Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

I would only reiterate what I said before, namely, that I am not opposed to divorce. I believe there are situations in which it is justified. Scripture says: "Be not unequally yoked together." I would not suggest a procedure such as is followed in the country to the south of us, where a man or a woman may obtain a divorce from his or her helpmate for some childish or trivial reason, and call it cruelty, or something of that kind. It may be said that the wife would not allow the husband to take so many lumps of sugar in his coffee, or something of that sort. Under certain circumstances, I think divorce is a wise procedure. I believe, however, that before the final decree is issued, every effort should be made to reconcile the parties.

The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has stated that it is necessary to give relief to people living in Quebec, where the legislature appears to be unwilling to pass the necessary provincial laws. Those people have a right to be protected. But when it comes to procedure in parliament which, of course, includes action by both houses, I support the suggestion of the leader of the opposition that it ought not to be necessary to have two courts. As the senators are worthy and reputable men-and most of them are men of long experience-why not have one court, and put the full responsibility on them. Under those circumstances they would know that they would be wholly responsible. We have at present a sort of divided procedure. They may be a little careless or a little lax, and say, "Oh wrell, if any injustice is being

Divorce Bills

done, the lower house will remedy it." But if they knew their decision was final, as in the case of the civil courts, possibly they would take more care, and would see that wise decisions were made. Also they might appoint a committee to interview the people concerned and see if a reconciliation might be brought about. Sometimes parties can be convinced to come together again and, unquestionably, that is much better than dividing the family. We see that done quite commonly in the United States where, on occasions, people remarry more than once. They may marry, obtain a divorce, remarry, sometimes divorce again and remarry again. The fact that they look at divorce in that light and trivial way is some indication as to why we should be more particular in our handling of the matter.

Speaking earlier this afternoon, I referred to the importance to be attached to the disposition of the children. It must be decided which of the parents is to have them, no matter which is guilty, because it is not always the guilty one who is the cause of the divorce. There is such a thing as provocation by a bullying husband or a nagging wife, but the decision must be made as to which one is better able to take care of the children. One of the cases before the house this afternoon was a case in which seven children between the ages of three and ten years were involved. What is to become of them? That is a matter which should be given the greatest consideration. No consideration is given to it in the other house; they do not have to. The law does not require it, but I say that some care should be taken. If the older people make wrecks of their lives, that is no reason why they should be permitted to wreck the lives of their children, who should be brought up under decent conditions.

I believe, however, that the principle of divorce should be carried out, with all due precautions. As the leader of the opposition has suggested: Why have two courts? Why not have only one, and place full responsibility on it? We find that if full responsibility is placed at one point, greater care is taken than if it is shared. When there is a division of responsibility, someone is always passing the buck to somebody else and saying, "Oh, well, it is going to the other chamber, anyway."

Question.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

house that we pass all these divorce bills?

I thought they were to be taken separately?

On division.

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

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Yes, that was done.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Mr. Abbott moves,

seconded by Mr. Mcllraith that Bill No. 30, for the relief of John Hubert Fox, be now read the second time.

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

That stood over.

Order stands.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I ask the sponsor of this bill to tell us if there are any children resulting from this marriage, their ages, and any provision which has been made for their care.

Mr. WHITMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I am

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

Divorce Bills

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

desertion.

Mr. NEILL:

Who has the child?

Mr. WHITMAN:

The child is with the mother.

Mr. Speaker, I could not reply to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) on the other bill, so that I shall take this opportunity of doing so.

We are not lightly criticizing this procedure. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) suggested that it might be possible to devise a method which would be more satisfactory, even though the province which will not set up a court of its own continues to hold to that position. The hon. member for New Westminster suggested that any member of this house could* go to the senate committee dealing with these petitions and get all the information he required*. That may be true, but, as the hon. member knows, it would be almost impossible for any one of us to spend that much time in the senate committee. I doubt if he can tell me the particulars regarding any one of these bills. I know I could not.

I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Weyburn is sound. He suggested that if we are to continue to deal with these matters, and apparently we shall have to do so as long as one province objects to granting relief under its own jurisdiction, then a judicial committee should be set up which could sift the evidence and go into the merits of the cases. I have an alternative suggestion to make. I suggest that we set up a national committee, a personal relations committee as it were, which could look into these cases before they come to us here. As a matter of fact, in several of the states of the United States they have committees of this description. Frequently it has been possible to prevent the parties from going through with a divorce; a reconciliation has been effected and they have agreed to live together again. I think we could devise ways and means of getting around the objectionable practice we follow here. I remember one year I was a member of the private bills committee and the agriculture committee. On one occasion I was asked to absent myself from the agriculture committee for a few minutes because they had not a quorum in the private bills committee. It was toward the end of the session, and it was necessary to give approval to some eight bills. Much to my dislike and over my protests, those bills went through in about ten or fifteen minutes. It is true the senate committee had gone thoroughly into the bills, but I do not think any hon. member of this house should be asked, without more information than is available to us at the present time, to assume the grave responsibility of breaking up a home, and, as has been pointed out, perhaps doing something which may not be beneficial to the children of the marriage. The suggestion made last year when similar matters were under consideration should be followed, namely, that the government should be asked to devise some method which would protect the home.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

I do not think the suggestion of delegation of authority is feasible. I have a constructive suggestion to make to the government. In England they have an official known as the king's proctor. Very often in cases like these he intervenes. I suggest to the government and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that one of the officials of the Department of Justice, or, if they are too busy, some reputable counsel, be appointed as king's proctor to attend the meetings of the senate divorce committee and crossexamine the witnesses. He could assist in preventing collusion and in establishing the truth of any incriminating evidence. Thus a safeguard would be provided in connection with divorce legislation.

In New Brunswick they do not have a king's proctor, but every judge presiding over a divorce court constitutes himself, some more and some less, as a king's proctor. He intervenes and cross-examines the witnesses, especially if he has reason to believe that there is collusion. I admit that it is not a satisfactory way to handle the matter, because a judge cannot do anything more than crossexamine the witness. He must take the answers of the witness, whatever they may be. But a king's proctor can test the credibility of the witnesses. In England, the intervention of the king's proctor has prevented the granting of decrees.

Mr. MARTIN:

It has in this province, too.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I think

that is a partial solution to the problem to which hon. gentlemen to my left are referring.