^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) k A .%Afif 1.0 I.I laiM Hi Ki lAO 1^ 2.0 L2I 114 1111.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 (716) 872-4503 f\ iV lV k .>^ N> 6^ ■^ .i^ '^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain tha best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n n □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certalnes pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages rsstaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es r~T| Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~T[ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ rri Showthrough/ D Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality [n6gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errati. une pelure, etc., ont 6t^ filmdes d nouveau de faqon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. C b t s fi s T S: T d ei b ri r( rr This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film(6 au taux de reduction indiqu4 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X _y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmod h«ra has bean reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Lakehead University Thunder Bay The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition end legibility of the original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or Illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grice A la ginArosIti de: Lakehead University Thunder Bay Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec te plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet« de l'exemplaire fiim«, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sont film^s en commen^ant par le premier plat et an terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impresslon ou d'iliustration. soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fllmte en commen^ant par la premlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impresslon ou d'iliustration at en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dee symboles suivants apparaitra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symboie -^> signifie "A SUIVRE ', le symbole V signifie "FIN ". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent 6tre fllm^s d des taux de rMuction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est fiimi A partir de I'angle supirieur gauche, de gauche d droite. et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ntcessaire. Les diagrammas suivants illustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 '^*::m^'^ fe^ f s ■ I wl* I*" ":^ SPEECH / A BY THE OSfliiBLE J. MEM SECRETARY OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, ON THE AUTONOMY OF THE PROVINCES. Delivered in tJu Legislative Assembly of Quebec y on tke 2ist and 24fh April, 1884. K>C)^l||o>00« QUEBEC PRINTED BY L. J. DEMERS & FRERE 1884 r;# iiM WKsmm ailiiJL.-.L-.JJi' ,11 > '.l,.-.BgT: /a SPEECH yjV THK HONOURABIJ: j. BLANCHE!, SKCRETARY OF I'liE TKf vINCE OF QUEBEC, ON IHE AUTDN-MY OF THE PROVINCES. Delivered in th: Legislative Assembly of Quxbe:, on the: 2 1 St and 24th April, 1884. The Honourable leader of the Opposition has beeti straining' his imagination to show that the majority of this House, by voting against the previous question, submitted the other day b^; the honourable member for Drummond pnd Arthabaska, has been wanting in patriotism, has taken a ridiculous stwad, and has voted against the principle laid down in th^sresolutionof the honourable member for Ottawa. Really, it requires a very fertile imagination to draw such a conclusion, for. the majority has not voted against the ques- tion of autonomy on this occasion. It has only declared that the time to vote on it had not yet arrived. The majority has sought to, and in fact, it has protested against a procedure most wanting in courtesy and propriety under the circum- stances, and it has refused to allow itself to be stifled, and nothing beyond that. 1 The majority believes, and is not wrong in its belief, that it, also, has a right to express its views and opinions upon all subjects that arise in this Assembly, especially on one of such importatnce as the autonomy of the Provinces. The other side of the House seem to believe that the minority should monopolize all patriotism and enjoy the privilege of infallibility : unfortunately, this double preteiv;. 47HI PROPERTY OF LAKEHEAD .UNIVERSITY^ wfmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmKim9mmm''Km sion has been discarded by the people during the last general election, and until the subverting of that verdict, the majority wish to retain and exercise all the rights and privileges entrusted to them by the electors. The better to convey my idea, and demonstrate in what case the honorable member might be in the right, I will quote an example. Suppose the federal Government were to submit to Parliament a resolution whereby it were pro- posed to grant various subsidies to the Provinces, and among others, a subsidy to the Province of Quebec, as an indemnity for the construction of the Quebec, Montr»Btj it answers for our future, and, with the aid of Provi- denoie, "^e ehall 6tiU avoid all dangers, remove all obstacles .; f^d match towards our destinies. W« have indeed, Mr Speaker, a rig^ht to feel ^roud of our prsjsejit and of oUr past Our increase and our prograss have bwn fosteried fey pttr owh laborer and «fforte, without any external aid. The strug^^les we hare vJiliautly euatained during one half ccututy, added to our grent energy, our per- severance and loyally, have won kc us the liberties w» enjoy to day. "VTe also cherish our Constitution, as oue drawn "up by ourselves and for ourselves. "We had other constitutions before haviuir the present one : they had been imposed on us against our will, and far from j^rantin^ us liberty, they denied us the most elementary rights wnich are the pride of every British Subject. That which now governs us, sanctions every principle of justice and equity which we could wish to obtain, the liberty of the subject, protection of the minorities, respect to all creeds, and the full enjoyment of all constitutional rights, which free men can '.envy, who live in a land free from all bondage. The Confederation of all the British provinces of North America, has been severely criticized before and since its adoption, by the Liberal party. Oar chiefs were then charged with wishing to drive the country to»ruiu and banktuptcy. Sir G-eorge Etienne Cartier, particularly, was reproached with having been a traitor to his countrymen, whose nationa- lity and future he was represented as hiving sacrificed to his love of power. The experience of seventeen years undei the new constitution has taught the country to learn on which side the truth is to be found ; we now, have the satisfaction of hearing the Liberal party, in this House, own its mistake on this score, and accredit the great man, whom they never ceased to accuse and calumniate during his life- time, with the title which we had bestowed on him long ago, and which he well deserved, that of a patriot and a Statesman. The Union of the British Colonies in a confederacy was not only, on the part of the Conservative leaders, an act of wisdom and of high statesmanship, but it was, at that time, the only means left to us whereby to preserve our identity and our nationality, by sheltering us from an inevitable absorption by the neighbouring States. By removing the causes of dissension and of hostility which had sprung up between Upper and Lower Canada, and which almost para- lized every government, this union confirmed the British supremacy on this Continent, and gave a solid basis to the future prosperity and greatness of the Dominion of Canada, whose territory, greater than all Europe, now extends from. the Atlantic to the Pacific, and whose population and i^evenue- are increasing in so astonishing and considerable a propor- tion. Ccldom had it been given to the world to witness such a spectacle as that of several colonies, till then separated by opposite interests, now willingly renouncing their rights, tneir privileges, and so to speak, their identity, to adopts through their delegates in that great convention held in Quebec, amidst calmness, harmony and peace, the basis of a new constitution to which th^y were about to entrust their dearest interests and their most sacred rights. It is, indeed,, remarked a distinguished publicist of those days, (Hon. Jos. Cauchon), not more nor less than a revolution, "not a bloody " one, yet as complete a revolution as if it had been achieved " by the shedding of blood and carnage. It is the transforma- " tion and almost the transubstantiation of our political and " social institutions ; the elements are, if you choose, the- '* same or nearly so, but they are made to combine differently " and enjoy other conditions of equilibrium. It is a new '' society resting on a new basis, and having a diiFerent prin- " ciple of existence, a broader society, consisting of small " societies till then isolated from one another by language, by " religion, customs and manners, and even by the very nature- " of their institutions, and which, for different causes, were " grouped together to constitute a nation. " What rapid strides have we not made towards- " pratical freedom ; what a brilliant victory over despotism " and oligaichy, immediately following the sinister and " bloody events which seemed to lead us on to other destinies ! " By what means have we thus converted our instru- " ments of torture and of bondage into a principle of life ? " By our wisdom, our moderation, our sense of justice and " the liberality of our principles." We have, indeed, now the right to say to our adversaries : we are the followers and the successors of those great nien who have introduced the constitutional system into the country, and who have asserted its existence and maintained its working in the Ccufederation Act. We shall never suffer it to be said that the conservative party might, at a given time, forget its glorioustraditions of the past, and it self raise a sacrilegious hand on the sacred arch of our liberties. The remembrance of our past struggles, the example of generous and patriotic men who defended with such devotion and energy the cause of the rights of the people : of such HiiM men as La Fontaine, l^alchvin, Tacht', Morin and Curtier, are there before us to'recall ns to our duty, were wo to prove forj^et- ful of it. But, thanks to God, there is still in the conservative party, vigour, enerj^y, intelligem-e and devotion enough to rise in the defence of our provincial institutions, against all attacks from outside. Nor is any other proof needed than the act, of our predecessors, as well as thi? firm and energetic attitude of the Federal deputation on the cpiestion of the provincial rights and their • autonomy. The electors of Quebec can safely continue to entrust their destinies to that brilliant and patriotic phalanx which watches over the legislation at Ottawa, and is so devoted to the int(M<^sts of the Legislature of Quebec. The encroachments of the Federal government on the rights of the local legislatures have been argued at sufficient length by the honourable leader of the Opposition. He bci^au his address by stating that he intended to discuss this question from a broad point of view, and to set aside all party spirit. Having made this declaration with a view evidently to save appearances, the honourable member then undertook care- fully to demonstrate that since Confederation, Sir John had proven himself the enemy of the Provinces, vvliilst the Honouroble Mr. Blake had been its greatest and most zeilous champion. I am far from agreeing with him on these two points, and it is easy to piove he is much mistaken and errs when he makes this double assertion. As h ^ himself admits, it is utterly impossible to trace back, step by step, the federal legislation since 1867, so as to ascertain every encroachment as it occurred. Moreover, as the greater number of cases cited, passed unnoticed, it js obvious that they are not of sufficient importance to arrest our attention in the present debate. To decide the question submitted to us, it is quite enough to treat cases which have given rise to serious and real conflicts between the different govern- ments and especially those mentioned by the honourable leader of the opposition. The discussion of the question is not a new one, it has not seen daylight yesterday ; it sprang up the day following the putting into force of the federal pact, and has been developping according to circumstances, whenever there has been a conflict between the legislation of Parliament and that of the local legislatures, and always on subjects undefined by the constitution. w^ SffiJ ::%^&m77?'.r'>^wm-7W.mVr-fv i '!:}- ."4 -m wmwi mm I 8 As every one owns, we are a sovereign power, within the artributions granted us by the Union act. We have the advan- tage of enjoying a written constition, which defines the rights and powers of Parliament and of the Legislatures. Bat, as we cannot wage wir with the Federal Government, on the one hand, with budget weapons and on the other with retaliation measures which would end by threatening the existence of Confederation, it is quite evident that when there arises a doubt or a differejice of opinion on the subject of the jurisdiction of Parliament and of our various Legisla- tures, in certain cases not specially provided ior by the constitution, there are only two means left us to solve those difficulties : that of referring to a judiciary interpretation of our law courts judgin'JT in the Inst instanc.'. ov that of peti- tioning the Jmperial Parliament for a nowdelinition of local or federal powers. In my opinion, Vv'e should, for thopjvsent, be satisfied with appealing to the intevpretatJou of the Privy Council, whose decisions have the advantau'e of emanating from jurisconsults who are also statesmen, and who can scarc;ely be suspected of iiolitieial favoritism. This is the only, national and logical rnean.s of ••securing on litigious points between the diiierent governments, a de..-ision which will bear authority, and bo defmitelv binding on the parties. And it is for this reason that the Confederation act has enacted, by section 101, that the Parlian^eut of Canada ^ could, when circumstances would require so, adopt a mea- sure '■ creating, maintaining and organising a general Court of Appeal for Canada"', whilst still preserving the appeal to the Privy Council, which it was thought propir then not to abolish. Notwithstanding so formal a wish expressed at the period of Confederation, we fird, later, on the liberal party who created the Supreme Court, decreeing re. Iclessly, and notwith- Btanding the opposition of Sir John and of all the conser- vative members of the Province, that the decisions of thot tribunal should be final and executory ; thus conferring on the latter almost absolutely the power of centralizing as it would please, and as it has done since, by reversing the decisions of the Appeal Courts of the Provinces. May be, this is what the Honourable member had in view when he said of the Supreme Court, when he criticized its decisions with regard to the Queen's Counsel, that " it had given way to the spirit of centralization which had inspired its mf creation " H$ could scarcely have coudemued his friends in more formal terms, since its organization and thaf deecree as to the final nature of it« decisions, can be ascribed to them alone. And now, by conBulting the acts of the different conser- vativo Grovernments which have succeeded one another in the Province of Quebec, it will be fou,nd that they have never neglected any opportunity of defending the provincial rights, of asserting them and of liaving them sanctioned by the tribunals. In that peaceful, but constant struggle, the Con- servatives have not always met at the hands of the opposite party, that support Avhieh they had a right to expect from them on that question. On the contrary, for along time past, the Liberal -party of this Province have shown a marked tendency, first to be little our institutions, to lessen their prestige, and to reduce them to the level of mere muiiicipal authorities Thepioofof these facts can be found in the tone and in the articles of tln^ Li])oral press since 1867, certain constestations brought up before the^ Courts by distinguished nifu of i hat party, and also in the writings of their publicisti--. All these contestations, the object of which was to diminish, ^veaken and nullify certain powers of our local legislatures, were certainly not prompted by a love of the autonomy of the Provinces. By referiing to the period when the project of Union between the provinces- wns discussed, it will be easily ascertained that all the chiefs of the Liberal party, without any exception, opposed Confederation on 4 ho grounds that, in their opinio]), it would cause the ruin of the country and the downfall of the French Canadians of this Province. These G:entlemen were most viu'orous in their efforts to avert the adoption of this great project, and as they failed in their anti-patriotic designs, one would believe they endeavoured to prove since,that their predittions were coa-ect, by breeding difficulties every where, and seeking to increase them and extend their development, with a view to justify their opposing the adoption of that important measure. And to-day, by a sudden change of front, the chief of the Liberal party in this Province and his friends are to be seen consti- tuting themselves the champions of provincial rights, and trying to force the uninitiated and credulous into the belief that their party is the natural protector of the auto- nomy of the Provinces, and that we, Conservatives, who are v'«.; \ WPPPI ^^^fPPiP!fWP^PP"i'^^^pPlfiP' n : u 10 the authors of the Confederation, are its enemies. Nor, can? there be imagined outside of the ranks of that small phalanx a greater dose of assurance, nor as much courage. Do they really believe that the people and the Conservatives- of this Province will allow themselves to be deceived by a display of so much zeal, by these open declarations of patriotism so suddenly awakened in oi^r opponents in this House ? No, Mr. Speaker, the past is still present to our minds ;: we are conscious of the perplexities of the present hour, and we will know how to guard against the dangers of the future. Our protection of the rights and powers of the pro- vinces, since 1867, has been too effective not to convince the people of this Province that we shall not be more wan- ting in doing our duty in the future, than our predecessors have been in the past. But, our opponents say it is those very rights w^hich you- have at heart, those privileges which you pride in so much that are now i)ut in jeopardy by the leader of your party at Ottawa, and it is the Liberal party that has been and is- actually the champion of the autonomy of the Provinces. This two-fold affirmation is contradicted by the facts, and I submit, on the contrary, that the Conservative Govern- ments at Ottawa are the only governments who have alw^ays been the true friends and the only real protectors of the Provinces, and that it is owing to their broad and gene- rous policy, that the provinces have been able to preserve an autonomy which the Liberal policy would undoubtedly have wrested from them, by refusing to grant them the pecu- niary aid which, at different times, they have stood in need of to maintain their existence. No further proof of this is needed than Mr Blake's protes- tations, in Ontario in 1869, against the Better Tenns granted to Nova Scotia, and the stand he has just been taking at Ottawa, seconded by Mr. Laurier, against the granting of any aid to the Provinces, an aid qualified by them both, as degrading and demoralizing. But, let us examine the principal charges brought against Sir John, as chief of the Conservative Government at Ottaw^ay. by the Hon. leader of the Opposition in this House. Let us see how far these charges are justifiable. Tha first question brought up by the honourable member was that of disallowance. He told us that since Confederation,. 250 11 t provincial laws had been objected to. But we have not to- deal here with objections to laws which do not stay their operation; we have only to deal with laws which really have been disallowed Mr. Todd, page 371, says thai of 4,006 provincial laws passed up till 1879, only 27 had been disallowed ; and it is quite certain that as many have not been disallowed since. As far as regards objections and disallowances, it is an easy matter to establish that Mr. Blake carries the prize. A rapid glance at his reports as Minister of Justice will satisfy every one of the fact. An attempt has also been made by the honourable leader of the Opposition to show that it is Mr. Blake who should be credited with finally settling, in 1875, the mode of dis- allowing the provincial laws, by causing the principle to be acknowledged and adopted by which the Grovernor in council, and not the Governor alone, should be invested with the right of dissallowing provincial laws. He has told us that in 1869, Sir John Young had received from Earl G-ranville instructions to the contrary, and which the Federal ministry had approved of by an order-in-council, bearing date July 17th, 1869, which was sent, with Earl Grran- ville's letter to all the Lieutenant-Governors. That these instructions of Earl Granville were .sent to the diiferent Governors of the provinces is quite true, but there exists no Order in Council approving them. The despatch letter of the 22nd July, 1869, states that they are sent to the Governors for their information and guidance, but truer than this is the fact that these instructions have never been followed by the Ottawa Government, and the reason why, is that Sir John was of an adverse opinion, as it may be ascertained uy referring to the volume quoted by the honourable leader of the opposition, (Sessional Documents of 1870, p. 6.) There^ will be found a Memorial of the 8tli June, 1868, sub- mitted by Sir John to the Governor-General, setting forth the mode to be followed for the disallowance of the pro- vincial laws. This document, on account of its importance, should be cited in extenso. It reads as follows : Department of Justice, Ottawa, June 8th, 1868 The undersigned begs to submit, for the consideration of Your Excellency, that it is expedient to settle the course to \ i I i li be pursued with respect to th» Act* pawied by the Pro- Tincial Legislature's. The same powers of disallowance as haTe always belonged to the Imp«rial Grovetnment, with respect to the Acts passed by Colonial Ijcgislatures, have been conferred by the Union Act on the Grovernment of Canada. Of late years, H'».r Majesty's G-overnment has not, as a general rule, intorfer ;d with the Itgislation of Colonies having representative insti- tutions and responsible goA'ernment, except in the cases specially mentioned in the instructions to the Grovernors, or in matters of Imperial and not merely local inteiest. Under the present constitution of Canada, the G-eneral G-overnment will be called upon to consider the propriety of allowance or disallowance of Provincial Acts much more frequently than Her Majesty's Government has been with respect to Colonial enactments. In deciding whether any Act of a Provincial Legislature should be disallowed or sanctioned, the Government must not only consider whether it effects the interest of the whole Dominion or not, but whether it is unconstitutional ; whether it exceeds the jurisdiction conferred on Local Legislatures, and in cases where the jurisdiction is concurrent, whether it clashes with the Legislation of the G-eneral Parliament. ^4*' // h of im])ortan(:e that the course of local legidaii>yii should be interfered with as little as possible, and the power of disaltoimnce exercised ivith great cantion, and only in cases where the laio and general interests of the Dominion imperativelf/ demand it, the under- signed recommends that the foUoiving course be pursued : That on the receipt by Your Excellency, of the Acts p)assed in any Province, they be referred to the Minister of Justice for report, and that he, with all convenient desi)8tch, do report as to ihose Acts which he considers free from objec- tion of any kind, and if such report be approved of by Your Excellency in Council, that such approval be forthwith communicated to the Provincial Government. That he make a separate Keport, or separate Reports, on those Acts, which he may consider : 1. As being altogethar illegal or unconstitutional. 2. As illegal or unconstitutional in part. 3. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, as clashing with the legislation of the General Parliament. 4. As affecting the interets of the Dominion generally. \ la And that in Ruch report or reports he ffive his reasons for fits opinions. That Where a measure is eonsider^d only partiallT defeotire, or when objectionable as beings prejudicial to ike general interests of the I)ominiori, or a« claahing with it« legislation, eommunication should be had with the Prorincial G-orern- ment "vrith respect i6 such measure ; and that in such cas.e, the Act should not ba disallowed, if the g^eueral interests permit such a oouriBe, until the GiovesrnnLent has an oppor- tunity of consideriug and discussin,>y«7- " " ■'■ " ■-' ' Sir Joh«'« reeommejadation, it is ob-rion* that 'iilf. Blake would li»r« added in his motion a mucM more solemn protest. Jind *o Mr. Blake withdrew thete resolntions, Mr. Mac- kenzie, the leader of the Government, and Sir .John, then ]«tdei> offh* opposition, having expre»8ed the **me opinion, there being, however, no donbt in the mt^tter. The whole question it dealt with in th# ibllowinjjf despatch from Lord !Du1^rin ^o the Earl of Camarron : Ottawa, rth April, 18 YG. My Lord, I have the honor to infoVm Your Lordship, that the Hono- rable Jlr. Blake, member for South Bruce, on the 22nd February, gave notice that he would move, in the House of Commons ; " That by the 66th clauso of the British North America Act 1867, it is* in effect, enacted that when the G-orernor-G-eneral absents to a Bill in the Queen's name, the Queen in Council, may within two yeaii^ tifter its receipt dissallow such 'Act. " That by the 90th clause of the said Statute, it is enacted that the aburfc> provijiion shs^ll extend and apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if reenacted, with the substitution of the Lientenant-G-overnor fox'theG-overnor General, of the Governor General for the Queen, of one year for two years, and of the Province foi* Canada. *' That, in the opinion of the Hous«, the power of disallo- wance of Acts af a Local Legislature conferred by the said Statute i$ thereunder vested in the Governor General in Council, and that His Excellency's Ministers areresponsible to Parliament for the action of the Governor General in exer- cising or abstaining from the exercise of the>|faid -^ower. " That, by a letter dated 13th December, 1872, "the Regis- trar of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom^ conveyed to th« Colonial Office the opinion of the Lord President of the Conneil, that the powers of confirming or disallowing local jLci9 is lender the said Statute vested in the Governor General acting under the advice of his constitutional advisers. **l!hftt, notwithstanding the j)remisea, by a degpatcbidated 30th JnB«, 1878, the Secretary for the Colonies, in response to an a,ppJicatJon frotn the Goreynor-General for instructions ir of on the subject, intbrniecl His Excellency that he was advised. by the law officers of the Crawn that the question ofdissal- lowance or allowance of Lojal Acts is a matter in which His; Excellency, must act on his own individual discretion, and in which he cannot be guided by tin? advice of his respon- sible Ministers. " That thiri House feels bound, in assertion of the consti- tutional rights of the Canadian people, to record i':s protest against and dissent from the said instructions, and to declare its determination to hold His Excellency's Ministers res- ponsible for his action in the exercise of the powers so. con- ferred by the Statute." An apportnnity of bringing the subject before the House did not occur until Wednesday, March 31st, when Mr. Blake moved the adoption of the resolutions of which he had given notice ; but pfter a debate, in the cov.rse of which Mr. Mackenzie and Sir J. A. Macdonald expressed their assent to the constitutional doctrines laid down by Mr. Blake, that gentleman withdrew his motion, &c., &c. DUFFERIN. Thus, Mr. Blake's merit on this question is reduced to^ very little. It consists in merely asking the House to assert a doctrine which had been admitted, acknowledged and followed by Sir John's Government and admitted also by the Honourable Mr. MacKenzie. since he asked Mr. Blake not to insist on recording in the proceedings of the House) a truth which no one denied. Wh^it initiative then catt Mr Blake claim ? His great zeal for the guarantee of the provincial legisla- tures is not so very extraordinary, since the latter were not in peril ? , And this is the act which the opposition recalls, hoping to prove that MWjlake has rescued us from danger on this important subject, whilst Sir John is represented as being- totally indifferent ; when, in point of fact, the truth is that Sir John was the first to lay down the principle and to practise the doctrine prescribing that the disallowance of provincial laws cannot be exercised otherwise than by the Governor in Council, and that when Mr. Blake tried to obtain a declara- tion of the House upon the same, he was told that the matter was so clear that no declaration was required, that his reso- lution was of no use, and he had just as well withdraw it ; 2 Ill 18 *nd Mr. Blake, submissivo to his chiff, ajid owning his ivmarks werejust vvithdn-w his motion ; and the disallowance is cmiied out to day as it was durini^ Mr. MacKenzie's reign, and a« it was also during Sir John's time, as far back as 1868. Tiiis it not the lirst mistake that o2 B. N. A. Act) 1 he undersigned is pi opinion that the Legislature of a Province, being charged with the administration of justice and the organization of the couits, may, bj/ •datutc. pruvuie for the general conduct of basi- ,jiv'>.» .b.'ioie those cours; and may make auch. provisums ivitli rc////.Si /.•> iin.d the rii^ht ofj)rt'audiente, as it ■sr. s/l'.. Such enacteuieiit must, however, in the opinii.11 of 5the unue:>igi»ed. be subject to thvi exercise of the royal prero- ,gali\e, which is paramount, and in no way diminished by ■tlie tt-rms of the Act of Conlederation" . He adds that, as this questi ni involves the prerogatives ot Hex Majefity, Jie xecommends that it be referred to the liiiiM 19 Secretary of State for the Colonies with a view to obtain the opinion of the Crown Law Officers as well as Her Majesty's decision ; the question and the memorial having been forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Earl of Kimberley sent the following reply, dated February, 18t2 : " lanr further advised that the Legislature of a Pro- vince can confer, by statute, on its Lieutenant-G-overnor, the power of appointing Queen's Counsel ; and with respect to precedence or pre-audience in the courts of the Province, the Legislature of the Province has the power to decide as between Queen's Counsel appointed by the Grovernor General and the Lieutenant-Governor, as above explained." Thus on this point the Federal and Imperial Governments agree. It is in the power of the legislatures to pass laws which allow the Lieutenant-Governors to appoint Queen's Counsel and to assign them a certain precedence. The pro- vinces were advised of this opinion, and our legislature passed immediately the Act 36 Vic, chap. 13, sanctioned the 26th December, 1872, by virtue of which a certain number of Queen's Counsel were appointed ajid who have held their rank and title since It is true the Ontario Government, unaware likely of the decision given by the authorities in England, had in 1872, nominated Queen's Counsel, without Jiaving previously passed a bill to that effect. That Govern- ment was notified by the federal authorities of the doubts existing in that respect, and, after certain preliminaries, it was agreed, in order to remove.j^all embarrassment, that the federal Government would appoint the same persons under the great seal of Canada. The Ontario Government protested against the view of the case, and declared its exclusive right to nominate Que-^u's Counsels. The Federal Government maintained its preten- sion, and suggested a settlement by which, the Queen's Counsel appointed by the Governor General should be acknowledged by Provincial Courts, and those appointed by the Lieutenant G-overnors acknowledged by the Courts of the Dominion. Agreeable to this understanding, the Ontario Legislature authorized by Statutes the nomination of Queen's Counsel, and these Statutes, as well as our own. met with no disa- yowaL Todd, p. 242. This opinion of Sir John and of the Crown Law Officers i 20 in England, was ontortaiucd by the Supremo Court of Nova- Scotia, ill a judgment rendered in 1877, in re Lenoir vs. Ritchie. This case was appealed from in the Supreme Court, but the appeal was dismissed, Since that period, all Queen's Counsel nominated l)y the Governors of Provinces under acts passed to that etlect have retained their title, and no farther argumment has since been raised on that point. And it is in presence of these facts, which no one can contest nor contradict, that theleaderof the opposition dares to say that Sir John '' made' an attempt, in 1872, to divesi the Lieutenant Governore of the ri'^ht to appoint Que'm.$ Counsel ^ An assertion ol this kind, grounded on facts that never existed, and tending to charge Sir John with an olFenco he, not only never was guilty of, but which ho never dreamt of perpetrating, since he entertained quite a different opinion from that he is credited with, is sufficient to give an idea of the conliden-'O that can be placed in the assertions of the honor- able member. I admit that the Supreme Court has expressed upon the rights of Legislatun^s on this subject, — without, hoio- ever being' called upon in the premises, — an opposite opinion I suppose with the honourable member that again, in this instance, it gave wuv to the " centralization ideas which presided over its creation." The honorable member has made another complaint, just as groundless. I refer to the nomination of .lustices of the Peace. The honorable member has ventured to establish that on this score there also existed a peril, nay even an attempt to encroach. He is, however, careful in this instance, not to implicate Sir John's Groverjiment, as it would be no easy matter to prove his sayings. At the sitting of the 2d February, 1881, which ho speaks of, Mr. McCuaig moving for '" A copy of all correspondence between any one of the provincial governments and ihe federal government, concerning the right of the local admi- nistrationi* to appoint police Magistrates, justices of the peace and inspectors of licence," added that the wording of the Confederation Act was ambiguous on th*t point, and that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has held that the local government had not that right. But it Was shewn, during the debate, that at the time this decision was given, no law had been passed iu Nora Scotia, as in the other provinces, . authorizing the Lieutenant Govornor to appoint Justicei^ of rZfA 21 the Peine. Several members joined in this debats and some spoke in favor of the right of the legishitures. Moreover, as the Honorable Mr. Blake said himself, when speaking on the subjeet, "the Federal Government hi' never attempted, under the reign of either part}', to exercise the PRETENDED RIGHT of nominating Justices of the Peace, except perhaps by exceptional legislation, passed specially for districts coming directly under the administration of the Grovernment of Canada ; we have therefore an establish custom of 13 to 14 years, based on the interpretation given by the provincial legislatures and governments or to be inferred from the action or want of action, as to that clause of the constitu- tion." Mr. Blake might have added that our Statute 81 Vic, ch. 15, authorizing the appointment of Justices of the peace, and those of the other Provinces were never di.sallowaned by Sir John. Thus it can bo seen that, whatever the opinions expressed by some members on this sul)jeet, the federal Grovernment has never tried to interfere nor to prevent the local Qovern- ments from appointing Justices of the Peace. Finally, as evidence that Sir John has acknowledged this right in the Provinces in a formal manner, we need only to refer to an Order in Council of the federal Government dated the 20th August, 1869, granting the Governor General's sanction to a bill of the New-Bruuswick Legislature relative to the appoint- ment of Justices of the Peace in that Province. We could give no better proof that in the premises, he acknowledged the provinces the right to nominate Justices of the Peace. As to the new^ electoral law proposed by the federal Govern- ment, it is surprising that the chief of the opposition and his friends should find occasion to attack the federal Govern- ment on that ground. Reference to section 41 of the North British America Act wiilshow that the Parliament of Canada has been given by the constitution itself, the right to legislate on that question. The natural order of things prescribes that the House of Commons be invested with a right both inhe- rent to its functions and even necessary to secure its inde- pendence. Can one imagine the disastrous consequences which would follow^ from a system by w-hich Parliament would have to apply to each local legislature, to obtain a necessary amendment to its franchise and the eligibility or qualification of its candidates. The federal Government would then be abso lutely fettered by the local legislatures. 22 The absurdity of such a pretension would equal that of the federal Government being allowed to impose an electoral law to each province ; this would subvert all accepted ideas on constitutional Government: it would amount to subiect- ing the federal parliament to the local legislatures ? whilst, according to the constitution, parliament is supreme in its own sphere, even as the local legislatures are in theirs. Here is what Sir John said on the subject. (Debates on Con- federation, page 33) : " We have adopted a clause similar to that contained in the Union Act of both Canadas, passed in 1841. to wit : that the laws relating to the franchise and the eligibility would apply to the first election of the confederation parliament,.. One of the first acts of the confederate parliament shall be to settle the question of qualification or eligibility, so as to apply it to the whole confederation." The disallowance of the Streavi but of Ontario, and of the laws of the Province of Manitoba, respecting railway sections has also been alleged as a proof the centralizing ideas of the Federal government. It is perhaps no easy matter to discuss topics upon which we lack necessary information ; but, as regards the Stream Bill, we may say that the Ontario Legis- lative gave to its act a retroactive effect, by interpreting a law anterior to confederation, and giving it a meanning con- trary to the decision of chancellor Prouifoot, confirmed since by the Supreme Court. It was indeecUcarfcely becom- ing to legislate on a subject pending before the Courts of Justice, and in a sense contrary to their decision. As to the disallowance of the laws of the Province of Manitoba, relating to the embranchments of the Pacific, the Province of Quebec should be the last to utter a complaint. The object of these laws was to allow these sections to be built to give an outlet to the trade of the Pacific Railway through the United States, and to divert the Western trade from Ontario and Quebec. This pretension of the Manitobans was unjust towards the older provinces which contribute so large a share to the developing of that section of the coiintry, and it was in opposition to the policy adopted on the subject by Mr. MacKenzie, and by the conservative governments. For it had always been understood and agreed to that no rail way sections would be allowed to be constructed to the south of the Pacific converging towards the United States, and the Province of Manitoba which was aware of this policy, ha^ tmmm imm / 28 accepted it and has submitted to it anew when the Hono- rable Mr. Norquay, asked for a dissolution oi" the House a:jd had recourse to a gvueral ele-'tion on that ticket. The only questions now 1 it to h-* s<,;idii-d, Mr. ti^peaker^ are thosi of the Li^vMise and ik.aiiway !V;]!s of lS8:i. As to the Lii-ens.» questioi). I hav' :ilre.ii in 1S71, wherein, after examining our Lioens". Law ol' IHT'. muJ expressing some doubts as to the ','onstifutio:ia!itv o ' JDnr claustv-* of the same, h*' r.'Co:nm:-nde.l that the yt:\! ;t- be not disallowed, stating that the law being a me^-e ■ or. : ^\y^\\^ tion "Lth^ law previously i)i furee. was good ir. i" • ir'. xmX it would rest with the persons injured by its op '• -on, to- have it decided bv the Courts whether it werei'O.as :u:.ion:d or not. I have also quoted the llonoarahle M' itluke's opinion, in 1870, on th;- same point, whi-rein he >; pressed nearly the same doubts. No government h;id interfered in that question last yetu". It is a vem.:rkahie feature in eoiine.-tio i question, that the Provinces theniselvesaudnot th ment were the first to contest the License Acts itilthis .th that 'overn- 'iie Pro- vince of Ontario was also obliged to defend it.s !»Wn ]aw in tiiat respect. In thi> Province of Qnebee, t!i ■ cases of Poulin, Ijlouin, Poitras, and of Hart against the 'ounty of Missisquoi, aimed at obtaining from our courts ;»nd from the Supreraji Court a decision to the effect that t!ie Quebec Ijegislarure had no right to an absolute prohibirion of the sale of lic[Uor, that such a power rested solely with the Federal Parliament ; that it partial prohibition, that con- cerning the closing of tLiverns on the ^^aturday night and on Sundays, implied the right of absolute! prohibition, whieh. was equivalent to a legislation on trade and co nmerc(>, a right which was not ours. Fortunately for the Quebec Grovernment, its legislation on that question was m lintained \rj tlie courts, upon its prin- cipal points, notwithstanding a tcrtain organic. ition which was anxious to have it set aside ; and at that time, the libe- ral press did not fail to pro.laim aloud that this law was unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court would set it aside. The MacKenzie government seemingly entertained tho same opinion in that respect, during the ses aon of 1878„ \ 24 / !since the speech from the Throne contaiued the following paragraph: "It is very desirable that there should be uniform legisla- tion in all the provinces respecting the traffic in spirituous liquors. Hitherto that trade has been regulated by provin- <;ial laws, or laws existing before the ConfedercLiion of the Provinces, although there has been lately a conflict of autho- Tity as to the jurisdiction of the local authorities. A bill making the necessary provision will be submitted for your -consideration. The diaught of that bill was intituled as follows, (41 Yic. 1878, chap. 16): "Whereas it is very desirable to promote temperance in the Dominion, and that there should be uniform legislation throughout ail the Provinces respecting the traffic of intoxicating liquors." Therefore, &c. When submitting this law to the House, M. Mackenzie said: " A question of jurisdiction is here at stake : we have to find whether this matter is within the province of the Federal Parliament or of the Local Legislatures, and although a decision rendered recently has somewhat affected the solu- tion of this question, yet it cannot be said that it has been fully determined. However, Government has thought that in a matter of such importance, when the country expects them and Parliament to take the initiative, it is desirable that some steps be taken, and this bill has been prepared as an optional measure to be placed in thehandsof the people of all the Provinces, and has been drawn up in such a manner as to giA'e the public an opportunity of judging its merits." It was not, therefore, tSir John's, but Mr. Mackenzie's Croverment that was the first to encroach on the powers of the local Legislatures, and. had the prohibitory by-law •embodied in this laws been carried by all the counties of the Province, — a by-law which could remain in force 3 years, — the provincial revenue would not only have decreased, but 'would have almost dwindled down to nothing. At that time, neither M. Mackenzie nor his followers seemingly troubled themselves much about the autonomy of the Provinces. Since this law was passed, the Privy Council rendered judgment in a case ot Russell vs. Regina, 23rd January, 1882, and the Lords composing the Judiciary Committee arrived at the conclusion that the disputed law did not come within the range of subjects exclusively assigned to the provincial legislatures. They considered it unnecessary to examine the 25 next question, whether the clauses of that law could rank with the subjects enumerated in article 91 of the Mritish North America Act, and that judgment consequently declared this law of 1878 to be constitutional. It is only since this judgment has existed that the Federal Parliament has thought fit to pass the act of 1883, which has been discussed so much since, especially in \iew of the judgment rendered in the case of Hodge vs. the Queen. It is quite clear that the last. judgment contradicts the first, nor can there be any doubt that section 92 of the British North America Act confers on the Logal L^.'gislatures the right " to exclusively make laws in relation to shop, saloon, tavern, " auctioneer, and other licences, in order to the levying of a '• revenue for provincial, local or municipal purposes.'' There can also be no doubt that our Municipal institutions, which have been withhold in the same legal conditions as they stood before Confederation, all had the power to entirely j)rohibit and to allow the sale of liquor within their respective limits, and that the}^ still have the same powers. There can be no doubt, moreover, that in the mind of the authors of Confederation, the revenues deriving from licenses, were meant as a revenue intended to assist in the working of our local institutions. Uy referring to secfion 12(3 of the Union Act we will find It declared " that such portions of the duties and revenues " over which the respective legislatures of Canada, Nova " Scotia, and New BrunsvvHck, had before the Union, power '• of appropriation, are bij this ad RESERVED to the respective " governments of the provinces, and all duties and revenues " raised by them in accordance with the special powers " conferred upon them by this act, shall, in each province, " form one consolidated revenue fund to be appropriated for " the public service of the Province." Now, the revenue deriving from licenses has been left to the provinces, — this is beyond a doubt, — and as we also enjoy the power to legislate exclusively on license matters wiiichf are to yield us that revenue, it follows necessarily that Parliament has no power and no control over the subject : includo uniusfit exchmo olleriufi. This will prove amply the legality and constitutionality of all the enactments of our license act. And accordingly, our government has thought proper to maintain the working of our local law an 1 to contest before the courts the right of the Federal Parliament to make laws on this subject. IPP 26 It would be contradictory to the facts and to the truth to conclude from the passing of that law that the Conservative governments have since 1867, founded and continually prac- tised a system of centralization. As I have remarked before, the Federal government never interfered in this question previous to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Russell vs, Regina. This judgment, rendered by the court of last appeal in matters concerning onr constitutional rights, seemed to finally settle the interpretation of our constitution on this point, since it declared that Mr. MacKenzie's law, the Scott Act of 18*78, did not come within the range of subjects specially assigned to the local legislatures. It is not astonishing that in tlie face of such a decision, the Federal Grovernment should have thought it advisable to legislate on that subject, in order, quoth Sir John, in his speech on the iloor of the House of Commons, that a question of such magnitude should not be left unsettled so as to pro- tect, as much as possible, the people of the Dominion, against the ever-inereasing vice of intemperance and drunkenness. The decision in the case ot Hodge vs. the Queen, has con- siderably changed the position by judging that the License Bill of Ontario was not ultra vires. In the face of this decision the Federal Parliament has done what was proper, by vir- tually suspending the operation of the law, since it has withdrawn its sanction of the same, by ..aacting that parties holding a license from the local Legislatures would not be sued for penalties, leaving us perfectly free to carry out our law. The question shall, as soon as possible, be submitted to the tribunals fairly and squarely ; and I trust the decision of the Privy Council will put an end to all discussion. It is not likely this tribunal will contradict itself, and we have reason to believe its decision will be favorable to the local laws, and will maintain them as they are. As to the law passed last year, deciding that a good number ofour railways are works of gen*" ral advantage to the Dominion of Canada, it is well at iirst to remark that that power, by section 92, paragraph 10, of the Union Act, is given specially to the Federal (ioverument. It may possibly be necessary, before long, to secure an interpretation on this point of the Constitution. I wish only to remark, for the present, that this legislation was enacted neither at the instigation of our Legislature nor of our Grovernment of Quebec, but likely at the request of interested WT^TW^ 'm. Wj^ \W njiiLii^J »ii 27 i companies who wished to benefit by the advantages proffered them by the federal legislation on railways. We cannot easily prevent private companies from seeking to obtain at Ottawa, yuch protection and advantages as are not to be had under the operation of our law. Here it may be stated that if these railways become controlled by the federal adminis- tration, this does not signify that they would not be liable to be taxed by the Local Government, should the Province adopt direct taxation ; and this is the most interesting feature of the question, more particularly as the Opposition seems now to cherish this mode of securing revenues, which the people, however, will not hear talk of This subject has already come ni) before the federal ministers at Ottawa, and by consulting a report made by Mr. Blake as Miuister of Justice, it will be seen that he, as one of Her Majesty's Advisers, has had to deal with this ques- tion. It was with regard to the Montreal, Chambly and Sorel Raihvay, incorporated by the Quebec Statute, 35 Vic, ch. 29. By a statute of the Federal parliament passed in the following year, this company had been granted the power to issue promissory notes .and to enter into contracts and agreements with other railway companies, and that statute directed that this railway was a work of general interest to Canada. By a subsequent statute of the Province of Quebec, 37 Vic, ch. 10, the name of the Company was changed into that of the " Montreal, Portland and Boston Eailway Company." The following are Mr. Blake'n remarks to the Quebsc Government : " By the British North America Act, section 92, the " powers of Provincial Legislatures with reference to local " works and undertakings, are expressly declared not to " extend to works, which before or after their execution, are " declared by the Parliament of Canada, to be for the " advantage of Canada, or for the advantage of two or more " of 1 the Provinces. " xhe embarrassment and confusion which would result " from concurrent legislation under the circumstances " detailed is too obvious for argument. " The undersigned recommends that the attention of the " Lieutenant-Governor shevild be called to this Act, with ". " view to its repeal before the time arrives within which it •' must be dissallowed.'' *..'1'W!i™'''<- ' 1 28 As may be seen, Mr. Blake was afforded a formal oppor- tunity of acknowledging the rights of the Provinces, and of submitting that such federal legislation was an infringe- ment on the rights of the local legislatures. Instead of declaring the federal law unconstitutional and an usurpation of power, he declares himself ready to dissallow the local law, giving a further proof that the Liberals, when in power, do not plways adhere to the doctrines extolled by them when they are on the opposite side of the House ; this, very likely, accounts for the people of the Province and Dominion being determined liot to believe their brillant and .patriotic protestations, when they fill the seats of the Oppositon, being always ready to abandon these protestations and declarations as useless and flimsy baggage when they ghauce to secure the reins of power. To all these reasons we might add that its libc^ral grant of subsidies to those lines of railway, gives to a certain extent, to the federal Government, the right of controlling them and of overseeing their administration. The federal legislation, whilst conferring to these companies important advantages, such as, for instance, the power of entering into an agreement with the great lines of the Dominion, as to their traffic, does not fail to attend to the protection of trade and travellers. This legislation, controied by the deputation of all the provinces, must certainly offer an easy means of remedying any abuses which might be complanied of as to traffic, or the conveyance of freight, and thus the danger of having different tariffs and different regulations at each frontier, ought also to be avoided, for the Provinces, might at any time, determine within their own territory, diilerential tariffs as fully detrimental to trade as w^ere the old Custom tariffs which existed in each one of them. And f'nally. as an instance of the centralizing proclivities of Sir .John, tne fact is cited of the Federal Government claiming the escheat property of Mercer, of Toronto. Sir John had already replied in the House of Commons that that, claim had been made by virtue of a report of the Minister of Jus- tice under the Mackenzie administration, the said leport declaring that escheats were the property of the Federal rj,p ment and not of the local legislatures. Therefore, it ,.«'r)^/i/^i *ohn who was the first to lay down this rule, the •r; •^l^VM.-A .'liiy.of which rests entirely with the Mackenzie Tt-v uon. It ^ ^'Wi 29 Morever, Mi. Blake, as Minister of Justice under the Mac- Kenzie Government, had himself uttered this pretension a long while before, when laying a claim, as escheats, to the estate of Edward Fraser, of River du Loup, who died intes- tate and heirless, several years ago. Fortunately, Mr. Bhike's views on that point were set aside by our Court of Appeals : but, as, it may be seen, it is the Liberal and not the Conserva- tive power tnat is to be held responsible for a pretension which the leader of the Liberal party in this House, now styles a centralizing tendency. Such, then, are the different accusations brought against the Conservative governments of Ottawa since 1867. I believe I have proved that all these accusations are unfounded, and that it is utterly impossible for any one guided by a sense of impartiality and of good faith, to pretend that either the Federal ministers, on the Dominion Parliament are actuated by an organized system of centralization. And now, if we consider this question of the autonomy of the Provinces in another light, we will be easily convinced that the Conservative governments at Ottawa have alwav's been the staunch friends of the Autonomy of the Produces, and that the Liberal party have little to boast of o i the score of assisting the latter. The surest means for the central government to prove that they hold to the maintaining of the provincial institutions, is to help them when they can show that their revenue is not sufficient to administer their affiiirs profitably and advan- tageously. Well, whenever a Province applied to the Conservative governments at Ottawa, since 1867, to obtain better terms, its application has always been favorably entertained. N^early all the Provinces have, one after the other, jiresented them- selves before the Federal Grovernment, and, after explaining the difficulties that beset them and the dangers which were likely to arise therefrom, for the future of Confederation, Sir John's Government has alwavs come to their rescue, and granted them liberal means wherewith to secure the main- taining of their provincial independance. In 1873, Sir John gave another proof of his good will towards the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario, by agreeing that the Federal Government would assume the surplus ot the debt of the old Province of Canada, then amounting to nearly elevenmillionB. Our share of this sum must assuredly Mliiil »<» imi ' i»fr i »» i iiil H iX* fmfmp ^w ~ 80 have amounted to four or five millions ; but, by a statute passed by Sir John in 1813, Parliament discharg-ed the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario from their share of this debt. And not later than yesterday, the Federal government has given us a proof of its good will and of its interest in the maintenance of the local institutions, by granting us a subsidy for our old Provincial railway, and by settling an outstanding account with the Province, the result of which will be to increase our annual revenue by $250,000, which sum, at 5 per cent, ropresents a capital of about five millions. Our Province will thus be somewhat relieved. This very timely aid will allow us to pursue the administration of our affairs without resorting to direct taxation. These are abundant and substantial proofs of the good will of the Federal government towards the Provinces, and it mav be asserted unfearingly that had Sir John been, as he is repre- sented to be, the enemy of the Provinces, his government would not have availed itself of every opportunity to adopt all the means possible to avert the unhappy issue, which this Province shaii always repel ; I mean that of a X^egislatiife Union. After all, the general Government is interested in exerting itself to maintain the local institutions, because it would be impossible for Parliament to legislate upon all the Iqcal affairs of the Provinces, without being permanently in session, and without involuntarily bringing about difficulties which, in practice, could scarcely be overcome. How could members of the Maritime Provinces legislate, with a fair conception of things, on local matters concerning British Columbia, and vice-veisa ? Besides, such a dangerous innova- tion, already repelled by all the Provinces, would be opposed by the common sense of the federal deputation itself. On the other hand, we may add unhesitatingly that, had Mr. Mac- kenzie and Mr. Blake been in power since 1867, the Provinces would most probably stand in a much different position from that in which they stand at present. Indeed, Mr. Blake's policy- is, and has always been, not to change the financial condi- tions laid down by the Federal pact of 1867. And this is the reason that led him in 1869 to have an address to Her Majesty carried in the Legislature of Ontario, praying Her to interfere with a view to prevent the Federal Government from granting better-terms to the Provinces ; and, quite recently, they both have declared, during the last session f ^nrjt «Y^ . j^T,- , 81 that the system of granting subsidies to the Provinces is both degrading and demoralizing. It is then quite clear thai if Mr. Blake had held the helm of State, the Provinces would never have had the better terms. The Government would have been satisfied with subsidizing railways in Ontario, as Mr. MacKenzie did, leaving the other Provinces to manage their affairs as best they might ; the great enterprises undertaken by them would have been neglected, and instead of seeing prosperity and progress prevailing every where, we would witness nothing but poverty and the statu quo. A like programme would have seriously imperilled the autonomy of the Provinces ; uneasiness id hardship would have bred disaffection, and gradually, the Provinces, dissatis- field with their fate, w^ould have sought to be separated from the Confederation, w^ith a view to a better future else- where. I will resume my remarks in a few words. The Legislatures and Parliament are each, in their own sphere of action, sovereign powers. Ev«?ry infringement on the part of one of the powers on the ground reserved to the others, is an act, the nullity of which every body can invoke. None of these powers can acquire a right w^hich it has not, either by possession or by prescription. The only two means at our disposal to prevent Parliament from exceeding its powers, by legislating on matters exclusively within our province, are the appeal to our Courts of Justice, or to the British Parliament. All other means may serve to breed a passing agitation, and promote party ends ; but, can be conducive to no other serious result than that of deceiving the public. No term of existence of a legislative measure ultra vires could give it a legal effect. It could always be attacked by the injured party, contra hostem (sterna sit autmitas. No pres- cription obtains on this subject. However so long the usurpation, it must yield to the first attack. This proposi- tion cannot be contested. This is, moreover, Mr. Blake's opinion, as is evidenced by his letter to the Secretary for the Colonies, on the question of disallowance, dated 22nd December, 1875. I quote the passage which relates to the present question : " The powers of Provincial Legislatures are, by their i» jij'$p'i I: I 32 constitution, limited to certain subjects of a domestic nature,, so that their legislation can affect only prorincial and at most Canadian interests. •' Provincial Acts are, to the extent to which they may trans-cend the competence of the Legislature, inoperative ab initio. There is no power to "allow" thorn, nor can any attempted " allowance " give them vitality, so that void acts left to their operation remain void thereafter. " Provincial Acts are, to the extent to which they may be within the competence of the Legislature, operative ab initio, and so continue unless and until disallowed." One is easily satisfied, by reading this passage, that the notions entertained by Mr. Blake on our powers, when a Minister, do not appear rc/v/ much exaggerated. And yet, if we apply to the Federal Parliament the principle, in itself so just, that all acts not within its own jurisdiction are null ab initio, we come to the inevitable and irrefutable conclusion that Parliament can never allege either possession or pres- cription as a means of divesting us of our real rights. It is never too late to claim them, and the autonomy of the Pro- vinces can never be seriously affected by encroachments which it is always in their power to repeal, even after many years existence. In the working of a new constitution these conflicts of jurisdiction and their causes cannot be avoided : they have occurred more frequently in the United States, and the least complicated laws will always present, at every step, the same difficulties and doubts. Indeed, we have reason to rejoice that we have not had oftener, during the laat seventeen, years, to appeal to the tribunals for the settlement of troubles and dissensions which the interpretation of the Federal pact might have given rise to. Let us hope that mutual wisdom, prudence and good will, shall cause them to disappear entirely and for ever. We have now only to ask who are the most faithful guar- dians the people can rely on for the prote-^tion and defense of rights and inter*»sts so dear and so sacred. Must we not,, in that case, look up to the fathers of Conied»ration ; to those who have taken an active part in it* working since 186*7 ; to the fri«nds of Confederation, in preference to its adversa- ries ? The past reoord of the Conservative party is in itself a sujicient guarantee It HI a "Will Jqiown fact that we stand by tha autonomy of U . 88 the Provinces, that we hold to maintain the enactments of the Federal pact, and every one knows also that no one among us has evfer had the remotest desire to cowardly abandon the institutions which we live ufider, either to seek annexation to th-^ United States, or to test, by a preco- cious and premature emancipation, an independance which would merely prove a downfall and a bondage The world knows that we hold to live for a long time under the regime which goveriis us, under that coloi^ial dependance which, as the Marquis of Lome has remarked in England, recently, is a true independance, minus the himvy burdens which an absolute independance would imposb on us. We enjoy, under the Empire and the Constitution which govern us, all the rignts a free and independent people can wish for. We enioy tho right of governing ourselves in the fullest meaning of the word, and England extends its powerful arm to protect our liberty and defend our territory, without our being in any wise, bound to contribute to the maintenance of its army and marine. Let us reap the benefit of this peace and security by con- tinuing, as in the past, to develop our immense resources, to spread education among our population, to colonize our wide-spread territory, multiply our industries, and extend our commerce ; and let us employ our talents and energy in strengthening and consolidating lastingly the basis of the Great Dominion inaugurated in 1867.