DIVORCE IN CANADA

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 135, 12 June 1929, Page 9

DIVORCE IN CANADA

QUEBEC AND ONTARIO

BURDEN ON PARLIAMENT

(From "The Post's" Representative^)

. VANCOUVER, 15th May A large proportion of the time of the ilonse of Commons at Ottawa during tne^present session has-been given over to divorce. ,

curious. condition still obtains in Canada under which divorce in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, with over half the population of the Dominion, must be obtained by private Act of _the Federal Parliament. This condition has, come down- through generations. . The Dominion Parliament has gradnally,_shed. its -divorce functions; to the provinces,, with only the two "oldest" provinces remaining/Quebec, being a Catholic province, will never establish a Divorce Court. While the religious condition does not prevail' in Ontario, there is a- strong opposition to the setting up of a Divorce Court: there. The chief reason is that if will repeat the experience 'of other provinces in largely increasing the number of divorces. Meanwhile the Federal Parliament iB complaining about haying to spend weeks of its time discussing the marital differences of people of Quebec and Ontario. Under existing procedure, the Senate Divorce Committee acts 'as a. preliminary Court, hearing the evidence and recommending or opposing the granting of a decree. The recommendation of the Senate goes to' the' House of Commons which, as a matter of form, has in the past merely agreed to the opinion of the Upper Chamber. Signs of. revolt Jiave been- appearing in the past three years. The sturdy phalanx of Labour, mustering, three-votes in a' House of 245 'members, holds that it is ridiculous for the time of the House of Commons to be taken up with divorces for the two provinces. How to change a state that has almost become constitutional is Labour's chief difficulty. Ontario, content to have its divorce work done by Ottawa, will not ask for the establishment of a Divorce Court. Neither will Quebec. With the two provinces in agreement, their, representatives in Parliament can carry or undo anything. At the present time, they do not wish to tindo what the Parliament of Canada has been doing for fifty years or more. Three times the Senate has;passed a BiU to set up a Divorce Court in Ontario. Three times the- House of 'Commons has rejected it.

The Senate tried to effect a compromise. They offered to hear the divorce x>etitipns of the Province of Quebec if the Lower Bouse would hear those of Ontario. Failing this, the Senate Committee says its members will refuse to hear divorce petitions. The House of Commons took no action on the threat.

A curious anomaly about the present procedure is that, while the House of Commons may grant a husband or wife a divorce, it cannot rule on the questions of alimony or custody of the children, which are functions of the province. The divorced pair must take their case from the Parliament of Canada to a civil Court and fight their battle over again.

Beaten at all constitutional points, Labour had recourse to the time-honour-ed weapon of the stonewall. J. S. Woodsworth, Labour member for Winnipeg, who has carried on the fight for three years, set about to stonewall the private Bills, some two hundred or so, as they came into the House of Commons. The Budget was delayed. The Government grew alarmed. But Woodsworth was serious, and the House has spent "weeks discussing divorce. He went further. It has been a-practice for theße Bills to be moved formally in the name of this or'that member. Woodsworth was not long finding oui that the members moving the Bills were unaequainffited with the circumstances of the petitions. He demanded that they should remedy the defect. Then the House grew alarmed and appealed to the Government, which came to its aid with a promise that 'something would be done before next session. The row is over for the present. With the Senate stonewalling in the Red Chamber, and Labour carrying on the filibuster below, there is a prospect that Ontariof^will be forced to set up its own divoree^niaehinery.

The causes for divorce in Canada are practically confined to adultery. For that reason the divorce rate is very low. The granting of Divorce Courts to the provinces was followed by a relatively great increase in the number of marriages dissolved. There wore more divorces granted in Canada in 1927 than in the previous fifty yeaTs. The Province; of Prince .Edward Island has had only one divorce in sixty-two years —sine* Confederation.