from which went faith, fortitude and sacrifice and devotion to preserve the home against our embattled enemies. Its atmosphere was pure and' rari-fied, and our people were on the heights amid death and wounds and the roar of arms. Are we going to let the divorce evil invade our homes, which are the foundation of our institutions. The opportunities for material gain have led away our people to cut down the forests, ravish the mines and impoverish the soil, to get rich quick. We are doing everything with the regrettable result that unseemly customs and opinions have been allowed to spring up and prosper. Of these, divorce is the greatest and most menacing.
Where, Mr. Speaker, are the Dominion Alliance, the Anti-Cigarette League, the AntiBetting League, the Methodist Alliance, the Women's Christian Association, the Referendum Committee, the Social Service Council, and similar organizations, which have for so many years subjected the country to an orgy of moral uplifting, and who have striven for salvation by statute, to legislate the people into holiness? Will the evil that strikes at the root and foundation of the nation, the morality of the home, which is a thousand times worse than anything battered and hammered by our moral uplifters, go unchallenged in an attempt to get legislative sanction? Is it possible that the only squeak we may get from the uplifters wiH be for them to tell us that we may go to hell if we buy a newspaper on Sunday, that we may go to hell if we bet fifty cents on a poor old sorrel horse that has the heaves, but that there is nothing wrong in having a Madame X on Monday and a different Madame X on Thursday? What is the taking of a drink, the smoking of cigarettes or attending a horse race, compared to the breaking up of a Christian home?

In closing Mr. Speaker, let me say that divorce is an unstable thing. It is the essence of unrest and irritation and impermanence, it stands for discontent; and therefore it should not prevail in our land-unless, indeed, our people have permanently deteriorated; unless they have morally taken a long step back; unless they can no longer be aroused by appeals to their fondest recollections; unless they have ceased to love and reverence home, sweet home.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express publicly my disapproval of what I consider to be an evil in our national life, namely, the divorce evil. Perhaps it is not a disease, but in my estimation it is certainly a national social evil. I have listened with much interest to the remarks of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). I think he is perfectly fair in the arguments he has put forth and I do not doubt his sincerity in endeavouring to rectify what appears to be a wrong as between the two sexes in that there is not an equality of grounds upon which they may both stand in our four western provinces. I found my mind assenting to his arguments on the grounds of fairness and reasonableness. I was also an interested listener to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier) and I find my heart assenting to the sentiments to which he gave expression-and I am rather of the opinion that our heart sentiments are more weighty and of more consequence than our mere mental assent; therefore I find myself agreeing very largely with the arguments of the hon. member for Bellechasse.
I can understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain cases where perhaps not divorce but annulment of marriage is advisable. Cases have come under my personal observation in which the annulment of the marriage contract is advisable and remarriage permissible. Such cases are very rare; non-consummation of marriage is perhaps the only reasonable ground for that course. We do have such cases in our national life. Outside of these my own opinion is that there are also a great many cases where incompatibility of temperament or for other reasons two cannot agree and it is necessary that they should separate. In such a case I think separation should be allowed, but it should be a judicial separation and should not carry with it the right to marry again. Or, if we choose to grant a bill of divorce, as we have done so many times since I have been in this parliament, we should amend our legislation in such a way as to take away the right to remarry.
The hon. member (Mr. Fournier) made mention of legalized adultery. Mr. Speaker,

Divorce
that is what it amounts to when remarriage following divorce is permitted. Marriage is a divine institution. Man when he was first created had a helpmate created for him also, and it was divinely instituted that these two should come together in the marriage contract. We recognize the divine sanction of the marriage contract by having the marriage ceremony performed under the cloak of the church; we acknowledge that it is a divine institution. If we are going to follow out that line of reasoning we should also realize that it is divinely ordained that "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." If remarriage is permitted following divorce, adultery is committed and legalized.


Mr. GOOD:: I would like to ask the hon.
member if in the ordinary meaning of divorce we do not imply the right to remarry?


Archibald M. Carmichael: I think that is correct, but I think that our law as it stands is not a proper enactment-that is my own personal opinion. We grant the right to remarry, but in so doing we legalize adultery. I am prepared to admit that it is not fair to put upon the woman in the four western provinces restrictions that are not placed upon the man. But there is a way around that. One hon. member made mention of a reasonable way around that, and his remarks were rather made light of. But in all fairness, if divorce is a national social evil, if it is something that we wish to suppress rather than to encourage, should we not place on the man the same restrictions that are now placed on the woman, in the four western provinces, namely, that in addition to adultery it should be necessary to prove cruelty or desertion for a period of two years?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is it not so that in
many cases the man could prove cruelty?


Archibald M. Carmichael: In any case it should be just as easy for the husband to prove cruelty on the part of the wife as for the wife to prove cruelty on the part of the husband. I presume that in some women at least there is a streak of the old Adam that is not good, just the same as there is in some men.
I seriously think that our divorce legislation should be reconsidered in this parliament. It has been more than amusing to me, it has caused me to think very seriously, to sit here during the past three sessions and see the divorce mill grinding out divorce after divorce until the number reached over one hundred for two provinces of this Dominion.
If we had the statistics for the nine provinces I am sure that our divorces would number more than five hundred for the past few years. During the last eight, nine or ten years there has been a very great increase in the number of divorces granted in Canada.
I do not know whether there is much sympathy in this House towards such a condition or not, but personally I feel that it is a menace to our national life that we should' unitedly stand against. We have but to look to our cousins to the south of the international line, at least in the western portion of that country, to find conditions existing which are not very enviable. It was my privilege to have in my home some few years ago a lady from the western states, and in our conversation she stated that she had been divorced three times, and she glibly remarked that if this man did not suit her she would divorce him and get another one. It had come to be with her a sort of ordinary thing. That is the kind of thing that we as a young nation are up against. The citizen is given the impression that he may quite properly say, "Oh, well, I am going into the marriage contract, I will take a chance, and if it does not suit me, I can easily jump out and try it over again." I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that such laxity should not be permitted, and if we in this parliament can raise the bars and make still more restrictive the restrictions, I feel that we would be doing a great benefit to our national life. If it is to be suggested as one hon. member remarked, that we have divorce and are not likely to get away from it, then I would suggest that we seriously consider the proposition of taking the celebration of the marriage contract away from the cloak of the church and put it under the judiciary. I feel that that would be a serious step, but if the marriage contract is going to be considered as lightly as heretofore it has been, and if we in this parliament are going to sanction such lightness of consideration, then in all fairness to what I consider the sacredness of the marriage contract it should be performed by the judiciary, by a magistrate, a justice of the peace, or some other civil authority, and taken away entirely from the cloak of the church. Believing as I do, Mr. Speaker, I could not sanction the bill as it is before the House, and I feel compelled to vote against it.


Robert Forke: I almost hesitate to say a few words on this subject after the very eloquent address that we have had from the hon. member for Belle-
Divorce

chasse (Mr. Fournier). With most of the . sentiments he expressed as to the sanctity, the holiness, the happiness, and beauty of the home I thoroughly agree. I am sure that all of us would regret very deeply anything tending to make less sacred the sanctity of the home. But while agreeing with the sentiments my hon. friend expressed, I cannot reach the same conclusions that he came to.
It seems to me that we are not discussing the question of divorce or no divorce, but the question of equality of rights as between the sexes in the matter of divorce. We have a divorce law now, and what the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) is bringing before the House is the desirability of putting men and women on an equal footing in this matter. That is the question we have to consider. We know that in the past laws have discriminated against women; women have suffered from disabilities and injustices, which are now gradually being removed. A sense of fair play and justice in the laws relating to women is much more in evidence now than it was in former times. I am one of those who believe that a great many of thost laws placing disabilities on women did not result from selfishness on the part of man; it was not his desire to do an injustice to woman; they originated from a belief that women were less capable of taking care of themselves and of property, and it was with a view to safeguarding women in that respect that they were not accorded the privileges given to men. I believe these laws arose from man's desire to protect women from themselves and from those who might have designs upon them. However, as the yearn pass we are realizing more and more that women are intellectually the equal of men, and are quite capable of taking care of themselves, and consequently we feel inclined to place them on entirely the same footing as men.


Mr. VIEN:: Instead of increasing the
facilities for women getting divorce, would not my hon. friend be favourable to decreasing the facilities for men getting it?


Robert Forke: Unfortunately human nature is what it is. Were it possible to have men and women all willing and able to create happy homes, I would say abolish divorce immediately. I am not in favour of divorce;
I am sorry to see it increasing; I do not want to see further facilities for divorce provided; but I do want to remove the disabilities under which the women in western Canada suffer in this respect as compared with the men. I hope the day will never come when Canada will have as high a percentage 
of divorce as prevails on the other side of the line. I think a great deal can be done towards making happy marriages by education, by teaching our young people just exactly what marriage means. The hon. member for Bellechasse has said that it was a spiritual relationship. I believe it is so, and if there were more teaching given in the homes of the sanctity of marriage, and of the tremendous evil of divorce, more consideration might be given and more care taken in the forming of marriages. Speaking from that point of view, I hope it will never be very easy to procure a divorce in this Dominion of Canada. Nevertheless, knowing the depths to which humanity, men and women, may fall on occasion, I think perhaps there can be no other solution to the problem than divorce, in order to settle the evil. I would not like anyone to think for a moment that I would say one word against the sanctity of the home. The home is the foundation of our civilization. All that is best and noblest and sweetest in human nature is to be found in a happy home. It is only from the point of view of bringing about equality and justice as between the sexes that I would be prepared to support the bill that has been introduced by the hon. member for West Calgary.


Ernest Lapointe: This is not a government measure
in any way, and I am going to express my own views upon it; they are binding only upon myself.
The Privy Council has decided as my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) has said that the British law on divorce as it was on the 15th of July, 1870, applies to the four western provinces, and therefore the act as it stood at that time-the law was originally enacted in 1857-with all the amendments down to 1870, applies to the four western provinces. My hon. friend is right when he says that the grounds upon which a woman can get a divorce in the courts of these provinces is widely different from the grounds on which a man can obtain a divorce. Apart from the ground of adultery, the woman must prove that there has been desertion for a period of two years, and as my hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) says it is the cruelty that is defined by the English jurisprudence of older days that applies-it is cruelty of the most severe kind which is likely to injure health or limb or life.
My hon. friend also said that under section 91 of the British North America Act it is the Parliament of Canada that has jurisdiction in divorce matters. Of course, it is still open for any wife in the western provinces to come

Divorce
to this parliament and ask for a divorce on the same grounds as a husband!. Mere infidelity would be sufficient to obtain a divorce. There is doubtless an anomaly in the first place in the fact that a woman cannot get a divorce on the same grounds as a man. There is also an anomaly-I admit it-in the fact that the grounds upon which divorce can be secured in this parliament are not the same as the grounds upon which divorce can be secured in the courts. I fully understand the motives which actuate my hon. friend (Mr. Shaw), and I respect them; nevertheless, feeling as I do, and having the opinion which I hold on the matter of divorce, I am sorry that it is impossible for me personally to vote for the proposed measure. If, as I believe, divorce is an evil, I do not think I could conscientiously vote for a measure that wouid have the effect of making it easier to obtain or to spread the evil more. If one believes that a certain food is a poison, one cannot consistently vote to have the poison distributed more freely or more easily. However this is my own view in the matter. I have risou simply for the purpose of stating what the law is on this subject. The vote I shall give I shall give conscientiously; I cannot support the measure but I fully understand the hon. member's reasons for bringing it forward.


William Charles Good: How would the minister propose to remove the existing inconsistencies and inequalities?


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps by accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Proven-cher (Mr. Beaubien) and restricting relief on one side while not enlarging it on the other.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister bring in a bill to that effect?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot promise that to my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: What is my hon. friend's duty as Minister of Justice?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that every member of the House who does not belong to a communion which feels that divorce is a moral wrong will respect the conscientious belief of those who do, and we could not expect any other action from them. But I see nothing in this bill which imposes divorce upon anybody. No member of at least two great churches which reprehends divorce, who is faithful to his own communion, will seek divorce. If a man or a woman who belongs to a church which forbids divorce seeks the assistance either of this legislature or of any court, for that purpose, that person has something to settle with the
church to which she or he belongs, and that is a spiritual and moral question into which I do not think this parliament would be prepared to enter. With reference to people who belong to churches which tolerate divorce there must be some other attitude to take in public life. After all, divorce for those people is a matter of degree; and I entirely agree with the leader (Mr. Forke) of the party which sits to my left in that I would like to see divorce minimized as greatly as possible. I would not willingly say one word, or take one action in this House or outside of it, which would tend in the direction of divorce. Neither would I nor any other hon. member of this House, ever wish to break up a home. But it is a far cry from breaking up a home to keeping a women in a lingering hell during the whole of her life, and I am prepared to vote-with safeguards and with proper restrictions-to release a woman from a life which is damnable and which ought not to be inflicted upon her. Take the people from the province of Quebec who do not believe in divorce and whose church forbids it. They can, if they are false to their church, come to this very parliament and, either by abstaining from voting or tacitly consenting, agree to legislation that is exactly in the line of this bill, but without any of the safeguards attaching to this particular measure, because the Senate is not controlled, as far as I am aware, by any particular rule although I think it acts in analogy to the English divorce practice. The hon. member has introduced a measure-


Thomas Vien: Will not my hon. friend admit that when any divorce bill is brought to this House those of us who do not participate in the debate do not give a "tacit consent" to the measure but give a "tacit dissidence"?
Mr, BAXTER: I have not caught my hon. friend's expression. I freely admit that hon. members who from religious convictions are opposed to divorce sit in this House and feel that they are not participating in it in any way and who would feel themselves touched, perhaps, with moral guilt if they did.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend said that we
"tacitly consented" to divorce legislation. We never did "tacitly consent", we "tacitly objected".


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There is no objection taken, and I say that no one protests against this legislation.


Thomas Vien: It is a tacit protest.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Remarks have come from
both sides of the House and from very different angles of Chris*'*"dom to-day against
Divorce

this measure, but the people who have made those remarks have never protested in this House against the passing of a single divorce bill. That is a fact.


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend will allow
me further. I would have registered my protest every time a divorce bill was brought up but I understood it was clearly recognized by all members that by abstaining from voting we did not concur in the legislation.


William Findlay Maclean: "Silence gives
consent".


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am quite satisfied that my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Vien) does not feel that he in any way consents or in any way participates in this matter. I am also quite satisfied that my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) has made no protest, and I rather think from his remarks that he has not quite understood the effect of the legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: Every time a divorce bill is adopted in this House, it is carried on division.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is quite right. I do not want to raise any question about that at all. I am quite content with that attitude, and I am not trying to throw any reflection on any hon. member on account of voting or not voting.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. member please correct his statement that we "tacitly consent" to it? He is wrong in that statement.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If I said that, and if withdrawing it will do any good, allow me to withdraw it. That is not the atmosphere I wish to get into. It is far outside my remarks. Referring to the divorce bills that come before us, sometimes one glances at the evidence, and I think as a rule that hon. members, whatever their convictions, probably must feel that there are many cases where the woman is unfairly dealt with; and where, if her religious scruples do not oblige her to remain bound, she ought to be freed from living in what I have already described as a hell. That is very far from letting down the bars to such an extent that there would be indiscriminate divorce for trivial causes. That is something to which I would never consent, and to which I think common sense and intelligent people will never consent. But what is the difficulty about this bill when it only permits, and it does not go a bit farther, the residents of the four western provinces to obtain precisely the same relief-by means of a court properly constituted for the purpose
[Mr. Baxter.)
of hearing evidence more minutely probably than the Senate committee would hear it,- as would be granted to those residents of the western provinces by the Senate if they came here at considerable expense and a great deal of travelling. There can be no matter of principle in the length of a railway journey or the size of a solicitor's bill. If a thing is wrong it must be wrong whether it cost ten dollars or five hundred dollars. I have known of some cases, and they have come so near to my own life that I speak with the sympathy born of knowledge for women who have had to drag the chains of a vile hus-5 p.m. band through their lives, and I am prepared to stand for the equality of the sexes in this matter, and therefore I support this measure as good legislation.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Would the hon. member allow the parties to remarry?


William Findlay Maclean: The Senate does.


Charles Marcil: There is a great difference between separating them and allowing them to marry again.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: To my mind that is a
moral question for the parties themselves, and I think each person's morals must be decided according to individual conscience. There are at least two great churches which prohibit divorce and remarriage. If a person gives adherence to the doctrines of those churches then he or she will not seek to remarry, but it is a question for each individual and it is not to my mind in any sense a question for legislation.
I wish to point out to the hon. member who has introduced this bill (Mr. Shaw) that in my judgment there may possibly be a doulbt as to the constitutionality of the fourth section. This parliament has jurisdiction over marriage and divorce, but the procedure of the provincial courts is entirely a matter for the provinces. I think that the section which refers to the service of the process would be entirely a matter for the court itself to regulate; and would scarcely be a matter for this parliament to attempt to deal with. On the substantial question that underlies the second and third sections of the bill, I feel that it is only fair to put the sexes upon an equality and that it is only fair to have the same law in the four western provinces that we have in the Maritime provinces and the same law that would be administered by the Senate. It obligates no person to violate a code of their own morality and seek divorce where they believe divorce

Divorce
is immoral. It simply grants a sort of justice to those people who do not believe that when there are grave reasons for breaking the marriage tie they are morally guilty in seeking the annulment of that tie.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: If
this bill becomes law it does not in my opinion recognize divorce, does not establish divorce, and does not say it is a good and praiseworthy thing. As I view it, it simply says that the injured wife shall have the same standing and the same rights before the courts of the western provinces that the injured husband has now, and that appeals to my sense of justice. I	do	not	think we are openingthe gates to	divorce	by legislation of	thisland or that	we	are	encouraging it in	anyway. If I thought we were I would vote against the bill, but I simply cannot vote to place a wife	in	an	inferior position,	and
say she shall not have the same rights before the courts of this country as a husband has. Therefore, I will either not vote at all or vote for the bill. I intend to do my duty as a member of parliament, and therefore I will remain for the division.


Thomas Vien: If the proposed legislation should have the effect suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) not to increase the possibility of a greater number of divorces in the future, I would be quite willing to let it pass at least with a tacit silence, to be logical and consistent with myself. But my hon. friend says: If I were sure that this was going to increase the number of divorces, or increase the facilities to obtain divorces, I would vote against it. I think a minute's reflection will convince my hon. friend that that is absolutely the effect of the bill. If this bill becomes law not only will a man in the western provinces be allowed to obtain a divorce on grounds that are absolutely recognized to-day, but this right will be given to a lady as well.


James Arthurs: Why not?


Thomas Vien: I will come to that in a minute. I am now touching the question of the number of divorces, whether it will increase the number or give a greater facility to obtain a divorce, whether the evil will be greater or will be less, or will be the same. No man who gives a moment's serious reflection to the piece of legislation which we are now studying will fail to realize immediately that if it were enacted the number of divorces as well as the facilities for obtaining them would be greater than they are at present.


Robert Alexander Hoey: In order to substantiate the tiuth of his statement, the hon. member should give us the figures with respect to the Maritime provinces and of western Canada.


Thomas Vien: I am not talking of the
Maritime provinces but of the four western provinces, and I do not need to go into any definite details. Why is this legislation before us? Is it not brought forward for the purpose of enabling certain persons who cannot obtain divorce to secure it more easily than is now possible?	*


William Alves Boys: Is it not purely and absolutely a financial question? The applicant comes to this House and gets the divorce, if she has money, but if she has not sufficient money to come here she does not get it.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will agree with me that at present there is no federal legislation respecting divorce; there is no law of divorce on our federal statutes.


William Alves Boys: No, but the recognised custom is that people who can come to this House may get a divorce on the ground, wHh very few exceptions, of adultery only. There are a few isolated exceptions, but that is the recognized ground; and this legislation enables the applicant to get relief in the province in which she lives, which she can now get in Ottawa if she has the money.


Thomas Vien: The fact is that we have no federal divorce law.


William Findlay Maclean: Every divorce bill that we pass here is a federal law.


Thomas Vien: They are private bills in every instance; there is no standing federal legislation on divorce. There is no public law on the matter. Every private bill is judged on its own merits by the Senate, and every application for divorce must be separately presented to parliament. But if this legislation is carried there will be in future a general law governing divorces in the provinces concerned. Hon. gentlemen who have spoken before me oir this question have all recognized that divorce is a social evil, and they have suggested that if there were anything in their power that could be done to restrict rather than to enlarge the facilities with which divorce is obtained, they would do it. Well, to achieve the aim and purpose of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), it seems to me that this legislation which is now before us is not fitted. The hon. member wishes to equalize the facilities with which women can obtain divorce, with

Divorce

the facilities that appertain to men. He says that there is an inequality, that there is an injustice, in that men are allowed divorce on grounds which are denied women. Now, if the only object of the promotor of the bill is to remove that injustice, there is another method which he could pursue; and if he presented to parliament a bill to put that method into effect, I think it would receive unanimous support. Instead of increasing the number of divorces that now obtain, instead of facilitating the means of obtaining divorce and so opening the gate wider to this evil, the hon. gentleman might bring forward a piece of legislation to put women on an equality with men in this matter, not by increasing the grounds on which women may receive divorce but by diminishing the grounds on which men now obtain it. If the object of this legislation is not to open wider the gates to this social evil, let the hon. member do as I suggest and in this way put women on an equal footing with men.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand
the hon. member to say that he would vote for a divorce law which would grant divorce equally to women and men in the western provinces, or anywhere else, on the ground of adultery?


Thomas Vien: The hon. member does not
grasp what I said. If the hon. member for West Calgary will introduce a piece of legislation to reduce the number of reasons for which divorce may be asked by men in the western provinces to the number of reasons which are allowed to women, I shall vote for that legislation, on the ground that it would tend to close the door to divorce, rather than to enlarge the facilities by which divorce may be obtained.


Harold Putnam: Would that not mean in the concrete that the husband could get divorce only on the ground of adultery on the part of the wife, plus proof of cruelty exercised by the wife against him, or plus proof of desertion?


Thomas Vien: I would vote for such a measure.


Harold Putnam: It would be absurd.


Thomas Vien: I do not know that it would
be absurd. Divorce is a social evil-


Charles Marcil: Does the
hon. member not know that he cannot vote for divorce and stay in the Catholic church?


Thomas Vien: The hon. member does not
grasp my remark. My hon. friend (Mr. Putnam) asked me if I would vote for a measure

which would reduce the grounds on which divorce is now sought. So far as reducing the number of grounds on which divorce may be given is concerned, I am quite willing to vote for a measure that would accomplish this end. The fact of the matter is that I am ready to vote for a measure which would close the door altogether against divorce, but if I cannot obtain that full measure of restriction I am ready to take what I can get towards that end. However, I shall leave for a future occasion the discussion of these canonical questions with my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil).
The social evil of divorce is recognized by all concerned, and the more we can close the door against it the better, I think, we shall serve the greatest interests of our country, the interests of the population at large. I am quite in accord with the hon. gentleman who said that he was willing to grant annulment of marriage in some cases and separation in other cases. But I think it would be in the interests of social welfare to close the door altogether to divorce.
Now, some hon. gentlemen have a great deal of pity for those unfortunate men and women whose marriages are such a failure that they want to separate in order to put an end to their unhappiness. I think it^ is better that a few persons who have married* imprudently should suffer the consequences of their folly rather than encourage hasty marriages by facilitating divorce and so spreading this social evil throughout the country. In our civil law there is the principle of caveat emptor-let the purchaser beware. It seems to me that we should enforce this principle with respect to matrimony; in other words, let those who are contemplating marriage beware.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Ought not that
warning to be given equally to husband and to wife?


Thomas Vien: To both sides of the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would* suggest
that under present circumstances there is not the same warning given. We are simply seeking to give it to both sides.


Thomas Vien: I submit, Sir, that if we grant too great facilities to those who have contracted hasty marriages and seek divorce, to that extent we increase the social evil of divorce, and that we would better serve the public interest by leaving a few isolated couples to suffer for their imprudence by refusing them divorce. This evil has become a plague in the United States. If my recol-

Divorce
lection is correct, in that country to-day there is one divorce for every six or seven marriages. Undoubtedly future generations of the United States will suffer for this state of affairs, and I would sooner see a few of our people unhappy than allow a similar evil to afflict this Dominion.
The hon. gentleman who has introduced this bill (Mr. Shaw) says that it applies only to the four western provinces. Well, a perusal of the bill will prove that he is not correct; the legislation would* apply to all the provinces. I would prefer to be a silent dissident on this matter if its scope were restricted to the four western provinces; but it ~j not.


William Alves Boys: Will my hon. friend* tell me how the bill applies to the province of Ontario?


Thomas Vien: I do not say that it does now; but nobody can tell us that to-morrow it may not apply to Ontario and Quebec.


William Alves Boys: I understood* my hon. friend to say that this bill would apply to all the provinces.


Thomas Vien: And it does.


William Alves Boys: I ask him, how could it apply to the province of Ontario when we have no divorce law in that province?


Thomas Vien: It does not to-day; it may tomorrow. It introduces on our statute books the law of divorce, a law which d'oes not exist there to-day. My hon. friend may look at the federal statutes and he will not find among them any law of divorce. This bill, if enacted, would be an acknowledgment of what we consia'er to be a wrong principle.


William Alves Boys: I do not contend for a moment that there is any divorce law governing the Parliament of Canada; it is wide open; but I have made the assertion that according to our practices there is substantially only one ground on which divorce is granted in Canada, and* that is adultery. Does my hon. friend disagree with me in that?


Thomas Vien: No, I do not disagree with my hon. friend on that point, and I do not disagree with him that for the time being this proposed legislation would* apply only to the four western provinces,-and indirectly to the Maritime provinces; but I do contend that by enacting this bill we would be accepting a principle against which we feel it is our duty to protest; and I am now protesting against the introduction of any legislation in thi3 House which would increase the facilities for 36i
divorce. And that is in answer to those whc favour this bill on the ground of sympathy for unfortunate couples who cannot live together happily, and for whom it would be a hardship not to grant divorce.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. gentleman say3 the House by accepting the bill will accept the principle. Will he just clearly define the principle of the bill?


Thomas Vien: The principle is given there.


John Livingstone Brown: What is it?


Thomas Vien: That a woman will be able to obtain divorce on all the grounds for which a man can obtain divorce.


William Findlay Maclean: Does not the
hon. member who put forward the principle of caveat emptor in respect to those contemplating marriage, also believe in that doctrine of equality?


Thomas Vien: No, I do not. I say women should not obtain divorce on those grounds; and men should not either.


John Livingstone Brown: Is not the hon. gentleman confusing the principle of the bill with his own personal principles in regard to divorce?


Thomas Vien: No, I am not confusing anything. I may not possess that mastery of the English language which would enable me to clearly express my views.


Robert Forke: You are doing very well.


Thomas Vien: This is the only excuse I can offer for not having expressed myself sufficiently clearly to be understood on the other side.


John Livingstone Brown: You are doing very well.


Archibald M. Carmichael: If the husband were required to prove, in addition to adultery, cruelty or desertion, the same as the wife, would not that principle be shown forth as at present embodied in the bill?


Thomas Vien: Surely; but that is not the principle of the bill. Instead of reducing the grounds on which a husband can claim divorce, it increases the grounds on which a wife can claim it. Therefore the enactment of this bill would in my opinion tend to increase the numer of divorces in future, and it is against that that I protest. I protest also against any addition to our statute books of legislation which would enable anyone in Canada to obtain divorce. There is no such legislation to-day.
5G-4
Divorce


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I listened with a great deal of interest the other day to my hon. friend describing the British North America Act as a treaty, an arrangement between the provinces and the Dominion. Now, do I understand him to suggest -to-day that although divorce is covered by the British North America Act, that part of the treaty must not be operative at all?


Thomas Vien: I do not understand my hon.
friend. I do not see in what way I am touching the British North America Act.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Well, a lot of us can. I want to suggest this. My hon. friend says that he objects to this bill because it deals with the question of divorce and because it would put a divorce law on the statute book. If he respects the British North America Act why does he not vote in favour of this bill, having regard to the fact that there is provision for divorce in the original agreement of confederation?


Thomas Vien: The British North America
Act enables the Parliament of Canada to pass legislation on divorce. But I would oppose any legislation introduced in this parliament in respect of divorce., even though it is within the province of the Parliament of Canada to pass such legislation-I would oppose it on the ground of the principle involved. I contend that it is a wrong principle to introduce legislation enabling the people of Canada to obtain divorce. I would prohibit divorce altogether, not on the ground that it is not within the province of the Parliament of Canada to grant or provide for divorce, but on the ground that it is inadvisable to pass any divorce legislation.


James Joseph Hughes: May I ask the hon. member a question? There are two groups of people in Canada, one made up of those who do not believe in divorce at all and do not practise it much, and the other consisting of those who believe, to some extent at least, in legal divorce. Now, is it fair for those who do not believe in divorce to try to impose their will on the rest of the people and to place the female portion of the rest of the people in an inferior position? I would not be a party to that. I do not believe in divorce myself, but I do believe that where divorce is granted or recognized at all the injured wife should have the same standing and the same rights before the courts that the injured husband his.


Thomas Vien: I think my hon. friend's
question is hardly fair. I am not trying to impose my will on anybody. But sitting in fMr. Vim.]
this House as the representative of the county of Lotbiniere I find it my duty to oppose ail legislation on divorce, because I consider that it is a serious evil, not only in respect of the section of the country in which I live but in respect of the whole of Canada. I do not take this stand on account of my religious belief, which alone would be enough to prompt it; but as a Canadian citizen and as a representative of -the Canadian people having a seat in this House I am convinced that divorce is a social evil; that we should restrict it by all possible means, and that in so doing we would render a great service to our country. I repeat that I do not desire to impose my opinion upon other hon. members of this House, still less should I try to stampede the House, even if I could, into passing legislation which would debar others from expressing different views. I take this attitude not because I do not respect the views of hon. members who differ from me on this question, but because, as I have said, I am opposed to all divorce legislation. I think it is the duty of hon. members to restrict divorce by all means and not to introduce any legislation which will render divorce easier in future.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mi. Speaker, as one of the members from British Columbia, which is affected by this legislation, I would like to say a few words on the bill now under consideration.
Those who have taken part in the discussion can be divided -into two classes, namely, those who are discussing the principle of divorce and those who -are discussing the principle of the bill, which is the matter of the relationship of husband and wife in marital differences of the kind referred to. Throughout the whole of the Christian world, in. all Christian countries, the principle of divorce has been established by legislative enactment. I do not know of one country where that is not the case. In seven of the nine provinces of this Dominion the principle of divorce has been accepted, and by acts of the federal parliament the principle of divorce is established for the people of Canada as a whole.
Divorce in many cases is a social evil, but I submit that it is an arbitrary course to classify all those who seek divorce or believe in its principles as condoning an evil in our social system. There are instances where in my judgment divorces are absolutely justified. As -one engaged in the practice of law and engaged on occasions in divorce cases,
I know personally of individual cases in connection with which no hon. member of this

Divorce
House dn the full possession of his senses, to say nothing of his ideas of justice and fair play, would say that a divorce should not be granted.
I do not wish in my few remarks to labour the question of the principle of divorce. As I have mentioned, every Christian country in the civilized world has accepted the principle of divorce. What bon. members are faced with to-day is, in my judgment, a simple question which should be disconnected from their personal views except as they reflect the opinions of the people of the country. It is the simple question whether in those cases where divorce is justified the woman shall be put under a handicap and the man left mlore or less free. The argument which tlhe last Speaker ('Mr. Vien) advanced as to the encouragement of divorce does not seem to me to apply in this case. Under the law as it has been stated here, a woman must prove adultery plus cruelty or desertion for two years or upwards. It has been suggested in this debate that the reverse principle should apply; that a man should have to prove adultery and cruelty or desertion for two years or upwards. I do not think that anyone who makes such a suggestion can do so on the merits of the question; he does so only as a medium or method of handicapping divorce. The cruelty which is referred to there is physical cruelty or cruelty affecting the health of the person concerned, and if that principle of law is established a man must be able to show that the woman was guilty of acts of cruelty which threatened his health or his physical well being. The idea is absurd. The proposal as submitted is merely a method of eliminating the principle of divorce. I submit that that principle is not now at issue. The question at issue is a very simple one: whether in a marital case where a divorce by law should be granted, a woman should not have the same rights as a man before the courts of the country and under t)he law of the land. So far as the portion of the west from which I come is concerned, the overwhelming majority of the people believe that the women should be placed in identically the same position as the man.


Thomas Vien: Is that equalization the only
purpose for which my hon. friend would vote for this legislation?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is all we are called
upon to consider.


Thomas Vien: Would not my hon .friend, instead of widening the grounds for divorce for
women, rather reduce the grounds upon which it could be granted to men?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The suggestion made by
the hon. member for reducing the grounds is one made not really with the intention of reducing them, but rather on the principle of doing away with divorce altogether. That is his motive. Rather than carry out the principle of divorce, he would eliminate it.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend says that his
only purpose is to put the women on the same footing as the men in the four western provinces. Well, let him put the men on the same footing as the women, and he will then realize his object of equalization.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman did
not correctly hear my answer. I said that we are called upon in this bill to consider only the question of putting women on an equality with the men.


Thomas Vien: Put the men on an equality
with the women.


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is not the purpose of the bill.


Thomas Vien: Let us have it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The principle is clear. It
is to enable the women to get divorce on the ground of adultery, without proving cruelty, and there is a very good reason for that. I have known in my own practice many cases where adultery could be established but where actual physical cruelty could not be established although there had been far greater suffering and torment of mind than actual physical cruelty could inflict, cases where, as one speaker said, home was hell on earth. The principle of this bill is to put the men and the women on an equal basis, rather than have one sex under a serious handicap as compared with the other. That seems to me absolutely fair and equitable, and if the principle of divorce is recognized in this country, I do not see how any hon. gentleman carrying out that principle can refrain from supporting the bill, because it merely enables the women to have equal rights under the law with the men in the matter of divorce.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I said a word on this subject last year, and I would not like this question to go to a vote without repeating some of the objections I then urged.
At the time of confederation divorce existed in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It did not exist in Ontario and Quebec. The Fathers of Confederation felt that it should not be
Divorce

imposed on the Dominion at large. They recognized the existence of these provincial courts, but they gave to the Parliament of Canada the power to legislate in certain special cases to grant relief, and every bill that is passed by this parliament is worded "An Act for the relief of So-and-So." No direct divorce legislation has ever been passed by this parliament. It would never be accepted I know in my province, and in Ontario there are also very strong objections to it.
I asked at the time of the debate last year for statistics on divorce, and I just want to read these few lines:
For many years subsequent to confederation the number of divorces granted in Canada was very small; in 1883, thirteen divorces, that being the first year in which the Dumber attained two figures; while 1903, with twenty-one divorces, was the record year up to that time.
If we look back to the war yearn we find that in 1919 there were 376 divorces granted in Canada; in 1920, 429; in 1921, 548; and in 1922, 544. I have not the complete figures for 1923. At the time this question wias before the House before I happened upon the following paragraph, I think in the Ottawa Journal, judging by the type. It shows the effect of the change in the law in England giving women over there the same rights that are sought for them in the western provinces. The cable is dated London, April 25, and reads:
A striking feature of the forthcoming law term here is the large number of divorce suits brought by wives under the new act which gives women equal rights with men in the matter of ground for divorce, namely, proof of misconduct. There are nearly 600 undefended divorce suits entered on the court lists.
That was the first term after the passing of the new law in England; so the contention that a change in the law will not increase the number of divorces in the west cannot be sustained.
Any woman who has a rightful grievance under the law as it exists now can come to this parliament and be granted relief, and her fees can be '[DOT]emitted; the fees have been remitted in a number of oases, for the Senate committee has that power. No real grievance is allowed now to exist. If the Fathers of Confederation could not agree at the time of confedei-ation to impose divorce on Canada seeing we are so divided on that question, I do not see that we should ask now to pass an act which we have always objected to, and which the Fathers of Confederation also objected to, and bring about a state of affairs such as exists across the line. The hon. member for Vancouver said that all Christian countries had passed divorce legislation. I have often scanned the new testament to find

authority for the establishment of divorce, and especially for the remarriage of the divorced party. Every divorce bill that comes into this House, and they have been coming here for the twenty-five years I have been here, always contains a second clause granting the right to marry again. If that clause were not there, would any application ever be made to this parliament?
We know the State of affairs that exists now in the United States, where one divorce occurs out of every seven or eight marriages. Last year in the state of Nevada where Reno is situated there were more divorces than marriages.
Here is a country that does not rank as a Christian country, but in which there are more divorces than marriages. It is a cable from London, published last year:
London, April 8.-Divorces exceeded marriages in Constantinople during the last year, according to the Daily Mail correspondent. He gives the official figures as 9.259 divorces against 7,974 marriages.
We are all of one mind; no man worthy of sitting in this House would impose an injustice upon women, but there are means known to members of the legal profession in our province, and in other provinces by which a woman now can seek relief and a judicial separation, if necessary. Every time you pick up a newspaper nowadays you find people are making a mockery and a farce of marriage, an advertising scheme with moving picture people coming around and taking pictures of it. You find persons divorced one day and remarried the next. I think it is about time for Canadian legislators to consider this matter earnestly, and not to follow the legislation that is in existence now in the United States. Let us take warning before it is too late.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Has the hon. member figures of the number of couples who have been remarried after getting divorce?


Charles Marcil: I am sorry I have not.
It is a well known fact that divorces have increased enormously. Here are the number of divorces granted in this country during the last ten years:
1914.
1915. 1916
1917,
1918,
1919, 1920
1921.
1922.
1923.
33 18
34 17 15 51
112
117
As the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) has said divorce is becoming a plague

Divorce
to the country. Rather than encourage divorces we should try and find means to prevent them and for that reason, if for no other,
I am obliged to vote against the bill.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: Like
the last speaker (Mr. Marcil) I should hate to see the conditions of family life in the United States duplicated in Canada, and if a bill were brought into parliament which would deal with divorce throughout Canada in a general way I might feel called upon to speak of it differently from what I am doing at the present time. The last speaker stated that as a result of the passing of a bill giving equality between the sexes in Great Britain that the number of divorces had increased by six hundred. Very well, let us admit that. Would it not seem to imply that those six hundred women in Great Britain had suffered in silence previously and without being afforded an opportunity of getting relief? The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) has said that if the existing difficulty in the way of getting a divorce were removed it would increase the divorces in the four western provinces. Let me say that if a measure is introduced into parliament to make it harder for people to get divorces I am quite willing to support it providing it is uniform in its operation. But I have read the statistics of the divorce courts in the various provinces in Canada-those provinces where the women had equal rights with the men in obtaining divorce, and also those provinces where divorce was easier for men than for women-* and those statistics do not show that the women folk suffered where there was equality of treatment, the ratio as between men and women was about the same.
The present bill will naturally receive the support of all hon. members who believe in divorce, and from the viewpoint of fair play there seems to be no argument against the contention of its mover. We are all coming to believe in absolute equality as between men and women; and as long as the state continues to grant divorces to the people of the country I see no reason why men and women should not be in a position of absolute equality in respect to divorce. I take that stand not because of any religious belief but from the point of view of good [DOT]citizenship. As a citizen I object to divorce, I do not believe in it, but the question in my mind is this: Shall we in this parliament make the getting of a divorce easier than is possible at the present time? I have sat on the Private Bills committee of this House for a number of years, and I have listened to the evidence as given in the Senate committee.
I have also read that evidence carefully in order that I might vote in an intelligent way on the question. Hon. gentlemen cannot say to me that I have not objected to the granting of divorces. I have done so in the Private Bills committee. I have fought the granting of divorces, and in some instances have won with the help of my colleagues around me, because I did not believe that they should be granted. At the same time it does seem to me that divorces get through this House sometimes in a very slip-shod manner, not that we are altogether lax but we do not take sufficient time to study each case, we. are not sufficiently interested in the matter, in order to see whether there are proper grounds for granting the divorce.
Some divorces have been sanctioned by parliament where the man, instead of being given the opportunity to contract another marriage, should be given a sentence and the lash. I believe the time has come when we should respect family life in Canada, when we should treat it as sacred, when people who enter into the marriage contract should realize that it is an agreement for life and should act with a due realization of that fact. If the nature of the marriage obligation was duly brought home to those who enter into it I am convinced they would be more careful in its observance. I repeat that I intend to support the bill because I believe that so long as the country continues to grant divorce both sexes should be on even terms. Some hon. gentlemen have argued that we should make it harder to get a divorce. I would not be opposed to that if the legislation were uniform in its application throughout the country. But as things are such a law would, I think, render it more difficult for western folk to get a divorce than it would the people in the eastern provinces. Because it proposes to introduce equality as between the sexes I shall support this bill although I do not believe in divorce. What I am supporting is the application of the principle of equality; I do not believe there should be any discrimination in this matter in favour of men as against women. Our solidarity as a nation, in my opinion, rests to a great extent upon the maintenance of the family union, and I am sorry to note the facility with which that union has been dissolved in many cases.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand my hon. friend to argue that the people of Ontario and Quebec will occupy a privileged! position, as compared with the people of the western provinces if this bill does not become law? Let me say to him that the people of the
Divorce

western provinces have the same right of redress from parliament that the people of Quebec and Ontario enjoy, and they have the same right of access.


Robert Alexander Hoey: But the application to parliament for a divorce is more expensive.


Arthur John Lewis: We have the same right
to apply to parliament for redress but the question of expense, as has already been pointed out, is a serious one, and in many cases is a great handicap to many people who might wish to dissolve the marriage relationship. If hon. members who object to increasing the facilities for divorce will submit legislation with the object of rendering divorce more difficult I wall support it. But, as matters stand, believing that both sexes should enjoy absolute equality, I must vote for this bill which proposes to remove a handicap as far as some Canadian women are concerned.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I hope I shall not be considered oldfashioned. I should not like the House to think that I am ungallant where the women are concerned, but I am against divorce and anything that looks like it, and always have been. There are three subjects on which, early in life, I made up my mind. One was my opposition to capital punishment; the second that I would never object to any amount of taxation for the education of the young; finally I have been absolutely opposed to divorce under any circumstances. I will give you one or two reasons for my belief, although I do not pretend to be any better than other people. We in this country have adhered to the principle that marriage is more than a contract. Only the clergy are allowed to perform what I call the "sacrament of marriage" and at the conclusion of nearly every marriage you will hear these words pronounced:
Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.
I am a firm believer in the principle that marriage is a moral and not a commercial contract, and I do not believe, from the moral standpoint, that this House or any other body has the right to dissolve a marriage You will say that may be cruel. No. Where divorce is made easy the marriage vows are held lightly. Many people marry and only remain married for a few weeks, because when they do marry from momentary inspiration or hallucination they know they can be relieved from that marriage tie through the courts or, in this country, through parliament,

Mr. FORIvE: Does the hon. minister think tihe last words of the marriage service that he quoted have any meaning in a case such as he mentioned? If one has been deceived to begin with, what is the proof that these words are not a mockery? You admit they have never been joined together and the words have no effect; consequently you consider these words are of no avail whatever, so far as marriage is concerned.


George Perry Graham: I am speaking from the
inside and not the outside. Conscientiously, I believe that those who enter into the marriage vows undertake a serious obligation and the various churches attach a solemnity to these words as the last admonition.


Robert Forke: They ought to.


George Perry Graham: And to my mind the contract is not a civil contract; it is rather a moral contract.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Is it not both?


George Perry Graham: I am stressing the moral
side of it for my part, although it may be both, and I do not conscientiously believe that it is the right of any legislature to dissolve this contract. You will say "It is a horrible thing for a man and woman to be compelled to live together after certain discoveries have been made." Well, they are not compelled to live together. They can be legally separated and never live together again; but under those conditions they cannot marry again. If the law said that a man must live with a woman, or conversely that a woman must live with a man, under such circumstances as we know exist, then I might favour some other method of having them separated. But the law of every province and the law of the Dominion of Canada gives them the right to separate and to live separately; so that there is no argument at all on account of the fact that they do not live together.


William Findlay Maclean: Who is going
to support the woman?


George Perry Graham: Very often the woman
has the money. If hon. members will go through the records of the United States on divorce they will discover that in a great many cases the women have the money and ask for the divorce, but that is drawing me away from what I wish to say. I would point out that if no divorce was allowed to marry again there would be mighty few divorces asked for in any country. We do not need to go into any history or statistics to prove that. That is evident on the face of it. But

Divorce
you say to me "You are making a speech on divorce, while this is only a question of equality." Well, my position is this: I am against divorce and believe if there were no divorces, marriages perhaps would be more carefully entered into; and the morality of this country would be improved if nobody was allowed to get a divorce for any cause, but separation would probably be taken advantage of in a great many cases. You know as well as I do that divorces faiave come before this House and we pay little attention to them, but inside of a few weeks one divorce is married, which is perfectly honourable anid perfectly proper under existing laws; and you know that in a great many cases of divorces that come before this House ;he party that is asking for the divorce has been keeping company with somebody else for weeks, months and years perhaps, and only comes to get the divorce to be free from a bond that is irksome so that the party may take on another bond that he or she thinks will not be so irksome.
I want to come back to this question of equality. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has said that at the present time all the provinces stand on an equality. They all come to the Parliament of Canada.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


George Perry Graham: I think I was about
through at six o'clock, but I shall say just a few words now in conclusion. It has been suggested that it is too expensive for anyone desiring a divorce to bring his or her case to Ottawa. As I said before, I am not in favour of divorce at all, and if I had my way I would make it so expensive that no one would come to Ottawa. There is another point which is always present in my mind in regard to another question which I mentioned to-day. If a couple be legally separated they can reunite without any comment or any suggestion of scandal; and if hon. members will look back they will no doubt recall very many instances of couples who in a moment, or perhaps after a year, of petulance decided on a legal separation, who on second thought and mature consideration came bo the conclusion that for the sake of their families that state was not the best thing for them, and they therefore became re-united. In the case of divorce this is impracticable, if not impossible. Many divorced people have been re-married, but so far as I can remember at the present
time, they have never done so until they have gone through the purgatorial process of being married two or three times in the interval. And this really makes marriage a farce.


Mr. EULER:: Would the minister say that this applied to divorced persons in Canada, or is he thinking of the United States? I question whether you would find many cases of divorced persons re-marrying in this country, for there is only one reason for which divorce is given here.


George Perry Graham: I would not confine the
remark to marriage in Canada; as a matter of fact I had in mind the larger area of divorce in all countries. As I pointed out in the beginning, marriage in Canada is on a different plane, both from the legal standpoint and from the point of view of the method of performance, from what it is in some other countries. And for that I believe Canada is to be commended. That is why I said that the marriage ceremony in Canada was far more than a civil contract; to my mind it is a moral contract. However, I shall not go over that ground again.
I believe in the equality of sexes in regard to this matter; I am of the opinion that the man should have no right to claim a divorce or separation on grounds not granted to the woman, and in that respect I think I coincide with the sponsor of the bill (Mr. Shaw). But the way in which I would go at it, from my conscientious point of view, would be to add to rather than to lessen the restrictions; I would make the restrictions more rigid on both sides and make it harder for either party to secure a divorce. That is the way I would bring about equality, and as I told my hon. friend last year on the floor of the House, when I spoke on this question, if anyone will introduce a bill for the purpose of putting a greater number of impediments in the way, and so make it harder for people to get divorce, I am ready to vote for it in a moment. I do not want to influence anyone in this respect; I simply speak for myself from a conscientious point of view which I have held for many years, and I cannot, therefore, see my way clear to vote for any measure which would open the door wider to divorce. I will say this, however, that if the object of this bill were to make it easier for a man to get divorce I would vote against it with much less reluctance than I do in this case. In voting against the bill as it stands, I may be charged with voting against equality of treatment as between men and women; but that is not my attitude at all. I will vote for
Divorce *

every measure which will make it harder for anyone to get a divorce.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): I suggest that there is a splendid way out of the difficulty of marriage, and that is my way

stay out.


George Perry Graham: In the absence of the
Prime Minister, I give his approval.


Miss MACPHAIL:: When in doubt say
no. I believe it would be a good thing to make marriage harder instead of easier, for there is too great a tendency on the part of people to rush into marriage without realizing either its hardships or its binding nature. It is a fact that all women contribute more to marriage than men; for the most part they have 'to change their place of living, their method of work, a great many women to-day changing their occupation entirely on marriage; and they must even change their name. They then work continuously for many years until death happily releases them, and that without wages at all. They work without pay. No one can claim that a married woman is economically independent, for she is not; apart from some very rare exceptions, married women are dependent economically, and that is the last possible remaining bond on women. Women have struggled for ages now, and to-day they are ably championed in our country by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) and his friends who in this House are demanding further rights for them. When I hear men talk about woman being the angel of the home I always, mentally at least, shrug my shoulders in doubt. I do not want to be the angel of any home; I want for myself what I want for other women, absolute equality. After that is secured then men and women can take turns at being angels. I stress that angel part, because I remember that last year an hon. member who spoke from the opposite benches called a woman an angel and in the next breath said that men were superior. They must therefore be gods.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was it the hon. member for Belleehasse (Mr. Fournier)?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not remember his constituency. Now, I welcome this opportunity to register my vote in favour of equality for women, who, I think, should be granted divorce on the same grounds as men. It is likely they suffer more than men do because they do not get it, and so I am glad of this opportunity of showing to western Canada that we as a parliament are endeavouring to be fair to the four western provinces.

Those provinces have possibly a good deal of reason for the feeling that eastern Canada and the capital of the Dominion are quite indifferent to their needs. I am not arguing either in favour of or against divorce, but I do think that this is a question of equality and that anyone who votes against the bill is after all voting against that principle. And I hate to say that when I think of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), who is indeed very fair usually. I hope hon. gentlemen will remember how the women of the four western provinces will feel towards those who vote against them, because that is after all what it amounts to; they are the women directly concerned. Twice this subject has been introduced in the House, and I believe it will continue to be introduced again and again until justice is done our women. They are merely asking for justice-absolute equality.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, I have no interest in this bill except in so far as it is an effort to correct what to me seems to be an undoubted injustice. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) before dinner stated that in his early youth he had learned to believe in three things-the undesirability of capital punishment, the virtues of education, and the evil of divorce. I might say to him and to the House that with the first two of his beliefs I am entirely in accord, but I cannot follow him in his attitude towards the bill under discussion. This bill, introduced by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), appeals to me solely oh the ground that it seeks to remedy an injustice. If the House admits the propriety of divorce as an institution, then the argument for the bill of the hon. member is in my opinion absolutely unanswerable. I would like to compliment my good friend' from Belleehasse (Mr. Fournier) on his speech. Its choice diction, and the beauty and nobility of thought of his remarkable panegyric of married life and the sacred' joys of home were, I think, an effort that none of us could hope to equal. And assuredly I have no criticism to make of those who, either from conscientious convictions or because of the practice of their church are unalterably opposed' to divorce.
But it does seem to me that much of the debate this afternoon, especially from opponents of the bill, was more or less beside the point. Those speeches might very appropriately have been made if the bill called for the establishment of divorce as something new, or for its abolition. But divorce is already an established fact in this country. The bill, I submit, does not touch the es-

Divorce
tablished! principle of divorce at all. To my mind its principle is to establish equality between men and women in respect to something that already exists and which no one proposes to abolish. Now, I have said that some of the discussion has been beside the point, and to a very slight d'egree, Mr Speaker, I am going myself to transgress in order to remove, if possible, some of the confusion that has arisen. Divorce, it has been said, is a social evil. Well, I do not believe that it is. Divorce is the result of the social evil itself and is an effort to remedy it. I have heard only one good reason for opposition to this bill, and that is that members are conscientiously opposed to divorce altogether. If, therefore, the bill is defeated, it will follow that this House is opposed to the institution of divorce; whereupon it logically follows, I submit, that it is the duty of parliament to abolish divorce entirely. I can see no escape from that position. On the other hand, if divorce, as we have had it for many years, is to continue to be recognized on any ground whatever, then surely it is unanswerable that women should have the same rights as men in obtaining this relief.
The suggestion has been made, and it was repeated by the Minister of Railways that the women of the western provinces can come to the Parliament of Canada and have their cases decided on an absolute equality with men. I think the suggestion has been very well answered. If that practice is to continue, then the man in the western provinces who has ground for a divorce can go to his local divorce court which is near at hand, and at very small expense and very little personal inconvenience he can obtain what the woman is obliged to go to Ottawa for, travelling thousands of miles at very heavy expense, an expense which in all probability she is much less able to bear than the man. There is very little chivalry or justice about that.
I do not wish my hon. friend the Minister of Railways to think that I am attacking his argument in particular, but he suggested that if a divorce be granted the parties should not be permitted to marry again. He spoke also of the possibility of a legal separation instead of divorce. That on the face of it may sound very fair, but in the case of a divorce there is always at least one party guilty, and nearly always one party innocent. I cannot for the life of me see why an innocent woman who has conducted herself with absolute propriety, who is blameless, and has very good reason for seeking a divorce, should be prevented from marrying again and having the companionship and what other advantages
pertain to the institution which is endorsed by all-marriage. If marriage is a good thing, then surely it should be possible for innocent-people to again enter into it.
Some members have stated that they are not particularly in favour of divorce. I am quite frank in saying that I am in favour of divorce for the one cause for which a divorce is usually granted in this country, that of infidelity. I do not think it is fair,
I do not think it is right,'I do not think it is in the interests of society that a married couple should be compelled to live together when one has committed the single offence which is the most obnoxious and perhaps the most revolting that he or she can be guilty of. Believing as I do that we should have divorce for the one offence, for me there is no other course than to vote for the bill on the score that women should not be prejudiced in the courts of the western provinces, but should have exactly the same right of redress as men have under similar circumstances.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by
the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) aims at extending, in the western provinces, the grounds for obtaining divorce. If such was net the case, I am certain it would not be brought down for the consideration of the House. Now, in my opinion, divorce is only the tolerance of an evil which must be avoided as much as possible.
I am opposed to divorce on more than one score. I already had the opportunity, at the last session, when a bill of this nature was under consideration by the House, to put forth the reasons which prompted me to strongly oppose divorce. I shall not again repeat them to-day; however, I shall mention two: I am opposed to divorce because I am a Catholic and because I am a British subject.
I am a Catholic, I belong to that Catholic religion which has Christ for its guiding light and holds divorce in horror. Divorce, is the desecration of a sacrament, the sacrament of marriage, and, had I but that reason to rise in this House, I could say with pride that I have always been opposed to divorce and that each time I am given the opportunity I shall strongly register my protest against this shameless law on behalf of the electors which I have the honour to represent in this House.
As a British subject, as a citizen of this country, it seems to me that I still have cause to oppose divorce. When, in 1867, Confederation was agreed upon, Protestants and Catholics united on a common ground and made conces-
Divorce

sions, it was decided that this question of divorce would be restricted as much as possible. This was a concession which the Fathers of Confederation had, perhaps, no right to make. It was a compromise that the representatives of the French Catholic minority made with the representatives of the English Protestant majority and it was then agreed upon, that a modus vivendi would exist, in order that harmony and peace might predominate in the country and that there might be a court established here to provide for divorce cases. It was, in other words, the tolerance of a social evil. Ever since that time, those who were at the helm of the affairs of the country have recognized the mutual concession agreed upon and have observed it. From time to time, members have risen in this House in an effort to establish divorce courts, to widen the scope upon which divorce might be obtained or to suggest new motives for the granting of relief. But, I must say, to the credit of the representatives of our English speaking fellow-citizens that these statesmen came to an understanding with the representatives of the French race so as to preserve Confederation within the sacred principles upon which it had been founded. I shall mention but one incident to that effect. In 1875, a member rose in this House to request the establishment of divorce courts so as to facilitate the granting of relief in this country, and the Prime Minister of the day, Sir John A. Macdonald, made the following statement which is reported as follows in the Hansard of that date:
So far as his own personal opinion was concerned, he * would vote aaainst the resolution, for there was no reason why we should establish courts of divorce in Canada. While he would not go as far as the hon. members from Lower Canada, and declare jjthat divorces should not be granted under any circumstances, he thought there should be no encouragement given their procurement.
And further on he says:
Amongst the moral triumphs which Mr. Gladstone had achieved there was none so great as his defeat when he protested against the establishment of a divorce court in England, which had not been productive of any beneficial effects.
Further on he still adds:
While divorce was not prohibited in Canada, and while parties to domestic misery and unhappiness might obtain relief, nevertheless under the present system no encouragement was given to those cases, and he would be very sorry to see any tribunal established which might be the means of inviting other dissatisfied couples to apply for a divorce.
The practice of those who have taken part in the administration of the affairs of the country has always been to oppose measures which aimed at widening the bases of this

legislation of tolerance. They did not wish to further encourage divorce, and they always strived to maintain within reasonable bounds this intricate question of divorce. As a Canadian citizen it is quite proper for me to state that, guided by the British North America Act and the views expressed by the statesmen of this country, we are right in opposing divorce.
It was argued in the course of this debate that there were, in this House, a number of members who thought that the bill contained no obnoxious clauses against Catholics or those who represented the minority, and consequently there existed no grounds for us to oppose such a measure. We protest because it is our right to do so, because we believe it our duty to combat the social evil which spells divorce and that if we must tolerate it, we shall only do so in a measure conforming with the carrying out of the compromise agreed upon. And, one should be grateful to us for the stand, because we show by our attitude that we are attached to our traditions, institutions and to the British North America Act, and thereby prove the interest we take in the whole country. One should be grateful to us, because in taking this stand we claim to be in the right path, and were we but a few in this House, to protest, I feel confident that we are right in the end and that divorce should be restricted within the most limited bounds or disappear entirely. It is in the countries where morals are more or less forgotten that we find these divorce laws, which are the desecration of a sacrament. In a young country like ours, it is well that we should shun any such legislation of a nature to make divorce still easier to obtain, instead of limiting it, and this is why we most strenuously oppose the adoption of the bill introduced by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw).


Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of listening to this debate, but I think there are certain aspects of the question which, perhaps, it would be proper for me to emphasize in this House.
I am as desirous as anyone in this House to see divorce kept within proper limits. In my humble opinion there is about one cause and one cause only which gives to civilized people the right to dissolve the marriage bond; and if that right is granted-and it has been granted, Mr. Speaker, in every civilized nation in the world-then I think it is proper that that right should be granted to men and to women on an absolute equality. I would go further and say that it should be granted

Divorce
uot by committees of a legislature but by properly constituted courts. I am informed by those from the western province of Alberta that their courts are courts of divorce but that the law which comes from this parliament makes a differentiation between the grounds on which a woman and on which a man may obtain divorce. I say that is unjust; I say it is a crying injustice; I say it is a flagrant injustice; I isay it is an injustice which should be remedied by this House in passing this bill.
There are those, Mr. Speaker, who conscientiously are opposed to divorce. It may be part of their religious tenets to be opposed to divorce. I have no quarrel with such.
I believe in religious freedom, and in my idea religious freedom not only demands that one should be allowed to practise what he believes to be true but it demands also that he should allow others to practise what they believe to be true. We have striking examples in countries not far away from us of the scourge which a too loose form of divorce may bring about. We are all sensible of the warning which the condition of such nations holds out to us. But I say that it would be unfair for people who hold different views on the question of divorce-views which, perhaps, are held by the majority in their own province-to say that people in another province holding different views should be prevented from having those different views applied fairly. That, it seems to me, is the great point in this case.
If this bill is passed it will not affect the rights of those who pertain to the oldest branch of the Christian church. No one is obliged to appeal to a divorce court; no one who holds contrary religious beliefs is obliged to apply to have his marriage dissolved. The founder of our religion himself gave one ground on which divorce was allowable and surely we are not going to set up a higher morality than the founder of our religion has himself set up. I make this appeal to those who are opposed to the bill. I make the appeal for something I have fought for all my life, and that is for religious freedom and for the harmony which I wish to see exist among the different religions and the different races of this country, a harmony which can only exist if people hold fast to those things which they believe to be true. I ask no one to forego one jot or tittle of his religious conviction, but I do ask that he grant to others the right to disagree with him and to have such legislation as will allow him to
have what he believes to be fair done before the courts of this land.


Harold Putnam: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of a very few remarks I confess much sympathy, perhaps as respects my vote a controlling sympathy, with the motion put forward by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) I hope that none have offended the religious susceptibilities of others in rhis debate. Indeed, this parliament ever since confederation has been a great exemplar of the fulfilment of the duty we owe to respect the opinion of our neighbour in matters religious and even in matters political. I cannot accept as an axiom that divorce in itself is an evil, though I sympathize with those whose religious teaching does lead them to that conclusion. If the good resulting from divorce, if the releasing by human agency of couples from positive cruelty and hardship, wherein one is so often innocent-if these benefits outweigh the so-called evil of divorce itself, I could not subscribe to the doctrine that divorce is per se an evil, although there is a body of gentlemen in this House, whose opinion I respect very highly, who do hold that belief. But had I that belief, as the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) professes he has it, I could not see the logic of taking the ground that he does-of supporting the bill now before us-because after all is said and done, viewing the matter most charitably, the result of this bill will be undoubtedly to enlarge the number and scope of divorces in our four western provinces.


Arthur John Lewis: The hon. member will admit that I said that as long as divorce was a state institution I would support equality amongst men and women. That is why I would vote for it.


Harold Putnam: Precisely; I did not misrepresent the hon. member. He made it a basis of his position that he had followed the proceedings in the divorce committee of the Senate, that he had fought divorce in this House and had sometimes succeeded; that he bad killed the request for divorce wherever he could. I understood him, therefore, to be absolutely opposed to it. He said, however, that if this evil was to be maintained he wanted equality of cause for dissolving the marriage tie as between the man and the woman. I was unable to see the logic of that, if I should accept his premises.
I do not hope, Mr. Speaker, in my few words to say anything that will be new to any lawyer in the House, but if I can use-
Divorce

fully elucidate one part of the argument of the hon. member for West Calgary I feel it my duty to attempt to do so lest he may overlook the point or neglect to refer to it in the concluding remarks which I assume he will make. He pointed out that though the husband in the four western provinces might divorce the wife for the cause of infidelity alone the wife has not there a reciprocal privilege enjoyed by her sister in England, but that if she sought to divorce the husband1 she could only be successful in the courts of our western provinces of Canada, if, in addition to that infidelity, she proved a cause of great cruelty or a cause of unjustifiable desertion on the part of the husband. Now cruelty is not taken by the court in the popular but in a very strict legal sense of that word, and I shall attempt, not to exaggerate, but to show the vast disability there is against the woman in this respect.
There are two kinds of cruelty in the eyes of the courts, and of the divorce court of this parliament, I believe-physical cruelty and mental cruelty. Physical cruelty is easily susceptible of proof. The man who is coward enough to strike a woman or to use actual physical crudty in any form against her is easily found out, and if the woman is equipped with the necessary cash to carry on her suit she will probably not have any difficulty in getting the necessary evidence of physical cruelty; but it is much more difficult to prove mental cruelty. On the one hand, we have the wife, who may have been guilty of one isolated case of infidelity, subject to being divorced. On the other hand, the husband might have been living a life of open infidelity, but the wife could not secure a divorce from him on that ground alone. She must supplement that with these ancillary grounds, and the ground she finds most difficult to prove is mental cruelty. She may come before the courts and prove that her husband exercises a great many forms of mental cruelty against her, using that word1 in its popular sense, but the court guided by the decisions from which the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) so usefully read this afternoon, sets itself the stem task of deciding whether that cruelty be sufficient to destroy her health, or directly and unequivocably calculated to do so. You see at once, Mr. Speaker, that that is an absolutely drastic, a very hard, and a very unfair test; but it is illuminating as showing the vast disability there is between the status of the man and that of the woman when they apply for divorce in our western provinces. The court may say, for example, in the case of a woman in frail health, that if the husband persisted without cause in calling her a

harlot, if he persisted in abusing her church and her religion, and in teaching the children infidelity instead of Christianity, that that constituted mental cruelty, and that would allow her to succeed in her case; but the same judge might decide in the case of a healthier woman that reprehensible as the husband's conduct was it did not constitute mental cruelty such as was calculated to break down the wife's health. So you can see at a glance, Mr. Speaker, there is a far greater legal disability against the actual status of the wife than appears on the surface. If I have elucidated that, I have accomplished the main purpose for which I rose.
Before taking my seat, I wish to say that I enjoyed very much the address of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphaill). That hon. member never speaks without giving me at least some useful viewpoint peculiar to woman.


Andrew Ross McMaster: She touches no subject she does not adorn.


Harold Putnam: I concur. In this particular case I know that throngs of the sterner sex will fervently hope that she spoke but personally when she came out generally against marriage, and will equally hope also that she spoke in the light of that wide and untrammelled privilege which every woman has, in spite of any feminine disabilities, of changing her mind at any time.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker,
before the question is put, I deem it my duty, seeing that this motion is again before the House, to reiterate the objections which I had the honour to raise, on March 19, 1924, against such a measure introduced under the form of a resolution by the hon. member from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) and who, to-day, introduces it as a bill.
The remarks which I uttered on that occasion, following on those of the hon. members who have just preceded me in this debate,-and I am glad to be once more in their company-will be found at page 495 of Hansard of last session. I then set forth the reasons which militate against the resolution. In my opinion the same reasons carry more weight at present against the bill of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) which if adopted will have force of law, and I, therefore, cannot do better than to very strongly protest against this bill and bring to bear all and each of the arguments of last year.
I was not present this afternoon, when the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) ex-

Divorce
pounded the grounds upon which exception should be taken to the adoption of this bill. I believe that, in the course of his remarks, so I am informed, he expressed the views of the province which he represents, of the nationality and religion to which he belongs. All those who spoke after him-and particularly the hon. member from Labelle (Mr. Fortier) whom I wish to congratulate- have expressed exactly the views of the province of Quebec and of all those who adhere to the Roman Catholic Church.
I am satisfied that we should not in the present circumstance take another stand than the one we took last year, that is protest against the passing of any such measure. It is, therefore, with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I shall register my vote against the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the House ready for
the question?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Mr. Speaker, in concluding the debate upon this important subject, I must express my appreciation of the manner in which it has been received. Speaking generally, I think the subject has been discussed freed from bias of any character whatsoever, and I trust that this parliament may in its good judgment come to the proper and the sound conclusion in the matter.
Fortunately my statement of the law has not been found wanting in any particular. I call to witness the support of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) of the legal viewpoint which I have expressed here to-day. Then, too, all have recognized the inequality that exists to-day between the man and the woman, and that is the simple problem before this parliament. If my premises are correct, if inequality exists, then what does this parliament propose to do about it?
I listened with admiration to the oration with which the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier) favoured us this afternoon. He constituted himself, and I do not object at all, the guardian of the sanctity of the home; but I ask him not to deny to other hon. gentlemen, including myself, exactly that same duty of guardianship. I take it, if I express the feeling of those who favour this bill, that we have no desire to wreck the home. Our only desire is to preserve the home; but we are not going to be misled in the matter. We are not going to say that just because there is no divorce everything is in a perfectly sound and splendid condition. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out to the hon. member for Bellechasse when I interrupted him this afternoon, divorce is not the disease at all. Divorce is simply one remedy
which is proposed for the disease which does exist. Nor do I agree with the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) who, although from western Canada, finds it in his heart to oppose this effort at securing equality.
I do not agree with him in his viewpoint.
I do not agree with him when he tells us that he sits here amused while the "divorce mill," as he called it, of this parliament grands out its sessional quota. I see nothing at all amusing in those circumstances. It seems to me that anyone with the faintest realization of his duty must feel, in the presence of these numerous divorce bills which come before us session after session, that behind each one of them there is a human tragedy, that behind each one of them there is something wrong-there is some deep, fundamental cause which, so far as possible, it should be the duty of parliament to eradicate if it can. Divorce is not a disease; divorce is simply an attempted remedy for the situation as it exists.
Now, it has been suggested by some hon. members, who have conscientious objections to this matter of divorce, that we should impose similar restrictions upon the husband who seeks relief as is now imposed in the four western provinces of Canada upon the wife who seeks relief from an erring husband. Well, if one thinks of these two individuals, man and woman, thinks of their physical capacities and physical disabilities, what would you say to one who asks a husband, for example, to prove not alone adultery but, in combination with that, the offence of cruelty as defined by the courts in the Old Land. To establish such cruelty the husband would have to prove a cruelty which produced "physical illness or mental distress of a nature calculated to effect permanently his bodily health or endanger his reason, or that there is reasonable apprehension that the same state of affairs will continue." Surely no reasonable person will ask that an imposition of that kind be placed upon a man before he could secure a divorce even if the offence of adultery is committed. As I stated this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the great offence so far as the marital relation is concerned is the offence of adultery. I am satisfied to make it the only offence justifying a decree of divorce; but do not attach to it other offences which, so far as human beings are concerned, are forgivable, whereas infidelity in most cases is totally unforgivable. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the House now pass this bill.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I was paired with the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). Had I voted I would have voted against the the bill.
Bill read the second' time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Service of process.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Has the hon. member who introduced the bill given any consideration- I presume he has-to the possible constitutional aspect of clause 4? As I take it, the British North America Act provides that the procedure in court is a matter for the local legislature. This parliament can legislate as to the conditions of marriage and the conditions of divorce. I doubt if it can establish the procedure in a provincial court. The divorce courts are provincial courts, and I would very much doubt whether any federal legislation as to service of process would be valid, and if there is a serious doubt about it, I question whether it would be wise to insert in a bill something which may cause a great deal of difficulty to the interested parties. I suggest that it would be wiser to omit this clause and leave the matter to the regulation of the court, where it would naturally fall.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am glad the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) has brought the clause to the attention of the committee. It is not a matter that is without difficulty. I can readily understand how the matter of service of a process within the jurisdiction of a province is properly a matter

Divorce
of procedure, and consequently should not be provided for in this bill. But when the person upon whom the service is sought to be made resides outside the jurisdiction of the court, then it is a very grave question indeed as to whether it is not something more than a mere matter of procedure, but rather a question of jurisdiction. I think my hon. friend from St. John and Albert will at once realize that situation, ana' if such a provision were not in the bill, undoubtedly the bill would largely become inoperative. But even if it is unnecessary it will not in any event invalidate other than the particular section itself, and it seems to me it cannot possibly do any harm. It may, on the other hand, be a matter of jurisdiction which may be vital to the bill having any real value in its operation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It seems to me a great pity that in a matter of this kind which is of some importance we should not be able to hear what my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) is saying. If we are going to discuss public bills, I think there should be such cessation from private conversation as would enable members to be heard.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I might remark that we cannot hear what the hon. member is saying now.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I can assure my hon. friend that I can make anyone in this House hear me, but I do not care to use my voice to that extent unnecessarily. If the hon. gentleman who has spoken will provoke me sufficiently I will speak quite loudly.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then let somebody
provoke the hon. member.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If we have just reasonable quietness in this chamber a very ordinary tone is quite sufficient to render one audible in any part of the House, according to my experience. I understand my friend from West Calgary shares the doubt about this matter. If he shares that doubt it is no longer a trivial matter. It is an invitation to a possible litigant to proceed along lines which may be utterly unsafe; and therefore I think that would be an excellent ground for dropping the clause. We are all familiar with the principle of divorce jurisdiction. The matrimonial domicile is always the domicile of the husband, and whatever jurisdiction he is subject to has power to reach him. The divorce proceedings I understand are administered in the western provinces by the ordinance courts. Those courts have ample power to send their processes outside of the jurisdiction of the province, and I would rely 37
on the province in that respect. I do not want to urge the matter too strongly, but I would invite the opinion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who, I trust, will express his view. I feel it would be much safer for the litigants if this clause were expunged. Let the litigants rely on the general authority of the court rather than insert a clause which might cause great difficulty in dealing with one of the most important things in life. People relying on this clause might find that after the proceedings had been taken they had obtained no real divorce. If you rely on the general jurisdiction of the court you will be perfectly safe. I am not raising this point in a spirit of fault-finding or criticism-I think my hon. friend will agree -but I feel it is a serious matter and that parliament should give its best attention to it, having passed on the general principle of the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: I think this section is
unnecessary. The purpose of the bill, as my hon. friend very ably explained is to secure equality in the grounds of divorce for both men and women. This is obtained by other sections of the bill. This section refers only to the service of the document, and surely provision for such service exists at the present time. You have your courts in all those provinces, actions are instituted, and there must be a method of service already in existence. 1 do not see why this section is necessary to secure what my hon. friend has in his mind.


Mr. MARTELL:: I do not want to interpolate anything in regard to this matter. It is seldom I can agree with my hon. friend from St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter), but I think it is perfectly plain that while the matter of setting forth what the law should be in regard to divorce is one altogether of federal jurisdiction, the matter of the procedure to be applied is one of provincial jurisdiction. This clause which my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) has inserted in the bill is purely a matter of procedure. Therefore it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Now when you come to our courts, the jurisdiction is determined first as to what shall be the grounds for divorce, both as regards men and women; and the hon. member for St. John and Albert has said that this simply refers to equality as regards men and women as to the reasons for securing a divorce, and that is the reason why I voted for the bill. In certain provinces of Canada there are divorce courts, and the procedure in these divorce courts is regulated by provincial jurisdiction or provincial procedure.



Divorce
The judges formulate the rules of procedure to be followed in order to obtain a divorce. The grounds for divorce are set forth in the federal act, and it seems to me that this is all that my hon. friend is seeking. The method of procedure is, of course, a matter for provincial jurisdiction. In civil matters the provincial court- prescribes what shall be the proper service of a writ-, and in the same way that court will decide under this legislation what the necessary procedure shall be in serving a writ in cases of divorce. We all know that if a person wishes to secure leave to issue a writ he goes to a judge in chambers and makes his affidavit, setting forth his grounds and cause of action, and the judge gives him the right to issue the writ for service under jurisdiction. If a person happens to be a British subject residing under jurisdiction then he has leave to issue the writ; if he happens not to be a British subject and not residing in the Dominion, then he gets only leave to serve notice of his writ, and the court provides for substituted service. In this particular instance, the bill before us confers on the court a power to decree divorce, giving equality of grounds as between men and women. But the question of procedure should be left to provincial jurisdiction, for the judge to provide how the writ shall be served, and what shall be regarded as proper direct service or substituted service. Procedure is always a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and I am afraid that my hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) is introducing in his bill something which might eventually give rise to litigation or to an endeavour to set aside a. divorce once it had been
nKlnmo1^ rtn llin nmrtiin./4i +V* r. 4- ,+ V**v	'"'I','
CuuuluCuj OH uno giuuuu. iniuu im, mouuuu pi>
vided in the bill as regards service was irregular and ultra vires of the federal parliament. When the hon. member gets equality as between men and women in regard to grounds for divorce, I think he is getting all that the federal parliament can give him, and he would be safe in following the advice of my hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) and letting the provincial courts provide the procedure in this case, as they do in all civil matters.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am glad to have the fortification of the opinions expressed by the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter), by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and by the hon. member (Mr. Martell). Under the circumstances I move that clause 4 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.
IMr, Martell.]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend The Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior):: Does the hon.
member intend moving that this bill be referred to the committee?


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I intend moving,
after the bill gets its second reading, that it be referred to the select standing committee on Mines, Forests and Waters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on Mines, Forests and Waters.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Post Office Act.-Mr. Church.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a memorandum
from the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) intimating that he has an understanding with the hon. member (Mr. Church) that this matter will be gone on with next Wednesday. Possibly tlie hon. member will confirm that statement.


Mr. CHURCH:: Will the Prime Minister
fix a day?


Mr. STEVENS:: May I point out that this order will scarcely be reached on Wednesday next, unless I am seriously mistaken. And this is the fourth Thursday, so that in aii probability it will not be reached next Thursday either.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Postmaster General is not here, but as I have stated, he sent me a letter intimating that if the bill were called he had an understanding with the mover of it that it would not be gone on with until Wednesday next. As to the likelihood of its not being proceeded with then, that is a matter in regard to which there may be some doubt. However, I undertake that an opportunity will 'be given for the discussion of it at some future time.


Thomas Langton Church: Would the Prime Minister have any objection to the bill being read the second time no(w and having the debate later?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.

Great Lakes Levels


INDIAN ACT-AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Indian Act.-Mr. Coote.
Mr. COOTE:: The minister (Mr. Stewart,
Argenteuil) has asked that the bill be allowed to stand.
Order stands.


YUKON TERRITORY OFFICIALS-IN-COME TAX EXEMPTIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Black (Yukon):
For a copy of all correspondence, documents, statements and communications concerning exemption or partial exemption from payment of income tax on payments or remuneration, whether paid as salary, living allowance or otherwise, by the government of Canada to officials of Yukon Territory, and showing what exemptions (if any) from income tax have been allowed to Yukon officials on amounts paid them by the government of Canada during the past seven years.
Mr. BUREAU:: I would ask the hon. gentleman.' to let this notice of motion stand. There are certain provisions in our act preventing the disclosure of any return made by individuals, and not being thoroughly familiar with those provisions, I am not ready to discuss the matter now. I would therefore ask the hon. gentleman to let his motion stand so I may have an opportunity of seeing the Commissioner of Taxation.


George Black: I have no objection to letting the motion stand if I am assured that it will come up again, and that I shall have an opportunity of discussing it if it is opposed.


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.


GREAT LAKES LEVELS
Thomas Langton Church: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take some definite and immediate action to prevent the illegal diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes through the Chicago drainage canal and that action should be taken to prevent further waste and to secure specific enforcement of the treaty between Canada and the United States as to this matter, inasmuch as this diversion is not only seriously lowering the lake levels, but is a danger to the public works of Canada and its provinces and an interference with the harbour developments of our country and with navigation and is such a direct violation and breach of the treaty as calls for immediate action by the government of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last session this same resolution came up with reference to the diversion of waters through the Chicago 37i
drainage canal. Under the Boundary Waterways treaty 1909, made between Great Britain and the United States, Chicago was allowed to divert 4,167 cubic second feet of water from the Great Lakes. Now that city is asking in effect for a diversion of between 16,000 and 17,000 cubic second feet. I do not intend to-night to again go into the whole history of the case, as I laid the facts before this House last session and they will be found in Hansard of March 26, 1924. But I aim very much dissatisfied that the government of Canada during the past twelve months has taken no adequate steps to stop this illegal diversion by the city of Chicago. I contend that instead of sending to Washington a minor official of the Department of the Interior, to appear before the Rivers and Harbours committee of congress, and also before Mr. Weeks, the United States Secretary of War, to protest against the illegal action of the Chicago authorities, the government should have made its protests and communicated with the British government, which through its ambassador at Washington would have protested to the government of the United States. This is not a matter for individual citizens of Canada, but for the two governments concerned. Principles are bigger than individuals, and we shall never get any relief from this chronic state of affairs until' we proceed through the proper channels of communication, and have all the cards laid on tihe table. This diversion lis nothing but piracy and is ruining the light and power interests and the public works on the Lakes, the Niagara and the St. Lawrence rivers, is lowering the levels of all the harbours on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence by several inches, and it has been estimated by many engineers on the Canadian side that the damage in an economic way to Canadian light, power and navigation interests amounts to no less than $35,000,000 a year. Are we to send minor officials to Washington? Washington is not the capital of Canada; Ottawa is. Is the British government to be ignored altogether in regard to the enforcement of the Boundary Waterways treaty? Is this treaty, so far as any application through the government of the Mother Country is concerned, to be allowed to be treated as a scrap of paper by the United- States government? There are great national and international interests involved, the lowering of -the water levels is affecting navigation and seriously jeopardizing the usefulness of the harbours of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence; it is also prejudicially affecting power rights, and the rights of riparian owners also are in-
Great Lakes Levels

volved. This lowering of the levels is a menace to navigation on both sides of the border as has been proven time and again, and the resultant damage to shipping and trade and commerce is enormous.
It is most important that the Canadian and British governments should take some ac-action in this matter as governments and not merely send two or three officials down to 'Washington to join private citizens. What can they do.? They cannot accomplish anything; they can only go around in a circle. The Prime Minister said recently in the House, when questioned on the orders of the day, that Canada's representative held a watching brief; a watching brief before whom? I say that Canada, through the British government should immediately call on the government of the United States to respect the boundary waterways treaty and to deal with the law breakers, the sanitary drainage authorities of Chicago, who for the past eight or ten years have apparently regarded this treaty as a scrap of paper. The interests of navigation should be paramount, and they are made paramount by treaty. Ontario and Quebec are vitally interested from the standpoint of water-power, because Canada's share of these surplus waters which are not required for navigation purposes may be developed for the purposes of power and the surplus waters including the bed of the rivers, the banks and rapids belong to the provinces.
But while these provinces have an interest in the matter it is recognized that the fed'eral governments of both countries alone are interested from the view of navigation. This matter was debated in the House on March 26 of last year, when I moved a similar resolution, and attention was called to the great damage that had been done to the lake levels by this diversion. It was hoped' that something would be done during the recess of parliament but I am not satisfied with what has been done; in fact, nothing definite at all has been done except to have representatives of Canada listen to a lot of American politicians talking in the Rivers and Harbours committee and having Canad'a represented before some one United States cabinet minister at Washington; Canada's representative being mixed up with a lot of private Canadian citizens and others in Washington politics. When we have a treaty it should be adhered to. There is an International Joint Commission before whom this case should be taken with a view to obtaining relief for Canada from an intolerable state of affairs. The Canadian government are only wasting their time.

The authorities of the city of Chicago have made a football of this matter for the last ten or fifteen years. True it is that last fall the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States was given, but it was away back in 1911 when the matter first went before the courts. First Judge Landis handed down his decision. Appeal was taken 'to the state courts and on to the Supreme Court of the United States, who held' that the city of Chicago was illegally diverting water in violation of the treaty. When a treaty is made with a foreign country, especially with the United States, people of our own kith and kin, surely it should be respected and they should not be allowed to treat it as a scrap of paper.
I am glad to say there is a widespread organization along the Great Lakes and on the upper lakes on both sides of the border against the Chicago pirates, in the cities of Detroit, Cleveland and other cities and towns on the American border, who are all organizing a league against the city of Chicago and are opposing its demand that it be allowed' to steal this water out of the lake in perpetuity,-take it away from Canada and divert it to the purposes of a greater sewage system. Why do they not set up a modern system of sewerage as every other city on the Great Lakes has done? Why, if every other city on the Great Lakes did what Chicago is doing there would' not be enough water in the lower gulf or lower river to enable small ships to come in.
Not satisfied with the diversion of 12,000 cubic feet per second more than the 4,167 cubic feet allowed by the treaty, the city of Chicago are utilizing a lot of this water for sewage purposes snd to generate power for distribution in the district of Chicago to private power users. The treaty is as clear as daylight; there can be no doubt about its construction or interpretation. It provides that there must be no diversion in excess of 4,167 cubic feet per second' and that any diversion in excess of that amount must have the joint consent of the two countries. But the city of Chicago do not propose to get the consent of the two countries; they do not propose to get even the consent of their own country; they simply take the law into their own hands, ignore the courts and their own government and go on diverting that amount of water. The courts for years issued injunctions restraining them, but the courts have no way of carrying out their injunctions. Having been beaten in the court of last resort the authorities of the city of Chicago are now appearing before the Secretary for War and asking that in the interim, until such time as they can adopt a new sewage system

Great Lakes Levels
and until such time as they can arrange to get direct current for commercial and domestic lighting elsewhere, they be allowed to continue this diversion.
What is Canada doing in this matter? Last Friday on the orders of the day I asked who was representing Canada and I took objection to the number of private individuals going down there and saying they were representing this country. These people, without consulting the government in any way, have gone down to Washington as self-appointed representatives of Canada to protest to the government of a foreign country and a foreign Secretary of War with regard to the enforcement of a bona fide boundary waterways treaty made between Great Britain and the United States. I never heard of such a proceeding as going over the heads of the Canadian and British governments and the British ambassador. It has hurt Canada's case before the government and the people of the United States and has resulted' in a counter attack on the Hydro and Niagara Power systems. Now, there never was any illegal diversion by Canada of waters from the Niagara river; in fact, the peqple of Canada are taking less water from the Niagara river than the treaty gives them and a large part of what they do take is exported back to the United States in the form of electrical energy for commercial purposes. As a result of these gentlemen going down to Washington and saying they represented Canada an attack has been made on the light and power projects of Ontario on the Niagara river which never were attacked before, in the hope that attention might thereby be turned away from the diversion of water from the Great Lakes for the sewage purposes of Chicago.
We on this side of the House would do anything possible to help the government to accomplish some definite result because our interests over there are being sacrificed by the manner in which the Chicago people have taken the law into their own hands. I do not criticise the minister; he has been active in this power development proposition all over the country. But I would like to find out from him, first, what he has done to call the attention of the British government to the breach of this waterways treaty; second, what has the British ambassador at Washington done; and, third, who appoints all these private people who are going down there and saying they represent Canada? Just think; they are going down there to represent Canada before the government of a foreign country regarding the diversion of water and
the matter of an international treaty between Great Britain and the United States concerning those boundary waters. How do these representatives get passports? They do not represent Canada, and the United States will pay no heed to their representations unless this House and this government get busy and stop the piracy on the lakes. The various harbour works all along the Great Lakes have been interfered with by this diversion, both on the Canadian and the American side. At Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo the levels are away below what they have been for years, and on the Canadian side, on the St. Lawrence river and lake Ontario from Prescott west as far as Toronto and Hamilton the levels have dropped many inches and in some oases from two to three feet, causing great injury to trade and navigation, and to the development of Canadian ports and power interests. A lot of power plants and waterworks on lake Ontario and the Niagara river are also in jeopardy by reason of this diversion. The levels have also fallen on the Detroit river, lake Erie, lake Huron, Georgian bay and the lower St. Lawrence.
Mr. Speaker, a treaty should be respected as a treaty, especially when it is made between the United States, the Mother Country and Canada. Canada has adhered strictly to the letter of the treaty. It is not using even all the water it is entitled to in the Niagara river, while the United States government is allowing Chicago to divert this vast volume of water. Hon. members will find a complete history of the whole case, the legal and engineering side, and further details with regard to this diversion by Chicago on page 706 of Hansard of March 26, 1924, in the debate on my motion which occupied a whole day last session. The government of Ontario and Canadian municipalities are very much dissatisfied with the way things are going, and probably you cannot blame them for acting themselves although some of them think that Washington and not Ottawa is the capital of Canada so far as this matter is concerned. I do hope the minister will take the question up with the proper authorities. Canada has no right to appear before the Rivers and Harbours committee; Canada should not be represented before any committee or before the Secretary of War of the United States. There is a proper channel through which to take this matter up. It should be taken up through the British government and the British ambassador at Washington and the United States should be told in no uncertain voice that a treaty cannot be treated as a scrap of paper when it is made between Great Britain and the United States.
5S2
Great Lakes Levels

Canada should file a suit claiming damages covering a period of ten years at 835,000,000 a year and collect the amount from the United States through the government of Great Britain. The United States should be told that Canada will no longer stand for the violation of the treaty, and that it is the duty of the government of the United States to check up Chicago, this pirate of the lakes, for diverting this extra amount of water. Even if Secretary Weeks does give his judgment next week, it is not legal under the Boundary Waterways treaty, because Great Britain is the party of the second part to the treaty and one party alone to the treaty cannot give Chicago the right to illegally divert some 4,167 cubic feet per second without the consent of the other.
In conclusion I urge upon the minister that some definite action be taken, and that action should be taken through the British government and through the British ambassador at Washington and that a damage suit be entered to collect from the United States compensation for the damage and' injury done. Well, let us send no more pilgrims to Washington. The Canadian government is responsible for seeing that Canada is protected from this piracy of Chicago, and it should take this matter up through the proper authorities, the British government or the British ambassador at Washington, and not shirk its duties and leave it to provincial and municipal authorities who however deserve credit for taking action when they could not get any results through Ottawa.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the House after listening to the long discussion of last session with respect to the illegal diversion of water by the Chicago drainage system will not be interested in hearing a rehash of that same matter this year; but I should like to put my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) right in one matter, and that is that this government have not agreed to the diversion of 4,167 feet, nor to the diversion of a single foot of water by Chicago.
I would also like to inform him that all official documents passing between the government of Canada and the government of the United States in respect to this matter have passed through the hands of the British ambassador at Washington, so that in protesting against the illegal diversion of these waters we have been using the proper channel of communication. More cannot be said than that.
With respect to my hon. friend's complaint as to individuals going down there unau-

thorized, of course, the government of Canada cannot very well stop individuals from going to Washington, nor can they stop them from making statements if they get an opportunity to do so, but I can assure him that they are not speaking on behalf of the government of Canada. In so far as representation of this government is concerned, it is quite true that we have had representatives watching the proceedings, and that policy has been pursued by this government for the past two years. We deem it wise to keep informed on every move that is made with respect to this matter, and for that reason Mr. W. J. Stewart has attended most of the sittings of the Senate committee and the hearings before Secretary of War Weeks with respect to this matter.
One other matter. The diversion itself is the result of an application made by the city of Chicago and granted by the Secretary of War for the United States. Objection has been taken by congress; objection has been taken by every city and state surrounding the city of Chicago; objection has been taken to the polluting of the rivers below Chicago by American representatives themselves; and what we are doing is to protest that they are not entitled, not to 4,167 feet, which my hon. friend has mentioned but to not one single foot of the water diverted. That has been the position which we have maintained religiously throughout the whole of this controversy. Of course, they may proceed to divert this water in spite of Canada's protest, and if Canada is to go to the extent of serving an ultimatum, that, of course, may be done; but my hon. friend knows full well that only by force can that sort of thing be backed up, and that is not the course we have decided upon. We believe that the pressure we have been able to bring to bear upon the American authorities through the British ambassador will have its effect, and I believe that is very apparent at the moment. My hon. friend will remember the decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States no later than last fall which declared the diversion illegal. A very vigorous fight is also being maintained in the committee of the Senate by those who are very strenuously opposed to this diversion. I hold in my hand a report from Mr. W. J. Stewart who was at the hearing before Secretary Weeks a few days ago, to the effect that they do intend to take active steps to stop this diversion, allowing, of course, a reasonable time for the city of Chicago to make other arrangements.
One other matter I should like to mention. It is undoubtedly an acute situation which prevails on the Great Lakes to-day. The

Great Lakes Levels
water levels in lake Superior and the upper lakes are 26 inches lower than they have been for some years. Indeed, since 1891 the lake levels have never been so low as they are at the present moment. The diversion at Chicago is estimated to lower the water in the Great Lakes, in lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, to the extent of 6 inches. We have this undoubted situation because of the lower levels in the upper lakes and, of course, because of the illegal diversion of the water at Chicago. But we are objecting in a most strenuous way, we are not leaving any stone unturned in order to bring those protests through the proper channels to the attention of the American government. But, Mr. Speaker, I must deny-


William Findlay Maclean: Are the American ports advancing a claim in the same way?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: And are they
making representations to the American authorities?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Their
representatives are appearing before a committee in congress. The chairman of the Senate committee is Mr. Dempsey, of Buffalo. Every lake port on the American side has been complaining most bitterly, and has appointed delegates to attend the sittings of that committee.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: The minister is quite right when he says that he does not suppose that the House will want to have everything that was said last year rehearsed. I do not think the House would, I think no one would reasonably expect it. But the House would be very much more interested to know what progress has been made, to know why it is that we still continue to be in the position of having an obligation-which so far has not been denied -flouted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In what way
has it been flouted?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend wants to ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am asking
in what way the obligation has been flouted?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend was not listening to me. I asked why we are in a position of having an obligation, which as yet has not been denied, flouted? Surely the government know that water is still being taken? I assume that they know that. I would assume from what the minister immediately interested had said
it would not be necessary to point out to the government that water is being taken. I would have assumed that it was not necessary either to point out that we had a treaty dealing with this matter. Why, that was admitted last year. What we are interested in knowing to-day is surely this: There is a treaty admitted. There is the admitted taking of the water. What is the reason the treaty is not observed? Is there any reason to be given, or are we to understand that the matter really is-


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend infer that there is a treaty allowing the American government to take any water?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, no. I am afraid I shall have to go into the whole history of the matter again. I thought the minister understood the situation.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend spoke about a treaty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly, the
treaty in connection with the waters of the Great lakes, providing that they are not to be withdrawn. Well, there we are. There is the treaty, the water is still being taken, and we have not yet been told why. What is the reason put forward for the taking of the water? Is the reason really, as was almost in so many words stated by the minister-and I was very sorry to hear him stating it-that the only way the United States government can be got at is by an ultimatum, to be followed by force? Because that is what my hon. friend said.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh no, I
did not. I said it was for my hon. friends to
suggest what action should be taken. We have gone the whole distance with protest, what else would my hon. friend1 suggest?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Ah, I do not
think the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) ever suggested force. The only suggestion of force that I heard came from my hon. friend the minister; I do not think he meant it.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me repeat what I said if my hon. friend will permit. I said that we had gone the whole distance with protest through the proper channels. Now my hon. friend suggests that there is some other course, that we have not gone far enough, and I should like to know what that is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We do not know exactly how far the government have gone.
Great Lakes Levels


Charles A. Stewart: We will be perfectly willing to bring down the despatches.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps that will be the easiest thing to do, to table the despatches and then have this matter brought up another time. In any event I think it would be a good thing for the government that this motion should pass. It is merely backing up the government in taking the necessary action to look after Canada's rights. Do they object to it? I would assume not. If there is objection to it what is the objection? Is there not real sincerity in any action taken to look after Canada's water? I believe there is. Then why is there any objection to the House passing this resolution? I think the government should be asking the House to pass a resolution of the strongest possible kind in its aid. It really does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, a most extraordinary situation that a motion-which after all is really a motion asking the government to take any and all steps it can take to assert Canada's rights-should be objected to by anybody. There is another thing which seems to me to be very incomprehensible, and that is that in these two years-so far as the public know, so far as we glean from newspapers and the like-the question which is exercising public authority in the United States is not a question of solemn treaty rights, but is the question as to whether or not it is convenient to observe solemn treaty rights, just finding out where the balance of convenience is, whether this city here or that city there is going to be hurt more than Chicago will be helped. The effect of that would be lost a great deal if the government is in a position to take the House into its confidence. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly willing, if the mover of the resolution is also willing, that this matter should stand for the purpose of the papers being brought down. I understood the minister to say that he saw no objection to that course. If there is any objection I should like to continue my remarks.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no objection to bringing down the papers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend says there is no objection I do not want to delay the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Proceed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know who is really-I suppose the right hon. Prime Minister-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We should like to dispose of this motion to-night.


Henry Lumley Drayton: With the undertaking that the papers will be brought down?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, certainly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then may I ask if there is any objection to the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is objection to the motion. It implies that action has not been taken by the government whereas action has been taken-immediate and direct action as the despatches, will show. Last session a return was placed on the table of this House, a printed copy of which I have in my hand at the moment; it contains several despatches, representations made through the British embassy to the United States government with respect to this very matter of the Chicago drainage canal. Since last year further despatches have been forwarded. In the meantime the United States government itself has been dealing with this matter in a most effective way, in a manner more effective than would be possible for any of the other parties concerned to deal with it because the United States government itself has taken the position, upholding the decision of its Supreme court, that water should not be diverted through the Chicago canal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the United
States government takes that position the matter is settled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We hope so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the United
States government takes that position so far as Canada's rights are concerned it is the first we have heard of it, and this debate has served a useful purpose in bringing out that information. If it is taking the
10 ,p.m. position that Canada is right and that this water ought not to be taken I have nothing to say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That wajs the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States a few weeks ago.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon. friend is confusing the question of national rights with court rights. Canada's rights were never submitted to the Supreme court, never, and my right hon. friend misses the point entirely. Let me try and make it clear what the Supreme court did, and I hope that I will be interrupted at once if my statement is wrong: What the Supreme court did was to consider the dispute between American interests entirely-the right of Chicago to

Great Lakes Levels
obtain the water or not to obtain it. I think I am right in that, and what the Supreme court has done is to hold that Chicago has not the right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That Chicago has not the right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but my
right hon. friend the Prime Minister has gone further; he has said that so far as the government of the United States is concerned they take the position that the water ought not to be taken away.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is the view of the Supreme Court of 'the United States, supported by the government, as I understand it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In what way do they support it? In the answers to the representations made by this government? If that is so, I am content. If our treaty rights are now acceded to, and the only matter is one of the United States government properly policing some of its own subjects, I think we can safely leave that matter to them, and I aim perfectly satisfied. That is the first I have heard of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the United States government is able so to adjust this matter, in the interests of certain American states, as to prevent a continuance of the diversion of the water, the problem will be satisfactorily solved so far as the United States is concerned; and if satisfactorily solved so far as they are concerned, it will be equally solved so far as Canada is concerned, seeing the same waters are affected.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the right hon. gentleman is right in one sense, but entirely wrong in another. He is right in the sense that if, as in. the case he predicates, the majority of interests in the United States- that is American interests-is in favour of upholding the treaty, it helps undoubtedly; but it does not help very much on the other point, and it is rather a sad reflection if we are to approach this matter with the United States knowing that the regulations are only to be enforced if the preponderance of American interests calls for theiir enforcement. If my hon. friend tells me that the United States government have admitted, not rights in the water in Cleveland, not rights in the water at Detroit, not that as a result of the fact that Cleveland has rights and Detroit has rights that we get our rights that they have admitted, but rights in the water in Canada, I am content, and1 it is not worth while prolonging the discussion.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	May I say a word
about this matter? The object to be attained in this particular case is to stop what I submit is an illegal diversion of water at Chicago. If that can be obtained the discussion as to treaty rights between the United States and Canada is a matter that can be threshed out. But I make this statement: that never since this controversy began has Canada been in as good shape as she is at the present time in regard to it. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church), if I remember rightly last year, criticised the government because they did not send somebody to Washington. At least, that is my memory of it. This government is not responsible at all for any person who went from any part of Canada, except Mr. Stewart, who was sent down from Ottawa, he being a very highly valuable official in the Marine department. This question has not been lost sight of by the government of Canada; but in addition to its own protest it has had also with it the protest of a large portion of the territory of the United States affected, and if that solid body of opinion against the diversion of water at Chicago is working with the United States government, and Canada is protesting through the legal channel in the constitutional way, what more can Canada do? I am not sure whether I will be upheld in this view or not by the House.
My hon. friend said a few moments ago that we should have asked that this question of the diversion of water be referred to the International Joint Commission. That immediately would be an admission that there was something to refer to the commission. My view-and I think it is the view of my colleagues-is that we should stand on the ground of the treaty rights of Canada, and there is nothing to refer to the International Joint Commission. When the correspondence is brought down it will be found that the position taken by Canada is a very strong one. These international relations are delicate matters at times, and Canada surely does not want to make any move which might jeopardize the action which would bring about an end of this diversion. I think that hon. members will find, when all the correspondence is brought down, that we have acted along lines of wisdom and effectiveness. The relationships in this matter between the United States government and the Canadian government are the most cordial and anything which has been suggested by Canada with the authority of this government and
Great Lakes Levels

the Canadian parliament has been through correspondence between the two governments.
Now protests have been made and the progress towards settlement of this question has not been closed. The Supreme Court of the United States granted an injunction. After that injunction an appeal was made on behalf of Chicago to allow a continued diversion of ten thousand second cubic feet -that is ten thousand cubic feet a second'. If members of the House have watched closely they will have seen I think that the Secretary of War immediately told the Chicago representatives that they need not discuss the continuation, even for a short time, of that amount of water because he would not grant a license for it, and it is to him they apply for permission. The question arose following that as to the result that might accrue if this diversion of water were immediately stopped at Chicago. After all, in this treaty and in the arrangement between the United States and Canada their reason for the diversion of water or for the use of water is given and placed in proper sequence. Chicago has been taking more water than she was entitled to under the treaty, and Canada does not admit that she is entitled to one cubic foot of water, and that is the ground on which we are standing.
The United States government has been very cordial in this matter, and has treated our protest with the greatest deference, and our protest combined with the protests made by the states of the union affected has been treated with due regard, and I think has had great effect. The Supreme court issued an injunction, a hearing was had before the Secretary of War Who grants the licenses for diversion, and he told the Chicago people that they need not argue to continue the diversion even for a short time of the amount they are now taking, but they are considering very seriously what effect it would have on the health of the millions of people in Chicago if they immediately cut off this water. I think nobody in Canada or anywhere else would take any sudden action that would injure the health of a very large portion of the population of Chicago and vicinity. But the United States, through their Secretary of War, laid down the principle at that hearing that although a diversion is made, extending to a certain percentage which he mentioned, it could be only for a term of years. That term of years has not, I think, been decided upon, and the diversion is merely for the purpose of allowing Chicago to put in a modem system of drainage. In addition to the objection taken by Canada and certain states in the matter of navigation, some of
IMr. Graham.]
the states affected by the pouring of sewage into the river used by Chicago in the lake diversion are objecting on account of the injury to the health of their localities. On the whole, therefore, the position is good for Canada at the present time as well as for the states of the American union injuriously affected, but it will take a little time.
There are two or three things which I object to in the passing of this motion. In the first place, it asks the House to tell the government to do what we have already done; it implies that Canada has not done anything. But I submit that Canada has done everything that ought to be done or that can be done under the circumstances and done constitutionally. Furthermore, suppose in the face of the progress that has been made in this matter, the Canadian parliament should pass a resolution which practically declared that neither the United States nor Canada had done anything: that would prejudice our case very materially perhaps before the United States authorities, and that is one tiling we do not want to do. So far the progress has been satisfactory, and I think ir would be a serious mistake on the part of the Canadian parliament to pass a resolution at this time which might in any way prejudice our position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend (Mr. Graham) has referred to the action of the Canadian government by way of protest. I have in my hand a few of the despatches that have passed; it will I think be of interest to the House were I to read specifically what in this connection has been said on two or three occasions by the government of Canada to the government of the United States.


William Findlay Maclean: Have these been published?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, in part. In the return that was brought down last year and placed on the table of the House in refer-' ence to the St. Lawrence waterway project and the Chicago drainage canal, there was a copy of a despatch sent by His Excellency the Governor General to the Charge d'Affaires at Washington on December 19, 1923, and subsequently transmitted through the British embassy to the Secretary of State of the United States. That despatch makes reference to previous communications and reads: Sir,-
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that numerous communications have been received by the Canadian government from various interests and corporate bodies directly concerned, protesting vigorously against the diversion of water from lake Michigan. The position

Great Lakes Levels
of the government of Canada in opposition to and in protest of the injurious effects of this diversion, both to navigation and water power, has been fully declared in representations which have been made to the government of the United States. The attitude of the Canadian government was clearly made known in a brief filed with the Secretary of War of the United States on the 27th March, 1912, and in Governor [DOT]General's despatches No. 145 of the 23rd November, 1912, No. 16 of the 25th February, 1913, telegram of the 8th of June, 1916, No. 135 of the 9th June, 1916 and secret telegram of the 15th April, 1921, to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington for transmission to the government of the United States.
In connection with the aforementioned representations, it has been brought to the attention of the Canadian government that on or about the month of June, 1923, the government of the United States was granted an injunction restraining the sanitary district of Chicago from diverting water from lake Michigan, and, further that this injunction would not become active for a period of six months, to permit the sanitary district time in which to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
I shall be grateful if you will inform the government of the United States that the declared attitude of the government of Canada in the above matter is unchanged.
My government request that appropriate enquiries may be made regarding the legal proceeding undertaken by the government of the United States, which the Canadian government confidently trusts will be vigorously pressed.
I have, etc.,
Byng of Vimy.
That despatch shows first of all that this is not a new matter, having been first dealt with as long ago as 1912, and that the governments which preceded the present administration have from time to time also registered their protest. Beyond registering a protest they apparently have not felt that any further course was either possible or advisable, having regard to the nature of the situation. It makes clear also that so far as the United States was concerned, many states in the union have precisely the same interest in preventing a continuance of this diversion of water at Chicago as have provinces of this Dominion lying on the opposite side of the *Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. Further, it indicates that those states in the United States which were primarily interested were successful in having the whole matter brought by the government of the United States before the Supreme court of that country, and were also successful in having an injunction issued restraining the sanitary district of Chicago from diverting the water in question. At each stage of subsequent proceedings our government has taken steps to ensure the Canadian point of view being driven home in order to reinforce and strengthen the attitude being taken in the United States by the government of the United States itself to restrain Chicago from continuing a diversion of the lake Michigan waters through its [DOT]drainage canal.


William Findlay Maclean: Has any injunction been issued yet?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it was granted, and a six months' period was given to allow the people of Chicago to make the necessary changes. When the case was set for hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States, care was taken to ensure Canada's right to have persons present at the hearing, in a position to advise, if that were thought possible, or to assist in any way that the circumstances might warrant. Before I go further, I might read a portion of another despatch of date March 19, 1924. On that date the following was sent to His Majesty's ambassador at Washington by His Excellency the Governor General:
The question of the diversion of water from the St. Lawrence watershed into that of the Mississippi by the sanitary district of Chicago is still causing great concern in Canada, particularly in view of the bill on the subject which has been introduced into congress, and my ministers desire that the government of the United States be informed of their hope that no action will be taken either to confirm or permit the extension of the claims of the sanitary district to continue any diversion and thus adversely affect important interests in the navigation of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence river and the development of power, actual or prospective, upon the river or upon interlake connecting waters.
The position of the government of Canada in opposition to and in protest against the injurious effects of this diversion has been consistently maintained, and is still held, and my ministers venture to suggest that it would be unfortunate if, now that the development of the St. Lawrence waterway for navigation and power purposes is under consideration, any action should be taken which might adversely affect the possibility of such development. They sincerely trust that this view will commend itself to the government of the United States.
On January 9 of the present year our government received from the British ambassador at Washington a despatch giving particulars of a decision which had been given, by the United States Supreme court. I will read this despatch to the House because it will help to explain the present situation and the nature of the action which the government has taken.


William Findlay Maclean: Is this the first public statement on that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is, yes. At any rate this despatch has not been brought down. It will be brought down with the other papers now they have been asked for.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was 1924?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The last despatch I read was March 17, 1924. This is
Great Lakes Levels

from the British ambassador to His Excellency the Governor General:
British Embassy,
Washington, D.C., January 9, 1925.
With reference to my dispatch No. 278 of July 17 last, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith copies of the decision of the United States Supreme Court delivered by Mr. Justice Holmes on the 5th instant affirming the decree for an injunction against the sanitary district of Chicago to prevent them diverting water from lake Michigan in excess of the 250,000 cubic feet per minute allowed by the Secretary of War.
This opinion begins by summarizing the defence of the Chicago authorities and refuses to take seriously their denial that they are at present, diverting a volume of water far in excess of the allowance permitted. It then points out that the main arguments on behalf of an injunction are, firstly, the authority of the United States to remove obstructions to inter-state and foreign commerce, and, secondly-
To this I would particularly direct the attention of my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton).
and, secondly, the terms of the treaty of January 11. 1909, with Great Britain, which expressly forbids action affecting the natural level or flow of boundary waters without the authority of the United States or Canada and the approval of the International Joint Commission established under that treaty. It affirms the force of the act of Congress of March 3, 1899, and its application to the present case, and the authority of the Minister of War to act thereunder. It^ disallows the defence of the Chicago sanitary district based upon the permits already granted by the Secretary of War in regard to the diversion of this water as being too futile to need reply, and finally after commenting unfavourably on the delay which has been permitted in the legal proceedings instituted in 1913 to determine the rights of the sanitary district in this matter, grants an injunction to take effect in sixty days without prejudice to any permit the Secretary of War may issue under the authority conferred on him by the law.
This decision o-f the Supreme Court was not unexpected.
The despatch continues:
Meanwhile the House of Representatives has referred to a committee a measure introduced by Congressman Hull to sanction a diversion of water from lake Michigan up to 10,000 cubic feet per second and to create a nine foot channel from the lake to the gulf of Mexico. Further, the senate committee is to resume its hearings next Tuesday on Senator McCormick's resolution for a joint committee of both houses of congress to investigate the nine foot channel question. Copies of the Hull bill and the McCormick resolution are enclosed herein.
I understand that the Canadian National Advisory Committee recently met in Ottawa to prepare instructions for the guidance of the Dominion representative on the Joint Engineering Board and Your Excellency will no doubt inform me in due course what further action the Dominion government, after consideration of the present favourable decision of the Supreme court, desire me to take vis a vis the United States government in this matter.
I am sending a copy of this dispatch to His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
I have the honour to be, My Lord,
Your Excellency's most obedient,
humble servant,
Esme Howard.
Now, that despatch

fMr Mackenzie King.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: What further
action has been taken?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING. I am coming to that. I want to make it perfectly clear that we have been acting in conjunction with the British government through the British ambassador at Washington; all parties have been duly informed; we have been taking the course which we believed to be, and which I think will prove to be, the most effective in bringing about the result desired by this country. As has been mentioned, an application was made to the United States Secretary of War to give a special permit to the Chicago sanitary district for a continuance of this diversion for a certain period. We are informed of that hearing. We immediately communicated with the government of the United States and asked that we be permitted to be represented. On the 16th of. this month the following despatch was sent to the British ambassador by His Excellency the Governor General:
Information has been received by Canadian government that a hearing is to be held before the Secretary of War of the United States at Washington on February 20, upon an application from the sanitary district of Chicago, for permission to divert 10,000 cubic feet per second from the waters of lake Michigan for " sewage disposal and sanitary purposes," and also to discuss the terms of a proposed permit from the Secretary of War to the sanitary district for a lesser diversion of water for a limited terms of years, and it is the desire of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to send Mr. William J. Stewart, chief hydrographer of his department, to be present at the hearing.
My ministers request that necessary arrangements may be made for the attendance of Mr. Stewart.
Bync.
Necessary arrangements were made, the government of the United States cordially acquiesced in our request, and Mr. Stewart was present. As I mentioned in the House the other day when a question was asked on the point, Mr. Stewart was instructed to attend but not to participate unless he should be called upon to make some special representations. He was asked by the Secretary of War, if any investigation had been made by Canada to determine whether the lowering was due to the abstraction or to other causes. He replied that Canada had used exactly the same method of investigation as had been used for the upper lakes. An elaborate system of stream measurements had been taken, automatic gauges being used for determining the levels. Then Mr. Stewart in his report made to the minister on his return adds this paragraph:
I stated that it was Canada's earnest desire that any order he might issue would have in view the earliest possible complete stoppage of the abstraction, and that

Great Lakes Levels
*we had expressed our objection to it in a great many dispatches that had been filed from time to time with the Secretary of State, commencing with an elaborate brief presented to Mr. Stimson in 1912.
* When we sent Mr. Stewart to Washington we felt it would strengthen his hands if while he was there a further despatch were sent to the Secretary of State for the United States, and accordingly the following was transmitted bj'' His Excellency the Governor General to the British ambassador at Washington on the 20th of this month for transmission to the Secretary of State, Mr. Hughes:
Attention of the Canadian government has been directed to a report that the Secretary of War of the United States has fixed a time for public hearings on the application of the sanitary district of Chicago for permission to increase the quantity of water which it is now permitted to divert from lake Michigan under authority of the Secretary of War, and proposes to consider whether in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers the amount permitted to be diverted should under certain conditions be increased to 8,500 second feet in lieu of 4,167 second feet to which it is limited under the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Government of Canada would not wish to oppose such interim measures as may be necessary to protect the health of the inhabitants of the city of Chicago, but in this connection it feels impelled to reiterate the protests it has already made against the abstraction of water from the St. Lawrence basin and to make it clear that the government of Canada does not surrender any claims that might be put forward for consequential loss suffered or to be suffered. It is impossible to lose sight of the fact that the effect of a present increase in the permitted diversion will be to postpone the relief for which navigation and other interests injuriously affected by the conduct of the Chicago sanitary district have been too long waiting and which subject only to the paramount necessity of safeguarding public health they are now entitled to receive.
The injury to Canadian interests by any lowering of the natural levels of the Great Lakes, their connecting waters and the St. Lawrence river by a diminution of the natural water supply is of constantly increasing importance not only from the point of view of navigation in the lakes and the lower St. Lawrence, but also from the point of view of power development. It is recognized also that United States interests are likewise substantially affected.
The Canadian government feels confident that the government of the United States is fully alive to the advisability of restricting within the narrowest possible limits the amount of water to be diverted. It feels sure that no permit will be granted for the diversion of any water not essential to protect the health of the population of Chicago and that the period during which the diversion must on this ground continue will be made as short as circumstances permit.
Tha.t, Mr. Speaker, brings the matter tup almost to the present week, and I submit, without supplementing the despatches which I have just- read, that I have given to the House ample evidence that the government of Canada is watching and safeguarding in every particular the interests of our country in this matter. In this connection we have the active support and ico-operation of the British ambassador at Washington and of the
British government at home through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In view of the fact that the government of the United States itself applied for an injunction, that the Supreme Court of the United States granted this injunction to the government of the United States and that the matter in the United States has thus reached such a satisfactory stage, I think it would be unfortunate if a resolution were to go out from this House at this time to the country and to the United States implying that the government of Canada had in any way failed to take necessary action in the matter.
Sir HE.NRY DRAYTOiN: If my right hon. friend will permit a question so as to complete the narrative: He has said that Chicago was promoting a bill before the United States congress following the judgment of the Supreme court. Perhaps he could tell us how that stands?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the moment I do not recall what, particular reference was made to that bill, but I do 'think that the despatches I have read are sufficient to indicate that any bill of the kind would come under our general protest, because we have taken the broad stand that any measure that will allow this diversion to continue would be inimical to our interests and should not be permitted. That is the broad position we have taken and it is being maintained.
May I put one further aspect before the House, because I think it will help to interpret to hon. members the point of view of the government in this matter. Certain of the states in the United States are as much interested in this matter as are the people of this country. It has been the subject of consideration in the courts in the United States as well as by the government of the United States, and both the courts and the government. have decided against Chicago. I submit that for Canada to endeavour to interfere either with the judicial or the executive procedure of the United States when both are in accord with our own wishes and interests would be to set matters back rather than to help them. I hope that under the circumstances my hon. friend (Mr. Church) will not press his resolution.


William Findlay Maclean: Has a counter protest been made that the hydro-electric project in Ontario is unfairly diverting the
same waters?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have
been protests and counter protests. I have seen by the press-
Annuity to Dr. Saunders


William Findlay Maclean: They do not come up in connection with this matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, we have
been trying to keep the two questions separate. I think it is altogether in the interests of both governments that they should be kept separate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite agree with my right hon. friend as to the bill. In view of the finding of the Supreme court that the treaty holds, the bill, of course, would' be a far greater breach than anything else could be. In view of all the circumstances I have the permission of the hon. member (Mr. Church) that the motion be withdrawn.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is it the unanimous consent of the House that the hon. member be allowed to withdraw his motion?
Motion withdrawn.


ANNUITY TO DR. SAUNDERS
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. MILLAR:
Whereas the Canadian people in general, and the people of western Canada in particular, have reaped and are reaping still, material benefits to the extent of many millions of dollars annually as a result of the discovery by Dr. Charles E. Saunders, of that variety of spring wheat known as Marquis, which possesses early ripening and strong milling qualities, therefore, be it resolved that this House is of the opinion that, the government should consider the advisability of granting a life annuity of $5,000 to Dr. Saunders.
Mr. MILLAR:: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to go on with this resolution, but I have just been in communication with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) as to the necessity of it. If necessary I can go on to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has already undertaken to do what it suggests. The estimates for the present session contain an appropriation of the amount suggested' in the resolution, namely, $5,000, as an annuity to Dr. Saunders.


John Millar: The resolution proposes
that it shall be made a life annuity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An annuity is a payment each year during the life of the person to whom it is granted.


John Millar: That makes it permanent?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


John Millar: Dropped.
Motion dropped.


CANTEEN FUNDS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider a proposed resolution with regard to the distribution of canteen funds.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
William Findlay Maclean: Do I understand that the protest that I read in the House today is rather ill-founded?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think so, Mr. Speaker.
I will give some explanation in this matter when the resolution is before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On the order that the House go into committee of Supply:
Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand
that an arrangement has been made whereby the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be taken up to-night but not proceeded with, so that the government will have full right of way thereafter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Trade and Commerce-bounty on crude petroleum, administration of, $1,500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this the item that has to do with petroleum up in Lamb-ton?


Mr. LOW:: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There will be
quite a little discussion upon this probably, and I think it will save time if the minister will have full particulars of that when this item comes up again. Of course, we cannot do anything now.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.54 p.m.
Friday, February 27, 1925.