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

I

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

Divorce Bills

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

Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):

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

Which one is that?

Mr. REID:

I have not the bill before

me, although I have it in my office, but if I remember correctly it is Bill No. 36. I think careful note should be taken of that case.

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

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

Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield):

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

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

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to interject another suggestion, entirely different from the ones that have been advanced here this afternoon. I know that many members will not agree with what I am about to say. I am going to suggest that the principal in the case who is the guilty party and has been the one responsible for the crime should not be permitted to marry again. I know, of course, that this would involve a revision perhaps even of some of our provincial laws, but I am certain that if such a thing were written into the laws of this country there would be fewer divorces.

I am going to suggest, too, that the crime which is committed in these cases and the result of which is divorce is an age-old crime, and I doubt whether the nation will ever get rid of that crime through a system of legislation such as we have to-day. I might suggest that religious organizations have a duty. Should I go so far as to say that some of our churches have perhaps not paid enough attention to the teaching of such doctrines as the sanctity of the home? At the root of this evil lies the fact that our people are not sufficiently concerned with the tremendous implications involved in the crime which calls for divorce, or in the sanctity of the home, the number of homes being torn to pieces by divorce, and the children of divorced parents having to retain the stigma of their parents having committed such an act of infidelity.

All these things enter into the picture. The matter goes deep. I might go further and say that perhaps there is some reason for our believing that with such looseness in our marriage laws we shall not be able to build a healthy and a God-fearing nation. I say that this matter goes very much deeper than most people suspect, and if our laws were revised so that those who were guilty of the crime were not permitted to marry again, it might not be far from the truth when I say that there would be far fewer divorces in this country.

Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):

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

Divorce Bills

Under the British North America Act, divorce is made a matter of federal jurisdiction, and I suppose that so long as that condition continues we shall suffer under this burden, but seven provinces of this dominion have already accepted divorce as a provincial responsibility and relieved us of the shame of passing these bills in the way we do.

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

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAICER (Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into any discussion of the moral grounds for granting divorce or of whether there is collusion in the divorce cases brought before this parliament. The last speaker has said that this debate may do much towards impressing the people of Canada with the necessity of having two of the provinces establish divorce courts such as we have in the other provinces of this dominion. I do not often disagree with what he has to say; but I do think-and in saying this I believe I represent the viewpoint of members generally-that a time like the present with the empire in peril is not the time to worry about divorces and the necessity for a change in our present method of granting divorce.

I am a new member here, but this afternoon has been to me an experience which I hope I shall never have again. Are we, Mr. Speaker, so out of tune with reality that we spend our time in connection with matters such as this? The unrealism of this afternoon has made almost a caricature of this parliament and this house.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

We tried to straighten it out, though.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

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

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):

Can the hon. member give us any information with regard to the granting of the divorce which is sought in this particular case?

Mr. ABBOTT:

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

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.