Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion? I see the hon. member for Yorkton rising. I also see on the order paper the third reading of Bill No. 503. Would it be agreeable to hon. members if consideration of the second readings of Bill No. 484 and Bill No. 427 were allowed to stand until later this day so the third reading of Bill No. 503 might be called first?

Mr. Nicholson:

No, Mr. Speaker. I think we should follow the regular procedure of dealing with these bills as they appear on the order paper.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member for Yorkton.

Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):

Mr. Speaker, this is another of those unfortunate divorce cases in which there is difficulty in coming to a decision as to what should be

done, and where hon. members have difficulty in deciding whether or not justice has been done.

The evidence is contusing, and to my mind it is certainly far from convincing. It is the type of case I think should not come before the House of Commons, and I must protest again, as we have done on so many occasions, against parliament having anything to do with finding, as a point of justice, whether the person in this instance is guilty or otherwise.

Previous experience in cases of this kind has not been of the best, and some of the evidence presented has been seriously questioned. Another point that causes us some qualms about the decision in this case is the fact that some of the investigators are, I understand, those who were found guilty in an Ontario court of committing perjury, but who later won their appeal to an Ontario appeal court on the ground that the court here is not a court of justice. I believe last year the Criminal Code was amended to correct that difficulty. I still do not think this is a court of justice in the true sense of the term, and I must repeat my protest against the sort of thing that is being done in the committee.

I do not claim to have greater wisdom than judges in the courts, but I do claim that members of parliament, including the members of the committee, are not trained to be judges, and I maintain we should not assume the duty of deciding court cases in circumstances such as these. There are grave doubts in the minds of many members of the House of Commons as to the merits of this case. The defendant has had difficulty in presenting her side of the story. But my main reason for objecting at the moment is that if there is not complete proof of the guilt of the defendant, then serious injustice will be done, not the least of which is the injustice to the children involved.

In this instance nothing has been proved completely. The evidence was presented to the divorce committee of the Senate, and that committee made its decision. The bill is now brought to this house for second reading. In view of the lack of conclusive proof to establish guilt, I must protest against the passage of this bill on second reading.

The only redeeming feature in the situation is that I understand, according to information I received within the last 20 minutes, that this case is being presented to our committee on miscellaneous private bills, and that the defendant will be given an opportunity to come before members of the House of Commons who sit on the committee and present her case. We are willing to reserve judgment 50433-405

Private Bills-Divorce

until after that has been done. It is my hope that when she does appear full opportunity will be given her to present her case completely, and perhaps on that evidence we can come to some proper judgment. Until that is done I reserve my right to oppose the bill on second reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion.

Mr. Caslleden:

On division.

Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):

Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members that this is the same case which came before the House of Commons about a year ago. After I had reviewed briefly some of the evidence that appeared in the Senate committee report, this house decided by a majority vote that the bill should not be read a third time and referred it back to the miscellaneous private bills committee. I would ask hon. members to follow me rather closely in what I am about to say, so they may decide whether in their judgment a home should be broken on the basis of this evidence.

In one paragraph of the petition it is alleged that-

-your petitioner ever since he discovered that the said Antoinette Seguin had committed said adultery has lived separate and apart from her-

Upon being examined the petitioner alleged that some 17 years ago his wife committed adultery. This of course was denied by Mrs. Delorme, but he stuck to his story upon cross-examination. When being cross-examined he was asked these questions and gave the following answers:

Q. Where did you go in the house?-A. I went in the door, went in the room, and saw the two of them together, and I went away crying.

Q. What?-A. I went away crying.

Q. Did you wake them up?-A. No I did not.

And then, apparently, a couple of years after he alleged that he found his wife in a compromising position, which she denied, and he said that he went away crying. He was asked these questions and gave these answers:

Q. You mentioned that you had forgiven her until she took court proceedings?-A. Well, it is not that I really forgive her, but for the sake of the children I kept my mouth shut.

Q. Even though she had committed adultery you were willing to sleep with her?-A. As I say, for the sake of the children I done everything I could_

Private Bills-Divorce

Q. But when she asked for $20 a week that was enough?-A. That is the arrangement.

So much for the evidence of the petitioner. Now, the following is the evidence of the paid detectives in connection with the case. The first of these is Mr. Bergeron. He appeared and said he was being paid to do a job. These are questions and answers in his evidence. I shall begin with an answer:

A. We proceeded to check the electricity.

Q. You pretended you were going there to check the electricity?-A. Yes, so we checked every room and Mrs. William Delorme was showing us every place in the house.

Bearing in mind that he had sworn that he checked every room in the house, let us see what he said a few minutes later on crossexamination. These are the questions and answers:

Q. How many bedrooms are there in that house? -A. We didn't check all, we checked only one room.

Yet only a few moments before he said he had checked every room. The evidence continued:

Q. How did you know it was that room?-A. Because she told us that she was sleeping down there.

Q. Did you ask her where she slept?-A. Yes.

Q. And she told you where she slept?-A. Yes, she told us . . .

Of course the respondent, Mrs. Delorme, denied that most emphatically, saying it was most absurd to suggest that a complete stranger who came there representing himself as being there on behalf of the electrical company would be shown rooms and told where everybody slept.

Then this man had something to do with the ladder. Hon. members will recall that this is the case where the evidence hinged on certain evidence procured from a ladder. The witness was asked:

Q. How many of you went up that ladder that night?-A. Three.

Q. You each went up separately?-A. No; two together, and myself alone.

The next witness was Jean Leclair, the second paid detective. On page 33 of the evidence he was asked these questions:

Q. The two of you were up?-A. Yes.

Q. And you mentioned that you were up first?- A. Well, it is a way of talking; I would say the first one. We were going up slowly and sometimes I was putting my foot on his and trying to take a grab of a rung and sometimes I would cross Mr. Nadeau's hand.

Q. But you were up first?-A. I wouldn't say that: sometimes he was maybe a few inches higher than me and sometimes maybe I was higher than him.

Q. Are you telling me that you both went up together side by side.-A. Yes, it is a broad ladder.

Q. How wide is the ladder?-A. It is a big ladder. I don't like to say it is a very tall or long ladder but it is a very wide ladder.

Q. How wide?-A. Maybe two feet.

Q. And the two of you were climbing side by side?-A. Oh, yes. We had done that before.

By the Acting Chairman:

Q. I presume, witness, it is a ladder you have for the purpose?-A. Not exactly. We use it a lot many times but it is a handy ladder around. It is a hard ladder. It is a heavy duty ladder.

Q. Is it made of aluminum?-A. No, it is light wood but big wood, and the rungs are strong with some braces under. It is a big ladder and a strong ladder.

The hearing adjourned until 2 p.m.

Then we have the evidence of the chief of the detective service. He was asked about the one detective who went up alone:

Q. You say you came down and that Bergeron went up?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that he came down quickly?-A. Yes. Well, he is never a fast man, but he came down faster than he usually comes.

Then the chief of the detective service was asked about the location of the ladder, and hon. members should follow this carefully:

Q. On what side of the building was the window in question that you looked into?-A. On the north side. I

Then Mademoiselle Dumas, also on the staff of the detective service, was called. She, of course, did not go up the ladder as one might expect, but she saw everything that happened on the ladder. She was in the car. She was asked these questions:

Q. Now, the night that you went on the 21st, where was the car parked?-A. First of all. we were parked on Dube street in front of the restaurant and then we went up and parked up in front of 10053 Dube street.

Q. You are positive you parked in front of that house?-A. Not exactly in front of the house but just a few feet away.

Q. On which side?-A. On the south side.

Q. Well, we have been told by Mr. Nadeau and the others that the bedroom in question is on the north side. What would you say as to that?- A. I don't know where the bedroom would be.

Q. So on what side was the ladder put up?-A. I can't say exactly.

Q. Well, from the position you were in the car on the south side of the house if the ladder had been on the north side could you see it?-A. I don't know.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that evidence from this type of witness certainly should not be accepted in this chamber this year, as it was not accepted last year.

There are a few additional comments I should like to make. I should like to mention that the elder son of the family, who is in the air force, came to Ottawa a year ago in the hope that he might be permitted to give evidence to save his mother's good name. Unfortunately the Senate committee refused to hear him, on the ground that they had heard all the evidence they wanted to reach a decision. Later on, of course, this young chap was heard by the House of Commons miscellaneous private bills committee.

Regardless of how hon. members voted on the particular proposition, I am sure they were agreed that the young chap gave very good evidence. His younger brother has since been married. It is significant that these two boys are so loyal to their mother. As devout Catholics they are upset by the prospect of having to face for the rest of their lifetime the fact of this divorce, in which the mother in their opinion is unfairly branded as guilty of an offence which in my opinion she disproved very effectively. In my opinion the two sons were good witnesses.

There is another factor that the hon. member for Saskatoon brought to our attention a year ago, which I think is worthy of consideration. At page 6483 of Hansard, June 26, 1954, the hon. member for Saskatoon is reported as having said:

There is a member in the house today, and he is sitting in this house now, who found it necessary to resign from this particular committee because his son happened to be the counsel for the petitioner in this case. May I say that the hon. gentleman acted up to his name in being honourable. He came to me and told me the circumstances and explained why he was resigning from the committee and having nothing to do with the case. I expect he explained to other members of the committee also his son's connection with the case. My sympathy goes out to him in the awkward situation in which he was placed. His decision, of course, meant that he took no part in this case and he was a mere spectator. One can readily understand the awkwardness of the situation because in and about that committee he would naturally meet his son and his son's client, and that is not a very nice situation. However, another gentleman was put on in his place and that particular gentleman happened to be one of those recorded as voting for this particular divorce. Incidentally, may I point out that I asked for a recorded vote on that committee and the names of those who voted for and against can easily be found on the records.

I want to endorse what the hon. member for Saskatoon has said. The members were convinced that counsel for the petitioner was a very able young lawyer, but I am sure in the province of Quebec there are a great many lawyers who are interested in taking up these cases. It is unfortunate that the friends of the father of the counsel should be placed in the embarrassing position where they have to vote for or against a case in which one of their colleague's sons is involved.

I want to thank hon. members who, in spite of differences with members of this particular group, have broken party lines to reach fair decisions. A year ago-

Mr. Harris:

Why don't you do it once in a while?

Mr. Nicholson:

Yes, we do it once in a while.

Mr. Weir:

Only once.

50433-405$

Private Bills-Divorce

Mr. Nicholson:

A year ago nearly all the Liberal members from the province of Quebec refrained from voting when the house divided, but the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), the hon. member for Antigo-nish-Guysborough (Mr. Kirk), the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Lafon-taine), the hon. member for Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Proudfoot), as well as all those on this side of the house, voted to support our proposal, and I hope others will support us today.

When the miscellaneous private bills committee heard the case I am happy to say that the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) and the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck), refrained from voting one way or the other, although the majority of the members who were there were convinced that the divorce should be granted. I hope the motion I am going to make now will receive the sympathetic consideration of the house and that party lines will not be considered.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):

That this bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):

Is

the house ready for the question?

Question.