Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:

That 1,000 copies in English and 250 copies in French of the report prepared for the National Research Council by Dr. Robert Newton on an inquiry in Europe regarding the feasibility of using protein content as a factor in grading and marketing Canadian wheat, tabled in the house on Friday, March 7th, 1930, be printed in blue book form, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.

DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, on March 12 I gave notice of motion, which appears upon the votes and proceedings for that date and which I desire to move now, seconded by Mr. Kellner. That notice of motion reads:

That Bill No. 20, an act to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of mariage, be read a second time on Tuesday, the 18th of March, instant.

I have no desire to debate this motion at any great length because I would prefer to trust the issue to the disposition of the house. Hon. members will realize that the rules of the house will not permit a discussion on the merits of the bill itself so the only matter now before the house is whether or not the bill shall be read a second time.

Since this motion virtually asks parliament to consider a bill which already has been dealt with, I must state without undue elaboration my reasons which I hope will be considered adequate.

As hon. members are aware, Bill No. 20 provides in effect for the establishment of divorce courts in the province of Ontario, It was read a second time on Tuesday, March 11, during the hour for private bills. The result

Divorce Court for Ontario

of the vote upon that occasion was unsatisfactory ; I do not mean that it was unsatisfactory to myself or to hon. members who like myself were interested in the success of the bill, but it was unsatisfactory to the house and I think I am safe in saying, from what I have read since, that it was unsatisfactory to the country.

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

Another consideration which I offer to the house is that a slight error was made by the clerks in counting the vote. In the house we of course paid very little attention to that. The error did not alter the result at the moment, but it did increase the dissatisfaction both in the house and outside of it.

Another thing we should take note of in this connection is that there was a misunderstanding as to the recognition of pairs. I do not again wish to suggest that any hon. member broke faith designedly, but the fact remains that certain hon. members who were away on urgent business and had their pairs arranged, assuming that the pairs would be recognized under all circumstances, were very much dismayed and dissatisfied to discover that the pairs were broken. In fact, I think the only pair recognized was that by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) who was paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). These circumstances which I have enumerated may not be regarded by hon. members as constituting a sufficient reason for voting again for the second reading of the bill to-day, but I will offer no others to the house.

I hope the majority of the house, in view of all the circumstances, are as dissatisfied with the vote as I am, and also appreciate the desirability of having a decisive vote on the issue. So I ask that parliament speak with decision on this matter. If that should result in the defeat of the bill, then those interested in the issue can turn their efforts in another direction. I appeal to the fairness and good judgment of the house. This is not a party issue. So far as I know, neither the government nor the opposition have compromised their following in any way on this matter. The only obligation that we have is as individuals to ourselves and to the issue before us, and so I hope every member will consider the question. I know, as has occurred in other instances, religious convictions and sentiments enter into a vote of this kind. I have every respect for the sincerity of hon. members, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, who vote in accordance with their convictions; but let us vote anyway; let us have a decisive vote on this matter. All I ask is for the voice of parliament.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

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

Divorce Court for Ontario

other day, I do not think this should be countenanced by the house, as io do so would, I think, be creating a dangerous precedent. I venture to say -that no hon. member who voted the other evening either for or against the second reading of the bill, had any misconception about his vote. They all thought they were voting either for or against the principle of the bill and never had in mind the idea that they were voting simply whether the second reading should be given that night or the following day or any other day. As I said, this would be creating a very bad precedent and would be contrary to the well established practice in parliament that when a decision is reached on a question during the session it cannot be brought up again at some other time during the same session. Under the rules of the house we cannot even debate an identical resolution; we cannot refer to a debate which has taken place during the same session.

I have looked into the journals of the house in order to find whether a similar case has occurred under other circumstances and I have to go as far back as 1892 to find the last instance where a similar motion was presented to the house by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, who had a bill amending the Northwest Territories Act. That bill had been defeated on its second reading and he moved a motion similar to that moved by my hon. friend to-day. The Prime Minister at that time was Sir John Thompson, who opposed the motion, and I find at page 2483 of Hansard of 1892 these words of Sir John Thompson:

For one, I am not able to concur in the adoption of this motion, to-day. I think the house fully understood, when the question was put last night, that the principle of the bill was being voted on, and in relation to a public measure, as this is, it is a very unusual course to adopt such a motion.

I agree with that statement, and whatever may be our view as to the merits of the bill, I think that we should not vote to reinstate it on the order paper. I do not think that the arguments of my hon. friend are sufficiently strong to warrant the house taking the action he desires. My hon. friend said that the result of the vote was unsatisfactory, not because he was in favour of the bill, but because, I suppose, of the very small majority against the second reading. But I remember having taken part in divisions in this house where the majority was very small, and speaking for myself those were the finest votes in which I ever took part. Under parliamentary rule, a majority of one is just as good as a majority of ten, and if on this occasion we agree to this motion, what is to prevent us

from taking similar action on other measures at other times? After all, in parliamentary elections a candidate is elected sometimes by a majority of one. His opponent has the right to ask for a recount, but I have never heard it suggested that there should be a new election.

Another argument that my hon. friend used was that the vote came rather too soon, that it was not expected. It is difficult to satisfy those who do not want to be satisfied. I happened to read in the Toronto Saturday Night a few days ago an article by a writer stating that I had given instructions that the bill be talked out. This was of course untrue, as is shown by the statement of the mover of this resolution that the division came too early. I submit that if this motion carried, it would be bad parliamentary practice, and apart from that, it would be poor sportsmanship.

Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St, Lawrence-St. George):

Mr. Speaker, the rule of practice

which has been invoked by the hon. member who moved this resolution is to my mind a very salutary and useful one. Oftentimes I noticed when sitting in the press gallery as a newspaper reporter years ago, that the government of the day sometimes moved the second reading of a bill when the time to them seemed opportune, when the house was not full, and when their opponents were absent, so that the second reading might be carried. It is well understood that if you desire to prevent any further reading, an amendment may be made to the motion for a second reading on that day, postponing the second reading for three or four months or to some future date when the house is not in session. That was not done in this case. The mover of the resolution is entirely in order, but when it comes to considering the expediency of passing this resolution at this time, I crave the indulgence of the house for a few moments in order that I may state clearly my own personal opinion upon the expediency of this motion being accepted. I shall not discuss the merits of the bill.

It is well known in this country that at the time of confederation the maritime provinces had divorce courts. Confederation was only brought about by admitting divorce to bo within the jurisdiction of this federal parliament, By successive measures passed by this parliament, other provinces have been brought into the union, and whether wittingly or not-

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Divorce Court for Ontario

Mr. CAHAN:

I am not going to discuss

the merits of the bill at this time, Mr. Speaker. My statement is merely preliminary. I am not discussing the second reading at all.

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Mr. CAHAN:

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

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but if we are to have the merits of the bill itself discussed at this Stage, some of us must reserve to ourselves also the right to speak on the merits of the bill.

I submit that the argument that is being put forward by the hon. gentleman is out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I rose with some hesitation a moment ago. I do not care to interrupt such a distinguished parliamentarian as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but evidently he is going far afield from the merits of the question that is now before the house. That question is, shall the house allow this particular bill to be reinstated on the order paper so that a vote on the second reading can be taken. That is the only question before the house at the present time. The rule is very clear. May says (13th edition, page 256):

If debate occurs on such a motion, it must be strictly limited to the precise object of the motion.

The precise object of the motion is that the bill shall be placed on the order paper for a

second reading. The question of divorce and provincial rights may come up when the merits of the bill are before the house on the second reading.

Air. CAHAN:

I wish to protest again, Mr. Speaker, that I am simply dealing with the expediency of this motion now passing, that I am not discussing and have no intention of discussing the merits of the bill. My objection is against placing this bill on the order paper at the present time or until a decision has been made by the members representing the province of Ontario in this house. This bill should not be placed on the order paper again until there is a clear and emphatic expression of opinion one way or the other from the eighty-two members representing the province of Ontario that they desire this bill to be discussed with a view to its passage and enactment by this house.

And further in support of that position, I wish to call attention to the tradition and practice of the imperial parliament itself. The civil law of Scotland is entirely different from the common* law of England, and iwhen a measure is before the British House of Commons dealing with the civil law of Scotland, every member of that house of course has the legal light to stand up and advocate or oppose the measure and to vote upon it. But in practice the members from Northern Ireland, from Wales, and from England always abstain from voting on any measure which concerns Scotland alone or the Scottish law alone, or any amendment, or improvement, or change in that law. Therefore I think, looking to the future, and as we are on the eve of very serious reactions in this country-

Mr. CANNON:

Will my hon, friend allow me a question?

Mr. CAHAN:

Yes.

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

Mr. CAHAN:

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

Mr. SPEAKER:

Besides, we have passed the 17th of March.

Air. CAHAN:

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

Divorce Court for Ontario

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

Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):

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

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to call attention to the fact that if this course is followed there is nothing to prevent any member at any time from moving to reinstate on the order paper a bill that has been rejected by the house. Even if the motion of the hon. member for Westaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) is defeated now,

there is nothing in our rules to prevent another member rising to-morrow and giving notice that he will move its reinstatement on the order paper.