1930-03-18

Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:: That 1,000 copies in English and 250 copies in French of the report prepared for the National Research Council by Dr. Robert Newton on an inquiry in Europe regarding the feasibility of using protein content as a factor in grading and marketing Canadian wheat, tabled in the house on Friday, March 7th, 1930, be printed in blue book form, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, on March 12 I gave notice of motion, which appears upon the votes and proceedings for that date and which I desire to move now, seconded by Mr. Kellner. That notice of motion reads:
That Bill No. 20, an act to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of mariage, be read a second time on Tuesday, the 18th of March, instant.
I have no desire to debate this motion at any great length because I would prefer to trust the issue to the disposition of the house. Hon. members will realize that the rules of the house will not permit a discussion on the merits of the bill itself so the only matter now before the house is whether or not the bill shall be read a second time.
Since this motion virtually asks parliament to consider a bill which already has been dealt with, I must state without undue elaboration my reasons which I hope will be considered adequate.
As hon. members are aware, Bill No. 20 provides in effect for the establishment of divorce courts in the province of Ontario, It was read a second time on Tuesday, March 11, during the hour for private bills. The result
Divorce Court for Ontario

of the vote upon that occasion was unsatisfactory ; I do not mean that it was unsatisfactory to myself or to hon. members who like myself were interested in the success of the bill, but it was unsatisfactory to the house and I think I am safe in saying, from what I have read since, that it was unsatisfactory to the country.
Bill No. 20 has been very contentious, having been moved in the house for several years. It has been very contentious in parliament and outside of parliament; it threatens to arouse latent religious animosities. Therefore I submit it was and is desirable that parliament should speak in no uncertain voice in regard to it. The vote should be decisive, but unfortunately on the 11th instant the vote was not decisive. There was registered against the bill a majority of one. A majority of one would be decisive under ordinary circumstances. If, for instance, there had been as many hon. members present on that occasion as we have in the house to-day, a majority of one would have been as decisive as a majority of several, but on that occasion there were present only 157 members out of 245. I do not wish to reflect on hon. members who were not present. Let me draw the attention of the house to a set of circumstances which combined to produce the unsatisfactory result which the motion before us now seeks to correct. It was anticipated that the bill would give rise to a protracted discussion; it was reasonable to expect that from previous experiences. The bill had been before the house in the private bills' hour for only one night prior to the vote to which I refer, so that hon. members did not expect a vote to come at that time. I know I did not expect a vote myself and I have been interested in the bill. It happened that the discussion terminated suddenly, shortly after the opening of the sitting at eight o'clock, with the result that many hon. members had not time to get back to the house. In fact I know that perhaps about a score of members arrived in the lobbies after the question had been put and they were therefore, by the rules of the house precluded from voting. This fact accounted in a large measure for the small vote.
Another consideration which I offer to the house is that a slight error was made by the clerks in counting the vote. In the house we of course paid very little attention to that. The error did not alter the result at the moment, but it did increase the dissatisfaction both in the house and outside of it.

Another thing we should take note of in this connection is that there was a misunderstanding as to the recognition of pairs. I do not again wish to suggest that any hon. member broke faith designedly, but the fact remains that certain hon. members who were away on urgent business and had their pairs arranged, assuming that the pairs would be recognized under all circumstances, were very much dismayed and dissatisfied to discover that the pairs were broken. In fact, I think the only pair recognized was that by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) who was paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). These circumstances which I have enumerated may not be regarded by hon. members as constituting a sufficient reason for voting again for the second reading of the bill to-day, but I will offer no others to the house.
I hope the majority of the house, in view of all the circumstances, are as dissatisfied with the vote as I am, and also appreciate the desirability of having a decisive vote on the issue. So I ask that parliament speak with decision on this matter. If that should result in the defeat of the bill, then those interested in the issue can turn their efforts in another direction. I appeal to the fairness and good judgment of the house. This is not a party issue. So far as I know, neither the government nor the opposition have compromised their following in any way on this matter. The only obligation that we have is as individuals to ourselves and to the issue before us, and so I hope every member will consider the question. I know, as has occurred in other instances, religious convictions and sentiments enter into a vote of this kind. I have every respect for the sincerity of hon. members, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, who vote in accordance with their convictions; but let us vote anyway; let us have a decisive vote on this matter. All I ask is for the voice of parliament.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am free to admit that my hon. friend has the right to move this motion for the second reading of this bill at another date, although it is most unusual that this should be done in the house. Apparently under the authority of parliamentary writers, the motion that was defeated the other day was "that the bill be now read a second time," and the defeat of that motion would not preclude a motion like the one which is presented to-day. But if technically my hon. friend has the right to move to reconsider the division that was taken the

Divorce Court for Ontario
other day, I do not think this should be countenanced by the house, as io do so would, I think, be creating a dangerous precedent. I venture to say -that no hon. member who voted the other evening either for or against the second reading of the bill, had any misconception about his vote. They all thought they were voting either for or against the principle of the bill and never had in mind the idea that they were voting simply whether the second reading should be given that night or the following day or any other day. As I said, this would be creating a very bad precedent and would be contrary to the well established practice in parliament that when a decision is reached on a question during the session it cannot be brought up again at some other time during the same session. Under the rules of the house we cannot even debate an identical resolution; we cannot refer to a debate which has taken place during the same session.
I have looked into the journals of the house in order to find whether a similar case has occurred under other circumstances and I have to go as far back as 1892 to find the last instance where a similar motion was presented to the house by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, who had a bill amending the Northwest Territories Act. That bill had been defeated on its second reading and he moved a motion similar to that moved by my hon. friend to-day. The Prime Minister at that time was Sir John Thompson, who opposed the motion, and I find at page 2483 of Hansard of 1892 these words of Sir John Thompson:
For one, I am not able to concur in the adoption of this motion, to-day. I think the house fully understood, when the question was put last night, that the principle of the bill was being voted on, and in relation to a public measure, as this is, it is a very unusual course to adopt such a motion.
I agree with that statement, and whatever may be our view as to the merits of the bill, I think that we should not vote to reinstate it on the order paper. I do not think that the arguments of my hon. friend are sufficiently strong to warrant the house taking the action he desires. My hon. friend said that the result of the vote was unsatisfactory, not because he was in favour of the bill, but because, I suppose, of the very small majority against the second reading. But I remember having taken part in divisions in this house where the majority was very small, and speaking for myself those were the finest votes in which I ever took part. Under parliamentary rule, a majority of one is just as good as a majority of ten, and if on this occasion we agree to this motion, what is to prevent us
from taking similar action on other measures at other times? After all, in parliamentary elections a candidate is elected sometimes by a majority of one. His opponent has the right to ask for a recount, but I have never heard it suggested that there should be a new election.
Another argument that my hon. friend used was that the vote came rather too soon, that it was not expected. It is difficult to satisfy those who do not want to be satisfied. I happened to read in the Toronto Saturday Night a few days ago an article by a writer stating that I had given instructions that the bill be talked out. This was of course untrue, as is shown by the statement of the mover of this resolution that the division came too early. I submit that if this motion carried, it would be bad parliamentary practice, and apart from that, it would be poor sportsmanship.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St, Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, the rule of practice
which has been invoked by the hon. member who moved this resolution is to my mind a very salutary and useful one. Oftentimes I noticed when sitting in the press gallery as a newspaper reporter years ago, that the government of the day sometimes moved the second reading of a bill when the time to them seemed opportune, when the house was not full, and when their opponents were absent, so that the second reading might be carried. It is well understood that if you desire to prevent any further reading, an amendment may be made to the motion for a second reading on that day, postponing the second reading for three or four months or to some future date when the house is not in session. That was not done in this case. The mover of the resolution is entirely in order, but when it comes to considering the expediency of passing this resolution at this time, I crave the indulgence of the house for a few moments in order that I may state clearly my own personal opinion upon the expediency of this motion being accepted. I shall not discuss the merits of the bill.
It is well known in this country that at the time of confederation the maritime provinces had divorce courts. Confederation was only brought about by admitting divorce to bo within the jurisdiction of this federal parliament, By successive measures passed by this parliament, other provinces have been brought into the union, and whether wittingly or not-


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cahan) that if this motion should carry, the motion for the second reading of the hill will come up at a later stage?
Divorce Court for Ontario


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not going to discuss
the merits of the bill at this time, Mr. Speaker. My statement is merely preliminary. I am not discussing the second reading at all.


Hewitt Bostock: I am sure the hon. gentleman is on the right path-.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have a clear distinction in my own mind and I shall endeavour not to transgress the rules. Other provinces were brought into confederation by enactments which whether wittingly or not, established divorce courts in those provinces, and therefore divorce although within the federal jurisdiction is to a large extent a question of provincial concern. When a measure has been brought before this house to establish a divorce court in a certain province I as a member of this house have not felt in times past and do not feel to-day that I, representing another province, should vote in favour of such a measure unless there is a clearly expressed desire on the part of the province immediately interested to have such a divorce court established therein. That expression of opinion cannot be given by the legislature or the government of a province. They in such a matter do not act in a representative capacity and are no more entitled to represent the will of the province than are the municipal councils of the province. That will and desire can only be expressed by the members elected to this parliament from that province.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but if we are to have the merits of the bill itself discussed at this Stage, some of us must reserve to ourselves also the right to speak on the merits of the bill.
I submit that the argument that is being put forward by the hon. gentleman is out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I rose with some hesitation a moment ago. I do not care to interrupt such a distinguished parliamentarian as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but evidently he is going far afield from the merits of the question that is now before the house. That question is, shall the house allow this particular bill to be reinstated on the order paper so that a vote on the second reading can be taken. That is the only question before the house at the present time. The rule is very clear. May says (13th edition, page 256):
If debate occurs on such a motion, it must be strictly limited to the precise object of the motion.
The precise object of the motion is that the bill shall be placed on the order paper for a 
second reading. The question of divorce and provincial rights may come up when the merits of the bill are before the house on the second reading.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to protest again, Mr. Speaker, that I am simply dealing with the expediency of this motion now passing, that I am not discussing and have no intention of discussing the merits of the bill. My objection is against placing this bill on the order paper at the present time or until a decision has been made by the members representing the province of Ontario in this house. This bill should not be placed on the order paper again until there is a clear and emphatic expression of opinion one way or the other from the eighty-two members representing the province of Ontario that they desire this bill to be discussed with a view to its passage and enactment by this house.
And further in support of that position, I wish to call attention to the tradition and practice of the imperial parliament itself. The civil law of Scotland is entirely different from the common* law of England, and iwhen a measure is before the British House of Commons dealing with the civil law of Scotland, every member of that house of course has the legal light to stand up and advocate or oppose the measure and to vote upon it. But in practice the members from Northern Ireland, from Wales, and from England always abstain from voting on any measure which concerns Scotland alone or the Scottish law alone, or any amendment, or improvement, or change in that law. Therefore I think, looking to the future, and as we are on the eve of very serious reactions in this country-


Mr. CANNON:: Will my hon, friend allow me a question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


Mr.   GANNON@: If that be so, how is it *that every member of the British House of Commons voted on the measure to grant home rule to Ireland?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not dealing here with a constitutional change, and I certainly would be out of order if I proceeded to follow my hon. friend's suggestion.


Hewitt Bostock: Besides, we have passed the 17th of March.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that in view of that British practice it would be well to have the same tradition and practice established in this .parliament and followed here. I suggest this because I foresee that in respect of the province of Quebec, which is entirely opposed to

Divorce Court for Ontario
divorce, measures may be introduced to force u/pon that province a court of divorce, to which the entire representation of the province would be opposed. I do not think that that would be fair or equitable or in accordance with British traditions. Therefore I suggest that when you look at ,the other side of the shield, and it is a question of the establishment of a divorce court in the province of Ontario, or vesting in its provincial courts jurisdiction in the matter of divorce, this parliament should not seriously entertain the question until it is clearly established that the only persons who can represent Ontario opinion on such a matter, namely, the eighty-two representatives from the province, have by a clear and decisive majority decided that they wish such a court established. I refused last session to vote on this measure, I refused again last week, and now I will not vote in favour of this motion until I find some clear expression of opinion from Ontario in favour of the bill registered in this House of Commons.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad if the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) would intimate in what way he is going to have this clear expression of opinion from the Ontario members. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has argued that we might be establishing a precedent which would embarrass us in this house in the future if we .were to pass this motion. But I would remind him that a precedent was established in 1892 which has not troubled this house in the last thirty-eight years. During this lengthy period that precedent has not been invoked; nor is it likely to be invoked in the next thirty years unless in a very particular case. Therefore I cannot see that harm will follow from this procedure. My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George intimated that the extra-Scottish members in the British House of Commons abstain from voting on purely Scottish matters. But, sir, in looking over the votes in this house the other evening on this bill I do not observe that the members from the province of Quebec abstained from voting.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call attention to the fact that if this course is followed there is nothing to prevent any member at any time from moving to reinstate on the order paper a bill that has been rejected by the house. Even if the motion of the hon. member for Westaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) is defeated now,
there is nothing in our rules to prevent another member rising to-morrow and giving notice that he will move its reinstatement on the order paper.


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be one of the Ontario members who was not present in the house when the second reading of this bill came to a vote the other day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: The reason why
I did not figure in the vote I shall be glad to give my hon. friend. For the past three or four years I have had a pair with my hon. friend from St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). In addition to that, he and I have a gentleman's agreement that regardless altogether whether the division is on a government measure or not, neither one of us will vote when the other is absent. My hon. friend did vote the other night. I have too much regard for him, and too much confidence in his fidelity to our agreement, which we ratified in this house only three weeks ago, to believe that he would ever do a dishonourable act. I am quite sure ho appreciates that. But the fact remains that through some misunderstanding on his part his vote was cast on that occasion. T hen my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) says:	"Well, perhaps it is not a
matter of such great concern that there has been in regard to the division on various measures a majority of one," I must point to the fact that through that very serious misunderstanding on the part of my hon. friend from St. Henri-whom I so much esteem, as he knows-my vote was lost, as relying on our agreement I was absent from this house. '


Hewitt Bostock: Is the house ready for
the question?


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St Henri):: Let me say at once, Mr. Speaker, that as a matter of fact the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) and myself were paired, as he has just stated. On the occasion referred to the whips said everyone was free to vote, no pairs would govern, but I wanted to keep the arrangement which I had made with my hon. friend. However, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Kaiser) came to this side of the house and said that he wanted to vote absolutely on this question. I said, "Well, I will give you a chance to vote. If you want to vote according to your conscience it will be all right for you to do so." Therefore if I had

Divorce Court jor Ontario
not voted the hon. member for Oshawa would not have voted; because if he also was paired the other side would have lost his vote, and the result would have been the same.


Mr. KAISER:: Did I understand the hon. member to say that he had a conference with me?


Paul Mercier: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to say that
I cannot subscribe to the theory which has been laid down by the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), to the effect that this being a matter which concerns the province of Ontario primarily, the members representing the other provinces should abstain. To accept that theory would mean undermining the character of this parliament. I do not represent simply a constituency in the province of Quebec, I am a representative of the Canadian people at large, as is every other member of this house; and should we accept the theory laid down by the hon. gentleman we would have to divide up, to sectionalize, to partition questions in this parliament, and the whole fabric of our confederation would be demolished. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.
^ Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):	Mr. Speaker, I think we are all agreed that it is only in exceptional circumstances that a motion such as that now before the house should succeed. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Irvine) who has launched the motion has, I think, given very good reasons why we should vote for it. He has, however, I think failed to stress one important reason, that is that there was some little irregularity in connection with the taking of the vote, some confusion owing to the absence of the regular officers of the house. In addition to that, it has been disclosed that an hon. member voted under circumstances which certainly show a misunderstanding of the situation. That, I think, makes it very extraordinary, in view of the fact that there was an equality of votes. In order, therefore, that there may be that clear expression for which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) pleads. I think the house should have the opportunity of giving the Ontario members a chance to declare in the way he advocates.


Hewitt Bostock: Before putting the question, I wish to make it clear to the house that

this is not an extraordinary procedure. It is clearly laid down in May and Bourinot. Bouri-not says:
If a resolution adverse to the bill be resolved in the affirmative, or the motion, "that the bill be now read a second time" be simply negatived on division, the measure will disappear from the orders but it may be revived at a subsequent time, as the house has merely decided that it should not then be read a second time and the order previously made for the second reading remains good.
The same theory in May. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word. What is before us is the motion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) to reinstate a certain measure. What there is in that measure does not concern us at the moment. It might be a bill relative to the importation of butter from New Zealand, or it might be a bill relative to the economy of this house, or it might be an amendment to the criminal code. I would like hon. members, however, to concentrate their attention for a while on one feature of the situation, and it is this: The privileges of every individual member in this house are already much curtailed-too much as one of my hon. friends suggests- curtailed by the necessity of circumstances, curtailed by the disposition of the government to take all the time of the house they can in order to advance government measures, curtailed by the views of one group or the other to advance measures in which they are particularly interested. The only safeguard that remains in this house, as in the British house, or any parliament in the world, for the liberty of the individual member to bring to the attention of his fellow parliamentarians any matter that he, rightly or wrongly, judges of importance, is the enjoyment of those few hours of debate that are left open to individual members, whether it be by way of motion, or in the form of a bill. May I say at once-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.
Mr. BOURASSA-that as far apart as I am from my hon. friend-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: -on the merits of the bill.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that you were ready to put the question.


Hewitt Bostock: I rose to put the question.
I intended to put the question but probably I had not seen the hon. gentleman.

Divorce Court jor Ontario


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I had risen before, Mr. Speaker. I was just going to say that although I differ with hon. members opposite on the merits of the bill which it is proposed to revive, I admire their pertinacity; but I appeal to their British sense of propriety in regard to parliamentary rules. This bill was brought up three years ago; it was brought up two years ago, and it was brought up last year. At one time it was defeated by a majority of thirty-one, this year it was defeated by a majority of one only. Cannot they foresee that they have a chance of winning by adopting the ordinary course of procedure? Do they not think that that would be the better way to proceed, if. what they propose is good for the country

which I do not admit- rather than damage their general cause in the eyes of a large section of the community, whether in Quebec or in Ontario, or in any part of the country, by endeavouring to force an issue now? They were defeated. I have been defeated. I remember occasions when I only had eight or ten members of the house with me as against the rest of the house; but the views that were expressed then were adopted ten or fifteen years later.
In view of all these things, it would be better to stick to the old and well established tradition which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has quoted. The tradition invoked by my hon. friend the member for Wetaskiwin is also a good one, and I would be the last member in this house to go against its maintenance. But, as everything unwritten and connected with the basic principles of parliamentary rule, it is based on common sense and reason. What is the reason of that tradition? That if a measure is defeated in the house by a snap vote, as it is usually called, on a day when most of the members do not expect the measure to come up, then it is quite proper for the house to give another chance to the movers of the measure to bring it up again. For example, suppose this measure had come up on a day when public orders are not the first order of business, and that the bill presented by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) had been defeated by a snap vote, opposed as I am to the bill, I would be the first to second the motion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin; because I desire every member in this house, whether he holds the same view as I do, or whether he does not, to put his views before parliament and the country.
But was that the case here? The second reading of this bill came in its order. It came on the day that was designated for it. It has been said that the vote was small, and
that many members were absent from the house. Well, sir, comparing the total of that vote with the total of many votes in this house, on both public and private measures, you will find that it came well above the average. Should every measure be revived that has been defeated by a majority of one, or ten, in a house composed of about two-thirds of the members, or less than two-thirds, simply because the whole of the 215 members were not in their seats? It has been said that members who were absent should now have a chance to express their opinion. What about the members who were behind the curtains on both sides of the house? I counted at least twenty members going out from the house two minutes before the vote was called, going behind the curtains. Are we going to revive a motion in order to give these gentlemen time to make up their minds?
I appeal to parliamentary traditions and to my hon. friends on either side of the house, and ask them whether we are going to lay down the precedent that if some measure, whatever its merits may be, is defeated by a thin majority, we are going to bring it up again, to the detriment of all the measures propounded by other members of the house, which in their eyes must be of equal value to the measure under consideration, since they have placed their motions on the order .paper? Are we going to crowd out every member who has something to bring to the attention of .parliament in order to give some of the members a chance to re-hash twice in the same session a question which has been before the public for years, and which has been before both houses of this parliament for at least three years?
It is on that ground alone that I propose to vote against this motion, while expressing my sympathy to my hon. friends on the other side and especially to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who knows what I think of him, of his sincerity, of his courage and his mental integrity. I am not prepared to let this debate be reopened again, any more than I would think for one second of asking the house again to consider a motion, which I may have propounded and which had been defeated by a majority either of one hundred or one vote in this bouse.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Nothing could more soundly
indicate the constitutional value of the rules of this house, Mr. Speaker, than the motion now before us. I recall when a new member wondering why, when the house was adverse

Divorce Court for Ontario
to t.he second reading of a measure, an amendment should be proposed that the measure should be read three months or six months hence. I recall looking into the reasons for the rule, and now we have the cause explained in* concrete form.
When the motion before the house is that a bill be now read a second time, the house by an adverse vote merely decides .that the measure shall not then be proceeded with, but if any hon. gentleman moves an amendment that all the words after "that" be struck out and that the bill be read this day three months or six months hence, then on the carrying of that amendment the measure would be killed for the session. The reason this measure may be again brought to the consideration of this bouse is that we have not yet negatived for the session the principle of the measure; the house merely declared the other evening that it was unwilling to accept the bill that night. The motion now before the house is that this bill shall be again brought before the house as you, Mr. Speaker, observed a moment ago.
I do deprecate very greatly a discussion of the merits of the bill at this time. It should not now 'be discussed. The motion now before the house is whether the hon, member shall have the opportunity again to place Bill No. 20 upon the order paper for consideration, regardless of its provisions. This bouse will now determine whether or not it desires that course of action to be taken-. I am Sony that I disagree in this instance with my hon. friend from St. LawrencenSt. George (Mr. -Caban) an-di wholly agree with the observations of the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon). It is so seldom I am in a position to agree with him that I direct attention to the fact. However, I am not now thinking of the provisions of the bill. I am dealing merely w'ith the constitutional right of this house to place upon .the order .paper for reconsideration a bill that it decided the other evening it was not disposed favourably to consider that night. If it is desired to deal finally with it this session, someone must move the three months' or six months' hoist or some other amendment to get it out of the way, provided always the house desires to deal with it in that way.
There is of course something to be said, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the larger question. While members from Ontario are peculiarly interested -in- -matters which affect Ontario, there is the national point of view that affects every member of this house, be he from the Yukon or from Prince Edward Island. We .must decide whether or not this house shall constitute itself a court, or dele-
gate to those appointed by law and paid salaries as judges, the duty o-f determining matters that involve nice questions of law and fact; whether those questions shall be governed by decided -precedents rather than by members of the Senate and House of Commons sitting as a court, without, may I add, any too much training in weighing and considering the value of testimony.


Mr. DUSSAULT:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-naim). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion,.


Hewitt Bostock: The effect of this vote will be to place this motion upon the order paper under public bills and orders.


Ernest Lapointe: Will it be at the top or the bottom of the list?


Hewitt Bostock: It will be at the bottom of the list.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 37, to amend the Copyright Act.
Mr. STEVENS:: Explain.


Mr. RINFRET:: This bill proposes to
amend the act in two particulars. One new clause will define the moral right of the author 2419-45
to the title and contents of his work, even though he has assigned the copyright and ownership of such work.
Another clause deals with section 40 of the statute which covers registration, and some changes are proposed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm the agreement between the governments of the Dominion and the province of British Columbia, dated the 20th day of February, 1930, respecting the transfer of the lands in the railway belt and the Peace River block in the province of British Columbia.
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.
Motion agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, wild the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) inform .the house if the agreement between the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada will 'be laid on the table before the resolution in reference thereto is discussed?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The agreement has been already laid on the table.



MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce, for Mr. Ralston) moved that the house go into committee tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Militia Pension Act to provide that pension may be granted to the widow of any officer who, at the time of his death being on full pay, dies after a period at which a pension might be granted to him. or who was at the time of his death in receipt of a pension.
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.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the extension of the boundary of the province of Manitoba in the northwest angle inlet of lake of the Woods.
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.
Motion agreed to.
FICTOU ISLAND CABLE CONNECTION On the orders of the day:
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My attention has been directed by the Minister of Public Works to a query by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) concerning a question which now appears as No. 4 on the order .paper about the Pictou island cable connection with the mainland. I may give my hon. friend the assurance that a reply to the question will be furnished tomorrow.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Thank you.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Last Friday evening the Minister of Labour in the city of London, Ontario, made a speech in which he stated that the government were prepared to assist the provinces in the establishment of unemployment insurance. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour what action the government are taking to implement that promise or statement made by him.
Hon.. PETER HBENAN (Minister of Labour): Will the hon. member read the statement that the Minister of Labour made at London?


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I have a more definite reply from the Minister of Labour?


Mr. HEENAN:: I cannot give an answer in such a brief time. Moreover, I do not know just to what statement the hon. member refers. Two or three papers quoted me differently. For the information of the hon. member, I might say that the London Advertiser quoted me in full, and the statement that I made there stands.


James Shaver Woodsworth: According to the practice, I think in all our British parliaments, when a responsible minister of the crown makes a ipronouncement such as was sent by the Canadian Press across Canada, we have a right to know whether he stands by that statement. I should like .to know that now. I think we have a perfect right to know what the minister's statement is in regard to the matter.


Hewitt Bostock: It all depends whether what, he expressed before is correctly reported, but if it is not-


James Shaver Woodsworth: We want to know whether it is correct or not.


Hewitt Bostock: Has he read it? No. This will serve as a notice.



EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have some hesitancy about
asking a question which I intimated I was going to ask the Prime Minister yesterday, but this may serve as a notice so that there may be no question about being able to give an answer to-morrow. This is the question: In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister as to the grave danger that at any moment may arise on the international frontier, by reason of the granting of clearances to the United States of vessels laden in whole or in part with intoxicating liquors, is it the intention of the government before the measure now before this house prohibiting such clearances is proceeded with in the second chamber of parliament, to fill the five vacancies that now exist in the membership of the Senate?


Ernest Lapointe: I will take good care to bring the question to the attention of the Prime Minister.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: With reference to the special committee which has been appointed to look into amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, may I ask when this committee will be called?


Lucien Cannon: There is on the votes and proceedings of the house, a notice to the effect that that committee is to meet to-morrow at 10.30 a.m

Australian Treaty-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)



SUPPLY-AUSTTOAILIAN TREATY   PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply, the amendment thereto of Mr. Senn and the subamendment of Mr. Casgrain.
Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw)):	Mr. Speaker, this question has already been discussed at considerable length in the house, but I wish to say a few words on it before a vote is taken. We have had figures presented which are reliable, to show that there is a larger production of dairy produce in Canada to-day than there has been in years past. There has been a much heavier consumption on account of a higher earning power of our people and also on account of a great deal of tourist traffic coming into our country. Prices have been shown to be higher in Canada than in other countries. This is natural when a country is on an import basis and products coming in must pay not only the world price but freight to the market in this country. It has been shown that the dairy industry throughout Canada has not been injured during the last few years.
One point I would like to make in connection with this amendment is that you cannot properly pick out one product of the farm and say that the country is going to the dogs because the production of that product rises or falls. Farming is a large business producing many different products and at one time it may be more profitable for the farmer to produce one product than another. For instance, if you take farming in western Canada and you start to gauge the prosperity of the country by the fact that the production of flax has fallen in the last few years, you would not have a proper comparison, because every one knows that flax is grown in the newer districts and on newer land, and as that part of the country becomes more settled, less flax is grown. Therefore you cannot pick out one product by which to judge the position of the industry of agriculture.
One of the arguments used by my hon. friends opposite is that because New Zealand and some other countries have a better climate, they can produce better and more cheaply than we can in Canada. In western Canada we used to do very little dairying. As a matter of fact, when western Canada was first settled, the idea was to go there 2410-454
and grow wheat. Everybody settled in western Canada originally as a farmer on a basis of growing wheat, but there has been a process of evolution in farming in the west, and to-day the lands that are more suitable for growing wheat are being used more and more for that purpose, while the lands unsuitable for wheat are being turned to mixed farming. In western Canada also, when we have a good crop of wheat-and wheat raising is an easier way of making money than dairying-our farmers grow wheat, but as soon as wheat crops fall off or prices fall off and the farmer must make his living, he turns to dairying, brings, in cows that have been under range or pasture raising calves, and starts to milk them in order to get his living throughout the winter. We have, as a matter of fact, in western Canada some of the best dairy herds that there are in the world. I would like to read a letter that I received from Mr. J. F. Singleton, Acting Commissioner of Dairy and Cold Storage. He says:
I am pleased to hand you herewith a copy of the extract from the report of the Dairy Commissioner for Saskatchewan for the year ending April, 1929, which extract I read to you this morning by telephone.
The extract is as follows:
Saskatchewan Cow Makes World Record
(From the report of the Dairy Commissioner for Saskatchewan for the year ended April, 1929.)
While not a part of the rvork of the Dairy branch, it is worthy of note that during the period under review a Saskatchewan owned cow completed a test which established a new world's record in butterfat production in the 3015 day test period for cows of all ages or breeds. The cow, a pure bred Holstein named Canary Korndyke Alcartra, was owned by B. H. Thomson of the Braeburn Farm, Boharm. This cow produced 1,080 pounds of butterfat in 305 days and dropped another calf just 378 days after the commencement of her test, thus coming well within the 400 day limit set for qualification for her record of performance certificate.
A significant feature of this record is that throughout the test period the cow stood in line with the other cows of the herd tied in a stanchion. She was milked three times a day, always by machine. She was, of course, fed very generously but almost entirely on home grown feeds. Her ration, in addition to pasture, consisted of ensilage, sweet clover hay, green oat sheaves, and a grain ration of two parts ground oats and one part bran to each hundred pounds of w'hich was added two pounds of bone meal and two pounds of salt.
Immediately on the announcement of this cow's record numerous inquiries were received by her owner as to whether she was for sale and one prospective purchaser made a definite cash offer of $10,000.00. A movement, started by the dairy producers of Moose Jaw District, resulted soon after in strong representations being made to the provincial government by the Saskatchewan Dairy Association and various
70S	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
other organized bodies of dairy-men throughout the .province, as well as individual live stock men, that this cow should be retained here so that through her progeny her blood might be spread to other Saskatchewan herds. Acceding to the urgent requests of these dairy organizations the government of Saskatchewan purchased the cow for $10,000.00, the price which had been offered by an outside buyer.
This wonderful cow was owned by a man who lived about five miles from the city of Moose Jaw. He was born in western Canada and has built up a splendid herd. The cow mentioned in the above extract is only one of his herd. I have a list of his herd here, which I should like to place on Hansard:
Some R.O.P. Records made by Cows in the Holstein Herd of Ben. H. Thomson, Boharm, Sask.
Name of cow
Canary Korndyke Aleartra	
Canary Korndyke Aleartra	
Canary Korndyke Aleartra	
Canary Korndyke Aleartra	
Flossy Segis Ormsby	
Flossy Segis Armsby	
Flossy Segis Ormsby	
Nora Nig Wood-crest	
Rosalie Sylvia Beets	
Nora Nig	
Segis Posch Sadie	
Toitilla Veema-n	
Aleartra Korndyke Snowball.... Braeburn McKinley Mercena. . .. Braeburn Quaker Korndyke.. .. Vera Veeman Pontiac	
lbs. milk	lbs. fat	Class yr-old	Equivalent lbs. butter15,496	465	2	27,478	980	3	26,726	1,095	4	1,335 9030,801	1.069	5	1,304 1820,243	635	2	22,901	832-	4	26.991	1.067	5	1,301 7416.167	468	2	14,174	470	2	17,754	512	2	15,499	667	2	17,035	572	3	21,446	689	2	17,930	686	2	16,669	704	2	858 8818,146	538	4	
The cow mentioned in the letter of Mr. Singleton I believe has made another world's record this year for butter fat and milk production combined, having produced ,30,801 pounds of milk and 1,069 pounds of butter fat, which is equivalent to 1,301 pounds of butter. In this herd are many cattle which are only two year olds, and the lowest they have produced in the record of performance tests is 468 pounds per annum and up to 704 pounds. This will show you, Mr. Speaker, that although we are supposed to have a very rigorous climate in western Canada, and are not supposed to have the luscious pastures of green feed available in other parts of the world, still, under our conditions, and using as fodder only the feeds grown in western Canada, the cattle on the ordinary farm in Saskatchewan, in an ordinary kind of barn, standing in the ordinary milking herd, and milked by a milking machine, can break world records. In this connection I would point out that the average milk production for cows in the province of Ontario is 4,865 pounds per annum, the average butter fat production, 17C pounds, equivalent to 207 pounds of butter. The Canadian average for milking cows is 4,498 pounds of milk, and 157-43 pounds of butter fat, equivalent to 180-97 pounds of butter. In other words, of all the dairy cows in Canada, the average production of butter fat is 157 pounds per head.
My hon. friends opposite have been pointing out that the number of dairy cattle in this country has diminished in the last few years.

However, production has gone up. We have a very small amount of imports of dairy products to-day in comparison with the number of cattle that we have producing. The 3.200,000 cattle that we now have in Canada producing dairy products, if they produced an extra 10 pounds of butter fat per cow, would entirely wipe out our importations to-day. In the herd which I mentioned there are two cows that produce as much butter fat as twelve cows in the ordinary herd in the province of Ontario, so certainly it should not be very hard to increase the production per head of cattle in this country, and thereby wipe out any importations that we now have, if that is thought desirable. That increased production could be obtained without increasing the number of cattle at all. It is, of course, desirable to increase the production per unit, but the moment you put us on an export basis our butter prices must come down to the export price less the freight to market. When you do that, you reduce the price of butter in Canada to the export market some four or five or six cents a pound.
Last night, speaking to another motion, I said that I believed the real problem of agriculture in this country to-day had nothing whatever to do with tariffs.
["I gave very careful study to this question on a previous occasion when the motion for committee of supply was dropped and had to be revived at a subsequent sitting. I think the house will agree that the procedure now being followed is the right one. May says, at page 528:\nThe committee of supply must be kept on foot throughout the session, until closed in due course. Accordingly, when the house, by the acceptance of an amendment to the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair or by negativing that question has thereby superseded the order of the day for the committee of supply, that order is revived by a motion, made forthwith, either that the house will immediately, or upon a future day, resolve itself into the committee of supply.\nIt seems to me, therefore, that the motion is in order, and I so rule. It is moved by Mr. Dunning that the house immediately resolve itself into committee of supply. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?"]
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Tariffs on farm produce, if my hon. friends want it that way. I said that the real trouble was the tremendous margin between what the farmer gets for his

Australian Treaty-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
product and what the consumer pays for it.
I believe that the Department of Agriculture is endeavouring to find ways and means of marketing our produce at a lower cost, and I think that we in this house should laud every effort that is made in that direction by the department or by any other agency, with a view to furthering the scientific marketing of farm produce, so that the farmer may get a larger return even though the price to the consumer is not raised, but on the contrary, may in some cases be lowered.
Trade in this world to-day has come down to a very, very eompetive basis. We cannot look for higher prices on so many of our products. Under the present system we must expect in the future probably lower prices than are current to-day. We must cut our cloth accordingly. We must decrease as far as possible through better farming and more scientific methods, the costs of production and distribution, and so meet competition not only in this country but also in the markets of the world. That, to my notion, is the outlook for the future.


Mr. ROWE:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Gordon Ross: Surely.


William Earl Rowe: Why does the hon. member
suggest that we must look for lower prices for farm products in the future, particularly for butter?


John Gordon Ross: In all countries
to-day production is going up and the market is not increasing as rapidly as it is in Canada. Cheaper and better methods are coming into force to some extent in all countries, and in the future we must endeavour to bring down our cost of production as low as possible. But that is only a part of what is required. The main part is to endeavour to cut the cost of distribution in between the ultimate consumer and the farmer.


William Earl Rowe: Why has increased production in other countries anything to do with prices in our own?


John Gordon Ross: If you have increased production in other countries your world market goes down.


William Earl Rowe: We are not in the world
market.


John Gordon Ross: Surely my hon.
friend does not mean to say that our prices are not effected at all by those current in the world market?


William Earl Rowe: We are not exporting butter.


John Gordon Ross: Butter is only
one part of farming, as I have already pointed out. It is all right for my hon. friend and others on his side of the house to move a resolution on the importation of eggs because he knows at this time of the year our hens start to lay. He knows that the Canadian hen will do her duty, she will lay more eggs at this time of the year than she has done for the last few weeks, and he goes to his farmer friends and says, "See how the imporation of eggs from the United States is lowering the price of our Canadian eggs." That is the reason why my hon. friend has advanced these arguments.
There is one phase of this debate that I have not heard mentioned a great deal, and that is inter-empire trade. We have been talking about cutting out importations of an empire product. I think that with the tremendous increase of production, not only of farm products, but also of manufactured products all over the world, the British Empire to-day is facing a crisis in trade probably as great as the political crisis of 1914. Our neighbour to the south of us has been set up by my hon. friend as an example of a high tariff country. True, there is a high tariff wall around the United States, but inside that high tariff wall amongst themselves they have the largest free trade area on the globe. If the British Empire is to carry on and prosper, then, provided we must have a tariff in this country, I think we should bend our efforts to lowering as far as possible all tariffs within the Empire, even though we keep up a tariff wall against the rest of the world. Lord Beaverbrook in the old country has been laughed at by some, and he also has been ridiculed in this country, but I think some of his ideas we might very well sift out and follow through to see if we cannot help trade within the empire as a whole. These resolutions come up and my hon. friends opposite take part in them, and the hon. leader of the opposition takes part in them. If the importations dealt with by the resolutions happen to come from within the empire, the hon. leader of the opposition and his followers say that Cnaada should look after her own trade, and for the time being they will forget their loyalty to the empire. If the importations objected to happen to come from the United States, then they say the United States government is bullying this country into taking its products. The hon. leader of the opposition is fearless and bold when he stands up in this house and clouts any foreign nation in regard to trade. But, Mr. Speaker, I noticed the other
710	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
day a little incident in this house which I think is significant. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) rose in his place and asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when the budget would be brought down. That to my mind indicates that he is now the financial critic of the official opposition.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nothing of the kind; just interest.


John Gordon Ross: The hon.
member says, "just interest." When I was out in Vancouver last November it was common knowledge on the street-I do not know how true it was-that there had been quite a quarrel between my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre and his leader.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Wrong again, absolutely
wrong. We have been the best of friends for years.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. leader of the opposition says that he will not be bullied by the United States. Well, apparently the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has bullied him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Wrong again; my hon.
friend continues to be wrong.


John Gordon Ross: In connection
with empire trade, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. leader of the opposition that he follow to some extent the advice of his fellow citizen from Calgary, Lord Beaver-brook.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why not suggest it to
the premier?


John Gordon Ross: I have already
suggested that to the house, but I have a particular reason for suggesting it to the leader of the opposition When all these resolutions have come up and gone by the board, as the resolution dealing with eggs did last night, and when after the next election the members of the Tory party start to extricate themselves from the swamp they are going to land in and to beat through the bulrushes to find another Moses to lead them out from the wilderness, perhaps the hon. leader of the opposition will then gratify an aspiration that I think he has-to go to the mother of parliaments that he speaks of so much in this house. Perhaps he might get himself a little title over there, such as Lord Highriver, or more appropriate still, Viscount Chinook. For the benefit of members from eastern Canada who perhaps are not used to Chinooks, I would point out that a chlnook is a warm wind that starts in the vicinity of Calgary with a sough-
ing and a moaning like an engine pulling a heavy freight up a grade-a fhick smokescreen, never getting very far or going very fast. When the chinook crosses the prairies and comes down to eastern Canada it becomes a veritable blast of hot air, and sometimes the uninitiated in our part of the country think spring has come. They have even been known to get out their straw hats. But nature reasserts herself; winter is back again, and the poor deluded individual finds in his hand nothing but the straw hat. Mr. Speaker, during the last few months the hon. the leader of the opposition has gone from one end of Canada to the other, basking in this breeze. Certain of the farmers throughout this country have thought that the millenium was here, but suddenly they have awakened to find that all they have is a policy, like a straw hat in their hands in the middle of the winter time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the Liberal policy.


John Gordon Ross: That is the policy of ray hon. friend who does not agree so much with his leader.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They still have it with
them.


John Gordon Ross: I would suggest
to the government, Mr. Speaker, that they be very, very careful in connection with any new treaty they undertake to make-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Gordon Ross: -with any part of the empire, always to bear in mind-even though one has to sacrifice a little in one place and a little in another-that the treaty is for the benefit of the whole British empire, and that it is not a selfish treaty for the benefit of one country only.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 
Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: You never heard anything of the kind.


Mr. PRICE:: It was said that they had no right to devise ways and means whereby they would have protection; is that not a fact?


Edward James Young: No.


Otto Baird Price: You have placed yourselves upon record as being in opposition to the dairy interests of Canada.


Edward James Young: We do not deny anyone the right to express an opinion.


Otto Baird Price: The defence offered by hon. gentlemen opposite has been a defence of
Australian Treaty-Mr. Price
United States interests. They are not working for Canada; they are playing one game only, and that is to work in the interest of the United States farmers and to leave the Canadian farmers to work out their own salvation.


Edward James Young: You are dreaming.


Otto Baird Price: It was pointed out yesterday that you had one policy for the manufacturing interests and another for the farming interests. My hon. friends to my left pointed out something along that line, but that is a policy upon which you are riding for a fall. That fall is going to happen in the very near future because Canadians will not tolerate the policy which this government has inaugurated and which it has been carrying out. I wish to place on record a resolution adopted at the convention of the New Brunswick farmers' and dairymens' convention held at Moncton, January 21, 22, 23 and 24, as follows:
Whereas the National Dairy Council has made application for an increase in duties on butter in order to improve the dairy industry in Canada,
Therefore resolved that the convention go on record as fully supporting the National Dairy Council in their application.
Proposed by Chas. E. Connors,
Shediac.
Seconded by John A. Hughes,
Petitcodiac.
I say to the hon. gentlemen opposite that the present policy which they are carrying out is only of a temporary nature. The people of Canada are waiting to condemn this administration and as soon as the government appeals to the country it will find just what sentiments exist from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast; it will find that it has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: Do I understand that the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price) supports the policy as outlined in the resolution of the farmers of New Brunswick?


Otto Baird Price: Yes, I certainly do.


John Ewen Sinclair: The resolution of the farmers?


Otto Baird Price: I certainly do.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is not in his place as I do not believe I would have arisen to speak in this debate had it not been for the very defiant manner in which he pointed his finger across the floor and wanted to know where the hon. member for South


Mr. MAYBEE:: Does the hon. member
favour a new treaty with New Zealand?


Thomas McMillan: We will discuss the
question we are dealing with at the present time. I certainly favour new stipulations in both of those treaties. There are in those treaties, ever since they came into force, certain particulars respecting which I was lukewarm, but as regards the provision for the importation of Australian New Zealand butter, I have believed, ever since I studied the question, that the provision was favourable to Canada.
This brings us to the season of 1928 which was a notable year in the history of the Canadian dairying industry. During 1928 the output of cheese was 6,547,000 pounds greater than in the previous year, and the premium paid for Canadian cheese in the British market was greater than ever before. More improvement in the quality of our dairy products was made in 1928 than in any other single year of our history. In our sister province of Quebec the improvement in the quality of the article was remarkable. There was a greater improvement made in that province that year than in the five previous
years. Yet the leader of the opposition as usual went back and forth all over this country preaching that the dairy industry in Canada was in a horrible condition. On the 25th of October he went to Montreal and told the people there that the dairy industry in this country -was being destroyed. Well, let us see whether it has been destroyed. The improvement in the quality of cheese brought an increased return of some $2,000,000 in that same year. While only 11 [DOT] 2 per cent of the milk is made into cheese, the improved quality and resulting higher prices had a most favourable effect on the total returns of the dairy industry.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Is my bon. friend aware
that Mr. Stephen of the National Dairy Council stated in London a few days ago that the dairy industry was in a very sound condition.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Stephen, the secretary of the National Dairy Council, was in my room the other night and we discussed the whole question, as we have discussed it repeatedly, and before he left he could not but admit that the dairy industry in Canada was, comparatively speaking, in a most favourable condition. No man can say otherwise in the light of the information which is open to everyone. It is true that there was a decline in the amount of butter produced in 1928 from 271,000,000 pounds to 258,000,000 pounds, and a reduced value of some $2,339,000, but during the same year the value of the cheese produced increased by $4,983,661. There is a reason why there was a decline in the production of butter in our western provinces. It was largely because of the preoccupation of the farmers with their large wheat and other grain crops, and also on account of a shortage of suitable feed, as well as unfavourable climatic conditions. While I say this, it must be remembered that these are only two of the many lines of the Canadian dairy industry, and I shall deal with that later on. To sum up, there has been a remarkable recovery in dairying in the three western provinces during the past year, which according to the latest returns I have has led to an increased production of over 6,800,000 pounds of creamery butter alone. The entire production of butter in the three western provinces amounted in the same year to some 82,527,109 pounds.
Now I come to the year 1929. I have already shown that No. 1 pasteurized butteT at Montreal in 1927 commanded 4.72^ cents per pound higher than its value for export based on London prices; in 1928. 4.17i cents higher, and in 1929, 4.79 cents higher. These prices
716	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. McMillan
will be found in detail in the tables of the National Dairy Council as set out on pages 22 to 24 of the printed report of the hearing before the tariff advisory board on reference No. 150, butter and cheese.
Let us look for a moment at the whole dairy industry. Let us examine the economics of the whole situation regardless of party bias. It is not the cheese industry or the butter industry that makes up the whole daily industry of Canada. Analyze the facts that are open to us devoid of all party bias, and let the dhips fall where they may. If the situation shows no real development of the daily industry; if the faicts prove unfavourable to the record of the administration of this government, let them bear the brunt; their record is past and gone; it cannot be recalled, But in any case, 1st us be big enough for once to take a leaf from the life of the great Hugh Miller, the stone mason of Cromarty, Scotland, who, although deprived of the privilege of an early scholastic training, has written works that are to-day among the classics. Let us strive to take a leaf from his book, when in writing his Old Red Sandstone, his Footprints of the Creator, and more particularly, his Testimony of the Rocks, he said:
We pursue the search of the truth simply for its own sake, independently of the circumstances in which it may involve us or with what company it may make us acquainted.
If this analysis turns against the government, let the government rest under the lash. The horn, leader of the opposition knows full well that he is always preaching the doctrine of the home market. I am sorry he is not in the house, but I see my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) present. He, too, is always preaiehing the same doctrine. My hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) is allso always preaching that the home market is one of the great things for this government to look after. I quote from a paper read by Mr. J. F. Singleton, Chief of the division of dairy and cold storage of the federal Department of Agriculture, before the convention of the dairymen's association of eastern Ontario, at Kingston, on January 9, 1930. His analysis is so conclusive that I thank it ought to be placed on Hansard. He says:
In order to get a proper perspective of the condition of the dairying industry, it is necessary for us to consider total milk production and not that of any single commodity. Within certain limitations, rnilk flows into whatever channel is for the time being most profitable to the producer. Cities increase in population and must have more milk and cream for direct consumption and for the manufacture of ice cream. The source of supply is extended, and a price is paid which attracts milk from other 
outlets, such as from cheese factories and creameries. Changes in prices of cheese and butter, in relation to each other, cause diversion from one product to the other, and so it is necessary, in order to study the development of the dairying industry, to get back to total milk production or to the fat equivalent of the total milk production.
The total milk production, fat equivalent and total value for the years 1920 and 1927 are shown in schedule No. 3, hereunder. The figures for 1920 are from the returns of the 1921 census, which returns, of course, cover operations of the previous year, while the figures for 1927 are based on the known actual production of all dairy products, excepting dairy butter and milk used for direct consumption, which it has been necessary to estimate.
In this particular let me pause to say that there are thousands of dairy farmers all over this country who do not make one pound of butter, but sell their dairy products and buy their own home requirements. They are able to make money by so doing. They are just as anxious to get a good quality article at a reasonable price as any of our citizens in our urban centres. Here is schedule No. 3:
Total	Canadian Milk Production With Fat Equivalent and Value Fat		
Year	Milk	equivalent	Valuepounds	pounds	$1927. .	14,112,064.250	493,922.274	279,065.9201920. .	10,976,235,351	384,168,225	205,436,350Increase %	3,135,828,899	109,753,949	73,629,570Increase	28.5	28.5	20.0
The striking feature of the above schedule is of course the indicated increase of 28.5 per cent in total Production, equivalent to almost 110,000.000 pounds of milk fat.
Ibe Trend of the Export and Import Trade At first thought, wre wrould suppose that with such an increase in production the export of dairy products would show a decided increase, but such is not the case. The trend has been in the opposite direction, and that to a very marked degree. Statistics of exports and imports are available down to a much more recent date than are statistics of production, and in view of changing conditions, we shall compare exports and imports of dairy products for the fiscal year ending March. 1921. with those of the year ending November, 1929-the latest period for which statistics are available. The net exportable surplus of the 1920 production will be more closely represented by the statistics of the fiscal year ending March, 1921, than by those of the calendar year 1920. Schedule No. 4 shows the quantities, the fat equivalents and values.
Schedule No. 4 gives figures for the year ending March 31, 1921, of our imports as follows:
Fat
equivalent
pounds	Value
3,385,430	$2,126,544

Australian Treaty-Mr. McMillan
Our exports for that year of cream, milk, butter, cheese and condensed milk amounted to more than 69,000,000 ipounds of fat equivalent representing' a value of over $52,000,000. The net surplus of our exports over imports was 66,590,000 pounds of fat equivalent valued at $50,737,000. Now we will take our imports for the year ending November, 1929, of milk and cream, butter, cheese, and condensed milk. These imports amounted to
27.383.000	pounds of fat equivalent, valued at more than $12,000,000. Our exports for the same period o'f cream, milk, butter, cheese, condensed milk and evaporated milk totalled
50.823.000	pounds of fat equivalent valued at $27,993,000. Our total exports amounted, as I say, to over 50,000,000 pounds of fat equivalent, representing a value of $27,973,000, or a value per pound fat of 55-07 cents. Our total imports were in excess of 27,000,000 pounds, representing a value of over $12,000,000, or a value per pound fat of only 44-13 cents. A comparison of the net surpluses and values shows a decrease of 43,150,000 pounds of fat equivalent, valued at $34,849,000. I am giving the round figures. The statement continues.
A fact that should not be overlooked and which should be given emphasis is brought out in the above schedule. During the year ending November, 1929, the fat in various products exported had an average value of 55.07 cents per pound as compared with an average of 44.13 cents per pound in the various products imported-a difference of 10.94 cents per pound fat. That is, by exporting as we did, and by importing to supply part of our home requirements, the country is richer to the extent of about $2,738,000.
The analysis of our export trade as shown in schedule No. 4 indicates a reduction in our net surplus as between the years ending March, 1921, and November, 1929, of 43,150,392 pounds of fat. On the other hand, production has been shown to have increased between 1920 and 1927 by 109,754,039 pounds of fat. Adding these two quantities together, and assuming 1929 total production as equivalent to that of 1927, we have a total of 152,904,431 pounds of fat to account for.
Distribution of Total Production
Schedule No. 5 shows the distribution of the total milk production for the years 1921 and 1927. The year ending 1921 is used for this purpose, rather than 1920, as this information is not available for the year 1920. Total production for 1927 is, as stated previously the latest figure available.
Schedule No. 5
Showing distribution of milk production of 1921 and 1927 as percentages of total production.
	1921	1927
For:	% of total	% of total
	production	production
Cheese	18-7	10-9Creamery butter. .	. 31-0]	29-3)1-55-4	[45 [DOT]Dairy butter.. ..	. 24-4J	15-7JMilk for direct	consumption.. ..	20-8	35-1Other purposes.. . .	5-1	9-0100-0	100-0
It will be noted that the percentage of milk used for the manufacture of cheese decreased by 7-8 per cent between 1921 and 1927. The percentage used for butter decreased by 10-4 per cent; the percentage required for direct consumption increased by 14-3 per cent, while that required for other purposes increased by 3-9 per cent. The increase in the last item was due to increased exports of milk and cream.
Increasing Home Consumption
An examination of home requirements shows a great increase, for not only has Canada's population, as estimated by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics increased from 8,788,483 in 1921 to 9,796,800 in 1929, but per capita consumption lias increased greatly. Increasing per capita consumption, has in part, been due to a more general knowledge of the value of dairy products as foods, but ;as aids to health and as preventatives of deficiency diseases. Improved quality and greater uniformity of cheese being offered to the consuming public, the improved quality of milk supplied for direct consumption, more advertising on the part of manufacturers and distributors, and increased tourist traffic in Canada have all tended to increase per capita consumption. Schedule No. 6 shows the Canadian per capita consumption of butter increased from 25-79 pounds in 1921 to 29-31 pounds in 1928; the per capita consumption of cheese increased from 2-51 pounds in 1921 to 3-54 pounds in 1928; the per capita consumption of milk increased from 240-1 pounds in 1921 to 470-8 in 1928; the per capita consumption of ice cream increased from 5*26 pints in 1921 to 7-04 pints in 1928. The increase in total consumption of these four commodities in 1929 over that of 1921 together, with fat equivalents, is shown in schedule No. 7;
Increase in Home Requirements 1929 as compared with 1921
Fat
Commodity	Increase Equivalent
Pounds Pounds
Butter	
60,503,541	49,593,066Cheese	
7,488,388	2,936,622Milk..'	
2,541,361,024	88,937,635
Gallons
Ice Cream	 2,834,482	1,558,965
Total	 143,026,288
Increase in Home Requirements Compared with Increased Production, etc.
The calculated increase in home requirements of butter, cheese, milk and ice cream as between 1929 and 1921 is 143,026,288 pounds of fat. . .

Australian Treaty-Mr. McMillan
The increase in home consumption of these four commodities is equivalent to 174,492,071 pounds of butter, or to 364,717,034 pounds of cheese.
That. 174,000,000 odd of butter, at the average price in 1920, means an increased return to our people of $69,000,000. The fact is that our total returns for the dairy industry show an increase greater in 1929 than in any previous period of our history. Then there is another matter. Why the reduction in butter fat prices since January of this present year? That is a question which every dairyman has a right to ask and cream producers have a right to know-why butter fat prices must be reduced at this season of the year. I quote from the Canadian Countryman of February 22, 1930. This is the explanation given by the secretary of the Ontario Milk Producers' Association at the annual meeting of this association held in Toronto:
The situation confronting the condensery and milk powder branch of the industry at the present time is deserving of special mention. The prices the majority of the plants in this branch of dairying are able to pay producers for milk are controlled largely by the price of cream in the United States market. As you know, there has been a decided slump in cream prices there the past few months, owing to an oversupply of surplus milk. For the month of December the average price of 92 score butter in New York City was the lowest of any year for this month since 1916. January prices have not improved. On January 1, butter holdings in the United States totalled 81,837,000 pounds as compared with 43,580,000 pounds. This situation has had its effect on fluid milk prices also, in that country. These conditions in the United States market, coupled with the tariff increase on cream going into the United States, which came into effect last June, has had marked effect on prices for milk for condensery and milk powder purposes in Ontario during recent months, and is one of the primary causes of the rather unexpected increased supply of milk for city and town trade in this province.
Then we are told that if it were not for the heavy imports of New Zealand butter, cream producers would be getting higher prices for their cream from November to March. Well, here is something to think about in this connection. From November, 1924, to March, 1925, total imports of butter were 20,100 lbs., and the average price of cream during this period was 35.S cents. From November, 1928, to March, 1929, total imports of butter were
21,797,000	lbs., and the average price of cream was 43.8 cents.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILL



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 34, to amend an act to incorporate the Canadian Bible Society Auxiliary to the British and Foreign Bible Society-Mr. Evans.

[Stage Direction]
FIREARMS, HOMICIDE, OFFENCES On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Church for the second reading of bill No. 5 to amend the Criminal Code (firearms, homicide, offences).
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have received a letter
from the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), indicating that he is confined to his home through illness. I suppose there is nothing to do but drop the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion will be
dropped. The hon. member can revive it if he so desires.


DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO
[Stage Direction]
Mr. .J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of marriage.
Thomas McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This house views with alarm the spread and increase of divorce and divorce applications in Canada, and instead of providing additional means of obtaining divorce the house would favour the encouragement and carrying on of a campaign of education for the purpose of impressing upon the hearts and the minds of the Canadian people the sacredness of the matrimonial tie and the permanent stability of the Canadian home.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On a point of
order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is not an amendment to the bill at all, and therefore is out of order.


Ernest Lapointe: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker,
I would refer you to Bourinot at page 509: The commons have no rule on the subject, but the practice of the house is always to discuss the principle of a bill at this stage (b). Any member may propose as an amendment a

Divorce Court jor Ontario-Speaker's Ruling
resolution declaratory 'of some principle^ adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution or otherwise opposed to its progress, or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or the opinion of judges.
The six months' hoist is merely another procedure.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am not competent to discuss the point of order technically-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Irvine: I am glad to know that
other hon. gentlemen across the way appreciate their limitations also in that regard. However, I do perceive the position in which this amendment places hon. members of the house. For instance, I am in agreement with the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope the hon. member
will not discuss the merits of the amendment; we are dealing now with the point of order.


William Irvine: I do not want to discuss
the merits of the amendment; I am referring to it merely to show that it places us in an invidious position. Because of that fact it should be ruled out of order, even if technically it is not. I should like to vote for the amendment, but if I do so I cannot vote for the bill. The thing is stupid.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The word
"stupid" is unparliamentary. The question is on the amendment, and I must say that in my judgment it is in order. The Minister of Justice has cited Bourinot but, May is also quite convincing. Here is what I find at page 290 of May, 13th edition.
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution.
The amendment is declaratory of a principle adverse to the bill, and therefore I rule that it is quite in order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, if the amendment is carried, will it be in order for an hon. member to move some other day that the bill be restored and read again a second time?


Hewitt Bostock: No.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is an interesting
question; I do not think we should be called upon to vote every day upon the same thing.


Hewitt Bostock: The vote this afternoon
was quite in order and is sanctioned by all the authors, but I would be inclined to say that if a motion were made next week or tomorrow similar to the one made this afternoon and upon which the house has passed judgment, it would not be in order. It could not be repeated because the judgment of the house has been given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not think
the question put by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) has been quite understood. Unless the house by its action takes a step which is the negative of the proposal that the bill be now read a second time, it may be restored, either directly or by amendment, if the house so desires. As Your Honour explained this afternoon, that is the reason the motion that it be read three or six months hence is in order. Your Honour will recall that only a few days ago I read from the amendment moved by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the Highways Act, which amendment was in agreement with the principle of the act, which is similar to this amendment. It is not a dilatory motion in opposition to the principle of the bill, but is in such form that it could not be restored to the older paper by a motion.


Hewitt Bostock: The authorities say that
a second reading of a bill which has been negatived can be revived as was done this afternoon, but when the principle has been defeated, the bill can be revived only after it has been altered. Both May and Bourinot say that there must be some alteration. The question is on the amendment.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
a point of order. The amendment is rather lengthy and I think it should be before us in writing in order that we may look over it carefully before passing judgment on it.


Hewitt Bostock: I have ruled on the
amendment and I have read it quite audibly, but I will read it again. The amendment to the motion that the bill be now read a second time is as follows:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This house views with alarm the spread and increase of divorce and divorce applications in Canada, and instead of providing additional means of obtaining divorce the house would favour the encouragement and carrying on of a
Divorce Court jor Ontario

campaign of education for the purpose of impressing upon the hearts and minds of the Canadian people the sacredness of the matrimonial tie and permanent stability of the Canadian home.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) took exception to this amendment and said that in his opinion it was out of order. I read from May, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) read from Bourinot, the following:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to,-
Which is the case.
-or differing from,-
Which is the case.
-the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill.
Under those circumstances I declared that the amendment was in order, and such is my ruling.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is the bill we are discussing, is it not?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes, the second reading.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The bill is before the
house?


Lucien Cannon: The second reading.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Speaker, while I have no intention of delaying the house I believe that I voice the feeling of a vast majority of the citizens in my section of the province of Ontario when I say that they do not want to encourage divorce. It may be that in the city of Toronto there are a great many people who want to get rid of their consorts, and we know that in the vast majority of cases it is for the purpose only of enabling them to remarry. I am glad to say that in all my acquaintanceship with the people in my section of the country I know of few who are divorced, and if there was ever a time when this parliament of Canada should think seriously ere they take a step such as has been proposed in this bill, I think that time is now.
Should we not see to it, in this present age when there is such a struggle for wealth, property and material possessions, that we do not neglect the higher things, the building up of the home and humanity? The home is the bulwark of the nation; history records the fact that it has been always so, and will con-
tinue to be so until the end of time. Pick up that old volume of the sacred law and what does it tell us? In the midst of all its wondrous words and admonitions to the human race it tells us that in mere wealth and outer splendor old Babylon had no rivals in ancient times but the fatal weakness of their people was that they put no real value upon true home life. As a consequence her gorgeous palaces and hanging gardens became the abode of selfishness and sensuality, with the result that we now read that over the spurious grandeur of that great city lie the sands of the desert and the calm of eternal night.
I make this appeal, Mr. Speaker, to this house:	I urge hon. members one and all to
consider this matter seriously and to lay it before the minds of the Canadian people for twelve months ere it is decided to break up further the home life of our country.


Mr. A. MacGILLIVRAY YOUNG (Saskatoon) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say only two or three words on this amendment. We have been listening to so much recently on the subject of divorce that for one I can say that I am sick and tired of hearing about it. The object of this bill is not as the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. McMillan) would suggest, to make divorce easier; there is no hon. member in this house, and I hope there is no one outside the house, who wants in any way to impair the sanctity of the home or the stability of the family tie. The establishment of a divorce court in Ontario has nothing whatever to do with what the hon. gentleman has just said. We all think very highly of the home and I resent the imputation that it needs an amendment to a bill of this kind in order that we may be instructed in our attitude toward the sanctity of the home. We realize just as keenly, just as deeply and I think just as appreciatively the value of the home as do the hon. members who would seek by an amendment to take our minds away from the main purpose of this bill.
We have spent enough time in the house discussing this question; we have had it brought up by means of two or three bills, and I am sure that the people of this country expect us to get down to real business and not sit here perhaps for two weeks discussing family troubles in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
I realize that although I am elected for one proviin.ce, in a sense I represent the whole of Canada, as does every other hon. member, but in the province from which I come, we have a divorce court which has been in operation for some years. What is the result? The result is that divorce is not made easier;

Divodce Court jor Ontario
in fact it is much more difficult to obtain, in out province than it is through parliament. I was one of two or three members from the private bills committee who were asked to go to the Senate to see how the proceedings of the divorce committee of that house were conducted. I am not going to say that they are not fairly well conducted, but I submit that there is not the same regard to the taking of evidence and legal technicalities as would be the case before a competent judge and a competent court. Consequently those of us who have been supporting this bill are not advocating more divorces; we are not trying to lessen the sanctity of marriage; we are not trying to say anything against the building up and maintenance of the best homes we can have in this country. But we are trying to give to those who seek dissolution of the marriage tie, a better means of accomplishing it, one which will not increase the number of divorces but which in my judgment will on the contrary diminish them, because .they will be more difficult to obtain. I want to make it very emphatic that while I subscribe to the lofty sentiments contained in the amendment, I do not propose to be deterred from my duty by restricting myself to a consideration of those sentiments at the cost of defeating the real Object of the present bill. It is my intention, therefore, to vote against the amendment.


James Arthurs: Mr. Speaker, last year when a measure similar to the present one was before the house, I opposed it. The other night when I voted against the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), I did so for several reasons. In the first place I fail to see any public demand for a measure of this kind. There has been to my knowledge no such demand from either political party or from the general public of Ontario. In the second place I think the foil should really be entitled a bill for the relief of the Senate of Canada, because all this measure will accomplish is to remove a certain amount of work from the gentlemen of another house of this parliament. I am not opposed to divorce for certain causes, but I am opposed to easy divorce, and I am confident that the passage of this measure will tend to give more latitude and will make divorce more common in Ontario.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Arthurs: Some hon. gentlemen say no. I holld in my hand the figures of the 2419-46
number of divorces granted in Canada for many years, and I will give instances to show what the result has 'been where courts have been established in the various provinces. The number of divorces granted in Canada are as follows:
Number
Year	of divorces
1913		 60
1914		'	 70
1915		 53
1916		 67
1917		 54
1918		 114
1919		 376
1920		 429
1921		 548
1922		 544
1923		 505
1924		 543
1925		 551
1926		 608
1927		 148
1928		 185
1929		 816
I will give them by provinces for the later years.


Mr. DUNNING:: If my hon. friend will
give the relative numbers of divorces in each year granted by the courts and by the parliament of Canada, that is information which would be useful in discussing this measure.


James Arthurs: I am coming to that.
It necessarily follows that after the establishment of a divorce court in a province, all the divorces from that particular province are granted by the courts.


Charles Avery Dunning: But in spite of that the divorces granted by parliament increase.


James Arthurs: It might be better to
put the whole thing on Hansard. We will start from the year 1921, giving the figures by provinces.
Number
Province	of divorces
Ontario	 101
Quebec	 9
Alberta	 84
Saskatchewan	 50
Manitoba	 122
Or 21 more than the number for the province of Ontario.
Number
Province	of divorces
Nova Scotia	 41
New Brunswick	 13
British Columbia	 128
Total	 548

Divorce Court for Ontario

The figures for 1922 are as follows:
Number
Province	of divorces
Ontario	 90
Quebec	 6
Alberta	 129
Saskatchewan	 37
Manitoba	 97
Nova Scotia	 35
New Brunswick	 12
British Columbia.-	 138
Total	 544


Mr. VALLANCE:: Might I suggest that
Ontario gets most, of her divorces across the line?


James Arthurs: May I interject that there are many from other provinces than Ontario who get divorces in the United States on account of the facility with which they can be obtained? The figures for 1923 are as
follows:
Number
Province	of divorces
Ontario	 105
Quebec	 11
Alberta	 87
Saskatchewan	 41
Manitoba	 81
Nova Scotia	 22
New Brunsrvick	 19
British Columbia	 139
Total	 505
I do not think it is necessary to read all these figures.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Arthurs: I will point out that the
figures for 1913 to 1929 conclusively prove not only that divorces have increased in the provinces tvhich havre divorce courts, but that they have increased out of proportion with Ontario and Quebec. There was a steady increase in Alberta.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: What about the
increase in population in those provinces?


James Arthurs: I will come to population after a\A'hile. The figures for 1928 are as
follows:
Number
Province	of di vorees
Ontario	 213
The largest number that Ontario ever had.
Number
Province	of divorces
Quebec	 25
Alberta	 168
Saskatchewan	 55
Manitoba	 79
NoA7a Scotia	 28
New Brunswick	 14
British Columbia	 203
Total	 785
The figures for 1929 are as follows:
Number
Province	of diA7orces
Ontario	 208
Quebec	 30
Alberta	 147
Saskatchewan	 69
Manitoba	 89
Nova Scotia	 30
Ncav Brunswick	 21
British Columbia	 222
Total	 816
I have not had an opportunity to figure out the returns for 1929, but at any rate as compared with those of 1928 they are more favourable to my opponents than to myself. The figures for 1928 show that we have 557 divorces for those provinces which at the present time have divorce courts. Those provinces have a population of approximately
3.000.	000 people. On the other hand, for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec tve haAre 238 divorces for a population of approximately
6.000.	000 people. In other words, the number of divorces in proportion to population is over four and a half times greater in those provinces that have divorce courts than in Ontario and Quebec.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Would the hon. member mind comparing Ontario with Saskatchewan?


James Arthurs: The hon. gentleman can read the figures in Hansard to-morroAV for himself. I am not going to preach the sermon over again for the benefit of my hon. friend.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: My hon. friend would get into an awkward position if he made that comparison, because the figures would not lead him to any good conclusion.


James Arthurs: I am quite satisfied that the hon. gentleman is deeidely wrong. Take any year you like since divorce courts haA-e been established in Saskatchewan, and I venture to say that in any single year the number of divorces in Ontario has not been nearly as great, according to population, as in Saskatchewan. That, is undeniable. I will say this for Saskatchewan: It has the loAvest number of divorces of any of the western provinces; its record is better than any of the other western provinces in that regard, but eA7em SaskatcheAvan has a much greater percentage of divorces than Ontario or Quebec


Alexander MacGillivray Young: We get our
divorces at home. We do not go across the line to get them.
Mr. Arthurs.)

Divorce Court jor Ontario


James Arthurs: That is an old gag. The hon. gentleman knows that in this Dominion there is omly one cause for divorce.
Some horn. MEMBERS: No, no.


James Arthurs: There is only one main ground. Ninety-nine per cent of the divorces that have been granted by the Dominion parliament have been for the one cause, adultery. On the other hand, anyone who wants an easy divorce, whether he comes from Saskatoon or any other part of Saskatchewan, can go to the United States or Mexico or France if he has not sufficient evidence to get a divorce in Canada. Every hon. gentleman knows cases of that sort that have come under his notice.
I have said practically all that I intended to say, except this: there is, as I said before, only one real reason for the proposal that the house pass this measure, and that is to relieve ourselves and our friends in another chamber from the trouble of dealing with divorce bills. If it is true that this is not the proper tribunal to try divorce cases from the province of Ontario, it is equally true that, it is not the proper tribunal to try divorce cases from the province of Quebec, and I would respectfully submit that if we are going to pass this act as at present proposed, the words "and Quebec" should be added after the word "Ontario" wherever it appears in the bill, so that we shall be on safe and reasonable ground. If there is any reason for changing the present procedure, the change should apply uniformly all over this Dominion.


Mr. GEORGE SPOTTON (North Huron):: Coming from the province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I have no mandate from my county or my province to fasten upon them a divorce court, and until the people of my county or the people of my province request such a court, I am going to resist the attempt of other .provinces to fasten upon Ontario an act for which our people have not asked and for which there is no public demand in the province.
We have heard much about the divorce courts of other provinces. According to the Canada Year Book, in 1928 there were 203 divorces granted in British Columbia; in Ontario, with six times the population, there were only 213. If Ontario had a divorce court like British Columbia, and divorces had been granted in this province in the same proportion according to population as in British Columbia, we would have had, not 213, but over 1,200 divorces. Let me repeat that: In
2419-46J
1928, in British Columbia there were 203 divorces, while Ontario, with six times the population, had under the present method of granting divorces in this province, only 213.


Mr. LADNER:: Just what conclusion does the hon. member deduce from those figures?


George Spotton: You may deduce whatever your deducer can extract. I am just making my statement.
Aiberta is doing very nicely. With one-sixth the population of Ontario, Alberta in 1928 had 168 divorces, as against our 213. The four western provinces, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, that are so anxious to fasten this procedure upon the province of Ontario, with a combined population of 2,766,900, had in 1928, 508 divorces, while the province of Ontario, with a population of 3,229,000, had only 213 divorces under the present procedure.
I am opposed to legislation which will make divorces easier to get and bring about more divorces in my province. I appeal to the members on both sides of the house from other provinces not to fasten this upon us until the province of Ontario asks for it. There is not a church organization in the province, except the Anglican synod of Toronto, that has asked for a divorce court. It is true that there is another organization in the city of Toronto, made up of some seven hundred barristers, which is very anxious to fasten a divorce court upon this province, but I think, sir, that that has	been	the only	demand thatI have	heard. I	had	a young	barrister callon me	the other	day,	with his	wife, and hestarted	rather to	criticize me	for my vote.
'I looked at his wife and said, "Is it possible that a young man married less than six months should be contemplating an easier avenue of escape?" The rank and file of the people of the province of Ontario are not asking for this legislation. The government of the province of Ontario have not asked for it. They have not said that they are willing and anxious to provide the machinery. In view of the figures I have quoted, I think-no great harm can be done by leaving matters as they are.
Much has been said about the committee of the other chamber that deals with divorce cases. I have been present on a few occasions when that committee has been sitting, and as a layman-perhaps the lay mind is not as agile as the legal mind-I thought that that committee conducted its proceedings just as well as any law court that I have ever been in. On the Senate divorce committee there are several eminent legal gentlemen, any one of whom if appointed to the bench to-
Divorce Court for Ontario

morrow would be no more 'Competent to try a divorce action than he is to-day. There are also medical men on that committee who have rendered excellent service.
I do not wish to delay the house, but coming from the province of Ontario, I repeat, there has been no demand from my province for any such legislation, and I appeal to my fellow members from the other provinces not to be too hasty in thrusting upon an unwilling province legislation which it does not desire.


William Irvine: The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) has said more eloquently and perhaps more effectively than I could about all I wanted to say on the amendment to the bill before the house. I think it is unfortunate that it should be necesary to repeat so often to hon. gentlemen that Bill No. 20 asking for a divorce court for Ontario does not alter the principle of divorce one iota; indeed it does not deal with the principle of divorce at all. If hon. gentlemen who still labour under this misapprehension will kindly look into the matter, they will find the bill simply provides that instead of this house dealing with divorce applications from the province of Ontario, the courts of that province shall receive them. Those hon. gentlemen who contend that to send divorce cases to the courts will increase divorce but declare their lack of faith in the courts of their province, it is time that something was done aibout it. So far as I am aware, there is no reason to doubt the competence of the courts of Ontario to deal with a matter of this kind.
Two hon. gentlemen have presented to the. house certain figures by which they attempted to support their argument against the bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard such a humorous method of presenting figures ever before attempted in this house. There have 'been spots on the sun for the last few years; much has been written of the phenomenon. One might as well argue that sun spots are responsible for the increase of divorce in Canada as to argue that the increase is due to the fact that divorce applications are presented to the courts instead of to this parliament. That is the logic of hon. members to my right who presented figures in support of their argument. It is possible, after a divorce court has been established in Ontario, that for the next year or two, as happened in Alberta, there may be an increase in divorce cases, but the explanation is simple: owing to the heavy expense of coming to this parliament for divorce only a few people have enough money to do so, and
^Uintt.nn. ]
those who have been retarded for lack of means will apply for divorce in the courts of .their own province. But to say that the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario is going to increase divorce in that province is absurd.
As to the amendment, you would not permit me, Mr. Speaker, to use the language which I should like to use in describing it or in characterizing the tactics employed by my hon. friend in moving it. I repudiate the allegation involved and defy the "allegator" in respect to it. I am not seeking to widen the grounds of divorce or to make divorce easier. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Spotton) bellowed forth that Ontario has not made any demand for a divorce court. Let me tell him that Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba and other provinces refuse to send their members down here to do the dirty work of Ontario. That is where the demand for such a divorce court is coming from. We are not going to do this job any 'longer; it is not our job. We are not sent down here to grant divorce bills for the people of Ontario; we are sent to this house to do a very different kind of business, and we are going to do it. So far as I am concerned, this is the last chance the house will have of dealing with this matter-and that is no threat either. If this bill is not passed, as I believe it ought to be passed, then we shall take every step to remove divorce bills entirely from Parliament, and let Ontario look after herself in that respect. That is the position I am going to take, and I hope the house will refuse to accept the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: If the house is not ready for the question Mr. Kaiser has the floor because I have seen him.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the argument advanced by my hon. friend from North Huron (Mr. Spotton) of there being no demand for this legislation, I have looked over many of our criminal statutes and I recall very few of them that were enacted as a result of .public clamour. If this house initiated legislation only when the public clamoured for it, we .certainly would not need to stay here more than two or three weeks each session. If we wait until there is a demand for this legislation-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I cannot hear the hon. member who has the floor.

Divorce Court for Ontario


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: If we wait until there is
a demand for this legislation we shall wait a very long time, for the obvious reason that not one (person in two thousand in the province of Ontario is in the slightest degree concerned about divorce. Therefore the suggestion that we should wait until there is a public demand for a (divorce court in Ontario is to my mind (beside the question. It has been asked whether the other provinces should concern themselves with this particular bill, and I agree absolutely with the remark made by some hon. members to my left. Divorce under aniy circumstances is a disagreeable matter. This being so, and nearly all the other provinces having divorce courts of their own, we may well ask ourselves why the province of Ontario should continue to monopolize the time of this house with divorce bills and require members from the other provinces to concern themselves with those bills, the subject matter of which certainly ought to be assigned to a court in Ontario. And to what better place could we send those who seek divorce than to the courts of their own province?
The amendment calls for a campaign of education. I wonder when the member for South Huron discovered that this parliament had anything to do with education. Every time the subject comes up in this house we are told by the government and their supporters that- education is a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Now he wants us to embark on some kind of crusade of education in the province of Ontario. I believe we should have a 'divorce court established in this province. I believe the people of Ontario are looking for it, and, further, I believe we are justified in asking the members from the western provinces to help us in this matter.


Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words before this question is put. I voted the other night against a divorce court for the province of Ontario on practically the same grounds as did the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) and I agree with his remarks. However, last session the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) promised the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that during the recess he would do something with, regard to this question of divorce, and I feel that he should bring in a resolution from his own side of the house, standing on his own feet, as it were, and accepting the responsibility. I feel that there is no demand from Ontario for a divorce court in that province; the demand comes from members from other provinces.
Something was said by one hon. member on the other side with regard to divoroes in the different provinces as related to population. Ontario, with a population of 2,933,662, according to the census of 1921, had 101 divorces, granted by parliament. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, with a combined population of 2,470,664, had 384 divorces through their courts. To my mind that is clear enough, and for the reason given by the hon. member for Parry Sound I will vote on every occasion that offers against a divorce court in the province of Ontario unless there is included in any such bill a similar provision respecting the province of Quebec and the province of Prince Edward Island. I know there are, Mr. Speaker, some people in the province of Quebec who are strongly opposed to divorce, but I know also that there is a minority in that province that has as much right to facilities for the granting of divorce as the majority in the province of Ontario. I believe the Prime Minister and his government should assume the responsibility for this bill, instead of getting out of the house and letting a private member from a province other than the one affected bring in a bill to provide for a divorce oourt in Ontario.


John Ewen Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Garland, Carleton) made reference to the other provinces, and in that reference he mentioned that there was no request from Prince Edward Island for divorce. That is quite true, sir; there has been no such request from any person or any society in that province. I voted on this bill when the decision was a little in dispute a few days ago, and I voted again to-day against restoring it to the order paper. I do not think I am justified in casting another vote without stating in a few words why I should again vote against, the bill, as I intend to do.
We have listened with attention to the discussion that has taken place, and I think hon. members will agree with me when I say that when members who sit in this house representing Ontario constituencies are so divided among themselves in regard to this measure, it ill behooves us as the parliament of Canada to pass legislation forcing upon them a measure that has such far-reaching effects upon society as the bill proposed is bound to have. The figures that have been brought before the house show conclusively, as I see it-and I think the members of the house will agree with me-that divorce will be made easier, and that more divorces will be asked for, and no doubt will be granted. That is not a desirable condition to have in Canada.

Divorce Court for Ontario.

I think, sir, that the better classes of society in all pants of this country feel that it is the duty of all people, legislators included, to frown upon making easy the securing of divorce. It is open to the people of the province under review to get divorce. They have an outlet for cases that have merit, and they have been utilizing it. The figures show that they have been restricted a little more, perhaps, in the securing of divorce than the provinces that are getting divorces through their divorce courts. In the little province from which I come, divorce is almost, unknown. I think there is on record but one case that has come from Prince Edward Island wherein divorce was sought at the hands of this parliament. We have a provision in that province by which a divorce court may be set up, but that court has never been brought into being, and is not likely to be. The people of the province have exhibited no desire for it, and those who have the creating of that court have taken no steps towards even organizing it. Therefore. Mr. Speaker, in view of the attitude of the people of the province interested, I feel that I am justified at this time in voting against the bill, as I did on the former occasion.
I was impressed by some of the remarks that were made by my hon. friend from North Huron (Mr. Spotton). I am in a very similar position. I approached this matter from a layman's point of view, and, looking at it in that light, Mr. Speaker, as a full-blooded Canadian, or, as my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) would say, a ifcd-ilooded Canadian, there is another view that I take of tlhis bill, namely, that the parliament of Canada puts itself in this position: We say in the bill, first, that the law of England as to the dissolution of marriage, and as to the annulment of marriage, as that law existed on the 15th of July, 1870,-


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private and public bills being exhausted, the house will now revert to the motion to go into supply, and the amendment thereto.


Mr. PARENT:: I am sorry I was not in the house when the hour for private bills was jailed. My name appears as proposing a bill [DOT]espectinig the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company. I would like to move the second reading of this bill. I understand it is not a contentious bill. The company are asking only for an extension of time.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Georges Parent: If there is any objection 1 will not press it.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
Quebec West was not in the chamber when private bills were called, and he is asking leave to move the second reading of this bill on the ground that there is nothing contentious in it. But that can be done only by consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Air. SPENCE:: If it were agreed that that should be done, then the hon. member for Queens should be allowed to finish his speech on Bill No. 20.


SU PPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND AND NEGOTIATION OF TREATY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply', the amendment thereto of Mr. Senn and the subamendment of Mr. Casgrain.
Thomas McMillan: 
John Ewen Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house has been discussed at some length on two or three different occasions, and I will not detain the house very long in what I have to say. I do not wish to spend any more time than is necessary in repeating what has been said already in order to make myself understood.
As I see it. the amendment to the motion to go into supply, and the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) differ very slightly in meaning. Both amendments ask that negotiations be carried on with the government of New Zealand. I believe the government have gone even further and that negotiations have been opened with the government of that country, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), so the difference between the two amendments is very small. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), which I think is the official voice of the opposition on
72S	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
this matter, asks that the present treaty as it applies to our sister dominion of New Zealand be rescinded, while the government desires to negotiate with New Zealand in the hope of concluding a treaty which will supersede the one now in effect. Hon. gentlemen opposite say we should take the extreme ground of rescinding the present treaty, but what does that mean?


William Irvine: What does " supersede " mean?


John Ewen Sinclair: What does it mean to rescind our present agreement?


William Irvine: What does " supersede " mean?


John Ewen Sinclair: We have signed the treaty with Australia, it has been ratified by this parliament, and by order in council it has been extended to the sister dominion of New Zealand. Our hon. friends opposite suggest by their amendment that we ignore our solemn treaty and rescind it without giving the agreed notice of six months.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We ask that the order in council be rescinded, that is all.


John Ewen Sinclair: Which is equivalent to rescinding the treaty which was made with Australia and extended by order in council to New Zealand. I cannot subscribe to anything of that nature, something which treats our signed agreement as a scrap of paper. Such action will not commend itself to those in the country whom our hon. friends have sought to interest by means of this amendment.
The criticism of the agreement with New Zealand, particularly as it applies to the butter industry, has been based almost entirely upon the declining exports of butter. The hon. members opposite take that as their rule and guide in saying that the dairy industry is in a bad way and that the people engaged in that industry are suffering. I cannot agree with such an argument. The statistics which have been given in this debate, and the facts which were placed before the tariff advisory board at the time the application of the National Dairy Council was heard, should prove conclusively to any fair minded man that the dairy producers of Canada have been getting a better price for their milk, the raw material of that industry, than they were before the Australian treaty was negotiated. The Canadian market for dairy products has been better during the past year than the market in any other country in the world, and the same is true, with the possible exception of the United 
States, for the past two or three years. There has been a fair increase in production in this industry, and the different products give a better return to-day than they did before the treaty was negotiated. The quality of these products, particularly of butter, both for domestic and export markets, has been increased from year to year through the system of grading put into effect by our federal and provincial dairy branches.
The fact that our butter is of a high standard and that fresh butter can be so easily obtained has caused an increased home consumption of this product. We hear great wailing from our hon. friends opposite that the home market has not been protected, but this phase of the situation has been so handled that we find our home market for butter to be the best of any market in the world.
With such conditions obtaining we are forced to ask ourselves what our hon. friends opposite really mean by the amendment they have brought before the house. I believe it has a more far-reaching effect than is disclosed by the actual words. They ask that a treaty be negotiated upon fair and equitable terms, but some of the hon. members have gone further than that and have asked for a higher duty on butter. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price) read this afternoon a resolution passed by the farmers and dairymen in convention in the province of New Brunswick. I asked him if he subscribed to that resolution and he replied that he did. That resolution reads:
Whereas the National Dairy Council has made application for an increase in duties on butter in order to improve the dairy industry in Canada,
Therefore resolved that the convention go on record as fully supporting the National Dairy Council in their application.
What did the National Dairy Council ask for when it went before the tariff advisory board? I have in my hand the schedule which was presented to that board on January 14, and in that schedule they asked for a British preferential rate of four cents per pound, an intermediate rate of seven cents per pound, and a general rate of seven cents per pound, which is an increase over our present general tariff of three cents per pound. This would continue to give preference to those countries enjoying preferential rates, so that the motive of hon. members opposite would seem to be to obtain more protection for the dairy industry which supplies one of the main foods of the people of Canada. They ask for a tax on food. If it were necessary to follow up this argument, I could quote from other

Australian Treaty-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
speeches made during the course of this debate to show that our hon. friends are asking for higher protection when they ask for the negotiation of a treaty with New Zealand.
Would higher protection help the dairy industry? Let us consider this question in a sane way. During the months of production our imports are lower, and when production decreases our imports increase. This has been so ever since the Australian treaty was negotiated, and it was so before that treaty was brought into effect. I submit that a higher duty placed upon butter coming into Canada simply would mean that the price of butter would be raised during the winter months with very little if any advantage to the producers of milk. Why do I say that? Because the only encouragement it would give would be to the man who wished to engage in speculation by storing butter bought at a low price in the summer season-and I think a careful perusal of the words of most of our hon. friends opposite will bear me out in that-by carrying that butter over until the winter months, and then by having the protection enabling him to extract more from the people of this country who have to buy butter than he would otherwise be able to do. It would give people who own cold storage warehouses or space in cold storage warehouses an opportunity to gamble to a greater extent with the food of the people and to increase the cost of living to the labouring classes at a time when, as hon. gentlemen opposite have told us on several occasions, we have a condition of seasonal unemployment as we are bound to have in Canada. It would make our labouring classes pay more for butter during the period of seasonal unemployment when they are not able to earn as much as they do in the busy season.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the case
according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm).


John Ewen Sinclair: Since the leader of the apposition has interrupted me, I may say that I think in the smoke-screen of words he threw around the discussion of this question when he had the floor, he revealed in one or two instances what he really meant by supporting the motion and supporting the opinions of some of those who surround him in asking for a higher tariff on butter. Let me read his words.


William Irvine: The hon. member cannot
read from Hansard.


John Ewen Sinclair: His words will be found in this debate and I may inform my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin that I have the
privilege of quoting from this debate. As reported on page 515 of Hansard, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) asked the leader of the opposition whether he seriously asserted that contracts for nexts winter's butter were being entered into now, my hon. friend opposite used these words:
Mr. Bennett: A gentleman told me the other day that contracts were being negotiated for next season.
Mr. Dunning:	Yes, negotiated.
Mr. Bennett:	That is all I can say, yes.
One of the largest dealers of this country asserted that he wanted to know where he stood in regard to these matters, because he did not like this government, Micawber-like, to be waiting for something to turn up. Commercial men make their contracts in advance so that they will know where they stand, and people who supply butter make contracts in advance so that they will know how those contracts will be filled.
I think that reveals what my hon. friend had in mind in supporting the amendment a.nd in having it discussed at this time. He was really speaking for the big interests of the -country, and his friends who are engaged in speculating in butter, in operating cold storages and such like and making as much profit as they can out of the food of the people without any direct result to the producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That -cock did not fight.


John Ewen Sinclair: If we want any further proof of that we can find it in the words of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who at the moment is sitting beside him, and I will read his words. He amplified the statement of the leader of the opposition. His words will be found reported on page 532 as follows:
Mr. Stevens:	As my hon. leader said this
afternoon-by the way some of the hon. members laughed at his suggestion-what about the contractural arrangements which must be made either for the importation of butter from New Zealand on the one hand, or for the production in this country on the other. Arrangements must be made for storage space and other matters in order -to carry the summer butter through the winter, and those arrangements must be completed during the producing season, which in this country covers the months of April, May, June, July and August.
We see clearly by that statement that our hon. friends are more concerned with people who are interested in speculating with the food of the general public than they are with the producers.


James Houston Spence: That is twaddle.


John Ewen Sinclair: The hon. member for Parkdale does not like this statement. I will read in regard to this a little article
730	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
that was published in the city, part of which he represents. I may say in connection with it that a year ago the president of the National Dairy Council, at a meeting of that body, asked for higher duties on butter. Since that time he has retired from office. He purported to be speaking for the dairymen and producers of Canada. If I were to take the time to read the remarks he made and the remarks that the secretary of the National Dairy Council made at that meeting. I think I could show the house that the people they were really speaking for were the manufacturers and they had not, in their own words, been able to get in touch with the mass of the dairymen of this country. This Mr. Caulder, I understand, is associated with a company which is now trying to corner the manufacturing of dairy products in Canada. This is the newspaper despatch:
Chain of Large Dairies Across Canada is Aim Corporation Acquires Two Western Companies (Canadian Press)
Toronto, March 17,-The Mail and Empire says to-day:
"A completion of a $650,000 deal giving it control of two dairy product companies in Regina and Winnipeg has brought the Dairy Corporation of Canada another step nearer its eventual aim of having a chain of large dairies under one control stretching right across the Dominion. Absorption of one or more Ontario dairies in the near future is looked for by those in touch with the situation.
"The two newest acquisitions, which bring the total of the corporation's holdings to more than $7,000,000 are the Purity Dairy Company of Regina and the Purity Ice Cream Company of Winnipeg, it was learned last night. The two concerns were separate organizations despite the similarity of names."
I took the precaution to inquire to-day from a man who is very closely associated with the dairy business of Canada as to who was the manager or president of this corporation. He informed me that a man of the same name that I have mentioned, Mr. J. A. Caulder, who was president of the dairy council last year, was head of this company and filling the position of president and man-againg director. In addition, this company owns the Montreal Dairy Company Limited, the City Dairy Limited of Winnipeg, and two others in Winnipeg, the Edmonton City Dairy, and the two companies that I have just mentioned m the despatch quoted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where is the government's combines act?


John Ewen Sinclair: My hon. friend asks about the combines act. I have been informed there was another m-an connected with this, but I would not wish to mention

the name; a man who was very closely associated a short time ago with my hon. friend and who held a very important position in the Conservative party, is one of the close advisers of this corporation. It is financed by interests in the city of Toronto, and I do not think our hon. friends would accuse anyone other than themselves of being very greatly interested in that city.
Any increase in duty which is sought by this amendment would mean simply giving a greater stimulus ami opportunity to such large corporations as I have referred to, to get a wedge in between the milk producers and the consumers of the finished products of the dairies so that they may make a larger spread between the price paid to the producer and the cost to the consumer in the distribution of w-hat is one of our most wholesome and necessary food products. Any movement towards that end would be a mistake in this country. The position as it now obtains in the dairy business is sound. Our people are getting more for their product that they got formerly in comparison with world prices, and they will continue to do so. Our production is increasing. The quality of our product is second to none in the world. The dairy business of Canada was built up in its inception and has been brought to its present state largely by cooperative enterprises of the people who are producing milk in Canada. To give the producer the full benefit of his labour, and to give the consumer the article at as reasonable a price as possible, is a sound and sane method of building up a good industry. The spread between the price that the producer receives and the price that the consumer pays for butter as well as other dairy products has, I believe, kept within bounds, and anything that would tend to disrupt that condition would work to the distinct disadvantage of the producers in Canada.
There is another phase to the enlargement of the home market to which we should look, and which has done a good deal to change the texture of our population. The home consumption of butter has increased the production of butter. For the past two or three decades the trend of population as between urban and rural in Canada has been rapidly changing, until to-day I think it is fairly safe to say that the balance as between our urban and rural population is about fifty-fifty. I would not be surprised if the next decennial census should show that our urban population was larger than our rural. Certainly the urban population has increased very much in the last two or three decades. Parallel with that in-

Australian Treaty-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
crease, there has been a corresponding increase in the production and export of manufactured products. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) told us in this debate a few nights ago that our exports of manufactured products had increased by sixty per cent. We know that the trade returns from year to year, particularly during the past decade, which includes the period since the war, have shown that Canada has gone ahead in increasing her manufactured .products m a very creditable way. That has brought about a change in the proportion between the rural and the urban population. Then, too, the adoption of the most modern methods of farming, and the introduction of machinery, which has manifested itself in a marked degree in western Canada in the last few years in the introduction of machinery for harvesting, has shown to us in eastern Canada that it may no longer be necessary to have the big harvester excursions that we had for many years past. Particularly has a change been brought about through the usse of machinery in central and eastern Canada, over a longer period and over a wider field of activity in mixed farming communities. In our own little province I think it is reasonably correct to say that we have a larger value of machinery to the acre than any other province in Canada. Under those conditions our production has been not only kept up but increased, v'hile our rural population at the same time has been decreasing compared with the urban population. This has caused a change in all lines of agricultural activity.
When we approach a matter of this kind dealing with one particular branch of the dairy industry, we must give full consideration to every other line of the dairy business, as well as to the relation of the dairy business to other branches of agriculture. In eastern Canada the dairy business has been the most profitable of our mixed farming operations. In our little province of Prince Edward Island, as well as in some of the agricultural sections of New Brunswick, our people have turned a little to the raising of a cash crop in the form of potatoes, but I do not think that that has been done to the neglect of the dairy industry. I am sure that the future will show that our farmers have not lost sight of the value of the dairy industry, and that any diminution in the number of cows kept or the amount of milk produced during the past year has been due largely to seasonal conditions. Any diminuation that has been caused in a few cases by farmers diverging into cash crops will be only temporary. Our people in the years to come will develop the dairy business to a greater degree than ever before.
There is another feature of the amendment of hon. gentlemen opposite which would operate against the interests of Canada generally. If the duty on butter and dairy products were increased, as hon. gentlemen opposite desire, the family budget of the workingman in Canada would be increased. Some of our labouring population find themselves at certain seasons of the year without work, and we must always expect, on account of our climatic conditions, to have seasonal unemployment. Now if we are going to increase the cost of the food of these people and make their living dearer, they will demand higher wages from their employers, and in that way raise the standard of living in Canada and put us at a disadvantage Rather than raise the price by artificial means, that will be of no direct benefit to the producer, it would be much better to take steps, governmental, if you will, to make it possible for our dairy farmers to obtain the cheaper concentrates and cheaper feeds which it is necessary for almost even-dairy farmer to buy. I do not mean to advocate the buying of dairy feeds by the farmer, except to supplement the feeds he raises on his farm, but it is recognized in the maritime provinces particularly that our dairy farmers as well as those engaged in other side lines, such as poultry and hogs, are paving too much for the feeds that it is necessary for them to buy to balance the rations for the stock which they raise on their farms. We can do more for the dairy industry, I submit, if we take steps to make available to our dairy farmers at as low a price as possible the feeds that are necessary, and thus reduce the cost of production.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask in what way
the hon. member would propose to secure a reduction in the price of these feeds? I presume he refers to mill feeds and the like.


John Ewen Sinclair: For the information otf my hon. friend and the house generally, I may say that this matter has engaged the attention of the three governments in the maritime provinces for some time past. They have had conferences on more than one occasion to try to devise some means by which they could get to the farmers of the maritime provinces their mill feeds and concentrates at as low a price as possible. Uip to the present, their deliberations have not evolved any definite scheme, and it would be presuming too much for me as am individual to attempt at this time to propose ways and means for accomplishing the end in view when the wisdom of three governments has not yet been aible to devise a workable scheme for lowering the cost of production in that way. But cer-
732	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
tain suggestions could be made. I have heard some very good suggestions in regard to our elevators. Within the last few years an elevator has been built at Halifax, and in the summer season it is idle. We hope our St. Lawrence waterway will be so developed as to permit of the water carriage of coarse grains from the wheat fields of the west to the east and the taking back of return cargoes of coal. That would very materially reduce the freight on the western grain and the eastern coal. There are other suggestions equally as good, which I have no doubt will be considered by the respective governments before their conferences come to an end.
But, sir, the point I was making a few minutes ago in referring to the raising of the price of this very necessary food product by the imposition of a higher duty was that Canada generally would suffer if any action of that kind permitted corporations or others to speculate in food products and thus raise the cost of the family 'budget of the working man, which in the end would reflect on the employer and bring about a higher cost of living in this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question without my interrupting him?


John Ewen Sinclair: I will answer any question, but whether I can do so without interruption-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman agree that the treaty should be superseded?


John Ewen Sinclair: Mr. Speaker,
the purpose of my speech is really to put my views before the house, and I think when I conclude my hon. friends will have a pretty fair idea where I stand in regard to the motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not yet.


John Ewen Sinclair: When the question was asked by the leader of the opposition I was referring, Mr. Speaker, to the detrimental effects that any action tending to raise the cost of living would bring about in this country. I have in my hand an article, published in yesterday's Citizen, headed Australian Industry to Canada, copied from the Canadian Co-operator. It is as follows:
It is a fact well known to economists that the beneficiaries of a protectionist policy derive their advantage from the excessive prices they are allowed, through the operation of tariff laws, to charge the home consumers. A county with a high protective tariff is, however, at a great disadvantage when it has to compete in foreign markets with other countries having a free-trade or low-tariff policy. Evidence of this fact is to be found in the following, taken from the International News Service (Economic

Section) of the International Co-operative Alliance:	"An interesting comment on
Australian high protectionist policy is provided by the news that the Sunshine Harvester Works near Melbourne have concluded an agreement with the Waterloo Manufacturing Company of Ontario, Canada. The latter company will now undertake to manufacture the former's patent threshing machine, which has been very successful in Australia, and is finding increasing favour in North America and elsewhere. The reasons for the agreement are that the Sunshine Company finds that its costs of production, thanks to Australia's protectionist policy, are too high to enable it to penetrate foreign markets, and it is accordingly removing its export business to a country in which money, wages and the cost of materials are lower.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that to all fair-minded men who wish to approach the question now before the house in a national way, that is, for the benefit of all, the views expressed in this article will be appreciated. These views should commend themselves to the producers in Canada, particularly the producers of dairy products, and to our people generally. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I feel quite sure that the house and the country will understand the real object of this amendment and why it was foisted on the house at this time. Certainly it was not introduced because of any love that my hon. friends opposite have for our producers of milk; rather it was intended to assist their friends the manufacturers and the other interests, who are ready to thrust the wedge of finance in between the producers and the consumers and extract as much as possible from the toil of the working men of this country, particularly our agricultural labourers. Therefore in full answer to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I may tell him I cannot support the amendment, but I will agree with the government that it is wise to negotiate-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Ewen Sinclair: I cannot support his amendment, which in my view is tantamount to throwing dirt in the face of a sister dominion; but I will support the government in any endeavour to negotiate a treaty direct with New Zealand to supersede the present treaty.


Mr. CLEMENT ROBITAILLE (Maison-neuve) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss briefly the subject at present under consideration, because the amendment, to my mind, does not conform with the interests of the people at large. For the last few months our Conservative friends have been scouring the rural districts of Quebec, trying to convince the farming classes that they are suffering from the effects of the order in council

Australian Treaty-Mr. Robitaille
which grants to New Zealand the same advantages afforded to Australia. They do not stop at that. They distribute profusely pamphlets in which the King Government is charged with ruining the farming classes. However, our good farmers are quite on their guard. I want to draw the attention of the house to this unfair propaganda which is contrary to the country's interest. What are the charges brought against the Liberal policy in connection with the concessions which were granted to New Zealand? It is stated that we imported 35,000,000 pounds of butter in 1929. I want to point out that, in his speech, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) contends that the Ontario factories were forced to purchase butter in order to fill their orders. If we look up the statistics on the subject we find that we have only exported
8764,000	worth of butter, while we imported
35,000,000 pounds from New Zealand. Yet, what is the price of butter? Last summer, in the Montreal district, we paid for butter 42 cents per pound, and in the autumn 45 cents. At present we are paying 45 cents per pound- I refer to prices at butter factories. Notwithstanding the importation of 35,000,000 pounds of butter, prices have not come down. Yet the butter was consumed. We have none left, we are not exporting any. What would have happened if the policy of our opponents had prevailed? Where would we have got butter, and what would have been the price? We must not only consider the producers, we must also think of the consumers who are far more numerous. Whether you increase the price of butter or of any other article, it is always the consumer who pays.
Our opponents are prone to imitate the United States or to cite them as an example. For the last two yeans, the United. States have advocated a protective tariff for their farming classes. What are the means resorted to by the United States government so as to give these classes a measure of protection? For how many months past have these gentlemen been endeavouring to protect the farmers? What has been the result? They apparently granted them a certain protection; however, on the other hand they increased the tariff on other products than those of the farm. So much so, that a United States senator made the remark that farmers, in return for a few favour's, would have, for instance, to pay yearly-owing to the increase in customs duties-on cement, about $53,000,000 more; on sugar, about $32,000,000; on oil and its byproducts, about $904,000,000, and on lumber
about $50,000,000 more. Will this give protection to farmers? The small benefit which they will derive from protection, will soon be absorbed by the increase in duties that they will have to pay on other products. Now, sir, why do we consume so much butter? First, it was pointed out that we sold about 100,000 milch cows to the United States, and those who disposed of them are far from having suffered from such a sale, since they obtained a price varying from $150 to $300. And if, because of this, the herds have decreased, we must not also lose sight of the fact that they have decreased because they failed to pass the tuberculine test. Yet, had we not been fortunate enough to import butter on favourable terms from New Zealand, we certainly would have run short of it; then, our working classes and the consumer as a whole would have paid exorbitant prices. One must not think that by placing a tariff on butter we shall induce the farmer to increase his herd and that he may expect the necessary farm hands to raise them profitably. There are certainly other means. At all events, the market is not over crowded. The farmeT can easily increase his herd without fear of any overproduction of dairy products. He will certainly find all the markets necessary, since he sells, at present, his milk and cream not only in this country but also in the United States.
Therefore, it is not by increasing the duties to the extent of preventing the importation of these products that the farmer will increase his wealth. The idea of giving preference to the home market has for a long time been advocated. Are we not encouraging such a market when we absorb in this country the entire production of our dairy industry? Indeed, statistics prove that we do not export these products or very little.
Considering these faicts, I think that the amendment has been introduced with a political purpose only, and that it is of too sweeping a character. The treaty of 1925 was passed having regard to the prevailing conditions of that time. It might not, therefore, be out of place if certain changes were made in keeping with the present time. However, it will always be necessary to conform with the treaty enacted between the two dominions; we must also show some regard for the convention, that is, give the six months' notice as agreed, and not act too hastily. I submit that the subamendment should be accepted by the house in preference to the amendment, and for the reasons given I shall support the subamendment.

Australian Treaty-Mr. Gardiner


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we have before the house the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that this house resolve itself into committee of supply. We have also an amendment and a subamendment. It is only in recent years, Mr. Speaker, that members of this house have been permitted, under the rules, to move a subamendment when the house resolves itself either into committee of supply or into committee of ways and means. Some two or three years ago a special committee was appointed for the purpose of revising the rules, and one of the suggestions made by that committee and adopted by the house was to the effect that a subamendment be permitted when the house resolved itself into committee of ways and means and committee of supply. It is quite possible that the reason the committee made the suggestion was that we no longer have the two party system in the house, and certain groups were not in a position under the former rules to express their views on important questions owing to the fact that the moving of only one amendment was permitted. On this occasion we had the usual motion by the Minister of Finance, then we had the amendment moved by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn), and the subamendment, moved by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain). The subamendment precluded hon. members in this house from expressing their opinion on this very important question. We do not deny that -the government has the right to use the subamendment process just as well as we have. We believe the amendment to the rules-to which I have referred -is in the interest, of all parties and groups in this house, but. on this occasion the group in this corner has not had the opportunity, as I have said, of moving a subamendment, and neither the amendment nor the subamendment expresses our views. Therefore we have decided. Mr. Speaker, not to take any part in the vote, either on the subamendment or on the amendment. We do not propose to vote either for or against either of the two motions, but will take an opportunity later of laying before the house our viewpoint on this important matter.


Hewitt Bostock: the amendment as amended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the amendment is put to this house as amended, I avail myself of this opportunity to direct the attention of the house to the condition which now has arisen.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is the Sponsor of the motion to which you, sir, have just referred. It was moved by the Minister of Finance that this house go into eommitte of supply, and against that motion there now stands an amendment adopted by the government. On the journals of this house it will appear than an amendment was carried by a vote of 95 to 57, a majority of the government's own making. Therefore I take it that the government, by a majority of 38, does not desire to go into supply, and the amendment under parliamentary practice being a motion of want of confidence in the
administration, we now have the spectacle of the government having voted lack of confidence in itself. As I remarked the other day, an anticipation of the verdict the people by the government is something quite unheard of; it is not usual for governments themselves to anticipate it, but there is the fact. The question is, what does the government propose to do?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Resign.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the government of the late Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman was confronted with an adverse majority of thirteen on a question regarding the adequacy of the supply of cordite, he at once resigned. Some of the hon. gentlemen seem to be unaware of that fact. The question is, what does this government propose to do? After having solemnly recorded upon the journals of this house its lack of confidence in its own ability to go into supply, it asks this house to continue to allow it to govern. It must first get rid of that amendment, and what is it going to do about it?


Mr. POULIOT:: If the hon. member was saying that without a smile it would have more weight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is a distinguished student of parliamentary procedure, and he realizes now that he for one has voted to prevent, his government from going into supply-	.
The adoption of the amendment by this house under the direction of the government -it having control of the house-involves Your Honour remaining in the chair until eleven o'clock. The government must adopt one of two courses: Have you, sir, remain in the chair until eleven o'clock, or discharge the committee of supply and reconstitute that committee. The reconstitution of the committee of supply is at once an admission by the government that the main motion, which indicates confidence in the administration, has vanished from the records of this session. That is a cold blooded, serious fact and all the sophistry in the world cannot change it.


An hon. MEMBER:: We can revive it


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be revived until there is something to revive. The motion is still upon the order paper, as moved by the Minister of Finance, that, the Speaker do now leave the chair and the house resolve itself into committee of supply, but against that stands the goveumment's amendment saying that it shall not do so.
Australian Treaty-Mr. Bennett

This situation arises by reason of the fact that the government has 'Utilized machinery which was authorized by the rules of this house for the benefit and aid of the third party in the house. Prior to two years ago, only one amendment was possible upon going into supply, and Your Honour will recall your considered judgment which was written at that time into the journals of the house indicating the reasons why that was so. That judgment was disregarded 'by the committee on rules; that committee had to consider the third group in the house and the rules now provide for a subamendment being moved. The government has availed itself of the provision made for the third group in the house and as a result it has declared that it will not go into supply. That is the position.
Of course, there is a method by which this can be overcome, and I will watch the government with some amusement while it proceeds to declare that although lacking confidence in its own ability to conduct the business of Canada by securing supply, it endeavours to extricate itself from the unfortunate position in which it finds itself. I hope the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and those behind them, enjoy this situation. There is no doubt that the country will enjoy the spectacle thus presented for the first time in the life of this parliament.
When only one amendment was possible there have been occasions when the government has adopted the amendment, but that is not this case. Here the government has adopted a sub-amendment to the amendment to its motion to go into supply. Could anything be much more ridiculous than the situation in which the aggregation across the floor of this chamber find themselves? If there is, I would like to know of it. Could anything be more a travesty on parliamentary institutions than to find a government with a motion to go into supply itself declaring that it is not fit to go into supply?


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: From what the hon. gentleman has said, I would understand that the supporters of the government have voted against the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Surely.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore, the opposition
has voted for the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. In every well conducted circus there is always one circle which is most entertaining to the audience, one performer who is most amusing.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not a vicious circle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a vicious circle, but it will be observed that those who have just voted against the subamendment have by the only parliamentary method known declared their allegiance to their amendment. They have voted against the subamendment, and the government has voted to substitute for the amendment an amendment of its own. The result is that every hon. gentleman opposite has voted against going into supply and he has voted lack of confidence in the government which he himself supports.
What is more, the hon. member for Temi-scouata and the hon. Minister of Justice know-


Jean-François Pouliot: It was an antidote for the poison.


Richard Bedford Bennett: AH I can say is that the hon. gentleman took the antidote and not the poison, otherwise we would have been relieved of much trouble.
Hon. gentlemen opposite will find that there is no precedent for this case because up until two years ago there has never been any provision for a subamendment to the motion to go into supply. A disregard of the principle of the rule has brought about a situation for which, as I say, there is no precedent. The subamendment which the government has just voted to its own motion to go into supply creates this incongruous situation, which is well nigh ridiculous: a government proposing supply and at the same time proposing a subamendment to negative it. You cannot get away from those facts and there is no precedent for this situation in the records of any parliament of which I know. I cannot find in May or Bourinot any provision for a subamendment to the amendment to the motion to go into supply. The rule laid down by you, sir, five years ago in the journals of this house in connection with one amendment only being permitted to the motion to go into supply was overcome two years ago by the rules of this house.
I leave it for the administration whose majority has just declared against their going into supply to devise a method to unravel the difficult situation which they have themselves created. It certainly will be something for them to look back upon in the years to come; it will be something to fill their minds with

Australian Treaty-Mr. Lapointe
pride as they realize how on the 18th of March, 1930, when the motion to go into supply was moved, they gravely, through their chief whip said: "No, do not permit us to go into supply; we are not the people to go into supply. Let us vote a want of confidence in ourselves and substitute a subamendment for a proposed amendment lest peradventure we might spend the people's money. We are not fitted to spend the pople's money. Let us substitute an amendment to our motion for supply." We await with some anxiety and great interest the action of the government on the amendment which they have themselves just placed on the motion to go into supply.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has struggled to convince you that I and other members on this side of the house have voted want of confidence in ourselves. He is entirely mistaken. Of course I cannot admit that he has answered successfully the retort of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that if such is the case, he has voted confidence in the administration, but I know he did not want to do that either. The motion of my hon. friends on the other side of the house was indeed a vote of want of confidence and was intended to be so; but we did not vote for that motion; we voted for a motion which had been expurgated, which had been purified, which had been deprived of what constituted a want of confidence. My hon. friend said that there is no precedent for this Of course he explained that there could not be any real precedent because this rule of having an amendment and a subamendment on a motion to go into committee of supply is of recent date. There is an element of truth in the assertion of my hon. friend, and usually when one has a wrong statement to make, and one is shrewd like my hon. friend, he mixes up a little truth with the rest. But there are scores of precedents, and my hon. friend has admitted that, but only to a certain extent, in saying that it has happened that the government has accepted an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply, but, he said, not an amendment coming from the government's own side. I anticipated that my hon. friend would say that and I took the trouble to look into the records of the house. I will quote only two instances of amendments moved by the government's own side. There is one in 1882.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is no wonder my hon. friend smiles.


Ernest Lapointe: When I was a law student and studying a case with my principal in the law firm, he asked me to find some authority on a certain question. There was one which seemed pretty good to me, except that it was a very old one, dating back, I think, to 1450.
I hesitated to give him the authority, but he said; "My boy, when-it is a British precedent, the older it is the better it is."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The trouble is that the rule is only two years old.


Ernest Lapointe: In 1882, when Sir John A.
Macdonald was Prime Minister of Canada,
I read in the journals of the House of Commons of the 31st March the following:
Sir Leonard Tilley moved, seconded by Sir Hector Langevin, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair.
Then Mr. Plumb moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. Bunting, a resolution concerning the boundaries of Ontario. All the Conservatives, the government side, voted for that amendment, and the Liberals, headed by Blake and Laurier, voted against it, but none of .them thought by doing so he was voting confidence in the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; it was not a subamendment.


Ernest Lapointe: There could not be a subamendment at that time. My hon. friend knows that. But there is another which is of more recent occurrence. In 1900 the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power, and Mr. Fielding moved that the house go into committee of supply. An amendment was proposed by Mr. Russell of Halifax, another Liberal member, and I am going to read it because it has some interest apart from that of being a precedent:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be left out, and the words, "this house regards the principle of British preference in the Canadian customs tariff as one which, in its application has already resulted, and will, in an increasing measure, continue to result in material benefit to the mother country and to Canada, and which has already aided in welding, and must still more firmly weld together the ties which now bind them, and desires to express its emphatic approval of such British preference having been granted by the parliament of Canada," inserted instead thereof.
All the members of the government side voted in favour of that amendment to the motion to go into supply and all the members of the opposition voted against the British preference and against the amendment. So I believe there are precedents for a course like

738	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Point of Order
the one that has been followed by the Minister of Finance. I repeat: we did not vote for a motion of want of confidence, we improved that motion before recording our vote for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the minister will answer the question. The minister will observe that in both those cases the government adopted the amendment. In this instance the government is amending it.


Ernest Lapointe: We adopt it after having purified it, as I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that does not answer the question. There was no provision for a subamendment in either of those cases.


Ernest Lapointe: There could not be.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this motion Shows that one cannot always get reliable information even from my friends the Liberals. They seem to be able to give one verdict one year and another the next. Last year the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) moved a subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), in connection with the British preference. I went over to the Liberal side of the house and asked the then Minister of Finance if he agreed with the idea contained in that subamendment put forward by this side of the house. The hon. Minister of Finance of that day told me that he certainly agreed with it. Then I said, " Why don't you adopt it as a subamendment?" The answer he gave was this: " If I adopted the subamendment it would mean that the Speaker do not leave the chair and the government would defeat itself." Therefore he could not adopt it.
Amendment as amended agreed to, on division.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is now on the main motion as amended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now the house has reached exactly the position that I pointed out. The Chair has now put to the house the motion to go into committee of supply, as amended. The minute that is adopted the committee of supply is discharged.


Ernest Lapointe: That is right.
Main motion as amended agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The position-


Charles Avery Dunning: I move that this house do immediately resolve itself into committee of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Notice is required, I think, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), on the evening we adopted the address gave notice of a motion for the house to resolve itself immediately into committee of supply, and on the next day that was duly taken up.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is wrong there, if he will permit me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is on the order paper.


Charles Avery Dunning: The motion made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in my absence was that the house should at its next sitting resolve itself into committee of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


Charles Avery Dunning: The motion at present is that the house immediately resolve itself into committee of supply. There is a subsequent motion for the Speaker to leave the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes, I know that.


Hewitt Bostock: ' Bourinot, at page 421, says:
If an amendment has been carried in the affirmative, then it is the practice not to allow the committee of supply to drop-for that is not the intention in moving amendments at this stage-but to propose a second time the question for the Speaker leaving the chair. It will then be moved-"That the house do on [DOT] [DOT] . . next, resolve itself into committee of supply." Or, when it is necessary to proceed at once with the estimates it will be resolved "That this house do immediately resolve itself into committee of supply." Mr. Speaker will then again propose the question for his leaving the chair, which is generally agreed to, although it is quite legitimate to propose amendments and debate various matters.
May says that this is of the nature of a formal motion and does not require notice. I quote from page 256:
To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made before the commencement,-
That is the case in the present instance:
-or after the close, of public business, to appoint the order for a subsequent day. These motions, which are made without notice, are usually treated as purely formal motions.
In my humble judgment, therefore, this motion does not require any notice, as it is a purely formal motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, Mr. Speaker,
I am bound entirely by your observations, but

Australian Treaty-Speaker's Ruling
this is not a formal motion in any sense. It far transcends anything that is formal because the government itself is the author of its own motion, through the chief whip. I would entirely agree if this were an ordinary case in which the two precedents cited by my hon. friend were applicable, the one where Sir Leonard Tilley moved the house into committee of supply and the government accepted an amendment that was moved by one of the supporters. The same thing occurred in 1900, when the question came up on Mr. Russell's amendment to go into supply. The government accepted that amendment. But here the amendment has not been accepted by the government. It has been defeated by the government by a subamendment interposed by the action of the government itself, and that subamendimemt has now become an amendment to the motion. That is the distinction. The question that you have now put to the house is: Shall the motion as amended be adopted? That motion as amended is the original motion to go into supply, plus the amendment moved as want of confidence in the government, but which the government itself has replaced by a subamendment which now becomes an amendment to a motion to go into supply, which motion with the amendment they now say we propose, not to drop, but to ask to have carried. So what has happened is that this government's motion to go into supply has been carried as amended. I submit, on the very same principle on which the hon. member for Wetaskdwin (Mr. Irvine) moved his motion with respect to a private bill to-day, that this is no longer a formal motion. The committee .of supply is now destroyed because the government has passed a subamendment to the amendment to the motion for going into supply. That subamemdment having been accepted by the government and carried, they are faced with a new condition, new under the practice and recent rules of this house. The government must, make a motion to go into supply which is n.ot a formal motion. As was pointed out by my hon. friend a moment ago, the last citation given by you, sir, referred to a future day. It would be quite competent, for the government to move that this house go into supply to-morrow; I agree as to that.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that you are now making a precedent yourself? My idea is that the authorities which you have quoted do not apply to the present situation. May I recall to your mind the fact that when we were discussing the desirability of allowing a subamendment to the amendment to the motion to go into 2419-474
supply, it was entirely for the purpose of giving the third party a chance to move an amendment. The government itself has taken away that right on this occasion because it was never intended that the government itself should move a subamendment to the motion for supply. The precedents quoted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred to cases in which there was one amendment which the government accepted, and therefore the motion to go back into supply became purely a formal motion. This is the first opportunity which Your Honour has had of ruling as to what is to happen when the government destroys an amendment by a subamendment, and I submit that the precedents which Your Honour has cited do not necessarily apply in cases of this kind.


Hewitt Bostock: I gave very careful study to this question on a previous occasion when the motion for committee of supply was dropped and had to be revived at a subsequent sitting. I think the house will agree that the procedure now being followed is the right one. May says, at page 528:
The committee of supply must be kept on foot throughout the session, until closed in due course. Accordingly, when the house, by the acceptance of an amendment to the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair or by negativing that question has thereby superseded the order of the day for the committee of supply, that order is revived by a motion, made forthwith, either that the house will immediately, or upon a future day, resolve itself into the committee of supply.
It seems to me, therefore, that the motion is in order, and I so rule. It is moved by Mr. Dunning that the house immediately resolve itself into committee of supply. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.
Robert Gardiner: Before you put the motion, sir, I have a few remarks to make with regard to a question of very great importance. Although the time at my disposal to-night will not permit me to finish my argument, before I do so-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I cannot hear the hon. gentleman.
Mr. GARDINER-it is my purpose to move an amendment.
740	COMMONS
Australian Treaty-Mr. Gardiner
For several days this house has been discussing the Australian treaty as it applies to New Zealand. We have had a good deal of discussion pro and con as to the possibilities of that particular treaty. The house has just adopted a subamendment having for its purpose the superseding of the trade arrangement with New Zealand by a treaty made direct with the government of that Dominion. But, Mr. Speaker, this house has not discussed the Australian treaty itself as it applies to Australia, and I submit that that treaty is the basis of the agreement between New Zealand and this country. It is therefore my purpose to discuss the Australian treaty. We regret very much indeed that we have to put the house to this inconvenience, but hon. members will probably recall the circumstances that surrounded the moving of the amendment and the subamendment; if not, I will remind the house of what happened. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) moved that the house resolve itself into committee of supply, to which motion the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) moved an amendment. The Minister of Finance discussed this amendment and intimated that one of the supporters of the government in the person of the chief whip of the party (Mr. Casgrain) would move a subamendment. No member in this corner of the house had an opportunity of debating the amendment before the subamendment was moved, and consequently we were not in a position to give our viewpoint on the subject matter then under discussion. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we were debarred from using the new rule. Of course, we do not object to the government making use of the new rule for the purpose for which they invoked it, although primarily the rule was brought into existence to give members of the third party an opportunity of expressing themselves.
The negotiations for the Australian treaty were initiated by the late Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). I believe when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce he visited Australia and had certain conversations with the Australian government, and on his return to Canada he continued the negotiations. Certain proposals were made in the first instance, which later were abandoned, and the negotiations were continued by representatives of the Canadian government going to Australia. Finally a second agreement was entered into which formed the basis of the treaty.
Now, we claim that the Australian treaty was negotiated primarily for the purpose of providing markets for our manufactured goods; that was the prime purpose of the treaty. Very little consideration, in fact no 
consideration at all, was given to the possibilities of exporting agricultural and other products of this country to the Australian market. Therefore, we take objection, first of all, to the manner in which the treaty was negotiated, and secondly, to the incidence of the treaty itself. We object very strongly, for certain reasons which I will give later, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the fact that it is eleven o'clock, I shall resume my remarks on the next occasion when this motion is before the house.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 19, 1930