Bill No. 8, respecting The Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.-Mr. Parent (Quebec West and South).

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to amend, the Supreme Court Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short explanation to make with regard to this bill, which is different in some respects from the bill I introduced a year ago. This bill is entitled an "Act to amend the Supreme Court Act." The Supreme Court Act was first enacted in 1875, and section 47 of that act now appears without any change as section 54 of chapter 35 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. This bill proposes the repeal of section 54 and, by way of its amendment, the substitution of a new section in a modified form. In the earlier colonial period the governor of each of the British American provinces and the members of his council, who were selected and appointed by the governor, were constituted a court having supreme appellate jurisdiction in the province. Governors in council then exercised both political and judicial functions and an appeal from their decisions was allowed to the king in council, who then exercised political and judicial supremacy over all possessions and dependencies of the crown. Appeals from the governor in council of a colony to the king in council at Westminster were regulated by a statute enacted by the parliament at Westminster known as the Judicial Committee Act of 1833. By the regulations made by the government at Westminster under the terms of that act appeals from the governor in council to the queen in council were restricted in commercial matters to cases in which the judgment appealed from was £500 or more. In 1841, in a Prince Edward Island case, Samuel Cambridge, to obviate a multiplicity of suits, petitioned for leave to appeal from a judgment of a lower court of the amount of £135, although under the governor's instructions an appeal from a judgment of that amount did not lie either to the governor in council or the king in council. The judicial committee, Lord Brougham, then Lord Chancellor, presiding, declined to entertain this appeal and rendered its opinion that the appeal of Cambridge from the judgment of a lower court in the colony, other than the king in council, could not be entertained by the judicial committee under the terms of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833. Thereupon Lord Brougham introduced and the parliament at Westminster enacted a bill which has since then been known as the Judicial Committee Act, 1844. This act provided for the admission of appeals to the judicial committee from any judgment of any court of justice within any British colony or possession abroad. It thereby allowed appeals direct to the judicial committee from any minor court in any province or colony. The fourth of the Quebec conference resolutions of 1864 stipulated that the general parliament then proposed for Canada should have power to make laws for: The establishment of a general court of appeal for the federated provinces. Section 101 of the British North America Act, 1867, subsequently enacted that: The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this act, from time to time provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada. During the parliamentary session of 1875 the Supreme Court Act was enacted, constituting such a general court of appeal for Canada. This act, in the section which I am now proposing that this parliament should amend, declared that the judgment of the

Abolition of Privy Council Appeals court, that is of the Supreme Court of Canada, "shall in all cases be final and conclusive." That declaration is again affirmed in the amending section now proposed. But the judicial committee at that time took umbrage at the declaration of the Supreme Court Act that the judgments of the court should in all cases be final and conclusive, and prepared and submitted to the government at Westminster a memorandum in which they declared that to abolish this controlling power and abandon each colony and dependency to a separate court of appeal of its own would obviously be to renounce the last and most essential mode of exercising the authority of the crown over its possessions abroad. Thus it clearly appears that eight years after the enactment of the British North America Act, 1867, Canada was still regarded as a colony, dependency and possession of the crown, over which her majesty's most honourable privy council, that is, the government of the United Kingdom, should continue to exercise dominion and supervision, although even then there was in Canada a growing consciousness of nationhood, which demanded that within well defined limitations the prerogatives of the crown should be exercised in respect of Canada by his majesty on the advice of the king's privy council for Canada. Since then changes have gradually been effected in the constitutional powers of this dominion until the statute of Westminster, 1931, enacted that, except as to the provisions of the British North America acts, the powers of the parliament of Canada shall include the power to repeal or amend any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder, in so far as the same is now part of the law of this dominion. In the exercise of the power then conferred this bill now proposes the repeal of the Judicial Committee Acts of 1833 and 1844 and of all orders, rules and regulations made under the said acts, in so far as the same are part of the law of Canada, in order and to the end that the judgments of His Majesty's Supreme Court in Canada which are rendered in the name and on behalf of his majesty, may, instead of the judgments of a committee of his majesty's government at Westminster, be and be deemed to be the final and conclusive exercise of his majesty's prerogative in all legal and constitutional controversies arising in respect of Canadian affairs. As all such legal reforms should be effected without undue haste and with due regard for the public interest, the second section of this bill provides that the proposed act shall come into force upon a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council, published in the Canada Gazette. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

On the orders of the day:

Postmaster General, Ottawa, Ontario. My dear Elliott: I have just received your letter of to-day, in which, for reasons of health, you ask to be relieved of responsibility for the administration of the Post Office Department, and tender your resignation as Postmaster General. As you are well aware, I have all along shared the hope that the impairment of your health would prove but temporary, and that, with rest and change, you would be in a position to continue to administer the affairs of the Post Office Department over which you have presided since the administration came into office in 1935. I am delighted that your health is so much improved. I agree, however, with you that, instead of continuous improvement in your physical condition, you might encounter a setback were you, either immediately or in the near future, to attempt to resume the duties and responsibilities of a minister of the crown. In your own interest, therefore, as well as in the public interest, I feel you are right in asking to be relieved of the duties of your present office. I shall accordingly, early in the New Year, recommend to His Excellency the acceptance of your resignation. I shall be deeply sorry to lose you as a colleague in the government. For over twelve years we have been together in the House of Commons, and, of that time, for more than seven years have sat together at the council table. I cannot be too grateful for the loyal and helpful cooperation which you have given me as leader of the party and of the government during the course of those years. I should be distressed indeed did your retirement from the government mean your retirement from public life. Happily, the reverse. I believe, will prove to be the case, and that the restoration of your health will be much accelerated by freedom from the duties and responsibilities of office. This, I trust, may mean for you many years of continued public service. I thank you warmly for the much too kind personal references of your letter. I need not tell you how deeply they are appreciated, coming as they do from so close a colleague, and so old and true a friend. May I add that my regret at losing you as a member of the government will be shared by every one of our colleagues. All, however, will rejoice that our association in the House of Commons is to continue, and we shall all hope for the early complete restoration of your health. With every good wish for the New Year, Believe me, as always, Dear Elliott, Yours very sincerely, W. L. Mackenzie King.

.ARREST OF SINGLE UNEMPLOYED MEN IN TORONTO On the orders of the day: