1950-04-05

TIM BUCK


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe that it is in the public interest that I should bring to the attention of this house a press release of today's date which informs the people of Canada that Tim Buck, the leader of the Labour-Progressive party in Canada, is at present attending a communist convention in Hungary.
It is my understanding that the government have not the right to inquire into the purpose that prompts a Canadian citizen to leave this country. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is about time that this House of Commons should demand that communists of the type of Tim Buck be put in a place that would preclude their opportunities of attending such conventions and then allow them to come back to Canada and spread the communist doctrine among others.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Under ordinary circumstances perhaps he would require notice of a question of this kind, but the person involved is so well known that perhaps he can answer now. Was Tim Buck granted a passport to go overseas in connection with the mission to which the hon. member referred?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I assume that the gentleman in question -


An hon. Member:: Gentleman!


Lester Bowles Pearson: -if I may call him that, is the possessor of a Canadian passport. 1 have no knowledge of the circumstances under which it was issued, or when it was issued.


Tom Goode: I have a supplementary question to ask. Has the minister the power to revoke such a passport?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know of any occasion on which a passport in the possession of a Canadian citizen has been revoked. Whether
I have the legal power to do that, on the assumption that I could get hold of the passport, is something I should like to look into before I answer.



WHEAT AND COARSE GRAINS


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to make an announcement to the house in regard to initial prices for western wheat, oats and barley for the crop year commencing on August 1, 1950, in order that producers will know the government's policy in regard to initial prices for these grains prior to the seeding of the new crop.
I will first deal with wheat from the designated pool area. As I stated in the house on March 21, the five-year pool ends on July 31, 1950, and a final payment will be made to producers as soon as possible after that date. When the final payment on the five-year pool is made, it will mark the tenth successive wheat crop upon which additional payments, over and above initial prices, have been made by the Canadian wheat board. I believe that this record is one which is not only of public interest, but one that is appreciated by wheat producers themselves. It represents a series of pooling operations for the most important grain crop of the prairie provinces, based upon the principle of reasonably safe initial prices, and the distribution of surpluses resulting from these pooling operations.
Commencing on August 1, 1950, and assuming that parliament will accept proposed amendments to the wheat board act, pooling operations in wheat will be on an annual basis. The initial payment which I am announcing today will be effective for the next crop year from August 1, 1950, to July 31, 1951.
Hon. members and wheat producers in western Canada will remember that the initial price for wheat in the current five-year pool was first established at $1.35 per bushel. Adjustment payments made from time to time within the pool period have brought the payment on delivery up to $1.75 per bushel, with, of course, appropriate adjustments for all deliveries previously made to the pool. In
1562	HOUSE OF
Wheat and Coarse Grains setting the new initial payment, the government believes that it is bound to follow sound pooling practice, dictated by experience in pooling operations over the years. The new initial price must again be set at a reasonably safe level, and one that is not likely to lead to the bankruptcy of the pool.
The prices set must take into account not only the international wheat agreement floor prices for 1950-51 of $1.40 U.S., but also the 1951-52 floor of $1.30 U.S., which will apply to whatever carry-over may be on hand-and there is bound to be some-at the end of the coming crop year. Then, too, there is the possibility of deliveries to the board being in excess of the international wheat agreement quantities, which excess would not be protected by any international floor price.
The government proposes, therefore, to establish the initial price for wheat for the crop year 1950-51 at $1.40 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver. Initial prices for grades other than No. 1 northern will be fixed by the board with the approval of governor in council. I wish to emphasize that this is an initial price, and producers will, of course, receive in further payments any surplus accumulated 'by the board either during the pool period, by advance in the initial price if such should appear justified, or by interim payments after the close of the pool period under the authority to be sought in the amendments to the wheat board act. The final price which producers will receive for wheat delivered in 1950-51 will depend upon the international wheat situation as it develops, and the success of the board's efforts in selling wheat at the best available prices.
I will now deal with oats and barley. The government has decided that the initial price for No. 2 Canada western oats in store Fort William-Port Arthur will be 65 cents per bushel. The initial price for No. 3 Canada western six-row barley, basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur, will be 93 cents per bushel. These initial prices are the same as initial prices for these grades in effect for the present crop year. Appropriate initial prices for other grades of oats and barley will be established by the board.
In establishing these initial prices for oats and barley the government has in mind the principles which I have outlined in regard to the fixing of the initial prices for wheat, and also the successful operation which has been possible in connection with oats and barley during the present crop year. The government expects that there will be a continuing demand for oats and barley, and especially for malting barley.


Whether a voluntary pool for flax will be operated in the next crop year must depend upon the acreage of flax that is planted. In any event, the initial price would not be higher than the $2.50 per bushel fixed for the present voluntary pool. For obvious reasons, the voluntary pool in flax of this year has been little patronized by the growers. Assuming a reasonable crop, the open market is likely to provide an outlet satisfactory to the growers. However, the flax situation will be reviewed before the end of the present crop year and a decision taken then.


Mr. Harkness:: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce consequent upon his announcement as to prices of wheat and coarse grain. Was the price of $1.40 for wheat set because of an apprehension that the world price of wheat is going to fall seriously, or was it designed to encourage wheat producers to plant decreased acreages and thus encourage a greater planting of coarse grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend, not being * a wheat grower, will not be able to interpret the statement, but I think most wheat growers will be able to do so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am a wheat grower.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to raise a question which otherwise I would have raised before the orders of the day were called. In view of the fact, however, that at this sitting, the last before the Easter recess, no orders of the day will be called, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has given consideration to the extent to which the Post Office Department is usurping the authority and responsibilities of the Department of Justice in acting as a court by making decisions as to the guilt or otherwise of certain people using the mails of Canada. According to his published statement, the deputy postmaster general is deciding, without notice to the people affected, whether they may or may not use the mails.


Hon. Sfuari S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Without in any way acquiescing in the allegations of fact which the hon. member has made in his question, I may say that the matter to which he has referred has had consideration and is still under consideration.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the answer the Minister of Justice has given, that the matter

is under consideration, I should point out to him that the mail now being stopped not only affects those against whom the order has been made, but has the effect of preventing the receipt by other people of securities and other documents to which they are entitled. For that reason I suggest it is a matter which requires urgent attention.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that this is the last sitting day of the house before the Easter recess, if there are questions which might properly be asked on the orders of the day, perhaps it would be agreed that they be asked now.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour which is of vital interest not only to my constituency but to all of Canada. Is he aware of the impending industrial strike at the plant of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Windsor, Ontario? If so, is his department proposing to take any action?


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question, and for having given notice of it. I am aware that there is a difficult situation in Windsor. But, as he will know, it comes under the jurisdiction of my good friend, Hon. Charles Daley, Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Humphrey Mitchell: The province of Ontario; you would not know where that was. We have just heard a voice from the wilderness. I hope that the representatives of the union and the company will find a way to harmonize their differences so that a strike will not take place, in view of the importance of the industry to a great city and to the nation. In any event I understand a conference is going on today between the two parties.


Mr. Coldwell:: Does the minister's answer apply also to the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in connection with the railways?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would answer the hon. member exactly as I answered yesterday. Of course I am not on my feet as often as he is. Those who have any knowledge whatever of labour conditions in this country know that there is federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction. There is such a thing as a conciliation board. Up to this time I have not received a report from the conciliation board
Inquiries of the Ministry set up in connection with the railway dispute, the chairman of which is Mr. Justice Wilson, of British Columbia, nor have I a report from the company and the employees.
Let me repeat what I said yesterday, that when delicate negotiations are taking place between employees and employers, and before a report is issued, this should be the last place on earth at such a time to ask a question, if we wish to have a satisfactory settlement. That is my considered opinion in the matter. I may be wrong, of course, but I have had a good deal of experience in these matters.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, on March 14, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) concerning two young Spaniards named Enrique Montenegro and Angelo Parra who were about to be deported from Canada. The Prime Minister said that there would be further inquiry, and that a report would be made subsequently about these two lads. Is the minister in a position today to make a report as to what decision has been reached?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: After this matter was raised in the house by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, several British Columbia members spoke to me about it, and for that reason we have made a complete investigation. I should like to report to the house that Montenegro and Parr# arrived at New Westminster, British Columbia, as stowaways on the British ship Alcyone Hope on July 10, 1949. On examination by the usual board of inquiry it appeared that Montenegro was a carpenter and Parra a seaman. They had stowed away on the S.S. Alcyone Hope, on which vessel they were working in Barcelona, Spain. They were not admissible to Canada, and were ordered deported. Early deportation was not effected because of a lack of transportation, and this was finally arranged in January last. Various statements have been made to the effect that they would suffer severe penalties if deported to Spain, as it was alleged that they were deserters from the Spanish navy.
These aliens furnished no information regarding naval service until questioned on arrival at Montreal on March 14 for deportation. In fact, Parra stated under examination by the board of inquiry last summer that he was too young for military service in
1564	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Spain. At Montreal they submitted a sworn statement that they were conscripted into the Spanish navy in 1948 and deserted from the warship Galicia at Barcelona on April 28, 1949. Official inquiries in Spain establish that the warship Galicia has not entered Barcelona in recent years, which fact casts serious doubt on the statements of these aliens regarding their status in Spain.
Representations that they wished to proceed to Guatemala and that visas were being obtained for that purpose were received by the department only on March 11 when the aliens were en route to Montreal. Proceedings were suspended to permit of further inquiries being made. The department has within the past few days received official information that visas have been granted by the consul general of Guatemala in Montreal. Montenegro and Parra will be allowed to effect departure from Canada to Guatemala as soon as their interested friends can arrange transportation.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day were called yesterday the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield), referring to a newspaper report, asked for information regarding the export of Canadian potatoes to the United States. The first question was: Is the report coming from Geneva correct that the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade agreed to let the United States take measures to restrict the flow of imports of Canadian potatoes? The answer to that is no. That report does not give a correct picture of what took place. The general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiated at Geneva in 1947 contains, in schedule XX, United States concessions, certain tariff concessions under tariff paragraph 771 on table potatoes. This is a concession that was carried forward from the 1938 trade agreement between Canada and the United States. It provides, in addition to a fixed quota of one million bushels to be admitted at 371 cents per one hundred pounds, that if for any calendar year the production estimate made by the Department of Agriculture as of September 1 is less than 350 million bushels the concession of half rate of duty, 371 cents, will apply to that amount of potatoes that might be imported to make up the difference between the estimate and 350 million bushels. United States production 

since 1938 has always been above 350 million bushels; hence this concession has never been applied in practice.
The rate of duty on seed potatoes is 371 cents per one hundred pounds for the first 21 million bushels imported in the twelve-month period beginning on September 15 in any year, and 75 cents per one hundred pounds on all seed potatoes above this quota.
The Canadian government was approached by the United States authorities with regard to the figure of 350 million bushels specified in the tariff on table potatoes. The latter anticipated possible difficulties in the next crop year arising from their acreage restriction policy and they therefore requested a modification of this particular clause.
Since Canada has not been shipping potatoes to the United States under this clause, and since the whole matter will be discussed at the coming tariff negotiations, Canada agreed for a one-year period commencing September 15 next to read the general agreement on tariffs and trade as if the figure 335 million bushels were substituted for 350 million bushels in paragraph 771 of schedule XX, such an agreement being without prejudice to the negotiations on potatoes to be undertaken at Torquay in September. This waiver was to be carried out under article XXV, paragraph 5 (a), of the general agreement.
This temporary adjustment was formalized by agreement of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade some days ago.
The second question was: Did Canada have a representative at the conference? The answer to that is yes. The third question was: Did Canada agree in advance? The answer to that is, yes.



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from two members, notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation, viz:
Of Maurice Hartt, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Cartier, by decease.
The notice is as follows:
Electoral District of Cartier
Dominion of Canada} House of Commons To wit	/
To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of
Commons:
We, the undersigned, hereby give notice that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Commons, for the electoral district of Cartier, due to the decease of the former member, Maurice Hartt.

Given under our hands and seals, at Ottawa, this 4th day of April, A.D. 1950.
Angus Maclnnis
Member for the electoral district of Vancouver East
Stanley H. Knowles Member for the electoral district of Winnipeg North Centre
Accordingly I have issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



WESTCOAST TRANSMISSION COMPANY


Mr. J. S. Sinnoll (Springfield) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 131, to amend an act to incorporate Westcoast Transmission Company Limited.


Mr. Fraser:: Explain.


Gordon Graydon: May we have a full explanation from the hon. member, please?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to delete the words "or outside Canada" from the act under which the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited was granted a charter.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Jessie Ferguson Deans McKenzie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Daisy Muriel Smallcombe Devaney.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Stella Burns Herdman Elder.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Ethel May Alice Turnbull Colligan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Effie Irene Collier Newman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Phyllis Anne England McNab.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Martha Jean Brooks Markell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Kathleen Zawitkoska Symianick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Jeannine Mar-tineau Masse.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Betty Borman Archambault.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Edwin Dawson. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Mavis Barker Billingham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Roland Gour. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Taylor Clarke.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Sylvia Singer Mepham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Mabel Kathleen Baxter Simons.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Vittoria Min-otti Mastracchio.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Dent Harrison. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Margaret Mahajahla Aitken Schoch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Esther Spector Gelfand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Sophie Roth Pliss.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Gertrude Howard McWilliams Rubin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Remenia Bertha Duguay Briggs.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Blanche Naomi Greenlees.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Leslie William McNally.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Jacqueline Marie Scully Sirois.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Phyllis Christina McLeod Daly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Winnie Florence Clitheroe DuVal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Muriel Elizabeth McCurry Welham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Betty Margaret Slinn Metivier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Fanny Abram-owitch Mergler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of John Wood.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Olivia Mary Tipping Morris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Mable Veronica Askin Williamson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Christine Rachel MacLeod Nicholson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Anne Halperin Perelmutter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Phyllis Rochlin Rabinovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Mary Kay-bridge Goulbourn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Muriel Alice Mary Westgate.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of John Elliot Cumming.-Mr. Winkler.

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

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many persons on the staff of the research division and/or any other division of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been

Questions
engaged in the study of, gathering information on, or research into, old age security, from January 1, 1945, to date?
2.	How many of these persons worked on old age security in each of the years indicated, and what proportion of their time was spent in work on old age security during each such year?
3.	Are there any memoranda or reports available indicating the results of research on old age security as indicated above?
4.	If so, what are their titles?
5.	Has information been secured on the legislative provisions for old age security in any countries other than Canada?
6.	If so, what are these countries?
7.	Is any of the above material available to members of parliament in any form? If so, how can it be obtained?


Mr. Martin:: 1 and 2.
It is not possible to state with any accuracy the number of persons on the staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare who have at any time since January 1, 1945, been engaged in the study of questions relating to old age security; nor to reconstruct for the past five years the number of persons who worked on old age security in each of the years indicated, or the exact amount of time which each person spent on studies in this field.
The work of the research division of the department is not divided into such watertight compartments as to permit of segregation in this manner of the number of persons or the amount of time spent on studies in regard to old age security.
The study of old age security has engaged the attention of a substantial number of the staff of the research division for a considerable portion of their time during the past five years. Three or four of the members of the research division staff have spent a major portion of their time on studies relating to old age security. In addition to this, the director of the research division, the director of the old age pensions division and members of his staff, and the deputy minister of welfare have devoted a considerable portion of their time to studies and preparation of basic data in regard to old age security.
In addition to this, certain staff members of the information services division have also collaborated in the preparation of material in this field, particularly in connection with the preparation of the special supplement on old age pensions which was published in September, 1948, as a supplement to "Canada's Health and Welfare."
Further, in the studies which were undertaken in the summer of 1947 by Dr. H. M. Cassidy of the university of Toronto, a considerable amount of work was done by Dr.
IMr. Knowles.]
Cassidy himself, by members of the Department of National Health and Welfare and of other departments, in regard to old age security.
3,	4, 5, 6 and 7. A substantial number of memoranda and reports on old age security are now on hand in the department. Some of these deal with legislative provisions for old age security in other countries than Canada. This information will be made available to the joint committee on old age security on request.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


Mr. Whiteside:: 1.	Is a supplementary payment paid by a province to old age pensioners considered as Income subject to the means test under the federal Old Age Pensions Act and regulations?
2.	What is the supplementary payment paid: to old age pensioners in the provinces of (a) Saskatchewan; (b) Alberta; (e) British Columbia?
3.	Are these supplementary payments subject to a means test? If so, under what authority?
4.	What governmental authority makes the regulations that apply to these supplementary payments?
5.	Have the governments of any of the provinces which provide supplementary payments on a means test basis recently been requested to eliminate therefrom the means test? If so, with what result?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	No. Section 10 of the regulations passed under the Old Age Pensions Act reads as follows:
"In determining income for the purpose of the act, the pension authority shall in each case take into account the amount or value of all income and contributions received, whether in cash or in kind, other than . . .
(c) cost of living allowances or supplemental allowances paid by any province to persons in receipt of pensions under the act".
2.	(a) Saskatchewan, $2.50 a month; (b) Alberta, $7.50 a month (a bill has been introduced during the present session of the legislature to increase the supplementary allowance to $10 a month); (c) British Columbia, $10 a month.
3.	Only in the province of Saskatchewan. Authority is an order in council of the government of the province of Saskatchewan, passed with effect as of May 1, 1949.
4.	Provincial government.
5.	On March 21, 1950, the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan rejected by a vote of 25 to 22 an amendment to a government motion, the text of which reads as follows:
"This assembly regrets the failure by the government to give due consideration to payment by the province of the supplementary

old age pension allowance without a means test". (See Votes and Proceedings of the legislative assembly of the province of Saskatchewan, No. 24, March 21, 1950.)



HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Jutras:: How much has the federal government approved, by provinces, under the tuberculosis control grant for the purchase of X-ray equipment for the purpose of detecting tuberculosis?


Paul Joseph James Martin: From April 1, 1948 (the effective date of the grant) to February 28, 1950:
Newfoundland	$	19,273
Prince Edward Island	 27,395
Nova Scotia	 47,087
New Brunswick	 165,959
Quebec	 220,485*
Ontario	 997,782
Manitoba	 124,431
Saskatchewan	 270,031
Alberta	 9,263
British Columbia	 435,325
Total	$2,317,031
*In addition, the Bruchesi Institute was allotted $230,215, a portion of which will be devoted to X-ray survey activities.


Mr. Cruickshank:: How much has the province of British Columbia been allotted under the tuberculosis control grant to purchase X-ray equipment for examination to detect tuberculosis?


Paul Joseph James Martin: From April 1, 1948 (the effective date of	the	grant)	to	February	28,	1950,


Mr. Nixon:: What financial assistance has the federal government given to the province of Ontario under the tuberculosis control grant for the purpose of purchasing X-ray equipment for the detection of tuberculosis?


Paul Joseph James Martin: From April 1, 1948 (the effective date of	the	grant)	to	February	28,	1950,



$997,782. CELLOPHANE

Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	Is cellophane manufactured in Canada?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	What quantity of cellophane was imported into Canada, and from what countries?
4.	Are there any restrictions against the importation of cellophane into Canada?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Canadian Industries Limited, Shaw-inigan Falls, Quebec.
Questions
3.	Cellophane is a registered trade name for a certain type of transparent paper and is not classified as such for statistical purposes.
4.	No.


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What firms or companies in Canada manufacture cellophane?
2.	What firms or companies in Canada import cellophane?
3.	From what firms or companies in what countries do they import the same?
4.	What is the source of supply for firms in Canada engaged in the processing of cellophane into finished products?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	Canadian Industries Limited, Shawinigan Falls, Quebec.
2.	Cellophane is a registered trade name for a certain type of transparent paper, and is not classified as such for statistical purposes. There are other types of transparent paper manufactured in Canada.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	The basis ingredient used in the manufacture of transparent papers is sulphite pulp produced in Canada.



REHABILITATION PROJECTS, WINNIPEG

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Did the federal government in 1945, or thereabouts, circulate a questionnaire seeking information as to construction or rehabilitation projects which might be undertaken as part of a post-war rehabilitation program for the purpose of providing full employment?
2.	Was a copy of this questionnaire sent to the board of trustees of the school district of Winnipeg?
3.	Did the board of trustees of the school district of Winnipeg respond thereto? If so, under what date?
4.	What construction or rehabilitation projects did the Winnipeg school board certify in its response to such questionnaire?
5.	Has any action been taken by the federal government in connection with projects recommended thereby?
6.	Has the federal government received representations from the board of trustees of the school district of Winnipeg at any time this year urging the government to proceed with projects indicated in the answers to the above questions?
7.	Has any action been taken in response to such representations? If not, when will such action be taken?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	The federal government in 1945 circulated a questionnaire seeking information as to construction or rehabilitation projects through the offices of the regional reconstruction control.
2.	No record of whether a questionnaire was sent to the board of trustees of the school district of Winnipeg to be found in public project branch records.

Questions
3.	Questionnaires printed by municipality of Winnipeg were filed with Major-General J. P. Mackenzie, controller construction, through Mr. Ferguson, regional representative construction control, on July 25, 1945.
4.	Projects filed by school district of Winnipeg: Aberdeen No. 1 (Salter and Stella) replace school, .$272,375; Argyle school (Argyle and Henry), $140,600; Pinkham school (Pacific and Rietta), $190,000; Somerset school (Sherbrook), $190,000; Norquay No. 1 (Euclid and Lusted), $187,750; Gladstone (Corydon and Osborne), $187,500; Mulvey (Broadway and Maryland), $262,500; Machray No. 1 (Mountain and Charles), $250,000; Isbister (Ellice and Vaughan), $175,000; Alexandra school (Edmonton and St. Marys), $175,000; Strathcona school (McGregor and Burrows), $275,000; Fort Rouge (River and Mayfair), $112,500.
5.	In a letter dated November 5, 1945, to the Hon. S. S. Garson, then premier of Manitoba, the then acting prime minister, Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, stated:
"No special federal assistance is planned in this connection. In respect of planning or timing grants you will recall that the dominion brief states that these will not apply to maintenance, repair or local improvement. Further, in view of the wide variation in school and university systems, and the different relationships and positions of public and private educational undertakings in Canada, it does not appear desirable for the federal government to undertake financial assistance in this sphere".
6.	No record.
7.	Answered by No. 6.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. Isnor:: 1.	What is the total number of those now receiving old age pensions?
2.	How many (a) males; (b) females?
3.	At our present 1950 population and at the rate of $40, what would it cost Canada to pay (a) old age pensions to males at seventy; (b) females at sixty-five years?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	As at December 31, 1949:-Old age pensions, 277,031; blind pensions, 10,232; total, 287,263.
2.	(a) Approximately one-half (exact figures not available).
(b) Approximately one-half (exact figures not available).
3.	(a) and (b) Estimates of the cost of paying pensions of various amounts have been made for the years 1951, 1961 and 1971 (see page 640, Hansard of March 10, 1950). Inter-censal estimates have been made for 1949 but

not for 1950. The intercensal estimates for 1950 will not be available for some time. It is not clear whether the question refers to pensions payable with or without a means test. Assuming that the question refers to the cost of paying pensions at the rate of $40 a month to all males seventy years of age and over and to all females sixty-five years of age and over without a means test, the estimated cost for 1951 would be $163,392,000 for males and $257,616,000 for females, or a total of $421,008,000.


Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	What was the total amount paid out by the federal government to the government of the province of Quebec on account of the Old Age Pensions Act, from (a) 1940 to 1945; (b) 1945 to 1950?
2.	What was the total number of people who received the old age pension in the province of Quebec, from (a) 1940 to 1945; (b) 1945 to 1950?
3.	In what year did the parliament of Canada increase the monthly pension, and what was the increase?


Mr. Martin:: 

INCOME TAX


Mr. Thatcher:: How many persons were employed by the Department of National Revenue in checking on and investigating farmers' income tax in (a) Saskatchewan; (b) Manitoba; (c) Alberta; (d) Quebec, on March 1, last?


Mr. McCann:: The number of persons employed by the taxation division, Department of National Revenue, as at March 1, 1950, in checking and investigating farmers' income tax returns, in the four provinces mentioned in the question, are as follows:
(a)	Saskatchewan, 54;	(b) Manitoba, 32;
(c) Alberta, 52; (d) Quebec, 25; total, 163.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Diefenbaker:: In the opinions given by Mr. J. J. Kelly, K.C., Winnipeg and Mr. T. N. Phelan, K.C., Toronto, did either or both recommend proceedings to be taken against the alleged milling combines under either the Combines Investigation Act or the Criminal Code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What is sought by this question is the disclosure of legal opinions recommending that proceedings should or should not be taken against the alleged flour milling combine. The question is inadmissible as it seeks information about matters which are in their nature confidential. Advice given to the crown by law officers and legal advisers falls in this category. Legal opinions given for the guidance of ministers should not be produced. The reason is of the same order as the rule that applies in the case of private individuals, namely, that legal opinions are confidential.
See Bourinot, page 250; May, fourteenth edition, page 337; Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, page 119 (see rules 295 and 310); second edition (1947) Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, by Sir Gilbert Campion, page 151; Phipson on Evidence, eighth edition, page 188.



TELEVISION

Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Were tenders recently invited by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for studio equipment for television?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of those who drew up the specifications?
3.	Were public tenders advertised? If so, in what manner?
4.	What was the closing date of tenders, and where were they received?
5.	What are the names and addresses of those submitting tenders, and the amount of each tender?
6.	What are the names and addresses of those whose tenders were accepted?
7.	When is it expected that television, through the C.B.C., will be available to the public?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
3.	No.
4.	March 27, at the CBC offices, Montreal.
5.	Canadian General Electric Co., Toronto, Ont.; Canadian Marconi Co. Ltd., Montreal,
Questions
P.Q.; Federal Electric Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.; Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Co. Ltd., Chelmsford, England, through Canadian Marconi Co. Ltd., Montreal; Pye Limited, Cambridge, England, through Pye Canada Limited, Ajax, Ontario; RCA Victor Company Ltd., Montreal; Electric & Musical Industries Ltd., Hayes, Middlesex, England, was asked to make submissions, but none were received.
Amounts quoted are confidential.
6.	No decisions have been made.
7.	1951.



UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	By whom was the survey of the state of planning of government projects, federal, provincial, and municipal, referred to by the Prime Minister on February 20, 1950, made?
2.	When was this survey made, on what date were the results thereof reported, and to whom?
3.	What were the main findings of this survey?
4.	Do any of these findings relate specifically to the "shelf concept?" If so, what are the terms thereof?
5.	Are the detailed results of this survey available to members of parliament? If so, how may they be obtained?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	By the economic research and development branch, Department of Trade and Commerce, with co-operation of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.
2.	From April to September, 1949. The results were summarized in the annual report of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, page 506, tabled in parliament on November 14, 1949.
3.	The main findings are included in the report referred to in the answer to No. 2.
4.	Details of survey not a matter of public information.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



CANADIAN FORCES IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	What is the present strength, officers and men
respectively, in Newfoundland, of (a) Royal Canadian Navy:	(b) Royal Canadian Air Force; (c)
Canadian army?
2.	What reserve units of the said units are in N ewfoundland?
3.	What are the respective strengths of the reserve units?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Officers	Men	Total(a) R.C.N. . . .	
3	8	11(b) R.C.A.F. .	
22	291	313(c) Army . . . .	. .. . 9	43	52
Questions
2.	The following reserve units are in the process of organization:
(a)	R. C. N.-Naval Division-H. M. C. S. "Cabot".
(b)	R.C.A.F.-Organization of a reserve flight is under consideration.
(c)	Army-R.C.A. 166 (Nfld.) Regiment.
3. R.C.E. 56 Indep. Fd. Sqn.; R.C.I.C. Royal Nfld. Regiment.
Officers	Men	U.N.T.D.	Total(a) R.C.N	11	20	26	57(b) R.C.A.F. . . -	-	-	' 	(c) Army 	
3	40	-	43



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL


Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	Was the new electronic tube known as B.A.T. developed under the direction of the national research council?
2.	If so, is this tube now being manufactured, and by whom?
3.	Who controls the patent?
4.	What is the manufacturing cost per tube?
5.	What is the selling price per tube?
6.	Are manufacturing rights available to companies other than the present manufacturer?
7.	Are royalties being paid? If so, to whom?
8.	What royalties, if any, are being paid to the national research council?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	The binary adder tube was developed under joint sponsorship of the national research council and the defence research board, at the computation centre, university of Toronto.
2.	No. It is still in the development stage.
3.	The Canadian Patents and Development Ltd., a crown company.
4.	Unknown as yet.
5.	Unknown as yet.
6.	Tube not yet developed to manufacturing stage.
7.	See answer to No. 6. Licensing agreement under negotiation.
8.	See answer to Nos. 6 and 7.


Mr. Johnston:: 1.	What was the total production of coal in Canada during the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949?
2.	How much of this total production was "produced in eastern Canada and how much in western Canada, during the years indicated?
3.	How many tons of coal have been imported into Canada from the United States, during the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949?
4.	What was the total number of men engaged in the coal industry in western Canada, during these years?
5.	What is the rate of subvention paid per ton on western coal shipped to eastern Canada?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	Production of Coal in Canada:
Tons
1945		 16,506,713
1946		 17,811,747
1947		 15,868,866
1948		 18,449,689
1949		 19,109,747
2.	Production of coal in eastern Canada and in western Canada:
Eastern Canada Western Canada (tons)
1945	
5,473,799	11,032,9141946	
5,823,523	11,988,2241947	
4,463,390	11,405,4761948	
6,952,927	11,496,5621949	
6,716,901	12,392,8463.	Imports of coal from United States:Anthracite	Bituminous	Lignite
(tons of 2,000 pounds)
1945	.	.	3,384,357	21,648,344	4671946	.	.	4,529,891	21,474,956	1721947	.	.	4,230,022	24,608,522	1731948	.	.	5,082,483	25,614,233	14,6321949	.	.	3,618,490	18,228,699	16,5474.	Number of employees in the coal mining industry in western Canada:1945	
11,4451946	
11,4421947	
11,5311948	
11,0151949	
11,4155.	The rates of subvention payable on western coal shipped to Ontario and Quebec are fixed by order in council P.C. 3538 of August 25, 1948 in respect of coal mined in Alberta and the Crowsnest pass area of British Columbia and by order in council P.C. 3539 of August 25, 1948 in respect of coal mined in Saskatchewan. .
The following respective average rates per ton were paid during the calendar year 1949 by way of subvention for coal shipped to Ontario and Quebec from each of the following provinces:
Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia $0.68	$2.17	$1.70



HEALTH INSURANCE STUDIES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What phase or phases of health insurance were studied, during each of the years noted, by each employee of the Department of National Health and Welfare reported on March 16, 1950, as having worked on health insurance studies, during the fiscal years ending in 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950?
2.	Which of the employees noted, during each of the above years, did health insurance studies work that was primarily work in connection with the administration of health grants?

3.	Which of the employees noted, during each of the above years, did health insurance studies work that was primarily a study of health insurance itself, with particular reference to the possibility of the same being inaugurated in Canada?
4.	Which of the employees noted, during each of the above years, did research work on other phases of social security, including old age pensions, and also on the possibility of inaugurating in Canada a program of over-all social security?


Mr, Martin:: 1.	It is not possible to state in exact detail the various aspects of health insurance which have been assigned for study to each employee of the Department of National Health and Welfare during the years 1946-50. This study of health insurance in all its phases is carried on as a joint undertaking involving many employees of the department generally, and in particular members of the research division and the division of health insurance studies. No one employee of the department carries on his work in complete isolation from the others.
2 and 3. Prior to May 14, 1948-none. Since May 14, 1948, certain of the employees in the health insurance studies division and elsewhere in the department have devoted considerable portions of their time to work connected with the administration of the national health program, which, as stated by the former prime minister on May 14, 1948, is considered "a fundamental prerequisite to health insurance". All the work that has been undertaken, whether related to the administration of health grants or not, has particular reference to the possibility of health insurance being inaugurated in Canada.
4.	See answers given to questions asked by Mr. Knowles on March 16 relating to old age security.



RAILWAY MILEAGE IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: What Is the railway mileage in (a) Manitoba; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Alberta?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Single track mileage, end of 1948: Manitoba, 4,835-6 miles; Saskatchewan, 8,738-3 miles; Alberta, 5,643-2 miles.



MONTAGUE, P.E.I., POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Kickham:: What steps have been or are being taken to erect a post office building at Montague, Prince Edward Island, this year?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: No steps have been or are being taken to erect a public building at Montague, P.E.I.



HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Matthews:: 1.	What is the total number since the national health grants program started, by provinces, of
Questions
new general hospitals toward the construction of which financial assistance has been or is being given by the federal government under the hospital construction grant?
2.	What is the total bed capacity, by provinces, of such hospitals?
3.	What population, by provinces, will be served by these hospitals?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Number of general hospitals: Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia, 10; New Brunswick, 2; Quebec, 17; Ontario, 28; Manitoba, 22; Saskatchewan, 31; Alberta, 4; British Columbia, 4. Total, 119.
2.	Total bed capacity:	Prince Edward
Island, 6; Nova Scotia, 415; New Brunswick, 11; Quebec, 1,762; Ontario, 1,623; Manitoba, 304; Saskatchewan, 593; Alberta, 114; British Columbia, 235. Total, 5,063.
3.	Estimated population served:	Prince
Edward Island, 4,000; Nova Scotia, 115,725; New Brunswick, 8,000; Quebec, 1,055,910; Ontario, 1,590,843; Manitoba, 109,000; Saskatchewan, 184,792; Alberta, 18,265; British Columbia, 56,500. Total, 3,143,035.




Mr. Rooney:: With the federal assistance provided under the professional training grant or other grants in the national health grants program, how many persons, by categories, have been or are receiving training
since the program started?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Medical personnel other than psychiatrists	 146
Public health	 27
Radiologists	 9
Pathologists	 12
Other	 98
Mental health personnel	 228
Psychiatrists	 78
Psychologists	 41
Mental health nurses	 56
Psychiatric social workers ...	53
Dentists	 6
Nurses	 476
Teachers	 17
Supervisors	  113
Public health	 224
Others	 122
Sanitary engineers	 12
Sanitary inspectors	 75
Veterinarians	 12
Therapists	 8
Technicians	 116
Health educators	 39
Nutritionists	 9
Social workers	  23
Clerical and stenographic	 9
Other	  260
Total	 1,419

Questions




Mr. MacDougall:: In addition to those persons who are receiving a training under the professional training grant or other grants in the national health grants program, how many health personnel are employed by the provinces under the program?


Mr. Marlin:: Medical personnel other than psychiatrists, 312; mental health personnel, 205; dentists, 22; public health nurses,' 333; sanitary engineers, 5; sanitary inspectors, 50; veterinarians, 6; therapists, 54; laboratory technicians, 187; health educators, 28; nutritionists, 18; social workers, 44; clerical and stenographic, 261; others, 384; total, 1,909.




Mr. Winkler:: 1.	By provinces, how many mental health clinics have been established from funds made available to the provinces under the mental health grant by the federal government?
2.	What population do they serve?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	Number of clinics: Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia, 2; New Brunswick, 1; Quebec, 15; Ontario, 4; Manitoba, 3; Saskatchewan, 3; Alberta, 1; British Columbia, 1; all provinces, 31.
2.	Estimated population served:	Prince
Edward Island, 15,000; Nova Scotia, 120,000; New Brunswick, this clinic-a travelling mental health unit-is in the embryonic stage. It is intended to serve the entire population of the province when fully developed; Quebec, 1,700,000; Ontario, 500,000; Manitoba, 350,000; Saskatchewan, 100,000; Alberta, 100,000; British Columbia, 100,000; total, 2,985,000.
In addition to the above-(a) equipment has been supplied to the following already existing clinics:
Ontario: Brockville, Whitby, Fort William.
British Columbia:	Child guidance clinic,
Vancouver; child guidance clinic, Victoria; one travelling clinic; crease clinic, Essondale.
(b)	Additional staff and facilities have been provided for clinics in Winnipeg, Toronto, Niagara peninsula, Vancouver.



BONAVENTURE, QUE., HARBOUR FACILITIES

Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works make any repairs to the protection, fishing and wharf facilities in front of the Charles A. Forest property at Bona-venture, Bonaventure county, between December 1, 1949, and February 15, 1950?
2.	If so, what was the total cost of same?
3.	Who was the foreman, what was his daily rate of pay, and how long did he work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.

2.	$737.63.
3.	(a) John Goulet.
(b)	$8 a day.
(c)	December 15, 1949, to January 3, 1950.



CANADIAN RESIDENTS EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	Are persons residing in Canada, but working in the United States of America, and having their chief source of income therein, allowed exemptions from income tax for charitable donations made in the said United States of America?
2.	Does the United States allow similar exemptions for residents of that country working in Canada?
3.	If not, have any negotiations been instituted for reciprocal legislation, and with what result?
4.	Are Canadian residents having their chief source of income from the United States allowed exemptions on the exchange in converting American money into Canadian, for expenses necessarily made in earning their said income in the United States?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	No.
2.	No authoritative opinion can be given on the tax laws of the United States. From the information obtained, it would appear that the United States would not allow as a deduction a specific claim for a donation to charity made in Canada.
3.	This item was included in discussions with United States officials exploring the possibility of amendments to the present tax convention between the United States and Canada, but no conclusion has, as yet, been reached.
4.	Any amount expended in the United States which is an allowable deduction in computing income under the Income Tax Act would necessarily be converted to Canadian currency at the official current rate of exchange.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	On what basis are civil servants superannuated, and at what age?
2.	Have any steps been taken to provide an increase in the superannuation allowance paid to civil servants?
3.	Have any proceedings been taken to provide a cost of living bonus for superannuated civil servants?
4.	If not, for what reasons?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	Civil servants are superannuated on account of age, ill-health or abolition of position. Civil servants may retire voluntarily at sixty and normally must retire at sixty-five.
2.	No.
3.	No.

4.	The government's policy in connection with the granting of a cost of living bonus to superannuated civil servants has been stated many times in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance, and in particular on January 28, 1949 (see Hansard for that date, page 42).



DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS BERRIES, YARROW, B.C.

Mr. Johnston:: 1.	How much money did the berry growers of Yarrow, British Columbia, receive from the Department of Agriculture and/or any other government department for the 1947 and 1948 crop of berries, which until May, 1949, lay in surplus at the co-operative packing plant at Yarrow?
2.	How was this berry pulp disposed of, and by whom?
3.	How much money was recovered by the government from any sale or sales of these berries?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	$371,512.51 was paid to Consolidated Coast Growers, Abbotsford, British Columbia, and distributed by them to their shipping members, including the berry growers at Yarrow. Details of payments to Yarrow berry growers by Consolidated Coast Growers are not on record with the government.
2.	Sold to British ministry of food through the special products board.
3.	$100,000.



ELDORADO MINING AND REFINING COMPANY

Mr. Wright:: 1.	Has the Eldorado Mining and Refining Company made a profit or loss in the years 1947, 1948, 1949?
2.	What is this profit or loss per pound on the uranium extracts of the purity required under the legislation or regulations governing sale of these extracts by private corporations?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited earned a profit in 1947 of $1,177,005.25 and a profit in 1948 of $1,336,015.39. The company's financial statements for 1949 have not had final approval. When the statements have been audited, they will be contained in the annual report of the company which will be tabled in the House of Commons.
2.	Sales of uranium by Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited are covered by contracts which are subject to security regulations. It is not possible, therefore, to disclose the profit per pound or unit sold.



HEALTH INSURANCE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Is the estimated cost of health insurance benefits indicated on page 53 of the health, welfare and labour reference book for the 1945 dominion-provincial conference as $248,178,000 still regarded as a good estimate? *
Questions
2.	If not, what is the revised estimate?
3.	What is the distribution of the figure given in answer to question 2 amongst the services indicated in the estimate referred to in question 1?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. The question of cost estimates for health insurance is under constant review and no figures can be considered as final for the time being.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Blackmore:: As at the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, what is the amount of the civil service superannuation fund?


Mr. Belzile:: The books of the government for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950, are not yet closed. The balance in the superannuation account .at February 28, 1950, was $94,834,517.25.



HIGHLAND NATIONAL PARK, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	How much expenditure was made on the Highland national park in Nova Scotia, in each of the years 1948 and 1949?
2.	What was expended under contract in each year, and who were the contractors?
3.	What was paid for maintenance in each of the years 1948 and 1949?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	Total expenditure:
1948		 $673,000.75
1949		 672,539.74
2.	Fundy Construction Co., Ivyville St., Halifax, N.S.:
1948		 $406,153.93
1949		 436,591.60
John C. McMillan Ltd., North Sydney, N.S.:
1949	 $8,927.19
M. R. Chappell, Sydney, N.S.:
1948		 $24,713.10
1949		 3,105.90
3.	Maintenance:
1948		 $124,771.35
1949		 174,426.94



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the Owen Sound Transportation Company, Limited, since the first of January, 1946, and to date, received any financial assistance, advances or credit directly or indirectly in connection with the building by said company or any subsidiary thereof of a ship or ships at Collingwood, Ontario?
2.	If so, to what extent, and on what terms?
3.	Has the government leased any of the said ships from the said company? If so, on what terms?

Questions
4.	Are there any agreements between the said company and the government for the purchase and sale of any of the said ships? If so, what are the terms thereof?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) On October 18, 1946, annual subsidy of $35,000 was increased to $65,000 to assist the company in meeting the considerably increased cost of maintaining essential services between Owen Sound, ports on Mani-toulin island and Sault Ste. Marie, including the car ferry service between Tobermory and South Baymouth, and to assist the company in the operation of a new vessel, S.S. Norisle, built at Collingwood shipyards in 1946, which replaced an over-age vessel which had been condemned by the Department of Transport as no longer fit for service. S.S. Norisle was brought into service on October 18, 1946.
(b) On April 1, 1949, annual subsidy of $65,000 was increased to $100,000 to assist in the maintenance of the services in (a) above the costs of which had increased since 1946 and also to assist in the replacement of another over-age vessel, the S.S. Manitouhn, which had been condemned by the Department of Transport as no longer fit for service. The new vessel S.S. Norgoma, built at Collingwood shipyards, is nearing completion and will commence her service at the opening of navigation this year. Contract with the company is for a period of fifteen years, and contains a recapture clause on a sliding scale to the full amount of the annual subsidy. The first season of operation under this contract ended December 31, 1949, and the company has refunded the sum of $35,255.85 under the recapture clause. In effect therefore government assistance in 1949 was reduced, and as a new ship with increased earning capacity is now coming into service, there is every prospect of increased refunds in successive years.
3.	No.
4.	No.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	What privately-owned radio stations were added to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation networks during the past fourteen months?
2.	What type of network service is provided to each?
3.	What privately-owned radio stations at present are assessed a line charge for network affiliation service, and what is the annual assessment in each case?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


James Joseph McCann: 1 and 2. CHLO St. Thomas, Ont., Trans-Canada, supplementary "A"; CKBW Bridgewater, N.S., Trans-Canada, supplementary "A"; CJIB Vernon, B.C., Dominion, supplementary "A"; CKLD Thetford Mines, P.Q., French, supplementary "A"; CJNT Quebec city, P.Q., Trans-Canada, supplementary "A".
3.	CFJM Brockville, Ont., $1,000.00; CJFX Antigonish, N.S., $1,108.80; CFOR Orillia, Ont., $2,052.00; CKPG Prince George, B.C., $3,101.25; CJFP Riviere du Loup, P.Q., $1,892.17; CHOK Sarnia, Ont., $4,225.30; CHNO Sudbury, Ont., $1,892.17; CHAT Medicine Hat, Alta., $1,892.17; CHLO St. Thomas, Ont., $2,886.73; CKBW Bridgewater, N.S., $2,977.67; CJIB Vernon, B.C., $4,000.00; CHLT Sherbrooke, P.Q., $8,170.33; CKLD Thetford Mines, P.Q., $6,802.81; CJNT Quebec city, P.Q., $1,892.17.



NATIONAL HEALTH-SICKNESS SURVEY

Mr. Siuder:: 1.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare making plans for the carrying out of a sickness survey by the provinces throughout Canada?
2.	If so (a) what information will be sought by this survey: (b) by whom will the survey be conducted; (c) how will this survey be paid for; (d) when will the survey be carried out?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) (i) The total volume of illness in Canada by provinces including rates for the more common diseases such as; respiratory diseases, digestive diseases, communicable diseases, rheumatism and related diseases, female genital and puerperal conditions, skin diseases, accidental injuries.
(ii)	The volume of disability.
(iii)	The amount of medical care and of other types of health care received for the reported volume of sickness.
(iv)	The volume of preventive services carried out by private practitioners.
(v)	Indication as to the unmet needs for service and care.
(vi)	Expenditures incurred to the public for various types of health care.
(b)	The survey will be conducted by the provinces, assisted by the Department of National Health and Welfare and by the dominion bureau of statistics in relation to statistical problems involved.
(c)	The funds that each province may require for the conduct of the sickness survey will be made available by the federal government under the national health grants program.

(d)	The survey will commence at the discretion of the provinces. It is expected that it will start in April or May, 1950, and will be conducted over a twelve-month period.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	At what locations have relay radio transmitters been established by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the past eighteen months?
2.	To what station is each a satellite?
3.	What was the cost of establishing each?
4.	During the past five years at what locations have private radio broadcasting stations established satellite radio transmitters?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Field, B.C.; Foleyet, Ont.
2.	CBR Vancouver and CBL. Toronto.
3.	CBRD Field, $2,113.00; CBRL Foleyet, $3,017.16.
4.	To be answered elsewhere.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY    NOVA SCOTIA AND NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	Has an agreement been entered into with the government of Nova Scotia, for (a) the construction of the trans-Canada highway passing through Nova Scotia; (b) an extension of the trans-Canada highway to serve Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what was the date of such agreement?
3.	What are the routes in Nova Scotia, stating the termini and the main towns through which these highways will pass?
4.	When is it expected that construction work in Nova Scotia will commence?
5.	Will construction be done by contract?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	(a) No contract has been signed between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia for the construction of the trans-Canada highway passing through Nova Scotia.
(b) No.
2.	Answered	by	No.	1.3.	Answered	by	No.	1.4.	Answered	by	No.	1.5.	Answered	by	No.	1.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-FORT FRANCES, ONT., RENTALS AND FEES

Mr. Benidickson:: What was the amount of (a) line charge rentals;
(b)	commissions and fees, collected1 by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during 1948 and 1949, from the Fort Frances, Ontario, radio station, for specially arranged Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network programs?


James Joseph McCann: (a) None; (b) none.
Motions for Papers



TUFTS COVE, N.S., PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	Is the dominion government giving preference to building materials imported into Nova Scotia, rather than specifying such materials produced in that province, in connection with government contracts?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Does this policy apply to building being carried on at Tufts Cove, Nova Scotia, by the federal government?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


IMMIGRATION


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many applications by Chinese Canadian citizens have been made month by month since the first of January, 1949, for the admission of wives and children?
2.	In how many cases were the applications turned down?
3.	At what age are sons and daughters of Chinese Canadian citizens denied admission?
4.	Have any been admitted over such designated age since the first of January, 1949? If so, how many?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of orders, directives and instructions issued or forwarded to the custom officials at boundary points since the first day of February, 1950, and to date, and amendments thereto in connection with the alteration of the regulations regarding the completion of entry forms for Canadian motorists visiting the United States.



BONAVENIURE, QUE., HARBOUR FACILITIES

Mr. Couriemanche:: For a return showing a copy of the payrolls, and a list of the materials used in connection with the repairs to the protection, fishing and wharf facilities in front of the Charles A. Forest property at Bona-venture, Bonaventure county, between December 1, 1949, and February 15, 1950.



COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS  TARIFFS, FEES, ETC.

Mr. Black (Cumberland):: For a copy of all evidence taken by or given before the copyright appeal board in connection with the application of the Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, Limited, Toronto, for an increase in the tariffs in each of the years 1949 and 1950, to date, together with a copy of the reasons given by the said board for increasing the said tariffs.

Divorce Laws DIVORCE



MOTION FOR SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER ENLARGEMENT OF GROUNDS

Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, early consideration should be given to the advisability of setting up a special committee of the house to consider amendments to our divorce laws, and enlarging grounds for divorce to include desertion of more than three years; gross cruelty; incurable mental disease after five years, and legal presumption of death.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I think I should say to the house that I have no special interest in divorce, but I feel that in presenting this resolution I am performing a necessary public service; and I speak today from the highest motives. My purpose in bringing forward this matter is that consideration may be given to a law of the land which in my opinion requires improvement and clarification.
The problem of divorce has social implications, and I do not think we can afford to perpetuate a blind spot with respect to this very important and vexing question. Like other hon. members I am a little tired of going through this make-believe process, as we did today, of passing, by number and en bloc, divorce bills about which we know nothing and care less. I have often asked myself why we should be called upon to sit in hasty moral judgment upon this husband and that wife, whose names reach us only in the titles of the acts sent from another house, but whose whole future we are called upon to decide in a casual moment when we give unconsidered assent to the passage of a bill of divorcement. Again, why should we in this house be required to accept the role of silent, uninformed accomplices, but decisive ones? I wonder whether that is our conception of the high duties we are sent here to perform.
In saying what I do I cast no reflection upon the Senate committee on divorce. They deal with each case fully, sympathetically and intelligently, and the justice meted out there is equal to that obtained in the courts of this country. But I do hope something will come of the bill that has been introduced by another hon. member, which would transfer these matters to the exchequer court.
It has been almost a decade since this house has had an unemotional discussion of divorce matters. In 1938 a divorce bill was passed by the Senate which contained almost the same

grounds now proposed in this resolution. That bill passed the Senate on May 18 of that year, and I read from section 6:
A petition for divorce may be presented either by the husband or the wife to, and it may be entertained by, the court, on the ground that the respondent;
(a)	has since the celebration of the marriage committed adultery; or
(b)	has deserted the petitioner without cause for a period of at least six years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or
(c)	has since the celebration of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
(d)	is incurably of unsound mind and has been continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
(2) A petition for divorce may be presented by the wife to, and it may be entertained by, the court, on the ground that her husband has, since the celebration of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality.
This bill passed the Senate and came to the House of Commons, where it finally obtained a sponsor. Then the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) moved that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be read this day six months. The house divided on that motion, which was carried by a vote of 102 to 53, and the bill was shelved. Of the 102 members who voted to shelve the bill, twenty-three are still members at the present time; and of the fifty-three who voted in favour of the bill, fifteen are still members. It is curious that though the voting took place on a Tuesday, many hon. members were inadvertently absent. Because of those circumstances I feel the house will forgive me if I give a bit of background material in order that members may more fully appreciate what is intended.
It is fair to say that Canada's divorce laws are among the most restricted in the western world, and I think reforms are long overdue to remedy the grievances that exist under these iron-clad laws. In order to appreciate the shortcomings of our present legislation I should like to refer briefly to the history of divorce in England, upon which our Canadian laws are based.
In 1857 the Matrimonial Causes Act set up a separate court of divorce administering generally the law as it had developed from the ecclesiastical courts. The court was empowered to grant a divorce for the wife's adultery but not for the husband's, unless it was aggravated by cruelty, desertion, and other graver offences. That law was amended in 1858, 1859, 1860, 1868 and 1870, and remained in that form until 1937.
Some time in 1908 a British royal commission on divorce was set up, which in 1910 brought in six recommendations. The first

recommendation was that the sexes be placed on an equal footing, and then the commission went on to recommend that the grounds for divorce be broadened to include the following five: first, wilful desertion for three years; second, cruelty; third, incurable insanity where the insane spouse has been confined for five years; fourth, drunkenness persisting for three years after a separation order has been made on that ground; fifth, imprisonment after a commuted death sentence. Two of the proposals of the royal commission of 1910, those concerning incurable drunkenness and imprisonment after a commuted death sentence, still have not been made grounds for divorce in Britain.
The law of England as of 1870 has been introduced in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. Quebec, and I believe Newfoundland, have no divorce courts, the law being that of England prior to 1857, when divorce was unknown except by act of parliament. Thus divorce petitions from Quebec, and Newfoundland, will be addressed to the Senate divorce committee. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, divorce has been under the supreme court since before confederation. This jurisdiction was preserved by section 129 of the British North America Act. It may be said that the right to deal with divorce "came with the ratios," so to speak, or along with other laws; but I think it significant for this house to bear in mind that in 1930 the House of Commons deliberately passed a law dealing with divorce as applicable to the province of Ontario.
We have so far adopted only one of the recommendations of the 1910 royal commission in England, that of placing the sexes on an equal footing. In the matter of divorce, our standards today are virtually those of 1870; we are eighty years out of date. Adultery is the only ground for divorce, except in Nova Scotia, where an old pre-confederation statute of 1866 makes provision for cruelty as a ground for divorce. In practice, there are two grounds for divorce in this country, adultery and perjury. To date, the Gallup poll has not indicated which of these two is more popular, but the Kinsey report does. As a matter of fact, either adultery or perjury is evidence under our divorce laws, but there is an important distinction. If adultery is the basis of the suit it must become public, otherwise it does not "pay off" in the divorce court. If perjury is the basis of the suit it must not become public, because it "pays off" only too well if the participants are caught by our courts.
Divorce Laws
In 1937, the law of England was amended to include cruelty, desertion, and incurable insanity as grounds for divorce. Canada, in general, has failed to recognize officially that cruelty, desertion or incurable insanity can destroy the meaning of marriage just as surely as adultery by one of the parties.
I think it is well for us to see what has been the record of divorce in this country as to numbers. In 1903, there were only 23 divorces granted in Canada. In 1918 there were 114; 1930, 875; 1935, 1,376; 1940, 2,369; 1945, 5,076; 1946, 7,683; 1947, 8,199; 1948, 6,881, a drop of sixteen per cent; in 1949, there were 5,911, a further drop of fourteen per cent. These are not very pleasant figures to read, I must admit; nevertheless the drop in the last two years is heartening. We all hope the number will continue to drop. I do not know the reason for these divorces, but the best qualified people say they are, in the main, due to hasty marriages, long separation, wartime desertion, urbanization and lack of housing.
I do not want this house to get the wrong impression. My thesis is that the enlargement of the grounds for divorce will not increase the number of divorces. I hope it may decrease the number of divorces. What I am trying to do is to have divorce placed on an honest basis, because divorce is simply the process of unmarrying people who have been married. It is a release from the legal effect of a marriage contract. It is official recognition that the marriage is a failure, and marriages do fail. Divorce is the result of that failure, not the cause of it. I know there are many here who believe a marriage cannot be dissolved, and that is what I was taught. Nevertheless divorce is recognized in this country, and no one need partake or indulge in divorce unless he or she so desires. In common with many social issues, the question of divorce is fraught with misunderstanding and deep personal and religious opinion. I believe we must try to keep a fair and unclouded mind on this issue.
It is true that divorce was less prevalent in former days than it is today. This was partly due to the stigma which was attached to divorced persons in the comfortable and conforming Victorian era, and partly due to the unemancipated position of married women at that time. I think it is fair to assume that the proportion of the unhappy and mismated married couples was not less in the nineteenth century than it is today, but because of the prejudice towards divorced persons and the cumbersome and expensive procedure involved, divorce was less frequent.

Divorce Laws
I am free to admit that there have been abuses from time to time in some foreign jurisdictions. In general most countries, while recognizing the necessity for divorce, have limited its application and hedged it about with legal and social safeguards. Up to a point no reasonable person can disagree with this practice. The family is the fundamental unit of our society. Factors tending to weaken the social fabric must be kept within controllable limits. Yet we cannot lose sight of the complexity of the problem. I have found no better statement of this than in the words of Mr. Justice Adamson, of Manitoba, in the 1945 case of Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Western Weekly Reports, 379, at page 381:
People do make mistakes in marriage and discover too late that they cannot live together, and so separate. Under the law as it is at present, such persons cannot be divorced and given a chance to start over again upon a respectable basis unless one of the spouses commits adultery, which, by some means, not only comes to the notice of the other spouse, but actual evidence of which also comes into the hands of the other spouse; or unless they manufacture a set of circumstances upon which the court is asked to find that adultery has taken place. This means that respectable persons who neither commit adultery nor perpetrate a fraud upon the court are without relief. The law gives' relief to persons when one spouse commits adultery or engages in fraud; the law thus puts a premium on adultery and fraud. Is this in the national interest? Would it not be in the national interest to provide that upon separation for say two years or upwards, after a genuine attempt to live together as man and wife, a divorce might be granted upon such terms (perhaps) as should be considered just? To make an isolated act of adultery the sole and only cause for divorce is wrong in principle and vicious in practice.
It is time that the whole matter was considered by the responsible legislative authority. The sham which takes place in the courts in many of these matters should be put an end to. ,
I believe one thing is clear, and that is that we cannot legislate marital happiness. From the social point of view the goal is not to make divorce easier, but to make it unnecessary. This involves a long campaign of education in which the church, schools, and social organizations all have parts to play. Until the work of social education can bear fruit we must make it possible, in those cases where divorce is the only solution to a bad marriage, for the parties involved to sever their relationship honourably and with decency. As the learned judge whom I quoted said, unless one of the spouses commits adultery or perpetrates a fraud, he or she cannot regain freedom. If the marriage has become untenable or meaningless for other reasons, no relief is possible except on these very narrow grounds.
The most recent restatement of the recommendations of the British royal commission of 1910 was made at a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in 1946. The Canadian

Bar Association is composed of judges and lawyers from every province and every hamlet in the Dominion of Canada. They are responsible people. I looked up the record yesterday, and, from 1929 to 1930, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was head of that association. From 1930 to 1932 the president was the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). The bar association had as their president in 1945-46 Mr. E. K. Williams, now Mr. Justice Williams of the court of king's bench in Manitoba. In 1946, when this resolution was passed, the president was the Hon. J. C. McRuer of the Supreme Court of Ontario. Those lawyers who compose the bar association deal with those problems almost daily. They know the problem; they know its implications; and they do not make decisions lightly. So for that reason I commend what they had to say in 1946. They recommended that the grounds for divorce be broadened to include: one, desertion for more than three years; two, gross cruelty; three, five years incurable mental disease. The Manitoba legislature, by resolution, endorsed the Canadian Bar Association's recommendations, and suggested that the problem be investigated by a royal commission.
I should like to consider for a few moments those recommendations made by the Canadian Bar Association, not from a legal but from a social standpoint. What is the purpose of marriage? I think all schools of thought in this country are in agreement that it has a twofold purpose:	first, the procreation of
children and, second, the companionship, comfort and support which the parties give to each other. In a word, the purpose of marriage is to build a home and family; and without these marriage has very little meaning. With this in mind, we are now in a position to appreciate and assess the grounds for divorce which it is proposed that we discuss here today. The first is cruelty, as it is called in the British act, or gross cruelty, in the words of the Canadian Bar Association.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: The hon. member is not discussing desertion.


David Arnold Croll: I am going to discuss cruelty first. It will, I think, be admitted as a fact that certain persons are not good homebuilders and lack the capacity and the mental ability to create and continue a normal, healthy family life. If a woman has been unfortunate enough to have chosen such a mate, must society punish her by compelling her to remain married to him? Surely no civilized society can expect a woman, just because of a mistake in judgment, to remain for the rest of her life exposed to the brutal whims and vagaries of an intolerable mate.

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that we do not want to take over the Reno standard. I am not suggesting it. I am not talking about fictitious cruelty-the so-called "mental cruelty" which has made a farce of many foreign divorces. But our courts do recognize cruelty in granting a woman support while living apart from her husband. And I refer to the judgment of the court of appeal in the case of Burns and Burns, 1944, Ontario Reports, page 561. The citation reads:
Legal cruelty, sufficient to justify a judgment for alimony, need not inevitably and in all cases consist in physical violence or the threat of such violence. There may be cases, possibly exceptional and few in number, where the husband's course of conduct, though free from personal violence or threats, is nevertheless such as to undermine the wife's health, and in such circumstances she will be entitled to relief on the ground of cruelty. Each case must be considered according to its particular circumstances, great care being exercised' to see that cases put forward on this basis are successful only when clearly and firmly established.
As a ground for divorce, cruelty can be as clearly defined and honestly found from an examination of the facts. It should not be necessary to show the bruises. Bruises visible to the naked eye are the least hurtful.
The next ground to consider is desertion for more than three years. The British law provides three years, and the recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association is that it be restricted to three years, which in effect means at least four. In calculating the stringency of the law of divorce, it is clear that it must be restricted enough to act as a deterrent in cases where divorce might be entered upon lightly. It is common knowledge that most married couples have at least occasional differences of opinion and do quarrel, and it would be disastrous to society if in the heat of anger they were able, because of the facility of divorce, to dissolve their union. If divorce is made a serious and difficult step there is often a strong possibility that the parties will think twice about the matter and achieve a reconciliation. But in the case of desertion it is apparent that the erring spouse has no intention of continuing or resuming normal marital relations. Alimony apart from divorce is today granted by our courts in cases of desertion by the husband. It seems a most reasonable and humane extension of this doctrine that, when desertion persists for three years or more, the wife or husband in such circumstances should be entitled to petition for divorce. It is plain that reconciliation is highly unlikely and that the marriage has ceased to have any meaning. It is unjust and socially harmful to bind a man or woman to such a union.
Divorce Laws
It remains to consider briefly insanity. Both the British royal commission of 1910 and the Canadian Bar Association meeting recommended as grounds for divorce incurable insanity where the insane spouse has been confined for five years. The law of England has been amended to this effect, and rightly so. Humanity calls on the law to grant relief in cases where a healthy, normal home life has become impossible through the incurable mental disease persisting for five years of one of the parties and the other party cannot alleviate his or her suffering. Why should the law make two persons suffer the affliction which fate has destined for one? These cases may well be few in number and infrequent, but they are most deserving of relief, and we would do well to follow the British example in this respect.
I cannot make it too clear that it is not proposed to infringe in the slightest degree on the freedom of Quebec or Newfoundland or, indeed, any other province, to control divorce procedure as it sees fit. I for one, and I think it beyond doubt that the sentiments of this house are unanimous in this regard, have the utmost respect for the autonomy of these two provinces in those things which concern them intimately, no less than for their long history and traditions. I do not propose for a moment that their prerogatives-which they guard, and rightly so- should be curtailed in any way.
I believe, however, that it is socially desirable to bring our Canadian law of divorce up to date in line with present-day requirements and needs. If any Canadian jurisdiction desires to retain the status quo, that is its privilege. On the other hand, if any province seeks to change the substantive law in respect of divorce, it should be enabled to do so.
It is, I think, a mistaken notion that a reasonable liberalizing of the law of divorce will inevitably result in a flood of new divorces. I would point out that in the twenty years to date the annual number of divorces has increased from 875 in 1930 to 5,911 in 1949. It may be that the poor people are securing relief; but the chief merit in broadening the grounds for divorce is to enable people to dissolve a bad marriage decently and with clean hands, and on honest grounds. When application has been made for divorce the home is already broken. A decent divorce will save something from the wreckage.
The present stringency of our law makes divorce an unpleasant, hole-and-corner business, with hotel bedroom scenes, and the paid evidence of detectives. Anyone who has observed the conduct of divorce proceedings in
1580

Divorce Laws
our courts is aware of this and it is borne out by the experience of the house in dealing with the endless flow of petitions to the Senate committee on divorce. Unfortunately we are all too familiar with these petitions, each one so like the last, these prefabricated alphabetical divorces, where only the names of the parties are different.
I shall now quote from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of May 6,
1947.


Mr. Carroll:: May I ask a question? Was the law of England which in the first instance created divorce as such statute law or common law?


David Arnold Croll: I am not too sure, but I believe it was statute law.


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. member know that before that statute law was passed there was a first-class system of ecclesiastical laws which took care of all marriages which might be described as irresponsible in their results?


David Arnold Croll: I know that. I have made some study of the question and have done some reading. What the hon. member says is quite right.
This article in the Globe and Mail was written some time ago by Kenneth Cragg, who is no longer in the press gallery, but who was respected and held in the highest esteem. In this article he discusses divorce and states:
Many believe the practice has exposed the courts to some very high class perjury indeed. This reporter-
Speaking of himself.
-while in Toronto, once knew a professional corespondent whose real name was Evangeline.
Evangeline was a superior type of maid who worked as a professional co-respondent on her Thursday nights out. With the money she helped to support an aging mother who resided in the outskirts of Montreal.
Her working uniform was always a neat dress, well-fitted and' worn over a black slip with lace insets in the bodice. During the war she used to knit for the soldiers in her spare time and she always carried her knitting when co-responding.
On reaching her assignment, usually a hotel bedroom, Evangeline would speak to her client in a tone designed to put him at his ease, remove her dress and get into bed with her knitting.
When the knock came she would shove the knitting under the pillow and when she reared up on her elbow in the fetching black slip the law student, who in his own way was trying to earn an extra dollar, had the ready-made description of a scene that could be, and frequently was, described as a love nest.


William Joseph Browne: Does the hon. member have to read it all?


David Arnold Croll: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: There are children present.
[Mr. Croll.)


David Arnold Croll: It continues:
Evangeline, during her short but lucrative sideline practice, never appeared in court, and her right name never appeared in the divorce papers. Her clients, she always said, did seem to appreciate "a refined co-respondent."
I read this only to indicate some of the things that are going on. . It is apparent that the present law does not help to keep the family together, that in fact it creates a situation where perjury is committed every day in our courts. The basis of our society is the family; but shall we endanger its very structure by exposing people who cannot possibly live together to circumstances where relief is available only if they commit adultery or perpetrate a fraud? I think too highly of the moral values of our society to believe that we can permit such a situation to continue. It leads to contempt for the courts on the part of many who find it easy to commit frauds and perjuries without action on the part of the courts. There is no field where the law is a greater hypocrite than in the divorce courts.
I am not criticizing the judges. They are doing the best they can. They are trying to be strict, and they are trying to stamp out fraud where they find it, or even where they smell it. But we must consider this, that they are bound by law, by precedent, by rules of evidence and procedure and practice, in the same way as you and I are bound. In ninety per cent of the cases they find there is no defendant, that the proceedings are ex parte, uncontested. There is very little they can do, but they do what they can in order to preserve what there is, and to assist the children in the best way they can. The law society is doing good work in this respect in attempting to control backsliders in the profession. They are disciplining those offenders, and their action is most serious in some of the provinces. However, the house should know that the pressure by the public is great indeed. There is not much the public does not know about the mechanics of divorce, even before they see their lawyers.
I do not set myself up as an authority; but in considering the purpose of marriage in civilized society it is apparent that there are certain cases which frustrate or vitiate that purpose, and where it is cruel for society to insist that two people, though in fact apart, should in the eyes of the law be bound together.
Therefore I propose that a committee of the house be set up to examine the whole manner of divorce in Canada, with a view to amending the law to grant relief in all circumstances where it appears wrong not to

do so. I feel that our present law no longer adequately reflects the public need or the public mind. It is high time we fumigated the divorce courts of this country, and did away with perjury, collusion, connivance and fraud. In my view the present law is unreal.
I would close by saying that the preamble to the English act puts the purpose clearly when it states:
Whereas it is expedient for the true support of marriage, the protection of children, the removal of hardship, the reduction of illicit unions and unseemly litigation, the relief of conscience among the clergy, and the restoration of due respect for the law, that the acts relating to marriage and divorce be amended.
I can add nothing further to that.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to discuss the motion under discussion on its merits, although the wide-open door invites anyone to come in to envisage the whole question of divorce. If the motion asked for but one thing, namely the setting up of a committee to amend the divorce laws, one might believe or hope that the amendment would mean restrictions to an already too wide-open door. But the motion speaks of giving more grounds, more facility for divorce.
The difficulty with this whole much-debated question lies in the fact that marriage, which is a sacred thing, has been defaced and diverted from its real end, and now that it is taken more or less seriously, that anyone can get married with the idea that if married life does not meet with one's expectations one can always break the bond and try one's chances again. Rotten philosophical systems have been responsible for that change through the ages. Some call it liberty, some call it civilization. My words may be a little strong, but I call it licence and barbarism.
The ill effects of divorce on the family, on society and on nations are so evident in all countries that it would be about time for a national conscience examination, rather than to ask for more grounds, more facilities for divorce.
To stay away from the very question of divorce, in discussing the motion, is difficult. One has to give examples of so-called free countries where greater and greater facilities have been given for divorce. One has to offer arguments against the motion, in support of one's position, which are the same as the arguments used against divorce itself. I will try to stay close to the merits of the motion, although I do not find many. I find divorce anti-social and anti-patriotic and cannot look at the motion with indifferent eyes and keep the soft pedal on.
How often have I heard in this very chamber that the family is the basic cell of society.
Divorce Laws
Can we protect that cell by adding to the already too wide-open door more facilities to disrupt marriages? Are we protecting families and homes in looking for more grounds by which parliament itself will render more frivolous the union of man and wife, will make the maternal instinct a mere thought, even a superstition in the brilliant realm of egotism and free love? The step parliament would take would be to ignore the already too serious situation. It would be sanctioning wrong principles of a nation-killing philosophy. What other results can repeated divorces bring than anarchy in the society where families are becoming wandering caravans.
Oh, I know modernism has an answer to that: The state. Well, let us take an example in a nation where the state is taking care of everything, even trying to rule the souls of her subjects-Russia. Let us look at her so-called freedom of union. Everyone here knows that the government of Russia has been for many years more than lenient toward divorce, giving more and more grounds for divorce. That government went as far as encouraging divorce, even abortions and free love. My contention is not that we have gone as far as Russia has, but the hill is too steep. Let us have a sample of their way of looking at it.
The philosophy of communism teaches that all morality, art and literature, as well as institutions, repose on methods of production. In keeping with this, a communist manifesto states that the bourgeois family reposes on capital or individual gain and that the family will therefore disappear with capital. Engels in his book "The Origin of the Family" says that only a union based on love is moral and that, when this love ceases to exist or when it is succeeded by a new passion, divorce becomes a benefit. Anyone, having followed the enumeration of motives or rather pretexts given for the majority of divorces, will admit that that word of Engels has found many partisans and advocates in our North American society. And I will add that divorce is one of the weak spots of democracies through which communism finds easy admittance into our democratic homes. Madame Kollontai, once a Soviet delegate at the league of nations, declared that love is a glass of water one swallows to satisfy one's thirst. I give the house these examples so that comparisons may be made between the situation here and there.
The matrimonial code of 1918 and 1927 affirmed the law: All children belong to the state. Here we are. It is so easy and handy: the state will take care of the wandering ones. The paternal state will replace maternal instinct, the father's devotion.

Divorce Laws
They went further than that. The 1918 October code declared that all church marriages were invalid and could be dissolved at the will of either party, simply by sending in a postcard dissolving the union. The thirteenth congress of the communist party even described the family as the stronghold of all the turpitudes of the old regime. However, the family of a fugitive soldier was held responsible and the penalty went as far as detention. What a wonderful logic!
At the very beginning of the revolution a decree was passed declaring that all women between the ages of seventeen and thirty-two became the property of the state and the rights of the husbands were abolished. They made of women's labour the main sources from which industry could draw fresh supplies of workers. The women generally refused, but they were forced to accept the orders; so much so that in the earlier years of the first five-year plan about six million housewives were in towns. Shaburova, what they call a poet there, sang the beauties of the situation:	Formerly, women only knew
how to cook soup and porridge, now they go to the foundry-at the foundry it is nicer. No reason was required for the separation of husband and wife, not even the permission of the other party.
All distinction broke down between legitimate and illegitimate children. The labour board settled the difficulty arising out of the separation of husband and wife by stating that either spouse could find a partner in the new place of occupation. Abortion clinics were established by the state throughout the country and every available means was used to weaken the family. Even in the times of the czars-and what has not been said against the evils of those times!-Russia never suffered such painful experiences. I know that the motion of the member for Spadina does not contemplate an approaching eventuality such as has occurred in Russia, but even in ascribing to the hon. member the best intentions, he cannot but admit that once the cavalier is in the saddle the chances are on his side and he might go far before being mastered.
And what was the result of that communist policy? One day the rulers started counting the heads and they found that in Moscow alone 57,000 children were born in
1934,	while there had been 154,000 abortions. In the villages, 242,979 births were to be compared with 324,194 abortions. That is from Isvestia of July 12, 1936.
In Moscow, according to Isvestia, July 4,
1935,	in the first five months, there were 38 per cent more divorces than registered marriages. In May, the number jumped to 44-3
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf).l
per cent. It is about time we declared that frivolity in union is a crime and that marital infidelity is an offence against the morale of society. The wife of Lenin estimated the number of children roaming the streets, stealing, assaulting and killing, at seven millions. In her book, "Les Femmes Sovietiques, 1937," Helen Iswolsky wrote that so great was the crime and juvenile delinquency that a joint resolution of April 7, 1935, of the central executive committee and the council of people's commissars-one of them was Molotov-decreed a full measure of punishment for children over 12, while death in other cases was mandatory. The communists were scared, they had to flinch, it was too much for their health.
They saw with their own eyes that their foolish, execrable, diabolic philosophy was killing the nation: killing the nation because too many grounds and facilities for divorce were destroying the families. They were scared by the sight of the wandering herds of fatherless and motherless children. The disintegration of the family is the disintegration of the nation.
Societies and organizations were formed, the third front of Soubine was formed, and it began pointing to the evil effects of divorce and abortions, reaffirming the maternal instinct too long ignored and repudiated. I will not go through all the numerous edicts and statements of the government to remedy the situation. Let me quote, however, the Journal of Commissariat of Justice:
Marriage is of a positive value only if partners see in it a lifelong union. So-called free love is a bourgeois invention."
As you see, Mr. Speaker, the ball is thrown back at us.
Moreover, marriage receives its lull value for the state only if there is a progeny, and the consorts experience the highest happiness of parenthood.
We could not expect the communists to declare marriage indissoluble because of its sanctity; it would be too much to ask them to consider the moral or spiritual value of union before a minister of God. Their philosophy derives from a mixture of materialism and class struggle, embodying the negation of God. But as we can see by their constitution, the state being close to disaster and in need of more men for war and for communist propaganda abroad, they were forced to come back and bury their ridiculous principles. The divorce cards were abolished, measures were taken to make divorce extremely difficult and rare, fees for divorce were raised from two rubles to two thousand, the so-called bourgeois distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children reappeared in soviet law, and so on. Russia, after twenty years of

communism in practice, rejects its entire philosophy of the family; and as Monsignor Sheen wrote,
. . . without even intending to do so, proves that when we fail to obey God's laws, expressed in rational nature, we defeat ourselves.
Do you not believe, sir, that in enlarging grounds for divorce our parliament would be taking a very risky step, and if it agreed to the motion of the hon. member it would rather take a backward step? Let us for one moment, and to strengthen my argument, study some facts in the country of our neighbour to the south. In passing, we could in Canada derive great profit from the lesson contained in words I am going to quote. They are from Monsignor Sheen, that great American who is doing the most wonderful job in helping in the recuperation of the Christian ideal, not only in the United States but in all the world. The quotation is as follows:
The family is the barometer of the nation. What the average home is, that is America ... If the average husband and wife are not faithful to their marriage vows, then America will not insist on fidelity to the Atlantic charter and the four freedoms. If there is a deliberate frustration of the fruits of love, then the nation will develop economic policies of plowing under cotton, throwing coffee into the sea and frustrating nature for the sake of an economic price. If the husband and wife live only for self, and not for each other, if they fail to see that their individual happiness is conditioned on mutuality, then we shall have a country where capital and labour fight like husband and wife, both making social life barren and economic peace impossible. If the husband or wife permits outside solicitations to woo one away from the other, then we shall become a nation where alien philosophies will infiltrate as communism sweeps away that basic loyalty which was known as patriotism. If husband and wife live as if there is no God, then America shall have bureaucrats pleading for atheism as a national policy, repudiating the declaration of independence and denying that all our rights and liberties come to us from God . . . Every country gets the government it deserves. As we live at home, so shall the nation live.
I will not give figures to demonstrate that the situation is serious in Canada just as it is in the United States. Most of the members of the house are cognizant of the facts. I was listening to my hon. friend a little while ago, and he gave facts that proved that the situation is dangerous even in Canada. If we were to add more facilities for divorce we would ourselves go down the hill and, from what I have said before, we would meet the communists coming up, deceived and harassed by their costly experience. They have not changed their policies toward marriage because of their belief in the sanctity of marriage. They do not believe in God; otherwise they would be getting nearer to God. As their founder, Marx, said, after having met Feuerbach and Proudhon, from the first of whom he got his materialistic theory and
Divorce Laws
from the second his theory of class struggle, "I hate all the gods." They simply change their policy to meet the exigencies of their internal organization so as to provide more men for war, more men for propaganda abroad, and more women in the factories even after their costly experience.
As for ourselves, we are Christians, we have morals, and we believe in an oath. When men and women kneel before a minister of God they accept-and it is a lifelong pledge -the words of the minister, "I pronounce you man and wife until death do you part."
In this motion parliament is being asked to enlarge the grounds for divorce to include desertion for more than three years, which is a very big step; gross cruelty, judgment of which would be a matter of opinion and a very subjective appreciation; and incurable mental disease after five years, which is pretty hard to decide except in a few cases.
Until death do you part does not mean until you feel like changing your partner, nor until one's temper gets out of gear, nor until one gets tired of the other because of so-called mental cruelty, because one party starts smoking in bed or snores or likes playing poker too much. It is until death. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have gone far enough, much too far; and to ask parliament to give more facilities for divorce would be asking this eminent body to facilitate the disruption of society and to give a helping hand to those for whom liberty means frivolity and egotism.
How often nowadays do we hear hon. members speaking of the necessity for providing more social security. Does any one of them seriously believe that divorces do not in any way endanger that social security? With one hand we try to give support to the family and with the other we would with a smile, with a matter of fact attitude, and in the name of liberty and civilization, cut the bonds we were trying to reinforce yesterday. There is no worse slave in the world than he who abuses his liberty. As for civilization, can anyone believe that we are more civilized than we were before? Has anyone taken the trouble to evaluate the intervals between the most important wars since Napoleon? Between the Napoleonic war and the Franco-Prussian war the interval was fifty-three years. Between the Franco-Prussian war and world war I it was forty-three years. Between world war I and world war II it was twenty-one years, and this at a time when man has all the materials and conditions necessary for his happiness. More civilized?
Let us have a look at the ground of mental disease. To grant a divorce after it had been declared incurable, admitting that there was no mistake in the diagnosis, would mean that

Divorce Laws
dissolution of marriage could be obtained by the consent of just one party. What about the other? Even though impotent, he still has rights; he still is a human being, a creature of God; and the other party has duties as well. Has he not promised mutual support? Oh, it is another thing if one has gone so far as to ridicule the word of honour, the lifelong pledge and the sanctity of marriage, denying the real composition of the human being, which is body and soul. Then if we are getting closer and closer to materialism, why cry out aloud against communism?
Why give more grounds, when it is already a joke? I happened to read a study on that question, and I found that a French magistrate wrote of his experience in the matter of divorce in France:
One has seen pre-arranged or simulated adulteries; we have learned, through a trial before us, that in Paris there are girls at the disposal of wives; girls kept specially for the purpose of bringing the husbands to commit adultery. Agencies have been organizing comedies where simulated adultery gives the married ones grounds for divorce.
I do not think France is worse than any other country. That disease is epidemic, and I believe the words of de Musset apply to it:
The vase is deep and the spot is at the bottom.
I do not think we could wipe out that spot by adopting the motion now under discussion. I said at the outset of my remarks that divorce is the weak spot through which communism could easily introduce itself into our society, first, because of the ever-increasing materialist philosophy which is establishing itself gradually in our way of thinking, and second, because of the ill effect on our birth rate. Remember the French general who gave the failure of the family to perpetuate itself as the basic reason for the debacle of his nation in 1940. Giving more grounds-, adding facilities, would be strengthening the genesis of frivolity established as a virtue, egotism as an essential part of liberty, and the pledge of honour as not more than a mere joke. The world today thinks too much of rights and not enough of duties. Do duties disappear when love ceases to exist in married life? Is incurable mental disease, whether it lasts one, two, five or ten years, a worthy reason to efface the duty of Charity and self-devotion toward the crippled one? In the family, man or woman is reverenced and respected not for what he can do, but because he is. Existence is valued in the home, not possession or influence. That is why the crippled, the sick and those who who are of no economic value to the family are given more affection than those who normally provide for its subsistence. The family is the training school, the novitiate of democracy. Destroy it by any means and

you threaten the very life of democracy. When a nation ceases to put the highest value on the home it will not be long before it ceases to put value on a person; then both Marxism and rotten capitalism meet, because both have valued man as a mere economic animal.
In the course of years I have had the privilege of seeing marvellous devotion in our families. I have seen children devoting their strength, wearing themselves out in the care of sick and crippled mothers and fathers. I have seen them giving their lives with no hope of their loved ones recovering. Family bonds meant something to them. I have seen a mother with four children undertake the heavy task of looking after her crippled sister, who was completely impotent. For thirteen years, laughing through her tears, forgetting her sore back and the sleepless nights spent in nursing both her children and her sister, she made her sacrifice because she knew the price of family duty, as well as the right of the sick to receive care from the healthy. We have called such mothers builders of the empire; and they have deserved and still deserve the attention, admiration and protection of the public powers. Only in the permanence of union can we expect permanence in devotion not only to families but toward the nation as well.
Here are the dangers lying ahead when permanence of union is denied. The conjugal union is rendered precarious by the very danger of eventual divorce. There is the seed of suspicion full of anxiety. Benevolence and community of interest are deeply weakened by the possibility of separation. Pernicious incitements are offered to infidelity. The birth of children, conservation and education are exposed to the greatest dangers. Occasions of discord between families and relatives are multiplied. The seeds of discord are more plentifully thrown about. Dignity and the functions of woman are shamefully humiliated. There is the most fatal damage to state prosperity. The authority of either the father or the mother is likely to be destroyed. Destroy authority in the family, and you destroy it in the nation.
Let us not weaken these family bonds more than is the case already. If I were to sponsor a motion on this subject these are the words I would use:
That in the opinion of the house the government should take into early and immediate consideration the necessity of setting up a committee of the house to consider the dangerous situation facing our beloved country, a situation due to irresponsible frivolity attached to modern marriage, and try to avoid the destruction of our families, our society and our nation.

Let no one think my stand is the manifestation of a childish fear or of fanaticism. Reason dictates to our mind to come back to common sense. The experience of the world thus far has been too costly. To strengthen our ranks for the ideological fight, we must not undermine the basic cell of our social structure. The family is the novitiate of democracy. Let us keep the holy fire burning at home.


Mr. G. S. White (Haslings-Pelerborough):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words in support of this motion. I would point out that it simply suggests the setting up of a committee to consider certain amendments. In every parliament there are arguments for and against a committee; but I doubt if any other matter has stood for such a long time without being reviewed by a committee and brought up to date.
It is not my intention to go over the concise history the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has given the house covering the law of divorce in England, and how it was applied to Canada, but I should like to stress one point the hon. member brought out. I refer to the report made by the committee of the Canadian Bar Association in 1946. As the hon. member pointed out, that committee was composed of lawyers and judges from every part of Canada, and I should think members of the bench and bar would have complete knowledge of the unsatisfactory basis for our divorce laws in this country. As the hon. member for Spadina indicated, today we had an example of some thirty or forty divorce bills going through the house en bloc.
I realize that this question is one on which members have very decided views. But we must realize, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time in Canada eight provinces have divorce courts, while the citizens of the other two provinces have the right to present a petition to .parliament praying that a statute be passed to dissolve the marriage. That is a right which cannot be taken away from any Canadian citizen. The British North America Act gives the dominion parliament exclusive jurisdiction to legislate on divorce.
Those of us who belong to the legal profession, and who now and then read the evidence presented to the Senate committee, cannot help but be impressed by the similarity of the evidence in many cases. Sometimes the same witness appears in case after case. One hon. member said that the proceedings before the Senate committee were a farce, and the same thing might also be said of some cases that are heard in the Ontario courts. One cannot help but feel that, in many cases heard
Divorce Laws
in the Ontario courts, the evidence is manufactured. It would appear that there are enterprising agents who, for the proper fee, will provide whatever evidence is necessary. I think all hon. members of the house will agree that our divorce laws and the methods of procedure are certainly out of date. I for one feel that divorce actions should be heard by a court. Certainly, the cost of presenting a petition to parliament, plus the cost of printing the evidence, must greatly exceed the cost of a court action. In addition, the evidence in the cases that are presented to the Senate is printed, and must be somewhat more widely circulated than a court action which is only reported in the local press. There is a private bill before the house which proposes that a court be set up to handle all divorce actions. The purpose of the bill is to give the Exchequer Court of Canada the right to hear divorce actions.
One of the grounds which the hon. member has included in the motion is desertion for more than three years. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention a matter which must be within the knowledge of many members of the house who are veterans. It concerns the soldiers of world war II who were married overseas, and at the end of the war returned to Canada. In many cases, their wives refused to come to Canada, while in other cases the wives came to Canada and have since returned overseas. In some instances it is not the intention of the wife to come to Canada to reside with her husband. In the eyes of the law these Canadian veterans are still married men, yet legally they have been deserted by their wives. In considering a divorce, as the legal members of the house know, the matter of jurisdiction and the domicile of the soldier at the time of his marriage are of some importance. I think everyone will agree that the definition of domicile is most difficult and technical. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this question of desertion for three years should be given careful consideration, if only to bring some measure of relief to a large number of Canadian veterans who find themselves in an intolerable position.
I fully realize that there will be many members of the house who will be opposed to enlarging the grounds for divorce. They will contend that the sanctity of the home should be preserved, and the rights of the children protected. No one is going to disagree with that. But when two people have reached the stage of desiring a divorce, surely it is not going too far to say that the sanctity of the home has long since been destroyed. So far as the children are concerned, if the parents have reached a stage where they cannot live together, I believe it is betler for the children, to live with one parent. The fact

Divorce Laws
remains that, in Canada, we have divorce courts in eight provinces, and the citizens of the other two provinces have the right to present a petition to parliament. Is it not both reasonable and sensible to have a committee study our divorce laws and bring them more in line with conditions as they exist in 1950 than as they existed in England in 1870?


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the last time a bill of this sort came from the Senate we gave it the six months' hoist. I did not move such a motion this time, because I did not think it would hurt to hear all the arguments on both sides. I have not changed my mind, however, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult for me to understand how a young man who loves his intended companion, and who gets married with the right conception, with his trust in God, could possibly ask for a divorce.
Everyone knows that when a doctor is called into a case the first thing he does is to make a diagnosis, and then prescribe for the patient. The doctor in this case, who is a lawyer, has made a fair diagnosis. I do not think he has given us the cause of divorce, and therefore he will perhaps allow me to aid him in this respect. The great lawgiver or lawyer of his race believed in divorce, but his great teacher afterwards said he granted that divorce because of the hardness of the heart. Men who are cruel and selfish should not have a wife, and it is the same on the other side. If the hon. member will read the divorce laws of that early lawyer, however, and compare them with what he wants, they will be found entirely different. There is no marrying again.
What is the cause of divorce? Selfishness, lack of trust in the Supreme Being, and drunkenness, as the hon. member across the way has shown. When men are intoxicated, they try to say "I did it when I was intoxicated and therefore it should not be held against me." Remove these causes, and there will be less divorce. As you would expect, I have had some experience with young folks who got into difficulty. I have made it well known at the lakehead that when a young couple are in trouble, they should not go to a lawyer or the courts but should consult the family doctor and their spiritual adviser. There are outstanding families in both Fort William and Port Arthur today who were at one time headed for the divorce courts, but they are happy now. It is just as Moses said, it is because of the hardness of their hearts. There is a great work there for the church, Protestant, Catholic, Jew and Gentile, to try to change the hearts of the people. Let the husband and wife give each other the right to think for themselves under all circumstances.

I know that we have an amendment to the marriage law in Ontario. I do not think it will improve the law when they allow magistrates and others to perform the marriage service. I know a magistrate is quite capable, but I think the reason behind it is that a man does not have to recognize God, and unless that is done the home is not going to be what it ought to be.
If we make it too easy to get in and too easy to get out, what will happen? There will be more divorces and more homes broken up. If a man cannot get along with one companion, or if a woman cannot get along with a husband, why break up another couple?
I saw some place the other day that the trouble with some of our marriages is that, when a young couple get invited out to a dance or a beer parlour, the young man has a coupe and a cigarette lighter. He goes and rents a suite. When they are married what happens? They do not know each other. They do not know each other's thinking. They should plan for their home and for those who are coming into the home. If they do that they will not be thinking of divorce.
I think making it easier to get divorce is just leading toward the custom of the country to the south of us. The other day I saw in one of the papers that a wife got a divorce from her husband because he came home late at night and put his cold feet on her. Well, that is just as important as some of these divorce laws. If we have our homes built upon faith in God, and if we practise unselfishness there will be no cause for divorce but there will be happy homes.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in a way we ought to be grateful to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject when there are no pipe lines waiting to be discussed. Therefore we can discuss it without being accused of mock piety, false tears or anything else.
While we might agree with him about the casual way bills of divorce are considered in this house and regard ourselves as silent and uninformed accomplices, I do not think the hon. member left it clear whether his resolution is intended to remove the consideration of divorce cases altogether from parliament and pass them over to the courts, or enlarge the grounds for parliament to consider. I am sure he must realize that parliament can grant a divorce on any ground, or without any ground, and therefore as far as parliament is concerned his resolution has no meaning at all. But I

understand him to mean that generally speaking throughout the country everyone should be entitled to get a divorce in a theoretical manner on those new grounds, in addition to the ground of adultery which is the usual ground advanced in cases coming before us. But I wonder how he intends our interest to be stimulated, or how our consideration is to be any greater, or how we shall be any better informed, or treat those bills in any better way if there are more grounds. There will be more bills of divorce, and I feel that instead of giving more consideration to them we shall give them less.
We have never had any divorce courts or divorce legislation in Newfoundland. It was not permitted under the royal authority setting up our constitution back in 1832, and the amended royal warrant of 1855. The hon. member has given us the history of divorce in England. It is rather interesting to know that it goes back only to 1857. The history of England goes a long time further back than that, which goes to show that England was able to get along up to 1857, at least, without having divorce.
Has the hon. member been really satisfied in his own mind that the happiness of England has been greater since 1857 than it was before that time? He made what I considered to be a serious and false assumption which I am sure he will admit himself. He said: "Can one say that the happiness of the people of the twentieth century in England is any less than the happiness of the people in the nineteenth century?" Well, he has the opportunity to find out. It is easy to make a comparison in the case of those communities where the people are less sophisticated than they are today in the cities.
The hon. member knows that of the applications that come before parliament the great majority of them are from people resident in the city of Montreal or in some other city. In all the courts throughout the country it is quite obvious that the majority of applications come from people who are residing in the great cities, where conditions are such that they lead to situations in which one party or the other feels that he or she has a ground for divorce. If he would consider a community, say, like the province of Prince Edward Island he would find that for many many years there was no divorce there at all. The average in that province is very much less than it would be in a city, say, [DOT]like Montreal or Toronto. Therefore I tell him-and I am sure he will agree-that in Ontario a hundred years ago when people lived less in cities than they do today they lived happier lives, as people in the country everywhere live happier lives.
Divorce Laws
I hold in my hand an article which was published in a magazine which says that in the United States today 70 per cent of the population are living in the cities. That is one of the reasons advanced by this writer as the cause of so much divorce. He goes on to give other reasons, such as the fact that there are more women working today-I mean working at jobs that men used to do, and working in association with men more than they did in former times-which creates more temptation and therefore gives more occasion for causes or grounds of divorce to arise.
My hon. friend must also feel that he is on unsafe ground when he makes another assertion. He said he does not believe that enlarging the grounds will increase the number of divorces. He has the experience of the United States to go by. The statistics in the United States in the year 1897 were approximately the same as they are in Canada today, about -5 divorces for every thousand people. What are they in the United States of America today? By 1937, that is in a period of forty years, the figure had jumped to 1-9 divorces, which is four times as great. In 1940 there were eighteen divorces for every one hundred marriages; that is, 18 per cent of the people who were married were being divorced. Well, we have made a little progress in this country since it was started. Before 1900 the number of divorces in Canada was less than 20 per annum. In 1903-1 think the hon. member quoted the figure himself-there were 23 divorces. In 1913, 60 divorces; in 1918, 114 divorces; in 1926, 608 divorces; in 1931, 700 divorces; in 1936, 1,570 divorces; in 1940, 2,369. I now come to 1942. In 1942 there were 3,089 divorces; in 1944, 3,788; in 1945, 5,076; in 1946, 7,683. Now I have to use the hon. member's figures. In 1947, 8,199; in 1948, 6,881 and in 1949, 5,911, a drop. The increase in 1946 and 1947 is probably due to the war marriages which my hon. friend to my right was speaking about. But I think it is recognized that since 1900, a matter of 50 years, an increase from 20 divorces per annum to nearly six thousand, or seven or eight thousand, is an enormous one, and certainly out of all proportion to the increase in population, although we have only one ground for people making an application to parliament. If he opens the door for other causes, surely he is not naive enough to think that there will be less; rather, there will be more divorces.
The hon. member made some rather inconsistent statements. He made some correct statements, but they are inconsistent with his argument. He said, for example, that he believed, he was taught, that marriage was indissoluble. Has he changed his mind on

Divorce Laws
that point? It was either indissoluble, or it was not indissoluble. It is a part of our faith -the Catholic faith-and I suppose of my hon. friend's faith, that marriage is indissoluble. We are taught that it is a sacrament, a sacred thing. When the marriage contract is made, when the two people unite and agree to marry each other, for how long do they marry? What is the duration of the contract? Is it to be until one party proves that the other has been cruel or has committed a sin?
I think that sort of sin is the sort of which we might be reminded in this week, which is holy week. We all know the story of Mary Magdalen; and I hope I shall not be considered as preaching if I refer to the story of the woman who was taken in adultery, and whose accusers went away from her one by one. Not one of them would dare face our Lord when He read their secret sins.
My hon. friend knows that when the British parliament, in its wisdom, decided that it would place the sexes on equal grounds, it could not place them on equal grounds. My hon. friend knows that-because a man can get away with things which sometimes a woman cannot get away with.
And is it not also appropriate in holy week to draw attention to another bible story, the story of the prodigal son? What was the attitude of the father to his son who had gone away and wasted his substance in riotous living? The father took the fatted calf and killed it. Does my hon. friend believe in that bible story, and its moral-that we should forgive? Should the love of a father for his son be greater than that of a husband for his wife, or of that of a wife for her husband?
My hon. friend, I am sure, will agree that the story of the prodigal son is an example of charity which has been held up to us for two thousand years. Surely we are justified in considering that that is a proper ground for us to act upon, to imitate and from which to copy our conduct.
Then, is it mockery when Mr. Speaker each day reads the Lord's prayer in which we find the plea: Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
I am sure all hon. members, if they will give consideration to this question on these grounds, will agree that there can be no justification for divorce. My hon. friend has said that the family is the fundamental unit of society. Of course it is. Then, why try to break it up? Why make it easier to have that unit disrupted? Why should he not try, as he suggested himself, to get school, church, family and social organizations to co-operate to prevent divorces? Why does he not recommend that we give consideration to the setting up of some kind of committee which would

co-operate with these organizations with a view to strengthening family life, and to make it better?
If it means so much, why do we not try to make it better, instead of trying to make it possible for it to become worse? Because the experience in other countries, where all these grounds for divorce exist, proves to us beyond any reasonable doubt that it is going to cause more heartaches, more broken homes, more unhappy people and more neglected children than we have at the present time.
My hon. friend has quoted a resolution of the Canadian Bar Association. Well, at the last session we were treated to a speech by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in which he referred to a Canadian Bar Association meeting he had attended. I would not begin to say that the circumstances he described actually obtained in '1946. But my hon. friend knows that a great many of these resolutions are brought up at meetings and are passed in a fashion somewhat similar to that in which we pass divorce bills-without proper consideration.
I do not think the Canadian Bar Association in its meeting at Banff, during two or three days, or at some other luxurious residential or tourist locality, is a proper setting for the consideration of something that affects the whole human race. I do not think they could give it ample consideration, along with the many other difficult legal problems they would consider.
Further, I do not say that this is a wholly legal problem, or a problem which should be considered merely from the legal or constitutional angle. I say it should be considered from the humane standpoint, from the standpoint of the welfare of humanity and of society.
I come to a specific reference of my hon. friend in his resolution, his reference to cruelty. Well, a very celebrated clergyman of the United States, one who is also well known in this country, Father Daniel A. Lord of St. Louis, a Jesuit, for years kept clippings on divorce, respecting people who were divorced. After keeping those clippings for years he finally wrote a small pamphlet which is called "Divorce, A Picture from the Headlines".
Here are some of the reasons for divorce in the United States that he discovered. Once you open the door to cruelty, where do you draw the line? What is the borderline? Unfortunately, once cruelty is alleged, it is difficult to say where the borderline is to be drawn. Which would you prefer: to have a wife who sometimes gives you a slap in the face, or one who nags all day long? I do not

know what my hon. friend would prefer, but most men find nagging pretty hard to bear.
Here are some of the reasons given to the courts when divorces have been sought and granted:
She took an hour and a half to make up her face.
He worked nights and thus spoiled her social life.
He was a vegetarian and upset her diet.
Because he was of English ancestry and she of Italian, he gloated over her.
He came to breakfast dressed in long underwear.
He insisted on telling jokes in bed.
And so on, and so on-innumerable things. A final one:
She bought a gentleman friend a set of false teeth.
We all know from reading the newspapers that ridiculous grounds of that kind are given. We read about ridiculous excuses such as I have referred to, excuses which have been advanced and often upheld. Unfortunately some of our people, perhaps some from Quebec, and also some from Newfoundland, have travelled to Reno only to offer some reason like that for securing a divorce.
Then my hon. friend gives desertion as his next ground, and in that he was supported, I believe, by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White). He referred to the soldiers who deserted their wives, or whose wives had deserted them and had gone back to live in Scotland.
Is the case of desertion so easy to prove? How does my hon. friend intend to prove it? What would happen if mistakes were made, as they could be, in respect of soldiers going overseas in the second world war, leaving their wives behind, receiving injury on the battlefield, perhaps remaining in hospitals in a country with the language of which they are not familiar-perhaps a prisoner, or one who for the time being has lost his memory? Would he then have to resort to insanity? What steps would he take in a question like that?
One can easily see the difficulty. I would suggest that the causes of desertion would not be half as common as they are if, at dominion-provincial conferences which have been held in the past, those in authority had brought up the idea of making separation orders passed in one province enforceable in another.
I believe that is a good suggestion, because sometimes a man would desert his wife and go to live with someone else in another province. If this suggestion were followed the law could get at them. At the present time the law of the province in which the man resides does not affect him. A separation order may be made, and an order issued for the husband to pay so much; but it cannot be enforced. I suggest that is a subject which might well be placed before the next
55946-102;
Divorce Laws
dominion-provincial conference, so that if an order were made in one province it would be recognized in another. I should like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to make a note of that because I am sure he will agree that this is a serious situation, quite apart from the question of divorce. Men do leave their wives and go away and refuse to send money for their support and these provincial orders should be capable of enforcement.
My hon. friend gives as another reason for divorce the existence of an incurable mental disease for five years. When is a disease incurable? Is my hon. friend aware of the recent developments in medical science by which people who have been in insane asylums for twenty years have been cured? This ground would fall also. What can he say about the advance that might be made in medical science in the next five, ten or fifteen years? When it is found that medical science can cure mental diseases as it has cured other diseases in the past, it would be a simple matter to bring in a law to alter the provision he has here and make the marriage good again. That is not the way we should be talking about marriage.
I could not help feeling a little amused when my hon. friend spoke so sadly about a bad marriage, about getting a decent divorce with clean hands on honest grounds. The hon. gentleman is too sophisticated not to understand that probably ninety-nine per cent of the divorces that are undefended are likely brought about by collusion. The very fact that they are undefended makes one suspicious about there being collusion to get a divorce. I have seen it stated that seventy per cent of the divorces granted in the United States are obtained through collusion. There is no provision in this country as there was in England for a king's proctor to go around to see that the man or woman who had obtained a divorce had not married the co-respondent or somebody else with whom he or she had been flirting before the application for divorce was made.
My hon. friend also said that the courts and the law society were doing their best. I do not know what my hon. friend meant by that. Is not the Senate working overtime passing these divorce bills? They are doing their best to grant divorces, but they are not doing their best for society. Members of the law society charge $500 to handle these cases. Are they doing their best-


David Arnold Croll: I said that they were doing their best to smell out fraud.


William Joseph Browne: I do not think my hon. friend gave any evidence to justify that assertion. There are a few more observations I should like to make on this important

Divorce Laws
matter. It is difficult to look at divorce as objectively as we should. My hon. friend speaks quite easily about unmarrying people. People who have been married are going to be divorced, but by whom? Who gave us authority to say that a marriage is no longer good? Who gave my hon. friend or who gave me the authority to say that? I would not dare say that a marriage was not good, even though the parties had committed the offences referred to in the petition.
It will be said that this comes to us through the British North America Act of 1867 which was passed by a British parliament. Where did the British parliament get the authority to say that a marriage once good should be broken or declared to be no longer in existence? They gave themselves the authority. As I said during the last discussion on this matter, we were taught that the British parliament, and I suppose this parliament, seeing that it is copied from the other one, can do everything but make a man a woman or a woman a man.
In my opinion there are certain things the British parliament cannot do. Neither the British parliament nor this parliament can make a wrong right. They cannot do that. If it is morally wrong and spiritually wrong, we cannot do it, and they cannot do it over there. They cannot give us the authority to do it.
For various reasons there is great reluctance on the part of most hon. members to take part in a discussion of this kind. Nobody wishes to preach or lecture or set himself up as being better than anyone else. However, I have been associated for a long time with cases of domestic infelicity and I have been able to talk to husbands and wives about their difficulties. From an experience of fifteen years I have found out what can be done by talking to these people. I do not say it is successful in all cases, but in many cases a lot can be done by giving proper'advice. I do not say that I always gave the proper advice, but I tried. In support of that I should like to quote the Catholic Digest for February, 1950, where there is an article entitled "Divorcees Anonymous". I imagine most hon. members have heard of Alcoholics Anonymous, the organization which is doing such a wonderful social work of salvation on this continent, saving people who have been addicted to drink. Those who have recovered from this addiction to drink have banded together to help others to recover.
Now they have started Divorcees Anonymous. Those who have been divorced are helping those who are looking for divorce to try to get their marriages back on the tracks.

This articles refers to Mr. Starr, an attorney in Chicago, who has handled more than three thousand cases in the last fifteen years. The article reads:
He knows at first hand the ruin and regret that divorce leaves in its wake. As a result, when angry couples come to him, he does everything he can to get them to settle their differences. He has helped bring about countless reconciliations.
"Almost everyone who gets a divorce regrets it afterwards," he said. "In at least nine cases out of ten they're sorry they didn't stick together and try to make a go of it."
That is the experience of this man who has had so much to do with divorces in Chicago. And his experience would seem to indicate that divorces do not seem to make people happy. Further in support of that I should like to quote another authority who may be better known than Mr. Starr. I refer to Dorothy Dix, the well-known columnist who has appeared in the daily press for many years. She is quoted by Father Lord in this little booklet as saying:
At the bottom of nine-tenths of the divorces is the superstitious belief . . . that there is some magic in a decree absolute that will restore youth and beauty and make the (divorced people) . . . lighthearted boys and girls again. Most husbands and wives who break up their homes do not do it because of intolerable wrongs . . . they do it because they are bored with each other; because they are fed up on the dull round of domesticity; because they are sick and tired of listening to the children's noise and fights; but mainly because they have begun to have nostalgia for the days when they were sweet-and-twenty . . .
They fool themselves into thinking that if they could break that tie that binds them . . . some miracle would make their paunchy figures grow slim, cause wavy locks to appear on those bald spots, and restore their complexions. They would be automatically infused with new pep, and the come-hither look would return to their tired eyes. Of course no such transformation takes place.
Of all disillusioning human experiences, divorce is the worst. For it rarely brings to its participants the happiness they had hoped to get. It is only the most callous who can feast and make merry amidst the wreck of the home they have pulled down; and deaf indeed must be the ears that can shut out the sound of little children's weeping in the night for the father or the mother they have lost.


Humphrey Mitchell: Does the hon. member know that the lady he is quoting is a divorcee herself?


William Joseph Browne: That shows that she knows what she is talking about.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: He has got
you there.


William Joseph Browne: My hon. friend also reminded us of what marriage was. In the Catholic church-and I speak as a Catholic-it is a union of two people until death do them part; but if conditions arise, as they sometimes do, that make it

impossible for them to live together, if the husband is so cruel that the wife cannot stand living with him, she does not have to live with him. There are many women who are never married at all who seem to get along all right and lead happy lives. Where women have their children they can lead very happy lives. Many widows are doing it. Therefore it would not be an outrageous request to ask them, if their husbands are cruel to them, not to live with them. They can go and live by themselves and the husbands will be made to support them if they are able to.
The hon. member speaks about the fulfilment of the main purpose of marriage, the procreation of children, but it is a spiritual union first of all, and it has been celebrated with great ceremony in Christian homes. Sometimes there may be too great a splash. I have known of cases where the husband forgot to pay for the flowers that he sent to the bridesmaids. A marriage that starts off on that rather materialistic basis is not likely to be very successful. What I should like to see, as has been mentioned in the press-and I believe it has taken place in the province of Quebec

is more of those institutions which we call pre-Cana conferences where groups of young couples who are engaged to be married go to their clergyman and receive instruction in what marriage really means from someone who is able to explain it to them. I believe these things do good.
There are many features that make married life difficult. I am quite prepared to admit that is the case in modern times. Particularly in the United States, where children receive no religious instruction in the schools, where they do not go to church, where they get no religious instruction at home, marriage is not really a spiritual thing with them at all. Marriage for them is a purely materialistic matter, and it seems to me it is very difficult to expect that marriages of that kind are going to t*e happy. On the first pretext one or the other is likely to look for a divorce. Where the institution of marriage is regarded as a sacrament, as it is by us, and is surrounded with an aura of sanctity from the beginning, then, as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) said, people make an effort to make their married life successful, and I believe it will be successful despite the difficulties they have.
Speaking as a married man, I know that married life has many difficulties. As every married man knows, there are many times when the husband and wife will quarrel and things look pretty bad. Nevertheless I believe
Divorce Laws
that, if we have the fundamental intention of making it right and the belief that it is to endure forever, reconciliations will quickly take place.
The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) spoke of the Russian experience. I am sure that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) is acquainted with that from his reading. In Russia marriage was treated at first as a bourgeois custom, and the policy was to belittle the institution of marriage. Marriages could take place anywhere, not only in a registry but in a stable or cellar. They attempted to treat marriage as lightly as possible,- and divorces could be obtained by one party writing a postcard. They found out that hundreds of thousands of poor children were left neglected to roam the streets like dogs. They had to make some change. Since then they have altered the conditions of marriage so that people have to be married now with much more ceremony than they had at the beginning, and divorces are extremely hard to get.
Only a day or two ago we read of the Polish communist government making stricter conditions about marriage than existed before communism took over. Therefore it will be seen that even in such communities they recognize they cannot get along without the family. In our country, as in the United States, it seems to me we are likely to create serious conditions that will be prejudicial to the best interests of the people of Canada if we open the door any farther. My hon. friend spoke about marrying in haste. Marry in haste and repent at leisure used to be the motto, but now it seems to be marry in haste, repent quickly and get married again. In the United States there are cases of people who have been married three, four, five, ten, and even as many as twenty-three times. Sometimes the same people have been married again and divorced again. They should have a degree such as "M.A.", married again. I think I have probably taken up too much of the time of the house.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


William Joseph Browne: Someone says "hear, hear", but I make no apology for doing so because the matter is so serious. The only apology I make is that I am afraid I was not able to deal with the subject as it should be dealt with. I feel that we should not be affected by the hardships that might occur in a very small percentage of families representing a very small percentage of the total population. We are concerned with the overwhelming majority of the people of the

Divorce Laws
country. The damage that would accrue as a result of accepting the hon. member's resolution would be far more serious than the damage caused by the present conditions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I should like to say a word or two. First of all I should like to say that I do not think we should begrudge the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) the time he has taken because I think he has said things that we should all consider very seriously indeed. I do not find myself able to go the full length that he goes because I believe there are grounds upon which divorces should be granted, but I do not believe they are contained in the resolution of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and I am very sorry to see it come before the house.
It seems to me there are two or three things that can be said with which we will all agree. They are obvious enough, and yet when I hear the hon. member talk about a decent divorce-and I think I know what he means by that and that there are decent divorces- nevertheless the very phrase seems to me to indicate that we are getting into a frame of mind where divorce is to be regarded as just an ordinary incident of life. I should like to say, and I believe every hon. member will agree, that the growth of divorce in the community is equivalent to the deterioration of society. Thoughtful people everywhere in the United States today are greatly alarmed by it, and I am glad to see that such a widely read magazine as the Saturday Evening Post is conducting a sensible and thoughtful series of articles along the lines suggested by the hon. member for St. John's West, trying to educate people and to convince them that just because they happen to step out of the wrong side of the bed in the morning that is no ground for rushing off to get a divorce. I agree with what the hon. member for St. John's West said about the perfectly ludicrous use of the ground of cruelty. I think we have all read enough to know that it easily becomes fantastic and ridiculous. I am sorry that this ground should have been introduced by a serious member such as the hon. member for Spadina because it seems to me it is capable of gross and even of humorous miscarriages, as my friend has said.
There is one other thing that bothers me, or I should say one thing that enters into this. It seems to me that marriage is made much too easy, that people rush into it with little consideration. I am not prepared to say here and now just what hsould be done, but it

seems to me it might be possible to make it a much graver matter, to make the ceremony itself much more formal. I once attended a Russian wedding that took place here. It lasted about an hour, and I am told that in Russia in the old days weddings lasted about three hours. I have a feeling that if it took three hours to get married, young people would not enter into marriage so lightly as they do now. That was a formidable ceremony; and I believe fewer marriages would go wrong if those concerned had to spend three hours considering them, instead of rushing into marriage headlong.
I do not wish to take further time except to say that it seems to me we should realize that when we are talking about this we are discussing one of the very foundations of society. You cannot pick up any serious United States publication without realizing that; and I certainly hope this house will stop, look and listen.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate, and perhaps the few words I have to say can hardly be called participation. I do not think I would have said anything at all but for the statement for one hon. member that it is time to bring our divorce laws up to date. That is a new one on me. Even if they were brought up to the position of divorce laws in the United States today, that might not be sufficiently up to date. In the end it might be necessary to put something in the marriage contract providing that whenever the man or woman wants a divorce or separation or annulment of the contract, he or she may have it. No doubt that would be bringing the law right up to date.
I do not believe in divorce. I said something in this connection previously in this house, which was perhaps misunderstood. I have tried divorce cases and have granted divorces in Nova Scotia because I thought it was my responsibility to do so. That does not mean I believe in divorce, or that I intend to vote for this resolution, which after all is a sort of nebulous thing. Any hon. member of this house who might be appointed to this committee, if it were set up, knows as much about the subject matter of this resolution now as he could possibly learn in any committee. I do not want to charge the courageous gentleman from Spadina (Mr. Croll) with being a coward, but I think it is showing a little cowardice when he suggests a committee instead of introducing a bill embodying these various amendments, because we are not going to learn anything from a committee that we do not know now.

Apart altogether from the religious aspect, divorce is the annulment or breaking of a contract. Who ever heard of a contract coming to an end because a party to it became insane? If he were insane in the first place he could not enter into a contract; but who ever heard of a contract being terminated because one party to it became insane, or who ever heard of the other party to the contract having a right to end it? Or who ever heard that because a person who had entered into a solemn contract ran away and deserted the people for whom he was responsible he was thereby relieved of responsibility? As far as the legal presumption of death is concerned, how long should the period be? I believe there is now on the statute books of this country a provision that if a person is absent from his usual surroundings for seven years he may be presumed for certain purposes to be dead. If he has a wife, at the end of that time she is entitled to marry again, and no charge of bigamy may be brought against her.
I have no quarrel at all with the statement by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) that the cause of divorce is selfishness, largely due to un-Christian habits. I agree further that a great many of our divorces result from hasty marriages. If the licence laws of the various provinces increased the period between the application for the marriage licence and the granting of that licence, there would not be so many divorces. There are too many hasty marriages. After all, are we here to make laws for people who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances? Are we here to relieve people who have made mistakes? Or are we here to make laws for the common good? Who in this chamber today will say that to extend the grounds for divorce would be for the common good?
As far as present divorce laws are concerned, there is some biblical ground for them. Under the old law a man was justified in sending away his wife if she was guilty of adultery. Just how much that law is subject to the even older.law, "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder" is a matter of some considerable controversy, and I am not going to discuss that point at all. Marriage is a solemn contract; there is no doubt about that. It is "until death do us part," in every form of religious marriage in this country. A person who enters into that solemn contract or obligation should not be relieved of it for anything less than ad>'Very. in any case.
Personally I believe that if adultery were ma >
:i rrime in this country we would not
Divorce Laws
have so many divorces. I do not suppose it is news to many hon. members that adultery is a crime in New Brunswick, and has been ever since before confederation. After all, practically every crime in this country today goes back to the ten commandments of God. "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery." If instead of sending this resolution to a committee, as my hon. friend desires, this parliament passed a law making adultery a criminal offence I think it would have a great effect in lessening the number of divorces in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposing this measure on grounds of religious scruples alone. I would say it is unnecessary for me, as a member of this parliament, to oppose this resolution because I am a Catholic and believe that marriage is a sacramental contract. I believe it would be a bad thing for the general public of this Canada of ours that we all love, and that we all like to see making progress, not only materially but from a Christian standpoint. It would be a bad thing if the grounds for divorce were extended. So far as desertion is concerned, and diseased minds, if they were made grounds it would simply add to the measure of connivance that goes on in divorce today on the grounds of adultery.
I would say this is not for the public good, and we are here to legislate for the public good. We are not here to legislate people out of their difficulties or their troubles. There are methods of helping those people, especially the deserted wives. We are not here to help people out of their misfortunes, brought on by their own selfishness and their own greed. I say on that ground, and that ground alone, I will oppose this resolution to appoint a committee to deal with the subject matter of the motion.


David Arnold Croll: My purpose-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of putting the resolution on the order paper was to obtain a cross-section of the views of the house. We have been able to do that. My friend the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll) may accuse me of cowardice in not forcing a vote, but it was never my intention to force a vote on this matter. It was premature to present a bill until the subject had been canvassed in the house. With the permission of the house, I should like to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: On Monday, April 17, it being private members' day, we shall follow the rules set out in standing order No. 15. On Tuesday, government day, we would like to move to go into supply and call three new departments. We do not believe this will take very long. Then, we would take up the resolutions to set up the different committees. If time is left, we will proceed with certain resolutions which are the bases of bills.


Howard Charles Green: Which committees does the minister mean?


Alphonse Fournier: There is one on radio, and there is one on amendments to the elections act. There is also a committee on the national research council. Then there are two or three resolutions for small bills which we would like to move ahead.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order, until Monday, April 17.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 17, 1950