1941-05-09

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I rise to what I believe to be a question of privilege. On Tuesday last I made a speech in this house in which I gave the house certain figures as to the number of railway passes issued in Canada. In the Ottawa Citizen of May 7 there appears an article in which it is reported to be stated by high officials of the board of transport commissioners that the figures quoted by me are not quite correct.

I take strong objection to the board of transport commissioners or any official issuing a denial of a statement made by me, or any other hon. member, especially when no member of this house can get the information from the board. If any contradiction is to be made I suggest that the minister in charge give instructions to the board that members of parliament be allowed to obtain information to w'hich I believe they are entitled.



STANDING ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved that the third report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented yesterday, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. ORUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I wish to direct a question to the
Minister of Finance. I must apologize for not having given him notice, but it is a simple question. Has the matter been considered of having the amusement tax collected by the provinces on behalf of the federal government?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: No, that proposal has not been given consideration.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, to incorporate the Alberta Provincial Bank.
He said: The Alberta government desires that it be granted a 'bank. The members of that administration are confident that with a provincial bank Alberta can, by wise management, further the economic well-being of her people, both producers and consumers. They feel that thus Alberta can render her economy more stable 'both for war and for peace; that in so doing Alberta can in more adequate measure assist in Canada's war effort and, when the war is won, aid in that successful rehabilitation of which we all dream. They maintain that there is no valid reason why this parliament could not and should not grant any province a provincial bank. Last year this house, when petitioned for an

Alberta Provincial Bank
Alberta bank, saw fit to refer the petition to the banking and commerce committee. That committee gave the Alberta bank bill as much consideration as the time at its disposal permitted.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that my hon. friend would make a longer speech on the Alberta bank bill, and I am rather taken by surprise, at least to the extent that I have not before me in writing the amendment that I propose to suggest for the consideration of the house. If hon. members will refer to the speech made by my predecessor, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), last year when he was Minister of Finance, they will see the reasons for the amendment which I am about to move.
Last year the minister pointed out that there were a great many objectionable features to the bill, and that it did not come within the terms of a commitment or undertaking given by Mr. Dunning when he was Minister of Finance. Perhaps I should say there was a suggestion, rather than a commitment or undertaking, advanced by Mr. Dunning to the effect that if those in Alberta who were interested in certain monetary principles desired to put those principles into effect, they might apply for the incorporation of a bank within the four corners of the Bank Act and subject to its provisions. It was pointed out by my predecessor that the present bill is not within the terms and provisions of the Bank Act; that is, in a number of important and fundamental particulars it departs from the essential principles that are contained in the Bank Act.
For that reason my predecessor moved that the bill be not then read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, and I propose to make the same motion to-day. It may be that the sponsor of the bill and those supporting it have some further representations they would like to make in favour of the bill. It may be desirable for those representations to be received by the banking and commerce committee; in short, that the matter be gone into again. For that reason I am suggesting that the house take the course I am now proposing.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Might I ask if this is
different from the Ontario bill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not acquainted with the Ontario bill.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Like my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), until I reached the chamber this afternoon I had not really anticipated that this bill would be called first;
but having looked at the order paper, I find that it has precedence over all other bills in this category. We had this bill before the house last year, and on the motion for second reading the present Minister of Finance, who was then the Minister of National Revenue-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The house will recall that the motion of the Prime Minister yesterday was that second reading should be given these bills and that precedence would be given to bills which were unopposed. I gather that there is some opposition to this motion for second reading. Therefore I think we should go on with the other bills on the order paper and dispose of them; those that are opposed will then be taken in the order in which they now appear on the order paper, after the unopposed bills have been disposed of.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I should hand in my proposed amendment first, which I will do in a moment.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Just on a technical point, Mr. Speaker, do I understand that this bill is opposed and therefore will not be proceeded with?


Georges Parent: It will go to the end of the list of unopposed bills. The intention was to clear the order paper of all these private bills, those unopposed to take precedence. I do not know whether or not any bill is opposed until opposition becomes apparent in the house. This bill is opposed; therefore it will go to the end of the list and be taken up later in its proper order.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: By whom is it opposed?


Georges Parent: I am about to receive an amendment to the motion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amendment is:
That the said bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce for consideration and report.


Georges Parent: As I have already stated, this bill now will go to the end of the list.
Motion stands.



GENERAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SARTO FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to incorporate General Security Insurance Company of Canada.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I object to the principle of this bill.


Georges Parent: Very well. It will go to the end of the list also.
Motion stands.
Divorce Bills



ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26a, respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company Limited.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the order for the second reading of this bill


Georges Parent: There is opposition to
the bill; therefore it will go to the end of the list.
Motion stands.



DIVORCE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 30, for the relief of John Hubert Fox.-Mr. Abbott.
Georges Parent: Bills Nos. 30 to 39 are unopposed. We will take the second readings en bloc. If there is any opposition to a bill it will of course go to the bottom of the list.


Mr. NEILL:: I do not object to this particular bill, but I want to speak on one of these bills, and I would like to have them taken one by one in the usual course.



DOROTHY JEAN FLETCHER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. P. WHITMAN (Mount Royal) moved the second reading of Bill No. 31, for the relief of Dorothy Jean Fletcher.
Alan Webster Neill: I
believe it was this year the hem. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) spoke on the subject of divorce bills in general. I believe the hon. member for Temiscouata spoke more fully last session.
I should like to make a few remarks on the general principle of the bills, without distinctly opposing any one of them.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Could we have order, please? I cannot hear the hon. member.


Alan Webster Neill: 
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I rise not for the purpose of opposing this bill, but simply to refer to the principles upon which bills of this kind are founded. I should like to make one or two remarks in this connection. The principle of the senate having jurisdiction-


Georges Parent: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I am not opposing the bill.


Georges Parent: But there has been opposition to the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: No.


Georges Parent: I take it that the speech just made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) was opposition to the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: No. I simply said that I
had no opposition to the bill, but I wanted some information.


Georges Parent: There was opposition to
the immediate passage of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker-


Georges Parent: I am afraid I must rule
that there has been opposition and that this bill must go to the end of the list.


Alan Webster Neill: That is hardly fair. This
wretched man and woman want relief and I am quite ready to give it to them. But I want some information from the sponsor. That will settle the whole matter. I am not opposing the bill. Your Honour did not rule that the bill was being opposed when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) spoke the other day; you simply accepted their remarks. I cannot see how
Divorce Bills

Your Honour can rule that the bill is opposed when I stated specifically that I was not opposed to it.


Georges Parent: We must come back to
the rules of the house. We are considering the second reading of this bill, and the hon. member has asked a question of the sponsor of the bill. We are not in committee; therefore he may not ask questions. At the moment the opposition is to the passage of the bill, there being a desire for information. I must therefore assume that there is opposition to the bill in the sense of the rules which have been laid down by the house. If there is opposition to any bill it will go to the end of the list.


Alan Webster Neill: I would point out that the
motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) does not state that the bills cannot be discussed; it said that they could not be opposed.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: My hon. friend says that he is not opposed to the bill, but he speaks on it; I am opposed to it, but I do not say a word.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order. Do I understand that Your Honour's ruling is that a member cannot ask a question without its being considered that he is opposing the principle of the bill? I contend that the motion under which these bills are being taken up is clearly out of order because it did not have unanimous consent.


Georges Parent: Perhaps the hon. member did not hear me. The motion which was passed the other day was that these bills should be given second reading and sent to the appropriate committee, preference being given to bills which were unopposed. There has been opposition to this bill; therefore it will go to the end of the list, the same as the previous bill already spoken to.
Motion stands.



LILLIAN BALD ELLISON

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount-for Mr. Bercovitch) moved the second reading of Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lillian Bald Ellison.
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposing these bills, but I rise to reiterate the point of view which I have expressed before and which has been ably supported this afternoon by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that is, that before we adopt the principle of one of these bills we should know precisely what we are doing. It is true that in every civilized

country in the world there is a procedure for the granting of divorce and relief to those who are unhappily married. I know that some hon. members who are opposed to these bills do not agree with me.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman has said that he is not opposed to the merits of this particular bill, but he is opposed to its passage on general principles. Therefore it is in the position of being opposed and it must go to the end of the list.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I am not opposing the bill. I am not opposing the passage of legislation of this sort. I am simply opposing the procedure.


Georges Parent: The hon. member will realize that I am endeavouring to uphold the procedure which the house has directed should be carried out. A motion was passed under which these bills were to receive second reading, preference being given to the unopposed bills. I am endeavouring to uphold the instructions which the house gave to me. Therefore when an hon. member rises and proposes to speak either on the principle of the bill or on the procedure being followed, I take it that he is opposed.


Alan Webster Neill: I appeal from Your Honour's ruling.


Georges Parent: This is not a point of order; this is simply carrying out the procedure.


Alan Webster Neill: I shall make it a point of order. Your Honour has told me to sit down and I appeal from your ruling that I am not to be allowed to debate this bill, or discuss it, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) very well said. Hon. members of this house are being stifled.


Georges Parent: I did not ask the hon. member to sit down. But I did point out to him that I was dealing with a motion which had been passed by the house and which provided that the opposition which he was then stating in regard to this bill would automatically send it to the bottom of the list on the order paper. There is no point of order in that.


Alan Webster Neill: Your Honour has given a ruling and I am appealing. Surely there is some redress. I may be wrong; I may be turned down, but that is all right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is it too late for me to speak to the point of order? I have not before me the motion that was passed by the house; in fact I was not here when it was passed. But I have heard it discussed and it appears to be to the effect that the bills to which

Divorce Bills
there is no opposition will be taken up, but that those to which there is opposition will go to the foot of the list.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not quite correct.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is substantially correct. Your Honour is being asked to make an interpretation of the word "opposition" or "opposed." I think it is quite clear that the intention of the motion was that the house should take up those bills which would require no time and in connection with which there would be no discussion. The object of the motion was to get ahead with the business that could be gone on with immediately. When an hon. member says, "I am not opposed to the bill; I am not opposed to the principle of the bill, but I do not want it to pass now without discussion; I am opposed to its passage until I get more information," then I think it is quite within Your Honour's province to interpret that as being opposition within the meaning of the motion. I think the wording of the motion was that those bills which would take no time, in connection with which there was no opposition at the moment, either temporary or permanent, were to be taken up.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has been granted the privilege of giving his interpretation of this order, and I crave the indulgence of the house while I take exception to it. If the first bill dealing with divorce had been considered in such a way as to permit hon. members to place their views before the house, as we tried to do the other day before there was a change in procedure, these bills [DOT]would have gone through without any opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I say yes. I think they would have gone through. But now we are being denied the right on second reading t-o express our view as to whether some other method of procedure should have been followed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say a brief word? I have before me the resolution of the Prime Minister. It will be found at page 2627 of Hansard of May 7. The Prime Minister moved:
That second readings of private bills be the order of the day on Friday the 9th of May instant, it being agreed that the procedure required for their final adoption, when reported from the committees to which they will be referred, shall be complied with at a later date to be fixed on motion without notice.
I pause there to observe that I took exception to the inclusion of the words "without notice". The Prime Minister readily acquiesced and the resolution was amended by striking out these words, so that this portion of the resolution ends with the words "on motion". Then it proceeds:
-that standing order 15 and the resolution of the 17th of February last be suspended in relation thereto,
My recollection is that the effect of this is to do away with the order of the house giving government business precedence. I call attention to the last clause of the resolution:
-and that in carrying out this order of business, precedence be given to unopposed bills.
I suggest to Your Honour that the discussion should centre around that clause, and that on the point of order we should consider whether Your Honour has taken-I say this with great respect-a rather narrow view of what is or is not an unopposed bill. I respectfully dissent from your ruling that the mere fact that a member, such as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), should rise in his place on the second reading and make some observations on the bill, automatically puts that bill in the opposed category. I suggest that the language of the resolution must be interpreted by the ordinary canons of construction. The hon. member distinctly stated that he did not oppose the bill but was asking for information. I suggest therefore that the bill did not automatically, as a result of his observations, fall within the category of an opposed bill-unless in this context the words "unopposed bills" have a restricted technical meaning, and I do not conceive that they have.
My suggestion is that we oughlt to try to get out of this impasse, otherwise we shall be making a spectacle of this House of Commons and lowering ourselves in the estimation of the public. I think we ought to give the ordinary interpretation to the words "unopposed bills", and I do not consider a discussion such as that carried on by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni as being evidence of opposition. If that is the interpretation that is to be given, I shall not, sir, oppose your ruling further, but I do suggest that it is a very restricted interpretation.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I suggest that the English interpretation of "opposed bill" bears out Your Honour's ruling. If we carry through this procedure as we are doing, and all these bills are opposed, the order paper will be in exactly the same state as before.


Mr. McGEER:: Apparently all the bills
above Bill No. 27 have now been passed.
269S
Divorce Bills

and that leaves Bill No. 27 at the head of the list. It seems to me that we should proceed with that bill now.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The others are not all
passed yet.


Alan Webster Neill: Some four or five members have spoken, so that I submit there must be a point of order. If it has been decided against me, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully appeal from your ruling.


Ernest Lapointe: I think that what was in the mind of the Prime Minister and of the house was that any bill on which a debate was desired should go to the foot of the list, as in the case of motions for the production of papers. There the word "opposed" is not used in the rules, but the purpose is really the same. The ride reads:
All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of Motions".
If this language had been used there would be no difficulty whatever. I am quite sure, and I agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), that the intention was that the bills on which debate was desired should be placed at the foot of the list and that the house should proceed with those on which no debate was desired. It is all right for a member to say "I am not opposing the bill," but if he talks for an hour upon it while not opposing it, the purpose of the motion would not be achieved. I agree entirely with the interpretation which the Speaker has given to the motion.


Alan Webster Neill: The Minister of Finance gave his opinion without having read the resolution.


Georges Parent: As I have already said, no one knows whether a bill is opposed until opposition is taken to it in the house. The intention of the motion, as I interpret it, and the Minister of Justice has agreed with me, was that the bills to which no^ opposition would be taken should automatically go through the house and be disposed of. But if debate ensued or objection was taken to any bill, that made it, by the very fact of the member rising and stating his objection, an opposed bill within the meaning of the resolution. May, thirteenth edition, at page 214, says-and hon. gentlemen will see that this pretty well covers the case in point:
After the business under consideration at eleven o'clock or at five o'clock on Friday, has been disposed of, no opposed business can be taken, but the transaction of business can be carried on during the time set apart for unopposed business, although debate may arise thereon, until a .division be challenged upon a question proposed from the chair, or objection be taken to further proceeding. The business

then becomes opposed business; and further consideration thereof must be adjourned in accordance with the provisions of the standing order until the next sitting, or until such other sitting on any day on which the house ordinarily sits as the member in charge of the business may appoint.
I suggest to the common, sense of the house that what we are now met with is opposition to these bills, and therefore they come within the resolution passed yesterday by the house. It is therefore my ruling that these bills must go to the bottom of the list. When they are taken up, any member-and I say this in reply particularly to the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth)-will have the right to discuss the principle and merits of the bill on the second reading. So that no one is being deprived of the right to discuss these bills.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has asked for an appeal against the ruling of the Chair. Standing order 12 provides:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order.
If this were a question of order the hon. member would have the right to appeal. But this is not a question of order, it is a question of interpretation of a motion of the house passed yesterday. I have given my ruling, and as a point of order is not involved I must say that there is no appeal from my ruling.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detain the house. That is the last thing I would want to do. But I do maintain, having taken exception to the ruling of the Chair, the common right of any man or woman here in parliament to appeal. I say again, from the respect I bear to you by reason of our common origin, that I will not press the matter, and I do not want to embarrass the numerous leading men on the front benches who would have to vote against your ruling.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the house, but I am interested in a point of procedure. I am not opposed to these bills; indeed, I favour the principle that, under proper circumstances and proper conditions, an unhappy marriage should be dissolved, and therefore, actually, I am supporting the principle of the bill and not opposing it. Now, I want to know where I stand.


Georges Parent: The very fact that the hon. member made the statement that he has. indicates that he is not opposed to the bill which is now before the house, but that he wishes to debate it. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Divorce Bills


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


Georges Parent: On division.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: If it is on division it is opposed.


Georges Parent: Opposed.
Motion stands.



CLAVELL FILLITER STROUD

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount) moved the second reading of Bill No. 33, for the relief of Clavell Filliter Stroud.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: Will the hon. member explain, please? Will he give, in respect to this bill, the information which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked for in regard to the previous one?


Mr. MacINNIS:: Or any other and further information that he may have.
Motion stands.



MARY MARION GREY MCKAY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount) moved the second reading of Bill No. 34, for the relief of Mary Marion Grey McKay.
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Opposed, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Parent: Stand.
Motion stands.	.



FRANCES GOLDBERG JOSEPH

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount-for Mr. Bercovitch) moved the second reading of Bill No. 35, for the relief of Frances Goldberg Joseph.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would it not be better to let these divorce bills stand?


Alan Webster Neill: She had two children. I wonder what has become of them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Opposed.
Motion stands.



ALICE WEILL SEDLAK

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. BOUCHER (Carleton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 36, for the relief of Alice Weill Sedlak.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can we not deal with these divorce bills en bloc? There is no use going through the farce of dealing with them one at a time. I suggest that they all stand.


Georges Parent: The suggestion was made at the beginning that these bills should be
read, their numbers being indicated, en bloc. Exception was taken by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill); therefore we are reading them one by one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the rule.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Opposed.
Motion stands.



MARGUERITE MARIE RITA DUCHESNEAU GOULET

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount) moved the second reading of Bill No. 37, for the relief of Marguerite Marie Rita Duchesneau Goulet.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Opposed.


Georges Parent: Hon. members will defer their opposition until the motion is before the house.


Mr. MARTIN:: I am opposed to this bill. I am also opposed to Bill No. 38, Bill No. 39-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member cannot get away with that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
give you notice that I am opposed to all these divorce bills.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member may change his mind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. I assure my hon.
friend, having examined every bill, that I shall not change my mind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges Parent: I would ask the house to bear in mind that these are matters which should be seriously considered. If we have to give second reading individually to all these bills, the regular form must be gone through.
Motion stands.



EDNA IRENE YERTAW

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 38, for the relief of Edna Irene Yertaw.
He said:	I am sure there will be no
opposition to this bill when it is known that there is no issue of the marriage in this case.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I am opposed to this bill.


Mr. POULIOT:: The bill itself is an issue, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: I do not think it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, for you to go through each one of these, bill
Divorce Bills

by bill, and have so much time wasted on these proceedings, unless such a course is insisted upon by some hon. member. I suggest that, with the consent of the house, these bills, each one of which tire hon. member for Essex East has said he will oppose, be taken as having been put to the house and as having been opposed, and that we proceed to the next order of business.


Georges Parent: The chair would be very agreeable to that procedure being followed, but the hon. member for Comox-Alberni insisted at the beginning that all these bills should go through the regular course, and that is what we are doing now.


Walter Adam Tucker: Surely, with the consent of the whole house, they can be taken en bloc. There cannot be any objection to dealing with them en bloc, taking them as having been opposed, and proceeding to the next order of business. I am satisfied that no hon. member would object to that, and it would relieve Your Honour of the necessity of going through them one by one.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest
regard for opinions expressed by any hon. member, and so long as there are divergent views expressed in this house we shall enjoy a democracy. But I have said time and time again that this kind of legislation does not improve the standards of parliamentary life. Of course we have a procedure to follow, and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) was perfectly right in asking the Chair to consider each bill in turn. I regret very much that Your Honour has such a task imposed on you, but it is not the fault of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni; it is the fault and the vice of the system.
Here we are required to sanction the reports of the senate committee on divorce. Some hon. members think that the procedure is right; I believe that the procedure is absurd. To look at the names which appear on these bills is sufficient to show that many of the people concerned are not from the province of Quebec, and even if they were, I do not see the necessity of interrupting the discussion of vital matters to study the troubles of private couples. I cannot understand it. I have said time and time again that the situation was absurd, and now we have the evidence. The proof of the pudding is in the eating; the house will have to swallow those bills, and of course they are taken one by one. No one can object to that; it is the procedure. To-day, on this 9th day of May, when war is raging, when hon. members have important business to attend

to, we are here doing just as useful work as do the members of the senate who sit on the divorce committee, just the same thing, being rubber stamps, not to approve government policy but to approve the separation of couples apparently unhappily married. There are, I admit, some cases that call for sympathy, but others are not such. If hon. members take the trouble to read the evidence in each case, they will be disgusted in at least ninety per cent of the cases. There is no father who would like his sons to read that evidence; there is no husband who would like his wife to read that kind of evidence. It is disgusting. Here we are, members of parliament-


Mr. HOWDEN:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not think I have ever before risen in this house to a point of order, but I have noticed this afternoon that you have declined to allow hon. members to debate these cases and they have been put to one side. Therefore I do not see why an hon. member is allowed to debate them now. The bills are either in order or they are out of order. I contend that there is nothing before the house.


Georges Parent: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) suggested that the succeeding cases should be taken en bloc. That would require the unanimous consent of the house. The hon. member for Temiscouata is opposed to that suggestion, so that there is no unanimous consent. We must therefore proceed in accordance with the order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Here again-


Georges Parent: Opposed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was discussing the
principle-


Georges Parent: Let me explain. The hon. member was not in his place when we began. If there is opposition to any of these bills they go to the bottom of the list.
Motion stands.



GORDON ALEXANDER COWAN

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount-for Mr. Bercovitch) moved the second reading of Bill No. 39, for the relief of Gordon Alexander Cowan.
Jean-François Pouliot: Opposed.
Motion stands.



MARION CAMERON MACLAUHIN NELSON

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount-for Mr. Bercovitch) moved the second reading of Bill No. 40, for the relief of Marion Cameron MacLaurin Nelson.

Divorce Bills
Some lion. MEMBERS: Opposed.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount) moved the second reading of Bill No. 41, for the relief of Kenneth Grier Thornton.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Opposed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was on the point of saying, when I was interrupted by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), here we are expressing our approval, for second reading is the time when hon. members-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If this is debatable we can all debate.


Georges Parent: Opposed.
Motion stands.



HUBERT EARL ROBERTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Queens) moved the second reading of Bill No. 42, for the relief of Hubert Earl Roberts.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Opposed.


Georges Parent: I point out that the mere saying of the word "opposed", is not opposition. Some reason should be given.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rose in my place to oppose a bill, but Your Honour has not allowed discussion. The mere fact that I rose indicated that I intended to discuss the bill or oppose it.


Georges Parent: Opposed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I find it a most extraordinary procedure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Karl Kenneth Homuth: What is the point of order?


Jean-François Pouliot: We are allowed to say "opposed", and then the bill goes to the bottom of the list. If I am entitled to say
"opposed", I 'have the right to express my mind on the principle of the bill and tell the house why I oppose it. That is quite clear, and I hope that you will sustain me in that, Mr. Speaker, before I go further.


Georges Parent: The hon. member for Temiscouata was not in the house when we started on these bills-


Alan Webster Neill: Let us begin again.


Georges Parent: At that time I stated that the terms of the resolution passed by the house yesterday was that bills to which no opposition was taken should go through automatically and be disposed of, but that if objection were taken to any bill, that made it an opposed bill within the meaning of the resolution and it would go to the foot of the list. I suggest to the house that our present procedure is lacking in dignity.
I think the house ought to dispose of these unopposed bills en bloc, as proposed, and then proceed to deal with the other bills on which there is to be some discussion. Of course I am in the hands of the house; we can take each bill separately, which will be in accordance with the rules; but I suggest that our proceedings this afternoon have been marked by a great lack of dignity, which I should not like to see continue longer. Perhaps there may be other suggestions as to how we should proceed with regard to these bills.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I do not think anyone desires to delay the house unduly, but there are times when it becomes necessary to make some effective protest regarding the procedure being followed. This, I take it, is what some of us. for various reasons, are bent on doing to-day. It was suggested by you, Mr. Speaker, that if these bills were opposed they should stand over. I am not opposed to the principle of granting a dissolution of an unhappy marriage, but I am opposed to dealing with these bills in the present manner. So far as I am concerned, since a number of these bills have been placed at the end of the list, I think we should treat them all alike. I do not mind whether they are taken together or separately, but I believe every bill is going to be opposed on the grounds I have mentioned.
May I say very respectfully, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion your rulings are invariably fair; but I think we would be making a mistake if we permitted to go unchallenged the proposition that we may do no more than rise and indicate opposition to a bill, without giving reasons for that opposition. I believe that if we oppose or support something, we should have the right to say why
Divorce Bills

we do so. As I say, I do not wish to see the business of the house held up. I think a fairly effective protest has been made this afternoon against the procedure at present being followed, so perhaps the bills might now be taken together and considered as opposed bills. I should be glad, if necessary, to make a motion to that effect.


Jean-François Pouliot: The whole procedure has become a farce.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best course would be for Your Honour to ask the house if there is any person who dissents from the procedure that has been suggested; that is, that all the divorce bills be dealt with together. If there is no dissenting voice-and I do not think there will be, because we must prevent this from becoming a time-wasting performance- Your Honour might put all the bills to the house together. Then perhaps some hon. member will say that he desires to discuss each of these bills. That being so. they become opposed bills and go to the foot of the list. That procedure will take only a very few minutes of our time, and will dispose of all these bills. I do not think any motion is required to do that. The only thing necessary, it seems to me, is the suggestion that these bills be put to the house all together. Then if someone says he desires to have something to say on each of these bills, immediately they go to the foot of the list.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I should like to say a
word in connection with the fiasco which has taken place in the last few minutes. We have in the gallery this afternoon a number of children, who will leave here with absolutely no respect for the House of Commons after the spectacle they have witnessed to-day.
Included in this list of bills is one about which I should like to say a few words; I am not at all satisfied with the answers that have been given so far with respect to it. As the procedure has been developed this afternoon, however, if I rise in my place to ask a question I am presumed to be opposed to the bill. I do not wish to be placed in the position of being accused of opposing something I know nothing about, but that is the position in which I find myself to-day. If we follow the suggestion just advanced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), if I rise to say a word when we come to the bill about which I wish to speak, it is presumed that I am opposed to it. If I just say "opposed," that does not constitute a speech; but the moment anyone tries to make a speech there are cries of "order" from all 
over the house. I should like to know just where we will end up if we adopt the suggestion of the Minister of Finance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the whole trouble arises from the concluding words of the motion adopted on Wednesday, with regard to giving precedence to unopposed bills. This has not been understood. I would suggest that by unanimous consent the house might overlook the last few words of that motion and proceed with the bills on the order paper in their numerical sequence. That will not be doing any injustice to anyone; we can go through the list and dispose of the bills one by one. Let us go back to order No. 1 and go right through the list as it appears on the order paper.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I may
be permitted a word, Mr. Speaker, for the last several minutes I have been trying to think of a solution to the impossible situation into which this house has got itself this afternoon. My friend the clerk assistant of this house, with his literary turn of mind, recalled to me that Cromwell once characterized parliamentary procedure as a tortuous and ungodly jumble. If that was ever exemplified in the twenty years I have been around this house, it was this afternoon. Let us be sensible men and extricate ourselves from this position. Let us not have it said that this house has lowered itself to a position in which it becomes the laughing stock of the country, for that is what we are doing this afternoon.
We are sensible men. Let us review the position de novo. I am of the opinion that the suggestion advanced by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) is perhaps the logical one to accept, and I am going to ask the house to adopt that suggestion unanimously. Take each of these bills in its regular sequence and either pass it or reject it. Begin again, and forget about the motion that was adopted on Wednesday. I agree with the minister that the whole difficulty arises from the construction that has been placed on the last few words of that motion. I have no doubt in the world that the Prime Minister's intention w'as good, that he desired to expedite the business of the house, but that has not been the result. Let us, as sensible men in a deliberate assembly, start again and deal with these bills as they appear on the order paper.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it the intention of the
minister that we should start at order No. 1 again?

Alberta Provincial Bank


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, and take them in their numerical sequence, by unanimous consent overlooking the last few words of Wednesday's resolution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right.


Mr. DUPUIS:: With the indulgence of the house I should like to restate the principle which guides a great many citizens of this country, that principle of the Roman Catholic religion which opposes divorce. With all due respect to some particular cases as to which we might personally have some sympathy, we abide by the decision of our church not only in this country but all over the world, and we are opposed to divorce. Consequently, in all these cases it will be understood that we want the motion to be carried on division.


Georges Parent: Then I take it to be the unanimous wish of the house that we revert to the first bill on the order paper.


Alan Webster Neill: With no restriction on discussion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With no restriction.
Motion stands.



ALBERTA PROVINCIAL BANK

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blackmore for the second reading of Bill No. 6, to incorporate the Alberta Provincial Bank.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I had the floor when the proceedings were interrupted by Your Honour's ruling to the effect that this was an opposed bill. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) having moved an amendment to the motion for second reading, it is now in order for me to make a few observations.
What is the position with respect to this bill? It is this, that in advancing their particular financial theories the government of Alberta is desirous of establishing in Canada-and it is not limited to Alberta especially-a bank, under the provisions of the Bank Act. That is their object. They will attempt to set up as a department of the provincial government of Alberta a bank to carry on, with certain limitations, the business of commercial banking in Canada. I believe that is a fair statement of their position. They will operate not as individuals but as a government department with, I assume, share capital owned by the province of Alberta, but expressly reserving and restricting certain of the operations of the general provisions of the Bank Act so that it will not have reference
to or cover the institution they hope to incorporate.
I do not intend to debate to-day their theory of monetary reform, nor do I intend to enter into any controversy in that regard. But I do suggest that we cannot agree to the principle of giving the approval of the house to a provincial government's doing indirectly that which it cannot do directly. I lay that down as a principle, and I do not think I should have to argue it. That whole matter was threshed out at great length last session in the committee on banking and commerce. Careful consideration was given to it. I am not going to advert to the discussion which took place in that committee, much of which I believe was perhaps foreign to the bill under discussion at that time. Much time was consumed-I shall not say wasted-on that occasion in an examination of the theories of social credit.
I believe the procedure followed by the government of Alberta is entirely wrong. If they proceed in a proper way and according to the laws of our country, as they are bound to do, I am not opposed to the sponsors of the theory of social credit asking that a charter for a bank be conferred upon certain gentlemen who as individuals represent their particular financial viewpoint. I am, however, opposed to the method of procedure under which they undertake to operate. I will say to them that if members of the Alberta government-Mr. Aberhart and Messrs. A, B, C, D and E-will come to this parliament and, by petition, ask for the incorporation of the Alberta Provincial bank, or a bank known by some other name, on the theory that when they get a charter they will be in a position to put into effect the theories they are sponsoring in Canada to-day, I shall support them, and give them an opportunity to demonstrate, if they can, once and for all, that social credit is a sound monetary theory.
If I have read aright the statement of a former Minister of Finance, Mr. Dunning, it would seem that he conceded the idea that these gentlemen might be allowed to proceed to demonstrate the soundness of their theory, if they would conform to the general laws of the country. They have never seen fit to do so. But if they will come forward and seek to incorporate a bank, in conformity with the general laws laid down by parliament, which have been revised every ten years since we have had a Bank Act, I will vote for the charter, and let them demonstrate what they can do, provided, always, that they comply with the provisions of the Bank Act and provided, further, that they put up the necessary funds. That should not be difficult because the amount is not large. The province
Alberta Provincial Bank

could then pass enabling legislation permitting it to invest its own funds immediately in the shares of the bank. But the applicants must conform to the general laws of the country in so doing, and unless they do so I cannot support the principle of this measure. Certainly it is not the measure I have attempted to visualize.
This bill sets out the establishment of a bank, as a department of government in Alberta, and I suggest that the Minister of Finance ought not to allow it to go through in that form, or even in the manner he has suggested. I cannot congratulate him upon his courage. He has a definite responsibility to the people of Canada to see that the general laws of the country are carried out, and at the very threshold he must meet the underlying principle. He has not met it. He seeks, as did his predecessor, to side-step that responsibility and to have the bill go to a committee, on -e theory that it will be reported back to the house in a condition so emasculated that the promoters will not accept it. I do not conceive that to be the proper duty of the government in the premises. If the government will not take a definite stand, at least I am going to take a stand as to what I believe should be done, and let it go at that.
I have no doubt the amendment will carry. It is a government amendment, and in the very nature of things, and by virtue of the operation of the House of Commons, it will carry. I suggest, however, that the method suggested by the minister is not the proper one.
I am not going to discuss at length the sections in the bill. I say to these gentlemen that they have no right to come to the House of Commons and urge that restrictions which must be imposed upon me or my associates, if I come here asking for a charter for a bank, shall not be imposed upon them. Why are the restrictions in the Bank Act placed there? They are placed there for the protection of the public, the protection of the depositors and the shareholders. These restrictions have been in force for a long period of time, and, if you accept the principles contained in the Bank Act you will agree that experience of the past fifty or sixty years has shown them to be good.
To-day the sponsors of this bill are trying to get out from under the responsibility placed upon them by the general laws of the country. I cannot accept that procedure. If they want to have a bank, and all the advantages of a bank operating under the Bank Act of Canada, then let them at the same time accept the responsibilities imposed

by the Bank Act upon those who seek to carry on business with the public.
There are a good many other arguments I could adduce against the bill. My hon. friend the proposer of the measure, the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), has suggested that this bill would be an aid to the war effort of Canada. He did not elaborate on that theme.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I could have done so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I doubt
very much if he could have. I wish he had, so that we could have examined it to see what its foundation was.


John Horne Blackmore: I can prove it to
you.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My hon.
friends are strong on assertions but mighty short on proof. I do not intend this afternoon, nor do I intend on any future occasion, to get into an argument or an altercation as to the value of social credit. I have been hearing it for twenty years. I have interviewed Major Douglas and all the other proponents of this strange philosophy, but I am still unconvinced, and I think I shall remain that way. I suggest to these gentlemen that they have started wrong, that they are still on the wrong road. I think I gave them some advice last year, which did not cost them anything; I suggested that if they would come back to the house at this session with a bill in the standard form and ask as individuals for the incorporation of a bank, that I would do what I could in my very limited way to forward their proposal. But not on the basis of this bill.
I think we ought to decide on the principle of this bill here and now and not send it to a committee. Is there any hon. member of this house who does not visualize what will happen if this bill goes to the banking committee? In a large measure we will have a repetition of what happened last year. Without question there will be repetition, although I would hope that it would not go on so long. Does any one suggest that the bill will come back with the recommendation that it become law? If it does, then I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that the responsibility will be laid on his doorstep. This is a responsibility which he ought to assume now. As the head of the treasury, as the man charged with the responsibility of seeing that the banking laws of this country are carried out, he ought to say here and now whether he approves the principle of the bill. I cannot understand the attitude of the government, and I did not understand it last year. If their purpose was simply to pass

Alberta Provincial Bank
the buck from the government to the members of the banking and commerce committee, then it had that result. But I do not think that is the way in which a government ought to met its responsibility. I am not absolving the government in any degree; I think it must assume responsibility. It should not sidestep a decision with regard to the principle involved in this bill; it ought to meet the question squarely. If it does not meet it now, it will have to meet it when the bill comes back from the committee, assuming that it passes the committee.
Let the gentlemen who want this bill come to parliament just as you or I or any other citizen of this country would come who thinks he can carry on a bank. Let them come and produce a bill in the form contemplated by the Bank Act, and let them be ready to assume all the advantages, as well as the responsibilities that will accrue to them. They should not try to relieve themselves from the responsibilities. If they act on this suggestion I will support a measure so produced and give them a chance to demonstrate the fallacy or otherwise of their financial philosophy.
I am opposed to the second reading of this bill and intend to vote against it.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with some of the views just expressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). I am of the opinion that this petition for a bank charter is properly made to parliament as such, and ought to be considered by parliament. Parliament should not expect or ask the government to decide what parliament should do. The petition is to parliament, and parliament must decide on the merits of this particular request. I do not agree with the view that the provincial government ought not to be entitled to a charter to inaugurate and operate a provincial bank. I cannot see why that should not be done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
against the law.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I hear the leader of the opposition interject that it is the law.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Against
the law.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: The law is that they cannot do it? If that is so then it seems to me that the provincial government has the right to come before this parliament and present its petition. If the law does not allow the provincial government to obtain a charter for a bank, parliament should be advised, and when the time comes the Bank Act should be amended to give it that power.
I am not persuaded that the law is prohibitive as the leader of the opposition suggests. I am of the opinion that the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that this matter should go to the banking and commerce committee is sound. That is the proper procedure to follow. But I agree with the leader of the opposition in expressing the hope that the procedure followed this year will be different from that which was followed last year.
Because I was a member of the committee dealing with the defence of Canada regulations I was unable to be present at many of the meetings of the banking and commerce committee, but I was present at some of them, and it seemed to me that the discussion, or the major part of it, had nothing to do with the merits of the bill. During the few times I attended I found that the committee was holding an inquisition of the Alberta government, its financial ideas, and particularly of the policies pursued by the provincial treasurer, who was a witness before the committee. I hope that this year the bill will be considered on its merits.
I believe it would be an excellent thing if our provinces had the right to operate provincial banks. Of course they would be publicly-owned institutions. While I would prefer to see the present banking system taken out of private control, yet as long as parliament will not do that I think a good case can be made for publicly-owned institutions in our provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With safeguards under
the Bank Act.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: With safeguards under the Bank Act. If the present bill does not conform to the law of the land, I am not arguing that it should be adopted and recommended by the committee without amendments. We have been told by our friends to the left that the banks have certain powers which enable them to create credit, and so on. If the banks have that power, and if a charter is granted to the province which comes within the four corners of the Bank Act, it seems to me that our soc-'al credit friends would then have the power do all the things which they claim the present banks can do.
I have not gone into the details of this bill. Like the leader of the opposition I did not know that it was to come up first this afternoon. As a matter of fact I thought that Bill No. 27, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company, was to come up this afternoon as the first order of business.
I think we should consider the request of the leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), that
Alberta Provincial Bank

the bill be referred to the committee, that it be examined there as it ought to be, and that it be reported back to this house. If it is against public policy and the law of the land, then the house cannot adopt the bill until the law is changed.


Mr. ROSS (Calgary East):: Does the hon. member realize that this is the same bill as was submitted last year? It is the same, word for word; there is no change. It is the same bill. It was examined carefully last year and is being reintroduced this year. Does the hon. member understand that?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I must say that I did not expect this bill to come up this afternoon. I had not compared it with the bill of last year and therefore I cannot say that I knew it was the same bill. I understood there were some changes. But that does not alter the fact that the Social Credit group in this house or the government of Alberta have the right to reintroduce the bill and to ask for its examination by the committee. The committee would have the right to report as it sees fit, differently or in the same terms as last year. I am simply supporting the motion that this bill be referred to the committee where it can be thoroughly examined. If a charter within the four comers of our Bank Act were granted to the province of Alberta, the government of that province would have the opportunity which it says it now lacks to demonstrate its monetary theories and its policy.


George Henry Ross: The hon. member advocates that, notwithstanding the fact that the officers of the crown advised that such a bill last year was unconstitutional.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I am not saying that. I am saying that if a charter within the four corners of our Bank Act were recommended by the committee, then if parliament refused to grant the charter, the government of Alberta would immediately and properly say: We cannot do the things we wish to do and which the private banks can do under their bank charters. But if a charter within the four corners of our Bank Act were granted to a provincial bank of Alberta, the government of Alberta would have to demonstrate that their monetary theory was sound within the present financial system. The whole of the criticism that has been levelled against existing financial institutions by the advocates of social credit, is that the private banks have the power to create credit and to do the things which the province of Alberta wishes to do but cannot do without a bank charter. If they were given the same power as the banks, no more and no less, they would have the same opportunities of doing the same things. That is the
rMr. Cold well.]
point I am making, and I therefore strongly support the motion that this bill and the petition be referred to the committee.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition has mentioned the Bank Act, which was considered by the banking and commerce committee in 1934. I was not a member of the committee at that time but I have made a very exhaustive study of the evidence that was given before that committee. The leader of the opposition said-I have forgotten his exact words, but what he meant was that we were trying to do something in a roundabout way. Everyone who will take the trouble to read the evidence that was taken before the committee on banking and commerce in 1934 must admit that the committee, with one or two exceptions, and certainly the leader of the opposition was not one of those exceptions, did not realize that the banks create all the money that they lend, a fact which the present Minister of Finance admitted in this house within the last month when he said that if the government borrows from the banks $250,000,000, that is a clear addition of $250,000,000. And yet that plain fact is said to be just a theory held by this group! It is not a theory at all of any group. It is a fact, and no one who knows anything about it can successfully deny that fact. It was only two years ago that the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Towers, was a witness before the banking and commerce committee, and I asked this question of him in the committee: "Do you agree that the banks lend money by creating the means of payment?" And the answer he gave was, "Yes, that is correct. There may be other ways of putting it, but that is correct."
I am sure that the committee on banking and commerce in 1934, when the present Bank Act was passed, never realized that the banks create the money which they lend. I am quite sure that that fact is not realized by the majority of members of this house at the present time. We in this group are credited with having peculiar monetary ideas and theories. It is contended that we want to do something which has never been done before. Why, it was only yesterday or the day before that an hon. member, speaking to the amendment to the budget which the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), had moved that parliament, which is sovereign in its power, should issue the money which is required to make up the gap between government revenue and expenditure, likened that proposal to rubbish money. Think of it, money which bears the stamp of the King likened

Alberta Provincial Bank
to rubbish 1 Money which is issued by a private corporation and bears the photograph of a private individual is sound money, while the King's money is unsound! Could disloyalty go further than that? Could absurdity go further than that? Could anything be farther from the truth? Why should we in this group be accused of having peculiar monetary theories when we state that the banks create the money that they lend? There is not the slightest doubt but that that is the fact, and anybody who denies that fact to-day is either dishonest, or incompetent, or both.
It is proposed to refer this bill to the committee on banking and commerce. The leader of the opposition appears to be frightened at that. I do not suppose for a moment that the bill will pass the committee. It seems to me that the leader of the opposition is frightened that during the discussions of the committee some vital facts which have been carefuly hidden hitherto may come to light. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has stated, this is a petition to parliament, not to the government, and therefore I hope the house will send this bill to the committee on banking and commerce, where it can be considered on its merits.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house is not concerned with the merits of this bill, nor has it anything to do with the merits of the theory of social credit. The motion is that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee. I remember quite well another occasion when the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation spoke in this house in favour of a bill which he had introduced to make it illegal to prevent men from joining a labour organization or trade union, and the government took the position that while it was in sympathy with the principle of the bill, it could not proceed with it because it was beyond the constitutional power of parliament. The officers of the crown, having declared last year that this bill in its present form is unconstitutional, will, I assume, so declare now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not necessarily. They changed their minds with reference to the decision on the constitutionality of discrimination against men joining unions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That may be, but I am assuming that their opinion still stands. .


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a pure assumption.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And I believe that any lawyer would be satisfied that the bill in its present form is unconstitutional.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should say that that is doubtful. I do not remember the express terms of the opinion, but I believe there was a great deal of doubt about the matter last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The law officer of the crown quite definitely stated that the bill was unconstitutional.


John Horne Blackmore: One man's opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, of course, an opinion must be the opinion of one man.


John Horne Blackmore: One man cannot
decide a case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was speaking of an officer of the crown.


An hon. MEMBER:: He expressed a great deal of doubt.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My understanding and my reading of the remarks are certainly as I have stated. The Minister of Finance has expressed some doubt in the matter, and that perhaps weakens the argument I was going to put forward, namely, that if he felt as I did, how could he answer the argument of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) that the position of the Minister of Finance was, not that he lacked courage, but that he should, in face of the fact that the bill was unconstitutional, take the position that the time of the banking and commerce committee should not be wasted, and that he should simply say that, the bill in its present form being unconstitutional, the matter should be dropped until such time as the bill was brought within the ambit of a proper constitutional arrangement. That is the point I take in respect to this matter, without offering at this time any comment one way or the other as to the merits of the proposal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) gave an unfortunate illustration of his point. His own statement nullifies his argument. He used the illustration that some years ago the then member for Winnipeg North Centre, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, brought before this house a bill to provide against discrimination against men seeking to join trade unions. At that time the contention was that the matter was not within the jurisdictional powers of parliament. I remember that the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Bennett, contended that it was; and the following year the government brought in legislation to implement the very suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.

Alberta Provincial Bank


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybuim):: They brought in amendments to the criminal code to provide for the very thing that he mentioned in his bill. The mere statement that this matter cannot be discussed again, and cannot be referred to the committee on banking and commerce again, because some official of the crown gave some opinion-which is only an opinion-last year as to its constitutionality, would hardly warrant this house in precluding further discussion of it.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Before
this motion is put to the house, may I observe that, when this matter was before the banking and commerce committee last session, the committee reported to the house without making any motion for concurrence, and this automatically prevented any hon. member from discussing its contents. I recall that I asked on two occasions after the report was presented whether the chairman of the committee intended to move concurrence in the report. The last time I asked the question the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) responded that it was not always necessary to move concurrence. The result was that the report was not discussed by this house in any way, shape or form.
It does seem to me that, if parliament itself has been requested to grant a charter to this bank, parliament itself should be free to discuss the details of the report of that committee. One of the things I desired to mention at that time, but which I was deprived of the privilege of mentioning, was the very point which has been mentioned this afternoon -the advice which was given that perhaps the bill was unconstitutional.
May I suggest this: the record will show that Mr. Varcoe was brought before the committee and that he was given a very limited time-I do not know how long, but I believe his evidence can be read in fifteen minutes, certainly in half an hour-but I doubt very much whether he submitted evidence as to the constitutionality of that particular bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. gentleman permit me?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have before me the minutes of the standing committee on banking and commerce. At page 117 Mr. Varcoe, to whom the hon. gentleman has just made reference, concludes by saying:
That is to say that while parliament has complete power over the subject of banking it cannot impose upon a provincial government the powers of legislation as would be the case if this bill were passed, because the members will realize that the directors of the bank and

the lieutenant-governor in council, under paragraph 3 (c), would acquire subordinate legislative power in respect of banking.
Then he goes on to give the reasons why he regards this bill as being unconstitutional- two reasons with which I do not need to burden the house. So that the decision was quite definite.


Ernest George Hansell: My impression is simply this, that Mr. Varcoe was suggesting that this parliament could not grant a charter for a bank to a provincial government; that his argument was not as to whether this bill was constitutional, but whether it was constitutional for parliament to grant a charter for a bank to any government. However, my suggestion may be open to question. The least one can say is that while Mr. Varcoe did give evidence for a short space of time, no one would say that his evidence was conclusive. The only way in which it could be proved to be unconstitutional would be to have it brought before the proper courts, which, of course, has not been done.
While it is true that Mr. Varcoe was a law officer of the crown, it is quite possible that some other witness whose reputation was just as good might have been brought in, and who could be furnished with just as sound arguments as Mr. Varcoe, to present the other side of the picture. But this was not done.
The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Ross), I believe it was, interjected a while ago, the suggestion that the bill in its present form had not been changed from the form in which it was presented to parliament last session. While I would not offer my opinion as an authority, one reason why we support the motion that the bill be sent to the committee is that should any clauses in it fail to meet with the approval of the committee it can be considered whether amendments should be made in the committee stage. Often that is where amendments to certain sections are made. The fact that the bill in its present form is the same as it was last session is no indication that the sponsor of the bill would not consider amending certain sections of it.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no desire on the part of the sponsor or of the people who petitioned for this bill to do anything which is unconstitutional or contrary to the banking laws of Canada, either in law or in effect. What the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has just said is very true, that members from Alberta are prepared to suggest and to accept such amendments in the committee as would seem to be necessary to make the bill acceptable

General Security Insurance Company
according to the best understanding of the intent and meaning and letter of the banking laws and the constitution of Canada.
Amendment (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On
division.
Motion as amended agreed to and bill referred to the committee on banking and commerce.



GENERAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SARTO FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to incorporate General Security Insurance Company of Canada.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the sponsor of this bill should tell us whether or not the bill has the approval of the superintendent of insurance. So far as I have been able to gather, I know of no objection to the principle of the bill, and I would not oppose it. It has the usual provisions of a bill of this kind; I understand it is designed to take in a number of insurance companies now in existence. Is that not the main object of the bill, to amalgamate them into one? I notice that by section 10 the provisions of The Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932, apply to the company. But my immediate object in rising is to ask whether the superintendent of insurance has approved this bill.


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: I understand he has.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Department of Insurance has no objection to this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I have none.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: May we have something more of an explanation? I have only just now received the bill; it was not on my file. I was going to ask-but of course we are not in the committee stage.


Sarto Fournier: The company in question is a new company, but the business concerned is not a new business. Before the war two French companies were carrying on business in Canada, one under the name of General Fire Insurance Company of Paris, since 1912, and the other as the General Casualty Insurance Company of Paris, since 1926. The financial position of these companies in Canada was exceptionally strong, there being assets in this country in excess of $870,000.
When France collapsed the hon. member will understand that the position of these
14873-171J
companies in Canada became acute. Some change had to be made. Last year, at the beginning of this session, a bill was introduced in the senate to have this company incorporated, but because the session was adjourned for a while and- the companies were suffering damage on account of the delay, they applied to the Quebec government to be authorized to carry on their business in the province of Quebec. Now they are applying to this parliament to be authorized to carry on their business throughout the dominion. I hope these explanations are sufficient.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I think they explain the bill. I have just looked at two or three clauses; they seem unobjectionable, and I do not wish to discuss it further.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount) moved the second reading f Bill No. 30, for the relief of John Hubert Fox.
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I do not propose to reopen the debate which occurred earlier this afternoon: I think a sufficiently effective protest was made against the form of procedure. But I want to state explicitly that in my opinion Canada should follow the example of all other civilized countries, where unhappy marriages may be dissolved by the courts, by nullification by an ecclesiastical authority, or through some method of granting relief under certain circumstances.
If this were not a war session, with the business we have ahead of us, I think I would follow the procedure adopted by the leader of our group some years ago in this house and ask for a discussion on each of these divorce bills. I feel that the procedure followed here is against the best interests of the parliament of Canada, and that this is a matter upon which some public opinion should be encouraged, shall I say, to the end that a change might be made. I do not agree with the procedure, but I am not going to offer further opposition to these bills at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be an ideal situation if we could avoid having divorce bills come to parliament, but I ask my hon. friend to consider that there is a very substantial body of religious opinion in this country which is absolutely opposed to divorce. In our neighbouring province of Quebec that opinion is in the majority; the
Divorce Bills

people of that province who hold that view are opposed to the establishment of any forum or tribunal to which would be given jurisdiction to deal with this kind of litigation, if I may use that term in respect of it. On the other hand there are people in that province, citizens of this country, who are entitled under the laws of .Canada to have the bond of matrimony dissolved if they so desire; it is not against their convictions. Since the province will not establish any forum, or give jurisdiction to the courts of that province, these people are perforce obliged to come to parliament; no other jurisdiction is open to them.
So long as that is the situation I think parliament will have to exercise its jurisdiction in connection with matters of this kind, much as I personally would prefer to see them referred to the courts. We shall have to perform our duty whether we like it or not, and consider bills of this kind. But I would hope that in the future-personally I do not see any possibility of it-the happy time will come when legislation of this sort will disappear from the order paper. It is not possible at the moment; it may never be possible. Having regard to that, then, I think we should exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon us by the constitution and give proper consideration to bills of this kind.
I know nothing about these bills, and I am not going to read them or inform myself in connection with them; nor am I going to enter into a discussion as to their merits. I should like to say, however, that I know the gentlemen in the other place who compose the committee on divorce, and I think they perform their functions conscientiously. It may be that they are not as thorough as a court of law would be, though sometimes in courts of law they issue these decrees with what seems to me rather undue haste. I have had some experience in connection with divorce matters; it all depends on the judge who tries the cases. As a rule, however, I think the senate does the work just about as well as it is done in a court of law. We must face the inevitable; the constitution gives us the jurisdiction, and we must exercise it if people ask us to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last
year a group of several hon. members on this side of the house protested to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who was in his seat at the time, with regard to the whole procedure in reference to this matter. At that time the Prime Minister said consideration was being given to working out some other procedure, but so far nothing has been done. It is true, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has said, that since

certain provinces are not prepared to set up divorce courts the only way these people can get divorces is to come to this parliament. We are not quarrelling with that. What we are quarrelling with is that members of this parliament are being made parties to certain acts, with the facts concerning which they are not familiar.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In just
what way are they being made parties?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The leader of the opposition asks me in what way. He is being asked, as I am, to vote on these bills. I am not familiar with the details concerning them. I am not able to say whether these divorces ought to be granted or ought not to be granted. It is impossible to study all the evidence. Just a little over a year ago in this very district a private detective was sent to gaol because it was proved that he had been a party to collusion in a number of divorce cases. We do not know to what extent there has been collusion; we have no information at all as to what provision is being made for the children. Last year we drew to the attention of the Prime Minister one case in which a divorce was granted because one of the contracting parties had a social disease. Yet the very bill granting that divorce contained a provision that the parties might remarry! Thus we were turning loose on society a person who, according to the evidence heard before the committee which recommended the divorce, was suffering from a social disease.
It is our feeling that if parliament is to accept this responsibility it ought to delegate these matters to some judicial or quasi-judicial body, assisted by social service workers, which would have at hand the necessary facilities, first, to investigate thoroughly these cases, and, second, to see that provision is made that no children shall suffer as a result of the granting of a divorce.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the hon. member suggest a retrial in the commons? There has been one trial already before the senate committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, I am not
suggesting that. I am suggesting that the government consider setting up a dominion court, or that the power to go into these cases be delegated to a judicial or semijudicial body.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We could not do that. The procedure in these matters is vested in the provinces; but the subject matter, which is marriage and divorce, under the constitution is vested in parliament.

Divorce Bills


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I said a moment ago, I think that could be got around
by setting up a quasi-judicial body. There is no reason why a committee of judges should not be set up, who would examine these cases and send on their recommendations to this parliament. We have that every day under the defence of Canada regulations; the recommendations of a judge or group of judges come back to this parliament. A committee of judges would be much more competent than a committee of the house to sift this information. For the last five years I have served on private bills committees that have gone over these cases; for the last two years I have served on standing orders committees which have had to decide whether bills coming in late should be received by the committee, and I want to express myself as absolutely dissatisfied with this procedure. If parliament is to accept this responsibility it must carry it out in a proper manner and make sure that the cases are thoroughly investigated. If we are not prepared to do that we should not grant divorces at all. We should do one thing or the other; as it stands at the present time the system is a disgrace. It makes a farce of a sacred institution. By casting our votes for these divorces, about which we know little or nothing, we may be turning children loose in the world under the control of some parent who is irresponsible and incapable of supporting them properly. We know nothing about these details, and I for one am not prepared to give my support year after year to a procedure which is farcical in the extreme.
As I have said, last year we made an appeal to the Prime Minister. Now I should like to express the hope that the Minister of Finance, who is leading the government in the house at the moment, will give heed to the suggestion that some procedure other than that now followed be worked out for the handling of divorce bills. Either we grant them, after thorough investigation and after complete assurance that all possible provision is made for the children affected, or we do not grant them at all. Let us not accept responsibility unless we are prepared to discharge it humanely.


Thomas Reid: I think the whole matter was placed clearly before the house by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). He stated the matter succinctly, but I doubt if the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) was exactly fair in his presentation, when he suggested that we deal with this matter in the way in which other countries do. He and every other hon. member know full well there is only one reason why the
House of Commons deals with the matter at all; and until he comes forward with a solution, I suggest that in all kindness it is unfair to have it said that the time of parliament is being wasted, and that he and others of his group are in favour of some other system of dealing with this serious problem.
I differ with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas). Just why one requires a judicial body to deal with divorce is beyond me. We have here a jury of good men and true, and the question is purely one of fact. Every hon. member knows that if he so desires he may appear before the divorce committee and obtain any information he wishes in the matter. The situation should be placed fairly before the house.
Like every other hon. member, I do not like the present procedure of dealing with divorce cases, but until we have a solution of the one burning question which affects an entire province, I am content to carry on in the way in which we are doing.


Alan Webster Neill: I would only reiterate what I said before, namely, that I am not opposed to divorce. I believe there are situations in which it is justified. Scripture says: "Be not unequally yoked together." I would not suggest a procedure such as is followed in the country to the south of us, where a man or a woman may obtain a divorce from his or her helpmate for some childish or trivial reason, and call it cruelty, or something of that kind. It may be said that the wife would not allow the husband to take so many lumps of sugar in his coffee, or something of that sort. Under certain circumstances, I think divorce is a wise procedure. I believe, however, that before the final decree is issued, every effort should be made to reconcile the parties.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has stated that it is necessary to give relief to people living in Quebec, where the legislature appears to be unwilling to pass the necessary provincial laws. Those people have a right to be protected. But when it comes to procedure in parliament which, of course, includes action by both houses, I support the suggestion of the leader of the opposition that it ought not to be necessary to have two courts. As the senators are worthy and reputable men-and most of them are men of long experience-why not have one court, and put the full responsibility on them. Under those circumstances they would know that they would be wholly responsible. We have at present a sort of divided procedure. They may be a little careless or a little lax, and say, "Oh wrell, if any injustice is being
Divorce Bills

done, the lower house will remedy it." But if they knew their decision was final, as in the case of the civil courts, possibly they would take more care, and would see that wise decisions were made. Also they might appoint a committee to interview the people concerned and see if a reconciliation might be brought about. Sometimes parties can be convinced to come together again and, unquestionably, that is much better than dividing the family. We see that done quite commonly in the United States where, on occasions, people remarry more than once. They may marry, obtain a divorce, remarry, sometimes divorce again and remarry again. The fact that they look at divorce in that light and trivial way is some indication as to why we should be more particular in our handling of the matter.
Speaking earlier this afternoon, I referred to the importance to be attached to the disposition of the children. It must be decided which of the parents is to have them, no matter which is guilty, because it is not always the guilty one who is the cause of the divorce. There is such a thing as provocation by a bullying husband or a nagging wife, but the decision must be made as to which one is better able to take care of the children. One of the cases before the house this afternoon was a case in which seven children between the ages of three and ten years were involved. What is to become of them? That is a matter which should be given the greatest consideration. No consideration is given to it in the other house; they do not have to. The law does not require it, but I say that some care should be taken. If the older people make wrecks of their lives, that is no reason why they should be permitted to wreck the lives of their children, who should be brought up under decent conditions.
I believe, however, that the principle of divorce should be carried out, with all due precautions. As the leader of the opposition has suggested: Why have two courts? Why not have only one, and place full responsibility on it? We find that if full responsibility is placed at one point, greater care is taken than if it is shared. When there is a division of responsibility, someone is always passing the buck to somebody else and saying, "Oh, well, it is going to the other chamber, anyway."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Georges Parent: Is it the pleasure of the
house that we pass all these divorce bills?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I thought they were to be taken separately?


An hon. MEMBER:: On division.

Mr. NEILL; Have we not heard that enough times this afternoon, and was there not a motion by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, that these bills were to be taken one by one? What is the matter with the procedure, that it cannot be followed in the ordinary way? After wrangling about it for an hour, we agreed that we should start at order No. 1 and go right through the bills, one after another. But not more than ten minutes have elapsed until we start to deviate from that position. I protest most emphatically. I ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health if he does not support my statement?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, that was done.


Georges Parent: Mr. Abbott moves,
seconded by Mr. Mcllraith that Bill No. 30, for the relief of John Hubert Fox, be now read the second time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 26a, respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company Limited. -Mr. McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River).
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That stood over.
Order stands.



DOROTHY JEAN FLETCHER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. P. WHITMAN (Mount Royal) moved the second reading of Bill No. 31, for the relief of Dorothy Jean Fletcher.
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I ask the sponsor of this bill to tell us if there are any children resulting from this marriage, their ages, and any provision which has been made for their care.


Mr. WHITMAN:: Mr. Speaker, I am
perplexed at the interest which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has taken in this bill. The evidence produced before the committee on divorce states that this woman was married in 1926, lived with her husband for about one year and did not see him again for about fifteen years. One child, a boy, was born, and he is now about thirteen years of age. After this man had tried to enlist in the army it was found that he had been living with another woman, two children having been born to this woman. In reply to the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) I Should like to say that this

Divorce Bills
case is one which could be read by anyone. There was nothing dirty or filthy about the case at all; it was simply one of absolute
desertion.


Alan Webster Neill: Who has the child?


Frederick Primrose Whitman: The child is with the mother.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Mr. Speaker, I could not reply to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) on the other bill, so that I shall take this opportunity of doing so.
We are not lightly criticizing this procedure. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) suggested that it might be possible to devise a method which would be more satisfactory, even though the province which will not set up a court of its own continues to hold to that position. The hon. member for New Westminster suggested that any member of this house could* go to the senate committee dealing with these petitions and get all the information he required*. That may be true, but, as the hon. member knows, it would be almost impossible for any one of us to spend that much time in the senate committee. I doubt if he can tell me the particulars regarding any one of these bills. I know I could not.
I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Weyburn is sound. He suggested that if we are to continue to deal with these matters, and apparently we shall have to do so as long as one province objects to granting relief under its own jurisdiction, then a judicial committee should be set up which could sift the evidence and go into the merits of the cases. I have an alternative suggestion to make. I suggest that we set up a national committee, a personal relations committee as it were, which could look into these cases before they come to us here. As a matter of fact, in several of the states of the United States they have committees of this description. Frequently it has been possible to prevent the parties from going through with a divorce; a reconciliation has been effected and they have agreed to live together again. I think we could devise ways and means of getting around the objectionable practice we follow here. I remember one year I was a member of the private bills committee and the agriculture committee. On one occasion I was asked to absent myself from the agriculture committee for a few minutes because they had not a quorum in the private bills committee. It was toward the end of the session, and it was necessary to give approval to some eight bills. Much to my dislike and over my protests, those bills went through in about ten or fifteen minutes. It is true the senate committee had gone thoroughly into the bills, but I do not think any hon. member of this house should be asked, without more information than is available to us at the present time, to assume the grave responsibility of breaking up a home, and, as has been pointed out, perhaps doing something which may not be beneficial to the children of the marriage. The suggestion made last year when similar matters were under consideration should be followed, namely, that the government should be asked to devise some method which would protect the home.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think the suggestion of delegation of authority is feasible. I have a constructive suggestion to make to the government. In England they have an official known as the king's proctor. Very often in cases like these he intervenes. I suggest to the government and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that one of the officials of the Department of Justice, or, if they are too busy, some reputable counsel, be appointed as king's proctor to attend the meetings of the senate divorce committee and crossexamine the witnesses. He could assist in preventing collusion and in establishing the truth of any incriminating evidence. Thus a safeguard would be provided in connection with divorce legislation.
In New Brunswick they do not have a king's proctor, but every judge presiding over a divorce court constitutes himself, some more and some less, as a king's proctor. He intervenes and cross-examines the witnesses, especially if he has reason to believe that there is collusion. I admit that it is not a satisfactory way to handle the matter, because a judge cannot do anything more than crossexamine the witness. He must take the answers of the witness, whatever they may be. But a king's proctor can test the credibility of the witnesses. In England, the intervention of the king's proctor has prevented the granting of decrees.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has in this province, too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
that is a partial solution to the problem to which hon. gentlemen to my left are referring.


Alan Webster Neill: I
endorse the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). If we had such an official as a king's proctor I am sure that many of these bills would never reach this house. It is a notorious fact that there is collusion in a third if not more of these cases. I have them all here, and in nine-tenths of the cases the procedure is the same. A man goes to the hotel desk and registers for himself and the woman with him, and there happens to be a man standing at his elbow who is
Divorce Bills

able to swear a few weeks later that he saw him register. You cannot always have a coincidence like that. It is ridiculous to ask us to believe that there is not collusion in these cases. I remember one celebrated case in England many years ago where the king's proctor intervened. As I say, if we had such an official here there would be fewer divorces granted.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said that he doubted that the member for New Westminster had read all the evidence. I can tell him right now that he is quite correct. It is surprising the lack of information that is sometimes displayed in the house regarding these bills, and the amount of information which is to be heard in the corridors. My attention was drawn to one bill, and I think something should be done about it. I do not think it is right to allow people who have been in the country only two years to obtain a divorce on evidence which is just hearsay.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: Which one is that?


Thomas Reid: I have not the bill before
me, although I have it in my office, but if I remember correctly it is Bill No. 36. I think careful note should be taken of that case.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have just one word more to say with reference to what the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has said. For three or four years while I was a member of the private bills committee I read the evidence in connection with these bills religiously year after year. I felt it was my duty to do so as a member of that committee. It became perfectly clear to me that many of these divorces were the outcome of collusion. They almost all followed the same pattern. You could have changed the names, and the evidence in one case would have fitted all the others. Personally, I became so disgusted that I could not conscientiously act on that committee during another session, and that is why I made an appeal to the house to consider getting a more satisfactory procedure for handling these bills.


Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to endorse the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). In a United States newspaper which I picked up a short time ago, I found an article on this very subject. It showed that one woman had acted as co-respondent in New York in 500 cases and that she was paid a professional fee. The province of Quebec is not very far from New York, and I am suspicious about the bona fides of many of these divorces. We

pass them lightly when they need to be carefully probed into. I think the house will do well to pay heed to the suggestion made by the hon. leader of the opposition.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I desire to interject another suggestion, entirely different from the ones that have been advanced here this afternoon. I know that many members will not agree with what I am about to say. I am going to suggest that the principal in the case who is the guilty party and has been the one responsible for the crime should not be permitted to marry again. I know, of course, that this would involve a revision perhaps even of some of our provincial laws, but I am certain that if such a thing were written into the laws of this country there would be fewer divorces.
I am going to suggest, too, that the crime which is committed in these cases and the result of which is divorce is an age-old crime, and I doubt whether the nation will ever get rid of that crime through a system of legislation such as we have to-day. I might suggest that religious organizations have a duty. Should I go so far as to say that some of our churches have perhaps not paid enough attention to the teaching of such doctrines as the sanctity of the home? At the root of this evil lies the fact that our people are not sufficiently concerned with the tremendous implications involved in the crime which calls for divorce, or in the sanctity of the home, the number of homes being torn to pieces by divorce, and the children of divorced parents having to retain the stigma of their parents having committed such an act of infidelity.
All these things enter into the picture. The matter goes deep. I might go further and say that perhaps there is some reason for our believing that with such looseness in our marriage laws we shall not be able to build a healthy and a God-fearing nation. I say that this matter goes very much deeper than most people suspect, and if our laws were revised so that those who were guilty of the crime were not permitted to marry again, it might not be far from the truth when I say that there would be far fewer divorces in this country.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I sat as a member of the private bills committee for the first time last year and voiced my part in the feeble protest against the manner in which these bills were being pushed through. I was at a loss to understand why we should allow such a farce to continue. After the bills had passed the private bills committee they were brought in here, and we went on record as passing thirty-six divorce bills in about twelve minutes.

Divorce Bills
Under the British North America Act, divorce is made a matter of federal jurisdiction, and I suppose that so long as that condition continues we shall suffer under this burden, but seven provinces of this dominion have already accepted divorce as a provincial responsibility and relieved us of the shame of passing these bills in the way we do.
I should like to support what has just been said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who joined with me in a protest against the way in which these bills were being pushed through. But we were unable to get any action at all in the private bills committee in having the question of social disease brought up. The thing that appalled me was the fact that we went on record, first of all, as dissolving a marriage, and then immediately granting the right to the divorced people to marry again. It seems to me that national health alone should be sufficient grounds for us to voice our objection to such procedure, and perhaps if we block these bills continuously in this house it will have the desired effect of getting the two remaining provinces to establish their own divorce courts. I think that would be a step in the right direction. I refuse to be a party to condoning the way in which divorce is now being handled in this parliament, and I shall continue to do so whenever the matter is brought up here.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAICER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into any discussion of the moral grounds for granting divorce or of whether there is collusion in the divorce cases brought before this parliament. The last speaker has said that this debate may do much towards impressing the people of Canada with the necessity of having two of the provinces establish divorce courts such as we have in the other provinces of this dominion. I do not often disagree with what he has to say; but I do think-and in saying this I believe I represent the viewpoint of members generally-that a time like the present with the empire in peril is not the time to worry about divorces and the necessity for a change in our present method of granting divorce.
I am a new member here, but this afternoon has been to me an experience which I hope I shall never have again. Are we, Mr. Speaker, so out of tune with reality that we spend our time in connection with matters such as this? The unrealism of this afternoon has made almost a caricature of this parliament and this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We tried to straighten it out, though.


John George Diefenbaker: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) says that we tried to straighten it out. Yes, but let us straighten it out after this war is over: let us no more- and I dislike speaking in this way-while this war is on devote ourselves, in the manner we have this afternoon, to matters which are so insignificant compared to those of greater moment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



MARGUERITE MARIE RITA DUCHESNEAU GOULET

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount) moved the second reading of Bill No. 37, for the relief of Marguerite Marie Rita Duchesneau Goulet.
George Hugh Castleden: Can the hon. member give us any information with regard to the granting of the divorce which is sought in this particular case?


Mr. ABBOTT:: I can give the same information as I think is available to every other hon. member. I have read the petition and the minutes of evidence before the senate committee. I assumed that on second reading the principle of the bill would be discussed, which is whether the marriage of the petitioner should be dissolved, but I can give no other information than that contained in the minutes of evidence taken before the senate committee. I assume that if further information is desired it can be made available before the private bills committee when the private sponsors of the bill will be present.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lillian Bald Ellison.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Clavell Filliter Stroud.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Mary Marion Grey McKay.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill	No.	35,	for	the	relief	of	Frances
Goldberg Joseph.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Alice Weill Sedlak.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Edna Irene Yertaw.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill	No.	39,	for	the	relief	of	Gordon
Alexander Cowan.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill	No.	40,	for	the	relief	of	Marion
Cameron MacLaurin Nelson.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Kenneth Grier Thornton.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Hubert Earl Roberts.-Mr. Macmillan.
[Stage Direction]
Divorce Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Annie Elizabeth Cunningham Wheatley.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Dorothy Theresa Downard Street.-Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of John Greig.- Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Lloyd Charles Edward Francis Fulford.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Joseph Gaston Yvano Rene Dupuis.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Audrey Alexine Stephenson Smyth.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Lillian Shapiro Denenberg.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of David Rainville. -Mr. Abbott.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Hortense Bienvenue.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Evelyn May Gray Ladouceur.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Marie Jeanne Germaine Grenier .Legendre.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Marie Adeline Alice Miron Lefebvre.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Helenorah Keturah Donowa Harris.-Mr. Roebuck.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Henry John' Barrington Nevitt.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Pauline Myrtle Barr Gauld.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Marie Alice Veillet Piche.-Mr. Boucher.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 6.03 p.m.
Monday, May 12, 1941.