1930-03-13

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 30, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (branch lines)-Mr. Power.

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

Mr. CHURCH:: What steps, if any. will he taken by the government to promote the effective merchandising of agricultural commodities in interprovincial, inter-imperial or in foreign commerce?

Questions


Mr. MALCOLM:: The government proposes to continue Canada's established policy of:
1.	Granting steamship subventions both within the Dominion and to British and foreign countries to ensure proper transportation.
2.	Continuing its publicity within the Dominion of opportunities of export to other countries, and its publicity in British and foreign countries as to the products which Canada has to offer.
3.	Maintaining existing trade commissioner's offices in British and foreign countries; and
4.	Opening new offices when opportunities for trade at other paints justify their creation.


ADVISORY ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
Thomas Langton Church: Will the government consider the appointment of an advisory economic committee for Canada to deal with economic questions?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This and kindred subjects are receiving the attention of the government.


DIVORCE PROCEDURE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government introduce any legislation this session to give effect to the following declaration of policy by the Right Honourable Prime Minister, reported on page 1795 of Hansard, April 22, 1929?
"It being understood that between now and next session the members of the government and other honourable gentlemen of the house will do what they can towards some means of freeing parliament from the necessity of continuing to deal with divorce bills along the lines which we have followed here thus far."
2.	Will the government of Ontario be asked by this government for their views on the establishment of a divorce court for Ontario?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The government's intention with respect to any legislation will be made known in due course.
2.	The Ontario government is free to make representations on any subject at any time to the federal government, and all such representations will receive due consideration.


QUEBEC BRIDGE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the total cost of the construction of the road for vehicular traffic over the Quebec bridge?
2.	Who built the said road?
3.	When was the said road completed?
4.	What is the complete tariff of tolls upon (a) vehicles, with full details, (b) pedestrians, and (c) animals, passing over the said road?
5.	What animals are included in the said tariff of tolls?
6.	Has the said tariff of tolls been approved by the governor in council?
7.	If so, (a) when, and (b) at whose request?
8.	Who drafted the said tariff of tolls?
9.	Who submitted same to the governor in council for approval, and when?
10.	Was the said tariff in use before its approval by the governor in council?
11.	Is the said tariff of tolls the same as that which is now in force on the Quebec and Levis ferry?
12.	If not, what are the differences?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	No information.
2.	The government of the province of Quebec.
3.	Work not yet completed, there remaining the lighting of the bridge, completion of approaches, parks, toll houses, collection booths etc.
4 and 5. Tariff of tolls now under consideration as between the provincial amd federal authorities.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	A tariff of tolls was approved by order in council of the Quebec government, of August 8, 1929.
9.	Tariff submitted to Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals by Deputy Minister and Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works and Labour, Quebec, August 29, 1929.
10.	At general request of public, bridge was opened to traffic on September 22, 1929, and tariff of tolls as approved by Quebec government applied, pending ratification by federal government.
11.	No information.
12.	Answered by No. 11.


LAKE MINNEWANKA DAM
Mr. ADSHEAD:: 1.	Has the government come to any definite conclusion concerning the application of the Calgary Power company to raise the height of the dam on lake Minnewanka?
2.	If so, was the provincial government of Alberta consulted before a decision was reached?
3.	If no .permanent decision has been reached will the government of the province of Alberta be consulted before a definite decision is arrived at?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Formal application received in 1922 and refused. There has been no application since by the Calgary Power company.
2.	Answered by one.
3.	Answered by one.
CORRECTION-Mr. BOURASSA
On the orders of the day:


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I
wish, Mr. Speaker, to correct a slight mistake
Alien Labour

that I made yesterday, unwillingly, in quoting the votes that were given the previous day on the second reading of the bill presented by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I then stated that twenty-three votes had been recorded by members representing Ontario constituencies in favour of the second reading of the bill and twenty-six against. I gathered those figures rather rapidly just before the opening of the sitting. Afterwards I made a closer perusal of the vote and I found that the vote stands as twenty-three Ontario members in favour of and twenty-eight instead of twenty-six, against the second reading.


ALIEN LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Neill (Comox-Alberni):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) a matter about which there is no time to put notice on the order paper. I am advised from Vancouver that a certain American electrical company-whose name I shall be glad to give the minister privately -has sold an electrical unit to a purchaser in that city, and desires to bring in a dozen men from the United States to do the work of installation, although there are plenty of Canadian workmen available. It is stated that the company is witholding delivery, hoping that the purchaser will bring pressure on the government to allow the entry of this alien labour. I am requested to ask the government to adhere to its original decision, as there is no need whatever for the entry of these American workmen.
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, I have a knowledge of
this case, and I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Neill) that the policy of the government not to permit alien workers into Canada under contract, either expressed or implied, will be followed in this instance. For the information of the hon. member and the house, as showing what our adherence to this policy involves, I would point out that the American concern has now taken its machinery back to the United States rather than engage Canadians to do the work.


HUNTER'S ISLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the government-I think the department interested is the Prime Minister's-to a ques-
IMr. Bourassa.]
tion which was discussed in an editorial in this morning's Ottawa Journal with respect to Hunter's island. It is an immense tract of territory in my constituency, and therefore I take up the question. In the editorial it is stated that Senator Schall has introduced a bill in the United States Senate claiming the island as American territory; although we have always looked upon it as Canadian. I would ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Massey or the proper channels are being utilized to bring before the United State's government Canada's side of this question, because Hunter's island is of very great importance to the Dominion, due to the richness of the soil and the heavy deposits of iron ore thereunder.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, I have not
noticed the proposed bill referred to by my hon. frjend from Fort William (Mr. Manion), but I may say for his information that there has been a slight change in the boundary at the lower end of the lake of the Woods, which gives us some territory not formerly conceded to be Canada's. The new boundary has been agreed upon by the officers of both governments, and I propose introducing legislation at a later date confirming the agreement. However, I will make inquiries about my hon. friend's statement.


Robert James Manion: Did I understand the minister to say it will not take any land from Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: No. We get some land formerly supposed to belong to (he United States.


Mr. STEVENS:: Watch out that they do
not take this island as a quid pro quo.


EXPORT OF LIQUOR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked if there was any correspondence with respect to liquor clearances which had not been brought down. I have made inquiries and I find that a return was made in the Senate, on the 16th of May last year, of all correspondence up to that date. Since then there has been no correspondence. I have a copy of the return that was tabled in the Senate and I will send it to my hon. friend.


Mr. BENNETT:: I greatly appreciate the courtesy of the Prime Minister in that regard.

Rules of the House-Mr. Lucas


&quot;FROM QUEBEC TO PICCADILLY&quot;
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been called to various articles appearing in the press concerning a certain book entitled From Quebec to Piccadilly by one Beckles Willson, which is supposed to cast slurs upon the life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It is stated that the book has been dedicated to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and has been accepted by him, and that he, therefore, approves of its contents. I would like to know from the Prime Minister what 'he has to say in the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I understand
my hon. friend's remarks have reference to a book entitled From Quebec to Piccadilly, by Beckles Willson. Until I received a copy of the book, I had no knowledge that there was such a book in existence, nor had I any knowledge that there was such a book in contemplation, nor had I any knowledge that there was any thought of any inscription or dedication of any book to me, or indeed of any reference directly or indirectly to me. The author never intimated to me that he was writing a book, nor did he ask me if he might inscribe or dedicate this particular book to me. Unfortunately he has, but I wish he had dedicated it to someone else.


IMPORTATION OF EGGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: On March 6 I drew the attention of the government to a situation which exists with regard to the importation of eggs, and at 1hat time Your Honour was good enough to say that that might serve as a notice. I may say that no notice has been taken of it, but since that time I have received notice of the importation of eggs from the United States during the month of February, the importation having mounted from 22,673 dozen in February, 1929, to 1,060,922 dozen in February, 1930. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of urgent public importance, and I request that the government do take some notice of it, and give the house some assurance that it is being dealt with, because throughout the year 1929 the importation of eggs amounted to 658,164 dozen.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is only in matters of
public importance, matters of great urgency that the hon. member would be justified in proceeding. There is a standing order to that effect.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish
to move the adjournment of the house to discuss this matter, but I will, if necessary. I think under the rules, however, it is quite proper, on the orders of the day, for any member to draw to the attention of the government any matter of urgent public importance. In view of the fact that notice has been given, the house is entitled to some answer as to what the government is doing in regard to this very urgent matter.
Mr .STEVENS: The government is waiting until they hatch out.


RULES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lucas for reference of estimates to select committees, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coote.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I think I had the floor last night, Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned. I was talking on the amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). I do not intend to say anything more at this time, but will reserve my right, if the amendment is disposed of, to speak on the main motion later.


Hewitt Bostock: The reply of the hon.
member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) will close the debate. If any other hon. member wishes to speak the time is now.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I was greatly pleased with the attitude taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with regard to this resolution, and I willingly accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod, which embodies the suggestions made by the right hon. gentleman. The amended resolution will, therefore, read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, certain estimates should be referred to 6elect standing committees, or a special committee, before being referred to the committee of the whole.
I recognize the amended resolution, Mr. Speaker, as an improvement, and it will now rest with the house to decide what estimates are to be sent to select standing committees, or a special committee, which ever in its judgment seems best.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The house or the government?


William Thomas Lucas: The house. That is really
what I had in mind. I am pleased with the reception which the resolution has received'
Criminal Code-Firearms

It has received fair discussion from all sides, and I believe its adoption will be an improvement over our present system. I believe that we will be able to secure much more information, and with that information we will be able to vote more intelligently on those estimates when they come before the house for our consideration. As the resolution has received a fair measure of discussion, I do not think it necessary for me to take up the time of the house repeating what has already been so well said. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I commend the amended resolution to the good judgment of the house.
Amendment (Mr. Coote) agreed to on division.
Motion (Mr. Lucas) as amended agreed to on division.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Criminal Code (Firearms, Homicide, Offences).
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Will my hon. friend explain?


Thomas Langton Church: There are just one or two matters in connection with this bill which I should like to point out to the minister. If he cares to do so he might then have the bill stand in order to consider these amendments.
There have been many complaints with regard to the carrying of firearms in this country; we are gradually getting like Chicago, where it is very popular for people to carry pistols in their hip pockets. The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas of Ontario has referred to this question on more than one occasion. The present law of Ontario with regard to dangerous weapons is as follows:
Upon sufficient cause being shown, any officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or of a provincial police or detective force, or any stipendiary or district magistrate or police magistrate or acting police magistrate or sheriff or chief constable of any city, incorporated town or district municipality, or any person authorized under the law of any province to issue licences or permits to carry firearms, or to hunt or shoot, or any officer or class of officers or persons thereto authorized by the governor in council, may grant any applicant therefor as to whose discretion and good character he is satisfied a permit in form 76, for such period not exceeding twelve months as he deems fit.
In this bill that section is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
No person except a judge or stipendiary, district or police magistrate, may grant, or shall be authorized to grant, a permit in form 76, and it shall be granted to such persons only as in the opinion of the judge or magistrate

show sufficient and reasonable cause for the application, and of whose discretion and good character he is satisfied.
I think the time has come when some such provision as this should be placed in our statutes, in view of what is taking place on the border to-day. Last year there was a sham battle on the Lewiston highway, and shots fired on the American side struck in Canada.
The second section of this bill is as follows:
2. Subsection two of section two hundred and fifty-two of the said act is repealed, and the following is subeti.tued therefor:-
(2) Homicide is culpable -when it consists in the killing of any person, either by an unlawful act, or by negligence, or by both combined, or by causing a person, by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do an act which causes that person's death, or by wilfully frightening a child or sick person.
There is no definite expression in the criminal code as to what constitutes criminal negligence, and the object of this amendment is to add the words " or by negligence " to the sections dealing with culpable homicide.
Then the last section of this bill covers the release from proceedings for the same offence. We all remember the case of the directors of the Home bank; they were charged with a minor offence, and the crown saw fit to exempt them from all other charges, although they got away with millions of dollars belonging to the bank. Whose money was it? When anyone borrows money from a bank he simply borrows money belonging to the depositors, and as a result of that practice the Home bank failed. This section provides that no person shall be acquitted of or absolved from a greater offence by being prosecuted, convicted or acquitted of a lesser offence. A greater offence shall include every offence for which a greater penalty may be imposed, and the object of this amendment is to prevent the abuse of the law in cases where persons are convicted or acquitted of a minor offence and absolved in many cases from greater offences even though they may be guilty of them. For instance, if acquitted or convicted of common assault, a person cannot be convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, or of manslaughter in some cases, even if he admits having committed the graver crime. A friendly prosecutor may thus clear a criminal of very grave crimes. The amendment is designed also to prevent crown officials from charging criminals with minor offences when they should be charged with graver offences. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent such officials from being unduly influenced by fear, favour or friendliness or by enmity, and to leave questions of absolution and amelioration solely to the clemency of the crown, which always can be sought.

Criminal Code-Firearms
I hope that the minister, when he brings down amendments to the code, will consider the amendments suggested by this bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. friend has given us some explanation of his bill which will help in our consideration of it. I am going to follow his suggestion and move the adjournment, so that the bill may stand.
Before doing that, however, may I give some of my views about the bill. The first section has for its purpose the restriction of permits to carry firearms. As the law is at present, the permits are issued, upon sufficient cause being shown, by any officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or of a provincial police or detective force, or by any stipendiary or district magistrate. The subsection gives the names of other officials in addition to those I have mentioned. The amendment of my hon. friend would take away this power from police authorities, but if he will allow me to say so, the explanation he gives hardly justifies the bill. I read his explanatory note:
One example should be sufficient; a man was held up on a highway by three robbers all fully armed. If the man had obeyed the law, he would have been robbed and probably wounded, possibly killed. He disobeyed the law, he carried a dangerous weapon, and so made himself liable to arrest and imprisonment; but his crime enabled him to defend himself and punish his attackers, eventually having them arrested and punished.
My hon. friend, in his explanation, would justify the practice of issuing permits. He shows how important it is at certain times to carry firearms, but the effect of his bill would be to restrict the issue of permits,
The second section of the bill deals with culpable homicide. The law as it stands defines homicide in the following terms:
Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person either by an unlawful act or by an omission, without lawful excuse, to perform or observe any legal duty.
The hon. member desires to strike out the words "by an omission, without lawful excuse, to perform or observe any legal duty" and replace them with "by negligence." I submit that there would be confusion if that amendment carried, because the general term "negligence" would be much more difficult to interpret than the words "by omission without lawful excuse, to perform or observe any legal duty." I had hoped that the hon. member would cite some case or some faiets which would justify the change, and unless he does so at a later stage I must say that I cannot see my way clear to admit that this amendment would be better than is the present
statute. Section 3 proposes to add to section 1079, the following:
No person shall be acquitted of, or absolved from, a greater offence by being prosecuted, convicted or acquitted of a lesser offence.
There is no principle in criminal law more generally known or more universally upheld than that a person who has been once convicted or acquitted shall not be in peril of being convicted again of the same offence.
The criminal code provides that when an offence is punishable under more than one act or under both an act and the common law, the offender shall not be punished twice for the same offence. I would direct my hon. friend's attention to two or three sections of the criminal code which embody that principle so that he will realize the tremendous confusion which would exist if his amendment were carried. Section 950 of the criminal code recognizes the principle I have just mentioned, in stating:
When an attempt to commit an offence is charged hut the evidence establishes the commission of tlie full offence, the accused shall not be entitled to be acquitted, but the jury may convict him of the attempt, unless the court before which such trial is had thinks fit, in its discretion, to discharge the jury from giving any verdict upon such trial, and to direct such person to be indicted for the complete offence.
Section 951 provides for the conviction of an accused of any offence which is included in the one charge where the whole offence is not proved. That section relates to conviction on an offence lesser than the one charged. Section 907 provides:
On the trial of an issue on a plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict to any count or counts, if it appear that the matter on which the accused was given in charge on the former trial is the same in whole or in part as that on which it is proposed to give him in charge, and that he might on the former trial, if all proper amendments had been made which might then have been made, have been convicted of all the offences of which he may be convicted on the count or counts to which such plea is pleaded, the court shall give judgment that he be discharged from such count or counts.
Those three sections treat with the very matter which my hon. friend is dealing with, except that they treat it in an opposite way; they uphold the well known principle of criminal law which I have mentioned.
I will be very pleased to consider this trill, and the remarks of my hon. friend, who will have an opportuity of discussing my views when this bill is up again or when the government measure is brought down. For these reasons I beg to move that the debate be now adj ourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
552	COMMONS
Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Bourassa



MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the Marriage and Divorce Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in bringing forward
this matter I have one immediate object and one ultimate object in view. The immediate object is contained in the text of the bill, abrogating those clauses ,or the statute adopted in 1925, which for the first time introduced divorce as a matter of legislation for this parliament.
Mr. ADSHEAD:: For the first time?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. Previous to 1925
the federal statutes contained no divorce law. We had the Marriage Act, but in 1925 certain amendments were brought in, which now are contained in sections 4, 5 and 6 of chapter 127 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927; and the title was changed from an Act respecting Marriage, to an Act respecting Marriage and Divorce. My primary object, therefore, is to wipe out the word "divorce" from our laws; but this is only the first step, not only in the removal of what I consider to be a social evil, but in the readjustment of legislative powers as exercised by the federal and provincial parliaments.
Our constitution provides that everything relating to civil rights, to religious organizations, to education, and all such matters, shall be left in the hands of the provinces. A study of the constitutions of the various federated countries of the world will show that this principle has been generally respected elsewhere. If there is any matter intimately connected with civil rights, with social life, with religion, with religious prejudices, if you like, it is the institution of marriage. VTiether you look upon it from the Catholic or the Protestant point of view, or from the purely civil viewpoint which prevails to-day in most countries, you have to admit that the power which has to deal with the subject of marriage, has necessarily to deal with many subjects connected with civil law. Evidently that was the idea of the fathers of confederation since, in the Quebec resolution No. 29, paragraph 31, they proposed to hand over to the general parliament of Canada "marriage and divorce," without any reservation. Under resolution 43, paragraph 15, they reserved to the provinces: "Property and civil rights, excepting those portions thereof assigned to the general parliament." In this, I submit, the fathers of confederation made a grave mistake, from a purely constitutional point of view. I have looked up some of the original constitutions of the various federated countries, such as the 
United States, Germany, Switzerland and our younger sister, Australia; and I find that wherever you have the dual principle of federal government for the general interest of the country, and provincial or state autonomy to look after the local interests of the various communities composing the nation, the subject of marriage has been reserved absolutely and entirely for the exercise of provincial or state jurisdiction.
Evidently the framers of the federal pact found out their mistake and they endeavoured to correct it by committing what I consider a still worse mistake: they went to London, and there, in spite of the solemn pledge that had been taken in the parliament of United Canada that no change whatever would be made in the pact, they had those resolutions changed. Now under paragraph 26, of section 91, which defines the exclusive powers of this parliament, marriage and divorce remain within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament; but under section 92, which defines the exclusive powers of all provinces- powers, let us remember, equal, I was going to say in dignity, equal in authority to those that we exercise within our jurisdiction- subsection 12 places the solemnization of marriage under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and subsection 13 places "Property and civil rights" also under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, without the exception that had been placed in the resolution adopted at Quebec, that is, reserving the right of this parliament to deal with such matters of civil rights as could be attributed to it.
What has resulted from that abnormal and extraordinary disposition of our constitution? Everyone familiar with the jurisprudence of the various provinces knows that time and again the question was brought up before the tribunals of this country, and eventually before the judicial committee of the Privy Council, to decide where began and where ended the powers of either authority. Parliament under all governments felt so much the anomaly of that disposition, that although in the clearest and shortest clause of our constitution, the federal parliament has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce, years and years passed before parliament endeavoured to enact a single statute, a single text of law, on either marriage or divorce. It took advantage of section 129 of the British North America Act to let stand the laws which had been adopted by the provinces which formed confederation, and the jurisdictions also created by the provincial governments prior to confederation. In other words, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Upper Canada,

Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Bourassa
now Ontario, and Lower Canada, now Quebec, went on, Lower Canda with its civil code, Ontario and the two maritime provinces with their marriage laws largely based on the common law of England, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia with their jurisdiction with regard to divorce as it had been established a long time before confederation.
May I interject that in those acts, so-called divorce acts, of the maritime provinces, it was not mainly what we call divorce that was provided for, it was what the old country jurists called divorce a mensa et thoro, what we call in our French legal parlance " separation de corps et de biens". The courts likewise had jurisdiction in both matters.
When British Columbia, and later, Prince Edward Island entered confederation, the same situation arose. Prince Edward Island in 1835 had passed an act on marriage and divorce which has remained in its statutes. It had created a jurisdiction similar to that of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but let me say to the honour of the little island by the sea, it has never exercised those functions although they still exist on paper.
The case of the prairie provinces is somewhat different. As everyone knows, the provinces now called Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were annexed to Canada under the Rupert's Land Act, and committed to the legislative authority of this parliament, first of all under the British North America Act of 1867, and under its further amendment of 1871, confirming the Manitoba Act and defining still more clearly the legislative powers to be exercised by the federal parliament over those territories. In 1886, the federal parliament passed a statute, 49 Victoria, chapter 25, from which I quote the following:
The laws of England relating to civil and criminal matters, as the same existed on the fifteenth day of July, in the year of Our Lord 1870, shall be in force in the Territories, in so far as the same are applicable to the Territoriesand so on.
As you may notice, sir, no mention was made there of marriage and divorce law; but when, several years later, in 1919 to be exact, the matter was brought before the privy council in the case of Board vs Board,-a case that had arisen in the province of Alberta-the Privy Council decided that this general act from which I have just quoted had, as one of its effects, introduced the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of England, as adopted by the Imperial parliament in 1857- further evidence supported by the highest tribunal in the British empire of my contention, a moment ago, that marriage is
essentially related to civil rights; because I do not suppose that the lords of the privy council meant to say that marriage and divorce law was introduced into the North West Territories under the statutes relating to criminal law.
In Manitoba exactly the same position was created. In 1888, the federal parliament passed another statute, 51 Victoria, chapter 33, .n practically the same wording as the one which I have just quoted; and in the case of Walker vs Walker, the privy council decided, as they had done in the Alberta case, that the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 had been automatically introduced into the province of Manitoba and was in force in that province in virtue of the federal statute.
So the situation as regards seven out of the nine provinces is that there is a law of marriage and also a law of divorce, largely the same but different in some respects, in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. What should not be lost sight of is, that those laws continue to exist by the standing will of this parliament; that those jurisdictions continue to operate under the authority of this parliament; and that none of the legislatures of those provinces could amend either their marriage or their divorce laws, whether they have been adopted originally by themselves, previous to confederation, or whether they have been enacted by the will of this parliament under the statutes to which I have referred.
Likewise, the supreme court of one province, or the court of king's bench of another, as the case may be, in applying either the statutory law of the maritime provinces or the English law as introduced in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, exercise their jurisdiction under authority from this parliament; and to this parliament alone belongs the supreme responsibility for the creation and maintenance of those courts. Therefore, those who, in the province of Quebec, claim that this parliament could not suppress divorce in the seven provinces are entirely mistaken. This parliament has the same absolute and exclusive jurisdiction on the whole question of marriage and divorce in the three maritime provinces, in British Columbia, and in the three prairie provinces, as it has with respect to the same subjects in Quebec and Ontario. Nevertheless, I repeat, parliament felt, instinctively I suppose, so far as most of its members were concerned, and decisively, as regards the various ministers of justice and leading jurists who have played such a distinguished part in the public life of this country, that it was
554	COMMONS
Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Bourassa
against the spirit and the whole economy of our constitution that this parliament should deal with such matters; and that explains why, from 1867 to 1882, not only was there no federal divorce law, but likewise no federal marriage law. As far back as 1873 or 1875,-I am not sure as to the date-Mr. Desire Girouard, later on a member of this parliament, then a judge of the supreme court of Canada, and one of the leading jurists of Quebec most versed in these matters, called the attention of the population of Quebec to certain anomalies existing in our civil code; but, as he pointed out, it was no longer to Quebec but to Ottawa that we had to go to remedy such evils in our civil code as ought to be corrected. This gentleman, Mr. Girouard, was elected to sit in parliament, and what did he do? For years and years, he had to put up a fight-as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is now doing in another aspect of the same question-before he secured, in 1882, the first marriage act passed by this parliament, under which the marriage of a widower with the sister of his deceased wife was made legal. It took eight years more before this parliament decided to pass a second marriage act, making legal the marriage of a widower with the daughter of his deceased wife's sister. Then it took thirty-three y Mrs more before this parliament decided that "a marriage is not invalid merely because the man is a brother of a deceased husband of the woman or is a son of such brother." So that in sixty-three years of the exercise of its functions, the federal parliament of Canada has passed only these three acts- although it has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction in the whole matter of marriage-with respect to these three points which are contained in sections 2 and 3 of the Marriage and Divorce Act as it stands to-day, under chapter 127 of our revised statutes.
This shows conclusively, Mr. Speaker, that this parliament realizes how unfit it is to deal with these matters, and that the various provincial legislatures, which know the needs of their population, their turn of mind and their social life, are the most fit bodies to exercise their authority in these matters. En passant, I might say the very same thing about education; and if this house were prepared to rectify that disposition of our constitution which separates in such a ridiculous manner jurisdiction over marriage, and would turn the whole matter over to the provinces,
I for my part would be prepared to wipe out that equally absurd clause 93 of the British North America Act, which has given rise to so much trouble, political turmoil, and pr-eju-

dice as between province and province, as between race and race, and creed and creed. This parliament has enough to do in performing its normal functions of administering the general affairs of the country and looking after the external relations of Canada with the rest of the world, -without going into the intimacy of the home, into the inner aspects of the affairs of the community, into the internal economy of the province. I repeat, it is against the spirit of the constitution; and therefore the measure which I propose to-day is only the first step to be taken to bring matters back to their normal position.
During the famous debates over the Manitoba school question- which took place in the old House -of Commons between 1891 and 1896-before your time, Mr. Speaker, and my time'

may I say that I listened from the old press gallery to a speech which, to my mind, went to the crux of the situation? The most illuminating study of the subject was by the late Doctor Weldon, one of the most distinguished men. of the maritime provinces, who- then represented the county of Albert- a staunch Conservative, but a broadminded man, who opposed the remedial bill, not on account of the claims of the Catholics or the counter claims of the Orangemen, but as he said, because he did not believe in. the efficacy of legislation passed against the spirit of the constitution upon which rested the very power which enacted a law which that same body was incapable of putting into force. That was, I thought, the strongest argument in the issue. And may I say that, in my bumble way, although a staunch Roman Catholic and convinced that my fellow believers in the Catholic faith were put under duress and suffered an injustice at the hands of the Manitoba government, the position I took in my constituency when I ran for parliament for the first time was this: I want to do all I can to help our people in Manitoba, but within the four corners of the constitution- not of the letter, ibut of the spirit of the constitution-and I would rather appeal to the sense of fair play of the people in the west than ask for a law voted in Ottawa which will be inoperative in Winnipeg.
Similarly, I hold that this parliament has no moral jurisdiction to legislate on matters of divorce, that iwe should realize it, and that al-1 the fair and broadminded men in this house, irrespective of creed or party, should prepare themselves and prepare public opinion for an amendment of the constitution which will place back those matters where they should have been left sixty years ago.

Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Bourassa
Again, I was struck very much by the argument presented before the supreme court when this parliament referred to that august body, the highest tribunal in the land, the so-called Lancaster bill. Those members of the house who have forgotten the facts may wish to have their memory refreshed. A member of this house, Mr. Lancaster, had introduced a bill to declare that certain .marriages, possibly held invalid under the civil code of Quebec, should be declared valid by this parliament.
I pass over all the issues that were brought before the court. The book which contains the pleas offered on both sides, as well as the opinions expressed by the judges, constitute to my mind one of the monuments not only of Canadian jurisprudence but of modern jurisprudence. I know nothing in the annals of the judicial committee of the privy council, nor of the court of Cassation in Paris, that surpasses those pleas and those opinions in legal learning and in breadth of mind. Naturally my sympathies were and remain on the side which was so aibly presented by Mr. Migneault, later on a member of that tribunal. But I must say, that, from the purely judicial point of view, the strength of argument was on the other side; and the case as presented by Mr. Eugene Lafleur and by Mr. Wallace Nesbitit-wrong as they were, I think, in endeavouring to sustain the validity of the Lancaster bill-were absolutely sound and were held good, both in Ottawa and in London, when they proved conclusively that it was impossible to make that dual jurisdiction work harmoniously. Mr. Nesbitt made one of the strongest points when he demonstrated that any provincial legislature, in the exercise of its undoubted powers of legislation, could pass laws relating to property, to civil rights, to the care of children-all things that we cannot touch in this parliament-the effect of which would be to render impossible communal life between two parties married undeT the authority of this parliament. Nothing in my humble judgment could better demonstrate the basic absurdity of this system.
Now, with the exception of those three little bits of law relating to marriage, I repeat, this parliament has been sensible enough not to exercise its powers. But are we going to leave it at that? Are we going still to hamper the various provinces in the exercise of what I consider to be undoubtedly their moral right to legislate on marriage? Are we going to prevent the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, or the province of New Brunswick, or the province of Saskatchewan from passing laws which they think necessary for the governing of matrimonial rights?


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question at this point? Do I understand him to be arguing that the clauses in this bill to be repealed should be repealed on the ground that they are unconstitutional?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, no, that is not the point. The broad basis of my argument is this, that whether in relation to divorce or in relation to marriage, this parliament is not only morally and socially unfit, but it is constitutionally unfit to legislate, if you go to the root of the question, and if you look to the spirit and not only to the letter of the constitution. And I say the evidence is that parliament has recognized so well its organic incapacity, that in spite of the numerous complaints arising at times from one province or another, it has never amended the marriage laws of any of the provinces, except in these three small instances that I have mentioned.
May I say with regard to divorce, that I reserve to myself the right, when later on I bring before the house the motion of which I have given notice, to go deeper into the question; but I say divorce-


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say this parliament is not fit to deal with this matter? If so, what legislative body is fit to do so?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The provinces. I argued that three years ago, I argued it two years ago, I argued it last session, and I am arguing it again now. I hope my hon. friend will understand my position. Of course, under the constitution as it stands, the provinces are prevented from dealing with the subject; but using its common sense, parliament did not exercise its constitutional right to deal with it, except in the spasmodic way that it has done so far. Likewise with divorce. Is it not ridiculous, when we open those two big books of the revised statutes of Canada dealing at length with thousands of matters to find that when it comes to what is the most important matter for the social life of any country-a matter that has concerned priesthood and statecraft for centuries and centuries, the most difficult question treated by the famous Con-seil d'Etat of France, which produced that masterpiece of legislation, in point of form, the Code Napoleon, a matter which has evoked such marvellous legal dissertations in the English parliament at the time of the adoption of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act-I say, is it not ridiculous to find that in this great country of Canada which claims that it needs population, and therefore where the matrimonial problem is still more intimately connected than elsewhere with the
556	COMMONS
Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Bourassa
national life, that the whole exercise of our powers of legislation relate to the marriage of a widower with his sister-in-law or with a niece by alliance, and as to divorce proceedings to be taken before certain courts in western Canada? That is the whole of our national legislation in this matter. Is not this clear evidence that this parliament realizes its unfitness? I pay tribute to the common sense of this parliament in refusing to legislate in these matters, and I make an appeal to the common sense of the members of this house, and I commend this bill, not because of its intrinsic merits but because it is the first step in what I consider to be the right direction.
The second step will be to put an end to the ever increasing flow of petitions to this parliament, to secure by private legislation what we refuse to do by public legislation. I do not want to speak now on that aspect of the question.
The third thing to be done, and one which, to my mind, commends itself to the sound judgment of all true Canadians, would be to prepare an amendment to our constitution, so that this question of marriage-intimately connected as it is with all civilization, with property, with the care of children, with the fate of women separated either by divorce or by some judicial separation from their husbands-will be dealt with in the proper spirit. The manner in which we exercise our jurisdiction in the matter is a social crime. And it is not our fault. It is the original fault of the constitution which enables us, and, so far as Quebec and Ontario are concerned, seemingly forces us to dissolve marriages, by hundreds every year, and prevents us from doing the most elementary justice to the women or to the men of the country-because there are cases where the man has to be pitied just as much if not more than the woman. But let us remember especially the children. To them we are unable to do elementary justice, because that phase of the question is in the hands of nine other powers. We are able to do one end of the business badly, but we are unable to finish the business by at least reforming or getting rid of some of the evil consequences of what we do.
It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I commend this bill to the attention of the house. In summing up my argument, I repeat that, owing to the main error of the fathers of confederation, we have in our constitution a noxious separation of power between the federal government and the provinces with regard to marriage and divorce, and, secondly, with regard to education. I submit that in British-like fashion we should commence by

first correcting one error, and with that object in view I commend this bill to the attentive care of the house.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I suppose, if the hon. gentleman is to attain his end, we shall have to amend the British North America Act?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That would be my
ultimate end, yes.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I followed my hon.
friend's argument with some care. Is it not a fact, then that the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and defeated in this house, was very much in harmony with the underlying principles enunciated this afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) in relinquishing control over certain matters?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My answer is very simple. You cannot disconnect-and that was another argument made by Mr. Nesbitt before the supreme court-the question of divorce from that of marriage. Divorce is an exceptional negation of marriage; and therefore we should not begin at the end and empower new provinces to deal with divorce unless we first empower them to deal with marriage.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), stated in opening that the bill which he iproiposes to the house is a very simple one to understand. Notwithstanding that statement, I think it will be of interest to the hon. members of the house if I explain wihat will be the effect of the enactment ctf this measure. I do not think that the bill is quite as simple as the hon. member for Labelle suggests. I .therefore ask your indulgence and that of the house while I endeavour to set out what the state of the few as to divorce was in the various provinces of Canada at the time of confederation, what changes in the law were made by the Divorce Act of 1925, and wihat will be the effect if this bill is passed by the house.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Divorce Act of 1925, which was passed by this parliament for the purpose of putting the two sexes on a basis of equality, in so far as divorce is concerned, in the four western provinces of Canada. Prior to and at the time of confederation, each of the maritime provinces had its own divorce law, and its own courts having jurisdiction to grant divorce. In the province of Nova Scotia the grounds of divorce at the time Of confederation were adultery, impotence, cruelty or consanguinity. In the province of New Brunswick, divorce might be obtained on the ground of adultery, impotence or consanguinity

Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Thorson
and in the province oif Prince Edward Island the grounds of divorce were the same as those that obtained in the province of New Brunswick.
That was the situation in those three provinces when they entered confederation; both sexes were on a basis of equality in so far as the grounds for divorce were concerned. The husband was treated in exactly the same way as the wife. There was a single standard of .marital morality and not a double standard such as existed in western Canada up to the passing of the Divorce Act of 1925.
In the province of Quebec there are no courts having jurisdiction to grant divorce and there is no divorce law, as such, in that province. Nor are there any courts in the province of Ontario having jurisdiction to grant divorce, and there is no general law of divorce applicable to the province of Ontario. The result is that persons domiciled in either of these two provinces who wish to obtain a divorce must come to this parliament and obtain a private act of parliament dissolving their marriage.
The hon. member forLabelle (Mr. Bourassa) put the constitutional position of this house very clearly and very forcefully before the house. This parliament and this parliament alone has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of divorce. It can decree divorce upon any ground whatsoever. It has been the practice of parliament however to confine its private acts of divorce to certain well known grounds, namely, that of adultery, and husband and wife have been treated alike so far as the grounds for divorce are concerned.
When we come to the western provinces, the situation is very different indeed. For a long time after their entry into confederation it was assumed, and the courts so held, that the western provinces of Canada had no divorce law and that the courts of those provinces had no jurisdiction to grant divorce. Consequently, persons domiciled in any of those provinces had to come to this parliament if they wished to obtain a divorce. As the result of a great deal of legal research and the scholarly studies of certain well known barristers in Manitoba, one of whom is now Mr. Justice Donovan of the Court of King's Bench of the province of Manitoba, it was discovered that the province of Manitoba did have a divorce law, and that the court of King's Bench of Manitoba did have jurisdiction to grant divorce. The judicial committee of the Privy Council so held in the famous case of Walker vs. Walker. Similarly it has been decided that the courts of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have jurisdiction to grant divorce.
The reason for that jurisdiction is that the three western provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, take as their basic law the law of England as it stood on the 15th day of July, 1870, in so far as it may be applicable. That is the law of these three provinces, except in so far as it may have been altered by the provincial legislatures or the federal parliament, each acting within the scope of their respective jurisdictions. The law of British Columbia, when it was first constituted as a province, was the law of England as it stood on the 19th day of November, 1858, in so far as it might be applicable. What was the law of England on the subject of divorce at that time? Prior to 1857 there was no general divorce law in England, and any person who wished to obtain a divorce had to obtain a private act of parliament, just as those who now live in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have to come to the Canadian parliament. In 1857, however, the parliament of Great Britain passed what is known as the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, which act, for the first time, conferred jurisdiction upon the courts to grant divorce.
The important section of that act reads as follows:
It shall be lawful for any husband to present a petition to the said court, praying that his marriage may be dissolved, on the ground that his wife has since the celebration thereof, been guilty of adultery; and it shall be lawful for any wife to present a petition to the said court, praying that her marriage may be dissolved, on the ground that since the celebration thereof her husband has been guilty of incestuous adultery-[DOT]
Not adultery alone, mark you, but incestuous adultery.
-or bigamy with adultery, or of rape, or of sodomy, or bestiality or of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entiled her to a divorce a mensa et thoro, or of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards; and every such petition shall state as distinctly as the nature of the case permits the facts on which the claim to have such marriage dissolved is founded; provided that for- the purposes of this act incestuous adultery shall be taken to mean adultery committed by a husband with a woman with whom if his wife were dead he could not lawfully contract marriage by reason of her being within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity; and bigamy shall be taken to mean marriage of any person, being married, to any other person during the life of the former husband or W'ife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place within the dominions of Her Majesty or elsewhere.
Note the position in which this act of 1857 placed the husband and wife respectively. It draws a very great distinction between their re-
55S

Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Thorson
spective rights in the matter of divorce. Under the provisions of this act, if the husband wished to obtain a divorce from his wife all that he was required to prove was that his wife had been guilty of adultery after the celebration of the marriage. The wife, however, was not in that position. She could not obtain a divorce from her husband upon the ground of his adultery; he could commit adultery as often as he liked and with as many women as he liked, and his wife could not obtain a divorce from him so long as he was not also guilty of some other offence. In addition to proving adultery on the part of the husband, the wife had to prove that her husband had also been guilty of either incest, bigamy, rape, sodomy, bestiality, cruelty, or desertion without reasonable excuse for a period of two years or upwards. That was the law enacted by the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, and under that law, as enacted in England, the double standard of morality was set up, with regard to the marital relationship. That was the law with respect to the subject of divorce, that the four western provinces of Canada inherited upon their entry into confederation, and that remained the law of those provinces until 1925, because they had the law of England as the basis of their law, including the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857.
Several reasons were given for the double standard of marital morality set up by this act of 1857. The first, and probably the chief reason, was that the act was passed by man; for woman, who according to the early concepts of English law was something very much in the nature of a chattel owned by her husband, had no say whatever in the making of that law. A further reason was advanced for the double standard of marital morality, namely that it was more serious for the wife than it was for the husband to be guilty of adultery, because adultery on the part of the wife might have the unfortunate consequence of introducing illegitimate offspring into the family and the husband might have to support such offspring. Whatever the reasons may have been for the double standard of marital morality, such was the result of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, and that was the law of the four western provinces of Canada. That may again be the iniquitous state of the law in those provinces if the bill now before the house is passed.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I ask the
hon. member-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I would prefer to submit to questions afterwards, if my hon. friend will permit me.
Does any member of this house wish to reintroduce into western Canada that iniquitous state of affairs?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Every member of this
house who votes for this bill answers the question which I have just put in the affirmative because according to one view, that will be the consequence and the result of the adoption of this nroposed legislation.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this iniquitous state of affairs existed only in the four western provinces of Canada; it had no application whatsoever to the maritime provinces because in those three provinces the sexes were placed upon a status of equality in so far as divorce was concerned; it had no application to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec because the residents of those provinces came to this parliament for relief, and parliament placed both sexes on a status of equality. The change in the law of the western provinces was brought about through the efforts of Mr. J. T. Shaw, the predecessor in this house of the bon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). On March 19, 1924, Mr. Shaw moved the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, legislation should be introduced in order to place the wife on an equality with the husband as regards the grounds upon which divorce may be obtained.
A very interesting debate followed the introduction of that resolution. During the debate Mr. Shaw mentioned that the law of England had been changed from that which had obtained under the provisions of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, the change having taken place in 1923 as a result of the report of a special commission appointed by the parliament of Great Britain to look into the question of divorce and report back to it. In the course of its report that commission made the following very interesting statement:
Apart from abstract justice the strongest reason for placing sexes on an equality is that, *where two standards exist, there is a tendency to accept the lower for both parties. The social and economic position of women has greatly changed in the last hundred, and even in the last fifty years. The Married Women's Property Act, 1882, has given them a new status in regard to property; they engage freely in business and in the professions, and in municipal, educational and Poor Law administrations, and claim equality of treatment with men. In our opinion it is impossible to maintain a different standard of morality in the marriage relations, without creating the impression that justice is

Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Thorson
denied to women, an impression that must tend to lower the respect in which the marriage law is held by women.
The commission made the following recommendation :
Our conclusion is that no satisfactory solution of the problem -which is raised as to the personal relations between husband and wife can be found, except by placing them on an equal footing, and by declaring that, whatever grounds are permitted to a husband for obtaining a divorce from his wife, the same grounds shall be available to a wife in a suit against her husband. It may be safely left to a woman to consider whether she will exercise her rights, and it may reasonably be expected that, as has been proved by actual experience in Scotland, physical, social, pecuniary, and other considerations will have their natural effect, and lead to such rights not being exercised, at any rate in the great majority of cases, without such good and sufficient reason as will meet with the approval of relations and friends of the wife.
As the result of the adoption of that report, the parliament of Great Britain amended the legislation of 1857 by enacting in 1923 a law amending the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857. The important section of the amending act of 1923 reads as follows:
2. It shall be lawful for any wife to present a petition to the court praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that her husband, has, since the celebration thereof and since the passing of this act been guilty of adultery:	Provided that nothing contained
*herein shall affect or take away any right of any wife, existing immediately before the passing of the act.
The resolution introduced by Mr. Shaw in 1924 was dropped by him upon his receiving an assurance from one of the ministers of the crown that consideration would be given to a bill which would be introduced by him during the session. Mr. Shaw did introduce a bill for the purpose of carrying out the objects of his resolution, and that bill received its first reading on March 28, 1924, but it was never reached again during that session. In 1925 Mr. Shaw introduced into the house Bill No. 4, which contained the legislation which this bill now seeks to repeal. The bill introduced by Mr. Shaw was enacted as the Divorce Act, being chapter 41 of the statutes of Canada, 1925. Section 2 of that act reads as follows:
In any court having jurisdiction to grant divorce a vinculo matrimonii any wife may commence an action praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that her husband has since the celebration thereof been guilty of adultery.
For the first time in the history of the western provinces the husband and the wife were placed in a position of equality with one another in so far as the grounds for divorce
were concerned. The purpose of the bill now before the house is to repeal that legislation of 1925.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to discuss what will be the result if this bill now before the house should pass. There are two views that may be taken of this matter, and I will deal with both of them very briefly. No matter which view is the correct one in law, the result to my mind would be very detrimental. One view which might be taken is that if the legislation of 1925 were repealed, the law previously in force in the western provinces with regard to divorce would be restored. If that view is correct the result would be that this house would again impose on the four western provinces of Canada the double standard of marital morality. It would be permissible once more for the husband to be guilty of adultery as often as he liked without his wife having the right to file a petition against him for divorce in the provincial courts. So long as he had not been guilty of any of the other acts to which I referred a moment ago and which by the old law were a necessary part of the cause of action of the wife, he would be free from any action on her part. On the other hand the husband would be able to divorce his wife simply upon the ground of her adultery. I do not believe that any member of this house would wish to reimpose upon the women of western Canada that double standard of morality in so far as the marital relationships are concerned. We accomplished a great deal in 1925 when Mr. Shaw's bill passed the house. We put the two sexes upon that basis of equality upon which they should always have been placed. Why should we throw away the results of our efforts? In my opinion this is an iniquitous and absolutely unjust bill and it should be rejected by the house.
There is another view that may be taken as to the result of this bill, if it should be enacted, and I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to bear with me for a moment while I endeavour to elaborate it. This is the view in which I am inclined to concur as being the true legal result of the enactment of the bill. This bill, if enacted, will be a repeal of the Divorce Act of 1925. What will be the effect of the repeal of that statute? It may be argued that the effect of repealing this statute will be to revive the preexisting law. I do not agree with that proposition. The result will be worse than that in so far as the married women of western Canada are concerned. The result of this bill, if it should pass, will be that the husband will continue to have the right to go to the divorce courts of 'he provi60

Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Thorson
inces of western Canada and obtain a divorce there upon the ground of adultery committed by his wife subsequently to the celebration of the marriage, but the wife will not be able to get a divorce at all, on any grounds, in any of the courts of the provinces of western Canada. She will have to come to this parliament in order to obtain a divorce. That will be the result.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If the hon. member for
East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) will follow me for a moment, I think he will agree with me when I have concluded my argument. It was laid down for a long time that the repeal of a statute did not revive the law that was in force at the time when the repealed statute was enacted. That rule was given statutory effect first in what, if my memory serves me aright, was called Lord Brougham's Act. At any rate, it is part of our own statutes and is set out in the Interpretation Act, section 19 of which enacts as follows:
Where any act or enactment is repealed, or where any regulation is revoked, then, unless the contrary intention appears, such repeal or revocation shall not, save as in this section otherwise provided,
(a) revive any act, enactment, regulation or thing not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal or revocation takes effect.
In other words, the repeal of the Divorce Act of 1925 will not revive the divorce law that existed in the four western provinces immediately prior to 1926.
The Divorce Act of 1925 repealed the existing law of divorce so far as western Canada was concerned, in so far as it related to the rights of the wife. It did not deal at all with the position or status of the husband. Consequently, when the Divorce Act of 1925 came into effect, it was the whole law on the subject with regard to the position of the wife. The provisions of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 were no longer in force so far as the wife was concerned. Consequently, if we repeal the Divorce Act of 1925, the wife has nothing left. The result will be that the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 is in force in the four western provinces in so far as the husbands are concerned, but there is no law of divorce whatever in so far as the wives are concerned. Therefore, the husbands may continue to go to the courts of the western provinces and obtain divorces, but the wives must come to this parliament. Does anyone intend to pass legislation of that sort, drawing that distinction between men and women? That, I think, would be the result of the proposed legislation.
TMr. Thorson.]
It has only to be stated to the house to condemn it absolutely and entirely in the minds of hon. members.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) speaks frequently in the house with regard to matters of great national interest, and as a rule I may say that I find myself largely in agreement with what he says. But with deference to him and with the respect which is due from a younger to an older man, I do not agree with him as to his suggestion that the whole field of the marriage relationship should be assigned to the provinces. I think a transfer of jurisdiction of the nature which he suggests would be dangerous to the family, and therefore dangerous to the state. I do not agree that marriage is entirely a matter of civil rights. Surely those who believe in the sanctity of marriage, who believe in the family as the very keystone of the nation, must realize that there is more than merely civil right in marriage and the marriage status.
The constitutional position was very clearly put by the hon. member for Labelle. In respect of marriage and divorce parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to pass such legislation as it may desire, but out of that large field of jurisdiction there is carved what might be called a smaller field of jurisdiction, namely, that field which is called solemnization of marriage. The hon. member for Labelle spoke of that as being an absurd distribution of the field of legislation. With deference to him, I am of opinion that it was a very wise distribution of the field, because it took into consideration two varying concepts of marriage, particularly as regards the marriage ceremony. To some the marriage ceremony is nothing more than a civil contract, resulting of course, in a special status to the parties to that marriage. Many others in Canada regard the celebration of marriage as something more than a civil contract. They regard it as a sacrament. That difference of viewpoint, I suggest, was one of the reasons for assigning the field of jurisdiction relating to the solemnization of marriage to the provinces, so that they might enact such legislation as they desired in that regard.
With respect to jurisdiction as to the validity of marriage and jurisdiction as to divorce,
I think it is in the interests of Canada at large, as a nation, that that jurisdiction should continue to be vested in this parliament. Marriage is a matter of national interest and concern and divorce is a matter in which the nation at large is interested. It is not. a matter of local and provincial concern; it is a matter of national moment. My opinion, therefore, and I suggest it for what it is worth,

Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Church
is that the safety of the family and its continued sanctity as the very keystone of the nation is better safeguarded in this parliament than it would be if we were to assign jurisdiction over marriage and divorce to the various provinces. One province might have lax views with regard to divorce, and other provinces might enact divorce legislation that did not meet with general approval; but so long as the field of divorce jurisdiction rests with this parliament, I think that Canada may rest reasonably certain that the question will be dealt with in full appreciation of the national importance. of marriage and the family tie. I submit therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it would be injurious to the Canadian nation if jurisdiction over marriage and divorce were transferred from the federal parliament and were assigned to the provincial legislatures. The sanctity of the family as the central institution of the state is in better hands in this parliament than it would be if it were in the hands of the provinces. I cannot relinquish the view that marriage is a matter of national concern, and is not a matter of purely local or provincial interest. If it is a matter of national concern where does jurisdiction with regard to it more rightly belong than in the national parliament?
We have had a great deal of discussion on the subject of divorce this session and in the session preceding. All that discussion has been beneficial, I think m arousing the people of this country to the situation that exists. Those who voted for the divorce bill presented recently by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) are no less anxious to preserve the institution of marriage as one of fundamental institutions of the state than those who voted against it. Those who voted for the bill realized that divorce is an evil but that it is an institution which exists in Canada and was in existence in some of the provinces even before confederation. That is the situation. Then is it not the duty of this parliament to consider ways and means for administering the law of divorce as justly and as soundly as it is possible to do? That is the position of those who voted for the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We appreciate the views of many of the hon. members of this house who voted against the bill, their devotion to their church and their adherence to the principles laid down by their church. We respect their views and do not seek in any way to override them. We have our own views as to what is the proper machinery for dealing with the situation that actually does exist, and we cast our votes accordingly.
I have spoken at greater length perhaps than I ought to have done, but I desired to place before the house exactly what the purpose of this bill was. and what the consequences would be if it were enacted. I suggest to you in closing, Mr. Speaker, that the bill will not accomplish the purpose which the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) set forth, but that it will bring about a state of injustice to the married women of western Canada. I therefore urge that it ought not to be permitted to pass this honourable house.


Thomas Langton Church: There are three provinces which have not divorce courts at the present time, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. When Ontario entered confederation, divorce was accepted as a principle of confederation. When the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) came before the house last year, I urged that it should stand over for a year because the matter had not been discussed by any of the social or church organizations or the synods or the legislature of the province of Ontario, and I thought it would be well to learn the opinions of these organizations first. In the meantime the Anglican synod has passed a strong resolution in favour of a divorce court for Ontario, and so have the bar association.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who has brought the present bill before the house, seems to have been very solicitous of the welfare of Ontario in the last year or two. I want to say to him that this bill will abolish divorce altogether for the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, because it will convert chapter 127 of the revised statutes, known as an Act Respecting Marriage and Divorce, into a straight marriage act. His bill is really ultra vires of this parliament because under subsection 12 of section 92 of the British North America Act the solemnization of marriage comes exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. The hon. member for Labelle might just as well try to give Ontario a new education act as to try to dictate to Ontario what it shall do in a matter respecting purely civil rights in the province, namely marriage and divorce. This bill goes beyond the powers of this parliament. I think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) deserves some credit for again bringing up his bill for a divorce court for Ontario. The people of the province of Ontario, like the people of other provinces, want to manage their own home affairs without any dictation from the other provinces. Divorce and education are local matters that should be left to the provinces to deal with. Who is asking for this

562	COMMONS
Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Lapointe
particular bill in Ontario? Who wants to abolish divorce altogether in this province? Can the hon. member for Labelle name one organization in Ontario that is asking for his bill? To-day only the comparatively rich man in Ontario can obtain a divorce. I think this bill goes altogether too far, and I do not believe the people of Ontario will thank the member for Labelle for his assistance and advice. I think it would be far better if he would devote his attention to his own province regarding this particular matter. The next thing we know he will be giving Ontario a new separate school system! Let me tell him that the Catholics and Protestants of the city of Toronto all agree together and are all good citizens helping to build up a prosperous province.
I should Like to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on the question whether this parliament can do away with divorce, which was a contract made at confederation with the province of Ontario and the other provinces. At that time the principle of divorce was accepted, and this parliament was chosen as the body to deal with it. During the blockade of divorce bills last session the Prime Minister said that at this session the government would lay down a policy on this question of divorce. What is the policy of the government, and when are they to announce it? Are we going to have another blockade of divorce bills this session? The province of Ontario wants to manage its own home affairs without dictation from the hon. member for Labelle. He has no right to interfere with the educational system of the province of Ontario, and he has no right to seek to abolish divorce, which was accepted as a principle by Ontario and the other provinces at confederation. I think that before many days are over there will be a very strong expression of opinion in Ontario in favour of	the bill	for	the	dissolution	of
marriage.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I desire to say that I agree fully with both the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and my hon. frieind from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) as to t'he jurisdiction of this parliament in divorce matters. As both these gentlemen	have stated,	the	parliament	ofCanada under the constitution is the only legislature which can deal with- the question of divorce; but, as I stated the. other night, it does not follow	that	the	parliament	ofCanada is	bound to	deal	with	divorce either
by granting divorce by way of private legislation or by establishing divorce courts in

the provinces. I fancy the purpose of my hon. friend from Labelle in introducing this bill is to leave matters as they were prior to the session of 1625; that is, until that date there was no public legislation on our statute books concerning divorce.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Although under the constitution divorce is one of the subjects within the jurisdiction, of the federal parliament, this parliament at no time since confederation had enacted any statute to deal with divorce. Each application for divorce as it came here was considered on its merits and dealt with by a private bill. It was really a privilege granted to the parties. The bill of 1925 for the first time placed in the public legislation of Canada a statute dealing with divorce. At the time I took the position that I was opposed to the bill because of that fact, and also because I believed divorce to be a social evil. I believed then-as I believe today-that with that principle as a basis I could not consistently favour any measure which had the effect of increasing the. grounds of or the facilities for divorce. If I believe that some food is a poison, surely I cannot vote for any regulation for the distribution of that poison. That was my reason then; that is my reason to-day.
I fully agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre as to the legal effect of the British legislation on divorce as it is to be applied in the three western provinces. Under the present law, it is the old Matrimonial Causes Act of England, enacted in 1857, with the amendments which have been made to that legislation from 1857 to 1870, which applies there. My hon. friend is quite right when he says that under that legislation the wife is not placed in, the same position as the husband as far as the grounds of divorce are concerned. That was the purpose of the bill introduced by the former member for Calgary, to correct what he thought was an anomaly, and that bill became law in 1925.
Now, my hon. friend from Labelle wants to have the only public legislation on divorce disappear from the statutes of Canada. Those of us who were opposed to that legislation in 1925, even my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre will admit, cannot but vote for the bill as introduced) in this house. But he says this bill, if it becomes law, will have the effect of repealing the legislation of 1925, but that the old situation, will not be revived, because, he says, the former legislation was repealed by that act. Well, I cannot agree

Marriage and Divorce-Miss Macphail
with my hon. friend in that regard. The act of 1925 had not the effect of repealing the old legislation in any way, far from it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I ask the hon. minister a question? The act of 1925 does not in so many words repeal the pre-existing legislation; but does it not by necessary implication reipeal the old law in so far as it affects married women?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is quite wrong, because the last section of that act removes any implication that might have been made. The mover of the bill took the trouble to enact a special section.
Nothing contained in the two last preceding sections shall affect, restrict, or take away any right of any wife existing before the 27th day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: But that section is also repealed by this bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, the argument of my hon. friend that that bill did repeal the old situation does not exist, because it did not repeal the old situation. It merely enlarged it. The situation of the wife will remain exactly what it was at the time before it was enlarged. That situation did not disappear as the result of the statute of 1925. The statute of 1925 merely added something to what existed then. That addition will disappear but the old condition will remain.
I do not think I have anything to add, Mr. Speaker, except perhaps with regard to the suggestion that this matter be left to the provinces. That is a debatable question. My hon. friend from Labelle seems to suggest that the subject of marriage and divorce should have been left to the provinces.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Marriage.


Ernest Lapointe: Marriage and divorce.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Marriage.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) thinks that it would be a calamity. Well, I must admit that the question is certainly deserving of consideration. This is something that exists in many other federal states, and while I would not like to express any view on the matter at the present time, I think, as I say, it certainly is deserving of consideration.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I believe that the
acknowledgment of equality between men and women is much more important than whether or not the federal statutes will show a certain bill dealing with divorce. I am surprised-and 2419-364
I think it would not be too strong a word to use if I said I am amazed-that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) should ask this parliament to turn backward. I have often thought that parliament moved rather slowly in the right direction, but it is seldom that parliament doubles back on the path it has already gone over, and that is, in effect, what the hon. member for Labelle is asking us to do-to undo what we finally accomplished in 1925, namely the putting of the women of the four western provinces on the same ground as men in regard to divorce.
I feel quite sure that this house will defeat the bill. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but I do feel that an hon. member from another province is taking a good deal of responsibility upon himself to introduce a bill which, if carried into effect, would take from the women of the four western provinces in Canada rights which they so lately and so hardly won. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) made the case so clear that anybody who to-day believes, as I believe, that progressive happiness rests upon equality between the sexes, could not possibly support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Labelle. I believe, when I say that, that most members in this house will vote against the bill. There are a number of members in this house who time and time again have said how evil they think divorce is, and there have been possibly not insinuations but a feeling that those of us who want a divorce court in Ontario are in favour of divorce. Well, I will say this: Divorce has increased, and I believe will continue to increase, because as women win for themselves the right to earn a living, when they win for themselves the right not to endure that which no human being should be asked to endure, they are then in a position where they can apply for divorce if the grounds are there. And they will, because they see economic safety outside. Formerly that was not the case. And so divorce has increased, and has increased very largely, because woman has become a person in the fullest sense of the word, a person who can support hersef, and one who does not care to have anyone think of her as less than that. I would not for one moment support a bill that would seem to say that women were inferior to men, and I say that with some warmth.


Mr. E. A. McPHERSON (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I think the case has
been thoroughly discussed pro and con, so far as this bill is concerned, and I need hardly take up the time of the house in discussing
-564	COMMONS
Marriage and Divorce-Mr. McPherson
it. However, on an occasion of this kind it is, 1 think, fitting that those who are most affected by the legislation should express their views, and this proposed bill is one, I submit, that realy affects only the four western provinces. As a representative of one of those provinces I will endeavour, in a few words, to express my own views in the matter.
As I understand the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), his main reason for bringing in the proposed legislation is that he believes that this house should not deal with marriage or divorce, either from a moral or a constitutional standpoint. His long membership in the house certainly puts him in a better position to pass judgment from the moral standpoint, and perhaps his long experience as a legislator gives him also additional authority from a constitutional standpoint, but I submit that if he were logical in the arguments which he has advanced to-day and the grounds upon which he asks for the support of this proposed legislation, then the bill should have been for the total repeal of the whole act and not of three sections only. He is leaving part of the legislation previously passed by parliament and cancelling or repealing three sections, and those three sections affect only the four western provinces.
I am not now going to discuss the question of divorce, because I do not think it is the time or place for it. I do not think it is a question that is before the house, nor do I think the question whether or not this house should legislate on divorce is before us. The question, in my estimation, boils down to this: The house has put certain legislation on the statute book which affects a certain portion of this Dominion, and the question now is, Shall we repeal it or not? While I am inclined to think that a question dealing with marriage and divorce should be handled by this house, in order to make it uniform throughout the whole of the Dominion, yet, leaving that argument to one side for the moment, I am opposed to this bill, on one ground which is sufficient for me, namely, that I see no reason why a man in this country, or in those four provinces, should have any rights that a woman has not. In fact, in a matter of this kind, where the woman is naturally in the weaker position, if there should be any consideration given at all it should be given to the woman in the case, and her grounds for divorce should be made easier than the man's, if there be any distinction at all. But I submit there should not; therefore, this bill has only one effect; it does not deal with the question of divorce; it does not deal with the question of the right of this parliament to fMr. McPherson.]
deal with marriage and divorce. It deals only with one part of the matter; that part is detrimental to the women of this country, and being detrimental to them it is detrimental to the whole of this country.
For that reason I strongly oppose the passage of this bill, and I may go even further than that. We have been in rather an embarrassing position in this house in regard to divorce, because of our private views, our religious opinions, and our sectional representation, but if there are any members of parliament from the western provinces who are opposed to this measure, they should so express themselves in order that the members of the house may know exactly what the people of the west think about it. I repeat that this matter is practically restricted to the four western provinces, and I believe the members from those provinces should indicate what they desire.
Personally I am opposed to the repeal of this legislation. Such action would be improper and most unfair.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, my name has been mentioned as seconder of this motion, and I desire to give an explanation of my position with regard to the matter. I was here in 1924 and 1925, and I know under what circumstances the act now proposed to be amended was passed. There was a feeling at that time that women should be placed on the same footing as men, and that if there were reason to grant divorces to men, the same reasons should apply to women. But I am opposed to divorce, as I have been during the past thirty years. I said in this house that I opposed it then, and I am opposing it now, not because I want to be unfair to the women or show favour to the men, but because I believe divorce is a source of evil.
I want to protest against the idea which seems to have grown up in this house that we are here to legislate for the provinces. A member of this house when elected to parliament ceases to be a representative of his own province or his own constituency. He becomes a member for the Dominion parliament, and each member represents every part of this Dominion as much as he represents his own constituency. We have the right, if legislation has proved satisfactory in one province, to apply it to the whole Dominion. We have the right to legislate on matters affecting the west and their needs, and we do so legislate; we legislate on matters affecting Quebec and Ontario, but just imagine what position we would be in to-day or to-morrow if members from one province took the position that they were not going to vote on this

Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Marcil
or that question because it affected other provinces and did not affect theirs. Such an attitude would be a negation of the federal system. We represent the whole Dominion, and any legislation we pass applies not merely to one province, but to the whole of Canada. I have opposed divorce, and have opposed it conscientiously. I was glad to hea'r the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), set the case so thoroughly before the house today. No one can say that divorce is not an evil. We have three hundred cases on the list this year, whereas in the first ten years after confederation barely a dozen cases were heard. What is the state of affairs in the United States, just across the border line? In that country thirty-five different reasons may be offered as a ground for the granting of divorce. There are states in which a man is married and other states in which he may become unmarried; in one place he may live legally, and in the other place he may not.
If we were to transfer these rights to the provinces, what would happen? As the Minister of Justice has said, that is a question which requires very serious consideration. Divorce is a great evil and constitutes the greatest problem Canada has to deal with at the present time. We all admire and venerate the sanctity of the home. Break up the home, and what becomes of the country? In your leisure time look into the history of Rome and Greece, and see what became of those ancient countries when the home ceased to exist. Destroy the home of to-day and what becomes of the nation? We grant divorce here as a matter of relief in certain cases, and we may grant the application or refuse it. The fathers of confederation, whom we all venerate and admire, rightly hesitated in the matter of this question of divorce. When the British North America Act was drafted they accepted the existence of divorce in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but refused to introduce it into Ontario and Quebec. We have had sixty years of experience, with the result that divorce does not exist in Ontario or Quebec, except through private bill legislation, which we may grant or refuse as a favour and a matter of relief.
I merely wanted to give this explanation and to reiterate that I think divorce is the greatest evil we have to deal with to-day. Fathers of families must remember that in later years the finger of scorn may be pointed at them if they have made easier the destruction of the home. After all, the home is the most sacred spot in the land. The reason for my opposition to divorce is not that I wish to treat women differently from men. To-day
we advocate equal rights to all, and in our Canadian parliament it is our proud boast that we have placed women on an equality with men. Is there one here who has not for his mother, who brought him into the world and made him what he is, the same veneration he has for his father? We have that respect, but if we consider that divorce is an evil for man it is also an evil for woman, and for that reason I oppose it.
I shall vote for this measure, because the effect of it will be to check divorce and eliminate an unnecessary evil. In my opposition I am following the dictates of my conscience, although I respect the convictions of others who differ from me. I know that there are other large bodies represented in this house, such as the Anglican body, which has been referred to. That body has declared in favour of a divorce court in Ontario, thinking it the lesser of two evils, but I will persist in my opposition to divorce in every shape and form. Divorce has been a great evil, not only to this country, but to every other country. Last year's statistics show that in the United States, out of every six marriages one was annulled. There have been three or four million marriages annulled in the past fifty years in that country. Where are we going? What is becoming of this country, and what will become of our homes if we destroy them so readily? I leave that question for hon. gentlemen to consider.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I
do not desire to prolong the debate, because I am not a lawyer. However, I must bear testimony to the feelings of the .people of the city of Calgary when the amendment of 1925 was passed, sponsored by Mr. J. T. Shaw, the late member for West Calgary. I would be recreant to my duty if I did not raise my voice in protest against any repeal of that measure.
I listened to the enlightening discussion by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson), and contrasted it with that of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). The one thing that astonished me was this: if the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is true-and it is borne out by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson)-why did the hon. member for Labelle not state those facts to the house? Why did he not tell those of us who are not lawyers and who are not so well versed in constitutional history that this measure would deprive the prairie provinces of the right obtained in 1925?
I have nothing more to say, except that I shall vote against the second reading of this bill.
566	COMMONS
Marriage and Divorce-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mir. Speaker, the hon. member
for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has sought to make it appear that the provinces and not the Dominion should deal with the questions of marriage and divorce. Under the law as it now stands the provinces have control of the solemnization of marriage. In the three western provinces at least it is a civil contract, which contract may be made effective by a marriage service conducted by a marriage commissioner, a religious service not being necessary. From the performance of that solemnization of marriage there results a special status, the marriage state, and under our constitution the marriage tie cannot be dissolved except by this parliament or by a court created by this parliament, or by a court in provinces deriving their powers from the statutes which made them a part of the confederation in 1870. Inasmuch as this parliament has control of the dissolution of the special contract of marriage, and not the provinces, it is important that so far as possible there should be uniform causes for divorce and for that reason, amongst others, the fathers of confederation left the matter to the Dominion and not to the provinces. The very evils which the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has referred to, and to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has made reference, are evils which would result if we had varying causes for divorce in the different provinces. Uniformity was aimed at, and is still aimed at, although difficulties arise in consequence of the act of 1857.
Shall this parliament say that the unfaithful husband shall not be divorced by his faithful wife for the same cause that the faithful husband may divorce his unfaithful wife? This bill seeks to provide that the unfaithful wife may be divorced by the faithful husband for causes provided by law, but that the faithful wife may not divorce the unfaithful husband for the same causes. Parliament declared against that principle in 1925, and the Prime Minister of this country afforded the facilities which enabled a former member for West Calgary, to submit the legislation for favourable consideration of the house. Shall this house stultify in 1930 the action taken in 1925, which action afforded to the faithful wife the same rights as to the faithful husband for the dissolution of that special contract called marriage, or shall it take a step backward and mark the women in the three western provinces as having an unequal status with men when it comes to the dissolution of the contract which arises from the solemnization of marriage?

Like the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophai!) I am surprised that this bill should have been introduced. Surely we are not going to take this step backward and say that in the three western provinces the equal status given to women in 1925 by this parliament with respect to the dissolution of marriage was improperly conferred.
I would be the last to make any observations regarding the conscientious scruples of my hon. friends who have spoken, because I realize that to certain hon. members marriage is something more than a civil contract, it is a sacrament. Our constitution involves a recognition of the fact that as the result of marriage a special contractual relation arises which involves the home and the family. Though we respect the conscientious scruples of hon. members we must realize that it is a condition and not a theory with which we are concerned. We are living in a world of actualities; of realities. Parliament has declared that the men and women in the western provinces shall stand upon a basis of equality with respect to divorce, and any legislation such as the bill now before the house, which aims at the destruction of that equality of status, should, I submit, be voted down decisively and without delay.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Emibury). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I was paired with
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr.   POSTER@: I was paired with the
hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. TARIFF ON MOTOR TRUCKS



PROPOSED REDUCTION TO CORRESPOND WITH RATES ON AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 3, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Coote:
Whereas motor trucks are now largely used in place of wagons for hauling grain and other produce to primary markets, therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the customs tariff on motor trucks should be reduced to a level corresponding to that charged on other agricultural machinery.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have nothing further to observe in view of the fact that the tariff board has not made any report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before this
resolution is put, may I say, in connection with tariff matters, that the government some time ago appointed an advisory board on tariff and taxation, not with a view to having the board decide what should be done upon any tariff matter, but rather with a view to having a body which could, as a result of careful examination, inform the government on essential facts having an immediate bearing on any tariff problem which might be under consideration. Some little time ago the question of duties upon motor trucks, in fact on automobiles generally, was referred for inquiry to the advisory board on tariff and taxation and the board has that particular subject under investigation at the present time. The board has the power to employ its own experts to assist in its investigation. If I am rightly informed a brother of the mover of this resolution, who happens to be an able professor in the department of science at McGill university, has been retained by the board to assist it in its examination into this very question. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the house would be well advised to allow the board to make its report
568	COMMONS
Motor Trucks-Mr. Mackenzie King
in the first instance before pronouncing definitely in favour of a resolution which contemplates an immediate tariff change. I recall that when Mr. Fielding, who had great experience in these matters, was Minister of Finance, he would frequently say with respect to a resolution of this kind that if it were passed, the government might regard it as a pious resolution and use its own judgment with respect to whether or not subsequent effect should be given to it by legislation. I presume we might adopt an attitude of that Idnd towards this particular resolution and accept it with some such understanding, but if the government were to take that attitude I doubt very much whether it would meet with the approval of the mover of the resolution (Mr. Coote) and of some of the gentlemen who sit about him. Personally I would much rather take the position that the government, while at all times prepared to consider matters related to the tariff with a view to improving conditions generally would prefer, with respect to an important matter like the duties on motor trucks, especially when it follows within a very few years important tariff changes in regard to motors generally, to have before it for its guidance in the first instance such information as the tariff board is in a position to supply.
I hope in the circumstances that the mover of the resolution will not feel obliged to press it this evening, but if he does, I think it should not be accepted, not because the government is in any way desirous of avoiding making such changes in the tariff as are essential for the benefit of consumers and producers, but because the matter is at the present time subject to investigation. Also, as the house knows, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will be bringing down his budget within a very short time, and if this resolution were passed hon. gentlemen might feel that some cognizance should as a consequence be taken of it in the budget. I hardly think it would be fair to the Minister of Finance, with all that he has in hand at the moment in the preparation of his budget, to expect him, in addition, to go, with the assistance of the tariff advisory board, beyond what he may already have in mind, into the details that would be necessary for a wise decision with respect to this particular class of article.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Will the findings of the tariff board be laid before the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The board
takes evidence and the evidence is printed and will certainly be available to hon. members. .


Thomas Cantley: I quite understand that, but I gathered from what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago that the findings and report would be put before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The board
does not make formal findings. All it does is provide the government with information as to the facts governing and the circumstances surrounding. Then the Minister of Finance, with that assistance, arrives at his own decision in the matter.


Thomas Cantley: I will change my question. Will the recommendations of the tariff board be placed before the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will have to answer my hon. friend in the same way. All that the boat'd gathers in the way of information will be placed at the disposition of the house, but the government is the body that makes the decision, not the tariff board.


Thomas Cantley: I thoroughly understand that. My question was quite distinct.


Mr. GARDINER:: I regret ,to say that the mover of this resolution unfortunately is away sick, and we have no idea whether or not he would care to press his motion to a vote. Would it be possible to allow the motion to stand?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we had better dispose of it now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Move the adjournment of the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That would be-equally satisfactory.


Robert Gardiner: I will move the adjournment of the debate, then.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of hill No. 16, an act to amend' and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act.-Mr. Ladner.
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to proceed with the bill. I understood the Secretary of State would likely be in the house this evening, but as he is not here I would ask that the bill be allowed to stand.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.

Technical Education-Mr. Luchkovich



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Church for the second reading of bill No. 4, an act to amend the criminal code (motor vehicles).
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Dropped.


Hewitt Bostock: Dropped.



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Church for the second reading of Bill No. 8, an act to amend the Penitentiary Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Dropped.


Hewitt Bostock: Dropped.



UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast):: For a return showing, (a) the number of officers of each rank employed at headquarters, Department of National Defence, (b) number of other ranks so employed, (c) the number of civilians, temporary, permanent, (d) the total cost of maintaining headquarters for fiscal year 1929-1030.



TECHNICAL EDUCATION


Michael Luchkovich: Whereas the discontinuance of the federal grant in aid of technical education has imposed a heavy liability upon the provinces, which they find it difficult to sustain;
And whereas the future industrial and commercial development of Canada depend iD large measure upon the creation of a well trained personnel;
Therefore be it resolved-that, in the opinion of this house, the grant should be continued at least for another ten years.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in proposing this resolution I am actuated not by any malicious desire in any way to embarrass or inconvenience the government, but once again to reopen a question that has been agitating the minds of a large percentage of our population for a number of years, and that has been very closely aligned with the future welfare and prosperity of Canada, namely, federal government aid to technical education as it affects our industrial development. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the latter part of the resolution calls for the continuance of the technical education grant for a further period of ten years, implying thereby the assumption that such a grant is or has been in effect.
And as there actually has been an act authorizing payment by the federal government of grants for technical education, it becomes essential, in order that hon. members to-day may understand the real import of the legislation. that some account' of the historical background and the main events leading to its final enactment as a Dominion statute should be imparted to the house.
Technical education has been a subject of Dominion wide discussion for the past twenty-five years, especially in those quarters where the need for skilled workmanship was found to be essential. It was therefore only a matter of time when this question would come up for discussion in the House of Commons. Indeed, the anticipated discussion in this chamber had reached such a high degree of intensity that something had to be done, and so a royal commission was appointed in 1909 to investigate the whole subject of technical education. It consisted of seven members, who visited many parts of Europe and the United States and held over one hundred meetings in the Dominion. When you consider, sir, that over fourteen hundred witnesses were heard in Canada alone, and that the total expense bill of the commission amounted to over $100,000, it will convey to you some idea of the tremendous task the commission had on its hand-a task that required three years of hard grinding work before a report could finally be submitted to parliament in 1913.
In 1914 the great world war broke out and the whole matter was left in abeyance until after the armistice. It was not long, however, before parliament took this matter up again with renewed vigour, which finally culminated in	the	legislation	of 1919,	now knownas	the	Technical	Education	Act. Thisact provided for the expenditure of an aggregate sum of $10,000,000 over a period of	ten	years, to	be .paid	to the provinces according to a graduated scale as follows: in 1920, $700,000; in 1921. $800,000; in 1922, $900,000; in 1923, $1,000,000; in 1924, $1,100,000; and a like sum for each of the five succeeding years ending with the fiscal year 1929. The sum of $10,000 was to be paid in each year to the government of each province, and the remainder of the appropriation was to be allotted and paid in proportion to the population of such provinces respectively as determined by the last federal decennial census. The money has been paid, the act is no longer available, and federal technical education grants have been relegated by the government over yonder to the junk pile of forgotten things.
Now, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) being in his seat, I should like to ask
570	COMMONS
Technical Education-Mr. Luchkovich
him: Can the Prime Minister of Canada justify his refusal to continue these technical education grants on the ground that Canada does not at the present time need technical education? Or, if she does need technical education, that these schools can carry on effectively without further federal financial aid? If that is so, Mr. Speaker, I feel confident that loud reverberations of protests and disapproval from coast to coast shall reach him from every hilltop, dale, hamlet, town and city in our wide Dominion.
If the Prime Minister bases his refusal to continue these grants on the plea of economy, then I contend it is the falsest kind of economy. If he claims that the grant was never intended to be permanent but was meant only to help technical education get a fair start, then I submit that technical education has never been given the proper impetus because of the lack of anything like permanency or sufficiency of funds to carry on so important and so great a task. If the Prime Minister believes that payment of technical grants by the federal government might constitute an infringement on provincial rights, I again protest that there will be no such infringement. I think it was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) who said the other day that these grants were grants of grace and not grants that were authorized by our constitution. That may be so. They may be grants of grace; nevertheless I think that this is one grant in respect to which the Minister of Finance will not be able to slip out from under. It may be a grant of grace, but if he does slip out from under he will do so, I should say, very gracefully. While this last argument concerning the possibility of infringement of provincial rights is fresh in my mind I should like to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, in order of priority.	[DOT]
When in 1909 it was proposed to the then Minister of Labour, the present Prime Minister, to appoint a commission to look into the basis of technical education and industrial training, not only in other countries but also in Canada, the question of the British North America Act had first to be considered; for under this act education is one of the subjects exclusively assigned to the provincial legislatures. That being the case, it was considered advisable that the Minister of Labour communicate with the premiers of the various provinces to ascertain whether they respectively had any objection to the appointment of such a commission, and when the replies came in from all the provinces it was found that not one of the premiers had any objection to the appointment of such a commission. Nor have I, Mr. Speaker, during the ten years
[Mf. Luchkovich.]
that the Technical Education Act has been in force, heard of any protest on the ground of infringement of provincial rights.
While I know it is a very difficult matter to draw a distinction between technical education, as such, and the general or popularly understood definition of education, in view of the differences of opinion that might be entertained as between this parliament and the various provincial legislatures, I am, however, of the firm conviction that although constitutionally the federal parliament cannot deal with matters of education, as we understand it, in the public and high schools, it is nevertheless in connection with trade and commerce justified in promoting the cause of technical education. My own native province of Alberta will gladly welcome such a movement, and I can assure the Prime Minister that he can safely hand us a few million dollars without the least fear of a constitutional question preying upon his conscience.
There are two matters that I should like to refer to at the present stage. At page 1067, Hansard, 1909, the Prime Minister made two very pertinent statements. I have heard it said of the present Prime Minister that his knowledge of economic affairs is vastly superior to that of his famous predecessor, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and in view of this suggestion I was rather surprised, in view of what he said in 1929, to read these two statements in Hansard of 1909. The Prime Minister said this in reference to foreign competition in trade and commerce:
The other thing that may help us to meet this competition is the greatness of our natural resources, combined with the industrial efficiency of our own working people, and this industrial efficiency can only be brought about by the development on a general Scale throughout the whole Dominion of sound technical education, carried on by the authorities whose duty it is to do it. Only by the development of this system of technical education, so far as we can possibly carry it, will we be in a position to face the future with a confidence of success.
Further on, he said:
We cannot too often remind ourselves of the fact that society does owe something to the great body of working people who are obliged to begin life early, to begin to toil before their education is completed, that we owe something to them in the way of conferring an opportunity at least to each to realize the capacities of which his nature may be capable. Carlyle says, in one of his famous works, that for a man to die ignorant, who has capacity for knowledge, is a tragedy. Well, sir, if this be true, the crime must somewhere rest upon the heads of those who have it within their power to confer the opportunity and who yet withhold it.

Technical Education-Mr. Luchkovich
These statements were made by the Prime Minister, as I have already mentioned, in the year 1909. When the resolution asking for a commission was introduced by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), in 1909, the Prime Minister very warmly congratulated the mover of the resolution for the exceptionally able, forceful and comprehensive manner in which he had introduced it, all the more so because he thought this matter could not be viewed in any other light than as one of great national concern. I have read the speech of the hon. member for South Wellington and I have also read the speech of the Prime Minister. If I can be as consistent in my advocacy of federal grants to technical education as the Prime Minister was in his speech, I feel absolutely confident that this government will not and cannot refuse aid for a further period of ten years; for I defy any member of this house to read the Prime Minister's speech of 1909 and prove to me that any other construction can be put upon it than that of an ardent advocacy of federal responsibility in matters of technical education. It was, as I have already intimated, a wonderful speech. I think it is the best speech I have ever read on technical education in relation to the desirability of government aid in that direction.
In view of the Prime Minister's refusal to continue these grants, I would again ask the question, Mr. Speaker: Do the statements I have read not sound like the bitterest irony? What could have prompted the Prime Minister's sudden change of front? Was it economy? Was it political expediency? Or was it mere thoughtlessness? If it was political expediency, I wonder whether it was the sort involved in the case of a very homely but very influential old maid who was approached by a campaigner during election time? In other words, did the Prime Minister outwardly extol technical education and inwardly condemn it? If he did, his action was similar to that of the election campaigner; for would it be expediency for the Prime Minister to refer to the eyes of this old battle-axe as "those big, wonderful, beautiful, expressive windows of the soul," when all the while he felt that never were eyes so harsh and fishy and dead? Would it be expediency to refer to her teeth as "those wonderful regular, pearly ivories," when deep down in his heart he knew they looked like the pillars of Hercules; to say that her feet were like Cinderella's when in reality they were as big as clodhoppers; that her nose was perfectly refined and well chiselled when in truth it looked like the leaning tower of Pisa; or that her general
make-up was a modern replica of classical Venus when in actuality she looked more like a scarecrow caricature? I ask, Mr. Speaker, is it consistent in one breath to laud these grants to the skies and in another to claim that they are preposterous and unfeasible, and all in the name of political expediency? Possibly my analogy is a little far-fetched and somewhat gross, but it is no more gross than the refusal of the government to give technical education grants in 1930, after extolling them to the skies in 1909. In respect to the Prime Minister's reference on that occasion to Carlyle, I can assure him my regard for Carlyle is just as high as his, yet I cannot help but wonder what poor old Carlyle thinks if he has any means of hearing what we say in this house, and what he would think of any such gross misapplication of his gems of wisdom as has been exhibited in the government's refusal to make these grants for technical education. Certainly, if I were in Carlyle's place, the peace and calm of paradise would have absolutely no interest for me. If I were to paraphrase the Prime Minister's remarks wherein he said:
Carlyle says, in one of his famous works, that for a man to die ignorant, who has capacity for knowledge, is a tragedy. Well, sir, if this be true, the crime must somewhere rest upon the heads of those who have it within their power to confer the opportunity and who yet withhold it.
I would say that for the Prime Minister to refuse these technical grants, that he so eloquently advocated and are within his power to. grant, is worse than a tragedy; it is a colossal national travesty on justice and consistency.
I have several letters which I received this year with reference to my resolution on technical education, and I am going to read two or three of them. The first of these letters is from Mr. William I. Reid, manager and secretary of the Westminster Iron Works, Limited, who writes as follows:
Dear Sir;
It has come to the writer's attention that you propose to move a resolution in the House of Commons, requesting the government to consider the advisability of the continuance of the technical education grant for a further period of ten years.
We wish to express our appreciation in commendation of your action in this matter.
We have a technical school in our own city and the nature of the service rendered and the education that the young men receive is very valuable indeed to local industries. We can say from personal experience in our own business, that we have been employing graduates from the technical school for four or five years, the boys come to us fairly well trained, having
572	COMMONS
Technical Education-Mr. Luchkovich
an idea of the technical nature regarding industry, and become real good mechanics at the expiration of their apprenticeship period.
We think it very important that this matter be given full support by all the members of parliament, so that the government will continue further financial support.
We trust that your efforts will be crowned witli success, and that the government in its wisdom will see fit to extend this financial aid for a further period of ten years.
1 have another letter from Mr. Edwin Tomlin, managing director of the British Columbia Cement Company, Limited, as follows:
Dear Sir;
As chairman of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and also as one engaged in the manufacture of cement, I should like to thank you for the action you have taken in supporting the continuance of federal aid to technical education. I regard technical education for our growing boys of the utmost importance, as in the event of their failure to receive same, it will place them at a disadvantage in the struggle for a livelihood, and also be detrimental to the development of the Dominion of Canada, as unquestionably a country will suffer if its citizens lack proper education.
I have a third letter from Mr. W. G. Carpenter, principal of the Calgary Technical School. The letter is as follows:
Dear Sir,-
It was very gratifying to receive your letter of the 6th inst., expressing interest in the progress of technical education for the province of Alberta with particular reference to the Provincial Institute of Technology and Art, located here in Calgary.
I am sending you under separate cover, half a dozen copies of our latest announcement in which you will see the details of the course we offer. You might like to give these to some of your fellow members who might be interested.
We are doing a unique work in Canada. Our courses are selected in the light of the possible use in our province of the services we give, and we are in the fortunate position of being able to say that to date the majority of those who [DOT] have taken courses from the institute, have found employment within the province. The average age of the student body is between twenty and twenty-one years. The seventy per cent of our enrolment comes from outside Calgary, Edmonton, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, and Red Deer, from which it will be seen that our courses are particularly appealing to those living outside the cities. You will also note that a number of our courses are designed to eater to the making of farm life more attractive. We offer courses in gas engines and tractors and farm machinery, black-smithing, farm carpentry, brick, cement and mortar and in motor cars. We handle more students in our tractor and gas engines department than any other in the institute. The electric department is limited in its accommodation. We take only 60 new students each year, and for the past year we have been under the necessity of refusing admission to over 100. We make no academic requirement for admittance, and have some with university degrees

and teacher's certificates on our lists while there are others who have very low standing, too low in some cases to really profit very much. We try to make our shops as close a duplicate to an industrial unit as it is possible, and the material with which we work is largely material which we get from the outside which goes back into use when it has been put into running condition in our shops.
At the back of the calendar I am sending, you will find the attendance graph. I might elaborate it here by saying that we had 888 enrolled during the year 1925-26, 1,273 for the year 1926-27, and to date with three months yet to go, we have on our books, 1,690 enrolments which is about 34 per cent increase. Included in this 1,690 are 275 in correspondence courses for steam engineering and for mines certificate, fireboss, pitboss and mine superintendent, 644 in day courses, 720 in evening classes, and 51 in a summer school which vre held last summer. Another index as to the increase in our work is the student hours as taken from the registers for January, this was 56,730 as against 40,529 for January, 1927, which is an increase of 42 per cent. You will note by comparing these figures with the graph referred to above, that the student hours for January, 1928, exceeded the eight months attendance for 1920-21, by 16,405 and that it is just about the same for the full eight months of 1921-22.
We do practically no advertising excepting what the students who have been with us tell their friends when they go home. If we were to advertise we could double our enrolment if we had room to accommodate them.
The withdrawal of the Technical Education Act in 1929 will retard very seriously our development. The west has not been in a position to avail itself of the grant since 1919, as was the east particularly Quebec and Ontario. These places got started early with their programs which have made interesting progress. In the west it has been slower and the non-continuance of the Act will mean a hardship in many respects.
I am very sure that there is an important contribution to be made both toward the correcting of certain defects in our general education system and in developing of intelligent people who may profit by the great resources of this magnificent province. A little assistance at this critical period will be very material and the further extension of the Technical Education Act it seems to me one of the best uses that some public money could be placed to at the present time.
Thanking you very kindly for your letter and your interest,
Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) W. G. Carpenter,
Principal.
Those are only a few of the many letters which I received in connection with this matter.
I realize that my time is passing very rapidly, but there are a few things to which I should like to refer before I close. I should like to see a little more attention given to the reasons advanced in 1909 by the Prime Minister of Canada when he was speaking

Technical Education-Mr. Luchkovich
upon technical education grants. The fust reason he gave for extending those grants was:
It seems to me there is a great need for the development of a system of technical education in Canada. This need has been demonstrated in half a dozen different ways. First of all, it has been demonstrated by comparison of conditions in this country with conditions as they are in Germany, in France, in England, in Switzerland and in the United States.
And then further on he says:
All these countries are competitors of Canada, and are doing a great deal to equip their army of workers and enable them to take their part in this world wide competition. And were there no other reason why the authorities of this country should do their part in promoting the work of technical education than that our competitors are doing so that of itself would be a strong reason why much should be done.
That is the first reason.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the hon. member wishes to mislead the house, but he continues to refer to my remarks of 1909 as having reference to grants in aid. If the hon. member will look at the Hansard for that year he will find that the subject I was discussing at that time was the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into the question of technical education; it was not a question of making grants from the federal treasury.


Michael Luchkovich: That is very true, nevertheless in those remarks the Prime Minister of Canada expressed his ideas with respect to the principle of federal aid for technical education.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon.
member will pardon me, I made no reference at that time to federal aid. I was speaking about the desirability of gathering information upon technical endueation, which information was to be placed at the disposal of the provinces and the Dominion.


Michael Luchkovich: The subject under
discussion at that time was whether or not the money should be expended for a commission to investigate this subject of technical education, and when I read the remarks of the Prime Minister made at that time I came to the conclusion that they expressed his opinion with regard to government aid for that purpose. It is true that at that time he was not speaking upon the subject of making grants for technical education, but rather upon the subject of the appointment of a commission to look into this matter, but after reading the Prime Minister's remarks the idea conveyed to my mind was that he was very favourably impressed with
the necessity of more aid to technical education, and I repeat again that I think it was the best speech upon technical education I have ever read.
The second point made by the Prime Minister was as follows:
Employers of labour in this country are crying out for skilled workmen. We all know that this demand comes from every part of the Dominion, one industry after another complaining that they have not enough skilled workmen.
Then the Prime Minister continued:
Why is this? It is not because we have not in Canada men who are capable of becoming skilled in scientific knowledge, and of carrying on any industry after the most modern scientific methods, but it is because we have not in Canada a sufficient number of institutes to enable our artisans and workingmen to qualify for these high positions the number of which is daily increasing.
Further on he gives as his third reason, the following:
And sir, there is another reason, much akin to the one which I have already mentioned, and that is the need at this time for a better system of apprenticeship.
In discussing this subject he said:
That being so it seems to me there is a greater need for some system of education which will make intelligible to the man who has the work to do the part which he is performing in industrial development and that service might be performed by an extension of the system of technical education throughout the country.
There is a further feature which I think should be considered in this connection and it is the obligation which society owes to workingmen to enable them to realize the best of the capacity which they have within them.
It is in this connection that he draws support from that famous author Carlyle, but I think similar support might be drawn by myself in regard to the present resolution. I repeat what the Prime Minister said:

that for a man to die ignorant who has capacity for knowledge, is a tragedy. Well, sir, if this be true, the crime must somewhere rest upon the heads of those who have it within their power to confer the opportunity and who yet withhold it.
Upon the strength of that gentleman's wisdom, I repeat that it is up to the government to continue these grants for a further period of ten years. I think Carlyle was a very wise man, and I will go so far as to say that our present Prime Minister is a very able man. I think he compares favourably with any prime minister we have had in Canada, and I am inclined to believe that the remarks made by the nine or ten prominent men who spoke to me regarding his great knowledge as to economic questions were correct. The Prime Minister is able to do things, and not
574 ^	COMMONS
Technical Education-Mr. Luchkovich
only can he do things but he is able to slip out from under things which he should but does not wish to do. I think the Prime Minister has slipped out from under the duty which should of right devolve upon this government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that the government should make every effort to bring technical education within the reach of our working people, as was stated by the Prime Minister in his speech of 1909. I know that modern economic demands are greater than they were during the last twenty-five years, that intellect and training of the highest quality are required for those engaged or to be engaged in trade and industry, but that is all the greater reason why it should be the duty of the federal government to see that the workers of Canada are provided with education which is as sound and as broad as that provided for the clerical callings. I have always thought that out present educational system is concentrated too much upon the producing of trained' men for professional life and too little upon the producing of those who in the future are to take up industrial vocations. Should the government decide to continue for another ten years the making of these grants for technical education I believe it will be of considerable help to the working classes of this country.
Much has been said as to the constitutional aspect of this resolution, but I believe that is a bugbear; it is a fantastic thing. I see no reason whatever for conjuring up this fantastic question at this time. If the Prime Minister clings to the idea that this matter brings up some constitutional question, I would refer him to the Royal Military College at Kingston. If these technical grants are unconstitutional, as he claims, the grants that we are making to maintain the Royal Military College at Kingston are also unconstitutional. When the government bring down their estimates they will find in them many items that are unconstitutional. Dozens of the items in the estimates will be found to be for undertakings purely local and within the jurisdiction of the local legislatures. We have been doing, according to this unconstitutional bugbear that we hear so much about in the house, things that are just as unconstitutional as grants to technical education. For ten years we gave the different provinces grants to aid their technical schools, and nobody raised the constitutional question, therefore I see no reason for bringing it up again. In the United States they spend about $1,000,000,000 a year upon technical education. What is our government doing in Canada in comparison with that? Very little.


Mr. DUNNING:: Does the United States
federal government spend $1,000,000,000 on technical education?


Michael Luchkovich: For education. A
large portion of it is for technical education.


Charles Avery Dunning: The United States federal government?


Michael Luchkovich: Yes. Indeed in the United States they have a statute called the Smith-Hughes bill. In 1917 they passed a bill providing a cooperative scheme with the various states for carrying on technical education. The United States grant is probably entirely for the purpose of providing salaries and for training instructors. That is precisely the same thing I am asking for in this resolution. I think in the final analysis the government's chief aim is the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. The government should remember that the greatest portion of our people are, whether we like it or not, the working classes who must earn their living by work other than clerical, and it is up to us to help this preponderating proportion.
There is one more matter I wish to deal with before my time is up, and that is what Germany is doing. Germany is doing a great deal for technical education. The Germans in this respect have greater vision than we have in Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for
Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) has referred in such complimentary terms to some previous speeches of mine on the subject of technical education that I feel I ought at the outset to thank him for his kindness in so doing. May I also congratulate him very cordially on the speech which he has made this evening? I think my hon. friend has presented his statement in an admirable way and with great lucidity. The chief exception I have to take to what he has said is in regard to what I fear was an attempt,-whether intentional or unintentional I cannot say- to misrepresent the bearing of my remarks in the speeches from which he quoted. 'The question I directed to him would make clear the difference between us. When some twenty years ago I was making the speech on technical education to which he refers, I was speaking on the question of technical education generally and its importance to any country, and to this Dominion in particular. I was not speaking at all on the question of grants being made from the federal treasury to the provinces for the purpose of technical educa-

Technical Education-Mr. Mackenzie King
tion. My hon. friend, when I drew his attention to the circumstances, admitted that such was the case. I am rather surprised that, knowing that such was the case, he persisted, from the beginning almost to the close of his speech, in seeking to emphasize as a fact that I had been advocating very warmly grants from the federal treasury to the provinces when, as a matter of fact, I had done nothing of the kind.


Michael Luchkovich: What did the Prime Minister mean by his remarks with respect to Carlyle?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The quotation from Thomas Carlyle, as I recall it, was to the effect that for any man to die ignorant who was capable of knowledge, constituted a crime for which those to whom this neglect might be due, should be held responsible. That remark of Carlyle, it seems to me, applies primarily to ordinary education, rather than to technical education; applies to the kind of elementary education we have in mind when we speak more particularly of a man being able to read and to write. That any man who has the capacity for reading and gaining knowledge as it is possible to do from books should be denied that right or opportunity, is I believe, a crime for which some will some day be held responsible. I have no doubt in the world that it was just this that Carlyle had in mind, namely, the ordinary education as happily it is provided to-day for boys and girls in all parts of the Dominion, but provided by the public schools and colleges of the provinces and not by any system of technical training carried on through Dominion grants in aid of technical education.
Technical education is one form of specialized education, I admit a most important form, and I think it is of importance that the widest opportunities Should be given for men to be properly trained in industrial pursuits and to be possessed of the highest technical and scientific knowledge. But to make that statement is one thing; to say that they should be so trained by federal money rather than by money raised by the provinces themselves when the provinces are assigned primarily the duty of education, is quite another thing.
I have under my hand a copy of the order in council which was passed in 1910 when I was Minister of Labour in the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I personally recommended to the government and to parliament the appointment of a royal commission to go into the whole question of technical education. Perhaps I cannot do better by way of indicating what I had in view in so doing and what was the purpose of the government than to read the words of the order in council itself. It was approved by His Excellency on the 1st of June, 1910. It reads:
On a memorandum made May 28, 1910, from the Minister of Labour, stating that industrial efficiency is all important to the development of the Dominion and to the promotion of the home and foreign trade of Canada in competition with other nations and can be best promoted by the adoption in Canada of the most advanced systems and methods of industrial training and technical education.
The minister further states that the premiers of the several provinces of the Dominion have expressed on behalf of the governments of their respective provinces, approval of the appointment by the federal authorities of a royal commission on industrial training and technical education.
The minister recommends that authority be granted for the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respects industrial training and technical education, and into the systems and methods of technical instruction obtaining in other countries; the said commission to be appointed pursuant to vote No. 477 of the supplementary estimates for the fiscal period ending March, 31, 1910, and to consist of the following gentlemen, viz:
James W. Robertson, Esquire, C.M.G., LL.D. of Montreal, Que., Chairman.
Hon. John N. Armstrong, Esquire, of North Sydney, N.S.
George Bryce, Esquire, LL.D., F.R.S.C., of Winnipeg, Man.
M. Gaspard de Serres. of Montreal, Que.
Gilbert M. Murray, Esq., B.A., of Toronto, Out.
David Forsyth, Esq., M.A.. of Berlin, Ont.
James Simpson, Esq., of Toronto, Ont.
The minister further recommends that the said commissioners be instructed and empowered to pursue their investigations at such localities as may appear necessary, in the Dominion of Canada, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the United States of America, France. Germany, and, subject to the approval of the minister, elsewhere on the continent of Europe; also that the purpose of the commission shall be that of gathering information, the information when obtained to be carefully compiled, and together with such recommendations as it may seem expedient to the commission to make, published in a suitable report to be at the disposal of the provinces and available for general distribution.
The minister further recommends that the commissioners be appointed under the provisions of the statute respecting inquiries concerning public maters, and report the results of their investigations together with their recommendations to the Minister of Labour.
The minister further recommends that Mr. Thomas Bengough, of Toronto, be appointed secretary and reporter to the said commission.
The committee submit the same for approval.
(Signed) F. K. Bennetts, Asst. Clerk of the Privy Council.
That order in council makes perfectly clear that the purpose of the commission was to
576	COMMONS
Technical Education-Mr. Mackenzie King
gather information, which information was to be placed at the disposition of the provinces. I well recollect the discussions that we had at that time in the cabinet and in this house as to how far the Dominion would be justified in venturing into the field of technical education at all. I took the position very strongly that to gather information on any subject was a matter which the federal government had a right to pursue at all times.


Michael Luchkovich: I do not wish to
intervene, but this will be the last question I will ask. Will the Prime Minister admit that Canada, in comparison with other great commercial nations, is the only country in the world where the federal government is not helping technical education? Germany is helping, so is the United States, Czechoslovakia and other countries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will not
admit anything of the kind, because at this very time out of the federal treasury we are paying thousands of dollars to the provinces in aid of technical education. Does my hon. friend deny that?


Michael Luchkovich: Yes. It is a defunct process, because the act expired in 1929.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry that my hon. friend has not prepared his speech with sufficient care and that he does not remember the legislation of even a year ago. Let me tell him this:	On February 19, 1930,
that is not a month ago, out of the total grant of $10,000,000 that was made at the outset, only $8,328,885.84 had been paid, leaving unpaid $1,671,114.16. That is the amount that had been paid out up to February 19, 1930; that is only last February. There remains $1,671,114.16 still to be paid, and we are at the present time paying it out and will continue to pay for some three or four years to come. Last session this government, which my hon. friend is now condemning for not aiding technical education, asked parliament to authorize it to continue payment of the unexpended portion of the original appropriation for a period of another five years so that any province that had not availed itself of the full amount of the grant would be in a position to receive it within the next few years. Prince Edward Island will be entitled to receive from now on, $109,851.22; Nova Scotia, $345,911.50; New Brunswick, $69,115.73; Manitoba, $500,308; Saskatchewan, S645,927.71. In other words, there still is authority to pay to these provinces, authority given at the last session of parliament, at the instance of the present government. $1,671,114.16. That is the position at the present time.


Michael Luchkovich: That will soon be no more.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend said a moment ago that it was all past, that it was defunct, and was condemning us on that account. I have shown him that there is over $1,000,009 still to be paid out of the treasury to the provinces.


Michael Luchkovich: But that has expired.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has not expired, it remains to be piaid during the next four years. My hon. friend said that that was to 'be his last question. He has madie his speech. I do not wish to argue. The facts speak for themselves.
When I was interrupted I was explaining to my hon. friend that at the time at which the royal commission was appointed it was not an easy matter to get the government of the day to be given even the power to appoint a commission to inquire into the subject of technical education. Before I could obtain consent to have the government undertake -the appointment of a commission it was considered necessa/ry for me as Minister of Labour to communicate with the premiers of each of the provinces of Canada and secure from them approval of the Dominion government going into the field of education to the extent even of collecting information to be placed at their disposal, so jealous was parliament of the rights of the provinces in matters of education, and so eager were its members not in any way to trespass on a field which they felt might be debatable. I wrote the following letter, which was sent to the premiers of each of the provinces of Canada; it is dated Ottawa, December 13, 1909. This was even before the royal commission was appointed or before parliament voted the money for the royal commission. The letter follows:
Department of Labour,
Ottawa, December 13, 1909.
Dear Sir,-
The Dominion government is considering the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into the needs and present equipment of the Dominion as respects industrial training and technical education, and into the systems and methods of technical instruction obtaining in other countries, particularly in Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States. It is intended that the commission shall be solely for the purpose of gathering information, the information when obtained to be published in a suitable report to be at the disposal of the provinces and available for general distribution.
I may say that the view of the government is that a commission of the kind suggested might render valuable services to the Dominion as a whole, since it would be in a position to

Technical Education-Mr. Mackenzie King
conduct an inquiry on a wider and more comprehensive scale than might be considered desirable or possible in the case of the different provinces, and which if undertaken ^ by the provinces individually must lead inevitably to the duplication and reduplication of energy and expense.
Tt is recognized, however, that the work of such a commission, to be of national service, should have the hearty endorsation of the governments of the several provinces of the Dominion, and I am, therefore, writing to ask if the appointment by the federal authorities of a commission of the character and scope suggested would meet with the approval of your government, and to inquire, in particular, inasmuch as some doubt has been expressed on the point, whether exception to such a course would be taken on any ground of jurisdiction.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) W. L. Mackenzie King.
My hon. friend will find in the report of the royal commission on technical education, at pages 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the introduction, the replies that came to that letter from the premiers of the different provinces, in which they made quite clear that so long as the commission was solely for the purpose of gathering information and that there was no intention by the federal government of inserting the thin edge of the wedge whereby the federal authorities might come in time to assume what the provinces regarded as a provincial obligation, they had no objection to the commission being appointed, but would rather welcome the 'information it might collect and place at their disposal.
The commission took a considerable time to gather information. Its report was presented some years later. The report first of all outlined what was 'being done in other countries, in particular the methods being pursued, and in addition outlined a plan of technical education which its members thought might be suitable to our Dominion; but that plan contemplated the whole work being carried on by the provinces and distinctly so stated. The commissioners drew attention to this fact, that the provinces at that t:me had no equipment for technical training. They had not the physical equipment to start with; they had not the buildings that were necessary. I think there was a technical school in Toronto and another in Montreal; those, I think, were about all we had in the way of special technical schools at the time, if we except the work that was being done by one or two of the universities and colleges.
There was another lack which was very serious, the absence of any qualified teachers to conduct the necessary technical education. There was no school for training such teachers, and the commission pointed out that if the provinces were immediately to get under way 2419-37
with a system of technical education that would cover all parts of the Dominion it would be necessary that some assistance should be given to them to help them tide over the period during which the necessary staffs could be secured, 'trained', and appointed, the necessary buildings erected, and the necessary equipment assembled for the purpose of carrying on the work of technical education. It was in that connection that the royal commission recommended that over a period of ten years there should, conditional upon the provinces appropriating a like amount, be a grant from the federal treasury to the provinces which would average $1,000,000 a year. If my hon. friend will read the report of the commission, supposing he has not already done so, he will see that the recommendation was made wholly for the purpose of enabling the provinces, so to speak, to get on their feet in the matter of the necessary equipment to carry on the work of technical education, but once equipped they were to go on without further aid. It was not contemplated that federal assistance would continue indefinitely; indeed, the greatest care was taken when parliament was being asked to vote this money to secure assurances that parliament was not being committed indefinitely to a system of grants to technical education, that this was simply to enable an immediate start to be made.
Now, may I say to my hon. friend that conditions have changed very materially in Canada since that time with respect to the relative obligations of the Dominion and the provinces. The report of the royal commission was made before Canada had assumed the burden which she to-day has arising out of the war, and the many obligations which it has created. When this royal commission was appointed to look into matters connected with technical education our expenditure for federal purposes was relatively small-speaking offhand, I doubt if it was a third of what it is to-day-and the Dominion might well have felt itself in a position to render assistance to the provinces, to a degree that with the obligations it has at present it could not begin to attempt to-day. As I said the other evening when speaking of federal grants to highways, we have to-day an obligation to meet with respect to the war amounting to the sum of over $1,680,000,000, every cent of which is borrowed money, all of which remains to be paid back, and the interest on which has to be paid year after year until the whole debt has been discharged. We had not that obligation when the commission was looking into the matter of technical education. On the other hand, the provinces themselves are in an

578	COMMONS
Technical Education-Mr. Mackenzie King
entirely different position to-day from that which confronted them at that time; their position has very materially changed and improved.


Thomas Cantley: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have not any war burdens, they have not to provide for soldiers' pensions, they have not any of the obligations such as w'ill arise out of legislation which will be enacted shortly with respect to war veterans' allowances, and the like; these are all fresh obligations on the shoulders of the Dominion. On the other hand-and I am going to treat only of a few instances, more by way of illustration than anything else-the provinces themselves to-day have sources of revenue that they did not have then. Let me mention only one. In seven, if not eight, of the provinces today the sale of liquor is controlled by liquor commissions. I wonder if my hon. friend read his morning paper and saw the figures of the profits of the Ontario Liquor Commission contained in the report which was tabled in the Ontario legislature by the government of Ontario yesterday. Let me quote from to-day's paper. I have before me the Ottawa Citizen:
Reports profit of $9,661,448 by liquor sale.
Figures of Ontario liquor control commission for 1929 tabled in legislature by government.
"Regional purchase" plan to be adopted.
Past years' sales show increase over previous year of $6,364,978.
(Canadian press). Toronto, Ont. March 12.
With sales totalling $55,360,569, the liquor control commission reported a profit for 1929 of $9,661,448-
A profit.
-it was revealed in the annual statement of the year tabled in the legislature to-day by the government.
That is a profit of nearly $10,000,000 in the province of Ontario alone in a single year out of the liquor traffic. An amount exceeding the total grants to the provinces for technical education by the federal government during the past ten years. I think the province of Ontario, if I may be permitted to advise the provincial government that far, could not do a better thing than earmark all that money for technical education.


Mr. COTNAM:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: How much money did the federal treasury collect in excise tax on liquor during the same period?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will get full particulars of that to-morrow or a little later. When my hon. friend asks us to appropriate $1,000,000 a year by way of federail grants to the provinces in aid of technical education, I think it is only fair to remind him that we have obligations to meet to-day such as we never had before, and to draw his attention to the fact that one of the provinces which would get the largest portion of this grant has this year a surplus of nearly $10,000,000 solely from the operation of its liquor stores. That condition is very different from the one the province of Ontario faced at the time the federal government made grants to the provinces in aid of technical education. What has happened in Ontario is true also of Quebec, and true also, only in lesser degree, of practically all the other provinces. They all have government liquor control with its monopoly of sales for domestic consumption within the province.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are all making profits out of the sale of liquor. Prince Edward Island is not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nor Nova Scotia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, in view of the decision of the province, I venture to say it will not be very long before Nova Scotia has a liquor control commission. At any rate it will have it in operation during the period that my hon. friend wants these grants in aid of technical education to be made. I think it would be an admirable thing, and I think it would meet with the approval of the citizens of each province, if the respective provincial governments would -talce, if not all, at least half of the profits from the sale of liquor and devote the money thus secured to technical education. Then they would be carrying out some of Carlyle's diet-urns and wishes and the wishes of some of the people of this country.
My hon. friend has asked me a few questions. First of all he asks, do I hold that Canada does not need technical education. Of course I hold that Canada needs technical education. Every word that I said at any time on the necessity for and benefits of technical education I am prepared to stand by at the present time, every word. I believe that Canada needs technical education, but I believe that Canada is in a much better position in the matter of technical schools to-day than she has ever hitherto been. We

Technical Education-Mr. Mackenzie King
find a great difference between the position when these grants were first made and the position to-day. Already the federal government has spent between $8,000,000 and S9.-000,000 on technical schools in the different provinces, and the provinces themselves have spent an equal amount or more, and to-day they are carrying on these technical schools without making any change whatever. I ask my hon. friend to tell me where one single teacher has been dropped, where one school has been closed, in any of the provinces since the federal grant has ceased.


Mr. BRADY:: Pardon me, sir. Since we have lost the federal aid to technical education the government of British Columbia has issued to the various technical schools a statement that they could not continue the grant which had previously been made by the Dominion government, and therefore they were not able to meet the requirements of the technical, domestic science, and manual schools. Consequently those schools are suffering now from the cessation of that aid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. M. J. MALONEY (South Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I feel -constrained1 to say a word in respect to the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich), because I feel that the education of the youth of Canada is -perhaps one of the most important problems with which any -public body must deal.
I am of the opinion, as I am sure many other Canadians are, that the system of general education in this country to-day is entirely wrong. It is based on one line of study, and one line only; from the moment a boy or girl enters our public schools, his or her system of education runs along one line, which leads to the university. They are taught subjects which qualify them for entrance to
university only. For what are the boys and girls fitted who have passed into the high school, have for three or four years attended high school or collegiate institute, and secured admittance to the university? I would like to ask one or two of my h-on. friends that question. Can they go into a store and keep a set of books? No; they have not been educated along those lines. Will they go out on the farm and work there? No; they have too much education for that. Will they learn a trade; will they learn carpentering, black-smithing, or any of the mechanical pursuits? Not at all; they have n-ot been educated along those lines. They have been taught a smattering of imperfect French, Latin, Greek, geometry, algebra, chemistry and physics, subjects absolutely useless to ordinary men and women in this life. We forget that ninety per cent of the boys and girls in this country never see a university; we forget that it is our duty to educate these boys and girls to be good citizens o-f Canada, and we are able to do that only through technical education. We should have a system which would pla-ce in the minds of our teachers a sufficient knowledge of psychology to enable them to detect in a boy of fourteen or fifteen years of age whethenr he would be a good mechanic, or to tell whether a boy or a girl should follow a profession and, if they show an aptitude for professional studies, whether they should go on to the university. In other words, let them be taught along the lines which will equip them for really useful citizenehi-p in this country.
My hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has told -us there is a balance of $1,614,448 still unpaid out of the grant formerly provided for in aid of technical education. We are making no comment as to that. What we in Canada want him to do, however, is to -continue the grant for the children who attend those schools, and make certain that our boys and girls will receive technical education. He spoke o-f the sum of $9,000,000 being collected in the past yea' as profit on the sale of liquor in the province of Ontario. That is true, but let me tell him that over $10,000,000 was expended by the same province last year in aid o-f education. I am not speaking for Ontario alone; I speak for the whole Dominion o-f Canada, and I feel that this government should take heed of the situation as it exists.
The Prime Minister has said that education is a provincial matter; we will admit -that. What is he doing with our money? Is he spending it broadcast throughout Canada? Why, the bulk of the money is being spent right here in the city of Ottawa in the de-
582	COMMONS
Technical Education-Mr. Cantley
struction of public property. He has spent $4,000,000 in this city; let him devote half that amount to the education of the boys and girls of Canada, and he will be doing something; he will be rendering a real service to our people.
The Prime Minister told us that the Ontario liquor control board collected $9,000,000 in profits in the past year, knowing full well that this Dominion placed in its pockets $53,000,000 by the tax on liquor. Why not give us half of that; why not give us a quarter or an eighth of that amount in aid of technical education? Then every Canadian will hold up both his hands in favour of Mackenzie King as one of the greatest advocates of technical education we have ever known.
The Prime Minister speaks of industrial research. What connection has industrial research with the education of our boys and girls? We must agree that industrial research is a wonderful thing; we believe it is necessary, and something which will pay back tenfold every dollar spent. What we are interested in, however, in connection with this particular resolution, is the education of the youth of this land, and I say to the government of this country that it is their duty to place in the estimates a grant in aid of technical education and give the boys and girls of Canada a real chance.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I did not intend to take part in this discussion, and I shall keep the house but a very few minutes. My reason for speaking is to emphasize the need for technical education at this time. The need increases as we change our methods of life, not only in the city but on the farms. The time has come when we need trained men for agriculture. With our present fiscal system there is a concentration of wealth in the great industrial centres, and the agricultural provinces are finding themselves unable to meet their obligations.
I sympathize with the Prime Minister (Mr Mackenzie King) in his endeavour to keep provincial and Dominion matters apart, because I believe they should be kept apart. But my main reason for rising to-night was to discuss a rather strange recommendation. Canada is a member of the League of Nations, which has done splendid work in either deterring or stopping the sale of drugs which dull the intellect of our people. I was sorry to hear the Prime Minister throw out the suggestion that Ontaria could use for technical education a large part of the revenue derived from the liquor business. Are our young people to come to the conclusion that it is all right to sell liquor

in order to give them education? I regret that these economic questions are not considered in relation to their moral effect upon the citizens of Canada. I am sorry to hear the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney) speak as though he were jealous of the revenue derived by the Dominion from the liquor traffic.
It is not my intention to keep the house any longer. As I have said, I sympathize with the Prime Minister and believe that he is right in keeping provincial and Dominion matters apart, but I did feel that I should make some comment upon the phases of the subject to which I have referred. I believe that when the provinces took over the distribution of liquor the underlying motive was to sell as little as possible, and I was sorry to hear the recommendation thrown out that the profits derived from that business should be used for the education of our young people.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest and with some pleasure to some of the remarks made to-night, but I was particularly interested in what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said regarding this matter.
One of his favourite expressions is the implements of production, and I would like to point out that in my judgment the most important implements of production in this country are the trained intellects and hands of the workers, artisans and fanners. If Canada is to hold its own with the other nations of the world, and particularly with our neighbour to the south, we must have more of those trained implements. Private concerns in the United States are devoting as much as $1,000,000 in some cases and I believe as high as $3,000,000 yearly to industrial research in connection with their own particular industry. It must be realized that we in the Dominion of Canada with our limited resources and comparatively small industrial enterprises do labour and will continue to labour under great handicaps.
The Prime Minister contends that the matter of technical education is not one for the federal government, but I am sorry that as to that I cannot agree with him. While, as he observed, the obligations placed upon the federal government have grown enormously during the last twenty years, so have its resources. Apart from the one source of revenue to which reference has been made by him, the resources of the smaller provinces have not increased in proportion to the obligations imposed upon them. Take the one matter of improved highways. The province of Nova Scotia is spending close to one-half

Technical Education-Mr. Bennett
of its yearly revenues upon road improvement, and that proportion will in all probability increase as the years go by. The Prime Minister has referred to what is being done in scientific research and to the amount of money which will be expended this year and in succeeding years in connection with that matter. That is all to the good, but I want to say this:	So far as much of the work which has
been done in that connection in this city is concerned it has been for the most part actually wasted. So-called research has been carried on in this city for the last four or five years which is not scientific research at all. Money is being squandered in connection with reputed research work of the Mines department, which has been playing with experiments which have been worked out in practical experience in industrial concerns, in some cases almost twenty years ago. So far as I know there has not been one single important fact demonstrated or anything approaching a scientific discovery made by that department since I came to this house five years ago.
N otwithstanding the defence offered by the Prime Minister for the position he takes, I must differ from him and I still think this question is one of the most important matters brought before the house, and that a duty lies upon the federal government which cannot be put upon the provincial governments, particularly of the smaller provinces. In view of and considering the necessities confronting them, which are yearly augmented, they are unable to cope with the situation; therefore the smaller provinces require aid to a greater degree than do the larger provinces. Could we, I ask, in Nova Scotia begin to give our young people the technical education which the province of Ontario, with its larger revenues, supplies, containing as it does so many large industrial enterprises?
The Prime Minister referred to the royal commission appointed some years ago to look into this question of technical education. I well remember the personnel of that commission which took evidence in the various provinces. It sat in my home town of New Glasgow in Nova Scotia, and I had the opportunity of giving evidence before it. Its work was highly beneficial, as it aroused the interest of the whole country in the question. I contend that the federal government has not as yet undertaken its share of that work, the importance of which it surely realized when it appointed that commission. I appeal to the Prime Minister to revise his views in connection with this matter. I do not think the government can dispose of its obligations
quite as easily as the Prime Minister would lead us to suppose, or on the ground that he
suggests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to trespass upon the time of the house in discussing this matter at any great length, but this I will say: the Dominion parliament has for years voted a sum of money to aid the provinces in technical education. That became necessary because of the inability of the provinces to expend, out of their own resources, the money that might be necessary to establish technical schools upon a proper basis. The increased burden of taxation imposed upon the provinces has been so great that in some instances on a mere quarter-section of land it amounts to twenty times what it did before the war. I am sorry to say that is so. There never before has been a time when there was greater necessity for such grants being continued to the provinces than there is to-day. That can be readily realized by anyone who will take the trouble to look into the condition of the western provinces and the burden of taxation they must bear. Anyone who lives in Manitoba will agree with that, having regard to the necessities of that province during the last few years in the increased burden of taxation imposed upon the people of that province. Anyone in Saskatchewan who realizes the necessity of the supplementary taxes that have been imposed in that province will also agree, and the same thing is true in regard to Alberta. Therefore if it was right to initiate this grant, it is right to continue it at the present time to an even greater degree than at any other time. The provinces have entered upon and expended sums of money in respect of an undertaking which they now must cany on, and which they would not have entered upon had it not been for the aid they received from the federal government. Under those circumstances, the provinces having received that aid, I earnestly hope it may be continued.
Now I go to the second point: It is said that this is a matter of grace and favour. The technical schools are the universities for the poor boys and girls of Canada. Those who cannot afford to take education in the universities must secure through these technical schools the training necessary to fit them for the trades and occupations in which they engage, even domestic science. The school, for instance, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchko-vich), is one that has been doing great service in the city of Calgary and in the southern part of Alberta.
SS4	COMMONS
Technical Education-Mr. Bennett
As I have passed through Canada during the last two years and have seen the technical schools that have been erected under the provisions of the grant that has been made for technical education, I realize that a valuable service has been rendered to this country through the money devoted to that purpose. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) contends that the greatest obligation that can rest upon a government of this country is to extend our trade. How can we compete in foreign countries and extend our markets unless we have men and women in factories, machine shops and industries -who by their training are enabled to produce goods and commodities with as much skill as their competitors in those markets, and to use with equal effectiveness and efficiency the machines employed in that production? And how are we to do that except through technical training? It is a matter of trade and commerce; it is a matter of Dominion, not merely of provincial concern, and because it is a matter of trade and commerce, because it is a matter of the extension of our export business throughout the world, because it is a matter of enabling the youth of the country, who may not go to the universities, to be so equipped that they may be able with skill of hand and eye to utilize to the fullest effect the machines employed in industry and in the various productive enterprises upon which our export business depends, I submit that the federal government should make that contribution to technical education. In that sense it does not conflict with research, industrial or scientific. Industrial and scientific investigations are carried on by specialists, skilled scientific minds, trained products of universities, men and women who have had academic training, but the technical schools are not for that purpose. They are for one purpose only, namely, to enable the trade and commerce of this country to be extended in competition with the trade and commerce of other countries where men and women are thus trained.
In the United States the very measure to which the hon. member referred enables the federal treasury to make grants in order that cooperation between the federal and state authorities will equip the men and women trained in their technical schools to send their products to every part of the world in as good condition, produced as cheaply and as efficiently, as those which come from Germany and other countries. In a message to the people of England, the late Lord Haldane, speaking of technical education, said that what gave Germany her preeminence in world [Mr. BeanettJ
trade before the great war was the fact that her boys and girls had received technical education under a scheme that had been unheard of in Europe prior to that time. He said: "Until this kingdom realizes what its duties are with respect to technical education, we shall never be able to overtake our competitors in the industrial race." So that following the war one of the important matters to which Great Britain, France and Germany are directing attention is technical education, and we Canadians must compete with them in the markets of the world. We must go to China, to Japan, to the orient, to every market of the world and compete with the skilled, trained minds, hands and eyes of men and women who have been trained in technical institutions. How can we do that unless we afford our people the proper facilities? How can the provinces provide the facilities under the conditions to which I have alluded? Nothing is more directly a branch of trade and commerce than technical education; therefore federal aid should be given.
Nor is there anything on which a greater dividend could be realized. I know of no other federal expenditure that could be made that would yield directly or indirectly a greater dividend to our people than money spent on technical education, and that is why the government should make the grant. We can appreciate this at once. Why discuss the necessity of technical education? Men do not discuss the necessity of pure air in which to breathe and live. Why should we discuss any longer the necessity of technical education? Without it the nation can have no permanent export trade, and because that is so, it is a branch of trade and commerce in the largest and best sense. It is true that its effects may be incorporated with those of industrial and scientific research, but the latter is the work of the laboratory, of the academic and trained mind. That is the work, as the doctor yonder will say, of the men who have had the special training which enables them to carry on scientific research in order to make discoveries that may in turn be utilized to the full by technically trained workers. Great inventions, important scientific discoveries, are being worked out in laboratories by men and women who are devoting their lives to that work; when their purposes are achieved, the industrialists, trained in mind, hand and eye, utilize those discoveries and inventions, and the resulting product is sold in the markets of the world by the Canadian people.
Let me summarize in these words my reasons for supporting the resolution: First, having created a condition by federal aid, we

Technical Education-Mr. Brady
must maintain it by federal aid until such aid is no longer required. Second, technical education is essentially a branch of trade and commerce, and therefore a federal matter, if this country's markets are to be extended and we are to compete successfully against the skilled and trained technicians that come from the great institutions of the old country and are now engaged in industrial work, sending their products to every part of the world. Lastly, technical education does not conflict with but is the complement of scientific research, by the aid of which, technical education will be made more effective. I trust that the administration will approach it from this point of view and agree without further consideration that it is desirable to renew for the next ten years, the aid that has been given in the past, so that we may take our place in exporting our products to the nations of the world.


James Charles Brady: Mr. Speaker, in support of the resolution of the member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich), may I say that technical education is a national duty relating to the economic development of Canada. I wish to repeat that for the benefit of those who are interested in this particular resolution; technical education is a national duty relating to the economic development of Canada. It seems to me a remarkable thing that this resolution should come from one who perhaps is not a Canadian by birth, because it deals in a very direct manner with our great immigration policy. I was more than disappointed when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) not this session but last, with that eloquence which he possesses, that gift of debate, that subtle ingenuity which characterize only a man of high accomplishment, attempted to prove that technical education was not part of the duty of the federal government.
The history of technical education in the modern world is a very interesting one. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) spoke of Germany and the part that technical education has played in furthering the wonderful industrial progress of that nation. England likewise has paid great attention to the development of technical education. Every nation places much importance upon technical education. What has been the result? We must judge the present in the light of the past, and I appeal to-night to the Prime Minister to trace the history of technical education in Canada. It is a very interesting story. Commercial courses were first introduced in Canada in the province Of Ontario, in 1899. They were introduced later in British Columbia in 1905 and to-night I wish to do honour to the old province of Quebec which was the first province to provide commercial courses for those pupils who did not desire to enter a university. The province of Quebec realized that thousands of their young people were not destined for university courses. They realized that only a limited number of the ten million people of Canada can hope for a university training and that the great pioneers of all progress in every department of trade, commerce, and industry have come from the rank and file of the common folk. They saw that there must be some opportunity provided for these young people to develop their talents and ability. Agricultural courses were first given in Ontario at the agricultural college at Guelph, in 1874, in Nova Scotia, in 1888; in the Manitoba college, in 1903; at the Macdonald college, in 1907. Training in handicrafts was introduced first in the schools in the form of manual training for the boys and domestic science for the girls. I wish for a moment to dwell upon the importance of technical training in these two departments.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, the wonderful effect produced in our educational work by manual training for the boys and domestic science for the girls? There is no part today of our educational system that is so fruitful, so beneficial in its results, as these two departments which to-day are menaced by the apathy, the indifference and lack of vision of the federal government, I marvel that a great party, representing as it does a very strong political view in Canada, can be so hopelessly inept, so indifferent to public opinion that it fails to realize that the one great thing needed for the building up of this young Dominion in its competition with older countries that have attained a considerable industrial development is the development of technical education in this country, and yet they prove themselves not merely incapable but hopelessly oblivious to the call which the interests of the country demand. '
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the Prime Minister; for him I have the deepest respect. I do believe that Canada has good men. I do believe that we are all taking a big part in the theatre of life in which we are called upon to act, whether we are stage boys or the hero in the play. But the Prime Minister to-night seemed to forget or desired to forget, that the federal government in times past placed itself behind the resolution of

Technical Education-Mr. Brady
the hon. member for Vegreville. Here is what I find:
Educational administration is assumed to be the concern of each province, nevertheless the Dominion government, recognizing the importance of technical education supplemented the provincial grants for these very purposes.
The Dominion government, the very government that ws are appealing to, has recognized that technical education was a national undertaking. I find that in 1913 the Agricultural Instruction Act was passed giving $10,000,000 over a period of ten years to the various provinces for the advancement of agricultural education. Furthermore, in 1919 a similar sum was voted to the provinces for technical education over a similar period of years.
What is the natural result of this? I submit that' it is undebatable, it is uneontradictable by any member on the government benches. The very grants given by the Dominion government have been most effective in turning the attention of the various provinces towards vocational education. But let us picture the various provinces to-day from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and what do we find? Owing to the support granted in past years by the Dominion government to technical education, the provinces entered upon the development of their technical schools, which they have developed to a stage that is today an honour to a young country like Canada. But let me direct the attention of the house to the disastrous results following the cessation of this federal aid. I rose to-night to tell the Prime Minister that the discontinuance of the federal aid for technical education had had' a most detrimental effect upon every technical school throughout British Columbia. When I was in Prince Rupert the other day I saw a letter from the provincial Minister of Education to the local school board regretting that the provincial government's contribution towards the upkeep of the domestic science department and the manual school had to be reduced.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this means that at a time when we are trying to build up industries in Canada-and we are next door to the greatest commercial and manufacturing country in the world-we are held down with, as it were, our hands tied behind our backs, denied the privilege of educating our boys and girls to take a part in the development of their native country. Is it fair, Mr. Speaker? No sir,
I tell the Prime Minister and I tell the government of Canada that there is nothing either human or divine that oan stop the feeling that surges in the breasts of the people of Canada because of this fact, that we are 
denied the right to assist every boy and girl, every young man and young woman, to participate in the gifts which a benign Providence has granted to us. I have sat in this house for four years, and at times I have suffered agony white I waited to know whether or not my view was wrong and that of other members was right. Last evening I heard the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) ridicule a very important resolution in that witty, felicitous manner that he possesses. After he finished I left the chamber and I said to myself: No, there is something yet to be done; somebody will rise some day in the house and tell us that hon. members do not always speak as they should in duty do. I do not in the least exaggerate when I say that we, the members of this honourable house, are honoured as few men can be honoured; money cannot buy the position that each of us holds in this house; it is the tribute of the people-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Charles Brady: Oh, is that so? I think
otherwise. The people of Skeena put me here, and in return they expect at least that on a vital question pertaining to the welfare of Canada I should speak the truth. With the deepest sincerity I declare my belief that the government is acting very foolishly in not supporting the claims of the provinces for federal assistance towards the improvement of technical education, and, I heartily endorse the resolution of the hon. member for Vegreville. The people of Canada to-day are asking for the one thing which I am feebly trying to present, that is, that technical educational grants by the federal government are essential for the welfare of Canada. If we do not grant them we are traitors to Canada, to its young men and women who look to us to give them opportunities to live in Canada.


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to detain the house at so late an hour, even momentarily, and certainly I would not do so were I not fully seized of the importance of the subject dealt with in the resolution now before the house. Indeed, if I allowed this occasion to go by without proferring some remarks I would feel that I was remiss in my duty to countless thousands of Canadian citizens who have not, on account of circumstances, been given the opportunity to receive an education in cur universities and in our schools of higher study.
I was very much interested, Mr. Speaker, in the excellent address of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). As I have listened to many of his addresses in this house I have come to the conclusion that

Technical Education-Mr. Macdougall
he always attains his highest degree of excellence when he defends the lack of responsibility of the government towards important issues concerning the welfare of the people of the different provinces of Canada. It would be well for us, if only in the interests of logic and of sound reasoning, to place in juxtaposition two of the statements of the right hon. gentleman to-night. He told us of his great belief in technical education. He made an open confession-which is supposed to be good for the soul but which is generally hard on the reputation-that he believed in technical education and was a great supporter of it; and in the very same breath he told us that there was no constitutional obstacle in the way of the federal government assisting the provinces in carrying on the work of technical education. What happens to his belief? The federal government has abounding revenues. The Prime Minister claims to believe in technical education, and has the desire to see it carried on in every province in Canada, and yet, with skilled evasion, he escapes the responsibility with respect to that in which he professes to be such a great believer.
He told us that one of the reasons why they were opposed to the resolution was that the prairie provinces were being given their natural resources and their subsidies. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, that is an unfair argument. Does the right hon. gentleman want to convey to this house the belief or the idea that the prairie provinces were not entitled to the return of their natural resources and to the financial arrangement that went along with them? That is a question that should not be mixed up with technical education at all. Coming as I do from the east, I believe that the prairie provinces are entitled to a greater measure of justice from the federal parliament than they have even now received, or rather are about to receive, in the case of one or two of them. And, so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, increased subsidies have been awarded to those provinces as the result of the recommendation of a commission appointed some four years ago. May I point out in this connection that the recommendations of that commission in respect to increased subsidies have not yet been carried out by the Prime Minister and his government? All that Sir Andrew Rae Duncan recommended was that there should be substantial increases in the subsidies to those provinces, and that pending such readjustment of subsidies interim lump sums should be paid immediately. Those interim lump sums to the maritime provinces were,
in the words of the Duncan commission, to represent the minimum of justice to which those provinces were entitled.
This question of technical education is one of imiportantee not only to the provinces but to the whole Dominion. My right hon. friend says that the provinces should carry it on, that they have the revenues with which to carry it on, and in support of that statement he proclaims, with great gusto, that no technical school has been closed because of the discontinuance of this grant for technical education. Of course no technical school has been closed in any of the provinces. Why? Because the provinces were alive to the need of technical education which my right hon. friend and his associates seem so fully to believe in; with their limited sources of revenue the provinces have carried on splendidly. But it is unfair to ask the provinces to carry on wholly a work which is of interest and of importance and value to the whole Dominion of Canada. My right hon. friend talks glibly about revenues and sources of revenue. There is only one source whence the federal government or any provincial government can obtain revenue ; that source is the Canadian people. My right hon. friend, by shirking his responsibility in this matter, creates a condition whereby the earning power of the people of this country is decreased, because knowledge is power; and if our people through technical education are enabled to seize the opportunities afforded by the economic advantages of this country, then our sources of revenue, 'both provincial and federal, will be increased.
Not only is it important for us to safeguard the revenues that we have, but we must safeguard above all else that source from which revenues are derived, the people of Canada. There is nothing but skilled evasion in the attitude taken by my right hon. friend tonight. There is no constitutional objection to giving grants for this purpose to the provinces. He says he believes in technical education. I say to him to-night, as a fellow-Canadian who wants to see every possible advantage in the matter of education placed within the reach of the common people of this country, let us make the grants, and the returns in the years to come will redound not only to the prosperity of the various provinces but to the advancement of Canada as a whole.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, just a few remarks on this subject. It appears that the house is unanimously in favour of technical education. The difference, as I see it, is that those who have spoken

Technical Education-Mr. Geary
on this side of the house desire to help along the cause of technical education, and, if I may say so, the arguments that have been adduced from the other side of the house all tend to hinder it.
I wish to refer more particularly to the argument of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). As far as I could gather, while he did not raise a constitutional abjection to the sipending of money on technical education, he did, in a roundabout way, invoke the old cry of unconstitutionality by seeking to delimit the powers or the obligations of the Dominion and the provinces in that regard. I could not quite follow the argument of the right hon. gentleman in regard to the expenditure of money by Great Britain. Surely he must see that there is no possible analogy between hypothetical help by Great Britain to the Dominion and help by the Dominion of Canada to the several provinces forming the confederation. There is no common taxation in the British Empire, and if our constitutional status, which for one reason or another has been urged so strongly, particularly on the other side of this house amounts to anything, it means that we are quite independent of each other in fiscal matters. I cannot follow my right hon. friend at all if he seeks to adduce that as an argument against the Dominion of Canada spending federal money in aid of the provincial exercise of power in education, and with relation to the particular branch known as technical education.
I am not very sure that we can refer advantageously to the British North America Act. All it says about education is that the provinces alone have power to make laws in regard to education. At the time the act was passed technical education probably was not contemplated by those who formulated it.. It was not in their minds, and it was not considered that there would be such an expenditure of money as is required to conduct technical education. True, it is a branch of education, but not within the contemplation of the parties to the agreement at that time.
The Prime Minister has said that in the year 1910 the Dominion government thought some start should be made in technical education, and to that end a committee was appointed. There is no doubt that it was the findings of that committee that first started the different provinces on the road to technical education, and because, as the Prime Minister has said, there was not enough money in the provinces to get the movement started, it was thought well that parliament should provide the initial expenditure.
* [Mr. Geary.)
Ten years have gone by, and we have found the amount of the grant very useful, although some of the provinces have not as yet been able to take full advantage of it. It is still in its infancy, so to speak, and when we ask the Dominion parliament to continue the grant for another ten years we are simply asking it to keep on its feet an institution which this Dominion parliament helped establish throughout the different provinces. To be sure, we cannot detail to the provinces how that money is to be spent, but I have not heard of a province refusing any grant that this parliament chooses to make, earmarked as that grant may be. The fact, that they accepted it very cheerfully ten years ago is enough to authorize us to go in the belief that they will cheerfully accept it in the future.
The other ground the Prime Minister urges against the expenditure of the money is that of economy. He asks why we should spend the sum of SI,000,000 per year. If I may say so, the right hon. gentleman adduced a very unfair argument, and one that should not be accepted without some protest from this side of the house. I do not think his statement was so much in the cause of Dominion legislation or Dominion powers as it was in the cause of the present government. He said that he would rather give money towards soldier pensions than to this project, if a choice were to be made between the two. I do not think any member of this house should be made to think for one minute that the amount of money to be paid in pensions to soldiers is to be influenced in either way, up or down, by the fact that parliament chooses to make a grant for technical education. I protest strongly against the Prime Minister holding a club, as it were, over this side of the house and appealing to the country by saying in effect that one reason for opposing this particular grant is to assist the cause of the soldiers. Let me assure the right hon. gentleman that he will find no objection whatever on this side of the house to the expenditure of any amount we think should be spent on behalf of our ex-service men.
There is one other point I would like to mention, and that is in regard to the subsidies that have been paid to the provinces. Those subsidies were originally made in full of all demands, under the British North America Act, which might be made at any future time by a province. As I say, this is not a demand by the provinces; it is a free gift to all the people of the country, a gift to which the Prime Minister says there is no objection whatever constitutionally. This house may grant the money; it is not in any sense a

Technical Education-Mr. Dunning
demand which could be set off against the subsidies, for the subsidies were given in full of all demands which the provinces might make at any future time in regard to the allocations then made by the British North America Act, in which allotment of subjects technical education was probably not considered.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister's whole speech went as an excuse, in some measure, for not supporting this particular grant. He says in so many words that he is in favour of technical education, yet he seeks, by constitutional argument and pleas of economy, in some way or another to find a basis for refusing to promote it. I cannot think why he persists in that attitude. I am pure his followers think he is wrong, as do the members who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker.
I trust that on reconsideration of the matter he will see that this is a proper and just allowance to be made by the Dominion in furtherance of a system which the Dominion itself has introduced, which operates not so much to the benefit of a province as to the benefit of all the people of Canada.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): This is another of the resolutions calling upon the Dominion government to make a grant to the provinces, as a matter pf grace, which it is not constitutionally obligated to make as a matter of right. It is for that reason I oppose the principle, just as I always opposed the principle of grants of this kind when I occupied the position of premier in a provincial government. My reasons I stated- briefly the other evening. I do not believe that directly or indirectly the federal parliament should seek to infringe upon the autonomy of the provinces in respect to matters which, under the constitution, they and they alone control.
There are many ways in which the central parliament, with its widier taxing powers, pan coerce the provinces. One is by offering free grants to the provinces, provided that those provinces adopt certain policies over which they alone have control, under the ponstitution. The Dominion, by holding out these offers of free grants by grace, can coerce the provinces to adopt policies whether or not they, as provinces, desire to adopt them. The leader of the opposition to-night indicated that one of the reasons why this grant should be continued for a further period of ten years was that the provinces had come to depend upon it. That to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is a reason why we should not adopt the principle behind this resolution. The provinces are absolutely dependent upon the grace of parliament to make grants of this description. If it is desirable that we should pay further money to the provinces for any purpose, then I argue that the British North America Act should be amended with respect to the per capita grants which the provinces receive from this parliament as a matter of constitutional right, and larger grants should be given to them by that method rather than by the method of grants which are matters of grace, and which can be withdrawn or withheld at any time at the whim or by the desire of the majority of this parliament.


George Reginald Geary: May I ask the hon. gentleman how he proposes to amend the act?


Charles Avery Dunning: In exactly the same way it has been amended on at least three or four occasions in respect to the same matter of enlargement of the per capita subsidies, which would have to 'be brought about by a conference between the provinces and the Dominion. That is the proper way to approach this matter, rather than by getting into the position in which, as the leadeT of the opposition admits, we now find ourselves, that of having made a grant to the provinces by grace, and finding at the end of the ten years that the provinces have come to depend upon something to which they have no real claim constitutionally. So the result is that they are compelled to come here as suppliants for something to be given to them as a matter of grace. I took that attitude as a member of a provincial administration when sums of money were offered to us for various purposes. I believe it is important, unless we are to develop in Canada a centralized system of government, that the provinces should be dealt with, so far as monetary relations with this parliament are concerned, upon the basis of right rather than upon the basis of grace.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: May I ask the minister a question?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member has
made his speech; will he kindly resume his seat and allow me to make mine? Does the hon. member desire to ask me a question or to make a speech?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: To ask a question. The minister says that he took objection to the grants when he was a member of the government of Saskatchewan?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Did he take the
grants?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. As I stated before, it is a method of coercion in advance of their

Technical Education-Mr. Dunning
being ready to adopt it. Saskatchewan was unable, for reasons which were best known to itself and which were known very well to the people of the province, to take advantage immediately of the grants and has been taking advantage of them only for the past two or three years. My hon. friend's own province did not take advantage of the grants before and is only now taking advantage of them. The fact is that while the grants were first made available in 1919 only the wealthier ptovinces were able immediately to take advantage of them, with the result that now, more than ten years after the enactment of the original legislation, at least four if not five of the provinces have been unable to take advantage of it. Last year the act was extended for five years in order that those provinces might take advantage of what was made available more than ten years ago.
My hon. friends are asking for an extension of another ten years. For what provinces? Not for those who have not yet taken advantage of the grant which is still available and will be until 1934: it must be for the provinces which have had already the maximum of assistance, the provinces which have had the most money. Why? Because they have the greatest population, and the grant was based upon population; because, having the greatest population they have the greatest sources of revenue locally; and because having the greatest sources of revenue locally they were better able to meet their obligation under the legislation, the obligation being that the province should spend an amount of money at least equal to the amount spent by the Dominion government. The provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and I think one other province have not yet been able to do so, but they have five years in which to take advantage of the money available under the existing legislation. Any proposal to extend this scheme only can mean that the provinces which are now behind in taking advantage of it will be still further behind, and the provinces which have had the maximum advantage of it hitherto will continue to receive money from the federal government to carry on work which, I submit, they are well able financially to carry on for themselves.
What is the position to-day? When the time for payment expired under the original act there was still $2,035,000 available for the province which had not yet been able to take advantage of their full allotment, in some cases not being able to take advantage of the act at all. With all the complaint we have been receiving from the opposite side of the house regarding assistance for technical educa-

tion, we have paid out of the treasury this year for assistance to technical education not less than $465,000, and this amount has gone to those provinces which are least able to help themselves in regard to this matter. It has been paid to those provinces which in order to take advantage of this act have had to wait until they were financially able to bear fifty per cent of the burden imposed by the act.
I shall make only one brief reference to the division of work which was tentatively agreed on between the Dominion and the provinces at the last interprovincial conference. There was a very full discussion of the technical education system and of that higher realm of national work which is linked to it and which was referred to by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the work of national research. All the provinces agreed that it was desirable that we should have in Canada a national research institution fully equipped with the latest scientific apparatus and manned with the best possible scientific brains in order to evolve those processes and methods which might best be applied to technical education. That is really the basic work of the national research organization of this country, and in the estimates which are now before the house is a sum of not less than $500,000 for the carrying on of that work for the coming fiscal year. How is it expended? It is expended in research work not only here at Ottawa, in the laboratories which are temporarily in operation, but in the universities in the different provinces, in scholarships in research in order that those universities may provide men to convey technical education and technical training to those who, more and more as time passes, go to the technical schools. I submit, sir, that when this Dominion is spending $500,000 a year on scientific research, when it is providing for the erection of national laboratories in the capital city to enable that work to be carried on effectively, which expenditure will run to $3,000,000 before the work is fully completed and the laboratories completly equipped; when it is doing that, and when it is continuing for another five years the grants to what I might call, not the poorer provinces-I do not care for that expression-but those provinces which have not yet been able to take advantage of the technical education grants; when it is continuing those grants for another five years in order to enable them to get the same start in technical education as the older and wealthier provinces have secured, then this Dominion has discharged to the full any moral obligation it is under in that regard. I do not consider that there is any con-

Technical Education-Mr. Kaiser
stitutional obligation, as I draw a clear line between what we must do constitutionally and what we may do as a matter of grace.
It is ridiculous to charge those who are setting forth the Dominion's responsibilities with being opposed to technical education. One might as well say that I am opposed to hospitals because I would not advocate a Dominion grant to be paid to hospitals. One might as well argue that I am opposed to general education because I would oppose the federal authorities making a grant to the public schools all over the Dominion. After all, Mr. Speaker, we have in this country a federal system of government, and we have set out as well as we could, in the statute which governs our relationships with each other, the obligations both provincial and federal. It may be that there is an argument in favour of enlarging the free subsidies now being paid by the Dominion to the provinces; that is arguable at least, but I do stand firmly behind the principle that each province should have the free right to expend the money which it receives either from its own taxation or from the subsidies from the Dominion treasury. It should be subject in that regard to no coercion, legislative or otherwise, by the parliament of the Dominion of Canada.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Before the hon. minister takes his seat, I would ask him if he does not think that the principle of grants to technical education is identical with the grants in respect to old age pensions?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not agree that they are the same at all.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I will not either assume nor presume to follow the argument of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) but I rise merely to say that for once I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Finance minister (Mr. Dunning) upon one thing- absolute consistency for once.
I will illustrate what I mean. In the city from which I come there is on one side of the road a splendid industry, one which requires more technical hands than any other industry in the city-I do not mean the automobile business. These people have been asking for trained young men and young women to help them in their industry.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the industry?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Fittings Limited, makers of all kinds of fittings and castings. They are addressing themselves to the manufacture of some of the parts of automobiles that have
hitherto been made in the United States. These people asked for a technical school. Last year or the year before we spent $300,000 or $400,000 to build a technical school to turn out the youth of the land equipped to work in this particular industry. Owing to the drift of policy of the present government, a resolution came before the house a few days ago asking for a reduction in the tariff in regard to the goods that these people manufacture, and yesterday I received this telegram which I want to read:
Have just been instructed by Canadian supplier of transmissions for trucks to hold up orders for castings involving about 100 tons owing to possible revision of the duty to 6 per cent. This would be a serious blow to Canadian workmen and we respectfully urge vigorous opposition.
J. D. Storie.
That is the president of Fittings Limited. As I see this technical school arise, training our youth for work in this industry, and as I see this industry crumbling owing to the attitude, .policy and principles of the government, I say that the two things are absolutely inconsistent and we should vote exactly as they ask. Why should we spend our money in building technical schools when the government destroy the only industries in Canada that our boys can work in?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, one can derive a good deal of amusement from the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite. Let me deal just for a moment or two with the statement of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) who has just addressed the house. He has accused the government of being guilty of bringing in a motion to reduce the tariff on automobiles.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I beg the minister's pardon. I did not say the government. I said that a resolution was before the house along the line of the general policy of the government.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend is imputing motives, I have no reply to make to that except to say that I am always in favour of reduction of duty, but that has nothing to do with the question before the house at the moment. As I understand the matter, my hon. friend is seriously supporting the motion of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) and he finds a great deal of fault with the motion to which he has just referred, moved by the hon. member for Macfeod (Mr. Coote). Therefore,, if he is to be consistent, he cannot support, those hon. gentlemen in both motions.
592	COMMONS
Technical Education-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
The motion before the house calls upon the government of Canada to give further consideration to technical education. I do not propose to make any lengthy statement with respect to technical education or its value to the Canadian people, but I wish to direct the attention particularly of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) and the hon. member for Ontario to the fact that there is a clear line of duty marked out for the federal government and the provincial authority. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has very properly said, the provinces have assumed continuously the responsibility for education, and I cannot conceive of any hon. member moving a resolution asking for federal aid to education. I was in identically the same position as the present Minister of Finance, in his capacity as a member of the provincial government, with respect to the grants by the federal government in aid of highway construction. There is no desire to avoid responsibility. I am a taxpayer in the province of Alberta, and I have no desire to avoid responsibility for taxation for carrying on technical education. As former premier of Alberta I am rather proud of the fact that we lent the aid, and furnished the money for the construction of the technical school which is now operating in Calgary and of which my hon. friend has spoken so glowingly to-night, and I am proud of the work it is doing for the youth of Alberta. But surely there is some place where the responsibility of the provinces ends and that of the federal government begins, and the responsibility in educational matters is not of federal concern. As I said the other day with respect to the motion dealing with grants towards highway construction, in all these matters it is the easiest thing in the world for an hon. member to rise in his place and call upon the federal government to make grants in respect to matters of provincial concern. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a habit of calling upon the federal government to provide, from taxes collected by it, grants to the provinces for matters that are purely of provincial concern.


Robert James Manion: The government boasted
so much of its surplus.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that the reason?


Robert James Manion: That is one.


Charles A. Stewart: May I point out that it was in my hon. friend's province that they boasted a great deal about the surplus shown in the budget recently presented to the legislature at Toronto? The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady) waxed

eloquent to-night and called upon the people of Canada and high heaven to witness how recreant this government were in their duty, but only two days ago he was calling upon high heaven to witness how recreant we were because we were not building a road into Prince Rupert. High heaven witnesses a lot of recreancies of that character, and I have no doubt that if we were to meet his request he would come forward with some other resolution calling upon the government, because it happened to have a surplus, to make a grant to the provincial government for some other purpose.
May I say that so far as the duties of the federal and provincial authorities are concerned, if the provinces require more assistance, let them come forward and say so and I shall be glad to assist in having their subsidies increased. Let them do as they wish with the money grants.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 14, 1930