Mr. Chairman, I have been a member of the Canadian Bar Association for many years, and as such it was my privilege and pleasure this year to attend the meeting at Banff. Banff is a delightful spot, and despite the seriousness of the profession there seemed to be a certain lightheartedness and frivolity in connection with what took place.
Supreme Court Act
On the golf course, while teeing off during session hours, I noticed a number of learned gentlemen teeing off ahead of me, some of whom were members of His Majesty's bench. Therefore I suggest it is fair to say that the frivolity at the convention was not confined to the minor satellites of the profession, such as myself, but applied generally.
I believe all who attended the Banff convention enjoyed it to the full. There must have been considerable entertainment on the Friday evening, because I recall that when I went to the convention room on Saturday morning at ten o'clock, upon which occasion the resolution referred to, and which is being used as an argument to bolster the amendment, was passed, I was astonished to observe the vacuum in the room. When I went into the large ballroom at the Banff Springs hotel that morning I am sure there were about two dozen lawyers in attendance. As time went on and this resolution came up for consideration, there may have been as many as three dozen there. The interest shown in the resolution was singularly exciting.
The resolution came up, and whether it was because of lethargy or not, there seemed to be no murmur of disapproval or of approval, and it was passed. I suggest that this resolution is being used in support of the amendment without any explanation of the circumstances which prevailed. Conventions are attended by people who want to enjoy themselves,. While I am not challenging the seriousness or the wisdom of the committee which passed the resolution or prepared it for submission to the general meeting, I suggest that approval of the resolution was given by a very small number of members of the Canadian Bar Association in attendance at that annual meeting.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Kamloops was present on that occasion, but I am convinced that if he had been, he would be only too happy to confirm what I have said.
Topic: SUPREME COURT ACT
Subtopic: VARIOUS AMENDMENTS