was an expense about to be put on the country of $100,000 at least. He merely He merely rose here in the name of the county he represented in Ontario to enter his protest against the passage of this Bill, because he did not think it was needed by the country at present. Mr. PALMER said that as before the House went into Committee upon the Bill he desired to make some observations as to the extent of the power of the Dominion Parliament to create the court contemplated, principally in answer to the arguments addressed to the House by the hon. member for West Toronto and the hon. member for Bothwell, and also to point out one or two objectionable features in the Bill in addition to those he had pointed out before the second reading. Although it was so late, he asked the House to indulge him while he did so. First, then, he agreed with what he understood was the view of the Minister of Justice as to the extent of the power of this Parliament to create the court, and dissented from the views expressed by the hon. members for Bothwell and Toronto West. His view was that the 101st section of the British North America Act authorized the Parliament of Canada to create a court having appellate jurisdiction over all the courts in each of the Provinces of Canada, with full power to hear and determine any and all causes and suits that may have been adjudged in the local courts; and also to regulate the mode of suit appeal, and further to create a court having original jurisdiction to administer the laws of Canada, that is the laws in force in the several Provinces of Canada on the subjects assigned exclusively to the Parliament of Canada by the 91st Section of the British North America Act which he considered the true meaning of the words "the Laws of Canada as used in the 101st Section, and this Legislature had no power to create any courts having in the controversy as raised by the hon. The it was intended to remedy; and thus construe it so as to remedy such evils, as far as the words would permit. Now, the facts that appear to affect this part of the Act are shortly these. That it was made as appears by the preamble to carry out an agreement made by the separate Provinces of Canada, who thus (quo ad this question) possessed independent jurisdictions, having different laws, courts, and jurisprudence. This being so, if the 101st Section is ambiguous. best key to it would be the provisions on this same subject in the agreement which the Act was made to carry out. Those provisions, hon. members would find, contained in the 14th Sub-Section of further original jurisdiction, all the 29th and 31st Sections, and the 17th such powers having been given exclusively Sub-Section of the 43rd Section of the to the Local Legislatures, by the 14th sub- Quebec Section so-called, which was the Section of the 92nd Section of the British agreement referred to in the said Act. North America Act. Of course, this Par- Before referring particularly to the words liament in addition would, under other of these references, hon. members would provisions of Union, Act have the do well to remember that an evil existed power either to create a court to adjudicate in Canada, particularly in the smaller Proupon all matters relating to the election vinces, that there was no Court of Appeal and return of members of the House in this provision except to the Judicial of Commons which is outside the matter Committee of the Privy Council, which Mr. Jones. any was too far distant and expensive, and this was intended to remedy that evil. Then referring to the words themselves of the 14th Sub-Section, "The establishment of a General Court of Appeal for the Federated Provinces "—and the 32nd Section—“ Establish additional courts, &c., in order to the due execution of the laws of Parliament." Those two sections which are so distinct in the agreement, are combined in the 101st section of the Act, and the "Laws of Parliament" in the agreement are changed in the Act to "the Laws of Canada." But in each it is contended they mean the same thing —that is, the laws of Canada, or the laws on the subjects that are within the powers of the Parliament of Canada, as distinguished from these laws, that are not within the powers of that Parliament, but are only within the powers of the Local Legislatures, and may be quite different in each Province. We must notice the great difference in the words when applied to the Appeal Courts and the other courts provided for both in the agreement and the Act. The Appeal Court is to be a General Appeal Court for Canada in that Act. In the agreement it is a General Court of Appeal for the Federated Provinces clearly meaning the same thing, while the court of original jurisdiction is confined in the Act to the better admiristration of the Laws of Canada, and in the agreement to the due execution of the Law of Parliament, meaning in both the same. Now if it was intended that the jurisdiction of both those courts should be the same, that is, should be confined to the better administration of the laws on the subjects given to the general Parliament, how could the different words be accounted for? If such was the object it appeared to be clear that such powers would have been created by the same words and confined to the better administration of the Law of Canada, and consequently a wider meaning must be given, and because, while by the agreements the General Court of Appeal was to be established at all events, the Courts of Original Jurisdiction were only to be additional courts and established from time to time as required. Now this clearly contemplated the establishment of a Court of Appeal before any Court Original Jurisdiction, and, in that state of things, the only court from which they could have appealed must Mr. Palmer. BBB be the local Provincial Courts, as those were all the courts which were in existence, and there certainly could be found no words of limitation of the powers of such appeal either in the Act or the agreement. This Appeal Court was for Canada-that is for all Canada-but not confined as were the courts of original jurisdiction, to the administration of the laws of Canada. This being the power of this Parliament, in addition to the policy, or expediency of creating any original jurisdiction in this court, without any necessity for it, he (Mr. PALMER) wished and pointed out to the Minister of Justice that it was impossible for him to create all the original jurisdiction contained in the Bill as it stood. The hon. gentleman would see that his (Mr. PALMER's) view of the power of this Parliament in this regard was the widest and largest possible under the words of the Act, but in the matter of original jurisdiction it was limited strictly to the administration of the laws, or subjects in the power of the General Parliament. Now, it could not be denied that the original jurisdiction attempted to be given by the 55th and 58th sections, was to decide upon Acts of the Local Parliaments, and the 58th section professed to take away from the Provincial courts the power to decide upon such local Acts. Such legislation he (Mr. PALMER) considered not only bad policy, as such questions had better come by way of appeal, but it was an unconstitutional and illegal attempt to wrest from the local authorites what was vested in them by the Constitution. He (Mr. PALMER) also objected to the 80th and 81st sections of the Act. These sections were intended to create a separate bar, who alone could practice in this court. This he considered a great injustice to the barristers and attorneys of each Province, who should have a right to practice in this court by virtue of their office in the courts below. It would be a curious state of things if a barrister of New Brunswick could be excluded from arguing the case of his client in this court, while at the same time he would have a right to conduct it in the final court of appeal-the Privy Council. It would be a useless hardship, and would be felt seriously by the small and distant Provinces. He hoped it would be struck out, and all attornies and barristers of the courts appealed from, would be allowed to practice in this court without any other ceremony or form whatever. He did not desire to go over the various objections to the Bill, which he had pointed out at the second reading, but he must again urge upon the Minister if he would strike out all the sections of the Bill from the 16th to the 35th, and in lieu thereof substitute one section simply, giving an appeal on all the cases allowed, by a notice shortly stating the ground of appeal, which when perfected by the security, etc., would have the effect of taking the whole proceedings into the Court of Appeal, no matter what the form or nature of the pleadings below were, and then direct the Appeal Court to give and enforce the judgment that the court below ought to have given-it would much better answer all the purposes required. and render the court more efficient and useful. On motion of Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE the debate was adjourned, and the House adjourned at 12.20 A.M., till Saturday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT moved that they be referred to Committee of Supply. Carried. ACTS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES. Right Hon. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD by permission of the House, moved an Address to HIS EXCELLENCY the GovERNOR GENERAL for copies of all Orders in Council not already laid before this House relating to the allowance or disallowance of Acts of the several Provincial Legislatures since Confederation, and of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the several Provincial Governments respecting such Acts.Carried. THE COASTING TRADE. Hon. Mr. SMITH moved the House into Committee of the Whole to consider the following resolution :-That it is expedient to amend the Act 33 Vict., c. 14, respecting the Coasting Trade of Canada, by providing that the master of any steam vessel, not being a British ship, found towing any ship, vessel, or raft from one place to another in Canada, or in Canadian waters, shall forfeit the sum of four hundred dollars, and that such steam vessel may be be detained by any officer of Customs until the forfeiture is paid; but that the said provision shall not extend to Hon. Mr. FOURNIER introduced a ships of any foreign country to the CoastBill to amend the provisions of "An Acting Trade of which the Governor in to amend the Criminal Law relating to violence, threats and molestations." The Bill was read a first time. Saturday, March 27th, 1875. The SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock. BILL INTRODUCED. Council may declare that British ships are admitted, or to any foreign ship admitted to the Coasting Trade of Canada under any treaty made by HER MAJESTY with the country to which such foreign ship belongs. In Committee, Mr. DE ST. GEORGES in the chair, Hon. Mr. SMITH explained that it had come to the knowledge of the Government that in many parts of the Dominion, particularly on the coast of British Columbia, and also in the inland waters of other Provinces, American vessels were engaged in this trade, while no such privilege was granted to Canadian vessels in United States waters. Sir JOHN MACDONALD suggested that an exception should be made in case of wrecked vessels. The resolution was amended in accordance with this suggestion, reported and concurred in. "The Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No, 2) Bill, known as Mr. PLIMSOLL'S Bill, has been printed. It is a short Bill, of fourteen clauses, and proposes to deal with the questions of Surveys, the Load-line, Deck Cargoes, Time Policies, and the quality of iron employed in the construction of ships. The Survey is to have reference to classification, and the Bill proposes that no Br. ship shall proceed on any voyage from a British port without a certificate of classification granted by LLOYD'S Registry of British and Foreign Shipping, or the Liverpool Registry, or some other Corporation or Association approved for the time being for this purpose by the Board of Trade. This certificate is to be made compulsory, except in cases of ships specially exempt ed by the Board of Trade by reason of their being constructed on some new and previously untried principle. As regards a fixed Load-line, it is proposed that on and after the 1st of January, 1876, on every British ship registered before that day shall be "permanently and conspicuously" marked the limit of the ships displacement. This Load-line is to be settled under the direction and the satisfaction of Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill, and for its purposes; and in order to defray the expenses of ascertaining the displacements and Load-lines of British ships, these Commissioners are to be authorized to a levy charge not exceeding 2d. per ton on the gross registered tonnage of each ship. No Br. ship is to leave Port unless the Load-line mark is visible. Consular Officers in foreign Ports are to ascertain the draught of water of Hon. Mr. Smith. British ships leaving Port, and forward the same to the Board of Trade, and the Load-line marks are to be permanently continued under heavy penalties. The proposal relative to Deck Cargoes is that they shall be limited to acids and other chemicals which are unsafe to be carried below, and to cattle and other stock, and "other matters and things, and in such qualities, as the Board of Trade shall, by special license, or under general regulations to be issued by them from time to time, permit.' There is then a provision that Time Policies shall be affected by unseaworthiness in the same manner as Voyage Policies; and, lastly, that iron used in the construction of ships shall be subjected to certain tests, a provision which, if carried out, would affect the Ironmaster and Shipbuilder rather than the Shipowner." Objection having been taken to the further reading of a newspaper article, Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE asked what was the object of the hon. gentleman in bringing up this matter now. Mr. GOUDGE said his object was to draw the attention of the Government to the subject so that representation might be made to the Imperial Government before it was too late, as the proposed amendment to the Merchant's Shipping Act would seriously interfere with our shipping both on the lakes and the ocean. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said it was for the Government, not the House, to make the representation. The hon. gentleman could bring the matter before the Government. Hon. Mr. SMITH said the subject to which the hon. gentleman referred was now engaging the attention of the Government with a view to a remonstrance. The matter then dropped. FOREIGN ENLISTMENT. Hon. Mr. FOURNIER moved the third reading of the Bill to prevent en listment in the service of any foreign State in certain cases not provided for by the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870. The Bill was read the third time and passed. DOMINION LANDS IN MANITOBA. On motion of Hon. Mr. LAIRD, the House went into committee, Mr Goudge $ in the chair, on the Bill to amend the Act respecting the appropriation of certain Dominion lands in Manitoba. The Bill was reported, read the third time and passed. HARBOR MASTERS. Hon. Mr. SMITH moved the second reading of the Bill to amend the Act 37 Vict., cap. 34, appointing Harbor Masters. Mr. MACKAY, (Cape Breton) did not desire that duties should be imposed on Harbor Masters for which they would receive no compensation. The Bill proposed to compel Harbor Masters to remove the buoys in the different harbors, a task which would involve considerable labor and expense, and yet no arrangement was made for remunerating them for the service. Certain persons had now charge of the work of laying down the buoys in the spring and removing them in the fall, for which service they were paid. If, therefore, the duty was to be transferred to Harbor Masters they should be paid for their labor. Breton. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL concurred in the remarks of the hon. member for Cape The harbor of Montreal extended a distance of 100 miles, and that of Quebec 200 miles, and if the Harbor Masters were to be compelled to place and remove the buoys the expenditure for performing that work would be in excess of the fees they received. Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said that Quebec harbor extended from Bic to St. Barnabe, Hon. Mr. SMITH said that the Harbor Commissioners of Montreal and Quebec were entrusted with the appointment of Harbor Masters for those ports. Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said that the Bill would extend to the whole Dominion and would therefore affect Montreal and Quebec unless they were excepted from its If the Harbor Masters of operation. these to ports were to be compelled to place and remove the buoys, which in Quebec extended two hundred miles, how were their expenses to be paid ? Hon. Mr. SMITH replied that the Bill would not apply to the ports referred to. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL inquired whether the Bill would apply to the Harbour of Mirimichi ? Hon. Mr. SMITH replied that it would. Hon. Mr. Laird. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said that the Marine and Fisheries Department had always performed the work of buoying Mirimichi harbor, which involved an expense of £60 or £70. Hon. Mr. SMITH said it was important that certain officers should be charged with the special duty of looking after the buoys. If the work could not be performed by the Harbor Masters for the remuneration they at present received, their allowances might be supplemented. hon. gentleman had made out a case for but there was no justice in throwing these having officers appointed for this purpose, duties upon them without remuneration. Hon. Mr. TUPPER observed that the Mr. ĜILLMOR said he did not see any necessity for taking away from officers who now attended to buoys that duty and placing it in the hands of harbor masters. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL remarked that it would be well to confine the Bill to the for the larger ports. smaller ports, and appoint special officers Hon. Mr. SMITH said that under the re-adjustment of fees of vessels, it was impossible to know beforehand how much the harbor masters would receive, but if it was found that their remuneration was inadequate to the extra duties required of them, then the Government had power to supplement it. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD pointed out that in this Bill it was provided that out that in this Bill it was provided that harbor masters shall perform this duty without any remuneration, and therefore no matter what hardship the harbormasters suffered, their remuneration could not be increased without an Act of Parliament. The Bill was then read a second time. MANITOBA LANDS. The Bill respecting conflicting claims to lands of occupants in Manitoba was read a second time forthwith. In committee-Mr. GILLIES in the chair, Hon. Mr. LAIRD said the object of the Bill was to decrease the number of commissioners and also the number of references to them, as provided in the Act of 1873. The operation of that Act was found to be very expensive, and it was believed that there was no necessity for so many commissioners, and that many cases now referred to the commissioners could be settled by the department. He proposed, therefore, in the present Bill to decrease |