Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lamb-ton) moved:

That owing to the late period of the session all the Bills reported this day by the Select Standing Committees on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, Banking and Commerce, and Miscellaneous Private Bills, be placed on the Order Paper for consideration in Committee of the Whole this day.

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):

I would like to draw the attention of the Government to an answer that was made by the right hon. the Prime Minister to a question that I asked on Friday last in regard to Judge Snider's report. The question and answer were as follows:

Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (leader of the Opposition) : Is the Prime Minister now in a position to say when Judge Snider's report will be brought down?

Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister) : I have heard nothing at all about the report. As far as I know, the report, after the final sitting, is not in. I am informed Just now that it is not in.

I do not know whether my right hon. friend is seeking to get under cover through the use of the words "after the final sitting." I believe that Judge Snider made a report some two months ago, which was approved by Order in Council some fifteen days ago. That is the report to which I have reference, and what I should like to know is why that report has not been brought down to the House. If my right hon. friend is talking about some other report, it is not what I have in mind. What I should like to have brought down is the report that was made some two months ago by Judge Snider, and which has been approved by Order in Council.

That matter has been in the hands of the Prime Minister, and if he were here, he would be

able to give my hon. friend the answer. I will inquire into the matter and let my hon. friend know in the course of the day, if I can get the information.

The CHAIRMAN:

When this Bill was last before the committee, clause 1 had been read and was under consideration, when postponement thereof was moved by Mr. Stein.

On section 1-marriage dissolved:

Mr. STEIN:

I have a few remarks to offer against the adoption of this Bill by the committee. I am sorry to feel compelled to delay the House, but I think it is my duty to oppose the Bill on grounds that I shall offer presently to the committee.

I have read very carefully the evidence that was submitted to the divorce committee of the Senate on this Bill, and in my humble opinion there is not sufficient ground for granting a divorce. Contrary to my custom, I took the trouble to read the testimony in a few other divorce cases, and I found that in every other case much stronger evidence was adduced than was offered in this particular case. In no other case has a divorce been granted on so little evidence as in the present case. Now, I have no special interest in this matter, but I am informed that this is the first time that a divorce has been granted in the province of Quebec, from which I come, and I believe I speak for my colleagues, who share my views on this question, when I' say that we do not want this Bill to pass this committee without our humble protest, whatever the result may be. From a legal standpoint, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to warrant the granting of a divorce. It was shown, in two or three actions that came before the Superior Court of the province of Quebec in the district of Montreal, between the same parties, that the suppliant, even if his allegations were true, was far more guilty than he alleges his wife to be. But his wife, before

i

the Superior Court of Quebec, has formally and absolutely denied the accusations against her. I have here extracts from the deposition of the husband, Alphonse Le-Moyne de Martigny, given before the Superior Court in Montreal on February 22nd, 1919. I shall read from the evidence:

Q. Do you keep house?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Alone?

A. Yes, sir. [DOT] .

Q. There is no woman with you?

A. Yes, to keep my house.

Q. What is her name?

Objected to this proof as illegal.

Q. Do you refuse to answer?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Do you swear that you do not live maritally with this woman?

A. It depends on the interpretation of the word ''maritally.' .

Q. That you live as man and wife with her?

A. What do you mean by that?

Q. You must know, I am [DOT] not obliged to explain.

A. If you ask the question, I shall answer.

Q. You cannot answer the question?

A. I do not know your interpretation.

Q. You do not know what it is to live maritally with a woman?

A. Not from the legal point of view.

Q. You have travelled with this woman?

A. Am I obliged to answer? that is what I want to know.

Q. Do you refuse to answer?

A. No, sir.

Q. You have travelled with her?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you go with her?

A. To the United States.

Q. Did you go -to 'Europe?

A. I refuse to answer. I have travelled seven (7) months. '

Q. Always with the same woman?

A. No, sir.

Q. You had another?

A. Certainly. *

Q. How long have you been with this one, the one that you are living with?

A. I refuse to answer.

Q. How long have you been with the other?

A. Which other? .

Q. I do not know. Do you refuse to answer?

A. It is impossible for me to answer that. I do not know which.

Q. You have had many?

A. Naturally.

Q. Many?

A. Many.

Q. Here, at Montreal, have you told us how long you have been with this woman? [DOT]

A. At Montreal, since 1915.

Here are extracts from the evidence of the wife, taken on the 11th day of March, 1919, at Montreal: [DOT]

Q. You live with Mr. V. S. Perry?

A. Mr. V. S. Perry hoards with me.

Q. Is it not true that you have been living in adultery with him during the last five (5) years ?

A. It is false, absolutely false.

Q. Have you ever had oarnal relations with Mr. Perry?

A. Never.

The evidence goes on to say:

Q. Now, have you ever told your husband that you were living with Mr. Perry?

A. No, never. *

The husband, before the Divorce Committee, stated that his wife had admitted to him having committed adultery. Of course, he does not use those words, but he alleges that she has admitted, to him, having lived with the man in question. Before the Divorce Committee Two witnesses, a sewing girl and a man of 84, a janitor, appeared on behalf of the suppliant, the husband, but neither of them was able to prove anything definite. They said they had never witnessed anything that would make them believe that Mrs. de Martigny and Mr. Perry were living as man and wife. On April 23, 1919, judgment was rendered by the Superior Court at Montreal, holding that de Martigny had not proven adultery on the part of his wife. In the month of June, 1920, an action was again taken in the Superior Court by the mother of de Martigny to obtain the custody of the minor child, a little girl of eight years. Again the court held that adultery with Perry had not been proven and refused to give the custody of the child to the grandmother. In two instances Mrs. Perry was allowed alimony by the Superior Court-$75 a month in the first instance, which was increased to $125 a month on the second petition.

Mr. MICHAUD:

Was it not Mrs. de Martigny who was granted the alimony?

Mr. STEIN:

Yes.

Mr. MICHAUD:

I think you said Mrs. Perry.

Mr. STEIN:

It was a mistake on my part; it was Mrs. de Martigny who obtained the alimony. Now, in the action brought against Mrs. de Martigny by her husband as well as in the attempt of the suppliant's mother to obtain the custody of the child, the Superior Court ruled that no adultery had been proved against Mrs. de Martigny, and I think that if hon. gentlemen will read the evidence that was submitted to the Divorce Committee they will come to the conclusion that this is not a case in which a divorce should be granted.

Mr. PARENT:

I do not need to add very much to what has been said by the last speaker. I desire, however, to call the attention of the committee to what took place before the Private Bills Committee in regard to this particular divorce Bill. At the

last meeting of the committee when the present Bill was before it a gentleman named Mr. Dussault appeared. He is an attorney of Montreal and the brother-in-law of Mrs. de Martigny. He stated that he was in a position to offer further evidence showing that Mrs. de Martigny had never committed the offence charged against her, but that the man himself had committed adultery. He therefore wished the Private Bills Committee to reopen the case in order to give this evidence so that a stigma might not remain on the statutes of Canada against Mrs. de Martigny. He also stated that there is a child in the case, and that if the accused woman did not see fit or proper to appear before the Senate Committee, he, as the uncle of that child, had the right to come and bring forward evidence showing that the mother of the child is a good and honest woman, and that she is not guilty of adultery although the Senate committee found that she was. For reasons unknown to me the Private Bills Committee refused to reopen the case and hear the further evidence offered. I did my best to induce the committee to take a contrary'course, but was unsuccessful. The Private Bills Committee took the ground that if the woman had anything to say in her own defence she should have appeared before the Senate Committee and established her innocence. Even so, in my humble judgment the Private Bills Committee of this House should act, in a sense, as a court of revision and correct any errors made by the Senate Committee if such have been committed. That was the view I took before the Private Bills Committee and that is why I think this committee should be made aware of all the facts in connection with' the matter. A recital of all the circumstances in the case will show, if no other result is achieved, that this woman has not been guilty of what has been alleged against her. Hon. gentlemen may not be aware of a certain procedure which is generally followed in our courts of justice in the province of Quebec. We have there what is known as an action for separation as to bed and board. In the present case Mrs. de Martigny sued her husband for alimony. Such actions for separation as to bed and board are generally granted when it has been established that adultery has been committed by the husband. As a result of those proceedings the action taken by Mrs. de Martigny before the courts of Montreal was sustained and in 1912 the husband was obliged to pay her alimony to the amount of $100 per month.

Mr. MICHAUD:

If the woman had been guilty of the offence charged against her she would not, as I understand, have been entitled to alimony according to the laws of the province of Quebec?

Mr. JACOBS:

No, that is not right. She is entitled to it whether she is guilty or not.

Mr. PARENT:

In the case referred to

evidence was given which proved beyond a doubt that de Martigny was guilty of adultery, and that while he was defending the proceedings brought by his wife he had openly been keeping a mistress in Montreal for four years. This evidence is very clear and distinct, and every fact in that regard which I am now making is fully established by the stenographer's transcript of the evidence taken before Mr. Justice Duclos in the Superior Court of Montreal.

Mr. CURRIE :

On what date?