April 1, 1938

LIB
LIB
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Has the hon. member conveniently at hand the figures of density of population of the various countries?

Topic:   I, 1938
Permalink
LIB

Vincent-Joseph Pottier

Liberal

Mr. POTTIER:

I am taking next the population of each country as a whole. I know the density of population is a feature.

I was dealing only with area.

I now come to the per capita expenditure, and this is what we find. The average per capita expenditure for war defence is $6.49. The highest for any country is that of Germany

as I have just indicated-in the amount of $41.72. The lowest for any country is, again, Panama, with sixteen cents per capita. Canada expended $3.18.

At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   I, 1938
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS

QUESTION OF PROCEDURE IN DEALING WITH APPLICATIONS FOR DIVORCE


Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland) moved that the house go into committee of the whole on private bills. Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata); With regard to these divorce bills, they are said to come from the province of Quebec. But I have made a little list from those bills, taking a few of them at random. For instance, in the Williamson case the place of birth of the husband was Montreal; of the wife, Westmount; place of marriage Montreal. In the case of Cohen the husband was born in Russia, the wife in Rumania, and they were married in Montreal. In the case of McMartin the husband was born in Oyster Bay, New York; the wife at Shreveport, Louisiana, and they were married in Oyster Bay, New York. In the Hislop case the husband was born in Rumania, the wife in Russia, and they were married in Montreal. In the Oravec case they are people from Winnipeg and were married there. In the Klajner or Klein case the husband was born in Bendzin, and the wife in Bendzin, and the place of marriage was Poland. In the case of the Skinners there is no place of birth of husband or wife, but they were married in London. In the Resnick case both parties were born in Russia, and they were married in Montreal. In the Adams case the husband was born at Petrolia, Ontario; the wife at Martha-ville, Ontario, and they were married at Sault Ste. Marie. In the case of O'Sullivan both parties were born and married in England. In the Macdonald case both were born at Saint John, New Brunswick and married there. It surprises me very much that it was said afterwards that these divorce laws are for the people of the province of Quebec. I have quoted many instances of people who came from other provinces or from Russia, Rumania and everywhere. I do not see the propriety of having that kind of legislation on divorce in our statute books. The number of divorce acts in the statute books is almost incredible. I saw an answer which was given to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mount (Mr. Fournier) the other day about the number of divorces and the fact is not at all as represented to him. I made a calculation for the years 1928 to 1937 inclusive, and found the number of private bills that were divorce bills was 1,069. That means that in 1,069 cases the House of Commons passed those bills through first reading, second reading, committee and third reading; the same thing was done in the senate, and His Excellency the Governor General, the representative of the king, had to put his name on each divorce act. We have more important things to discuss than those, especially when one picks at random the evidence in any one of those cases and finds it is always the same story. There is an investigator who looks through the keyhole and says, "I am the bell boy;" he gets in and sees a woman there with a man, a bottle of whiskey half full, two glasses, or perhaps the bottle is empty. They report that to the senate; the parties are asked if there is connivance, and the complainant says there is no connivance. Then the august body of the senate says, "We must grant them a divorce." We hear parliament Private Bills-Procedure spoken of as the high court of parliament. The only thing on which parliament is acting as a court is divorce. We are using our legislative authority in a judicial capacity.


CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

May I ask the

hon. member whether it would not be a good thing to have a divorce court set up in the province of Quebec as in the other provinces?

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF PROCEDURE IN DEALING WITH APPLICATIONS FOR DIVORCE
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I thank my hon. friend

for his suggestion, and I shall conclude by offering mine. Most of those people try to take advantage of the fact that they reside for a certain time in the province of Quebec to come here and bother us with their applications, which mean huge fees for the attorneys in each case, for the lobbyists who are here to bother hon. members about those divorce bills, and we receive no consideration at all. I wonder whether it would not be better to tell all those people that they should elect domicile in any province in which there is a divorce court rather than bother the House of Commons and the Senate and disturb His Excellency the Governor General to ratify their divorce. That is my humble suggestion. We have many interesting questions to discuss in this house, just as the senators have in the other house. Therefore, it seems to me that first of all no licence as a lobbyist should be issued in favour of any lawyer who is acting for anyone who asks for a divorce or is defendant in a divorce case. That would be one way to stop this sort of thing. Then the rules of the house should be amended in order that the clerk should have no authority to issue any licence to those lobbyists. The second point is that they would have no lawyers and they would be told to go and elect domicile in another province in which there are divorce courts, and give us peace. This would be so much the better for the House of Commons, the Senate and His Excellency the Governor General and the country at large.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   QUESTION OF PROCEDURE IN DEALING WITH APPLICATIONS FOR DIVORCE
Permalink

CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS


Bill No. 41, for the relief of Alice Cecile Pinder Hartt.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 42, for the relief of Ruby Mary Foster Ryder.-Mr. Emmerson. Bill No. 43, for the relief of Ethel Sadie Davidson Case. Mr. White. Bill No. 44, for the relief of Ray Simon Stern.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 45, for the relief of Norma Adelaide MacKenzie Hird.-Mr. Walsh. Bill No. 46, for the relief of Mabel Marjorie Thompson Maynes.-Mr. Emmerson. Bill No. 47, for the relief of Walter Edward Gorham.-Mr. White. Bill No. 48, for the relief of Margaret Anne Eddie Bender.-Mr. Walsh. Bill No. 49, for the relief of Kathryn Chronia Briggs.-Mr. Walsh. Bill No. 50, for the relief of Vera May Levis Holloway.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 51, for the relief of Robert Andrew Young.-Mr. Walsh. Bill No. 39, respecting the Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants.-Mr. Plax-ton. Bill No. 54, for the relief of Mary Lorraine Ward Williamson.-Mr. Plaxton. Bill No. 55, for the relief of Lyall Gibson Hodges.-Mr. Bothwell. Bill No. 56, for the relief of Esther Lazaro-vitch Cohen.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 57, for the relief of Dorothy Reaves McMartin.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 58, for the relief of Mary Dorothy Picard Whitcombe.-Mr. Plaxton. Bill No. 59, for the relief of Emil Kastus.- Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 60, for the relief of Eva Fleming Hislop.-Mr. Betts. Bill No. 61, for the relief of Sigmund Oravec. -Mr. Walsh. Bill No. 62, for the relief of Robert Parry.- Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 63, for the relief of Nacha Ferszt Iilajner (otherwise known as Nora Firstenfeld Klein).-Mr. Walsh. Bill No. 64, for the relief of Leonora May Howard.-Mr. Walsh. Bill No. 68, for the relief of Annie Elizabeth Climie Adams.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 69, for the relief of Margaret Alice Mizener.-Mr. Walsh. Bill No. 70, for the relief of Frances Dorothy Scott Skinner.-Mr. Emmerson. Bill No. 71, for the relief of Esther Rotman Resnick.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 72, for the relief of Dorothy MacFie Safford Dale. Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 73, for the relief of Alice Temple Jamieson Adair.-Mr. White. Bill No. 74. for the relief of Gladys Kathleen Crook O'Sullivan.-Mr. Emmerson. Bill No. 75, for the relief of Geraldine Estelle Bamford.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 76, for the relief of Charles Marie.- Mr. Ross (St. Paul's). Bill No. 77, for the relief of Rosamond Cheriton Stoyle Macdonald.-Mr. Jacobs.



Restigouche Log Driving Company


THE RESTIGOUCHE LOG DRIVING AND BOOM COMPANY


Mr. C. J. VENIOT (Gloucester) moved the second reading of Bill No. 66, respecting The Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair. On section 1-Directors.


CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

It appears that the hon. member in charge of the bill proposes, by resolution, to make anybody a director. The effect of this would be to make any person on the street or elsewhere, who secured a resolution of directors, a director of the boom company. When I look at the side note, I cannot think that that is what is intended. All that is necessary is to add the words "or a member of a corporation," because as the section stands now, it covers a director or a manager. All that was intended, I believe, is that anybody who is a member of a shareholder company could be elected to the directorate of the company in which a corporation is a shareholder. As the clause reads, it would be competent to pass a resolution of directors to make any of us 'here directors of the boom company. Apparently, from the note, that is not what is intended.

Topic:   THE RESTIGOUCHE LOG DRIVING AND BOOM COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Joseph Veniot

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

I think the intention of the company was not to make anybody on the street a director of the company. Perhaps it might be appropriate to give a few words of explanation in order to clarify the situation. In 1910, when the act respecting the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company was passed, logging and boom operations on the Restigouche river, or in the region surrounding the river, were confined chiefly to companies whose mills and head offices were located in Campbellton or Dalhousie or in the neighbourhood of the Restigouche river. The act specified that every owner of 100,000 superficial feet and upwards of logs intended to be handled by the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company may become a member of the company, and may attend and vote at all meetings for the fiscal year of the company.

Since that time the long lumber industry has practically gone out of the picture in the neighbourhood and has been replaced by the pulp and paper and rayon industries, in the hands of large corporations, such as The New Brunswick International Paper Company, Fraser Companies Limited, and others, with head offices and boards of directors located in the large cities, such as Montreal

and Toronto-, but with their operations still continuing in Campbellton, Dalhousie or other points in the neighbourhood of the Restigouche river.

It is to overcome this handicap of being obliged to send representatives, either directors or managers of the company, to attend these meetings, that this request is made. I think the companies would be desirous of having as their representative in the neighbourhood somebody who is more conversant with the logging and booming operations, such as, for example, the manager of a company located in Campbellton who knows exactly what the requirements of logging and booming may be. I think it might be appropriate to change the wording specified here to "a shareholder authorized by resolution of the directors of a corporation, which is a member of the company."

Topic:   THE RESTIGOUCHE LOG DRIVING AND BOOM COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

The only point I make is that it authorizes anybody, instead of a member of the corporation who is a shareholder.

Topic:   THE RESTIGOUCHE LOG DRIVING AND BOOM COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Enoil Michaud (Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. MICHAUD:

That is the object of the bill.

Topic:   THE RESTIGOUCHE LOG DRIVING AND BOOM COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

To name any person, whether he is a member or not?

Topic:   THE RESTIGOUCHE LOG DRIVING AND BOOM COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Enoil Michaud (Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. MICHAUD:

Any person authorized by resolution of the directors of a corporation which is a member of the company.

Topic:   THE RESTIGOUCHE LOG DRIVING AND BOOM COMPANY
Permalink

April 1, 1938