by the Constitution, and, therefore, he saw no reason why such a proposition as that submitted should not be embodied in the Bill. He was opposed to sectionalism,but in an important measure of that kind the Government would give to Quebec the security that its laws should be respected in the Supreme Court as well as in the Provincial Courts. No doubt the court would be so constituted that the interests of the Province of Quebec would be guarded, or as a resident of that Province, he protested against any sectional legislation in respect to the Constitution of the Court in favor of Quebec. bec was situated, and its special system | recognize the rights guaranteed to Quebec of laws, of which the Judges from the other Provinces who might be selected for the composition of this court would be entirely ignorant-it was essential in order to arrive at a good and sound interpretation of the laws of that Province, that two of these Judges, at least, should be selected from the bar of Lower Canada. He believed there was no Province in the Dominion which stood in this peculiar position. If their laws had been the same as those of the other Provinces, certainly no one in Quebec would have pretended to demand this representation, but he believed a sense of fair play and of justice would commend this amendment under the circumstanees to the House. He might refer to the fact that it was generally remarked amongst the barristers in London at the time cases from the Province of Quebec were argued that it was essential since the English Judges could not render justice in cases arising in Lower Canada that HER MAJESTY should add to the Privy Council one Judge from Lower Canada who understood the laws of that Province, consequently he believed and in fact was perfectly satisfied that no member in this House, and no man in the country, would doubt it, that Judges selected from the bar of the Province of Quebec would be as competent to administer justice as those selected from the bar of any other Province. It struck him that as their training and education was more in the sense of equity than of com mon law jurisdiction their appointment would be no disadvantage, but rather an advantage to this court. He believed this amendment, owing to the peculiar position in which Quebec stood would meet with no objection from any hon. member in this House. Mr. McKAY WRIGHT did not approve of any sectionalism whatsoever in this Bill. Whilst he admitted the peculiarities in the laws of the Province of Quebec as distinguished from the appar ent similarity which the hon. member supposed existed in the laws of the other Provinces, he thought it would be unadvisable to adopt this amendment. Under the Act it was provided that the Judges of Quebec should always be taken from the Bar of that Province. In the Constitution of the Supreme Court the Government could not do otherwise than Mr. Laflamme." Hon. Mr. FOURNIER thought there was no difficulty in meeting the proposition of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. No administration would undertake to put the law in force without. giving due regard to the special circumstances of the Province of Quebec, for every one knew the great difference that exists between its laws and those of the other Provinces. The rights of Quebec were recognised in the Constitutional Act, which also contained a provision that the Judges for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should be taken from the Bar of those Provinces until an assimilation of those laws with the laws of Ontario had. taken place. Mr. OUIMET said the admission of the Minister of Justice was the strongest argument that could be advanced in favor of the proposition he (Mr. OUIMET) had made the other night. If the argument. of the Minister of Justice was sound that under the 90th section of the Constitution which provided that the Judges of the Quebec Courts must be taken from the Bar of that Province, there must be two Judges of this Supreme Court from that Province, then upon the same argument this Court was either unconstitutional or it should be so constituted that all the cases from Quebec should be tried by Quebec Judges. Mr. PALMER said he was quite willing to admit that two of the Judges of the Supreme Court should be taken from Quebec, but he would be sorry to see that made a part of the Act. If Quebec was not content to be governed in this matter at any particular time there was nothing in the Act to prevent all the Judges being taken from that Province. If it was However, in necessary to make a provision in the Act | the Bars of the other Provinces, to be sewith the end indicated, he would suggest cured in the same way. that it be made in such a way that only two Judges could be appointed from Quebec. If we must have this sectional legislation, we should try to have it in such a way as not to do injustice to the other Provinces. Mr. MILLS said he deprecated sectionalism as much as any hon. gentleman; but it seemed to him that it was no indication of sectionalism to ask that Quebec should have some members of the Supreme Court who would be acquainted with its laws. If the Supreme Court Bill had not been extended, but had been confined to cases arising out of Canadian Laws only, there would be no necessity for such a provision as the one proposed, but, when it was proposed to give this Court jurisdiction over all local laws, and as Quebec had an entirely different system of jurisprudence from the other Provinces, it was only reasonable that she should have security that a portion of the Court would understand the system of law which it would be called upon to administer. That remark did not apply to the other Provinces, because they had all the same system of jurisprudence. Hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD said he quite agreed with the statement that considering the duties that were thrown upon this court, and the fact that Quebec had a different system of jurisprudence from the other Provinces, that at least two of the Judges should be taken from Quebec. The Minister of Justice was quite right in stating that no Government could ignore that fact. The only question was whether it would be introduced into the Bill or not. This was one of the many instances of the very great importof a Bill having several stages to pass through. The hon. the Minister of Justice had introduced this Bill without this provision--he had passed it through the second reading without adopting it, and even in Committee of the Whole he was still unconvinced of its necessity; and when the member for Jacques Cartier proposed it the hon. the Minister of Justice saïd it was quite inadmissable. At the last moment, however, as he had a right to do, he changed his mind and agreed to the proposition. The only possible objection that could be raised to it was that it might give rise to claims being made by Mt. Palmer the other Provinces they had the same system of jurisprudence, and there was not the same necessity for such a provision in respect to them; therefore, unless it would be to avoid exciting sensitiveness in the other Provinces, he saw no objection to the adoption of the amendment. Mr. MASSON said the amendment of the member for Jacques Cartier and the speech of the Minister of Justice proved that the country was not ready for this court. The court could not have the confidence of the country unless its members were conversant with the laws of all the Provinces. Now, under the circumstances it was impossible to establish a court for the whole Dominion, which should have jurisdiction over local laws in which the Province of Quebec could be properly protected. The Government admitted that in admitting that two of the Judges should be from the Province of Quebec. Why should the Province of Quebec have more right than the other Provinces to have two of its Judges in this court? It was because the other Judges, although very able men, would not be so familiar with the Quebec laws as to be able to do justice to Quebec litigants. If they were able to do so why should provision be made that two of the Judges must come from Quebec? The Minister of Justice in admitting that two of the Judges must come from Quebec admitted that the other Judges would be incompetent to properly administer the Quebec law. What would be the result? The two Judges from Quebec would have to adjudicate alone upon Quebec cases, for if the other judges could adjudicate upon cases from that Province, this amendment was unnecessary. He had objected to the Bill as a whole, but as the majority of the House had agreed to adopt it, he was willing to accept this amendment so that the court would at least have two Judges that knew something of the law of Lower Canada. M. BARTHE -Je n'en ai qu'un mot à dire. Toute la députation de notre Province devrait voter pour la motion faite par le député de Jacques Cartier. Car elle est nécessaire pour la conservation de nos lois et de nos institutions, et pour l'autonomie de notre Province. Les autres provinces n'ont pas la même raison tions so to amend the 7th section as to provide that the salaries of the Chief Justice and the Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court shall be $7,000 per year for such Chief Justice and $6,000 for each Puisne Judge of said court, instead of $8,000 and $7,000 respectively. Hon. Mr. FOURNIER said no jurisdiction had been cut off by the amendments, but on the contrary jurisdiction had been added. One amendment empowered the GOVERNOR in Council to refer to the Judges private Bills for examination. Then again the number of cases would be very considerably increased by the reduction of the amount for which an appeal could be taken, from $1,000 to $500. As to the amount of salary, it was deemed best to secure the most competent men for this court, and a salary about equal to that which the Chief Justice of Ontario received was to be paid to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The former received from the Dominion Government $6,000, from the Ontario Government $1,000, and for the trial of controverted election cases at least $500. There was no reason to complain of the amount of salaries to be paid to these Judges. The House divided on the amendment with the following result : Baby, Mr. PALMER said the features of this Bill had been very considerably altered in Committee, in respect to the jurisdiction given to this court. It would have no original jurisdiction as at first contemplated in the matters provided for in the sections from 55 to 70. The work being thus diminished, the salaries should also be decreased to the amounts specified in the Bill introduced by the late Government, viz, $7,000 for the Chief Justice and $6,000 for each of the Puisne Judges. The Judges of this court would, no doubt, be taken from the benches of the Provinces. Under the superannuation Act they would be allowed, on retiring, if they had served for any length of time, about two-thirds of the amount of the salaries. The result of this would be to impose a very large charge on the country. This House should remember that at this session a large number of new offices had been created under the Insolvency Act, the Insurance Bill, and the North-West measure. Care should therefore be exercised in imposing these large burdens on the people. He believed in paying liber*ally for services rendered, but could not approve of extravagence. He therefore moved that this Bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to Committee of the Whole with instruc- Aylmer, Appleby, M. Barthe. Bark, Sinclair, Stephenson, Thibaudeau, NAYS: Kerr, Provinces, subsequent to the commencement of the said Act, to HER MAJESTY in Council, but every decree and order of all Courts of final resort within the several Provinces, in respect of any subject matter or proceeding wherein appeal now lies from any such Courts to HER MAJESTY in Council, shall and may be appealed to the Supreme Court.'" The amendment was lost on division. Mr. BUNSTER said that there should be, in the Supreme Court, a Judge from British Columbia, where there was excellent legal talent. It was desirable not only in the interests of the Pacific Province, but also of the Dominion that such a Judge should be appointed, inasmuch as the Judges of the other Provinces knew little about the management of Indian lands or of mining affairs. He hoped that this concession would be made and justice done to British Columbia, inasmuch as injustice had been done to it. in many other matters. He moved, therefore, seconded by Mr. CUNNINGHAM "That this Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of inserting a provision that at least one of the Judges of the Court shall be selected from the bench or bar in British Columbia. The amendment was lost on division. as. Mr. IRVING said that some charges had been made last night on the Bill when in committee to which he was entirely opposed. The 16th Clause was made to read, "That issues of fact in cases arising under the 63rd section shall be tried by the Judge without a jury." On turning to the 63rd section he found that all our matters of law relating to revenue were included under that heading. So extraordinary a proceeding had never before been attempted to be enacted by any British legislation, and that so soon the country awakened to the sense of the danger involved if the Judges were allowed to decide on matters of fact in important cases of that character, the law would be strongly opposed. There was another point in the 69th clause which was very objectionable, and which provided that in the trial of issues of fact, arising out of cases under the 64th section, a writ shall be directed to the Sheriff commanding him to summon and empanel a jury. He proposed that the Act should be so amended as to require the Sheriff, not to summon or select a jury of his own motion, but that he should be compelled to act accord- had shown from his great experience that ing to the laws of the Province in which in these cases the jury were not apt to do he had jurisdiction, the object of which justice to the Crown. But the hon. memwas to prevent the Sheriff selecting a ber for Hamilton stood upon the pallapacked jury. Questions would be tried in dium. He was struck with the outrage which the Crown would be plaintiff, and proposed to be put upon the liberties of important interests would be involved, the people by this legislation. The hon. and yet, under the Act, they were to be member for Hamilton had declared that disposed of by a single Judge. Nothing no such legislation had ever been heard of contrary to British legislation could be in the world. The hon. member: forgot attempted to be passed by Parliament. that it was the rule in Ontario to have the He moved that the said Bill be not now trial in all cases by the Judges without read the third time, but that it be referred the intervention of a jury. back to the Committee of the Whole to reconsider the 68th and 69th sections with instructions to strike out the enactment which provides that issues of fact in cases arising under the 63rd section of the Bill shall be tried by the Judge without a jury and to insert a provision for the summoning of jurors by the Sheriff or Coroner according to the laws of the Province in which the Sheriff and Coroner are officers. Mr. IRVING-By consent. Mr. - MOSS said the consent had nothing to do with it. In every case where an equitable issue was raised the law declared it should be determined by the Judge without the intervention of a jury, except in certain cases such as libel, where a Judge could direct that a case should be tried without the intervention of a jury. The hon. member for Hamilton evidently had not read the last Act.on this subject. But there was an argument that had great weight on this point. He learnt from an hon. friend in Quebec that it would not answer their system at all if the trial were to take place before a jury. The people of the Province of Quebec were satisfied the trial should be before a Judge. They desired there should be no departure from the system which already It was imprevailed in their Province. possible to secure uniformity of procedure in this case, and he trusted the House would see the propriety of rejecting the motion, so far as it related to this branch. The other part of the motion was unnecessary. It provided that the Sheriffs should summon juries in accordance with the laws of the respective Provinces. The hon. member for Hamilton might have apprehensions that the Right hon. Sir JOHN MACDONALD said he hoped the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton would not be entertained. This clause applied to revenue cases, and it must be obvious that a Judge sitting between the Crown and a person charged with a breach of the revenue laws was a much better tribunal than a jury. If a case of that kind were referred to a jury it was nearly always decided against the Crown. The jury forgot that in doing so they decided against the country, against themselves, and against the revenue, and he was quite sure on every ground, that the only way to protect the public revenue, and the Crown, juries would from unjust judgments, was to leave the decision of such cases to the Judges. was quite satisfied it would be a very great mistake to adopt this amendment. Mr. MOSS said the amendment consisted of two parts-one he thought was pernicious and the other unnecessary. He thought it would be extremely unfortunate if at the instance of the hon. member for Hamilton, or on the strength of any arguments he had advanced, that this House should make a change as was proposed. The hon. member for Kingston Mr. Irving. not be summoned according to law. He (Mr. Moss) had He no such apprehensions, because this Act provided that all procedure was to be regulated by rules of practice to be settled by the Judges. Could any one doubt that when the Judges came to settle the rules, they would not do so in the wisest manner? He was satisfied to leave this matter to the Judges, and was certain the object would be attained by the adoption of this motion. He trusted the House would vote down the amendment. Mr. SCATCHERD said there was cer EEE |